Eastpoint Cyclists - Danger Danger High (eh) Vis

Haleakala

Below is an excerpt from an email circulated to all East Point business park workers. I'm interested in the views of other East Point cyclists - I'm not apologising for ninja cyclists, but if you know the park, and the lack of any cycling infrastructure, I find it a bit rich...

"It has come to our attention that a minority of cyclists are not wearing the correct safety equipment or following Road Safety correctly. This just isn’t for EastPoint but for their own safety.

Below is an excerpt from an email received today, which I felt was of importance to pass on.
I would appreciate if you could stress the importance of them wearing hi-vis vests and having working lights if cycling early in the morning or on the way home when it's dark and also to slow down when coming in to the office park.

The reason I ask this is because 3 of our staff have had accidents off their bikes in the last 2 weeks, 2 of them were in the business park and one was on their way home through town. One of the accidents was actually quite serious so I'm pleading with all our cyclists to ensure they have lights and vests.

I drive to work each morning and am in for 7.30am so it's still quite dark and I see so many people without any lights on their bikes and no vests on either and I'd hate to see anything serious happen to anyone on the roads.

I've pulled the below directly from the Road Safety Authority - I was actually looking to see if they still handed out free hi-vis vests but seemingly not :-(
As a cyclist, you can reduce your risk of death or injury by following some simple advice:
· Never cycle in the dark without adequate lighting – white for front, red for rear
· Always wear luminous clothing such as hi-vis vests, fluorescent armbands and reflective belts so that other road users can see you
· Wear a helmet
· Follow the rules of the road, never run traffic lights or weave unpredictably in and out of traffic
· Maintain your bike properly – in particular, your brakes should work properly and your tyres should be inflated to the right pressure and be in good condition
· Respect other road users – don’t get into shouting matches with motorists; stop at pedestrian crossings; don’t cycle on the footpath
· Watch your speed, especially when cycling on busy streets and going downhill
· Steer well clear of left-turning trucks: let them turn before you move ahead

I know many of you adhere to the rules of the road but we want each and every EastPointer to be safe.
Thank you for reading this email and safe cycling.
Kind regards


Eastpoint Management"

morana

Haleakala wrote: »

Below is an excerpt from an email circulated to all East Point business park workers. I'm interested in the views of other East Point cyclists - I'm not apologising for ninja cyclists, but if you know the park, and the lack of any cycling infrastructure, I find it a bit rich...

"It has come to our attention that a minority of cyclists are not wearing the correct safety equipment or following Road Safety correctly. This just isn’t for EastPoint but for their own safety.

Below is an excerpt from an email received today, which I felt was of importance to pass on.
I would appreciate if you could stress the importance of them wearing hi-vis vests and having working lights if cycling early in the morning or on the way home when it's dark and also to slow down when coming in to the office park.

The reason I ask this is because 3 of our staff have had accidents off their bikes in the last 2 weeks, 2 of them were in the business park and one was on their way home through town. One of the accidents was actually quite serious so I'm pleading with all our cyclists to ensure they have lights and vests.

I drive to work each morning and am in for 7.30am so it's still quite dark and I see so many people without any lights on their bikes and no vests on either and I'd hate to see anything serious happen to anyone on the roads.

I've pulled the below directly from the Road Safety Authority - I was actually looking to see if they still handed out free hi-vis vests but seemingly not :-(
As a cyclist, you can reduce your risk of death or injury by following some simple advice:
· Never cycle in the dark without adequate lighting – white for front, red for rear
· Always wear luminous clothing such as hi-vis vests, fluorescent armbands and reflective belts so that other road users can see you
· Wear a helmet
· Follow the rules of the road, never run traffic lights or weave unpredictably in and out of traffic
· Maintain your bike properly – in particular, your brakes should work properly and your tyres should be inflated to the right pressure and be in good condition
· Respect other road users – don’t get into shouting matches with motorists; stop at pedestrian crossings; don’t cycle on the footpath
· Watch your speed, especially when cycling on busy streets and going downhill
· Steer well clear of left-turning trucks: let them turn before you move ahead

I know many of you adhere to the rules of the road but we want each and every EastPointer to be safe.
Thank you for reading this email and safe cycling.
Kind regards


Eastpoint Management"

must be very busy over in Eastpoint!

