Some Cyclists, Poor Visibility & Shutting Down Discussion

cannotlogin

So after a near miss & narrowly avoiding a cyclist this this evening, I posted in the cycling forum and well it didn't go well.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058029449/1

So after hours posters, why will some cyclists not make themselves visible enough? And why are some cyclists so defensive when discussing it?

07Lapierre

I dunno... next time you SEE a cyclist not visible enough, ask them?

Salary Negotiator

cannotlogin wrote: »

So after hours posters, why will some cyclists not make themselves visible enough? And why are some cyclists so defensive when discussing it?

Probably because the ones you’re asking are fully lit up and have very little in common with the people you’re talking about other than sometimes riding a bike.

SeanW

Suggesting that cyclists take a modicum of responsibility for visibility, helmets etc is a bit like insulting Muhammad to an ISIS fanatic on crack. And it has largely the same result.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I'm not a cyclist but drive a lot. I rarely see a cyclist not well lit up. They all seem to wear fluorescent clothing and use flashing lights day and night.

peasant

Some people (not just certain cyclists) just live in their own bubble.

During a particularly bad night in town, dark and rainy, I once drove behind a car whose driver twice beeped a different pedestrians crossing the road because they were nearly invisible in these conditions. Dark clothes, blinding lights, heavy rain, etc

A few minutes later, she pulled in at the side of the road, opened the door and stepped straight into the road herself. Totally invisible, dressed all in black.

So I beeped at her ...and she just gave out to me

HorrorScope

SeanW wrote: »

Suggesting that cyclists take a modicum of responsibility for visibility, helmets etc is a bit like insulting Muhammad to an ISIS fanatic on crack. And it has largely the same result.

Absolutely. They see no need for high vis, helmets, and don’t even think about pulling them up on running red lights because they are entitled to do so and motorists will be to blame anyway if it ends in tears. Scum of the ****ing earth is what they are and that forum can eat a bag of dicks.

ILoveYourVibes

cannotlogin wrote: »

So after a near miss & narrowly avoiding a cyclist this this evening, I posted in the cycling forum and well it didn't go well.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058029449/1

So after hours posters, why will some cyclists not make themselves visible enough? And why are some cyclists so defensive when discussing it?

Its the cycling forum not the lets moan about cyclists forum.

And yes you are correct ...they SHOULD be more visible. And those people on stand up scooters are NUTS!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I’m from the countryside and we grew up using torches and reflective strips when walking at night. I know they say high vis is useless in urban areas but, from my experience, in pitch dark or twilighty countryside, bright coloured clothing - not necessarily high vis - did help a lot in seeing people walking from the car before you were completely up on them. Ditto reflective strips. Torches are probably the best thing for making yourself visible but people make out like they are the only useful thing in this regard and that’s not been my experience.

I don’t quite understand some of the controversial topics that get cyclists fired up and I’m a former cyclist (only stopped for health reasons). It’s all very entrenched. I know cyclists are moaned about a lot, believe me, but that seems to have made a lot of cyclists very stubborn themselves.

ILoveYourVibes

Quentin Lazy Quadriplegic wrote: »

I'm not a cyclist but drive a lot. I rarely see a cyclist not well lit up. They all seem to wear fluorescent clothing and use flashing lights day and night.

You do ..they are not regular cyclists and usually doing the one off journey so they don't see it as worth investing in a helmut let alone a reflective vest. They will probably never cycle again for a year.

07Lapierre

Can’t speak for anyone else who rides a bike, but My bike is fitted with a Hope R4 1500lumen front light. I also have a Garmin Varia 800lumen front light. My rear light is a Hope District rear light and I also have a Garmin varia rear light/radar. I have reflective tape on the rear mudguard and on the front forks. Both tyres have reflective sidewalls. My helmet has a reflective strip on the rear. My jacket has reflective elements front and back. My cycling shoes have reflective material on the heel. My trousers have reflective stripes on front and rear. That enough?

Badly Drunk Boy

cannotlogin wrote: »

So after a near miss & narrowly avoiding a cyclist this this evening, I posted in the cycling forum and well it didn't go well.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058029449/1

So after hours posters, why will some cyclists not make themselves visible enough? And why are some cyclists so defensive when discussing it?

