Cyclists

07Lapierre

Steve wrote: »

Eh no, there is none. How can I link to something that does not exist?

Well then, like it or not..if your driving and you hit someone or something, you cannot use "sorry,but I didn't see you/it" as "a get it of jail free" card.

As drivers, we have a responsibility to drive within our own abilities and in accordance with the road conditions. It's still no excuse for people not to use lights when it's dark, but as a drivers, we bare a greater responsibility in the event of a RTA that involves a more vulnerable roaduser.

But don't worry...if you do hit a cyclist, who is using lights, who is wearing a helmet, who is wearing a hi-viz jacket, and even if you were speeding, a fine and a few penalty points is probably the worst case scenario. Makes you wonder why anyone would cycle in Ireland doesn't it?

Hurrache

Steve wrote: »

If I cannot see an obstacle, legally it is not there....

It's an argument I've only ever seen in the context of toddlers, and dogs when you make their ball disappear when you pretend to throw it but put it behind your back.

AndrewJRenko

Steve wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where exactly did I defend cyclists without lights? A specific quote would be great.

You didn't, I concede that point and apologise.

I'd also be interested in hearing your thoughts about the hi-vis stripes for all cars, given the actual evidence that brighter cars have less crashes.

All cars, by law, are required to have 'hi viz' reflectors front and back and they all do. Number plates on front and back and red reflectors on rear.

Thanks for your clarification above.

What about the sides of cars - shouldn't they all be hi-vis to make them visible?

ED E

Lights, Sirens, Hivis, Chevrons, the dogs proverbials.

Still hit.

https://twitter.com/SussexRoadsPol/status/968288116577579009


Also see the Irish Rail bridges that see like 300 strikes per year despite being covered in big fvck off yellow warnings. Can't make people see if they don't bloody look.

CramCycle

Steve wrote: »

I disagree.

I think the discussion should be based on facts and laws of physics than things that 'excite' you.

I commend and respect those that are properly 'lit' and will always give them road room, those that I simply cannot see do not deserve the same respect or room yet I am still in the wrong?

The big issue here is alot of drivers miss the idea of what they see to be clear. At night time with dims, if a cyclist or pedestrian have a light, you tend to see them well before you see the road ahead to be clear. Many drivers mistakenly believe the road they know to be there to be what they see to be clear, when in fact this distance is only as far as their dims hit the road. Of course, this would mean drivers, driving at 50 or 60kmph max which is crazy talk.

Steve wrote: »

Your argument is self defeating. If I cannot see an obstacle, legally it is not there... i.e. If I can see a clear road ahead, yet there is an 'invisible' cyclist then meh...

I agree 100% with lights and believe that all cyclists should have a decent set, but this doesn't absolve drivers of not seeing cyclists or pedestrians because they were driving faster than conditions allow. If you hit a cow or horse who broke out while the fault may lie partially with the farmer, should you not have been driving slower?

Please stop defending illegal cyclists with no lights.

I don't think anyone is.

AndrewJRenko

I often wonder if the creativity and enthusiasm of. many motorists for 'fixing'cycling was applied to' fixing 'motoring, could we manage to halve our road death statistics?

First Up

It would certainly help but nothing very creative is needed to wear a (free) RSA hiz viz jacket or stick on a flashing light or two.

Like everything else to do with the roads (drink driving being the obvious example) the only remedy is enforcement. If enough drivers went around without lights, the Gardai would be forced to act. The only question is how many is enough.

The same goes for cyclists.

average_runner

Funnily enough, there is enforcement on O'Connell bridge this morning, but once the gardai turn their back, the only ones going through the red with people crossing the road is the cyclists!!!!


Just can't win, we want safe roads but can't help ourselves!!

Macy0161

First Up wrote: »

If enough drivers went around without lights, the Gardai would be forced to act. The only question is how many is enough.

But there are loads of motorists driving with defective lights - one headlight out/ one tail light or brake light out/ driving around on DLR.

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

But there are loads of motorists driving with defective lights - one headlight out/ one tail light or brake light out/ driving around on DLR.

DRLs are the most idiotic thing in the world. The studies they are based on where referring to dims during the day (so front and rear). Why was it just not made that new cars had no off switch, dims, minimum, all the time.

Hurrache

average_runner wrote: »

Just can't win, we want safe roads but can't help ourselves!!

