Are you guilty ?

Metrobest

seamus wrote:

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.

"Because it's the law" is such a mindless statement. It's about whether or not the government wants to prevent road deaths. Cycling is supposed to be a cheap and easy form of transport. At the moment it's neiher of these things: a light alone costs ten Euro.

So, you can chant your mindless mantra, or do something practical to make cyclists' lives easier, which in my mind, from experience in Amsterdam, is:

- No road junction should be complete without provisions for cyclists fully seperating bikes from cars.

- Laws regarding cycle lanes to be implemented with vigour; not becuse it's "the law" - because it "stops people dying"

- Free safety gear for all cyclists, and tax breaks for purchasing new bikes. Free bikes for all kids under 16. (this would do a lot to tackle obesity!)

Stark

- No road junction should be complete without provisions for cyclists fully seperating bikes from cars.

- Laws regarding cycle lanes to be implemented with vigour; not becuse it's "the law" - because it "stops people dying"

Agreed. The rest of your suggestions about free bikes etc. aren't practical I'm afraid.

A bike is still a cheap form of transport compared to the alternatives. A good city bike can be picked up for €100, a little extra for accessories. When you compare that to the cost of a motorised vehicle (both capital and running costs), it's dirt cheap. (Thank god you don't need to insure a bicycle!)

cyclopath2001

Not guilty myself, I sometimes light up during the day too, if conditions demand it.

I certainly have seen cyclists with no lights. Many are kids & I hope motorists will not act as judge, jury & executioner.

C:\

mackerski

the_syco wrote:

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 do a similar thing when the last headlamp bulb on my car blows. I just pull into the cycle lane and keep the speed down a bit. Don't see any snag there...

Dermot

Neil_Sedaka

I'm a motorist meself and what I hate is when it's dark, sometimes I don't bother using any lights at all on me car (only in the suburbs though, where it's safe) and a cyclist who doesn't see me swerves madly to avoid me, almost hitting me like!! WTF like? I chase after them and smack their carrier or mudguard, feckin eegits! Open yer feckin eyes will ya! :mad:

rob1891

mackerski, how very humorous of you, taking what syco wrote, about cycling on the path and intelligently transposing the concept to driving in the cycle lane. It's that kind of fine literary wit and talent that makes boards the dwelling of the kings of educated Irish society.

And Neil! Wow, you too, it's great, how you did exactly what mackerski did but with a piece of my/tribble's post and a piece of another post. Like diversifying or something. Gee, what fine young men we have here. Bravo! Both of you have really pointed out how silly us cyclists are and how we don't deserve to be let on the road, and really how you are justified in killing 10 or 20 of us each year. I am sure we all appreciate you contribution to the thread.

How funny you are to parody me chasing someone down and smacking away a their mudguard! Maybe you didn't notice, but I mentioned something about a horn in my post. Something you have right in the middle of your steering wheel, used gratuitously in crazy places like Dublin or 'New' York to signal frustration at another road users behaviour (and on occasion to warn of hazards and other trifling little things).

Now, some cyclists will have a comparable ringy bell attached to their steering wheel. I don't want to go into battle of the sexes or prejudice, but they are mostly girls, under the age of 5. Alas most of us do not have these and even if we did, they are not all that comparable to a car horn and it is very unlikely that the tinkling of our bell would penetrate the glass of your car windows. So, how does a cyclist express his frustration at another road user's behaviour?

Well, the voice may perhaps be a little louder than the tinkly bell, but it won't roar over the din of your engines and through to the little windshielded havens you sit in.

Then there are the hand gestures, but they're mostly futile as the common reason for dissatisfaction with a motoring road user is that the cyclist has not been seen in the first place. (Maybe if they had lights, har har.)

So what is left is the admittedly curt and impolite smack on the side panel or bonnet or window. This will certainly will get the drivers attention, and when he has worked out that it wasn't the roll of a body and bike beneath his axles, the realisation that it could have been might have him pause for thought, and be more cautious and aware of cyclists at that particular spot on the road in future. Though highly unlikely, as I said, like the horn on a car, the purpose is to express frustration and it achieves little else, but you keep honking away and we keep lashing at side panels.

