Where would you be without a light on your bike??

petergfiffin · 07-10-2008 10:24am #1

Not sure if this is the right forum but anyway...quick rant

What is it with cyclists and lights? I drive on a road in a Dublin which would be kind of a back road not very well lit at all but kinda busy in the mornings. Since the darker mornings I'm amazed at the number of cyclists who in the pitch dark and rain don't use any lights or use a tiny little flashing one, then to top it all they dress in black rain gear with no reflective jackets!!!

What really peeves me about this is the number of cyclists who give out about the actions of motorists and then go out of their way to be invisible. Where do you stand insurance wise if you hit one of these cycling ninjas? Do the Guards ever pull people for this any more or is this just seen as a valuable source of organ donors?

superfly · 07-10-2008 10:26am

in the dark!

Zoney · 07-10-2008 10:55am

petergfiffin:

It's not about cyclists, it's about far too many people in this country who just don't give a toss.

It's bad enough cyclists without lights - but there are a lot of motorists who will not only drive with no lights (or candles) in poor visibility, but who have a broken headlamp nevermind a tail or brake light out. And don't even start on use of indicators and observation of pedestrian right of way (e.g. when walking parallel with the main road and crossing side roads).

It's mostly a case of pot and kettle when motorists give out about cyclists as a generalisation. It's not fair to sensible cyclists. For example, it is a comment mostly true to form to say most Irish motorists are terrible - but that is a generalisation - it's not fair to the perfectly educated law-abiding motorists in this country (yes, there are some).

loyatemu · 07-10-2008 11:17am

motorists with dodgy headlights are a pet-hate of mine, but staying on topic the OP is right about cyclists. I'd say less than 50% of the cyclists I see at night have no lights at all, and are wearing dark clothing.

They are effectively invisible, particularly on busy roads where your eyes are affected by other car headlights. I am an occasional cyclist, and I wouldn't dream of going out in the dark without lights because I have seen how difficult it is to see cyclists from inside a car (even if you do have lights on your bike, you're still going to be fairly difficult to spot against oncoming headlights).

BrianD · 07-10-2008 11:25am

Zoney wrote: »

petergfiffin:

It's not about cyclists, it's about far too many people in this country who just don't give a toss.

It's bad enough cyclists without lights - but there are a lot of motorists who will not only drive with no lights (or candles) in poor visibility, but who have a broken headlamp nevermind a tail or brake light out. And don't even start on use of indicators and observation of pedestrian right of way (e.g. when walking parallel with the main road and crossing side roads).

It's mostly a case of pot and kettle when motorists give out about cyclists as a generalisation. It's not fair to sensible cyclists. For example, it is a comment mostly true to form to say most Irish motorists are terrible - but that is a generalisation - it's not fair to the perfectly educated law-abiding motorists in this country (yes, there are some).

the problem is that the vast majority of cyclists do not obey the law in terms of signalling and lighting up. It is simply wrong to say that there are a lot of motorists who have defective lighting on their cars or that it is an issue even worth raising here. It simply isn't true. Stand out on a street and observe for yourself. However, cylists with out proper lighting is a persistent and common problem in Dublin.

I would also dispute your point about the use of indicators and general observation in regard to pedestrians. The majority of motorists stay out of cycle lanes, the majority of motorists signal when turning and jaywalking is as much a problem for cyclists as motorists.

paulm17781 · 07-10-2008 11:42am

BrianD wrote: »

I would also dispute your point about the use of indicators and general observation in regard to pedestrians. The majority of motorists stay out of cycle lanes, the majority of motorists signal when turning and jaywalking is as much a problem for cyclists as motorists.

I'd disagree, whenever I cycle I find myself constantly getting blocked by motorists in cycle lanes. Everyday I see at least one motorist break the law, stopping on a clearway, turning without indicators, breaking lights... the list goes on.

