Cyclists

magicbastarder

First Up wrote: »

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

not quite sure what your point is. or whether you misread what i was trying to say.

i don't need my non-use of the cycle path 'validated'.

First Up

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

Just about every post in response to me raising the subject of unlit cyclists either just gave examples of other bad behaviour or said it isn't causing accidents (fatal ones anyway.)

But its a forum for cyclists so what else would I expect

Hurrache

First Up wrote: »

Just about every post in response to me raising the subject of unlit cyclists either just gave examples of other bad behaviour or said it isn't causing accidents (fatal ones anyway.)

But its a forum for cyclists so what else would I expect

You can expect to find, and you have done so, not one person defending the non use of lights in the dark.

First Up

Hurrache wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Just about every post in response to me raising the subject of unlit cyclists either just gave examples of other bad behaviour or said it isn't causing accidents (fatal ones anyway.)

But its a forum for cyclists so what else would I expect

You can expect to find, and you have done so, not one person defending the non use of lights in the dark.

We must be reading different threads.

LennoxR

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

It is is basically unusable, having the equivalent of ramp (a sunken drive way into a house) every five metres or so for over a kilometre. No matter how slowly you are cycling it's just not viable in its current form.

Hurrache

First Up wrote: »

We must be reading different threads.

Show me one post defending the non use of lights in the dark, because maybe we are as I didn't notice all of them.

Tomred13

no back seat modding or attacking other posters, thank you

if you feel another poster is breaching the forum charter, please use the 'report post' function.

mamax

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't need my non-use of the cycle path 'validated'.

May I jump to your defence

http://irishcycle.com/2018/08/18/cyclists-dont-have-to-use-cycle-lanes-new-legislation-confirms/

Macy0161

First Up wrote: »

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

I really don't know how it is so hard for some people to grasp - if the cycle lanes were good, cyclists would use them. The Leopardstown Road one is appauling.

There's a section on my commute on the N11 I always take the road as it dumps you in a shocking position and cedes my right of way. There's another section I prefer not to use, but I generally do as essentially it's use it or risk idiots (those illegally using the bus lane being the worst) who I'm costing a few seconds to get to the back of the next queue of cars.

CramCycle

First Up wrote: »

Just about every post in response to me raising the subject of unlit cyclists either just gave examples of other bad behaviour or said it isn't causing accidents (fatal ones anyway.)

But its a forum for cyclists so what else would I expect

You will actually find probably the highest compliance rate of lights for any form of road user if you were just to talk to the boards cycling forum. Alot of us disagree on many things, from helmets, to Hi Vis but lights are pretty much universally in favour here, at least that is how it appears.

First Up wrote: »

We must be reading different threads.

We are not but I think you might be picking up on something that isn't there. The cyclists frequenting here are typically not ninjas with no lights. Nearly all universally agree that lights should be used. The only whatabouttery is the people posting here going on about cyclist and other road user safety and bringing up Ninja cyclists etc. They may be annoying and endangering themselves but the stats don't bare it out as a big enough issue that with limited resources, the gardai should invest any time in it. The RSA should but they have ballsed up every attempt to look at it with their ineptness. The truth is, a) your preaching to the choir in regards lights here, b) the powers that be should be focusing on something else as it simply is not a big enough problem at present to justify time and investment in it.

flatface

I have stopped getting angry about other people not having lights on their bike. I have pointed it out to a few along the way the response is usually negative. I'm not that bothered by others not having lights but I sure am lit up well.

The previous points about the actual dangers of these ninja cyclists are valid. If they aren't figuring in our fatality figures, along with the demon red light jumpers, its reasonable to figure its not as big a problem as it appears. Perceived vs actual risk is often counter-intuitive. I try to just lead by example and and encourage those who will actually listen to me: friends, family and colleagues, that good lights are better than high-vis and are the essential safety equipment on your bike.

But if we are discussing saving lives, all the available evidence shows we are looking in the wrong direction.

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

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.

Nothing very creative needed to stick a big ugly hi-vis stripe on all cars. Why aren't you pushing for this?

And why is it a numbers game for Gardai? Why should they wait for things to get really bad to act?

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

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.....

It doesn't need any validation by anyone. It's a personal choice, fully legal.

First Up

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

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.

Nothing very creative needed to stick a big ugly hi-vis stripe on all cars. Why aren't you pushing for this?

And why is it a numbers game for Gardai? Why should they wait for things to get really bad to act?

Because a car with its lights on is perfectly visible. A cyclist in black clothing with no lights is not.

