Am I a bold cyclist?

pokypoky

I was told I'd be shunned by the boards cycling community for posting my degenerate cycling habits up here but I think its relatively normal to be honest.

I've been cycling about 4 years and generally dont wear a helmet, have no lights and occasionally break the traffic lights when its safe enough. I personally dont see anything wrong with any of these things, do you?

cyclopath2001

pokypoky wrote:

I've been cycling about 4 years and generally dont wear a helmet, have no lights and occasionally break the traffic lights when its safe enough. I personally dont see anything wrong with any of these things, do you?

Well, the last two are illegal & gets us bad press.

I cannot think of any valid reason not having lights at night, they're so affordable these days, quite light & the batteries last for weeks.

Helmets are a personal choice based on comfort and risk. Many motorists & pedestrians choose not to wear them.

mackerski

You could ease your conscience a little by carrying a signed note exonorating the motorist that runs you down at night from all blame. It's the least you could do to ease the guilt he'd be feeling. And of course, it'll never happen anyway ;-)

Dermot

tywy

i know boards cyclists are gonna hate me too, although I wear a helmet and use lights at night, I will always break a red light if it is safe to do so...generally at T junctions where I'm on the main part and me breaking the light has little effect on the motorists turning right onto this main road. I know I'm a bold cyclist...but there are lots more bold motorists out there :P

blorg

Helmet is a personal choice.

Lights you need if cycling at night and there really is no excuse. You are a hazard not just to yourself but to other road users and that includes other cyclists.

As for running red lights "when its safe enough"; hmm, it's still illegal and I stop at a hell of a lot more than most cyclists myself but if it was a left turn and there genuinely wasn't any oncoming traffic (or crossing pedestrians) then I would not be going gaga on that one.

XJR

pokypoky wrote:

dont wear a helmet, have no lights and occasionally break the traffic lights when its safe enough

With out lecturing (well onlly slightly) there really is no excuse for not having lights particularly at this time of year. But why is it that when a cyclist breaks lights its ok and not when a car driver does it? No seriously why ?

Having said all that I drive a motor bike and I frequently use the (motor)cycle lane, always park on the pavement outside the place I'm visting and sometimes I drive under the speed limit - tho I never break lights.

tywy

motorcycle lane! HAH! There's a picture of a PUSHbike in the frickin lane. That's one thing I hate, when a motorbike/moped cuts in front of you in the cycle lane to overtake a car on the inside...I SHAKE MY FIST AT THOSE WEAVING BASTÁRDS!

Cyclists who break lights generally cause no inconvenience to the traffic with the green light is the thing...cyclists are smaller than cars and motorcyclists. Most cyclists who break red lights have decent enough judgment to know they can't break a red light through a crossroads :P

blorg

XJR- I can't believe you would ask such a question and then talk about the "(motor)cycle lane." Join Date: Oct 2006 ... Posts: 5 ... do i smell troll...

EDIT: Apart from that, agree largely with tywy, I would suggest that when it is acceptable it is for the same reason that we don't go bananas in this country over a pedestrian crossing on a red if there is no traffic.

johnnyrotten

Breaking red lights is breaking the law. If every road user was to do this there would be traffic chaos

tywy

I don't argue with that but people break the law to suit themselves all the time.

For example, the roads would be in chaos if everyone travelled at 50km/hr in the 50km/hr zones. I'm not saying drive crazily or anything but most traffic travels safely about 10km/hr over the speed limit. Otherwise the traffic in Dublin would be crap at all times of the day.

cunnins4

I just got home from my gf's house, having left from college at about 5.30. I didn't expect to be coming home in the dark and so i didn't have my lights with me, although the front one was still in the bracket so I had that with me so at least I had something.

*Cycling without lights is pretty dumb, but that's your own choice - i try to have them with me all the time.

*Helmets are your own choice too - i don't wear one either.

*Breaking lights is (imo) ok, provided you don't interfere with traffic / pedestrians. I only do it when i'm 100% sure it's safe and I'm not gonna endanger anyone, including myself.

