Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Here's a crazy idea - maybe you should start a thread about motorists parking on the footpath?

07Lapierre wrote: »

Here's another crazy idea...You don't like what someone posts? don't comment on it.

Here's an even more crazy idea. If you think a post is off-topic, then you report it, instead of trying to be a back seat moderator.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

(Got a link for that study? Or is it like Andrew's studies, which turn out to be an advocate's blog reporting selective facts from a real study, out of context, omitting many of the relevant stats?)

What stats did you think were omitted there? Let me know and I'll see if I can help.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I linked the legislation AND quoted it. They court case is public record, you can look it up yourself if your so incapable of following links

Unfortunately for you, the driver wasn't charged under the legislation that you quoted.

https://www.mayonews.ie/news/5900-tractor-driver-banned-for-driving-too-slowly

FinnC

Christ....

Pinch Flat

FinnC wrote: »

Christ....

...on a bike

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But not on cars, apparently.


Normally, I charge €50 per hour to do research for people, but I’ll do a ‘first hour free’ special for you. Here’s the post where you agreed that hi-vis on cars would help visibility in dark environments.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113644399&postcount=463

The utter bustards. There’s you, trying to pretend that you’re interested in road safety while taking a sly kick and cyclists, and they keep coming out and pointing out factual truths that expose the fact that you’re really not that interested in safety at all.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So a black or burgandy or navy car wouldn't be significantly more visible when parked if hi-vis stripes were fitted on all sides?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just keep digging

It's unlikely, unless it were parked in a black or burgundy or navy environment, maybe if it was speeding perhaps or killing 4 or 5 people a week it would benefit from hi viz stripes

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And you were the one complaining about people not being able to put a coherent argument together? Sheesh.

Are you planning on continuing to ignore the question about how you agreed that hi-vis stripes would improve visibility of a dark car in a dark environment, such as nighttime.

I see nothing in your original question, nor my answer that is referring to night time, perhaps that's why I didn't recall it.

But now you've brought night time into it, then no, I don't see Hi Viz on any coloured car making it more visible when correctly parked with parking lights on if required by law between lighting up hours.

Now I will admit to possibly learning something new about motoring laws in Ireland compared to other countries ( Specificly the UK, as I'm not familiar with other EU countries requirements ) and I may have missed it searching the Irish Databases but there appears to be no regulations comparable with the UK highway code rule number 249. I Must check further into it so I don't unnecessarily flatten my battery (kidding, it makes sense when parked facing wrong way, or where I might not be expected to be etc. So I always have and always will use parking lights)

But again, if a car is using it's supplied PPE, be that DRLs, parking lights, clean reflectors, hazard lights etc. then no it doesn't need HI Viz

249
All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h).
Law RVLR reg 24

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

...on a bike

Doesn't need high viz because his halo is doing the job

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

It was a biased study...

...criticism of the experiment, though, is the fact that the research subjects knew that
they were looking out for cyclists, although the authors do say that their instructions were
delivered in such a way as to limit “expectancy that they would encounter a planted/scripted
researcher on a bicycle during their trip”. This could mean, though, that the test was more about
how cyclists’ clothing affects the ability of drivers who are looking out for cyclists to be confident
that what they have noticed is a cyclist, i.e. is not the same as testing whether clothing makes a
difference to the likelihood of a driver having their eye caught by a cyclist in a situation where they
may or may not be paying attention.

I assume this
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1541931213601954
is the study you mistakenly thought i was mentioning? I had a read of it's abstract and would comment, that even if the research subjects were looking for cyclists, that's what the majority of motorists do anyway, so perhaps instead of disparaging research and constantly dissing hi viz, you should be thinking more

"Hmmm 3.3x the distance that motorists spotted the moving legs, perhaps there is something that would help motorists looking for cyclists to pick us out at 33 meters rather than 10 meters"

When you consider a car travelling at 30 Kph will cover about 8 meters a second, so you could be potentially adding 2-3 seconds to the time between a good driver identifying a cyclist and taking some action.

LeinsterDub

Spook_ie wrote: »

that's what the majority of motorists do anyway

Anyone who's cycled for more than a short time will have heard SMIDSY. Inattentional blindness is a literal killer of cyclist and only proper cycling infrastructure with solve it

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/02/bad-drivers

magicbastarder

interestingly, the only study i'm aware of on effect of vehicle colour on chance of being involved in an RTA (from australia) shows a 47% increased chance of an RTA involving a black car over one involving a white car, in subdued light conditions.
we need, as a society, to examine why we still allow black cars to be sold.

https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/reports/muarc263

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

even if the research subjects were looking for cyclists, that's what the majority of motorists do anyway

it's not the (majority of) drivers who are paying attention that cyclists need to worry about, though.
95% (plus) of drivers are fine, cos they'll see you no matter what you're wearing. it's the small minority of drivers who won't see you no matter what.

LeinsterDub

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not the (majority of) drivers who are paying attention that cyclists need to worry about, though.
95% (plus) of drivers are fine, cos they'll see you no matter what you're wearing. it's the small minority of drivers who won't see you no matter what.

