Season of the Millennial Ninja

mrcheez

...is upon us.

Encountered 20 of these lightless muppets on the route home (well lightless barring the light from their mobiles) and probably need a new set of brake pads as a result.

Careful out there folks.

Kaisr Sose

Was thinking the very same thing last week - seen one invisible cyclist on Friday. The "one eyed monstorists" * are also back to confuse and terrorise other road users.

* one main lamp bulb blown

Wishbone Ash

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

... seen one invisible cyclist on Friday...

????!!

Pinch Flat

Couple of eejits in the Phoenix park cycling lanes sans luminaire coming against me about 8pm this evening. Time to bust out the 700 lumen front light....

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Was thinking the very same thing last week - seen one invisible cyclist on Friday. The "one eyed monstorists" * are also back to confuse and terrorise other road users.

* one main lamp bulb blown

Awful lot of tools with day light running lights on in the dark. "Sure it's grand, I can see where I'm going". They need to a recall and fit an idiot override switch to cars with this feature pronto.

tomasrojo

Was walking through Dundrum at about eight last night and nobody on a bike had lights. I only saw about ten, mind you. Guess the earlier nights catch some people out, and the others aren't going to get lights.

neris

https://twitter.com/PMc276/status/912390544260784133

tomasrojo

neris wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PMc276/status/912390544260784133

Very quick descent from outrage into self pity for their unfair treatment in the aftermath of a collision that didn't actually happen.

NIMAN

I heard it discussed on the radio the other day , but surely its time we put in strict, enforceable rules for walkers and cyclists that they MUST wear hi-viz when on the roads.

I never understood these guys in black on autumn nights. They may leave the house in sunshine but they can return in darkness.

tomasrojo

No, that's a very bad idea, I think. But if you want to discuss it, the Hi-viz Megathread is the best place, as otherwise this will become a thread about hi-viz and nothing else.

daragh_

NIMAN wrote: »

I heard it discussed on the radio the other day , but surely its time we put in strict, enforceable rules for walkers and cyclists that they MUST wear hi-viz when on the roads.

I never understood these guys in black on autumn nights. They may leave the house in sunshine but they can return in darkness.

We don't need new rules. We need the AGS to have the time and resources to enforce the existing rules about bike lights. Decent bike lights are ridiculously cheap now.

tomasrojo

Incidentally, while middle-aged journalists enjoy blaming millennials for the demise of everything from TV to department stores, they are not uniquely deficient in failing to use lights.

ford2600

daragh_ wrote: »

We need the AGS to have the time and resources to enforce the existing rules about bike lights. Decent bike lights are ridiculously cheap now.

There was a time when they did that a lot; fines for no bike lights, no light on cart/trap and fines for drinking in a pub on a Sunday when you didn't qualify as a "traveller" took up an awful lot of Garda time

Macy0161

NIMAN wrote: »

I heard it discussed on the radio the other day , but surely its time we put in strict, enforceable rules for walkers and cyclists that they MUST wear hi-viz when on the roads.

I never understood these guys in black on autumn nights. They may leave the house in sunshine but they can return in darkness.

Fluorescent is no good in the dark. I assume you mean reflective clothing detail? That doesn't need to be attached to a builder’s jacket (and torso the least effective place in an urban environment). However, I look forward to not being able to get out of my car to walk to the shop without builders garb... Lights and torches are what should be the focus!

What we need is enforcement of the existing laws on bike lights. The only additional laws that I may support are perhaps defined standards for lights, as per Germany, which is really more about the consumer having appropriate lights (which the ones the RSA and Guards have given out in the past haven't been appropriate imo).

Just to bring it kind of back to the millennials - I work beside UCD. On top of the lights thing, the latest fashion this autumn (probably fall going by the accents I hear around the place) seems to be having your helmet swinging from your handlebars rather than on your head. I'm definitely ambivalent about helmet use, but if you're going to carry it anyway...

07Lapierre

Macy0161 wrote: »

Fluorescent is no good in the dark. I assume you mean reflective clothing detail? That doesn't need to be attached to a builder’s jacket (and torso the least effective place in an urban environment). However, I look forward to not being able to get out of my car to walk to the shop without builders garb... Lights and torches are what should be the focus!

What we need is enforcement of the existing laws on bike lights. The only additional laws that I may support are perhaps defined standards for lights, as per Germany, which is really more about the consumer having appropriate lights (which the ones the RSA and Guards have given out in the past haven't been appropriate imo).

Just to bring it kind of back to the millennials - I work beside UCD. On top of the lights thing, the latest fashion this autumn (probably fall going by the accents I hear around the place) seems to be having your helmet swinging from your handlebars rather than on your head. I'm definitely ambivalent about helmet use, but if you're going to carry it anyway...

I pass a primary School on my morning...ALL the Kids and Parents wear Hi-Viz Jackets! The road is busy, but they walk on the pavement. The street has Lighting, there is a pedestrian crossing AND a Lollipop Lady!

They all look like extras froma Dispicable ME movie!

Grassey

Macy0161 wrote: »

What we need is enforcement of the existing laws on bike lights. The only additional laws that I may support are perhaps defined standards for lights, as per Germany, which is really more about the consumer having appropriate lights (which the ones the RSA and Guards have given out in the past haven't been appropriate imo).

