Useful Cycling Tips for Commuters.

magicbastarder

ah, so motorists are allowed make assumptions that the road is safe, but cyclists have to make assumptions that the road is unsafe. gotcha.

Jawgap

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah, so motorists are allowed make assumptions that the road is safe, but cyclists have to make assumptions that the road is unsafe. gotcha.

......because the motorists who make assumptions about the road being safe are often wrong as to the impact their subsequent behaviour, based on their erroneous assumption, will have on the safety of the road for other users, then fail to take account of that impact those making the road unsafe for other road users

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

A green traffic light gives you right of way nothing more. It in no way is telling you it is safe to do so.

i checked this in the ROTR, and this is what it says:

A green light means you may go on if the way is clear. Take special care if you intend to turn left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing. A green light is not a right of way – it is an indication that you can proceed with caution.

not that that materially changes your point.

a148pro

Jawgap wrote: »

in that case best not cycle at all for fear I'd mis-judge a Luas track and tip over, fail to anticipate a pedestrian stepping out or jay-walking, wobble in a group and touch another cyclist's wheel or miss the "amber-gambler" who blasts through a red when I'm on a green?

This rationale could just as easily be used to justify cycling blindfolded. The point is you're choosing to do something that is inherently more dangerous. I am assuming our discussion is premised by us mutually wanting to cycle in the first place, and then cycle in as safe a fashion as reasonably possible.

Just as a matter of interest what separates you from the amber gambler?

Jawgap wrote: »

How would it encourage anyone to do anything? If people respond to what they see are you seriously suggesting that if all cyclists obeyed the letter of the law 100% of the time then other road users would follow suit? Would pedestrians stop jay-walking, would drivers stop speeding? (And as a by-the-way, I'm not saying this is a justification for slipping left on red, I'm just pointing out that your argument doesn't hold water)

Of course general conduct affects other people's individual conduct? How could you honestly think otherwise? Have you ever been to a country where they don't respect or have rules of the road? In many 3rd world country the rule becomes might is right. I've seen lads go the wrong way around roundabouts in India, because its tolerated. I've seen policemen in Greece beeping me telling me not to use the pedestrian crossing because they've no intention of stopping. The driving culture in some Mediterranean countries is highly dangerous, because it is a culture. A friend in Venezuela told me of a police car beeping him from behind to break a red light. Similarly - go to some European countries and you will see F - all people jaywalking because there's a culture of rigid compliance.

Of course we can't say that if all cyclists obeyed the rules all other road users would do so too. But if people routinely and regularly break the rules other people are much more likely to do so.

Jawgap wrote: »

And again physics tells us that the consequences of a ton of metal hitting someone are greater than a 100kg rider hitting someone......maybe re-read the bit where I discuss risk (or probability) and hazard (or consequence).

Right. I understood your argument to be, its ok, I can break the rules because I know when its safe to do so. I therefore pointed out that the same could be said of motorists. If you think you can break the light because you can see there are no pedestrians or no traffic coming the other way then the exact same argument can be made for the motorist. They could make the turn perfectly safely if the lights were in their favour. They have exactly the same capacity to assess whether they can safely make the turn even though the lights are not in their favour as you do.

But you're now saying that in fact its the consequences of your actions that are different. Again, I re-iterate, sooner or later you will make a mistake. So you are choosing to do something which is inherently more dangerous for you and other road users. And by the way, if a car has to swerve to avoid you after you've broken the lights I think you'll find the consequences of your decision come loaded with a ton of metal for other road users. All the more so because what you've done is unexpected.

Jawgap wrote: »

Us?

Who is this 'us'?

And you really think cyclists slipping left or rolling through an unoccupied pedestrian crossing "is only going to make conditions for cyclists in general less safe."?

The ongoing infra-structure deficit, the constant attempts to transfer responsibility for collisions to cyclists (instead of tackling the root cause, because that would be politically unacceptable), etc - surely they rank waaaaaay ahead of what I'm suggesting as issues that compromise cyclist safety?

Of course they rank way ahead. When did I ever suggest otherwise? But when people like you break the lights it further alienates us from reasonable road users. And the prospects of introducing the required infrastructure do not improve. Go look at other threads here when there's links to news of a cyclist's death. Read the comments. Repeatedly people will come on saying cyclists are always breaking lights etc, cycling dangerously. Some of them will be morons, but in ten years of cycling in Dublin city centre I can unequivocally say that by far the worst conduct I see by road users as a group is cyclists. And the fact that they rarely endanger people other than themselves doesn't detract from that.