Anyway, I hope I don't come across wrong, as I really do think both you guys are about the greatest guys ever for highlighting the nonsense in this thread. Use lights kids, you don't want to get run down!

Neil_Sedaka

Nah, you're right, but seriously kiddies, wear a light
Hope that's intelligent enough for ye

cyclopath2001

Neil_Sedaka wrote:

Nah, you're right, but seriously kiddies, wear a light
Hope that's intelligent enough for ye

In the interests of safety and of adhering to the law, I think people should know that WEARING a light does not satisfy the law. The lights must be secured to the bicycle, not the cyclist.

I'd add that I've seen people on bikes wearing lights, these lights are not very effective as they do not always point in the right direction.

Parents should make sure that their children's bicycles are properly equipped.

C:\

seamus

Metrobest wrote:

"Because it's the law" is such a mindless statement. It's about whether or not the government wants to prevent road deaths. Cycling is supposed to be a cheap and easy form of transport. At the moment it's neiher of these things: a light alone costs ten Euro.

TEN EURO?! That's nothing. Pittance.

So, you can chant your mindless mantra, or do something practical to make cyclists' lives easier, which in my mind, from experience in Amsterdam, is:

You're skirting around the topic. "Mindless mantra" is not exactly the right phrase. I never commented on the need for better cycle facilities, so don't assume for a second that I think everything is hunky dory. However, poor facilities are no excuse for breaking the law. All road users must obey the law uniformly, or nothing works. Cyclists can hardly complain about dangerous drivers, and then advocate not using lights. It's hypocrasy.

All of the cycle networks and driver training in the world will still not make it safe to cycle without lights. That's the issue here.

BrianD3

And Neil! Wow, you too, it's great, how you did exactly what mackerski did but with a piece of my/tribble's post and a piece of another post. Like diversifying or something. Gee, what fine young men we have here. Bravo! Both of you have really pointed out how silly us cyclists are and how we don't deserve to be let on the road, and really how you are justified in killing 10 or 20 of us each year. I am sure we all appreciate you contribution to the thread.

Getting a bit defensive there aren't you. You sure you're not suffering from the same persecution complex as Metrobest?

I love it how everyone else (the government, taxis, people hailing taxis, buses, motorists) are responsible for the terrible plight of the poor downtrodden cyclist who can't afford 10 euros to put a light on his bike :rolleyes:

Tip for you guys: try to be a bit more reasonable when stating your point of view, that way people might actually pay attention to what you say. Oh, and it might be wise to invest in and read a copy of the Rules of the Road while you're at it.

BrianD3

Metrobest

Imagine if each road had two lanes: the inside lane for 'supertrucks', the outside lane for cars.

Might work fine, you'd think. But then imagine that the supertrucks were allowed weave into the car lane to drop off goods, to park, or even to turn left at junctions. Worse, the car lane would end suddenly at random points, forcing cars into a stream of fast-moving trucks. And on smaller roads there would be no car lane at all, so cars would have to keep close to the kerb as trucks passed by.

That is, in practice, what cyclists endure on a daily basis: lanes obstructed by parked cars, cycle lanes that end suddenly, junctions with no provisions for the humble cyclist.

Some people on this forum would have you believe cyclists are irresponsible. Untrue. Dealing with such awful conditions, the only miracle is that more cyclists aren't being knocked down.

The present system relies on cyclists' intuition to know which road position to take. Let me single our Nassau Street as a deathtrap. Bikes have to move from the kerbside, to the outside lane, to the inside lane again, negotiating a convoy of double deckers pulling and and out of the bus stops that line the street. And now there's talk of putting the LUAS into this jungle.

Metrobest

BrianD3 wrote:

I love it how everyone else (the government, taxis, people hailing taxis, buses, motorists) are responsible for the terrible plight of the poor downtrodden cyclist
BrianD3

That's because they ARE responsible. That's what governments do: they make laws. You obviously don't give a fig about cyclists' safety, so long as they mindlessly dress up as christmas trees so that you can have a laugh at how 'downtrodden' they are.

