Indicators on bicycles?

seamus

This something I'm carrying over from another thread on Motors

A link was posted to this: http://www.bseen101.com/ who manufacture (as well as other things) indictators for bicycles.
I know from experience that cyclists are a vain lot. With the exception of older (read: middle-aged) cyclists, most of them don't want a big bulky pair of lights sitting atop their handlebars, safety or no safety. However, the lights just below the saddle look fine.

Now, cyclists and hand signals do not go together. As someone else said, I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a cyclist use hand signals. It's probably something not undertaken by most cyclists because it a) causes you to slow down and b) is dangerous in high winds or heavy traffic. Indicators however, have none of this problem. If all a cyclist had to do was flick a small button beside his thumb, like a motorcyclist, you'd probably find a hell of a lot more cyclists doing it, since it enhances their safety with minimal hassle.

I would suggest the Irish government should look into having an Irish company produce something similar to these, but more low-profile, i.e. smaller lights on the front. Then they could go on a massive promotion of these lights, selling them in schools and whatnot. I say they shoudl push to develop more low-profile, i.e. 'cooler' lights, because I remember they did a similar drive with helmets back when I was young. Almost everyone's parents forked out for these government-sponsored helmets that they were selling for just £15 in the schools. But no-one wore them. They were bright red, and stuck out a mile from your head. So even though everyone bought them, nobody wore them cos they looked crap. Safe or not, most cyclist don't want to look like idiots.

After a period of time, the Government can then begin legislating to make indicators a legal requirement on bicycles. If they've done their job properly, there'll be little fuss, cos the majority of people will have the already.

Opinions?

Capt'n Midnight

bad idea.

Lights below the saddle can't be seen from the sides.

They would have to be as bright and as prominantly placed as on a motorbike. So you'd need a lot of extra sticky out bits and a big battery - bigger than most cyclists use for lights at the moment.

Also the only ones who be prepared to splash that sort of money on bits for thier bike would spend it on making the bike lighter. I can lift a real lightweight bike with my little finger.

Probably most useful as an anti theft device - no self respecting bicycle thief (now there's a good film) would be seen on one..

Victor

1. You still have to take your hands off the handles bars - the main reason cyclists don't indicate, especially when turning left (but at the same time try going around a mini-roundabout with your right hand out).

2. As shown in the video (I've no sound, didn't hear the commentary) the lights are not distinct enough, not separated enough, to act as indicators, especially in daytime.

3. The quote "cars are guaranteed not to miss you" - I want cars to miss me!!!!

4. At STG£95 (about €150) they are almost the same price as a standard bike (a set of front and back LEDs lights cost maybe €12).

seamus

Originally posted by Victor
3. The quote "cars are guaranteed not to miss you" - I want cars to miss me!!!!

Lol. My point though is would it be a good idea if it was refined, and more thought put into it? I didn't even notice you need to remove your hands until I had a second look at it, but even so, you're taking your hand off for 1/2 a second as opposed to 3 or 4 seconds.

Capt'n Midnight, as I say, if the looks were improved, and subsequently it was made law, people would have no choice but to fit them. A bit like bells in other countries.

I realise you can't see the lights properly, but in fairness, you can't see most motorcycle indicators from exactly side-on, and all but halogen lights on bicycles are much weaker, but help them be visible.

Capt'n Midnight

Actually on the subject of lights.. cars are TOO bright. In light up areas you can only see car headlights when you look towards on coming cars. You do not see pedistrians, cyclists potholes etc. I reckon that if car lights were less bright then other road users would stand out more and so the roads would be safer for all users.

BTW: most cyclists I see at the moment do no have lights - they only have those LED things - that have very narrow beams and can only be clearly seen if properly adjusted. Of course since there are scumbags who nick theses safety devices regardless of the risk to the cyclists life afterwards you can't leave any battery lights on a bike even it's well locked.

Reflective jackets first - pedal reflectors too and liberal amounts of lifeboat tape - when cyclists can be seen THEN start worrying about if they can be seen at junctions.