Case in point what is the most recent change in legislation affecting cyclists? The introduction of fines for cyclist breaking the lights and rules of the road. Why has that come about? Because people like you are routinely doing it.

And even if it is morons who hold those opinions, why feed them? Why give opinionated columnists the fodder to whip up further anti cycling sentiment. I mean do you actually think having a city where cyclists repeatedly break the rules makes reform of the inadequate infrastructure more or less likely? its clearly the latter because there's much much less support for us and our needs. And people will assume that when a cyclist dies its not because the infrastructure isn't there its because they broke the rules.

I live in the hope that I will one day live in a city where our obsession with the motor car is abandoned, where cars are all but banished and there is segregated, safe infrastructure in place for us. But in the meantime I can simply hope that people cycle safely and to be honest at the moment I'm close to packing it in as I feel the risk isn't justified.

And by the way, the "us" are, clearly, cyclists, and particular cyclists on this forum who are interested and motivated to make the city safer for us. And when you and others break the lights and flaunt the rules of the road, because you assume its ok or safe for you, and you alone, to do it, you sh*t all over those plans.

a148pro

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously, it never fails get a giggle from me when people admonish cyclists about their lack of knowledge of the RotR and then go on to mis-state the principles articulated therein......

How did I misstate the principles? I said the vast majority of road users will think they can pass safely without getting hit from the side. I never said the rules of the road guaranteed it. I'm talking about people's perceptions and the assumptions they make, because they are what will accurately predict their actions.

Presumably you think road users will advance a foot or two at a green light, look left and right to make sure no-one's breaking the adjoining lights and repeat this process until they are through the junction. Which clearly they don't and never will.

a148pro

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah, so motorists are allowed make assumptions that the road is safe, but cyclists have to make assumptions that the road is unsafe. gotcha.

No, we're all entitled to make the assumption. But the cyclist is, due to the physics pointed out above, unfortunately more at risk if the assumption is incorrect.

mr spuckler

i think it's reasonable to expect that if you're proceeding through a green with a clear road ahead that somebody should not break another light and force you to react.

however we all know perfectly well from our use of the road that you always have to prepare for the worst whether in a car or on a bike / expect the unexpected. therefore no matter how much in the right you are you're always watching out for potential hazards and unexpected behaviour.

crashes and road deaths don't occur because everyone uses the roads as they should do.

Jawgap

a148pro wrote: »

This rationale could just as easily be used to justify cycling blindfolded. The point is you're choosing to do something that is inherently more dangerous. I am assuming our discussion is premised by us mutually wanting to cycle in the first place, and then cycle in as safe a fashion as reasonably possible.

Just as a matter of interest what separates you from the amber gambler?




Of course general conduct affects other people's individual conduct? How could you honestly think otherwise? Have you ever been to a country where they don't respect or have rules of the road? In many 3rd world country the rule becomes might is right. I've seen lads go the wrong way around roundabouts in India, because its tolerated. I've seen policemen in Greece beeping me telling me not to use the pedestrian crossing because they've no intention of stopping. The driving culture in some Mediterranean countries is highly dangerous, because it is a culture. A friend in Venezuela told me of a police car beeping him from behind to break a red light. Similarly - go to some European countries and you will see F - all people jaywalking because there's a culture of rigid compliance.

Of course we can't say that if all cyclists obeyed the rules all other road users would do so too. But if people routinely and regularly break the rules other people are much more likely to do so.



Right. I understood your argument to be, its ok, I can break the rules because I know when its safe to do so. I therefore pointed out that the same could be said of motorists. If you think you can break the light because you can see there are no pedestrians or no traffic coming the other way then the exact same argument can be made for the motorist. They could make the turn perfectly safely if the lights were in their favour. They have exactly the same capacity to assess whether they can safely make the turn even though the lights are not in their favour as you do.

But you're now saying that in fact its the consequences of your actions that are different. Again, I re-iterate, sooner or later you will make a mistake. So you are choosing to do something which is inherently more dangerous for you and other road users. And by the way, if a car has to swerve to avoid you after you've broken the lights I think you'll find the consequences of your decision come loaded with a ton of metal for other road users. All the more so because what you've done is unexpected.