Seems like a pretty defined standard already set out to me:

2 square inches, no higher than 3ft from the ground, 500ft viewing distance during the day


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/189/made/en/print

4. (1) Rear lamps, in the case of a vehicle to which this Part of these Regulations applies, shall consist of one or two lamps fitted to the vehicle and shall comply with the provisions of this article.

(2) (a) Each lamp shall, when lit, be capable of showing a red light to the rear visible at night time in clear weather for a distance of 500 feet.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this sub-article shall not apply to a bicycle not equipped with a battery while stopped in the course of traffic.

(3) (a) In the case of a bicycle used without a side-car, one lamp shall be fitted.

(b) In the case of a tricycle or invalid carriage not exceeding 3 feet in width, one or two lamps shall be fitted.

(c) In a case other than those referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this sub-article, two lamps shall be fitted.

(4) Where two lamps are fitted, they shall—

(a) be as nearly as possible of the same power,

(b) have as nearly as possible the same appearance when illuminated,

(c) have as nearly as possible the same illuminated area.

(5) The lamp (or each lamp) shall have an illuminated area of 3 square inches in the case of a tricycle or an invalid carriage or 2 square inches in any other case, and of such a shape that a circle of 1 inch in diameter may be inscribed therein.

(6) (a) No part of the illuminated surface of a lamp shall be less than 15 inches or more than 3 feet from the ground.

(b) In the case of a tricycle or an invalid carriage having two lamps, the lamps shall, subject to paragraph (a) of this sub-article, be fitted as nearly as possible at the same height from the ground.

(7) (a) In the case of a bicycle used without a side-car, or a tricycle or invalid carriage having one lamp, the lamp shall be fitted on the centre line of the vehicle or to the right of that line so that no part of the vehicle shall extend to the right laterally more than 16 inches beyond the illuminated surface of the lamp.

(b) In the case of a bicycle used with a side-car, one lamp shall be fitted on the centre line of the bicycle or to the right of that line, and the other lamp shall be fitted on the centre line of the side-car or to the left of that line so that no part of the side-car shall extend laterally to the left more than 16 inches from the nearest part of the illuminated surface of the lamp.

(c) In the case of a tricycle or an invalid carriage having two lamps, the lamps shall be fitted on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, as nearly as possible equidistant from that axis and not less than 21 inches apart, and each lamp shall be so fitted that no part of the vehicle extends laterally on the same side as the lamp more than 16 inches beyond the illuminated surface of the lamp.

(8) (a) The lamp fitted to a bicycle shall be so fitted that it is not more than 20 inches from the extreme rear of the vehicle.

(b) In the case of a bicycle used with a side-car, the lamp fitted to the side-ear shall be so fitted that it is not more than 2 feet and 6 inches from the extreme rear of the side-car.

(c) In the case of a tricycle or an invalid carriage having two lamps, the lamps shall be fitted as nearly as possible in the same longitudinal position in relation to the vehicle.

(d) In the case of a tricycle or an invalid carriage, the lamp or lamps shall be so fitted as to be not more than 2 feet and 6 inches from the extreme rear of the vehicle.

Macy0161

Grassey wrote: »

Seems like a pretty defined standard already set out to me:

2 square inches, no higher than 3ft from the ground, 500ft viewing distance during the day

Defined standard, but how does the consumer know before they purchase it meets the requirement? So if we have the standard, maybe we need a labelling system instead?

No way do the rsa lights I've seen/ been given meet that standard!

07Lapierre

Grassey wrote: »

Seems like a pretty defined standard already set out to me:

2 square inches, no higher than 3ft from the ground, 500ft viewing distance during the day


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/189/made/en/print

So lights on Helmets are illegal?

Thud

07Lapierre wrote: »

I pass a primary School on my morning...ALL the Kids and Parents wear Hi-Viz Jackets! The road is busy, but they walk on the pavement. The street has Lighting, there is a pedestrian crossing AND a Lollipop Lady!

On the other end of the scale I was coming through Clonskeagh last night about 7.30, 5 or 6 kids cycling home from training (in football/rugby gear) with only the reflectors on their pedals visible

tomasrojo

07Lapierre wrote: »

So lights on Helmets are illegal?

Don't think these rules apply to lights worn on the person, just on the bike. A light on the helmet alone wouldn't suffice anyway as the law requires the bike to have lights on it. Some Reelights might just fall short of being legal, as they're less than half the wheel diameter above the ground, which is less than 350mm, which is very close to the 1-ft-above-the-ground limit.

A lot of lights attached to the seat post might not be legally compliant either, as they're too far from the back of the bike (though it's not clear to me whether that's the rear of the rear wheel, the back of the back carrier, or the end of the rear triangle).

As for the 500ft-visible business, that's only for rear lights.

If these are the rules as they stand, they should be updated and metricated, I think. For a start, these laws were drafted when lights were quite dim and a large-ish surface area compensated somewhat for that deficiency. That requirement may not be as pressing now.