If a cyclist is ahead of a motorist at a junction then since the cyclist is , in front , and a second (not a third) class road use the motorist must yeild . Again unless a cyclist swerves in front (and you should be anticipating that) the law still says if you hit someone it's your fault as you were by definition driving too fast for the conditions. (else you would have stopped)

Yes cyclists are safer with aids but cycling is intrinsicly safe. Cyclists don't die because they fall off bikes or crash into each other - they are killed by getting hit by motorists and in most cases a judicial system which comprises mostly of motorists finds for the cyclist.

Forcing cyclists to defer to motorists ...
Hang on a moment - a large proportion of motorists don't use / know how to use / have faulty indicators anyway so what's the point - near where I live there is a 30mph stretch of road, before penalty points I think they found over 95% speeded on the link ! (you can assume that some of the 5% where either lost / learners / or being held up...) ... And then there are the orange bulbs that loose colour after a few months - was behind an 03 D 14xxx today - the rear indicatiors where white on both sides - they just don't stand out against headlights..

It's not practical to force cyclists to do something like this when motorists can get away with it.

Oh well back to the lollipop stick on the carrier (with optional nail melted in to the end to scratch paint off cars that come too close)

cyclopath2001

Some reasons cyclists do not indicate:

1: Poor quality of Dublin City Council cycle tracks, its necessary to keep both hands on the bars while using the compulsory cycle tracks.

2: Indicating left is an invitation to drivers to overtake the cyclist while turning, usually pinning the cyclist to the cusp of the bend. It's safer to keep the motorist guessing.

3: Lack of good example from drivers. Some do not bother at all, some indicate too late to be of any help to others.

4: Indicator apparatus on bikes, just like lights would not survive the constant vibration generated by the cyclist-hostile surfaces that cyclists are obliged, by law to use.


So drivers, what's your excuse for not indicating?

West Briton

Unfortunately an awful lot of courier cyclists give a bad impression to other road users. I cycle as well, mainly for leisure, and I must be something out of the stone age because I actually obey traffic lights and one-way rules. Rules are there to protect road users from dangerous and unpredictable behaviour.

This evening, while crossing over Eden Quay I was nearly run over by a courier cycling from the bus lane and weaving around the traffic turning right over O'Connell Bridge to presumably go on the right hand side of O'Connell Bridge. No point in saying anything because all I'd get would be an earful of abuse.

Of course, Dublin couriers are the model of tact and diplomacy compared to London. I was once threatened with a beating by a courier there for not checking to see if he was cycling on the pavement behind me. Having glasses with poor peripheral vision means I certainly don't have eyes in the back of my head.

Victor

Originally posted by West Briton
Unfortunately an awful lot of courier cyclists

as do motorbike couriers and white van couriers.

sparkite

cyclists complain about motorists nearly killing them.they want to be treated like cyclists but unfortunately the vast majority dont act like cyclists.i think indicators are a good idea but would never work.gardai dont even enforce lights at night so why would they enforce indicators.most of the bikes on the roads barely have brakes so i reckon indicators would last a week.

a good idea all the same but it aint gonna happen.love to see it happen though

Stark

Gardai do inforce lights at night. And you're required to signal left and right by putting out your hands. I'm usually concientuous when I'm cycling, I know that if it's between me and a car, then the car is going to win. Awful lot trucks on the routes where I cycle as well.

Capt'n Midnight

Bikes are either cheap transport and/or treasured possesions. Most bikes are customised far more than any car.

Lets pretend indicators would be seen by motorists (they won't)
Lets pretend motorists would respect them (they won't)
Lets pretend they won't ever burn out bulbs or malfunction.

Remember bikes are cheap transport
Lets pretend that cyclists don't mind the additional weight..
Lets pretend that cyclists will pay for the purchase of these things - repeatedly - since they will be stolen / vandalised..
Since you can't run these things off dynamos (you slow down to turn etc.) most cyclists would complain about the extra drag.. Ok lets' pretend this is not an issue and that cyclists are ok with the idea of batteries even though a lot of them are way more environmenatlly aware than the average motorist.

Who will pay for the batteries ?


Note: Heard on the radio that the sales of new bikes in Dublin have fallen through the floor since people dont want to pay for something that they expect to get stolen/damaged.

For the lights to be visible in daytime they will need to be several Watts (say 10) - this means if you run them off two normal recargable C cells 1200 mAH you will get maybe a half an hour before you need to recharge the batteries... ie. about 30 traffic light changes !

