Cyclists

Taxuser1

since the clocks went back I've taken to having a quiet word with every cyclist I encounter on the way home who isn't lit up to my satisfaction. I'm sure they think I'm a a pure coconut but if I save just one life, my vocation will have reaped a dividend. I've become immune to swearing.

Tombo2001

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I wouldn't overlook it, but I would look at it in the context of the overall numbers of those injured in collisions. The number of collisions and the severity of injury is in a different league to that of motorists.

In terms of priorities for reducing, the priority would still be very much on the motoring side.

Hope you have recovered yourself.

I broke my wrist which wasn't so bad

But it did get me thinking that
- I was (very) lucky it wasn't worse
- Investing €80 in a hi viz jacket and €65 in a hi viz bag didn't help the driver see me (it was day time).
- In general, the road traffic stats centre around fatalities - the disruption around injuries is not insignificant
- I'm Dublin based; this year a number of work colleagues have had cycling accidents. I'm not aware of anyone here who's had an injury from a driving accident. Given that cyclists would be circa 10% of the workforce where I am, that's fairly noteworthy for me anyway.

Shai

average_runner wrote: »

We don't need to become a nanny state and have the police hold our hands, we need to become responsible adults that sets a responsible example to our kids. That's the way we change things.


By saying it needs to be police your passing the bucket to some one else, which is not a good example to show your kids.

Instead man/woman up, lead by good example and if the majority of us do that, we will see the effect of it in the long term.

I may be misreading this, but are you advocating that enforcement is not necessary and that people will do the right thing by themselves?

AndrewJRenko

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The vast majority of the meagre enforcement efforts we have are against motorists. A significant proportion of public information and education efforts are directed towards motorists. I don't see why its controversial to encourage cyclists to use decent lights.

There is no problem with encouraging cyclists to use decent lights. I encourage cyclists to use decent lights. I've spoken to individual cyclists about not having lights.

The problem arises when people suggest that cyclists' lights are a major issue on the roads, and that cyclists are being nearly killed every night because of lack of lights.

The data shows that cyclists lights is a fairly minor issue overall.

beauf

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

....You may never have seen a Garda stopping a cyclist, but it does happen all the time.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/nearly-600-cyclists-fined-under-new-penalty-regime-1.2631593

...

That's like 3 or 4 a day.

That's terrible.

beauf

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is no problem with encouraging cyclists to use decent lights. I encourage cyclists to use decent lights. I've spoken to individual cyclists about not having lights.

The problem arises when people suggest that cyclists' lights are a major issue on the roads, and that cyclists are being nearly killed every night because of lack of lights.

The data shows that cyclists lights is a fairly minor issue overall.

The data often contradicts common misconception.

I've a bunch of lights on my own bike. But I've had the crud scared out of me numerous times by ninjas. So why it's not higher in the stats baffles me.

beauf

Taxuser1 wrote: »

since the clocks went back I've taken to having a quiet word with every cyclist I encounter on the way home who isn't lit up to my satisfaction. I'm sure they think I'm a a pure coconut but if I save just one life, my vocation will have reaped a dividend. I've become immune to swearing.

Any time I've done this, cycled past another cyclist and tried to tell them their invisible from behind, and their lights are terrible I've just got a string of abuse in return.

AndrewJRenko

beauf wrote: »

The data often contradicts common misconception.

I've a bunch of lights on my own bike. But I've had the crud scared out of me numerous times by ninjas. So why it's not higher in the stats baffles me.

My own opinion is that people are generally visible in urban areas, with or without lights, whether on bikes or on foot.

AndrewJRenko

beauf wrote: »

Any time I've done this, cycled past another cyclist and tried to tell them their invisible from behind, and their lights are terrible I've just got a string of abuse in return.

I've got mixed results, but nothing that would constitute abuse. I only speak if I'm beside them at the lights, which doesn't happen all that often.

Tombo2001

In light of this thread, I made the specific point of doing a numbers check on the way home from work, and on the way in to work this morning.

My commute is a 3k walk to city centre.

On the way in this morning, I saw 1 cyclist out 46 in total that didn't have lights. Nearly every cyclist had front and rear lights as well as hi viz on.

Similar, on the way home yesterday, every cyclist I saw had lights.

I have a pretty strong view at this point that commuting cyclists do very well when it comes to lighting themselves up. For me - the ninja cyclist thing is a bit of a red herring - something that drivers and cyclists who perceive themselves as a bit superior roll out to make themselves feel superior.

Teenagers are I fully admit the worst offenders when it comes to this, and routinely don't have lights. They also routinely cycle on the footpath. I also note a high frequency of our international student brethren without lights.

However - when it comes to commuter cyclists - I strongly think this is a red herring; given the amount of social media time it gets.

What I would fully accept however is that while pretty much every cyclist had lights, some of them were fairly poor lights - that's a different issue, but arguably a more important one to address.

beauf

Tombo2001 wrote: »

....
Similar, on the way home yesterday, every cyclist I saw had lights.

...
...

However - when it comes to commuter cyclists - I strongly think this is a red herring; given the amount of social media time it gets.

What I would fully accept however is that while pretty much every cyclist had lights, some of them were fairly poor lights - that's a different issue, but arguably a more important one to address.

Might depend on your route. Standing on the south quays one night about 40% were ninjas. So at every change in the lights you'd get about 5-10 with no lights.