You would need to ask the Gardai about their enforcement policy but I would like to see far more rigorous enforcement of proper lighting for cars and bikes. I am making no differentiation.

AndrewJRenko

First Up wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

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.

Nothing very creative needed to stick a big ugly hi-vis stripe on all cars. Why aren't you pushing for this?

And why is it a numbers game for Gardai? Why should they wait for things to get really bad to act?

Because a car with its lights on is perfectly visible. A cyclist in black clothing with no lights is not.

A parked car is definitely not visible, and a car with lights is not always visible from the side.

So surely the hi-vis would help? Do we need evidence to justify such measures, or just a general gut feeling that it could make things better?

Do you have difficulty seeing pedestrians in dark clothing crossing the road? Do they all need hi-vis too?

First Up wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

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.

Nothing very creative needed to stick a big ugly hi-vis stripe on all cars. Why aren't you pushing for this?

And why is it a numbers game for Gardai? Why should they wait for things to get really bad to act?

I am making no differentiation.

Usually, if you're trying to solve a problem, differentiation to identify the actual causes of the problem is an essential step to help you to focus your solutions on the actual problem.

First Up

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

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.

Nothing very creative needed to stick a big ugly hi-vis stripe on all cars. Why aren't you pushing for this?

And why is it a numbers game for Gardai? Why should they wait for things to get really bad to act?

Because a car with its lights on is perfectly visible. A cyclist in black clothing with no lights is not.

A parked car is definitely not visible, and a car with lights is not always visible from the side.

So surely the hi-vis would help? Do we need evidence to justify such measures, or just a general gut feeling that it could make things better?

Do you have difficulty seeing pedestrians in dark clothing crossing the road? Do they all need hi-vis too?

First Up wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

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.

Nothing very creative needed to stick a big ugly hi-vis stripe on all cars. Why aren't you pushing for this?

And why is it a numbers game for Gardai? Why should they wait for things to get really bad to act?

I am making no differentiation.

Usually, if you're trying to solve a problem, differentiation to identify the actual causes of the problem is an essential step to help you to focus your solutions on the actual problem.

I'm making no differentiation between the need to enforce the law for cyclists and motorists.

A few other points;

Being told to stop jumping up and down about it doesn't suggest you are taking the point very seriously.

Telling motorists to slow down and put away their phones is good advice but it does shy away a bit from the point about unlit cyclists.

Parked cars are not going to pull out in front of you.

Yes, pedestrians are well advised to make themselves visible. They are also well advised not to walk on the road.

Wishbone Ash

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A parked car is definitely not visible,....

Most vehicles are required to have rear reflectors for this purpose (and why it's illegal to park on the opposite side of the street/road during lighting up hours).

I don't think I've ever not seen a parked car.

Tomred13

Tomred13 wrote: »

no back seat modding or attacking other posters, thank you

if you feel another poster is breaching the forum charter, please use the 'report post' function.

Apologies..lost the run of myself. .

tomasrojo

I can't believe that there's page after page here of someone saying "you can't tell me that you don't think lights are a good idea" with every single other person prefacing anything they say with "yes, lights are a good idea".

AndrewJRenko

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Most vehicles are required to have rear reflectors for this purpose (and why it's illegal to park on the opposite side of the street/road during lighting up hours).

I don't think I've ever not seen a parked car.

Rear is just one of the four sides. You could find yourself approaching a parked car from any of those sides, given herringbone parking and perpindicular parking. Three of those sides don't have reflectors. So I find it hard to understand this resistance to pig-ugly hi-vis stripes on all sides to make it better. Sure what harm would it do?

First Up wrote: »

I'm making no differentiation between the need to enforce the law for cyclists and motorists.

Yes, I know. That's a bit like the Gardai saying 'we're making no differentiation between the participants in the Hutch/Kinahan feud, and the lads who take a leak up a laneway on the way home from the pub. The law needs to be enforced for all of these.

First Up wrote: »

Telling motorists to slow down and put away their phones is good advice but it does shy away a bit from the point about unlit cyclists.

First Up wrote: »

Being told to stop jumping up and down about it doesn't suggest you are taking the point very seriously.

I take it seriously enough to talk to other cyclists from time to time. The last guy I spoke to told me he's had two good bikes with good lights stolen in the past three months, so he gave up on taking care of the bike. I told him he still needs lights, after sympathizing on his loss.

But do I think this is a significant priority issue on the roads? Really no. In the top 20 list of priorities on the roads, this is somewhere around number 73.