The difference is, cyclists won't do as much damage to anyone else as they will themselves, motorists can do a lot of damage to whatever they hit.

petergfiffin · 07-10-2008 11:55am

paulm17781 wrote: »

The difference is, cyclists won't do as much damage to anyone else as they will themselves, motorists can do a lot of damage to whatever they hit.

This kinda sums up the problem I have with cyclists not lighting up. If I hit another car at 30-40mph chances are both of us will walk/limp away. If I hit a cyclist at that speed the're toast but if not the chances are, given our wonderful legal system, that they will be able to claim off me and win even though they were at fault!! I 100% agree that motorists aren't always observant, especially in the mornings when everybody - motorists, pedestrians & cyclists are half asleep, and in general you will have good and bad motorists/pedestrians/cyclists but having no lights is just downright negligent. I know the Guards have more than enough on their plate at the moment but I would like to see them take as tough a line as they do with motorists, utlimately it's the same as driving around with your headlights off

paulm17781 · 07-10-2008 11:57am

petergfiffin wrote: »

This kinda sums up the problem I have with cyclists not lighting up. If I hit another car at 30-40mph chances are both of us will walk/limp away. If I hit a cyclist at that speed the're toast but if not the chances are, given our wonderful legal system, that they will be able to claim off me and win even though they were at fault!! I 100% agree that motorists aren't always observant, especially in the mornings when everybody - motorists, pedestrians & cyclists are half asleep, and in general you will have good and bad motorists/pedestrians/cyclists but having no lights is just downright negligent. I know the Guards have more than enough on their plate at the moment but I would like to see them take as tough a line as they do with motorists, utlimately it's the same as driving around with your headlights off

I'm with you on that, I've been hit by ninja cyclist and cyclists going the wrong way up a one way street, it hurts and they're a pain. My point was more that motorists are not entirely innocent in the badly enforced system which is Irish road laws.

Zoney · 07-10-2008 1:34pm

BrianD:

Well, I'll have to entirely disagree with you. They are major issues down here in Limerick at any rate, and the lights out problem I have seen frequently even on dual carriageways/motorways and even on HGVs.

RedPlanet · 07-10-2008 1:38pm

petergfiffin wrote: »

given our wonderful legal system, that they will be able to claim off me and win even though they were at fault!!

The scenario which you describe has you hitting another road user while you are in control of your vehicle. So yes, you are at fault. Just because another road user doesn't follow some rules of the road doesn't mean you get to hit them.

Run_to_da_hills · 07-10-2008 1:43pm

If a motorcyclist or car driver was caught driving without lights they could be charged with reckless endangerment. Likewise an unlit cyclist should be charged with same offense.

Cyclists are a danger to themselves and other road users without lights. If a motorist killed an idiot cyclist without lights it would be on his mind for the rest of his life.

D'Peoples Voice · 07-10-2008 1:47pm

I'm a cyclist, and the other evening a fellow cyclist was knocked off his bike, in front of me.

I told the driver, that becos the other cyclist had no hi-vis vest nor lights, as far as I was concerned I'm saying I didn't see the accident either. Drive off and say nothing - your man was only wounded, not dying or anything. He looked too shook to get a reg plate anyway.

People might think I'm heartless, but my opinion is these idiots that cycle with no lights have no value for their life, so why should I? It only cost me a few euro to pick up a hi-vis vest in a sunday market, and lights are very cheap on online shopping. there is no excuse.

Love to see more students going to UCD through Ranelagh and Clonskeagh getting hit, I'd say 75% of them have no lights from my experience!
Says a lot about the UCI priorities in UCD, I guest spending money on the student bar is better than educating their fellow students on how to save their lives!

RedPlanet · 07-10-2008 1:49pm

One problem with that is that cyclists aren't responsible for any deaths of other road users, bar themselves.
Certainly there should be more enforcement and in my experience the Guards do stop unlighted cyclists.
However in the grand scale of things i'd say the number of accidents caused by cyclists without lights are minimal and thereby are not a particular priority.