I personally think that the above aren't the worst things a cyclist can do. On the way to my gf's earlier, I was in absolute rush hour traffic, and the amount of absolutely dreadful cyclists out there is unreal.

I think being a more skilled cyclist really improves overall safety for everyone - today i came up behind a group of people on bikes, many with full gear (helmets/hi vis vests yada yada yada) and despite all this stuff - weaving in and out of the cycle lane because they just can't cycle properly.

Another thing is cyclists overtaking one another. I understand that it's a fitness thing to many (as a triathlete I do tend to go quite fast sometimes) and being overtaken spurs people into lashing back and proving their mustard, but when someone darts past you but can't keep the pace and then sits infront of you and just obstructs you is plain stupid and dangerous.

Tailgating - another bad habit that many cyclists are prone to. The group i mentioned above had 3 in a row, less than 1/2 a foot between front and rear wheels, in traffic that was stop and go the whole way. Just dangerous again.

Cycling in the wrong gear seems to be a big problem as some guys just don't have the strength to push it that hard, and end up using their upper body to push the bike, and generally they end up wobbling all over the place. There's nothing wrong with spinning the gears, and it's better for your fitness anyways, so don't wobble so much.

My final moan is about lads at traffic lights who have decided to stop and obey the law, but go around you, sit and wait in front of you until the light goes green, but when it does, barely move, obstruct you and the following traffic. That's really irritating, and again dangerous.

Sorry for the long rant, I just hate seeing stupid cyclists because they give us all a bad name.

tywy

I understand you completely...cycling in the wrong gear and pulling the handlebars from side to side to accelerate irritates me to no end! As do the people pulling in front of me at the green light. I think it's more annoying if you've just overtaken them like 2 mins previous

kinaldo

pokypoky wrote:

I was told I'd be shunned by the boards cycling community for posting my degenerate cycling habits up here but I think its relatively normal to be honest.

Honesty is great, but of course you forgot to mention the time u knocked over an old lady and injured her dog.

pokypoky

Kinaldo i think you will find I posted that one on the "it completely wasnt my fault" forum. And i didnt injure the dog I injured the old lady to clarify. But anyway that is not the point.

Does anyone here think its ever correct to vandalise cars parked needlessly in cycle lanes, ive got to say I've been tempted at times right after ive had to swerve out of the way into speeding traffic, infuritaing.

tywy

did you really need to swerve to dodge a parked car?!?

it's annoying that they are there but you can see them in time enough not to swerve :P

vasch_ro

pokypoky wrote:

I've been cycling about 4 years and generally dont wear a helmet, have no lights and occasionally break the traffic lights when its safe enough. I personally dont see anything wrong with any of these things, do you?[/QUOTE

Because Irish people take such a cavalier attitude to road safety and road traffic law we have 420 odd fatalities every year

rubadub

I do have lights, and do break lights the odd time, I break the same lights I would as if I was a pedestrian. The reason? because I can get away with it! gets me to my destination quicker and I do not think I am posing any threat.

I also cycle on some footpaths where I would personally deem it safer for me, and the cars, if a pedestrian is passing me I stop completely. There are many footpaths like this and that is why I presume they scrapped the idea of on the spot fine for cycling on paths. If I was to cycle on some roads I could imagine the gardai actually wishing I was breaking the law.

Cyclists are unlikely to be stopped and pedestrians are even less likely. I bet the majority the cycling non-light breakers have broken the traffic laws while using a different mode of transport, namely their feet.

skidpatches

It all depends on why you're not doing these things. Cyclists hate being forced to do anything, especially wearing foam lids. If you're not wearing one because you feel safer or just as safe without one, then fair enough. If you're wearing one to be a rebel, then I'd question the sense in that.

When it comes to lights, again you could be doing it to be anti authority or whatever. I have a really bright light setup because it allows me to be more confident and assertive on the road at night, and cycle more like I can during the day. I can be more sure that cars can see me. I don't really care whether I'm legally obliged to have lights - they make my cycling life better.