Victor

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
For the lights to be visible in daytime they will need to be several Watts (say 10) - this means if you run them off two normal recargable C cells 1200 mAH you will get maybe a half an hour before you need to recharge the batteries... ie. about 30 traffic light changes !

LEDs are much more efficient and reliable than bulbs - a LED torch will last 200 hours. The only problem is you can't make a focused beam with LEDs, so they aren't any good as head lights.

sparkite

Originally posted by k.oriordan
Gardai do inforce lights at night. And you're required to signal left and right by putting out your hands. I'm usually concientuous when I'm cycling, I know that if it's between me and a car, then the car is going to win. Awful lot trucks on the routes where I cycle as well.

you are one of the ppl who cycle properly...however i have never seen anyone without lights stopped.i used to cycle a bike for years with no lights...never stopped....


on another note.i hate the way bikes pass on the inside or cycle on the footpath....crazy.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Victor
LEDs are much more efficient and reliable than bulbs - a LED torch will last 200 hours. The only problem is you can't make a focused beam with LEDs, so they aren't any good as head lights.

If you move from bulbs to LED's you also solve the reliability problem.

To be visible in day light you would still need a large cluster of them - ie. it won't be a cheap device. Also LED's generally have a narrow field of view again you would need many to be resonably certain of having been seen. I could see them walking in the run up to christmas as they would make nice christmas tree lights.

Re: the field of view - MOST of the the LED bike lights I've seen are not aimed horizontally so drivers are missing the full effect.

Still I believe the onus is be on motorists to drive at speeds which will enable them to stop within the distance they can see to be clear. Cycling is intrinsically safe, very few fatal accidents don't involve motorists, drugs or falls from heights etc.

Stark

I was stopped twice. Once because I made a mistake when turning - there's this horribly horribly designed junction up by where I live (it's in fairview, think it leads onto the malahide road or something). Another time was in town, garda didn't notice the led torches on my bike. (they were stopping a good few people that night).

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by k.oriordan
Another time was in town, garda didn't notice the led torches on my bike.

Sorry just have to ask - If the guards didn't notice them .... that would suggest to me motorists may not have either ...

Stark

You're probably right. But they covered my ass legally wise and I have a motto which I stole from a book - "If at night you get yourself into a position where a motorist has to see you, then you're ****ed".

Victor

Originally posted by sparkite
i hate the way bikes pass on the inside

Thats because thats what the rules of the road say.

Originally posted by sparkite
cycle on the footpath....crazy.

And how about cars / trucks parked on footpaths and jay walking pedestrians. No one is blameless, but very few people are killed or injured by cyclists.

sparkite

i was referring to the way ppl ride on the road and then ride up on the footpath to avoid stopping for a red light.

BrianD

Why would cyclists be interested in indicators for their bikes?!!? Especially when they hardly ever have lights. Cyclists as a group have a complete and utter disregard for their own safety and that of other road users. It is time for the following:

a) Garda patrols that will confisicate bicycles on the spot when they are found to be used without lights.

b) Penalty points to be applied to cyclists when they break the law. These will be the same as any other points you get while driving a car or motorcycle.

I really favour alternative modes of transport to the car but I am sick and tired of cyclists breaking the law and the pathetic excuses they use to justify their law breaking.

Victor

Originally posted by BrianD
Why would cyclists be interested in indicators for their bikes?!!? Especially when they hardly ever have lights. Cyclists as a group have a complete and utter disregard for their own safety and that of other road users.

But motorists eat babies for breakfast! :P

Originally posted by BrianD
Penalty points to be applied to cyclists when they break the law. These will be the same as any other points you get while driving a car or motorcycle.

As you may be aware fixed penalty fines will be extended to cyclists. Penalty point would do little to people without driving licences.

oneweb

Flashy lights on a moving bike are still illegal, right? So why does just about everyone put those LEDs in flash mode?

Imposter

Originally posted by BrianD
a) Garda patrols that will confisicate bicycles on the spot when they are found to be used without lights.

b) Penalty points to be applied to cyclists when they break the law. These will be the same as any other points you get while driving a car or motorcycle.

