Are you guilty ?

jetsonx

In the past few weeks I am amazed at the amount of cyclists on Dublin
roads without a feckin light. I mean cycling in Dublin is dangerous enough in broad daylight but cycling at night with no lights whatsoever - do these folks have a deathwish ?


Anyone one here who does this on a regular basis ?

TCamen

By the way the thread title is underlined, I thought it read "Are you Quilty", my curiosity was piqued...how disappointing

Yes, I am Quilty, just looking for others so I feel less alone in the world *sob*

Oh, and I don't own a bike, so negative to the real question at hand.

Neil_Sedaka

No I'm not guilty, pet hate of mine though.
Bleedin' can't see ye till I almost kill ye pedal pushers

ps. I am in Quilty (Co. Clare) a fair bit!

Jivin Turkey

Who cares? Cyclists are allowed do whatever they like, and the rules of the road dont apply to them (not that I didnt know before but I found this out twice today, once as a pedestrian and once as a motorist).

Canis Lupus

i used to do it when I lived in Dub.... Its not particularly dangerous as long as you keep yur wits about you and realise cars can't see you.

ferdi

i'm a cyclist, 90% of the time i have lights etc.

seamus

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Who cares? Cyclists are allowed do whatever they like, and the rules of the road dont apply to them.

Completely incorrect.

(moving thread)

Metrobest

jetsonx wrote:

In the past few weeks I am amazed at the amount of cyclists on Dublin
roads without a feckin light. I mean cycling in Dublin is dangerous enough in broad daylight but cycling at night with no lights whatsoever - do these folks have a deathwish ?


Anyone one here who does this on a regular basis ?

Go to Amsterdam and you'll see company directors in suits whizzing around on their bikes minus lights. So long as there's an adequate cycling infrastructure it's okay to cycle without a light. But in places like Rathmines Road you have the vile situation of cars parking on the bike lane at night.. A deathtrap because it forces cyclists onto the road.

Car drivers should be driving VERY slowly at night, keeping an eye out for cyclists. It's not good enough to say, "The cyclist had no light so the driver is exonerated from all responsibility for his/her actions."

Tarabuses

Metrobest wrote:

Car drivers should be driving VERY slowly at night, keeping an eye out for cyclists. It's not good enough to say, "The cyclist had no light so the driver is exonerated from all responsibility for his/her actions."

Perhaps we should have someone with a red flag walking in front of motor vehicles?

It is a legal requirement for bikes to have lights at night and for cyclists to use hand signals. I cannot understand how they can put their own safety entirely in the hands of other people.

the_syco

Two things;

I use lights all the times. If I'm caught without liights (I stayed in my mates to long, listening to metal), I stay on the footpaths, and don't go too fast. I usually have lights, tho.

Secondly, they'll knock you over anyhoo's. In broad daylight, a car hit me from the side. Don't know whose fault it was, as I was knocked into coma for 3 days. Braod daylight = 1pm on a summers day. So some drivers are just blind.

jetsonx

"Cyclists without lights at night deserve to be knocked down" Discuss...

Stark

Did a few times when I forced to because of scum nicking the lights off my bike. Other than that I normally have lights, though they're just the blinker things so not sure how good they are really (the proper lights are way too expensive for a student like me,especially considering they'll probably get stolen at some point ).

Secondly, they'll knock you over anyhoo's. In broad daylight, a car hit me from the side. Don't know whose fault it was, as I was knocked into coma for 3 days. Braod daylight = 1pm on a summers day. So some drivers are just blind.

Or a psycho. Had a near miss before myself, was crossing at a pedestrian crossing (had the green man) when a car sped through the crossing, did a U-turn and sped back towards me, myself and the other pedestrians just managed to get out of the way and luckily my lovely bike wasn't thrashed (though it did get stolen at a later point, f-ing scum). A few seconds later, a plain clothes garda in a nearby unmarked car threw on his siren and gave chase. So the bastard got caught, delighted

Neil_Sedaka

Metrobest wrote:

So long as there's an adequate cycling infrastructure it's okay to cycle without a light."

Well there isn't, so get a light!

A Dub in Glasgo

Not guilty

Metrobest

Tarabuses wrote:

It is a legal requirement for bikes to have lights at night and for cyclists to use hand signals. I cannot understand how they can put their own safety entirely in the hands of other people.

Why can't drivers obey the law? Parking in a cycle lane is the most dangerous and reckless act. You're forcing cyclists into a stream of traffic. Anyone who parks in a cycle lane should be immediately arrested. It's a life and death issue.

And what about taxis? These guys think they can pull in whenever someone sticks their thumb out. People should only be allowed hail taxis at 'taxi points' - the same distance apart as bus stops. Not only would this make the streets safer, it would end the unfair scenario of people waiting at the ranks while some wag stands in the middle of the road with his hand out. When you're cycling along streets like Camden Street at night it's a nightmare: taxis pulling in and out in front of you; buses clipping at your saddle, cars zooming by at reckless speed. Cyclists are by far the most responsible road users compared to this lot.