Run_to_da_hills · 07-10-2008 2:00pm

RedPlanet wrote: »

One problem with that is that cyclists aren't responsible for any deaths of other road users, bar themselves.
Certainly there should be more enforcement and in my experience the Guards do stop unlighted cyclists.
However in the grand scale of things i'd say the number of accidents caused by cyclists without lights are minimal and thereby are not a particular priority.

It is absolutly a priority. An unlit cyclist can cause a car to suddenly swerve into the path of an uncoming vehicle, particularly if visilibility is poor. Have you ever driven on the Tulla to Ennis road on a rainy night?

topper75 · 07-10-2008 2:00pm

RedPlanet wrote: »

Certainly there should be more enforcement and in my experience the Guards do stop unlighted cyclists.

I have seen squad cars go right past unlit bikers on a few occasions.

The law is not being enforced at all as far as I can see. As a keen biker/motorist myself, I would say get the lights and visi-vest or find another way home through the dark. You are seriously endangering yourself and an unnecessary nuisance to others.

Doesn't set you back much € either, as pointed out previously.

RedPlanet · 07-10-2008 2:02pm

In my own experience i've seen Guards stop unlighted cyclists.
If you feel it's a big priority, then why in your opinion are Guards doing nothing about it?
Have you tried ringing the Guards when you see such an infraction?

paulm17781 · 07-10-2008 2:14pm

RedPlanet wrote: »

In my own experience i've seen Guards stop unlighted cyclists.
If you feel it's a big priority, then why in your opinion are Guards doing nothing about it?
Have you tried ringing the Guards when you see such an infraction?

I saw a guard swerve across a lane of traffic, take an illegal turn while on his mobile phone. He then stopped at the lights around the corner so no way was it an emergency. Do you really think this tosser cares about a cyclist with no lights?

Run_to_da_hills · 07-10-2008 2:23pm

In the early 80ies when I cycled to collage I would have some excuse if stopped by the cops for not having lights, IE, Lights at that time only had incandescent bulbs, "Cardboard" batteries were not cheap and they did not last long, lights were also bulky and heavy and required a bracket and were easily nicked.

There is absolutely no excuse now for not making yourself visible, a simple flashing armband or beacon costs less than e10 and will last weeks. Since high vests have become mandatory in most construction sights they can be got for virtually nothing. I have also seen these handed out free at road safety campaigns.

D'Peoples Voice · 07-10-2008 5:59pm

RedPlanet wrote: »

In my own experience i've seen Guards stop unlighted cyclists.
If you feel it's a big priority, then why in your opinion are Guards doing nothing about it?
Have you tried ringing the Guards when you see such an infraction?

I happen to know 3 or 4 people in the service,
they will tell you that its not worth the paperwork,
becos its only a petty fine, if even that!
the charging officer in the station would laugh at you for bringing someone in,
because the cost of chasing up non-payment of the fine would be greater than the actual fine.
Now confiscating the bike in the event of inadequate illumination......

What should happen is that the Government should make hi-vis vests compulsory, but clearly the government think there is a greater probability of someone being killed in a construction site during the day than there is cycling on a back road at night! That must be the case because they have all the statistics to hand and would have acted otherwise!

gjim · 07-10-2008 8:46pm

D'Peoples Voice wrote: »

Love to see more students going to UCD through Ranelagh and Clonskeagh getting hit, I'd say 75% of them have no lights from my experience!

I don't care if I get banned for this. You are a prick of the highest order.

BostonB · 07-10-2008 11:31pm

Passed a bloke this evening when it was well dark, dressed in black from head to toe, tiny red light not flashing, cycling in the middle of a major road. With the lights of on coming cars, and the lights of cars ahead of you, he was practically invisible. When I told him at the lights, he didn't seem bothered. Must have passed about 10 cyclists on the way home with no lights. That said it won't help if someones not looking, taxi clobbered me on friday, and I was like a christmas tree.