I don't think I've ever used the Cycling forum but I had a look to see what you posted there. It looks like you just wanted to vent your ire at cyclists while admitting that they weren't the cyclists you were mad at, but you still wanted them to apologise. And you didn't respond to the Mod perfectly reasonable response to your original post.

cannotlogin wrote: »

I accept that most people in the cycling forum are probably more visible than the standard commuter, however surely even those cyclists have to admit that there are a lot of people on the road that do not take enough care.

ILoveYourVibes

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agree they don’t pay road tax either!

They don't pollute either.:pac:

07Lapierre

To be fair OP, there is no reason for any cyclist to cycle at night or in low light conditions without descent, working LIGHTS. Modern lights are cheap and very bright. Hi viz is no substitute for good lights.

In Ireland, it’s a legal requirement to have working lights (a red rear light and a white front light) on All vehicles during the hours of darkness. It is the responsibility of the Gardai to enforce this law.

That fact is, in Ireland we have a very poor record of enforcing road traffic laws.

In reality your asking the wrong question. You should be asking: “ why are road traffic laws regarding cyclists using lights not enforced more rigorously by the Gardai?”

Still waters

Cyclists continue to think they're made of tougher stuff than cars, buses and trucks, it usually doesn't work out to well for them tho, that's the the problem with flesh and bone, it bends a lot easier than steel and glass

John_Rambo

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

And yes you are correct ...they SHOULD be more visible.

The majority of cycle deaths in Ireland occur in broad daylight and the victims have been hit by motorised vehicles. I wear a helmet and have two flashing rear lights and two front lights, one flashing and one permanently on beam. I still got knocked off my bike in daylight hours by a moron that admitted she saw me signalling, had time to stop, but felt I shouldn't have been turning right on to my road as I was blocking her way forward.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

And those people on stand up scooters are NUTS!

NUTS!? How many people do they kill every year? Take a look at the Dashcam videos on the motoring section and tell me who the nuts are.

ILoveYourVibes

Still waters wrote: »

Cyclists continue to think they're made of tougher stuff than cars, buses and trucks, it usually doesn't work out to well for them tho, that's the the problem with flesh and bone, it bends a lot easier than steel and glass

My brother cycles with a helmut reflective gear the lot ...he cycled home into the drive way took off his helmut ..got on the bike for a second to wheel it past the gate ..came off in the driveway and needed 8 metal stitches!

IN THE DRIVEWAY!

07Lapierre

Still waters wrote: »

Cyclists continue to think they're made of tougher stuff than cars, buses and trucks, it usually doesn't work out to well for them tho, that's the the problem with flesh and bone, it bends a lot easier than steel and glass

People in cars also think that cars are a lot safer than they actually are. People see nothing wrong with driving at 120kph along the M50 wearing nothing but a seat belt. All cars should be fitted with a rollcage, a 5 point safety harness, a fuel cell (instead of a large fuel tank) and an external isolation switch! After all, skin and bone breaks a lot easier then steel right?

John_Rambo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilMufEg7i2U

Cork man here with all the gear, lit up, day and night, check out the close passes some of which are cynical, dangerous punishments with no traffic in the lane right of the drivers.

Chiparus

07Lapierre wrote: »

People in cars also think that cars are a lot safer than they actually are. People see nothing wrong with driving at 120kph along the M50 wearing nothing but a seat belt. All cars should be fitted with a rollcage, a 5 point safety harness, a fuel cell (instead of a large fuel tank) and an external isolation switch! After all, skin and bone breaks a lot easier then steel right?

They should wear helmets and neck protectors as well. The ammount of whip lash they suffer is shocking.

07Lapierre

Being visible is one thing... but being OBSERVANT is much more important.

Light and hi viz are useless if nobody is actually looking.

SeanW

07Lapierre wrote: »

People in cars also think that cars are a lot safer than they actually are. People see nothing wrong with driving at 120kph along the M50 wearing nothing but a seat belt. All cars should be fitted with a rollcage, a 5 point safety harness, a fuel cell (instead of a large fuel tank) and an external isolation switch! After all, skin and bone breaks a lot easier then steel right?