Finally, central Dublin should be kitted out with a decent cycle lane network - I'm not talking about the one-foot-wide bit of red chalk the DCC paints on the road; I'm talking about stand-alone cycle lanes, seperated by kerb from the road; controlled by traffic lights.

If you want to see how the DCC treats cyclists, pay a visit to Bull Alley Street beside St Patrick's Park. There you'll find a 'bike traffic light' that shows green when the traffic is turning left into your path. The only miracle is the no-one has been killed by this deathtrap.

tk123

Stark wrote:

though they're just the blinker things so not sure how good they are really (

Them blinky ones are a bit crap - get some real lights Starky or you'll be killed!!! :eek:

OfflerCrocGod

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Who cares? Cyclists are allowed do whatever they like, and the rules of the road dont apply to them (not that I didnt know before but I found this out twice today, once as a pedestrian and once as a motorist).

Tell that to the fine I got cycling down an empty one way lane. There are more motorist fined compared to cyclists because cars are far more dangerous then bicycles and are also more numerous.

tribble

I cycle UCD - Foxrock everyday (well, Mon-Fri) irrespective of weather.

I always have lights (xenon front, led rear) 'cept when the batteries die (occassionally).

However, approx. twice a week I am forced to swerve to avoid a car which just pulls out in front of me - or the favourite one, the old cross the solid white lines on the cycletrack while turning left and slam into whatever cyclist happens to be going straight.

Nasty_Girl

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Who cares? Cyclists are allowed do whatever they like, and the rules of the road dont apply to them (not that I didnt know before but I found this out twice today, once as a pedestrian and once as a motorist).

And that's why they're so easy to crunch

tribble

Metrobest wrote:

But in places like Rathmines Road you have the vile situation of cars parking on the bike lane at night.. A deathtrap because it forces cyclists onto the road.

Seriously?
I get annoyed when they are protruding onto the cycle track as they come out of garages, shops ets.
I SLAM my open gloved palm down on their bonnet as I go past.

Metrobest wrote:

Car drivers should be driving VERY slowly at night, keeping an eye out for cyclists. It's not good enough to say, "The cyclist had no light so the driver is exonerated from all responsibility for his/her actions."

Nah, we should have
1/ the cycle tracks as a seperate lane, raised above the level of the road slightly (couple of centimeters, so you can feel youself crossing it in a car).
2/ proper FLAT cycle tracks (not dipping every 2 meters for driveways)
3/ well lit roads
4/ clear, continious right of ways - not a cycle lane painted in the bus lane, with breaks everytime the road engineer doesn't feel like trying.

Victor

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Not guilty

Ha, I'm Innocent.

murphaph

They take this kind of thing seriously in Munich....

http://www.toytownmunich.com/archive/001444.html

jetsonx

Murphaph, Very interesting article. I would love that to happen here !

murphaph

I would agree with you jetson but the cops over there have very little else to be doin' considering the extraordinarily low crime rate. Different story here though.

jetsonx

murphaph, I know what they are like in munchen alright..been there a few times...even at the most innnocuous events e.g. buskers playing slightly rowdy oommpah music they get one (or five) of those green and white vw vans full on cops on standby just in case they might riot...very efficient!

BrianD3

Metrobest wrote:

So long as there's an adequate cycling infrastructure it's okay to cycle without a light.

Eh, not it's not. Bicycles are vehicles and the rules of the road apply to them just as with other vehicles. You must have lights on your bike after dark, whether you're in a cycling lane or not is irrelevant.

Metrobest wrote:

But in places like Rathmines Road you have the vile situation of cars parking on the bike lane at night.. A deathtrap because it forces cyclists onto the road.

:rolleyes: Motorists parking illegally in the cycle lane has got nothing whatsoever to do with cyclists BREAKING THE LAW by cycling without lights.

Metrobest wrote:

And what about taxis? These guys think they can pull in whenever someone sticks their thumb out. People should only be allowed hail taxis at 'taxi points' - the same distance apart as bus stops. Not only would this make the streets safer, it would end the unfair scenario of people waiting at the ranks while some wag stands in the middle of the road with his hand out. When you're cycling along streets like Camden Street at night it's a nightmare: taxis pulling in and out in front of you; buses clipping at your saddle, cars zooming by at reckless speed. Cyclists are by far the most responsible road users compared to this lot

Again, we're talking about cyclists and lights and off you go on a tangent ranting about taxis, buses, people hailing taxis and bad road design. Just because other road users break the law doesn't mean that cyclists should neglect their responsibilities when it comes to lighting up. And to say that cyclists are "by far" the most responsible people on the road is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on boards in a while. If they were that responsible, they'd obey the law and have lights on their bikes, which a good proportion of them don't.

tribble wrote:

I get annoyed when they are protruding onto the cycle track as they come out of garages, shops ets.
I SLAM my open gloved palm down on their bonnet as I go past

So you suffer from road rage. The reason they protrude is to get a better view of the road as they pull out. No they shouldn't do it but often there will be other vehicles blocking the view so people will try to ease out into the traffic. Most road users understand this. Motorists pull out in front of other motorists all the time but you don't see many people getting out of their cars in a fit of rage and slamming their fist off bonnets or pulling mirrors/aeriels off cars. Yet this is the sort of vandalism that many thug cyclists think is perfectly acceptable.

