Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Alun
    Registered Users Posts: 21,418 ✭✭✭✭Alun


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    Night time is different.
    That was actually what we were talking about, wasn't it?
    Yes it's more noticeable but you can't really expect people to wear particular items of clothing for your benefit.
    What an odd attitude to have. It's not just for everyone else on the road's benefit, but for your own as well. On the rare occasions I cycle, I make sure I'm as visible as is humanly possible, and if that means the huge inconvenience (not!) of quickly donning a hi-viz vest, which takes a few seconds at most, then so be it.


  • Options
    #33
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Alun wrote:
    That was actually what we were talking about, wasn't it?
    That's not very clear. In the OP yes, but in his last statement:
    paulm17781 wrote: »
    If hi-vis and helmets were mandatory, it would at least make cyclists safer.
    There is no qualification of "night time".


  • Options
    #34
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Alun wrote: »
    It's not just for everyone else on the road's benefit, but for your own as well.

    Sure, and can i slap mandatory helmets on you then?
    After all, cycle helmets are only rated to take a very light impact and motorists sometimes experience minor head injury in accidents, therefore it'd be for your own safety.


  • Options
    #35
    paulm17781
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭paulm17781


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    There is no qualification of "night time".

    I meant more generally. Seat belts are mandatory, drinking and driving is illegal, you're not supposed (though many do) to use a mobile while driving. I don't see this as any different to hi-vis, helmets and lights for cyclists, I stress I am a cyclist. Being cycled into is painful for both the cyclist and pedestrian, cyclists are vulnerable to all other road traffic and are not easily I seen. I see no reason they shouldn't have an enforced safety code. I don't think common sense goes far enough.


  • Options
    #36
    Slice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭Slice


    petergfiffin wrote: »
    Surely though the burden of care should be on both parties

    I agree. But as a cyclist I would be motivated to take care on the road because I don't have the potential to cause the same kind of damage to most other road users that they can inflict on me. Which raises the question; what's motivating motorists to be cautious of cyclists if the potential exists for them to seriously harm someone and get away with it on the basis that they were somehow in the right?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    petergfiffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭petergfiffin


    Slice wrote: »
    I agree. But as a cyclist I would be motivated to take care on the road because I don't have the potential to cause the same kind of damage to most other road users that they can inflict on me. Which raises the question; what's motivating motorists to be cautious of cyclists if the potential exists for them to seriously harm someone and get away with it on the basis that they were somehow in the right?

    But if you were in the right how are you "getting away" with it? Remember, if as a motorist you are responsible for an accident you can be charged with careless or dangerous driving and could face a prison sentence. If, as a cyclist, I have free reign to do as I please on the road knowing that I can't be held responsible on the basis of the amount of damage I can cause then surely that's a recipe for disaster?

    I sometimes think that many cyclists (and I'm not directing this at anybody in particular) don't realise just how difficult it can be for motorists to see them and it's like many of them feel "well if I can see you how can it be you can't see me?" Every road user has rights and responsibilities on the road and surely the responsibility is on the cyclist to make themselves visible and for the motorist to look out for them and give them as much space as possible.


  • Options
    #38
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    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.

    That is a ridiculous statement. Ignore who is right or wrong? Just blame the car? Where exactly is this the law?
    " Wah Wah Wah, I'm an idiot but I got hurt so it must be the driver's fault." Madness.

    Might I suggest to cyclists next time you are in the car pretend you are driving and watch the actions of cyclists around you. It will open your eyes. Also watch how long it takes a car driver to react to cyclists suddenly weaving in front of him.

    I remember one night only seeing a cyclist because the swoosh on his Nikes was reflective. I have also seen cyclist with lights mounted under the saddle. The lights disappeared under the back of his jacket as he moved about.

    Put two lights on the back, use reflective tape on the mudgard in addition to the standard reflector. Wear Hi-Viz if you can. Armband lights, not great IMHO, are often twisted to the front from leaning forward. Front lights are essential, my brother's friend was killed passing a parked car by an oncoming motorist who did not see him.

    As the slogan goes "be safe, be seen".