I really favour alternative modes of transport to the car but I am sick and tired of cyclists breaking the law and the pathetic excuses they use to justify their law breaking. [/B]

a) Only if cars are confiscated if they have dodgy lights (height settings, blown bulbs, fog lights on unnecesarily...) or 'forget' to use the indicators.

b) I agree with this but a lot of cyclists don't have driving licences.

As for the last bit I think you'll find similar pathetic excuses used by car drivers.

BrianD

Ah imposter, typical rubbish from the cycling lobby...excuses, excuses, excuses for breaking the law.

There are no excuses for divers not indicating, leaving their fog lights (not to be confused with driving lights) etc.

Why do cyclists continue to break the law by not having proper lights? There is good reason why these flashing LED's are illegal...they are ineffective. If they were so good they would be fitting them to other vehicles. The fact is a flashing LED is off as much is it on and can not replace the effectiveness of a non-flashing front and rear lamp on a bike. How can a cyclist see where they are going with a flashing LED on an unlit street? Furthermore, cyclists have this odd habit of wearing these flashing LED's about their person instead of on their bikes. Certainly, a low intensity LED can be used as a secondary light.

The points system applied to cycling offences w ould be an effective deterrent as many cyclists do have a driving licence. If you don't any points "earned" are automatically added to your licence when you do apply and receive your licence (provided the three life of points hasn't elapsed). There seems to no active enforcement by Gardai on offences committed by cyclists. I don't know how many times near misses I have had with unlit cyclists within the city. I do know if I do collide with a drunk and unlit cyclists it will be me who will be bearing the brunt of the legal responsibility because of our crazy justice system that rewards careless individuals.

Imposter

I'm not dissagreeing, in fact I agree, with what you've just posted but your comment that :

a) Garda patrols that will confisicate bicycles on the spot when they are found to be used without lights.

is a bit overboard and seemingly comes from an anti-cyclist perspective. Motorists break the laws with regards to lighting just the same as cyclists, that is what I am pointing out. There is also very little if any enforcement of these laws (concerning the motorist) bar the NCT test. Once this test is passed a lot of motorists don't worry about trivialities such as lighting etc until the next test rolls around. Suggesting that bicycles should be confiscated is just silly unless the same applies to all forms of transport that are found to be unfit for use on the roads.

Another point I am making these observations as someone who used to cycle in Dublin but now use a car as my main means of transport.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Imposter
a) Only if cars are confiscated if they have dodgy lights (height settings, blown bulbs, fog lights on unnecesarily...) or 'forget' to use the indicators.

Or if the indicators aren't orange...

RANT I've seen loads of 03 cars with uncoloured indicators where the orange paint has worn off the bulb already - Deffo those bulbs are not fit for purpose - if the driver has headlights on esp. in bad weather they can't be seen. /RANT

BrianD

I wouldn't agree with you that motorists leave broken lights unrepaired till the next NCT and let's be fair - it is not evident if you take a spin around the city. It seems that they cycle lobby continually excuses its bad and unsafe behaviour by pointing to the transgressions of motorists! So what! Two wrongs don't make a right!

A motorist can suffer a bulb failure as can a properly equipped cyclist. It happens to the best of us and we repair the fault and continue. The number of cars with inadequate lighting of any sort is only a fraction of the number of cars on the road. The bottom line is that only a minority of cyclists comply with the law to have lights. It is time for a crack down and a punitive campaign is required by the authorities and on-the-spot confiscation of bikes would be appropriate.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by BrianD
It is time for a crack down and a punitive campaign is required by the authorities and on-the-spot confiscation of bikes would be appropriate.

As would on the spot confiscation of cars if the driver does not have insurance or a valid license

A cheapo bike costs less than a fine - and you can pick it back up again at the Kevin Street auction

BrianD

The lack of insurance or a driving licence is not a safety issue as the lack of lights on a bike. Another example of cyclists trying to deflect responsibility by pointing to a non-issue.

As it happens, you can have your car confisicated for non-payment of tax or insurance. My boss discovered that recently!

cyclopath2001

I would be in favour of confiscation of the vehicle for traffic offences if the same rule applied to motorists.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by BrianD
The lack of insurance or a driving licence is not a safety issue as the lack of lights on a bike. Another example of cyclists trying to deflect responsibility by pointing to a non-issue.

As it happens, you can have your car confisicated for non-payment of tax or insurance. My boss discovered that recently!