Seweryn

Haleakala wrote: »

Always wear luminous clothing such as hi-vis vests, fluorescent armbands and reflective belts so that other road users can see you

Is this thing compulsory or does it help at night, if you have a good set of lights? I cycle on country roads at night, wearing ninja type clothing (with some reflrective accents), but I have good lights with spare rear light and a spare battery for the front one in my back pocket. I can't see any advantage in wearing colourful type clothing at night once I have a proper set of lights on my bike.
I found that my non-cycling colleagues have the same opinion, i.e. they believe that the yellow jacket is a must for a cyclist.

GTDolanator

i no the east point buisness park well,i see absolutely nothing wrong with that email.At least it shows the managment are thinking of cyclists

Don't cycle in East Point (though I work nearby and drop into the market most Wednesday, nom).

While I'd have phrased a good bit of it differently if I was sending that e-mail (the shouting matches, for example, implies to me that the cyclist instigates the problem) I'll look on the bright side and think that they're looking to do something positive for cyclists, even though it is clear the person writing it never cycles. In fact I'd reply, thank them for their comments, and mention (constructively) that the issue of cycling infrastructure should next be considered. Cycling is on the agenda so ask 'what next'.

Wearing high-visibility clothing is always going to be recommended by everyone. I wear it myself these days because it is dark in the mornings and evenings, but during the day I don't wear it at all. My own anecdotal evidence is that I've worn it during the day and yet some people on the road still cannot see you for whatever reason.

Cookie_Monster

that reads like another busybody with nothing better to do with his time put it together.

It has come to our attention that a minority of cyclists are not wearing the correct safety equipment

what exactly is the correct safety equipment that must be worn, I can't think of any
Lights go on the bike and aside from that nothing is required.

AIR-AUSSIE

It seems to be only blaming cyclists. It is also the responsibility of other road users to be on the look out for cyclists etc.

The writer of the email sees cyclists as more of a nuisance to drivers. The email should really mention that other road users should look out of vulnerable road users i.e. cyclists / pedestrians.

fat bloke

Seems like a very reasonable and well-meaning plea to me.

Self preservation has always been a deep-seated trait, don't know why it shouldn't apply once you get on a bike. "Motorists should look out for us" is part of the argument for sure, but it can't always be the fcuk-you Jack, counter argument.

elduggo

Dear East Point,

I wear Hi-Viz, have working lights and arrive into the business park at 7:30am.

How about you remove that idiotic speed bump by the security hut that makes all the cars swerve onto the opposite side of the road.

Oh, and there was also a massive hole in the road just in front of the security hut for the past 2 days (it was filled in yesterday). Yes it was cordoned off but again, your stupid, ill-thought out cordon did not consider cyclists as cars, again, must swerve over to the opposite side of the road where cyclists will invariably be to avoid the aforementioned speed bump that is too sharp and steep for a cyclist to safely get over if they were to hit it without seeing it (such as at 7:30am in the morning when it is dark).

Also, the reason it is so dark at 7:30 in the morning is because the lights in the business park look like they're using some energy saving bulbs that do little more than let you know theres a light there. Install proper lights in your business park and there'll be less problems for East Point cyclists such as me.

People in glass East Point houses...... etc

Raam

I got the same email. It doesn't say if the knocked down cyclists had any lights or one of those magic vests.

As for slowing down... eh, what? I ain't slow but I get overtaken by cars on the way in coming off Alfie Byrne Road, so that's a load of cack.

I just wish the road surface in the park wasn't so slippery in the wet. I went on my snot the other week after 6 years of trying.

AIR-AUSSIE

fat bloke wrote: »

Seems like a very reasonable and well-meaning plea to me.