  • Options
    #39
    Slice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭Slice


    My point is that the incentive for the cyclist to be cautious on the road is the danger posed to them by other road users. It's a danger that outweighs the danger a cyclist poses to others. There is no such incentive for motorists in the relationship between the cyclist and the driver. In the case of an accident you can still be careless and in the right because all accidents involve a degree of carelessness in order to take place.

    What I'm talking about is how to improve driver attitudes to cyclists and this is one way of doing so because while we're talking about dangerous road users I've definitely come across plenty of motorists that fall into that category and, frankly, blaming it on poor visibility of cyclists just doesn't cut it in most cases. I completely agree that there needs to be more done to improve cyclist attitudes to cars too.


  • Options
    #40
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    What i don't like, is that one group of road users (motorists) feel they should be able to impose regulations onto other groups of road users (pedestrians and cyclists).
    Things like, mandatory articles of clothing, and helmets.
    It's all under the "it's for your own safety" banner, but it stinks.
    Maybe that group of road users should amend their own behavior, for example driving 5-10kph slower than the maximum speed allowed if they are so concerned with the safety of other road users.


  • Options
    #41
    paulm17781
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭paulm17781


    I cycle or walk more than I drive. Invisible cyclists are a pain, unlike cars, you can't hear them. Mandatory safety items all the way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Slice wrote: »
    My point is that the incentive for the cyclist to be cautious on the road is the danger posed to them by other road users. It's a danger that outweighs the danger a cyclist poses to others.
    You are completely discounting the dangers that cyclists pose to themselves. They are very often the authors of their own misfortune.
    RedPlanet wrote:
    What i don't like, is that one group of road users (motorists) feel they should be able to impose regulations onto other groups of road users (pedestrians and cyclists).
    The motorists do not make the laws, the State does. The motorist is obliged to obey them.


  • Options
    #43
    Slice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭Slice


    Hagar wrote: »
    You are completely discounting the dangers that cyclists pose to themselves. They are very often the authors of their own misfortune.

    No more so than every pedestrian or every motorist involved in road accidents can be said to be authors of their own misfortune. That's not an argument against improving road safety for everyone


  • Options
    #44
    Pigeon Reaper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭Pigeon Reaper


    Cyclists should have lights and it should be enforced just like every other road traffic law. With regards to hi-vis I've been rear ended twice at stop signs and a set of red lights whilst wearing it on a motorbike. Both times the driver claimed not to have seen me. Hi-vis is a nice method of shifting the blame. Studies undertaken in Holland and Germany(the full article was in the Irish Times recently) proving that hi-vis and helmets don't increase safety for either pedestrians or cyclists. Also bear in mind more pedestrians are killed from head injuries per RTA than cyclists yet no one calls for mandatory helmets for pedestrians. There are certainly a number of suicidal cyclists who insist on wearing dark clothing in poor visiblity but we should also remember that a car should be able to stop safely in the distance that the driver can see ahead. If a cyclist pulls out infront of a car, hi-vis or lights won't help the driver to avoid an accident. If the driver runs over a cyclist because they can't see them they shouldn't be driving as many things can be present on the road without having hi-vis and lights on them. I don't see regulations as the way further instead I'd prefer that people are educated to drive safely and cyclists need to learn some basic skills. But I put emphasise on the driver more than the cyclist as most likely a cyclist will only kill themselves and not others. They also lack the ability to inflict the same carnage as a motor vechicle can. It's also worth pointing out that cyclists have been around longer than cars and will probably outlast them too. We should have bias towards cyclists as they have a number of positive factors over motor vechicles. As a driver I don't like cyclists going without lights but I still expect them and after many years I've never run one over. I've also managed to avoid at night numerous rocks, branches, car crashes, drunks and animals none of which had lights or hi-vis.

    that turned into a bit of a rant.....


  • Options
    #45
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I don't think posters here understand what duty of care is. From wikipedia:
    a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a reasonable standard of care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.
    Yes, cyclists are highly likely to share the blame if they don't have lights. But generally speaking the motorist has a larger percentage of duty of care since it is them who are driving the car etc which is foreseeable to do harm.

    paulm17781 wrote: »
    Mandatory safety items all the way.