07Lapierre

tomasrojo wrote: »

Don't think these rules apply to lights worn on the person, just on the bike. A light on the helmet alone wouldn't suffice anyway as the law requires the bike to have lights on it. Some Reelights might just fall short of being legal, as they're less than half the wheel diameter above the ground, which is less than 350mm, which is very close to the 1-ft-above-the-ground limit.

A lot of lights attached to the seat post might not be legally compliant either, as they're too far from the back of the bike (though it's not clear to me whether that's the rear of the rear wheel, the back of the back carrier, or the end of the rear triangle).

As for the 500ft-visible business, that's only for rear lights.

If these are the rules as they stand, they should be updated and metricated, I think. For a start, these laws were drafted when lights were quite dim and a large-ish surface area compensated somewhat for that deficiency. That requirement may not be as pressing now.

Sounds like the law makes perfect sense if you happen to cycle a "High Nellie" type bike. any other type of bike causes a lot of confusion.

tomasrojo

Yeah, and with this sort of lights on it:

Kaisr Sose

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

????!!

I have special glasses!!

I think you know what is meant 🤔

OleRodrigo

Is the season of the Fairweather Wobbly Whingers behind us then ?

Beasty

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Is the season of the Fairweather Wobbly Whingers behind us then ?

No. Reckon I'll be back to my regular commute before too long so you'se all better behave yerselves as I have a full quota of 2017 threads left....

The Ging and I

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, and with this sort of lights on it:

Did the PBP and many a super randonneur with side wall dynamos they are very effective for seeing where you are going on rural roads.:D

All My Stars Aligned

This always comes up at this time of year as the evening shorten. If AGS would spend a few weeks at this time of year cracking down and enforcing the existing laws at this time of year combined with the RSA running a campaign it might go some way to resolving the issue.

tomasrojo

The Ging and I wrote: »

Did the PBP and many a super randonneur with side wall dynamos they are very effective for seeing where you are going on rural roads.:D

I had a bike or two with that sort of dynamo too.

I was thinking really of the size and shape of the lights. A lot of rear lights aren't even circular anymore, which seems to be what the people who wrote the lighting regulations thought a lamp would be like. For example, you can't inscribe a one-inch-diameter circle inside this:



But it's more conspicuous that a 60s-style light would be.

Wishbone Ash

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

... The "one eyed monstorists" * are also back to confuse and terrorise other road users.

* one main lamp bulb blown

I was regularly replacing what I thought were blown bulbs on the off side headlight of my car until I realised yesterday that it must be a poor connection. If I lean heavily on the light or press the light from the rear, it comes on. It goes off again when I take my hand away. Presumably an expensive light replacement?

Grassey

Wishbone Ash wrote:

I was regularly replacing what I thought were blown bulbs on the off side headlight of my car until I realised yesterday that it must be a poor connection. If I lean heavily on the light or press the light from the rear, it comes on. It goes off again when I take my hand away. Presumably an expensive light replacement?

Bitta duck tape!

07Lapierre

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I was regularly replacing what I thought were blown bulbs on the off side headlight of my car until I realised yesterday that it must be a poor connection. If I lean heavily on the light or press the light from the rear, it comes on. It goes off again when I take my hand away. Presumably an expensive light replacement?

A new car will fix that!

cdaly_

Grassey wrote: »

Seems like a pretty defined standard already set out to me:

2 square inches, no higher than 3ft from the ground, 500ft viewing distance during the day


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/189/made/en/print

The bit that's missing is regulation on the power and beam spread of front lights. The DealExtreme 900lumen lighthouse on your handlebars wastes so much energy lighting up the tree tops and the clouds while dazzling oncoming road users. OTOH, the German standard for front lights is that they have a proper cut-off like dipped headlamps on cars.

cdaly_

tomasrojo wrote: »

I had a bike or two with that sort of dynamo too.

I was thinking really of the size and shape of the lights. A lot of rear lights aren't even circular anymore, which seems to be what the people who wrote the lighting regulations thought a lamp would be like. For example, you can't inscribe a one-inch-diameter circle inside this:



But it's more conspicuous that a 60s-style light would be.

But "2 square inches" covers that shape.

homer911

Don't forget that a red rear reflector is also mandatory at all times

mrcheez

homer911 wrote: »

Don't forget that a red rear reflector is also mandatory at all times

So reflectors are mandatory but lights are not is that right?

Or just that there is no enforcement?

Wishbone Ash

mrcheez wrote: »

So reflectors are mandatory but lights are not is that right?

Or just that there is no enforcement?

I think reflectors are mandatory at all times while lights are only mandatory during lighting up hours.

tomasrojo

cdaly_ wrote: »

But "2 square inches" covers that shape.

Nearly; the lit surface is about 2cmx4cm. I think 2 sq.in. is about 12-13 sq.cm, so it probably fails on that stipulation as well.

I'd certainly consider it an adequate light in practice.

Lusk_Doyle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Nearly; the lit surface is about 2cmx4cm. I think 2 sq.in. is about 12-13 sq.cm, so it probably fails on that stipulation as well.

I'd certainly consider it an adequate light in practice.

Well, we'd better get you into a position of power and soon! Our man on the inside!