Slice · 08-10-2008 12:16am

I would say that, like on the continent; whoever stands to inflict most damage on other road users should shoulder the burden of liability in any and all accidents regardless of who is in the right and who is in the wrong. In the case of cyclists against cars the car will always win hands-down. It's the one sure way to minimise the number of road accidents between cars and bicycles

monument · 08-10-2008 1:38am

Cyclists without lights is a pet hate of mine. Even more so when people think a high vis jacket is a replacement for lights (you can see light ahead of you way before high vis!).

But some of the people here will just rant about cyclists no matter what.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It is absolutly a priority.

It's way down the list of priorities for general enforcement. It's even far far lower a priority than cyclists dangerously braking lights.

(Dangerously = on the scale of fools just about making it across three lanes of traffic opposed to breaking lights when no one is around etc. And yes there is a big difference).

topper75 wrote: »

The law is not being enforced at all as far as I can see. As a keen biker/motorist myself,

And you think there is a high level of enforcement of the law compared to the general low standard of driving in this country?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

An unlit cyclist can cause a car to suddenly swerve into the path of an uncoming vehicle, particularly if visilibility is poor.

BostonB wrote: »

Passed a bloke this evening when it was well dark, dressed in black from head to toe, tiny red light not flashing, cycling in the middle of a major road. With the lights of on coming cars, and the lights of cars ahead of you, he was practically invisible.

In both cases the duty of care here falls on the driver (Or at least the largest percentage of it does).

Whether the poor visibility is from lights, the sun, snow, fog, rain etc etc etc, if you feel you might not be able to see ahead then you should slow down and, if needed, pull in and stop.

It's just like the now age old excuse in this country of "dangerous roads". The truth of the matter is more likely to start with unsuitable driving on such roads followed by elements like unsuitable speed limits, and it goes down from there. (Badly maintained, and maybe to a lesser extent designed, roads are a known factor in Ireland, thus drivers should be able to act/react accordingly. You adjust first, fix later)

D'Peoples Voice wrote: »

What should happen is that the Government should make hi-vis vests compulsory, but clearly the government think there is a greater probability of someone being killed in a construction site during the day than there is cycling on a back road at night! That must be the case because they have all the statistics to hand and would have acted otherwise!

If you want to talk about statistics: The lowest cycling dealt rates countries are those with the highest level of cyclists. A safety in numbers theory applies (to both cyclists and walkers). The more there are the less actual deaths there are (opposed to a percentage decrease).

Why is this said to happen?

Motorists adjust their behaviour. And, again, and again while cyclist have a part to play, the key to road safety is motorists.

D'Peoples Voice wrote: »

Now confiscating the bike in the event of inadequate illumination......

Would you not say there's a ton of offences which would warrant this for motorists way, way before "inadequate illumination" for cyclists?

(and, no, I'm not just talking about offences which would currently get your licence suspended)

petergfiffin · 08-10-2008 8:45am

monument wrote: »

In both cases the duty of care here falls on the driver (Or at least the largest percentage of it does).
...
Whether the poor visibility is from lights, the sun, snow, fog, rain etc etc etc, if you feel you might not be able to see ahead then you should slow down and, if needed, pull in and stop.

Slice wrote: »

I would say that, like on the continent; whoever stands to inflict most damage on other road users should shoulder the burden of liability in any and all accidents regardless of who is in the right and who is in the wrong. In the case of cyclists against cars the car will always win hands-down. It's the one sure way to minimise the number of road accidents between cars and bicycles

Very often it will be a lovely evening just dark, so there is no reason really to drive even more slowly (taking into account speed limits and what would normally be accepted as safe driving). Surely though the burden of care should be on both parties, for the cyclist to make a reasonable effort to make themselves visible and for the driver to be aware of cyclists, I mean how can you slow down for something you can't see? Remember the places where people are cycling tend to be busy anyway so drivers are already looking out for other crazy motorists, sleep walking pedestrians, kids just running out etc surely the personal responsibility is on the cyclist to make a reasonable effort and invest the huge sum of 20 Euro to make themselves seen i.e. a decent light (not one of those little flashing things) and a high-vis jacket? Remember, motorbikes are required by law to have their headlights on during the day to make them more visible (granted they're going faster but they're bigger too) and the road safety council have asked motorists to theirs on during the day too the help reduce accidents so is it really too much to ask cyclists to make some effort when it's dark??!!! (and don't get me started on some people walking on country roads at night)