First of all, it is legal to use the Southern part of the M50 at 120kph.

Now, if you can demonstrate BOTH that the devices you are calling for will save lives and that the insane levels of cost/inconvenience caused by those devices are warranted given such savings, the feel free to advocate same. As part of this, please outline:

1) What exactly do you mean by "fuel cell"? How will fuel cells enhance road safety?
2) How much will it cost to add roll cages and 5 point harnasses to all new passenger vehicles, including buses?
3) How much would it cost to retrofit vehicles with all of these devices - including buses?
4) What about buses where people have to stand? How would 5 point harnesses work in those cases?
5) What other countries require these types of devices? What is the international experience with regard to roll cages and other devices in passenger vehicles?
6) Would trains have to be included? If so, how would standees on such trains be protected?

SeanW

Chiparus wrote: »

They should wear helmets and neck protectors as well. The ammount of whip lash they suffer is shocking.

What types of motor accidents do you thing that helmets will provide protection for motorists in? Under what circumstances would a helmet provide protection that a seat belt, airbags and the roof of the car do not? And what level of protection would the helmet provide under these circumstances?

John_Rambo

SeanW wrote: »

What types of motor accidents do you thing that helmets will provide protection for motorists in? Under what circumstances would a helmet provide protection that a seat belt, airbags and the roof of the car do not? And what level of protection would the helmet provide under these circumstances?

Calm down. This isn't an attack on your civil liberties! You're an exact mirror of a cyclist being told to wear a helmet even though it's not the law!! And your reaction is the exact same as cyclists that refuse to wear a helmet!

It was obviously a tongue in cheek nudge at the amount of frivolous claims that have come in front of the courts from motorists screwing the insurance system. But, in saying that, most motor deaths are due to brain injuries, I wear a helmet when I'm on track days in Mondello and there's no doubt that wearing helmets will save lives if we were to wear them in our cars.

But you don't have to wear a helmet if you drive 100 metres to the shops, that's your choice. Cyclists don't have to wear a helmet if they cycle 100m metres to the shop either, that's their choice.

u140acro3xs7dm

I posted in the original thread - I explained a recent encounter i had.

I spend most of my time in town, and while I do drive, most of my time is on foot, and I find cyclist's worse as a pedestrian than I do as a driver. So many cyclist's are eejits, that said, loads more are aware and thoughtful. The worst cyclist's seem to be the professional, you know the lads, with a 3k bike and head to toe in lycra.

There are also so many pedestrians that are severely dangerous, standing in the middle of the road waiting for a car to pass, dressed in dark clothing - a driver doesn't see them until the last second when it's dark.

As a pedestrian and as a driver, I've also noticed how bad some drivers are. Professional drivers tend to have less respect for other road users, be they on foot, bike, or vehicle.

Morale of the story, cyclist's, pedestrians, and drivers are all dickheads. Everyone needs to calm down a little.

07Lapierre

SeanW wrote: »

First of all, it is legal to use the Southern part of the M50 at 120kph.

Now, if you can demonstrate BOTH that the devices you are calling for will save lives and that the insane levels of cost/inconvenience caused by those devices are warranted given such savings, the feel free to advocate same. As part of this, please outline:

1) What exactly do you mean by "fuel cell"? How will fuel cells enhance road safety?
2) How much will it cost to add roll cages and 5 point harnasses to all new passenger vehicles, including buses?
3) How much would it cost to retrofit vehicles with all of these devices - including buses?
4) What about buses where people have to stand? How would 5 point harnesses work in those cases?
5) What other countries require these types of devices? What is the international experience with regard to roll cages and other devices in passenger vehicles?
6) Would trains have to be included? If so, how would standees on such trains be protected?

I never said it was illegal to drive at 120kph?

A fuel cell is another name for a fuel tank that has a rubber internal lining, which helps to prevent fuel spills if the tank is ruptured.