Lack of lights on a bike is only an issue at night and dynamos count - and they are off when you stop.

People without insurance are more likely to be bad drivers (otherwise they could afford the insurance). If I had my way then anyone caught without insurance would have to pay a fine of at least the cost of providing them with insurance multiplied by the current ratio of people reckoned to be driving without insurance to those convicted of it. ie. if only one in ten people suspected of driving without insurance are caught then the fine would be ten times the quote and insurance company would give them.

I'll bet your boss got warning letters in the post so it wasn't as if the car was taken immediately. Again my point about handing over a cheapo bike - because you won't use an expensive one in Dublin 'cos it would get stolen / damaged.

And yes I consider the standard of driving and the number of drivers on provisionals and without insurane to be a major disincentive to cycling ... There are far too many drivers out there who have failed the test or not been confident enough to take it driving on provisioanl licenses , sure in the knowledge that they can drive. (I'm not saying the driving test in this country is fair or an accurate indicator of driving ability)

Note: one of the reasons you need a driving test for motor vehicles is that it will continue to move if you are not in control of it. Bikes on the other hand fall over so you are considerably less likely of hurting another person. Unlike SUV's which are bought on the premise that the other person will come off worse than you in an accident ..

Capt'n Midnight

How about flashing both indicators at the same time.... who needs to indicate ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1317536#post1317536

Originally posted by MojoMaker
You're not a driver are you? The use of hazards is a universal driving signal to other users that the vehicle in question is slowing down with a view to stopping. A single indicator does not always convey the intention to stop, merely to to turn. This use of hazards is a lot more common on the continent where it is accepted road practice to warn other roads users behind of impending traffic jams, accidents, or other reasons for sudden deceleration and eventual stopping. In this instance the use of hazards by taxi drivers indicates stopping for a period of time, not merely pulling to the side, and as such is quite correct practice. Just we in this country are perhaps not as aware of this as in other countries.

seamus

lmao

I object. On the grounds that that post is not submissible as evidence due to being ridiculous

BrianD

Captain Midnight, you arguement about insurance and driving licences is spurious and irrelevant to the debate. Lack of insurance is not a safety issue. There are many countries who do not have manandatory insurance requirements e.g. Australia and New Zealand. There are very strong arguements for abolishing manadatory isurance requirements in this country but that's not relevant to this debate. It still does not excuse cyclists from not having adequate lighting.

Lack of either insurance or a drivers licence is NOT A SAFETY ISSUE. Many could drive safely and accident free without either and demonstrate common courtest to are two wheeled friends! Therefore it would be not necessary for the authorities (but they can by law) to confisicate a vehicle unless it was otherwise defective. Lack of lights on a bike is a safety issue affecting all road users. As it happens my boss got no warming. He was stopped by a Garda and the vehicle taken on the spot.

seamus

Originally posted by BrianD
Captain Midnight, you arguement about insurance and driving licences is spurious and irrelevant to the debate. Lack of insurance is not a safety issue. There are many countries who do not have manandatory insurance requirements e.g. Australia and New Zealand. There are very strong arguements for abolishing manadatory isurance requirements in this country but that's not relevant to this debate. It still does not excuse cyclists from not having adequate lighting.

I think his point is to do with the "in for a penny, in for a pound" principle. Anyone who doesn't realise the grave importance of insuring their vehicle for third party damages, and accordingly doesn't bother with it, is much more likely to be a poor driver. Quite similar to people who drive around badly damaged, or unroadworthy vehicles. The state and status (ie tax/insurance/NCT) of the vehicle is usually a pretty good indicator of how much the driver is willing to comply with traffic laws and act towards other drivers. Just from my own experience - there are a lot of scumbags in the motorcycle courier game. However, the worst/craziest, and accordingly easiest to spot couriers, are those with an iffy engine, bald tyres, chunks of their bike missing, no indicators, and parts of the bike being held together with masking tape. Not only are their bikes wrecked, but they're always terrible drivers too.

I would agree with Capt'n Midnight that there are a lot of drivers who fall into the above ignorant category.

