Cyclists mega-thread (WARNING: Before posting you must read post #1)

AndrewJRenko

Roadhawk wrote: »

But at least you care about your safety and reduce the risk of injury or death by using a light.

Have there been many deaths of cyclists in recent years as a result of lack of lights?

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

But at least you care about your safety and reduce the risk of injury or death by using a light.

Don't know about that! I still get plenty of "Close passes" in daylight.

IMO most cyclist v motorist accidents are because motorists are not looking!

Example:

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/video-cyclist-taken-vehicle-trailer-swinging-across-road/

Fian

Madisyn Chubby Someone wrote: »

Sad thing is it's the motorists who are held to be at fault for hitting these idiots.

I cycle and drive.

Apparently they even hold negligent motorists to account who hit unlit pedestrians as well!! PC gone mad I tells ya.

A motorist will only be held liable if they are negligent, if they fail to drive with reasonable care. That is the law, there is no law that says they are always liable if they collide with a cyclist (or pedestrian.)

Hexen

The following appears to be from conference proceedings and not peer reviewed but according to a study undertaken by the German Cyclist Federation in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands, between 1-4% of all bicycle accidents are due to cycling either without lights or with partially defective lights. Cycling without lights or with defective lights accounts for 7% of all bicycle accidents at night.

• 1/3 to 40% of cyclists ride in the dark without lights or with partially defective lights.
• About 7% of bicycle accidents at night are due to missing or defective lighting. Based on all bicycle accidents, they are an estimated 1-4%.
• Although only 10% of bike rides take place at night, in these four countries about 20% of fatal bicycle accidents occur during nighttime, in other EU countries even up to 40% and more.
• Nocturnal bicycle accidents usually have more severe consequences. The risk of being killed on the bike at night is significantly increased, especially out of town

A comparison of these four neighbouring European countries shows that cyclists there have

• similar proportions of nighttime accidents,
• similar proportions of defective or missing bicycle lights and
• a similarly increased risk of accidents and injuries at night.

These countries have or had, however, very different legal regulations for bicycle lights:

• Bicycles may only be sold with lights (A – revised in October 2013).
• Only dynamo lights are allowed (D – battery lights legalized since August 2013).
• Battery lights are allowed (NL, CH, A. D since August 2013).
• Battery lights on cyclists are also allowed (NL).

This suggests that the different rules have only a marginal impact on the safety of bicycle traffic in the dark. Only a small number of nighttime accidents can be clearly attributed to the lack of lights: Other major risk factors are driving or riding under the influence of alcohol, higher driving speeds on empty roads at night and impaired night vision especially in older drivers.

Nighttime Cycling: Accidents, Lights, and Laws in Europe Abstract for the International Cycling Safety Conference 2013

Roadhawk

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have there been many deaths of cyclists in recent years as a result of lack of lights?

I haven't a clue? What has that got to do with anything? The fact that it is illegal is enough for me.

I would be more inclined to applaud all of the other road users for being aware of their surrounding and avoiding incidents with cyclist ninjas than to be of the mindset that it is ok to knowingly break the law on a continuous basis.

HugoRune

I'm curious why there is such resistance to having lights on a bike. Does no harm to have them on. It's one thing if someone decides for whatever reason not to have lights: fighting the system, can't afford them, gurriers keep taking them or whatever, but there certainly seems to be an implication at times that having lights on is somehow "wrong".

magicbastarder

HugoRune wrote: »

I'm curious why there is such resistance to having lights on a bike.

you mean in the thread?

juneg

pedestrians are as bad. walkers out in dark clothes no high vis.
Fella last night went to cross the road in front of me while I was turning left, next thing hes throwing hand signals to me.

I'm sorry, this may be politically incorrect but if you want to walk in front of someones car on the road, in the dark, wearing dark clothes and no high vis don't be surprised if the driver actually does not see you. I haven't got x ray vision like.

magicbastarder

do you live in the country?

HugoRune

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean in the thread?

Yes, I think so. That's the impression I got from browsing anyway.

AndrewJRenko

Roadhawk wrote: »

I haven't a clue? What has that got to do with anything? The fact that it is illegal is enough for me.