As for breaking red lights, well this is a contentious one. I personally don't see the point in sticking to the letter of the law - braking, sitting and waiting in a perfectly safe place. I break a few red lights on the way to work.

To be honest there is a huge difference between a car breaking the law in small ways, and a cyclist doing the same. A cyclist breaking a red light is mainly a danger to himself - he might get himself killed, but he's unlikely to kill anyone else. A car breaking a red light is a danger to himself, his passengers, and all other road users. A cyclist (unless listening to an ipod) is more tuned in to their senses, while a car driver has his senses muted by being enclosed as well as the noise of radio, mobile phone, screamin kids, etc.

I know I'm being hypocrytical in being a cyclist that demands rights akin to car users, but only pedestrian level responsibility.

Cycling on footpaths - now that's just pointless, as well as being inconsiderate and intimidating to pedestrians.

blorg

cunnins4 wrote:

*Cycling without lights is pretty dumb, but that's your own choice - i try to have them with me all the time.

This is wrong, it's NOT just "your own choice," you are endangering other road users by not using them. Motorists can't see you and as a result may need to swerve suddenly putting themselves and whatever they may swerve into at risk. Other cyclists can't see you and as a result may hit you or need to swerve suddenly. And pedestrians can't see you and may walk out in front of you.

If you didn't expect to be out, fine, happens to us all, but just try to have them next time. I find just leaving the lights on the bike all the time during the winter is easiest.

Helmets ARE your own choice, you're not going to effect anyone except yourself by having them or not.

youcancallmeal

Do I use lights at night? Yes
Do I wear a helmet? No
Do I break red lights? Yes

I've been cycling in and out of the city centre from the suburbs for the the last 6/7 years now. I've had my fair share of accidents but I've never caused one or hurt another person while cycling. I like to think I'm a fairly experienced cyclist and when I do break red lights its generally only at lights I'm familiar with and I know there is no risk of putting myself in danger or other road users.

Only this morning I was going through a T-Junction I go through everyday and I broke the light. It was perfectly safe and there was no cars coming from my rights hand side (It was still illegal I know!) Anyway there was this guy on a Honda 50 at the lights who saw me and starting roaring shouting :eek:
100 meters up the road and I'm in the cycling lane and he's right up my arse shouting away and beeping his horn like a mad man. I tried to let him by even though there wasnt enough room and he shouldnt have been in the cycling lane, so I pulled over altogether and he stops aswell and starts calling me all sorts of names. At this stage I'm thinking this guy has a right to be angry but he's a nutter so I hopped back on my bike and went on my way. Five minute's later and he's still there behind me giving it loads, eventually I had to make my way into traffic to get away from him. Strange experience but it takes something like this to re-evalaute your cycling habits. I think I'm going to be more careful when I see people on Honda 50's from now on.

Ghost Rider

Somebody asked something like "Why do cyclists believe it's okay to break red lights when they obviously don't believe motorists should be allowed do so?"

I think there's an answer to this. I believe a lot of cyclists feel that traffic lights are a solution to problems created by motorists and, to that extent, they are justified in taking what I'd call a pragmatic approach to respecting them. Many feel that if there were only cyclists on the roads, traffic lights would probably not be even necessary.

They also think the consequences of their taking that attitude are nowhere near as far-reaching or as grave as they would be if motorists took that attitude. The law fails to take account of this simple fact: you can do a lot more harm to others inside a petrol-powered, 1000kg lump of steel travelling at 50-80 kmph than you can atop a man-powered 50kg lump of steel travelling at 15-30 kmph.

So, in so far as cyclists usually only risk their own lives in taking a pragmatic view of the law regarding traffic lights, I think there is a strong argument to support that attitude.

This attitude is in conflict with the law but that is not what's at issue. Nobody doubts the law. What's at issue is not what's lawful, but what's just.

Raam

helmets: I don't really care for them

lights: I have em. Not using lights is just asking for trouble. It's best not to shock people when on the road. A shocked motorist/cyclist/pedestrian might not always do the right thing when an unlit cyclist suddently appears out of nowhere.

