Are you guilty ?

jetsonx

"my batteries died on the way into work the other day and i wouldnt cycle home. because i felt my safty was in danger..i now know as a driver i wouldnt see me so how can other driver"

Pinkchick, at last a cyclist with some humility and common sense. I can fully
empathise with you!...My fellow cyclists seem to have this arrogance...they have this attitude "look at me I am a cyclist...I am better than you...make room for me...get your stupid car out of the way"

As a avid cyclist and driver, unfortunately not every cyclist has your humilty and common sense.

CYCLISTS : YES YOU ARE GOOD ON A BIKE, YES IT IS HEALTHIER, YES IT IS
A VIABLE LONG-TERM ALTERNATIVE TO MOTORING BUT PLEASE GET A
F%&kIN LIIGHT. YOU CANNOT BE SEEN. EVEN THE MOST CAREFUL AND CONSCIENTOUS MOTORISTS CANNOT SEE YOU.

If every cyclist had the attitude of PC the road would be a lot safer place.


Go to www.wiggle.co.uk or any decent hardware store/cycle shop....lights are cheap...BELIEVE ME.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote:

Then we'll have to agree to disagree

So, you disagree with respectable research into the devastating effect of speed in accidents?

What are your reasons?

It's very strange how you excuse behaviour (speeding) that causes much death and injury while condemning behaviour that is less serious in effect (not having lights on a bike). I think your priorities are wrong and am very worried about how this might affect your driving.

seamus wrote:

Chalk has taken this one nicely.

Indeed, he has demonstrated that your assertion about cyclists breaking the law more than motorists is nonsense.

Chalk

dont drag me back into this, i argues your point was wrong, if you cant see that , maybe i should get some lights?

and since im here ill just mention that the next cyclist that wont use the walled off cycle path which extends almost the entire lenght of the road outside my house, while not wearing any lights and who, when he feels the need to cross the road, does so without looking , indicating or even caring that hes cylcing headfirst in to a motorcycle doing 35mph will be the victim of a non speeding related or carelss driving accident, perhaps i wont stop dangerously quickly in wet conditions, putting my life at risk.
ill just say i dint see him until it was too late.

believe me i have the utmost regard for cyclists, in a kind of two wheel bond , when i see a cyclist getting passed dangerously by cars, ill slow down to let him manouver, i know how dangerous it is to be less than a foot wide in dublin city, i completely understand how being unable to keep pace with a car adds exponentially to that risk, what i dont understand is why cyclist continue to maximise that risk for themselves and then blame the problem on reckless drivers.

chalk

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

So, you disagree with respectable research into the devastating effect of speed in accidents?

What are your reasons?

It's very strange how you excuse behaviour (speeding) that causes much death and injury while condemning behaviour that is less serious in effect (not having lights on a bike). I think your priorities are wrong and am very worried about how this might affect your driving.

I had a similar debate with someone else before. I perfectly accept that the faster you go, the more devastating the accident. That however, is irrelevant. I've yet to see any research that proves that minor infringments of the limits (where conditions allow) *cause* more accidents.

uberwolf

I went for the last two years without a front light on my bike, reasoning that I wouldn't get hit from behind and being super concious of potential on coming. I'd get off and walk through a junction if there were cars. Was sick of teh lights being robbed from my bike was why I did it.
Driving this past month has taught me some.

I've been hit by cars plenty of times. Once my fault. Always in daylight, three times in a bike lane. No theme to the accidents - except that they were invariably avoidable.

Once had a a truck driver laugh at me after I had dived out from under his wheels, I'd only dodged because I was super concious of the potential after hearing about that poor woman screaming under the wheels of a truck on Westmoreland St. Stuck his finger up at me just so I wouldn't doubt his priorties.
I've had a bus brush my elbow the entire length of it's body. Bike lanes have been designed in this city to fulfill a quota not requirements.


Everyones attitudes suck cos we're all in a rush home. If we weren't all rushing then we'd all make it. Seeing as we do everyday someone doesn't make it home.

daymobrew

First off, I have/use lights (front, back, ankle and helmet) and wear reflective stuff. I also stop at lights.

A suggestion for other cyclists:
I also have a mirror on my right handlebar. Zefal Dooback (15 euro in CycleWays)
http://www.zefal.com/AAA/produitFrame.php?refPage=470&languePage=an
I've had one for 10 years now. It's a godsend. A quick glance keeps me informed of threats from behind. It folds in (like a car mirror) with minimal effort so if you strike something it'll give before anything else.