Self preservation has always been a deep-seated trait, don't know why it shouldn't apply once you get on a bike. "Motorists should look out for us" is part of the argument for sure, but it can't always be the fcuk-you Jack, counter argument.

I didn't mean it to be such a counter argument. But I would imagine the majority of recipients of that email would be drivers, therefore I think a statement asking drivers to be more aware would have been fair in this case.

c0rk3r

I know many of you adhere to the rules of the road but we want each and every EastPointer to be safe.

3 incidents in 2 weeks can't be ignored and I don't see a problem with an email like this being sent raising awareness of the issue. Something had to be done / said

Raam

c0rk3r wrote: »

3 incidents in 2 weeks can't be ignored and I don't see a problem with an email like this being sent raising awareness of the issue. Something had to be done / said

An email is just the thing to do.

c0rk3r

Any reasonably practicable suggestions you have are welcomed

Raam

c0rk3r wrote: »

Any reasonably practicable suggestions you have are welcomed

I'd need to know the particulars of the three incidents to make a reasonably practicable suggestion.

manwithaplan

EastPointers!

That is all.

tomasrojo

Making yourself more conspicuous during times of poor visibility is a good idea. However, hi-vizism is becoming a pathology.


I noticed some people out for a walk this afternoon in the War Memorial Park in Islandbridge, and from the logo they were wearing I found out that they were participants in this initiative, 'Let's Walk & Talk' regular historical walking tours:
http://www.dublincity.ie/community/letswalkandtalk/Pages/WalkandTalk.aspx
Kilmainham/Islandbridge is visited on Wednesdays.

Very nice idea. However, this is what these casual strollers looked like:



Keep in mind that this is not a walk up a mountain, or a group of children or a group of people with dementia. Nor are they walking extensively on roads or in traffic. It's a group of able-bodied people out for a walk through a suburb with extensive sidewalks, mostly through a traffic-free park.

Why do the majority of them feel the need to wear hi-viz? Where does this end? Will everyone ultimately wear hi-viz except when indoors or in a car?

tomasrojo

I'd also say, having worked in Eastpoint, is that if they want to do something for cyclist safety, they should resurface the road inside the park. That brickwork is very pretty, but it's treacherous in the wet (I came off my first week working there performing a simple right turn), and I can't see any other reason for it being used except that it is pretty.

monument

Is the email trying to muddle the water and lessen their liability over such a crap surface?

c0rk3r wrote: »

3 incidents in 2 weeks can't be ignored and I don't see a problem with an email like this being sent raising awareness of the issue. Something had to be done / said

Andrea Leadsom, an MP in the UK, drafted a dangerous cycling bill because of an accident where a pedestrian was killed after a fall and the cyclist involved was claimed to have mounted the footpath.

The BBC last year (with video) reported that Leadsom said in parliament that:

"A cyclist approached the group at speed, jumping from the road to cut across the pavement and yelling, 'Move! I'm not stopping!' He was travelling so fast the group had no time to act. He hit Rhiannon, knocking her over and smashing her head against the kerb. She was rushed to hospital with head injuries and she died six days later."

But as The Guardian Bike Blog put it this week:

While it is, without any doubt, a tragic and heartbreaking case, Leadsom's account of it seems to be a notable over-simplification. The court case heard conflicting evidence about whether the cyclist involved, Jason Howard, ever mounted the pavement, and whether Rhiannon and her friends might have been standing in the road. I spoke to two local newspaper reporters who covered the trial and they both told me they didn't recognise Leadsom's version of events.

I had a long debate with Leadsom's office about this, and they pointed to the conclusions of the subsequent inquest, where the coroner decided that "some part of Rhiannon was on the pavement" when she was hit.

Either way, I think there's an important point here: making a new law from a single event is generally bad policy; doing so from what some would call a misleading version of that event is even more the case.

Cookie_Monster

c0rk3r wrote: »

3 incidents in 2 weeks can't be ignored and I don't see a problem with an email like this being sent raising awareness of the issue. Something had to be done / said

doesn't say what caused them though, could be terrible road surface or dozy motorists in the morning not noticing or stupidity or equipment failure or ninja cyclists or anything...