    Great.

    So, we're going to have mandatory helmets for all motorists and their passengers and mandatory high vis for all cars?

    And mandatory helmets and high vis for all peds?
    paulm17781 wrote: »
    I meant more generally. Seat belts are mandatory, drinking and driving is illegal, you're not supposed (though many do) to use a mobile while driving. I don't see this as any different to hi-vis, helmets and lights for cyclists

    Seat belts and drink driving laws have hard evidence behind them. Mandatory cycling helmet laws do not.

    All of the pro cycling helmet research I've seen is based on limited data and/or limited types of surveys etc. Furthermore, and importantly, such do not divide normal cycling in urban areas and mountain biking and racing (or even the split between the road racing types vs grannies and all those in between!).

    Indeed the limited research is firstly limited to
    paulm17781 wrote: »
    I see no reason they shouldn't have an enforced safety code. I don't think common sense goes far enough.

    Because your views of "safety" appears to be misguided and based on your "common sense" rather than evidence-based.

    By wearing "safety" gear (and your posts here), you're engaged in a type of "safety" promoting which makes normal everyday cycling look more dangerous than it is (and that's forget the "uncool" element!). You'd be better off engaging in cycling promoting, the successful result of which is proven to increase safety under the safety in numbers (put down to motorists changing their behaviour when more cyclists are around).

    That's not to say cyclists have no part to play. Using lights and not doing foolish things like going between two buses or trucks etc. But I'd still say promoting safe driving is higher up the scale for now. At the moment Dublin Bus appear to be the only ones who promote cycling related safety to any but cyclist.


  • Options
    #46
    paulm17781
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭paulm17781


    monument wrote: »
    Because your views of "safety" appears to be misguided and based on your "common sense" rather than evidence-based.

    So dark clothing is better than hi-vis? :confused:


  • Options
    #47
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    paulm17781 wrote: »
    So dark clothing is better than hi-vis? :confused:

    You're being too simplistic...
    Pigeon Reaper wrote: »
    With regards to hi-vis I've been rear ended twice at stop signs and a set of red lights whilst wearing it on a motorbike. Both times the driver claimed not to have seen me. Hi-vis is a nice method of shifting the blame.

    ... and that's one of the many problems with "common sense" approaches in real world conditions. But helmets and high vis are nice for their promoters for that exact reason -- people lap up the simplistic. The also have the element of it's hard to question anything in the name of "safety" / "security" / etc.


  • Options
    #48
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    If high-vis is so important in your opinion, then why is it safe to park cars unlit on the street, without any high-vis? And why don't drivers wear high-vis when getting in and out of their vehicles? Is this a case of one standard for motorists and another for cyclists?

    The law requires cyclists to have a rear reflector and properly fitted front and rear lamps. If they're in good order, this is normally sufficient. Choice of clothing and extra safety gimmicks are personal and a matter of comfort.

    This winter, maybe we could ask the City Council to extend the operational hours of cycle tracks beyond 7pm? It's crazy that cars are allowed park on them when it gets dark.


  • Options
    #49
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Logic would suggest its easier to see something 6 feet wide than something 1 or 2 feet wide, and if you have a blind spot, something smaller will fit in it easier. Its not unknown for people to run into parked cars/trailers even trucks that are badly sited, and poorly lit. Obviously something bright coloured is easier to see. Thats why golf balls are white, and life jackets are usually bright orange, and why you should write SOS in very large letters when stranded on a beach. That high viz or wearing a helmet doesn't help you when someones not looking at all, or driving dangerously doesn't mean its not a worthwhile thing to do. Thats not a valid conclusion. Thats like saying if you are wearing a bullet proof vest, and you get hit in the head, then theres no point anyone wearing a vest. Yes there are other things which you can do, like education (cycling an driving) and better enforcement etc etc. But one thing doesn't preclude the usefulness of other in specific circumstance.


  • Options
    #50
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    ....The law requires cyclists to have a rear reflector and properly fitted front and rear lamps. .....

    Just looking at cyclists this week I'd say in the dark only about a 3rd of them have lights. So enforcement and public awareness of this is sadly lacking.