I also carry a pen and tiny notepad on my bag (in a mobile phone pouch). Bad driving gets noted (breaking lights, not yielding at roundabouts that I am on [or driving on the wrong side of the road like a Govt Merc was the other day]). I later phone or call the local Garda station. For the most part they are very helpful and will have a word with the driver.

Everyones attitudes suck cos we're all in a rush home.

I have to agree with this. I know that I am not very tolerant because of a combination of being in a rush, and relentless bad driver behaviour.
On the other size, if a driver moves over a few feet to give me more room to pass I will acknowledge with a wave as I pass. We must encourage those noticing cyclists.

Calina

Metrobest said:

Well when I see people dressed up like a tacky christmas tree, lights flashing and reflector-jacket twinkling I do think that's silly. Because at the end of the day, no matter how visible you are, all it takes is one irresponsible driver to knock you down. I would have no problem with the government giving out free "safety gear" if is found that this reduces cyclist road deaths (last year there were 18, I believe) For me, this is the bottom line: the biggest danger on the road for a cyclist is bad drivers, and I think the road death statistics bear this out.

The biggest danger on the roads for all road users are irresponsible road users, regardless of what they are using the road for, be it cycling, driving, or walking.

And frankly, not making yourself visible on a road is IRRESPONSIBLE. Admittedly you're a greater danger to yourself if you're a cyclist than you are to some poor idiot in a car who will never get over the shock of killing someone in an avoidable accident because they couldn't see him or her in the dark.

The onus is not just on drivers of motorised vehicles to behave responsibly. The onus is on ALL road users to act responsibly. Being a cyclist does not absolve you of this obligation. I'm really annoyed to think that your point of view appears to be "I don't want to look silly cycling my bike, what with my hi-vis jacket, this flashing light, that flashing light, whatever". It's not a responsible attitude at all.

Cyclists have far less protection in the case of an accident. They don't have nice crumple zones, or airbags. If I were cycling, I'd be personally maximising my chances of being seen in the dark, and not crashing red lights - as the vast majority of cyclists I see do (speaking as a pedestrian and a driver) - rather than arguing the toss about whether it statistically reduces your chance of being killed or not. And frankly, I don't think it's the responsibility of the government to give you free safety related equipment. You want to get up on that bike, then it's your responsibility to acquire and use equipment to maximise your chances of avoiding an altercation with a car or a truck or a van. I don't expect a police officer to come and physically put on my safety belt for me. I do it myself because I know that if I have an accident (not guaranteed but always a possibility), I might just save my life. I am upping the odds in my favour. Whether I look silly or not is really not a consideration. There is such a thing as personal responsibility too.

Victor

A corruption

The biggest danger in the banks for all bank users are irresponsible bank users, regardless of what they are using the bank for, be it customer, staff, or bank robber.

And frankly, not wearing body armour in a bank is IRRESPONSIBLE. Admittedly you're a greater danger to yourself if you're a customer than you are to some poor bank robber who will never get over the shock of killing someone in an avoidable accident because they couldn't shoot them safely.

The onus is not just on bank robbers to behave responsibly. The onus is on ALL bank users to act responsibly. Being a customer does not absolve you of this obligation. I'm really annoyed to think that your point of view appears to be "I don't want to look silly lodging my money, what with my flak jacket, kevlar helmet, burn proof mask, whatever". It's not a responsible attitude at all.

mackerski

Victor wrote:

A corruption

Not clever. So all drivers are inherently evil and are therefore the source of all problems? Hard to see any basis for a civilised discussion here - somebody just change the bank-robber analogy above to something in jackboots and we can invoke Godwin's law and save ourselves the effort.

Dermot

PS: A pleasant weekend to any of the law-abiding cyclists that I don't manage to run down in cold blood cackling as I go.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote:

I've yet to see any research that proves that minor infringments of the limits (where conditions allow) *cause* more accidents.

The big question is 'what is a minor infringement'?

Many, selfishly, decide for themselves.

More importantly, what happens when a minor infringement, such as a driver deciding not to bother with an inconvenient speed limit, coincides with an error of judgement by someone else.

I think the whole idea of having rules, some of which, on their own, appear to be unnecessary or pointless, is to provide a safety margin within which everyone can use the streets in safety.

Then there's the question of which breaches should be policed the most. So far, the motorist side refuses to accept that the effects of wanton behaviour by members of its community are far more serious than the stupidity of some cyclists & pedestrians.