I would be more inclined to applaud all of the other road users for being aware of their surrounding and avoiding incidents with cyclist ninjas than to be of the mindset that it is ok to knowingly break the law on a continuous basis.

Interesting - it was when you said "risk of injury or death" that I thought that maybe there had been some injuries or deaths - but perhaps not.

Do you get equally animated about all illegal actions on the road, such as the 82% of motorists who illegally break the speed limit (RSA 2013 Speed Survey)?

juneg wrote: »

pedestrians are as bad. walkers out in dark clothes no high vis.
Fella last night went to cross the road in front of me while I was turning left, next thing hes throwing hand signals to me.

I'm sorry, this may be politically incorrect but if you want to walk in front of someones car on the road, in the dark, wearing dark clothes and no high vis don't be surprised if the driver actually does not see you. I haven't got x ray vision like.

Here's a mad idea - you could try driving and being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear?

HugoRune wrote: »

I'm curious why there is such resistance to having lights on a bike. Does no harm to have them on. It's one thing if someone decides for whatever reason not to have lights: fighting the system, can't afford them, gurriers keep taking them or whatever, but there certainly seems to be an implication at times that having lights on is somehow "wrong".

I don't think I've seen any resistance to having lights on this thread. You may have seen some resistance to casting 'cyclists without lights' as being a huge problem, relative to the other problems on the road, like the killing of 160-ish people each year by motorists.

Hexen wrote: »

The following appears to be from conference proceedings and not peer reviewed but according to a study undertaken by the German Cyclist Federation in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands, between 1-4% of all bicycle accidents are due to cycling either without lights or with partially defective lights. Cycling without lights or with defective lights accounts for 7% of all bicycle accidents at night.

Interesting findings - I'd guess that would equate to at absolute most, one cyclist death a year here in Ireland. That's one death too many of course, but in the overall context of the death toll on our roads, it is a very minor issue.

Roadhawk

juneg wrote: »

pedestrians are as bad. walkers out in dark clothes no high vis.

The difference is that it is illegal to cycle without a light at night but pedestrians are not required to have a light. Neither are required to wear a hi-vis.

Roadhawk

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting - it was when you said "risk of injury or death" that I thought that maybe there had been some injuries or deaths - but perhaps not.

Yes, it is a risk of death or injury...albeit high risk or low risk but it is a risk nonetheless.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you get equally animated about all illegal actions on the road, such as the 82% of motorists who illegally break the speed limit (RSA 2013 Speed Survey)?

Eh no, because this topic is about "cyclists with no lights"

cython

Roadhawk wrote: »

Yes, it is a risk of death or injury...albeit high risk or low risk but it is a risk nonetheless.



Eh no, because this topic is about "cyclists with no lights"

But by your own admission (below), illegality of cycling without lights at night is "enough for [you]", so why is the illegality of all these other offences not enough for you to get similarly up in arms about them? Or is it more accurate to say the fact that its illegal and gives you cause to gripe about cyclists again is enough for you?

Roadhawk wrote: »

I haven't a clue? What has that got to do with anything? The fact that it is illegal is enough for me.

I would be more inclined to applaud all of the other road users for being aware of their surrounding and avoiding incidents with cyclist ninjas than to be of the mindset that it is ok to knowingly break the law on a continuous basis.

Roadhawk

OK ...to bring it briefly off topic, check out the following link:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057709563&page=2

I do comment on driving laws.

With regard to the comment of 82% of drivers speeding in 2013...im shocked. Considering there are roughly 2 million motorist in Ireland, 82% of that would mean 1,640,000 drivers speed...a speeding fine being €80 means €131,200,000 in fines?

The Gardai paint a very different picture in speeding stats from 2013:
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=10707&Lang=1

amcalester

Roadhawk wrote: »

With regard to the comment of 82% of drivers speeding in 2013...im shocked. Considering there are roughly 2 million motorist in Ireland, 82% of that would mean 1,640,000 drivers speed...a speeding fine being €80 means €131,200,000 in fines?

The Gardai paint a very different picture in speeding stats from 2013:
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=10707&Lang=1

Enforcement...

Roadhawk

amcalester wrote: »

Enforcement...

or lack there of!

amcalester

Roadhawk wrote: »

or lack there of!