  • Options
    #51
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    BostonB wrote: »
    Logic would suggest its easier to see something 6 feet wide than something 1 or 2 feet wide
    Logic would also say that the chances of hitting something big are greater.

    As it stands the law requires cyclists to have a reflector and lights and it requires drivers to drive at a speed that allows them to avoid collisions and not to overtake unsafely. Let's get these basic rules working first before making up new ones.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    Logic would also say that the chances of hitting something big are greater....

    Are you suggesting that if something has "bigger" visiblity its more like to be hit? Maybe we should all drive around at night with no lights see how that works.


  • Options
    #53
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    (I think) he is quite clearly saying that in unlit conditions the chances of hitting a larger object is greater than hitting a smaller one.


  • Options
    #54
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    At this point I have no idea. LOL.
    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    ...And why don't drivers wear high-vis when getting in and out of their vehicles? Is this a case of one standard for motorists and another for cyclists?...

    Its usually recommended you have a hi vis vest in the boot for breakdowns, working at night etc. Workmen wear hi vis, all kinds of people wear hi vis. Its not only for cyclists.


  • Options
    #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    monument wrote: »
    (I think) he is quite clearly saying that in unlit conditions the chances of hitting a larger object is greater than hitting a smaller one.

    Yes, but the chances of being hit by an unlit object hurtling down the road (at night) are the same regardless of its size, if you pull out in front of it.

    As I nearly found out the other night when some dipstick driving a lorry didn't bother with lights, it was only the reflections of another light that made it visible.. :eek:

    What a dick :mad:


  • Options
    #56
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    BostonB wrote: »
    Its usually recommended you have a hi vis vest in the boot for breakdowns, working at night etc. Workmen wear hi vis, all kinds of people wear hi vis. Its not only for cyclists.
    I don't doubt the usefulness of additional visibility aids. But, as you say, they're simply recommended. It's also recommended that cars use parking lights when parked and also to avoid parking where it might interfere with safety and traffic flow. But we know that this advice is widely ignored by drivers.

    I believe some drivers are applying double standards by condoning the parking of unlit motor vehicles on the roadway, (which force cyclists to move out into the path of traffic), while at the same time complaining about (illegally) unlit cyclists and then further insisting to make obligatory for them alone, extra measures such as high-vis vests and helmets.


  • Options
    #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    It's recommended that cars use parking lights when parked and not when driving at night.

    The number of dickheads who insist on driving with parking lights on until there's total darkness (they can't see the road) is frightening, no wonder the roads are so dangerous in the winter months.

    I was in in India many years ago and a taxi driver said that he was "saving the battery" by only using the lights when he absolutly needed them :rolleyes:

    We have a lot of "indians" on our roads..:(


  • Options
    #58
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    And why don't drivers wear high-vis when getting in and out of their vehicles?
    BostonB wrote: »
    Its usually recommended you have a hi vis vest in the boot for breakdowns, working at night etc...Its not only for cyclists.

    Not exactly what you are saying but since July 1st all motorists in France must carry a hi-viz jacket in the car. Specifically in the car and not in the boot. This has led to a huge number of people hanging the jacket over the front seat like a jacket, so the Gendarmes can see them and not hold you up at road checks. Believe it or not they light up when you are approaching parked cars at night when your lights hit them.


  • Options
    #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Hagar wrote: »
    Believe it or not they light up when you are approaching parked cars at night when your lights hit them.

    You can also often see the hi-viz jackets worn by builders & lorry drivers coming in the opposite direction (with dipped lights).


  • Options
    #60
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭trellheim


    I drive and cycle

    reflectors/hi viz/lamps and lots of fluorescent tape


    Sunday Times In Gear section reportd on these http://pedalite.com/ last week, does anyone know where they can get them ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    trellheim wrote: »
    I drive and cycle

    reflectors/hi viz/lamps and lots of fluorescent tape


    Sunday Times In Gear section reportd on these http://pedalite.com/ last week, does anyone know where they can get them ?

    I think you'd be better with a light at the eyeline of car drivers to be honest.


Advertisement