BrianD

Well you may agree but it is irrelevant to the arguement. We are not discussing the standards of driving by motorists nor the standard of cycling. It seems that cyclists are unable or unwilling to comply with basic safety regulations - lights on their bikes. Instead of acknowledging this fact, they are quick to point to the failings of other road users as if it excuses their behaviour. It doesn't. It is time to start pointing at others and start taking remedial action. Lack of lights endangers both the cyclist and every other roaduser to a greater or lesser extent. Inadequate lighting on bikes is a widespread problem.

I take exception to your remarks about insurance. Lack of insurance does not infer poor driving skills. It may be illegal not to have insurance in this country but it it is perfectly legal in other countries. It has no relationship with road safety. It is there to cover the cost of an accident for those who could not afford to do so otherwise. I agree that those who could not care less for any road user or law would probably not have insurance but these individuals are outside the realm of any reason or laws.

BTW are motorcycles allowed use cycle lanes? I often feel sorry for cyclists who suddenly find a high powered motorcycle coming up behind them!

Victor

I saw two cyclists the other night with flashing LED headlights (a tight cluster, not the usual distributed pattern), quite distinct from well over 100m away. Anway they were white, but with a blue tint. The lights were out of sequence (one, the other, one, the other, one, the other, one, the other) which made me stop and think - "why are there flashing blue lights coming towards me, that slowly".

Originally posted by BrianD
It seems that cyclists are unable or unwilling to comply with basic safety regulations - lights on their bikes.

There is a mix of authoritive and societal ambivalence that contributes to the problem, much the same as most problems in Ireland.

Originally posted by BrianD
Instead of acknowledging this fact, they are quick to point to the failings of other road users as if it excuses their behaviour.

There is an element of truth in this, however cyclists cause very few accidents and are primarily the victim of others neligence, not their own. The primary and disproportionate cause of raod fatalities and injuries is motorist error.

Originally posted by BrianD
Lack of insurance does not infer poor driving skills.

However, it can dramaticly effect the aftermath. And as suggested, lack of insurance is associated with a lack of care - that is a safety issue.

Originally posted by BrianD
BTW are motorcycles allowed use cycle lanes?

Only if they have a Garda riding it.

cyclopath2001

>> It seems that cyclists are unable or unwilling to comply with basic safety regulations<<

This statement is equally true for motorists. What percentange respect the 30mph limit? How many stop on amber or even red? How many use handphones while driving? How many use proper seating & restraints for young passengers?

>>Instead of acknowledging this fact, they are quick to point to the failings of other road users as if it excuses their behaviour. <<

I do not think concientious cyclists look to excuse illegal or unsafe behaviour by other cyclists. The point is that the best way to prevent serious accidents is by concentrating the limited resources of Gardai on the unsafe & inconsiderate behaviour of motorists.

Lets get the risks into perspective: unsafely driven cars are more dangerous than unsafely driven bicycles.

gurramok

Both issues are due to lack of garda enforcement of rules of the road for motorists and cyclists.
I used to cycle for about 10 years before i took up driving. I was never stopped once for no lights and i cycled alot at night especially on busier roads through/near city centre where you would expect to find loads of gards about.

Now i drive, i've only met one checkpoint(garda with guns) and that was for the ongoing violent crime spree(ERU), not checking tax etc.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by cyclopath2001
>> It seems that cyclists are unable or unwilling to comply with basic safety regulations<<

This statement is equally true for motorists. What percentange respect the 30mph limit?

Answer - less than 1% !

http://www.connect.ie/dcc/docs/stats/speed.html

Urban Arterial Roads (standard limit 30 mph)
Average free speed of cars within the 30 mph zone is 45 mph.
99% of cars exceeded the 30 mph speed limit.

And I'm certain that some of the 1% were looking for a turn or for one reason or another were travelling slower than normal.

[edited for free speed]

BrianD

What's the relevance? We're talking about lights on bikes! If you wish to use speeding motorists as an excuse for not complying with the law why not blame falling trees, aircraft etc.........

As a motorist, I comply with the speed limit of 30 mph when posted (sometines you need to be very observant to spot the signs). At that speed I will still seriously injure or kill a cyclist who I might be unfortuate enough to collide with. If he has lights and I can see him we will happily use the same stretch of road together.

Victor

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Answer - less than 1% ! http://www.connect.ie/dcc/docs/stats/speed.html And I'm certain that some of the 1% were held up in traffic , looking for a turn or for one reason or another were travelling slower than normal.