A few accidents is not reason to jump on the band wagon and try and force cyclists to do and wear all sorts of stupid crap because of the (incorrect) perception that it makes you safer.

elduggo

Haleakala wrote: »

Below is an excerpt from an email circulated to all East Point business park workers

this wasn't circulated in my company. And we're sizeable enough within EP

so just presume that any cyclists cycling without lights and hi-viz vests in the vicinity of East Point work for the same company that I do.

seamus

Some people seem to do this odd knee-jerk thing whenever they hear of an accident and buy all sorts of unrelated safety equipment. "My uncle Dave came off his bike on ice last week and broke his arm, now I don't cycle anywhere without a high-vis and helmet". Because high-vis jackets and helmets are well-known for their anti-ice properties.

My neighbour had a fire a few weeks before Xmas. Another neighbour had a portable fire extinguisher in his car which we used to put out the fire. It probably saved the house from serious damage. So I went out and bought a fire extinguisher, I didn't go out and buy a new deadbolt for my front door.

Cookie_Monster

seamus wrote: »

I didn't go out and buy a new deadbolt for my front door.

more fool you, what happens the next time an angry fire breaks down your door

ednwireland

tomasrojo wrote: »

Keep in mind that this is not a walk up a mountain, or a group of children or a group of people with dementia. Nor are they walking extensively on roads or in traffic. It's a group of able-bodied people out for a walk through a suburb with extensive sidewalks, mostly through a traffic-free park.

Why do the majority of them feel the need to wear hi-viz? Where does this end? Will everyone ultimately wear hi-viz except when indoors or in a car?

actually in that particular case they end up floating face down in the river

Haleakala

My own view for what its worth!
1) the lack of cycling infrastructure (e.g. dedicated lane for cyclists, particularly at the entrance barriers to the park) and the recent construction works are actually much more significant in posing a risk to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Rather than sending out the dubious nonsense about high-vis vests (which actually don’t reflect light at night time) it might be better if the Management company recognised that the current road lay-out is putting different modes of transport in conflict with each-other in the park.

For example: the lack of decent bike access through the barriers at both ends of the park, the lack of lighting at the pedestrian crossing near the bridge over the Tolka, the slippery surface for bikes in the park (cause of far more cyclist related accidents in East Point I'd wager), and the current construction works which are pretty much haphazard...

2) The writer of the advisory, while no doubt trying to be helpful, is suggesting that the three incidents were wholly the fault of the cyclists and not the motorists or any other factor in each case – personally I would be critical when I see cyclists without lights etc., but the duty of care of motorists (of which I am also one) doesn’t change if they don’t have them - the writer interestingly points out that he can see the cyclists without lights!

3) Lastly, I think it is ridiculous for a note on safety for cyclists to go out when the only advice is for the cyclists themselves – what about all the other road users, e.g. taking account of cyclists on windy/wet days, not pulling out from the minor roads in the park across cyclists who might have to try and stop on slippery surfaces?

I plan to at least ask the management company what are their plans for cycle safety beyond requiring us to where stupid yellow vests every morning

ednwireland

Haleakala wrote: »

My own view for what its worth!
1) the lack of cycling infrastructure (e.g. dedicated lane for cyclists, particularly at the entrance barriers to the park) and the recent construction works are actually much more significant in posing a risk to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Rather than sending out the dubious nonsense about high-vis vests (which actually don’t reflect light at night time)

errr yes they do (well at least the hi-vis strips do)

Jawgap

For what it's worth - I've always wondered about the RSA's (and other road safety organisations') hi-viz fetish.

The arguments suggest that wearing hi-viz will present significant numbers of accidents - that being the case how come you can buy a black car?:)

Raam

An email was sent out once stating that the pedestrian crossings are not real, they are just decorative. So to hell with the peds, plough on through regardless. If you are driving, just run 'em down.