A large part of the problem is that cyclists are being likened to the Borg, hence threads like this. It was individuals on bikes breaking the law.

First Up

Macy0161 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

If enough drivers went around without lights, the Gardai would be forced to act. The only question is how many is enough.

But there are loads of motorists driving with defective lights - one headlight out/ one tail light or brake light out/ driving around on DLR.

The number of broken lights on cars is a disgrace and I'd love to see a crackdown on it. But cars with no lights at all is rare (although I see about one a day) and is usually quickly corrected when the dozy driver is alerted.

Bikes with no lights stay that way.

07Lapierre

CramCycle wrote: »

DRLs are the most idiotic thing in the world. The studies they are based on where referring to dims during the day (so front and rear). Why was it just not made that new cars had no off switch, dims, minimum, all the time.

Volvo (and Saab) are designed with side lights on permanently.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

DRLs are the most idiotic thing in the world.

i was blown at by a mazda this morning on the leopardstown road (for not using the cycle path). after giving him my customary cheery wave, i noticed he was driving with DRLs (or maybe no lights at all) - and this was about 7:20am, so still properly dark.
cheered me up.

Wishbone Ash

07Lapierre wrote: »

Volvo (and Saab) are designed with side lights on permanently.

I had a Volvo years ago. People used to regularly tell me that my lights were on and on the open road many drivers would flash their lights at me. It was a bit of a pain in the arse.

CramCycle

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I had a Volvo years ago. People used to regularly tell me that my lights were on and on the open road many drivers would flash their lights at me. It was a bit of a pain in the arse.

People are a bit of a pain in the arse TBH. I had a Saab 93. Best car I ever owned.

magicbastarder

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I had a Volvo years ago. People used to regularly tell me that my lights were on and on the open road many drivers would flash their lights at me. It was a bit of a pain in the arse.

i read a john mcgahern essay a couple of years back, where he related a conversation he'd had with someone who told him 'i wouldn't vote for (insert name of local councillor) because he'd never flash at you'.
after a bit of a double take, mcgahern realised that the meaning was not one of exposing oneself, but of the local politician flashing lights as a greeting as he drove past.
apparently it was 'a thing' that people would refuse to vote for politicians who didn't flash as it was seen as unsociable.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

i read a john mcgahern essay a couple of years back, where he related a conversation he'd had with someone who told him 'i wouldn't vote for (insert name of local councillor) because he'd never flash at you'.
after a bit of a double take, mcgahern realised that the meaning was not one of exposing oneself, but of the local politician flashing lights as a greeting as he drove past.
apparently it was 'a thing' that people would refuse to vote for politicians who didn't flash as it was seen as unsociable.

I would have taken it as he wouldn't warn you the gardai have a check point or there was something you needed to slow down for up ahead. You would wave at people you knew and flashing would lead to confusion. I think McGahern may have made a mistake there.

average_runner

Hurrache wrote: »

A large part of the problem is that cyclists are being likened to the Borg, hence threads like this. It was individuals on bikes breaking the law.

Same as individuals in cars that break the law, but its ok to likened motorists to borg

hesker

average_runner wrote: »

Same as individuals in cars that break the law, but its ok to likened motorists to borg

Take a trip over to the Motors forum and see how many threads are started giving out about poor driving. I found one about crappy parking but I’d be surprised there would be the same number of complaints as you see here and reported in the media.

Ray Bloody Purchase

hesker wrote: »

Take a trip over to the Motors forum and see how many threads are started giving out about poor driving. I found one about crappy parking but I’d be surprised there would be the same number of complaints as you see here and reported in the media.

It's all about perspective with it. There's sh1t drivers and sh1t cyclists.

The problem is that we're all crammed into absolutely sh1t infrastructure. All the talk about hi-vis, lights, 1.5 metres is only bollocks. We've a government that is actively doing fcuk all to improve the welfare of anyone on the roads, including drivers or cyclists. I wouldn't like to be a driver or a cyclist in any of our major towns or cities because of the crap state of the roads.

The whole cyclist vs motorist debate is only masking the ineptitude of our elected representatives, giving them an easy 'out' as opposed to doing anything about the situation. Fooking ****.