RLJ: don't usually do it myself, might break the odd pedestrian one if the pedestrian is long gone, but never lights at junctions

blorg

youcancallme>al: Did you point out to him that he was driving a motorbike in the cycle lane?

ferdi

Ghost Rider wrote:

The law fails to take account of this simple fact: you can do a lot more harm to others inside a petrol-powered, 1000kg lump of steel travelling at 50-80 kmph than you can atop a man-powered 50kg lump of steel travelling at 15-30 kmph.

you're bike is 50 kg:eek: thats hardcore man!

i dont wear a helmet and most of the time i dont have lights.

i do however wear one of these at night:

and i only break a red light when i am cycling late at night and there are literaly no other road users around.

Turbulent Bill

Ghost Rider wrote:

Somebody asked something like "Why do cyclists believe it's okay to break red lights when they obviously don't believe motorists should be allowed do so?"

I think there's an answer to this. I believe a lot of cyclists feel that traffic lights are a solution to problems created by motorists and, to that extent, they are justified in taking what I'd call a pragmatic approach to respecting them. Many feel that if there were only cyclists on the roads, traffic lights would probably not be even necessary.

They also think the consequences of their taking that attitude are nowhere near as far-reaching or as grave as they would be if motorists took that attitude. The law fails to take account of this simple fact: you can do a lot more harm to others inside a petrol-powered, 1000kg lump of steel travelling at 50-80 kmph than you can atop a man-powered 50kg lump of steel travelling at 15-30 kmph.

So, in so far as cyclists usually only risk their own lives in taking a pragmatic view of the law regarding traffic lights, I think there is a strong argument to support that attitude.

This attitude is in conflict with the law but that is not what's at issue. Nobody doubts the law. What's at issue is not what's lawful, but what's just.

With respect, I don't think that this stands up. Like it or not, cyclists, motorists (and sometimes pedestrians) form a traffic system that relies on everyone playing their part. The best you can do is obey the rules and hope that others do the same. A bike by itself isn't going to cause much damage if crashed, but could lead to carnage if you run a red light. You have no idea what the other people using the junction might do, or whether they might appear suddenly.

IMHO the reason cyclists break lights is that it retains momentum, and because they can get away with it. I'm an irregular commuter now, but the buzz of flying by traffic does make it difficult to stop: it takes discipline. It's also good for PR if you're a responsible road user.

Lights on bikes should be a no-brainer. Dark bike/clothes + distracted driver = roadkill. Helmets I can give or take.

daymobrew

skidpatches wrote:

A cyclist breaking a red light is mainly a danger to himself

While this is true, have a thought for the motorist that might hit you in such a circumstance. It would be a traumatic experience to injure someone in such an accident. I know the defence is "I only do it when it's safe" but the cyclist's definition of safe may be different from the motorist's, or the cyclist may not have seen some approaching danger.

tywy wrote:

I know I'm a bold cyclist...but there are lots more bold motorists out there :P

Two wrongs != One right.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Well, the last two are illegal & gets us bad press

We are all ambassadors for the cycling community and should avoid being bad examples of the community. With so much bad behaviour by some cyclists I believe that it is up to the rest of us to be model citizens to counter balance those fools.

daymobrew

ferdi wrote:

i dont wear a helmet and most of the time i dont have lights.

i do however wear one of these at night:

You are required by law to have lights. That aside, your vest requires oncoming lights to be effective. This will not help pedestrians see you.

ferdi

daymobrew wrote:

You are required by law to have lights.

call the cops

daymobrew wrote:

That aside, your vest requires oncoming lights to be effective. This will not help pedestrians see you.

that does not pose a problem for me as i do not cylce on the footpath, nor do i encounter pedestrians hurtling down the road at 50mph that often.

tywy

they could walk out in front of you when crossing the road though...

DadaKopf

I have lights, wear high visibility vests in the morning at from dusk onwards. I don't wear a helmet and do not break lights, though I do pass through pedestrian crossings if safe, and occasionally pass through lights to take left-turns when safe to avoid big onslaughts of traffic when I know I have to pass through a tricky junction. "Safe" to me meaning: a break in oncoming traffic which lets me get into my lane before cars come trundling on.