Dear all,

It has come to our attention that some people seem to be treating the strips of cream coloured paving throughout the park as pediestrian crossings and are walking out in front of traffic.
Can you please advise your staff that there are no pedestrian crossings in EastPoint.
This paving is for decorative purposes only, so please advise your staff to exercise the same caution when crossing the roads within the park as they would crossing any other road.

Jawgap

Raam wrote: »

An email was sent out once stating that the pedestrian crossings are not real, they are just decorative. So to hell with the peds, plough on through regardless. If you are driving, just run 'em down.

It probably demonstrates the car-centric nature of the place. Both emails express valid sentiments, but you'd expect there to be a reciprocal warning to drivers to take care.

elduggo

Raam wrote: »

An email was sent out once stating that the pedestrian crossings are not real, they are just decorative. So to hell with the peds, plough on through regardless. If you are driving, just run 'em down.

oh how I laughed when I saw that e-mail!

Wheely GR8

It's a funny email and I can only imagine the drivers involved where on an important call while sitting comfortably in their warm leather seats.

Pesky cyclists!

Raam

I do like the paella on Wednesdays though.

Haleakala

ednwireland wrote: »

errr yes they do (well at least the hi-vis strips do)

errr no they don't.
Not all high viz jackets have reflective strips.

Besides, reflective strips can be put on a bag, your normal jacket, your bike etc. they don't have to be attached to a stupid yellow vest.


In any case, reflective strips are just that - they don't emit light of themselves.

Best of luck to you

tomasrojo

Dear all,

It has come to our attention that some people seem to be treating the strips of cream coloured paving throughout the park as pediestrian crossings and are walking out in front of traffic.
Can you please advise your staff that there are no pedestrian crossings in EastPoint.
This paving is for decorative purposes only, so please advise your staff to exercise the same caution when crossing the roads within the park as they would crossing any other road.

The fools! Who could possibly think that alternating bands of light and dark placed at a junction could be a zebra crossing!

tomasrojo

Eastpoint does have extensive bike parking though, which is unusual for a business park in Dublin.

BuzzFish

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

doesn't say what caused them though, could be terrible road surface or dozy motorists in the morning not noticing or stupidity or equipment failure or ninja cyclists or anything...

A few accidents is not reason to jump on the band wagon and try and force cyclists to do and wear all sorts of stupid crap because of the (incorrect) perception that it makes you safer.

I know what caused one, a work mate of mine heading home after a few in the epiee. He clipped the barrier on the way out of the park. Broken collar bone.

Raam

BuzzFish wrote: »

I know what caused one, a work mate of mine heading home after a few in the epiee. He clipped the barrier on the way out of the park. Broken collar bone.

His highvis jacket, if he had one, would have warned him of this danger and kept him safe. I hope that he learns this lesson.

Hungrycol

Haleakala wrote: »

The reason I ask this is because 3 of our staff have had accidents off their bikes in the last 2 weeks, 2 of them were in the business park and one was on their way home through town. Eastpoint Management"

I'm confused One of the accidents happened in town! Why not just say 2 staff had accidents in the Eastpoint Business Park. Does three sound better than 2? Does 3 accidents give it more credibility? "2 accidents, meh, 3 accidents time to send an email"

BostonB

Considering most cycling accidents between cars and drivers are caused by drivers they should have sent a driver centric advisory to them.

tomasrojo

Hungrycol wrote: »

I'm confused One of the accidents happened in town! Why not just say 2 staff had accidents in the Eastpoint Business Park. Does three sound better than 2? Does 3 accidents give it more credibility? "2 accidents, meh, 3 accidents time to send an email"

It has come to my attention that one of our staff had an accident on the M50. I'm taking this as a prompt to lecture everyone in the business park who drives.

Bambaata

I dont see too much wrong with the mail, it is badly written but im as angry about cyclists without lights as any driver. I cant understand how someone can have such disregard for themselves, nevermind others, to ride around ninja style!

tomasrojo

Bambaata wrote: »

I dont see too much wrong with the mail, it is badly written but im as angry about cyclists without lights as any driver. I cant understand how someone can have such disregard for themselves, nevermind others, to ride around ninja style!