As for cost? There’s no legal requirement for roll cages etc. So if you can’t afford them, don’t fit them. The choice is yours. A bit like cyclists and the wearing of helmets and hi viz!

wakka12

Well personally I dont like how in these situations the person driving the much more dangerous vehicle is the one blaming a far more vulnerable road user who is at the mercy of cars. Maybe thats why theres some attitude, I think the speed limit in urban areas is just set way too high, you shouldnt be allowed drive so fast that it will kill somebody if you hit them

Cars completely dominate urban areas, pedestrians and cyclists work by their rules, and I think thats wrong and not at all how cities should be

Better Than Christ

Even if a cyclist isn't wearing high visibility clothing, any driver who can't see them probably shouldn't be on the road.

Samuel T. Cogley

That forum is a cesspool in fairness.

mvl

As a driver (who is not doing any cycling atm) - can confirm this is very frustrating for me, and it is quite common in the part of town I live.
- Last one that got me cursing with my young one present in the car (something I prefer not to do) was also cycling in the middle of the lane like that.

But surprisingly enough, according to citizensinformation.ie ppl "are not legally obliged to wear a helmet or hi-visibility clothing while cycling in Ireland.".

Really.

tuxy

mvl wrote: »

But surprisingly enough, according to citizensinformation.ie ppl "are not legally obliged to wear a helmet or hi-visibility clothing while cycling in Ireland.".

Really.

Are you aware of the mandatory helmet wearing laws in Austrailla and the negative impact it has had both on health and traffic. So we can learn from that and not copy it.
That doesn't even take into consideration that helmets don't help for concussion the most common dangerous outcome from a head injury while cycling.

All cyclists should have good working lights this time of year.
I now see they are offering cars in dark colours, this is extremely reckless and needs to change.

beauf

mvl wrote: »

...But surprisingly enough, according to citizensinformation.ie ppl "are not legally obliged to wear a helmet or hi-visibility clothing while cycling in Ireland.".

Really.

Because lights are vastly superior so they made that the legal requirement instead.

beauf

cannotlogin wrote: »

So after a near miss & narrowly avoiding a cyclist this this evening, I posted in the cycling forum and well it didn't go well.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058029449/1

So after hours posters, why will some cyclists not make themselves visible enough? And why are some cyclists so defensive when discussing it?

Well you didn't read the charter and follow the rules.

Neither do the people you're talking about.

So why do neither of you follow the rules?

Still waters

07Lapierre wrote: »

People in cars also think that cars are a lot safer than they actually are. People see nothing wrong with driving at 120kph along the M50 wearing nothing but a seat belt. All cars should be fitted with a rollcage, a 5 point safety harness, a fuel cell (instead of a large fuel tank) and an external isolation switch! After all, skin and bone breaks a lot easier then steel right?

Why dont you start a thread about that rather than bringing the thread off topic

Chiparus

SeanW wrote: »

What types of motor accidents do you thing that helmets will provide protection for motorists in? Under what circumstances would a helmet provide protection that a seat belt, airbags and the roof of the car do not? And what level of protection would the helmet provide under these circumstances?

When a car crashes.

Thousands suffer whiplash and head injuries every year in Ireland.

Wildly Boaring

Majority of cyclists don't break the law.

Majority of motorists don't break the law.

Majority of pedestrians don't break the law.

For some reason the cyclists who break the law seem to rile motorists up more than the pedestrians or other motorists breaking the law.

How many cars on one headlight?
How many cars break red lights?
How cars not indicating?
How many drivers with phone to ear?
How many drivers with phone in hand?
How many cars speeding?

I do not cycle to commute, do a little bit on weekends. Much more likely to be driving

Is it just jealousy in traffic gets fellas so wound up?

Tell me how

cannotlogin wrote: »

So after a near miss & narrowly avoiding a cyclist this this evening, I posted in the cycling forum and well it didn't go well.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058029449/1

So after hours posters, why will some cyclists not make themselves visible enough? And why are some cyclists so defensive when discussing it?

A huge part of the response you got is because the implication is that cyclists are solely responsible for their safety.
Drivers are supposed to only drive at a speed which ensures they can see everything and react to unexpected events. Doing 70 in a 50 and nearly side swiping a cyclist around a bend is not the cyclists fault if they didn't have a high vis on. A lot of drivers seem to miss that point and go straight to complaining about the lack of the jacket.