I don't agree at all with the point about burden of responsibility just because I'm driving a car, what about personal responsibility? If I'm in an accident with a truck cause I had my headlights off does that make them responsible? The reason I get so worked up about this is not because I have some inbuilt hatred of cyclists, it's just that I don't want the death of one of these idiots on my conscience and in general they give cyclists a bad name :mad:

paulm17781 · 08-10-2008 9:29am

There is a lack of education and a thing about "coolness" with cyclists too. When I cycle I always wear my helmet and hi-vis vest, if it's dark I'll have the lights on too. One thing I only learned recently is that motorists don't see cyclists as easily as cylcists think they do, I used to never wear the hi-vis until I learned this. The coolness factor, is people don't like hi-vis vests or helmets, I have a friend who mocks me for looking stupid with the helmet on, I think he's a fool for it, but he'd be like a large amount of the country. If hi-vis and helmets were mandatory, it would at least make cyclists safer.

RedPlanet · 08-10-2008 11:56am

I agree that cyclists should have lights when it's dark.
I don't agree with mandatory hi-viz.
I think mandating clothing apparel is out of step with a free society.
Also, you are opening a pandora's box with mandatory helmets.
I wear one because i used to off-road and have now taken to road racing.
However, for your average joe comuter in traffic, it doesn't lend much to safety.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm

ardmacha · 08-10-2008 12:16pm

Hi vis jackets are a distraction, you should be able to cycle without a load of gear. In any case lights are compulsory and many people don't have them, do you suppose a law about hi vis jackets would do better. Modern lighting on a bicycle is much easier to use, with LED lights and rechargeable batteries. The fines need to be brought into the present day, £5 probably was big fine when it was first introduced. Ideally Gardai would stop cyclists, but also motorists with wonky lights.

paulm17781 · 08-10-2008 1:14pm

ardmacha wrote: »

Hi vis jackets are a distraction, you should be able to cycle without a load of gear. In any case lights are compulsory and many people don't have them, do you suppose a law about hi vis jackets would do better. Modern lighting on a bicycle is much easier to use, with LED lights and rechargeable batteries. The fines need to be brought into the present day, £5 probably was big fine when it was first introduced. Ideally Gardai would stop cyclists, but also motorists with wonky lights.

Many motorists have told me how they spot a hi-vis in the distance where as sometimes they won't see a cyclist until they are upon them, even in day light. How are they a distraction, do you cycle naked?

I agree, the laws aren't enforced, this is my point, the lights and anyother laws should be enforced, that's half the problem.

RedPlanet · 08-10-2008 1:30pm

Hiviz stuff is so commonplace today that i hardly notice it.
There are too many people wearing it too regularly. Which has resulted in people getting numbed to it, just like watching violence on the tely.

paulm17781 · 08-10-2008 2:24pm

RedPlanet wrote: »

Hiviz stuff is so commonplace today that i hardly notice it.
There are too many people wearing it too regularly. Which has resulted in people getting numbed to it, just like watching violence on the tely.

That's interesting, I'd never thought of that. I'd think especially at night, hi-vis and lights would be noticeable though?

RedPlanet · 08-10-2008 2:28pm

paulm17781 wrote: »

That's interesting, I'd never thought of that. I'd think especially at night, hi-vis and lights would be noticeable though?

Night time is different.
Yes it's more noticeable but you can't really expect people to wear particular items of clothing for your benefit.
Lights on the bike, fine.
Reflective tape on the bike, grand.

Where would you be without a light on your bike??

Comments