First Up

magicbastarder wrote: »

CramCycle wrote: »

DRLs are the most idiotic thing in the world.

i was blown at by a mazda this morning on the leopardstown road (for not using the cycle path). after giving him my customary cheery wave, i noticed he was driving with DRLs (or maybe no lights at all) - and this was about 7:20am, so still properly dark.
cheered me up.

And completely validated you not using the cycle path.....

CramCycle

First Up wrote: »

And completely validated you not using the cycle path.....

If you cycled the Leopardstown road you might understand why a cyclist would not use the cycle path, it's pretty sh1t in several places. Please though, do continue.

First Up

CramCycle wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

And completely validated you not using the cycle path.....

If you cycled the Leopardstown road you might understand why a cyclist would not use the cycle path, it's pretty sh1t in several places. Please though, do continue.

Then use that as your explanation/justification and not an irrelevant point about DLRs.

CramCycle

First Up wrote: »

Then use that as your explanation/justification and not an irrelevant point about DLRs.

It wasn't irrelevant, they were brought up int he previous post. They are constantly referred to in other threads as this great safety initiative. I had an opinion on it so I expressed it. If you hadn't responded that part would be over by now. I'd recommend reporting the post in future if you feel it is so far off topic.

The point about the cycle lane being poor is irrelevant though as well, whether the cycle lane was perfect or a disaster, it gives no other road user to be intimidating or threatening to another. I shouldn't have had to make the point at all, and your snippy comment about needing to be validated to not using a cycle path was irrelevant. The poster doesn't need to be validated, they were breaking no laws and placing no one in danger, that is all that needs to be said on the matter unless I am missing something.

I was in the bus lane myself this morning on the N11. Taxi behind me clearly didn't like this, brought his car upto my wheel while moving. In the end i had to indicate and move over into the general traffic lane. It was uneducated and illogical behaviour. I was moving as fast as traffic in the lane, in fact i was capable of moving faster but that doesn't bother me as much as others. If he had paid attention, he would have seen the twwo taxis stopped just ahead behind a bus, and that the cycle lane was closed just after the bus stop, and it made more sense to move into the bus alne early and avoid interaction with bus users and pedestrians unnecessarily. Clearly I deserved it though for not being in the cycle lane and needed some sort of validation.

First Up

We all have anecdotes about being irritated by other road users - in fact their are numerous threads devoted to it. None of it justifies unlit cyclists.

Using the bad behaviour of others to justify our own is plain stupid. We should be benchmarking ourselves against the standards of the best road users, not the worst.

granturismo

hesker wrote: »

Take a trip over to the Motors forum and see how many threads are started giving out about poor driving. I found one about crappy parking but I’d be surprised there would be the same number of complaints as you see here and reported in the media.

There's a whole thread dedicated to dash cams, mostly showing bad to fatal driving but there is the occasional cyclist and pedestrian showcased.

CramCycle

First Up wrote: »

We all have anecdotes about being irritated by other road users - in fact their are numerous threads devoted to it. None of it justifies unlit cyclists.

Using the bad behaviour of others to justify our own is plain stupid. We should be benchmarking ourselves against the standards of the best road users, not the worst.

Nobody is doing that though, I took the post as an ironic statement that the driver was giving out about a perceived wrong (which it wasn't), also was breaking numerous rules themselves, including improper use of a horn, Using DRLs during times of darkness, threatening behaviuor and so on.

No one is justifying unlit cyclist, the closest was AJR clearly pointing out that if safety is our concern, there are more important targets but AJR never condoned not using lights, in fact, unless mistaken, no one has. I could be wrong.

average_runner

hesker wrote: »

Take a trip over to the Motors forum and see how many threads are started giving out about poor driving. I found one about crappy parking but I’d be surprised there would be the same number of complaints as you see here and reported in the media.

But that doesn't make it right. Also I doubt many motorists on the motor forum are cyclists, but I would say a high percentage of cyclists are motorists.

rubadub

First Up wrote: »

Then use that as your explanation/justification and not an irrelevant point about DLRs.

First Up wrote: »

Using the bad behaviour of others to justify our own is plain stupid.

From reading your posts it seems you think he was in the wrong to be cycling on the road -when he has no obligation not to be. He was explaining why the driver was using the horn (which was possibly illegal use?).

It would be no different to me explaining why a driver was wrongly/misguidedly beeping at me crossing at a zebra crossing.