If he had shown that the two accidents in the business park happened to cyclists without lights during a time of poor visibilty and had he kept the email concisely centred on that one point, it would have been absolutely fine.

Pasting paragraphs of safety boilerplate from the RSA just compounds the aimlessness of the email.

tomasrojo

On the other hand, the recommendation to slow down coming into the park is good advice, given how treacherous the road surface is and that they seem to have no intention of replacing it with something suitable to traffic. However, it seems to imply that cyclists are "speeding" into the park, which they certainly weren't when I worked there.

ednwireland

Haleakala wrote: »

errr no they don't.
Not all high viz jackets have reflective strips.

Besides, reflective strips can be put on a bag, your normal jacket, your bike etc. they don't have to be attached to a stupid yellow vest.


In any case, reflective strips are just that - they don't emit light of themselves.

Best of luck to you

exactly what i did on my commuter this


is stuck on my panniers

+ 2 1/2 watt rears and a 1 watt rear

plus 1200 front

Seve OB

Haleakala wrote: »

Below is an excerpt from an email circulated to all East Point business park workers. I'm interested in the views of other East Point cyclists - I'm not apologising for ninja cyclists, but if you know the park, and the lack of any cycling infrastructure, I find it a bit rich...

I wouldn't think it is rich at all. They got a complaint and forwarded it on. If they had of ignored it, they would have been the worst in the world. I agree with the other posters though that the original complaint could have been worded and constructed a bit better.

Jawgap wrote: »

For what it's worth - I've always wondered about the RSA's (and other road safety organisations') hi-viz fetish.

The arguments suggest that wearing hi-viz will present significant numbers of accidents - that being the case how come you can buy a black car?:)

Difference being a black car generally has proper lights front and back!



In fairness, this problem is nothing to do with East Point. In general, and now than I am back in the cycle gang I am noticing it more and more, I can't believe some of the gobs****s going around with no lights etc.

What is even more annoying is the other fools who have these pesky little lights that they probably got for a fiver somewhere that might illuminate their watch face if they squinted. Why bother at all, cause they are a waste of time. You need as bright a light as you can get and as many of them as you can get, or you are wasting your money. I spent €70 blips on a front light and it is pretty good, but I still think it could be better.

As for high vis etc. A few of you pointed out the yellow jackets etc aren't worth a damn. How right you are, but the ones with Night Vision reflective stuff are a must, and similar on the legs. Even with my black jacket and trousers on, when a light shines on me, I'm lit up brighter that a christmas tree with 500 LEDs on it!

People who don't have the proper stuff on themselves and their bikes need to be prosicuted by the Guards because they cause a danger to themselves and on the roads. I have never once seen a cyclist being done for not having lights on their bike!

Dermot Illogical

stevieob wrote: »

As for high vis etc. A few of you pointed out the yellow jackets etc aren't worth a damn. How right you are, but the ones with Night Vision reflective stuff are a must, and similar on the legs. Even with my black jacket and trousers on, when a light shines on me, I'm lit up brighter that a christmas tree with 500 LEDs on it!

People who don't have the proper stuff on themselves and their bikes need to be prosicuted by the Guards because they cause a danger to themselves and on the roads. I have never once seen a cyclist being done for not having lights on their bike!

You're only bright on the outside.

tomasrojo

stevieob wrote: »

I wouldn't think it is rich at all. They got a complaint and forwarded it on.

They can't forward every complaint they get. Even if they did, they should just write a quick email of their own with the jist of the complaint, not the entire text, unless the initial correspondent is unusually good with words.

stevieob wrote: »

As for high vis etc. A few of you pointed out the yellow jackets etc aren't worth a damn. How right you are, but the ones with Night Vision reflective stuff are a must, and similar on the legs. Even with my black jacket and trousers on, when a light shines on me, I'm lit up brighter that a christmas tree with 500 LEDs on it!