These are fairly black and white issues - lights are required by law, breaking the lights is illegal, helmets aren't yet illegal, signalling when turning and not veering all over the place, being in the right gear, this is common sense.

Grey areas are tougher. Particularly when it comes to stupid pedestrians. This morning, I was cycling to work, turning a corner slightly behind a car in front of me. The car passed, and this fella walked off the corner to cross the road, with me coming up behind. I put the brake on to slow down and communicated with him that I was going behind him to avoid a collision. I couldn't go in front of him because an oncoming car may have hit ME. The road was wet, so I hit the brakes hard but slid into him - not to hard thank god. He just waddled on.

Here I am, on the road, being careful, obeying the rules of the road. Presumably I had right of way, and WAS careful. But who is in the wrong. Who's fault is that?

Pisses me off. I should have yelled at him.

ferdi

tywy wrote:

they could walk out in front of you when crossing the road though...

then they should probably wear lights

DadaKopf

And anyway. I'm not sure what people mean by people "wobbling the handlebars" when starting up or cycling? You mean doddery people veering all over the place because they're in the wrong gear, or 'honking' to get a bit of extra power when you're taking off, or going up a hill.

Just a different cycling style/technique, no?

youcancallmeal

blorg wrote:

youcancallme>al: Did you point out to him that he was driving a motorbike in the cycle lane?

I said absolutely nothing to him as I always do in sitautions like this. Tis best not to provoke already angry motorists I find. I'm a pretty big guy and could definitely defend myself but I have seen cyclists actually being beaten up by road raging motorists before and even once I witnessed a hit and run on a cylist who annoyed a jeep driver by cutting in front of him. Its pretty damn dangerous out there(even with lights, helmet annd obeying the road rules to the letter) so I always try and keep my wits about me.

Civilian_Target

Cycling without lights is particularly retarded. And breaking traffic lights in this city will eventually lead to becoming a large red streak across the road/pavement.

Its your choice, put personally I'd rather not end up being a road stain.

freetoair

Generally (but not at all) there are pedestrian crossings at traffic lights, these crossings have their own little lights, a red man means the pedestrian must wait, a green man means the pedestrian can cross. There is also a sound that bleeps to signal to a blind person when it is safe to cross.

Outside Connolly station about 18 months ago, green man appears on a pedestrian light, traffic had stopped, there's the sound of an almighty thump as a cyclist decides that the red traffic light is only for the motorist and proceeds to plough through an old lady at high speed as she was legally crossing the road. The old woman survived the accident (to the best of my knowledge) but appeared to have severe injuries to her hip and legs. The plonker on the bike took off before the abulance arrived sensing the hostility in the passers by.

There are several hierarchies of road users, each with their own requirement. Cyclists need the safety of a dedicated cycle lane (I'm a cyclist myself) wherever possible, motorcyclists need their own protection too and should have access to the bus lane, but from reading this post where everyone seems to agree that it is OK to cycle through a red light provided they think it is safe for them, or an earlier comment that the traffic would come to a standstill if we all obeyed the speed limits is just ignoring the needs of road users further down the hierarchy. Speed limits enable a pedestrian in a urban area to judge how safe it is to cross a road where there are no pedestrian crossings - ignoring these limits puts them at risk. Breaking red lights also plays with the safety of pedestrians leaving it up to you "to judge" what is a danger to them. If motorists adopted the same approach (and some do) there would be outcry! The rules of the road are there for good reason, so we can all predict and judge what will happen next when certain signals are given by motorists with their indicators or traffic lights, so as cyclists, think of other people in the road user hierarchy!

blorg

I do sometimes talk to motorists when they do something stupid/illegal as some of the time it actually does produce a positive result; e.g. a few weeks ago a guy drove out of a side road in front of me and I had to screech to a halt. He said he misjudged my speed; I just pointed out that it's downhill and so cyclists will be going quite fast, he said sorry, he'd bear that in mind. Being polite helps.