BrianD3

Metrobest, yet again you're going off topic. We're talking about LIGHTS ON BICYCLES. Not parked cars, not lorries, not motorist being as*holes, not poor road design.

Put a bloody light on your bike front and rear. Make sure you have a rear reflector and pedal reflectors and wear a reflective vest. Once you've done all that *then* come back and complain about other problems on the road but not before because any points you make are invalid while you persist with this irresponsible "I don't need any lights" attitude.
:rolleyes:

AndrewMc

cyclopath2001 wrote:

In the interests of safety and of adhering to the law, I think people should know that WEARING a light does not satisfy the law. The lights must be secured to the bicycle, not the cyclist.

Remember, though, that a longish coat may be obscuring your rear light.

A few years ago I came across some Gardaí on Pearse St. checking tax/insurance, but they also stopped me to check for lights. His words: "Front light, back light and a helmet? I'm impressed." I asked about the blinking/not-blinking legalities bit, and I think he said that they weren't too bothered about it, so long as you had something that made you visible.

So to continue the argument - what are people's opinions on helmets (should they be mandatory?)? I clipped a kerb in the wet once, and I still vividly remember the whack my head got . Without the helmet I'd have been in serious trouble.

bringitdown

Should cyclists ensure they have adequate lights at night?
Yes no argument there, infrastructure or not.
Not wearing lights and being killed as a result is no way to draw attention to the lack of cycling infrastructure.

Do I have said lights attached to bicycle?
Yes.

Do many cyclists not have said lights?
Yes; and they run a much larger risk than the already significant risk lighted cyclists have accepted as soon as the swing their leg over the bar.

Should we restart this thread under the catch all name of - "Safety and Infrastructure for Cycling / Cyclists"?
Yes.

seamus

Metrobest wrote:

The present system relies on cyclists' intuition to know which road position to take. Let me single our Nassau Street as a deathtrap. Bikes have to move from the kerbside, to the outside lane, to the inside lane again, negotiating a convoy of double deckers pulling and and out of the bus stops that line the street. And now there's talk of putting the LUAS into this jungle.

Every system relies on a driver's intuition as regards road positioning, acceleration, deceleration, indication, observation. Every driver has to negotiate in and out of traffic lanes, cyclists are no victim here. Cyclists are part of our road traffic. They don't have a dedicated system, so deal with it. By all means lobby for such a system, but for the moment, what we have is what you're stuck with. If you don't like it, don't use it. Just because what we have isn't ideal, doesn't give anyone a right to disregard or abuse its rules.

Many cyclists *are* irresponsible, I don't know how for a second you can claim that they aren't. Cycling through red lights, weaving around pedestrians, in the city centre bicycle couriers are a menace. All traffic types have their bad apples, but non-compliance is much higher in cyclists and pedestrians than other road users. There's no point in putting on the rose-tinted glasses just because they're soft and squishable.

On the topic of horns - I remember a few years ago seeing a bicycle courier with a whistle in his mouth. Every time he was about to be pulled out in front of, he gave it a sharp blow, and everyone heard him. Great idea.

Metrobest

bringitdown wrote:

Not wearing lights and being killed as a result is no way to draw attention to the lack of cycling infrastructure.Yes.

Tragically, in Ireland it seems to be the ONLY way of drawing attention to it. Look at how the Wellington Quay incident focused attention on the safety of city centre bus termini.

My argument is the cycling infrastructure is so bad, it matters very little what levels of precautions a cyclist takes, for whether with no light or dressed up like a christmas tree, he/she probably stands the same chance of being killed by an irresponsible car driver.

Metrobest

seamus wrote:

Every system relies on a driver's intuition as regards road positioning, acceleration, deceleration, indication, observation. Every driver has to negotiate in and out of traffic lanes, cyclists are no victim here.
On the topic of horns - . Great idea.

Bikes are entirely different mode of transport to cars. Fundamentally different. One has an engine, seats several, drives with speed. The other has two wheels, carries one, is (relatively) safe and goes far slower. Fundamentally different.

I wouldn't approve of cyclists blowing into shrill whistles. The bike's bell is a perfect tool to clear wayward pedestrians from the road.

seamus

Metrobest wrote:

Bikes are entirely different mode of transport to cars. Fundamentally different. One has an engine, seats several, drives with speed. The other has two wheels, carries one, is (relatively) safe and goes far slower. Fundamentally different.