They're certainly a good idea, but they're not a must. Given that you can get really good lights now.

stevieob wrote: »

People who don't have the proper stuff on themselves and their bikes need to be prosicuted by the Guards because they cause a danger to themselves and on the roads. I have never once seen a cyclist being done for not having lights on their bike!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056482856

Leo Varadkar's decision not to proceed with legislation for fixed-penalty notices has probably scuppered any chance of greater reinforcement on this issue, unfortunately. It'll have to be a court case for each one, so the gardaí won't pursue very many of them.

doozerie

In my view the sentiments behind the e-mail are reasonable - I'm assuming they are being genuine in their concerns about the safety of people on bikes. What it does highlight though is the very odd view of cycling as, in itself, being a source of danger and of course such a view is reinforced by some of the nonsense that the RSA peddle such as:

* they give hi-viz vests and lights equal importance. If someone wants to supplement their lights with hi-viz then that's perfectly reasonable, but the two are simply not on a par.
* Helmets, helmets, helmets! Certified to safe your life in all circumstances, some of them are qualified to carry out CPR, you know.
* cycle slowly or you may, you know, die.

And it's not just the e-mail writer or the RSA who suffer from such bizarre misconceptions either - it seems a reflexive response on the part of some to point out the lack of such things as dedicated cycle lanes as the real source of the dangers. What? That suggests an equally skewed viewpoint that cycling is dangerous and that us cyclists *need* dedicated infrastructure just to keep us safe. I don't share that view - sure, dedicated infrastructure can make a leisurely cycle more leisurely but I don't want it for my commute (my commute is not leisurely, it's just a commute out of necessity) and for my "leisurely" cycles I head as far away from the city centre and its so-called cycling-friendly infrastructure as possible.

I'm all in favour of cycling infrastructure for leisurely cycling, it's good for families, it's good for tourism, etc. But when did it get elevated to the status of being essential for all forms of cycling? Sometimes it seems we are our own worst enemies, or at least some of those speaking on our behalf make our situation worse rather than better.

tomasrojo

In the case of Eastpoint, there is some validity in the complaint about lack of dedicated cycling facilities, just because the facility that goes up Alfie Byrne road is pretty good (quite wide, ok surface, no junctions), but you can't actually cycle onto it directly and legally when leaving the park. I used to go this way with a trailer and it was even more awkward.

enas

stevieob wrote: »

they cause a danger to themselves and on the roads.

I know this is quite off-topic, and helmet-debatesque I agree, but: can anyone point me to even anecdotical sources of a cyclist causing a danger to another road user by not having lights at night? Quite how a (non anti-social) cyclist can cause a danger to anyone else, let alone a car driver, is beyond me.

And do they even cause danger to themselves? All I ever heard people saying (including in this email) is "I saw a cyclist without lights etc." Mind you, I do get annoyed by cyclists not having lights, especially when I drive. But I think the danger of not having lights is largely exagerated. Surely it makes things less comfortable when driving, but if you open your eyes you can't seriously miss a cyclist (I'm talking of city streets, where there's always some ambient light and where cars don't drive at high speeds). Putting the blame on a cyclist without lights sounds a bit like a lame excuse - after all, do all pedestrians without lights and high-viz get knocked over by drivers who can't see them?

tomasrojo wrote: »

However, hi-vizism is becoming a pathology.

Brilliant! (Excuse the pun.) I will bookmark this post for later use!

tomasrojo

enas wrote: »

I know this is quite off-topic, and helmet-debatesque I agree, but: can anyone point me to even anecdotical sources of a cyclist causing a danger to another road user by not having lights at night? Quite how a (non anti-social) cyclist can cause a danger to anyone else, let alone a car driver, is beyond me.

On two-way cycle tracks, cyclists tend to hug the centre line. If you have two cyclists approaching each other in the dark, both without lights, you can get quite severe collisions, given their combined speed.

I can't remember where I read about this, but it was probably one of Cyclecraft, Richard's Bicycle Book or Effective Cycling.

enas wrote: »

Brilliant! (Excuse the pun.) I will bookmark this post for later use!

It was one of the odder bits of hi-vizm (I've shortened the term) I've seen.