At the same time often it is pointless. A van driver pulled into me off a side road just this afternoon nearly sending me into a truck on the other side of the road. He was completely unapologetic; he didn't see me and it was _my fault_ for not wearing a high visibility vest. At 12.30 in the afternoon.

fish-head

ferdi wrote:

that does not pose a problem for me as i do not cylce on the footpath, nor do i encounter pedestrians hurtling down the road at 50mph that often.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No! It's.... a pedestrian?

DadaKopf

What about cycling down a quiet road and skidding into a pedestrian because he didn't look where he was going? Lucky I was watching him being a moron.

Where does the responsibility lie there? I was cycling on the road. He wasn't crossing at a pedestrian crossing. I felt like telling him off, but just went on. I hope the impact will make him more aware in future.

pokypoky

The main reason for my lack of an illuminated bicycle can be blamed upon the scum who frequent the Pearse Street area coupled with my clinical forgetfulness which means they are always gone when i return leaving me with nothing but the bracket and sometimes thats gone too.

But lights arent as hugely important in the city anyway, I'm quite visible with all the street lighting around and i don't cycle in the rain at night.

blorg

pokypoky wrote:

But lights arent as hugely important in the city anyway, I'm quite visible with all the street lighting around

You might think this, but it's simply not the case from the inside of a car.

tywy

freetoair wrote:

There are several hierarchies of road users, each with their own requirement. Cyclists need the safety of a dedicated cycle lane (I'm a cyclist myself) wherever possible, motorcyclists need their own protection too and should have access to the bus lane, but from reading this post where everyone seems to agree that it is OK to cycle through a red light provided they think it is safe for them, or an earlier comment that the traffic would come to a standstill if we all obeyed the speed limits is just ignoring the needs of road users further down the hierarchy. Speed limits enable a pedestrian in a urban area to judge how safe it is to cross a road where there are no pedestrian crossings - ignoring these limits puts them at risk. Breaking red lights also plays with the safety of pedestrians leaving it up to you "to judge" what is a danger to them. If motorists adopted the same approach (and some do) there would be outcry! The rules of the road are there for good reason, so we can all predict and judge what will happen next when certain signals are given by motorists with their indicators or traffic lights, so as cyclists, think of other people in the road user hierarchy!

In a previous post I mentioned the speed limits. People love to get up on their high horses about this. Most people get irritated when they get "stuck" behind a learner driver...and why? because they are obeying the speed limit on a nice wide road that people would normally drive 60km/hr on.

When there is a learner on a wide road it's amazing how quickly a tail back builds up.

I am talking about a wide road! One without bends etc. Also you talk about people crossing the road where there are no pedestrian crossings. Isn't that breaking the law too? I think it's called jaywalking.

skidpatches

ferdi wrote:

i dont wear a helmet and most of the time i dont have lights.

i do however wear one of these at night:

wearing a nerd vest is sooo much cooler that having lights... not.

ferdi wrote:

and i only break a red light when i am cycling late at night and there are literaly no other road users around.

except joyriders and drunk drivers

ferdi

thanks for your comments skidmark, however coolness is not on my agenda when it comes to cycling.

DadaKopf

Can't be cool if you're dead. Unless that's cool these days. Is it?

ferdi

being dead is kinda cool - kurt cobain, james dean

mcgratheoin

tywy wrote:

In a previous post I mentioned the speed limits. People love to get up on their high horses about this. Most people get irritated when they get "stuck" behind a learner driver...and why? because they are obeying the speed limit on a nice wide road that people would normally drive 60km/hr on.