There is also a credibility issue for motorists who fly into this forum, demanding that cyclists up their game. I'd take their concerns more seriously if they were doing something, doing anything to stop or reduce the death toll on the roads caused by motorists. Sort out the stone in thine own eye first, then come back here and lecture cyclists.

First Up wrote: »

Parked cars are not going to pull out in front of you.

Multiple times every week I experience parked cars pulling out in front of me, often with no indication.

First Up wrote: »

Yes, pedestrians are well advised to make themselves visible. They are also well advised not to walk on the road.

That's a bit vague. Are you saying that all pedestrians need to wear hi-vis all the time, or what?

07Lapierre

First Up wrote: »

They are also well advised not to walk on the road.

Not all of us live in urban areas with nice pavements everywhere. A lot of us live in rural areas where there are no pavements at all. This is another reason why motorists must accept that they have a greater responsibility for safety on our roads.

When I was learning to drive, I was told to always expect the unexpected. On rural roads in particular, you have to be prepared to meet pedestrians, horses, tractors coming out of fields, sheep, cows, etc. Etc.

railer201

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A parked car is definitely not visible, and a car with lights is not always visible from the side.............

You don't seem to have much of a problem seeing them when they're obstructing cycle lanes. :pac:

As regards the side on view I think most people can figure out if they see a white light at one end and a red light at the other, there is a car in between.

Like motorists, cyclists should adjust their speed so they can come to a halt within the distance they can see ahead.

shootermacg

I wear one of these, if you knock me off my bike, I should legally be able to kill you.

AndrewJRenko

railer201 wrote: »

You don't seem to have much of a problem seeing them when they're obstructing cycle lanes. :pac:

I have frequent close calls with parked cars in bike lanes and elsewhere. Only for my alertness and speedy application of brakes, those cars could have end up badly scratched.

railer201 wrote: »

As regards the side on view I think most people can figure out if they see a white light at one end and a red light at the other, there is a car in between.

On the side on view, the parked cars may well not have any lights on, so there is no glowing ends to be seen. Or it could be in a position in traffic where the headlights or back lights cannot be seen. Or they may have no back lights because they don't know how DRLs work? Or they might have a broken headlight on the near side?

There are loads of possible reasons why the car may not be visible, so what's the harm in requiring motorists to have hi-vis stripes?

railer201 wrote: »

Like motorists, cyclists should adjust their speed so they can come to a halt within the distance they can see ahead.

I'm a bit confused now - is there a problem seeing unlit things (people, bikes, cars) on the road or not?

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I have frequent close calls with parked cars in bike lanes and elsewhere. Only for my alertness and speedy application of brakes, those cars could have end up badly scratched.

please tell me you're joking.

Wishbone Ash

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I have frequent close calls with parked cars in bike lanes and elsewhere....

Any chance that the problem may lie with yourself? Do you 'read' the road ahead?

I cover a fair bit of ground on the bike and rarely have any incidents or difficulties.

jjpep

I hate to presume to speak for anyone else but I think the line on cars should have hi vis is a bit tongue in cheek so as to point out the silliness of some people who talk about cyclists wearing hi viz as the cure for all ills.

First Up

jjpep wrote: »

I hate to presume to speak for anyone else but I think the line on cars should have hi vis is a bit tongue in cheek so as to point out the silliness of some people who talk about cyclists wearing hi viz as the cure for all ills.

You don't think high viz is any help?

railer201

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I have frequent close calls with parked cars in bike lanes and elsewhere. Only for my alertness and speedy application of brakes, those cars could have end up badly scratched.

So they are visible, otherwise you wouldn't know just when to take evasive action.

On the side on view, the parked cars may well not have any lights on, so there is no glowing ends to be seen. Or it could be in a position in traffic where the headlights or back lights cannot be seen. Or they may have no back lights because they don't know how DRLs work? Or they might have a broken headlight on the near side?

Whatever the lighting or non-lighting arrangements on a parked car your bike lights should be powerful enough to pick up a car outside the distance it would take you to come to a halt.

There are loads of possible reasons why the car may not be visible, so what's the harm in requiring motorists to have hi-vis stripes?

No harm at all but why recommend stripes for something which is already conspicuous due to it's size and is adequately equipped with lights ?

I'm a bit confused now - is there a problem seeing unlit things (people, bikes, cars) on the road or not?

Well it appears that there is and there isn't.

tomasrojo

First Up wrote: »

You don't think high viz is any help?

There's probably about 140 pages in unpacking that one.