Of course they rank way ahead. When did I ever suggest otherwise? But when people like you break the lights it further alienates us from reasonable road users. And the prospects of introducing the required infrastructure do not improve. Go look at other threads here when there's links to news of a cyclist's death. Read the comments. Repeatedly people will come on saying cyclists are always breaking lights etc, cycling dangerously. Some of them will be morons, but in ten years of cycling in Dublin city centre I can unequivocally say that by far the worst conduct I see by road users as a group is cyclists. And the fact that they rarely endanger people other than themselves doesn't detract from that.

Case in point what is the most recent change in legislation affecting cyclists? The introduction of fines for cyclist breaking the lights and rules of the road. Why has that come about? Because people like you are routinely doing it.

And even if it is morons who hold those opinions, why feed them? Why give opinionated columnists the fodder to whip up further anti cycling sentiment. I mean do you actually think having a city where cyclists repeatedly break the rules makes reform of the inadequate infrastructure more or less likely? its clearly the latter because there's much much less support for us and our needs. And people will assume that when a cyclist dies its not because the infrastructure isn't there its because they broke the rules.

I live in the hope that I will one day live in a city where our obsession with the motor car is abandoned, where cars are all but banished and there is segregated, safe infrastructure in place for us. But in the meantime I can simply hope that people cycle safely and to be honest at the moment I'm close to packing it in as I feel the risk isn't justified.

And by the way, the "us" are, clearly, cyclists, and particular cyclists on this forum who are interested and motivated to make the city safer for us. And when you and others break the lights and flaunt the rules of the road, because you assume its ok or safe for you, and you alone, to do it, you sh*t all over those plans.

You are right about it being a cultural issue but fail to recognise that driving standards are worse in countries like India and around the Med because enforcement is lax or non-existent. In the case of India, there is a case study on the d'interwebs to demonstrate as much.

......and if you think that's not true then I'd advise you to study what went on in France and Portugal and what they achieved - again enforcement, not a critical mass of citizens suddenly adopting a certain set of behaviours, is what drove their improvements.

....furthermore, I've been to Denmark and the Netherlands and seen some stuff there with cyclists that would have Joe Duffy, George Hook and Paul Williams heads exploding with indignation if it happened here to the same degree - which makes you wonder why their hospitals aren't jammed full of cycle-related casualties - could it be they have a culture that doesn't encourage drivers to see themselves as a class apart?

....and you still don't seem to grasp the risk/hazard calculus involved.

Jawgap

a148pro wrote: »

How did I misstate the principles? I said the vast majority of road users will think they can pass safely without getting hit from the side. I never said the rules of the road guaranteed it. I'm talking about people's perceptions and the assumptions they make, because they are what will accurately predict their actions.

Presumably you think road users will advance a foot or two at a green light, look left and right to make sure no-one's breaking the adjoining lights and repeat this process until they are through the junction. Which clearly they don't and never will.

.....and again, the vast majority of road users would be wrong - it's a faulty assumption bred of ignorance.....and if you think you can pass through a junction safely just because you've a green light I'd direct you to the 11,000 or so FCPNs issued last year to drivers who failed to obey traffic lights.

.....the reason the RotR say proceed with caution is because you can't predict everyone's actions - some will go through a red because they are careless or reckless, and a very few will do it deliberately or intentionally. That's why, from a defensive driving perspective, you wait a couple of seconds when the green flicks on rather than treating it - as a lot of Irish drivers do - as the starting lights at Daytona!

Danjamin1

Great idea for a thread OP, pity it's getting so badly derailed

Danbo!

Filtering alongside traffic, left or right, always anticipate:
- Gaps between cars where cars may join the road, or cars travelling in the other direction turn across traffic
- Vans - for some reason, especially along the canal, people love to cross the road in front of vans in traffic. They pop out at the last second, or they run across the road and then slow down in the cycle track.
- Cars in the queue turning off the road onto sideroads without indicating.

There was an accident in Terenure this morning where a motorcyclist was killed, reported as hitting a wall. As many on here probably pass here on their commute, they know it's very difficult on such a straight road to hit a wall, likely more to it than is being reported. Stay safe out there

Chuchote

God rest the poor motorcyclist. Hate those machines; you're going so fast that even a nut jumping out of your wheel or a swerve to avoid a cat and you have no control.