Actually, if everyone obeyed the speedlimits there would be less tailbacks. It's difficult to imagine, but traffic travelling at higher speeds is a lower density than at a lower speed i.e. each car needs more road space to accommodate itself. The act of someone slowing down to the speed limit or to stop at lights causes a concertina effect where each car behind must brake progressively earlier and earlier, hence pushing the tailback futher back. This principal can be seen in reverse when pulling away from trafficlights. A car 10 cars back won't begin to move as soon as the lights go green.
It's one of those prinicples that is counter intuitive, but trust me on this one. If everyone on the M50 drove 10kph slower there would be less tailbacks.

edit - as regards learner drivers, I think the irritation that is directed at these drivers is inexcusable and symptomatic of a nation of bad drivers. It must be the only country in the world where people are less patient with someone who is clearly learning. The number of times cars attempted aggressive manouvers on me when I had L plates up is much less than when I don't.

BeardyGit

To the OP, you're being more than 'bold', you're breaking the law and endagering your own and others wellbeing through your irresponsible actions.

Did somebody hit you with the stupid stick once too often when you were a nipper?

cunnins4

DadaKopf wrote:

And anyway. I'm not sure what people mean by people "wobbling the handlebars" when starting up or cycling? You mean doddery people veering all over the place because they're in the wrong gear, or 'honking' to get a bit of extra power when you're taking off, or going up a hill.

Just a different cycling style/technique, no?

I mean both, well, mainly when they're in motion - it can't be helped much when you're taking off, everyone wobbles somewhat. Next time you're out on the bike, just watch how much some people wobble relative to the speed their legs are turning - usually it's quite a slow rpm and the bike's wobbling all over the place. It's not really their fault, it's usually due to lack of experience i.e. it's easier to spin up a hill, than power up it, as in the long run it takes less energy, and i think it takes people a while to realise things like this.

The hill thing, as you said is a different style i guess, but i think most cyclists prefer to spin, but the wobbling on a level road because you're in the wrong gear is a bit dangerous.

my $.02

pokypoky

Gil_Dub wrote:

To the OP, you're being more than 'bold', you're breaking the law and endagering your own and others wellbeing through your irresponsible actions.

Did somebody hit you with the stupid stick once too often when you were a nipper?

wow thats a pretty damning statement of falsehood. I opened myself up to be condemned as a bold boy but stupid stick criminal is a bit too far. My cycling is safer than the majority of dublin cyclists simply because I'm aware of whats going on around me unlike most.

Tell me how is it dangerous to break a red light when there is absolutely no chance of me being run over. Lets not go mad with this safety thing. I bet u wear ur helmet in bed incase the ceiling falls in on you.

kinaldo

pokypoky wrote:

Kinaldo i think you will find I posted that one on the "it completely wasnt my fault" forum. And i didnt injure the dog I injured the old lady to clarify. But anyway that is not the point.

Didn't u attribute this accident to tiredness on your part? Sounds like another example of irresponsibe cycling behaviour to me.

pokypoky wrote:

But lights arent as hugely important in the city anyway, I'm quite visible with all the street lighting around and i don't cycle in the rain at night.

This quite simply isn't true. I've witnessed you many a time end up cycling in the rain at night.

pokypoky wrote:

My cycling is safer than the majority of dublin cyclists simply because I'm aware of whats going on around me unlike most.

Your awareness may be great but what about the maniac drivers and pedestrians out there? Some of the junction lights u break is actually scary. You're nothing but a road hazard imo.

Lets not go mad with this safety thing. I bet u wear ur helmet in bed incase the ceiling falls in on you.

Lol, can't wait to use that one on my mum.

cunnins4

blorg wrote:

This is wrong, it's NOT just "your own choice," you are endangering other road users by not using them. Motorists can't see you and as a result may need to swerve suddenly putting themselves and whatever they may swerve into at risk. Other cyclists can't see you and as a result may hit you or need to swerve suddenly. And pedestrians can't see you and may walk out in front of you.

If you didn't expect to be out, fine, happens to us all, but just try to have them next time. I find just leaving the lights on the bike all the time during the winter is easiest.
QUOTE]

Well, i know it's illegal, but i've never seen a garda stop anyone for having no lights. So i guess, the lack of enforcement leaves it down to choice. I definitely choose to have lights. Unfortunately, little buggers robbing them leaves me taking them off all the time. I actually found my rear light in my bag this morning, so it turns out i had it all along, but just missed it when i went looking. As is life.