I'm defensive about this because I went out on a cycle over a year ago, with lights front and rear, wearing a jacket with reflective stripes and a car drove on to a roundabout, knocked me off my bike and I broke my pelvis.

The driver claimed they never saw me. They were not driving with due care and attention in my view. What action items are appropriate after such an event, should I be the one changing my behaviour?

Salary Negotiator

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Majority of motorists don't break the law.

This is untrue, majority of motorists break at least 1 law every time they drive. Probably the same for cyclists and pedestrians when they use the roads but it’s mostly motorists who get butt hurt complaining about others while ignoring themselves.

EGriff

There is some clown driving a Deliveroo bike around Cork and every time I see him he's going the wrong way down a street and cutting right across lanes. He is going to get himself killed.

I realise this is not very relevant to this thread, but I've typed it now.

arccosh

I recently had a Sunday cyclist, fairly visible, but was agressively undertaking me on the road....
We were slow enough that he would catch up every so often, but I would overtake again.

I had over taken him and came to a narrow part on the road where he caught up again.
A car was coming the opposite way so naturally I slowed and pulled into the left a bit more, cyclist was about 2 car lengths back.... I didn't stop at all, next I hear thumping on the back window, and when the gap appears he undertakes again...

I also recently nearly got knocked down at a pedestrian crossing by a cyclist who ran a red light.

It's these type of people who not only give cyclists a bad name, but tend to be the ones that get themselves hurt.

I'm definitely not tarring all cyclists with the same brush, but in my expereince I'm seeing a huge increase in ar**hole cyclists

JohnnyFlash

Loads of people cycle, and it’s unfair to tarnish all of them with the one brush. It’s going to get more popular as well, so it’s something that should get more attention from the Gardaí.

However there’s a certain type of fundamentalist cyclist that exists. The sort that spend weeks talking about optimal tyre pressure, defending cycling 3 abreast, recording their commutes on a go-pro and uploading them to YouTube. They are nearly always middle-aged men, and one has to surmise that they have an undiagnosed personality disorder of some sort. Very angry and frustrated sorts, and should be avoided at all costs.

Chiparus

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Loads of people cycle, and it’s unfair to tarnish all of them with the one brush. It’s going to get more popular as well, so it’s something that should get more attention from the Gardaí.

However there’s a certain type of fundamentalist cyclist that exists. The sort that spend weeks talking about optimal tyre pressure, defending cycling 3 abreast, recording their commutes on a go-pro and uploading them to YouTube. They are nearly always middle-aged men, and one has to surmise that they have an undiagnosed personality disorder of some sort. Very angry and frustrated sorts, and should be avoided at all costs.

Best not allow them drive then.

07Lapierre

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Loads of people cycle, and it’s unfair to tarnish all of them with the one brush. It’s going to get more popular as well, so it’s something that should get more attention from the Garda

However there’s a certain type of fundamentalist cyclist that exists. The sort that spend weeks talking about optimal tyre pressure, defending cycling 3 abreast, recording their commutes on a go-pro and uploading them to YouTube. They are nearly always middle-aged men, and one has to surmise that they have an undiagnosed personality disorder of some sort. Very angry and frustrated sorts, and should be avoided at all costs.

Best avoided? Yes by about 1.5 meters please.

Guy:Incognito

wakka12 wrote: »

Well personally I dont like how in these situations the person driving the much more dangerous vehicle is the one blaming a far more vulnerable road user who is at the mercy of cars. Maybe thats why theres some attitude, I think the speed limit in urban areas is just set way too high, you shouldnt be allowed drive so fast that it will kill somebody if you hit them

Cars completely dominate urban areas, pedestrians and cyclists work by their rules, and I think thats wrong and not at all how cities should be

Being right or wrong isn't going to stop you being killed , so personally, I'd look after myself if I was a cyclist , whether it gave me the moral upper hand or not.