I'm talking about all vehicles, not just cars. The mode of transport is irrelevant, they're all fundamentally the same - they are a form of locomotion to get you from A to B. Roads are a way of easing that locomotion, and for the public safety all vehicles must use the road to get from A to B.

I wouldn't approve of cyclists blowing into shrill whistles. The bike's bell is a perfect tool to clear wayward pedestrians from the road.

Wayward pedestrians are only one of the types of road user that a cyclist frequently needs to make aware of his prescence, and the least lethal.

Sarsfield

Cycling without lights is very dangerous to pedestrians. A bicycle is invisible if it is approaching alongside a car with its lights on.

I've had a few close shaves crossing the road (with the pedestrian lights in my favour!), when an unlit bicycle emerged from between a couple of cars and carried on through the pedestrian crossing.

mackerski

rob1891 wrote:

mackerski, how very humorous of you, taking what syco wrote, about cycling on the path and intelligently transposing the concept to driving in the cycle lane. It's that kind of fine literary wit and talent that makes boards the dwelling of the kings of educated Irish society.

You know, I like to avoid taking this kind of stuff too seriously. However, there's a nasty bitterness about this post, though I'm glad to see that the inexcusable abuse has now been edited away. It's a serious topic. Arguably, more serious than many cycling advocates seem to have been treating it.

So, lest there be any confusion about the point I was trying to make, let me make my position clear. I own a car. I also own a bike, though I find it ill-suited to my particular mobility needs. I drive pretty short distances, and rarely contribute to the rush hour. The car I drive is subject to some pretty stringent laws, in the face of which I knuckle down and do what's required of me. If I don't, I stand a good chance of prosecution.

In my post, I attempted to point out the foolishness of the "if I have no light I stay on the footpath" logic. Nothing more. I didn't criticise car-whacking when cars step out of line - in fact, I have sympathy with this sanction in the case of gross muppetry, and have done so myself on a few occasions when a car nearly ran me down on a pedestrian crossing. As a pedestrian, of course, I also have some pretty clear views about unlit cyclists on footpaths, hence my post. We can all, I assume, agree that no vehicle has the right to endanger a more vulnerable road/footpath user than itself, especially if travelling unlit in the hours of darkness and most particularly if using a pathway illegal for that class of vehicle.

rob1891 wrote:

Now, some cyclists will have a comparable ringy bell attached to their steering wheel. I don't want to go into battle of the sexes or prejudice, but they are mostly girls, under the age of 5. Alas most of us do not have these[...]

You're suggesting that most adults cycle racing bikes, according to the interpretation of article 93 of this act?:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI190Y1963.html#ZZSI190Y1963A93

Perhaps your bike is a racer. Perhaps you consider this a useful way of getting over the obligation to have a bell. For years, various classes of vehicle were expempt from having seat belts. It didn't make them any safer, though. As a pedestrian who may need to know you're approaching some time (especially if you're from the "all your footpaths are belong to us" brigade"), I'd be a lot happier if you'd fit a bell and sound the bloody thing from time to time.

Dermot

Jivin Turkey

I was more trying to indicate that many cyclists dont think that the rules of the road apply to them.

I almost got flattened while crossing the road this morning coming around the corner at the end of Nassau Street and the back gate of Trinity today by a cyclist going full pelt through the lights. He held out his hand and barked at me, and then proceeded to further bark at me when I told him to watch the **** where he was going. Not the first cyclist Ive had a run in with coming in/going out of that back entrance to Trinity, either as a motorist or pedestrian.

beans

I have a horn attached to the front of my bike. It gives off a high-pitched police-siren style blast at 120DB at 1 yard, and is quite audible to pedestrians and motorists alike.

A quick search of the internet reveals http://www.onlinesports.com/pages/I,MW-AZBK001.html and the one i have is probably out there too. They're a good idea, and frighten the sheite out of dopes who wander out in front of you without checking whats coming.