BrianD3

rob1891

yeay thug cyclists. I'd also give the odd car a belt on the window or side when they deserve it. It's not like a cyclist has a horn available to them.

No lights is a bad idea, have my back light glued on to stop me forgetting it. Though I fear it might only frustrate vandals/thieves into doing proper damage to my bike when they come to nab the light :eek:

Metrobest

BrianD3 wrote:

You must have lights on your bike after dark, whether you're in a cycling lane or not is irrelevant.

Many's the time I've been been spotted by uniformed Gardai without a light on my bike. Nothing's been said. I think the gaurds have more to be doing than pestering innocent cyclists.

BrianD3 wrote:

Again, we're talking about cyclists and lights and off you go on a tangent ranting about taxis, buses, people hailing taxis and bad road design.

If we're talking about cyclists' safety I think it's fair comment to refer to road design. The only thing that can kill a cyclist is a car. Cyclists tend to be killed on the road - not in the cycle lane. So if the cycle lane is obstructed by parked cars and random taxis, cyclists' lives are endangered.

BrianD3 wrote:

So you suffer from road rage. . Motorists pull out in front of other motorists all the time but you don't see many people getting out of their cars in a fit of rage and slamming their fist off bonnets or pulling mirrors/aeriels off cars. Yet this is the sort of vandalism that many thug cyclists think is perfectly acceptable.

He's entitled to be angry when a car veers into his space and almost kills him. Cycle around Dublin at night and see how you'd feel.

MrPudding

Metrobest wrote:

....... innocent cyclists.

The law requires lights. If you do not have lights you are breaking the law, therefore you are not innocent. They probably don't say anything to you cos they reckon if you don't care enough about your own life why should they.

Cyclists are possibly the most vulnerable group on the roads. They share the road with car users, many of whom are assholes with little or no grasp of the rules of the road or even common courtesy, I’m sure I don’t need to point this out to most of you. Yeah it stinks but that is life . You need to look out for yourself if you decide that you don’t need lights cos the drivers should be driving slower at night then you are asking to get hit.

A cyclist friend of mine always tells me he would rather be alive than right. I think that is a good view. Perhaps you could ask your next of kin to get the words "But it was dark! He should have been driving slower so he could see cyclists without lights" on your gravestone.

MrP

Metrobest

MrPudding wrote:

The law requires lights. If you do not have lights you are breaking the law, therefore you are not innocent. They probably don't say anything to you cos they reckon if you don't care enough about your own life why should they.

Cyclists are possibly the most vulnerable group on the roads. They share the road with car users, many of whom are assholes with little or no grasp of the rules of the road or even common courtesy, I’m sure I don’t need to point this out to most of you. Yeah it stinks but that is life . You need to look out for yourself if you decide that you don’t need lights cos the drivers should be driving slower at night then you are asking to get hit.

A cyclist friend of mine always tells me he would rather be alive than right. I think that is a good view. Perhaps you could ask your next of kin to get the words "But it was dark! He should have been driving slower so he could see cyclists without lights" on your gravestone.

MrP

You have a point. Of course cyclists have to make sure they don't get hit. But I object to the issue being "why don't cyclists wear lights?" instead of: "why shouldn't drivers be more careful?"

If we're REALLY interested in cyclists' safety, why is Bertie's socialist government not providing FREE lights to every cyclist who wants one? The cost would be minimal, it would put a stop to vandals pinching lights, plus everyone would be kept safe. Then, the focus can be put 100 percent on weeding out all the rogue drivers who make cyclists' lives hell.

seamus

Metrobest wrote:

You have a point. Of course cyclists have to make sure they don't get hit. But I object to the issue being "why don't cyclists wear lights?" instead of: "why shouldn't drivers be more careful?"

Both issues are valid. But you can't claim that onus should be on drivers to be more careful just so that cyclists can choose to disobey the law.

If we're REALLY interested in cyclists' safety, why is Bertie's socialist government not providing FREE lights to every cyclist who wants one? The cost would be minimal, it would put a stop to vandals pinching lights, plus everyone would be kept safe. Then, the focus can be put 100 percent on weeding out all the rogue drivers who make cyclists' lives hell.

Because it's the law, not just a safety measure. By the same logic, why shouldn't the Government pay the cost of putting seat belts and lights on cars, and paying the cost of replacing tyres when they're worn down?
With the exception of walking, all forms of transport have costs inherent in them which must be paid in order to comply with the law. Whether these costs relate to safety measures is irrelevant.