Free traffic only counts the car in front, not those "congested" behind the front car.

cyclopath2001

>>What's the relevance? We're talking about lights on bikes! If you wish to use speeding motorists as an excuse for not complying with the law why not blame falling trees, aircraft etc.........<<

Actually the topic was indicators on bikes, so we're both off-topic.

The only excuse I offer for not complying with the law is when it is unsafe to do so. This means that in certain circumstances (read my post) I will choose not to indicate.

I never sought to excuse riding with no lights, but would explain out that if the cycle facilities,which cyclists are obliged by law to use, were of proper quality, this would make it easier to keep lighting equipment in working order.

>> At that speed I will still seriously injure or kill a cyclist who I might be unfortuate enough to collide with.<<

In that case, why not drive more slowly? 30mph is a maximum, to be reduced if it poses a risk to the safety of others, regardless of who breaks the rules. If you wish to be properly considerate of others, 20 mph would mean less injury in the event a pedestrian or cyclist mistakenly falls into your path.

C.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Victor
Free traffic only counts the car in front, not those "congested" behind the front car.

I apologise if anyone misconstrued my previous post as implying that some or all of the 1% of motorists who adhered to safety laws were doing so only because their progress was impeded.

My general opinion on laws is unless you are ready, willing and able to enforce a law there is no point in bringing it in. Otherwise you just encourage people to break the law - it's the broken window theory - but let's call it the "driving on the third provisional / having a bell on your bike" (what is the point of bells since cars are deliberately soundproofed from road noise ???)

Even if the law was enforcable then you would have to enforce similar laws to prove you wern't victimising one group...

BrianD

I don't think that at any time during the development of the automobile would a bicycle bell have been audible to a motorist!

Cyclists might find the bell useful to warn unsuspecting pedestrians as they pass through pedestrian crossings.

Raam

I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but...
is it illegal to listen to a walkman/discman/whatever while cycling?

KR

seamus

Originally posted by King Raam
I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but...
is it illegal to listen to a walkman/discman/whatever while cycling?

KR

Well, since the same rules as all vehicles apply to bikes, i.e. driving with due care and attention, and without distractions, then it probably falls under the same remit as driving with a mobile phone. However, you'd never get pulled up on it. Cycling with a walkman on fairly low is equivalent to driving with the radio on in my experience.

BrianD

I wouldn't agree. The motorist has the advantage of rear and wing mirrors while a cyclist has to concentrate on looking forward. Being able to hear sound and 'place' the sound is of enormous advantage to a cyclist. Ears are acting as eyes!

SteM

Originally posted by BrianD
I wouldn't agree. The motorist has the advantage of rear and wing mirrors while a cyclist has to concentrate on looking forward. Being able to hear sound and 'place' the sound is of enormous advantage to a cyclist. Ears are acting as eyes!

I'd agree with BrianD there, I cycle from Thomas Street to Pearse Street every day to work and am shocked by the amount of people I see wearing headphones. There's no way I'd risk doing that as I find hearing cars/motorcycles coming up behind me as important as seeing what's in front of me.

Stark

Besides headphones tend to block out external sounds far more than having a radio on in the car. Ever compare trying to grab the attention of someone wearing headphones to someone listening to a radio?
I even greatly dislike wearing a helmet in the city centre because of the muffling effect on my hearing.

TacT

Ridiculous, you'll never get bicycles with indicators for many of the reasons above posted by others. BrianD clearly has a chip on his shoulder when it comes to cyclists.

Problem is, you're going to swing your anti-cycling point of view out there and people who cycle are going to swing their anti-motorists point of view right back at you until this descends into a spiral of infinity.

Would I like some extra weight on my bike while I cycle? No
Would I like to pay even more money for my cheaper alternative to transport? No
Can I not just use my arms to indicate? Yes (I don't see what everyone is getting at about the roads etc, I've yet to find a piece of road or cyclepath that was too bumpy to indicate with one arm..)
Would I like to pay more money for extra batteries to power this new fangled device? No
Are the Government going to start implementing indicators for bicycles? No
Not even in the next 10 Years? Not a hope in hell

Listening to a walkman while on your bicycle will only get you a warning from the gardai, I used to do it cycling to school and back but soon got more sense