I came across a lad cycling on the foothill road in clondalkin (dublin, before the smart answers come in) other day, on the section where the train station is. It's a narrow enough road with only one lane in each direction and bridges. There he is , on the road not a bother on him , taking up a third of the lane meaning all the traffic has to slow and maneuver around him. Yes, he may be legally allowed to , but why choose to put yourself in the lane with traffic? To prove a point? Will it make you feel better when you're in hospital other morgue that you were within the law?

All the while theres a lovely big path for pedestrians and 2 red lanes for cyclists on the other side of the armco barrier 2 feet to his left where he would be completely safe and away from traffic.

Same happens at the roundabout over the m50 at tallaght . Lanes not designed for cyclists and a nice underpass built for them to be separated from the traffic which
then continues on a nice wide separated path to keep them safely off the dual carriageway (I used it myself when I cycled for a bit). But no, you ge some that want to navigate a very busy roundabout in lanes not all that wide, presumably because they can.

beauf

cannotlogin wrote: »

...? And why are some cyclists so defensive when discussing it?

Because these threads are ill informed rants. With no knowledge of the law around cycling or any of the studies around cycling safely.

Guy:Incognito

tuxy wrote: »

Are you aware of the mandatory helmet wearing laws in Austrailla and the negative impact it has had both on health and traffic. So we can learn from that and not copy it.
That doesn't even take into consideration that helmets don't help for concussion the most common dangerous outcome from a head injury while cycling.

All cyclists should have good working lights this time of year.
I now see they are offering cars in dark colours, this is extremely reckless and needs to change.

If you fell backwards off a wall and hit your head, would you rather your head hit the concrete or there was a helmet between you and the ground?

I'd rather concussion( that you'll be getting either way) than my head slot open like a grapefruit.

Guy:Incognito

beauf wrote: »

Because these threads are ill informed rants. With no knowledge of the law around cycling or any of the studies around cycling safely.

A law isn't going to stop you dying. If you're the more vulnerable one in a situation then you should want to be the one being more careful to protect yourself. Maybe some people value being right more than being alive.

Somedaythefire

Hi viz jackets aren’t as importantly as lights. If a driver ain’t paying attention to lights, they won’t see hi viz jackets.

Either way it’s been mentioned that cyclists get overly defensive, which is pretty funny because drivers do the same. I mean Jesus, you have people calling all cyclists “scum of the earth” that doesn’t really seem like well adjusted behaviour.

Some cyclists suck, some drivers suck, some pedestrians that never look where they’re going suck. That’s just the nature of it, most people going around Dublin City regardless of the mode of transport they’re taking don’t pay enough attention to what’s around them. Which in my opinion is more dangerous.

beauf

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Being right or wrong isn't going to stop you being killed , so personally, I'd look after myself if I was a cyclist , whether it gave me the moral upper hand or not.

....There he is , on the road not a bother on him , taking up a third of the lane meaning all the traffic has to slow and maneuver around him. ..

...But no, you ge some that want to navigate a very busy roundabout in lanes not all that wide, presumably because they can.

Your presuming it's always not safer to be middle lane.

Understanding Primary Road Position
The primary road position is that of the general flow of traffic (ie in the centre of the lane). Contrary to what inexperienced cyclists may think, this is where they are often safer, as it is where they can most easily see and be seen. Trainees should be encouraged to think like a driver of a vehicle, and if in doubt position themselves where a vehicle would be.

Riding in the primary position is sometimes called taking the lane as the cyclist takes the position normally taken by the motorist, who is thus prevented from attempting to overtake.

It's situational dependant.

So if it is safer, then the cyclist is doing exactly what you're advising, taking the safer option.

beauf

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If you fell backwards off a wall and hit your head, would you rather your head hit the concrete or there was a helmet between you and the ground?

I'd rather concussion( that you'll be getting either way) than my head slot open like a grapefruit.

So that implies people should wear helmets when sitting on a wall. Basically all the time. That should be made a legal requirement once you get out of bed.

Guy:Incognito

beauf wrote: »

Your presuming it's always not safer to be middle lane.



It's situational dependant.

So if it is safer, then the cyclist is doing exactly what you're advising, taking the safer option.

In what situation is a cyclist safer out in traffic than in a dedicated cycle lane on the other side of armco barrier?