Regardless of how useful lights are. Its the law. If enforcement rate is about 3-4 a day, then it's not being enforced.

beauf

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My own opinion is that people are generally visible in urban areas, with or without lights, whether on bikes or on foot.

Some of my urban route has no street lights. Even where there is a flashing light helps catch the eye.

Anyway it doesn't seem to be big factor in stats. IMO Its driver habits and cyclist road positioning. That is not easily fixed.

I say that as a cyclist and a driver. I don't see cyclists now and then and I'm making a big effort to look for them. You can't look 360 all the time and cars have big blind spots.

Cycle and drive like no one sees you. Assume nothing.

Chips Lovell

Of course, it should go without saying that anecdote =/= evidence.

beauf

A proper traffic study in a couple of locations or even a camera would sort that. Someone is bound to go to the trouble of counting the latter.

Taxuser1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've got mixed results, but nothing that would constitute abuse. I only speak if I'm beside them at the lights, which doesn't happen all that often.

I use the Doppler method of advising on their lightage. screaming YOUR LIGHTS ARE **** 50 metres behind them and 50 metres past them should give you the desired level of abuse.

Macy0161

If I say anything, I just go with "I think your lights are out of battery". Even if they have no visible light. It's not very frequent I see anyone without them (generally teenagers on the pavement), and less frequent I bother saying anything.

Mc Love

Was behind a taxi driver with no lights on my way home last night, tempted to cycle up beside his window and say something but decided not to. We know how angry they get especially with cyclists. But after they drove off, it was near impossible to see them up ahead alongside traffic travelling in the opposite direction.

TooObvious

In all this discussion about cyclists without lights/hi-vis/jumping red lights/wearing black/dublin bike users etc., the key thing to remember is...the vast majority of those rule breakers are saving up to buy a car.

Mc Love

TooObvious wrote: »

In all this discussion about cyclists without lights/hi-vis/jumping red lights/wearing black/dublin bike users etc., the key thing to remember is...the vast majority of those rule breakers are saving up to buy a car.

Really? Many cyclists I know have cars and choose to cycle due to the cost of parking and traffic!

jjpep

TooObvious wrote: »

In all this discussion about cyclists without lights/hi-vis/jumping red lights/wearing black/dublin bike users etc., the key thing to remember is...the vast majority of those rule breakers are saving up to buy a car.

I'd question this assumption too. Pretty much every one I know who cycles already own a car and cycle to avoid traffic/health benefits etc.

Weepsie

TooObvious wrote: »

In all this discussion about cyclists without lights/hi-vis/jumping red lights/wearing black/dublin bike users etc., the key thing to remember is...the vast majority of those rule breakers are saving up to buy a car.

Am I the only person who took this as a joke. I guess sarcasm doesn't translate so well

CramCycle

Weepsie wrote: »

Am I the only person who took this as a joke. I guess sarcasm doesn't translate so well

I took it as sarcasm, why would you save up for a car when you can save up for another bike?

TooObvious

T'was a joke

jjpep

TooObvious wrote: »

T'was a joke

Sorry, my bad. If its any good I'm crap at picking up sarcasm/humor face to face as well...

tomasrojo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

On the way in this morning, I saw 1 cyclist out 46 in total that didn't have lights. Nearly every cyclist had front and rear lights as well as hi viz on.

Similar, on the way home yesterday, every cyclist I saw had lights.

I have a pretty strong view at this point that commuting cyclists do very well when it comes to lighting themselves up.

I agree; as I said earlier in the thread, the majority seem to have lights of some kind, and a lot of ok to good lights. Though I do think that peak commute times are dominated by adult cyclists with jobs, and they are the type who would have lights, I think. As you say, teenagers seem to have lights a lot less frequently, and around three or four pm there would be fewer cyclists with lights, but then again, it's before lighting up time for all but a small bit of the year.

Along the Grand Canal, even those with less good lights or no lights are usually mixed in with a group of well-lit cyclists. Sort of like immunisation: even those not participating benefit.

EDIT: Not saying that those without lights might not meet a scenario that turns out badly for them. Though I think the likeliest place for an unlit cyclist to have a collision is on a two-way cycle track, especially when no street lighting.

CramCycle

I pass UCD daily, the % of cyclists with lights and those who obey lights plummets within 100m of the grounds and returns to normal as you get further away. The driving capabilities of drivers also plummets as well. So much for the highly educated.

Wishbone Ash

CramCycle wrote: »

... So much for the highly educated.

LOL

Reminds me of one night when I got really pissed off with a cyclist who was travelling in the same direction out of the city center. He was doing everything wrong - no lights, dark clothing, shoaling, squeaky bike, breaking red lights etc.

....but according to his backpack, he was a fellow of the RCSI.

Weepsie

I saw a guy wearing an altura night vision jacket tonigh, which is arguably one of the better reflective jackets you can get. He had over it however, an RSA builders best type hi Viz which had poorer reflective capabilities, and over it again a backpack covering most of the reflective stuff anyway.

I wonder why bother going to all the effort of getting such gear, and then doing it arseways

I actually find the full on retroflective jackets hard on the eyes if i'm honest either on the bike or in car. The altura night vision gets it right imo.

Ray Palmer

I had a bike which was really well lite up with EL wire on the frame, lights on the wheels, 2 lights front and back one flash the other not. The motorists still didn't see me and got the "You came out of nowhere" . Lights don't matter if people aren't looking which is a bigger issue.