Victor

beans wrote:

I have a horn attached to the front of my bike. It gives off a high-pitched police-siren style blast at 120DB at 1 yard, and is quite audible to pedestrians and motorists alike. A quick search of the internet reveals http://www.onlinesports.com/pages/I,MW-AZBK001.html and the one i have is probably out there too. They're a good idea, and frighten the sheite out of dopes who wander out in front of you without checking whats coming.

Isn't the requirement for a bell?

FX Meister

I'm amazed at the amount of cyclists who don't have lights on their bikes but still wear helmets. Maybe they realise they need the helmets seeing as they don't have lights

HJ Simpson

O.K.
as someone who has commuted by bike for the past 13 years and still do. I also drive. Fact is there are idiots in drivers who think cyclist should somehow dissappear if they pull up beside them and put on their indicators. Only the laws of physics work against this. There are also idiot cyclist who think that riding in stealth mode i.e. no lights or high vis clothing is acceptable which its not. Neither is the ongoing saga I witness daily as I stop at traffic lights only to see cyclist fly past me straight through red lights.
Cycling at night even with a light without high visability clothing makes you practically invisible to a motorist particularly when its wet. Not the motorist fault if he/she doesnt see you if you have no lights & reflective clothing its yours.

Rant over!
HJ Simpson

jetsonx

well said HJ...

even coming home dis evening I saw some of our "stealth cyclist" friends....
in the mirror they appear as a f*"king shadow ?

Sure there will always be the time when your battery dies or when you simply
forget your lights but I get the impression there are some out there who do
do this on a continual basis.

Hj, your comment about the h v clothing is apt as well.

Metrobest

HJ Simpson wrote:

O.K.
as someone who has commuted by bike for the past 13 years and still do. I also drive. Fact is there are idiots in drivers who think cyclist should somehow dissappear if they pull up beside them and put on their indicators. Only the laws of physics work against this. There are also idiot cyclist who think that riding in stealth mode i.e. no lights or high vis clothing is acceptable which its not. Neither is the ongoing saga I witness daily as I stop at traffic lights only to see cyclist fly past me straight through red lights.
Cycling at night even with a light without high visability clothing makes you practically invisible to a motorist particularly when its wet. Not the motorist fault if he/she doesnt see you if you have no lights & reflective clothing its yours.

Rant over!
HJ Simpson

Personally I wouldn't break a red light but I understand why some cyclists do. At certain junctions pedstrians get a green but cars get a red; for ten seconds or so there is no traffic coming in the cyclist's path, so I can see why one would be tempted...By going a few seconds' earlier than the cars, one can get into a better lane position (for example: the bridge at Wood Quay turning right onto the North Quays). Stop blaming cyclists: blame the woefully-inadequate provisions on our roads for cyclists.

All traffic lights should be fitted out with seperate "bicycle" lights; the norm in Holland. And the bicycle light at junction Bull Alley Street/Bride Street has GOT to be fixed. It shows green when it should be red, and vice versa!

Neil_Sedaka

Tonight I had my two pet hates coverge into an almost fatal episode.
I'm driving up Upper Rathmines Road, a car comes towards me with his LHS headlight half working and his RHS headlight fcuking blinding me.

Then, as I'm passing said motorist and trying to see where his lane ends and mine begins I notice some idiot, assohle on a bike, four inches from my bumper with no lights or reflectors and dressed in.....................wait for it...........................a black jacket and jeans!!

After locking up my wheels, waking my sleeping child and causing me near heart failure, the cnut gives me the finger and whilst still shaking his head cycles through the red light on Dartry road, only to be blown away by some other motorist coming form the opposite direction!!!!!

Please people, you have to realise that motorists can't see you, as well as you see them, sometimes, as above, you are totally invisable.

jetsonx

I cannot believe there is massive campaign against smoking...yes it is harmful and can kill people - YET cycling without a light well that can only kill you INSTANTANEOUSLY ... - why is there not a campaign about this? Where are all the health and safety folks when it comes to this issue?

One poster mentioned how in one German city (Munich) there are spotchecks on the cycle lanes there for cyclists without a light...if any of our force are reading this please take note.

N S -> guy with black jeans and jacket cycling and no lights - smart guy...