Exactly, it was a bit disingenuous of you to compare the RSA figures against the Gardai stats knowing full well that not all speeding motorists are fined.

Roadhawk

amcalester wrote: »

Exactly, it was a bit disingenuous of you to compare the RSA figures against the Gardai stats knowing full well that not all speeding motorists are fined.

This could possible start a new thread but how can can one institution (RSA) confirm a specific percentage of people breaking the law but another institution who is responsible for enforcing the law (AGS) cant?

I dont really see it as disingenuous when it is factual.

amcalester

Roadhawk wrote: »

This could possible start a new thread but how can can one institution (RSA) confirm a specific percentage of people breaking the law but another institution who is responsible for enforcing the law (AGS) cant?

I dont really see it as disingenuous when it is factual.

Probably because one specifically measured the number of motorists speeding while the other didn't.

Edit:
It's disingenuous because you are comparing the number of motorists observed speeding against the number of motorists convicted of speeding. The two aren't comparable for reasons you are aware of.

Roadhawk

amcalester wrote: »

It's disingenuous because you are comparing the number of motorists observed speeding against the number of motorists convicted of speeding. The two aren't comparable for reasons you are aware of.

Ah i see what you mean...you could also apply that concept to cycling without lights. The number of those convicted verses the number of those observed are completely different.

And you would think that if the RSA could confirm it then AGS could convict it.

amcalester

Roadhawk wrote: »

Ah i see what you mean...you could also apply that concept to cycling without lights. The number of those convicted verses the number of those observed are completely different.

And you would think that if the RSA could confirm it then AGS could convict it.

Nobody had claimed otherwise, so not sure what point you are making.

Second point isn't worth replying to.

First Up

juneg wrote:

pedestrians are as bad. walkers out in dark clothes no high vis.

Perhaps but pedestrians spend a small fraction of their time in proximity to moving cars. Cyclists spend close to 100% of theirs.

But agreed; any pedestrian walking on a road at night should be illuminated.

Sam Russell

Roadhawk wrote: »

Ah i see what you mean...you could also apply that concept to cycling without lights. The number of those convicted verses the number of those observed are completely different.

And you would think that if the RSA could confirm it then AGS could convict it.

RSA use un-manned detectors in the road 24/7 and count cars passing and measure their speed. AGS use hairdryers and only operate occasionally, that is when they are not out catching criminals.

AndrewJRenko

Roadhawk wrote: »

Yes, it is a risk of death or injury...albeit high risk or low risk but it is a risk nonetheless.



Eh no, because this topic is about "cyclists with no lights"

A quick look at the cyclist death/injury statistics will confirm for you that the risk is very low - just wouldn't want you staying awake all night worrying about it.

Roadhawk

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A quick look at the cyclist death/injury statistics will confirm for you that the risk is very low - just wouldn't want you staying awake all night worrying about it.

Im glad the stats are low...the cyclist injury/fatality stats in Ireland are surprisingly good for a country that has a high ratio of private cars. I wonder if thats because we are good drivers... or would it be that a large portion of the incidents dont get recorded?

The fact that it is illegal to cycle at night without a front and rear light is irrefutable. You can look at whichever stats you wish but it still wont change the fact that the risk of death or injury while pi$$ing in public is also very low and you can be guaranteed no Gard would walk past someone breaking this law...so why cyclists without lights?

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

The fact that it is illegal to cycle at night is irrefutable.

nevertheless, i can refute this if you wish?

Sam Russell

Lidl have an offer on cycle lights this Thursday - well worth getting. The front light, which is very bright and quite small and fits in a pocket easily, is rechargeable from a micro USB charger used on most phones, and the rear one is small and very bright. Cost €14.95.

Why would any cyclist who has no light not get a set?

NIMAN

Cycling in the dark without lights should be clamped down on just as using a mobile phone whilst driving has been.

bren2001

NIMAN wrote: »

Cycling in the dark without lights should be clamped down on just as using a mobile phone whilst driving has been.

As should cycling while using a mobile phone. I regularly cycle by people with no lights and are texting or making a phone call. Usually, they struggle to maintain a straight line. Bamboozles me every time!