Indeed it's the ones who are well aware of you that worry you. You know they are aware of you because no one could accidentally drive 8 inches off your shoulder at 60 + kph or the ones who are totally unaware and wouldn't be aware of you if you cycled around on fire

John_Rambo

@Seanw you say you were almost killed twice by cyclists, can you expand on that? I've almost been killed on the bike twice by motorists through no fault of my own.

- On one occasion I was T-boned by a van & hospitalised for a sever concussion and a neck injury. Hit & run.

- On the second occasion I was rear ended by a car and hospitalised for a bruised kidney and a massive muscle tear on my glut. Driver took me to hospital and legged it.

What exactly happened on the two occasions you were almost killed? What injuries did you receive & what was the outcome? I find it fascinating that you've almost died twice at the hands of cyclists.

Naturally, I sincerely hope you've recovered and are well.

Spook_ie

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Anyone who's cycled for more than a short time will have heard SMIDSY. Inattentional blindness is a literal killer of cyclist and only proper cycling infrastructure with solve it

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/02/bad-drivers

But in the absence of money to pay for all this segregated infrastructure that cyclists want building today and tomorrow, which due to CoVid isn't likely to be available any time soon, then what options are left?

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

interestingly, the only study i'm aware of on effect of vehicle colour on chance of being involved in an RTA (from australia) shows a 47% increased chance of an RTA involving a black car over one involving a white car, in subdued light conditions.
we need, as a society, to examine why we still allow black cars to be sold.

https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/reports/muarc263

Actually though, the EU rate using DRLs more than banning any particular color otherwise I'm pretty sure they would have banned Black cars.

John_Rambo

Spook_ie wrote: »

But in the absence of money to pay for all this segregated infrastructure that cyclists want building today and tomorrow, which due to CoVid isn't likely to be available any time soon, then what options are left?

If you're talking about the cities? Two options.

1 - Invade the roads for affordable cycling & public transport infrastructure that's easy to maintain.

2 - Build & maintain expensive infrastructure for single occupant motor vehicles.

LeinsterDub

Spook_ie wrote: »

But in the absence of money to pay for all this segregated infrastructure that cyclists want building today and tomorrow, which due to CoVid isn't likely to be available any time soon, then what options are left?

We could stop building one new road. The would be enough for thousands of km of proper infrastructure. The EU and the ECB are now actually paying us to borrow too.

Cycling infrastructure is cheap. It doesn't have to be high quality initially DCC are doing an excellent job with wands and orcas and the moment. There are literally so many options.

Spook_ie

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Indeed it's the ones who are well aware of you that worry you. You know they are aware of you because no one could accidentally drive 8 inches off your shoulder at 60 + kph or the ones who are totally unaware and wouldn't be aware of you if you cycled around on fire

Yeah the ones at 60kph and 8 inches away, assuming they have seen you and aren't part of the "wouldn't see you if you were on fire" contingent need culling but the others surely need educating and given every opportunity to see the cyclist.

I mean there are 3 types of cyclist I encounter,
1 the ones I see early enough to modify my driving with ease to avoid a conflict,
2 the ones who appear almost without warning because they are cycling at inappropriate speeds in slow, stationary traffic or at night time with no lights or lights that if they were any dimmer wouldn't classify as lights anyway
3 The ones I never see at all

Ah, how do I know if there are any ones I never see at all, well I usually play a competition with any cyclists I get in the car by offering them a "small" discount if they spot more cyclists than I do, sometimes they win ( not often though! ) more often they are surprised by how many I see that they don't.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

I see nothing in your original question, nor my answer that is referring to night time, perhaps that's why I didn't recall it.

But now you've brought night time into it, then no, I don't see Hi Viz on any coloured car making it more visible when correctly parked with parking lights on if required by law between lighting up hours.

Now I will admit to possibly learning something new about motoring laws in Ireland compared to other countries ( Specificly the UK, as I'm not familiar with other EU countries requirements ) and I may have missed it searching the Irish Databases but there appears to be no regulations comparable with the UK highway code rule number 249. I Must check further into it so I don't unnecessarily flatten my battery (kidding, it makes sense when parked facing wrong way, or where I might not be expected to be etc. So I always have and always will use parking lights)

But again, if a car is using it's supplied PPE, be that DRLs, parking lights, clean reflectors, hazard lights etc. then no it doesn't need HI Viz

249
All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h).
Law RVLR reg 24

"Parked in a black or navy environment" - isn't that pretty much the definition of nighttime?

And sure, we all believe that you use parking lights EVERY night, but for the 99.9999% of vehicles that don't, you agree that hi-vis stripes would improve visibility?

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah the ones at 60kph and 8 inches away, assuming they have seen you and aren't part of the "wouldn't see you if you were on fire" contingent need culling but the others surely need educating and given every opportunity to see the cyclist.

I mean there are 3 types of cyclist I encounter,
1 the ones I see early enough to modify my driving with ease to avoid a conflict,
2 the ones who appear almost without warning because they are cycling at inappropriate speeds in slow, stationary traffic or at night time with no lights or lights that if they were any dimmer wouldn't classify as lights anyway
3 The ones I never see at all

Ah, how do I know if there are any ones I never see at all, well I usually play a competition with any cyclists I get in the car by offering them a "small" discount if they spot more cyclists than I do, sometimes they win ( not often though! ) more often they are surprised by how many I see that they don't.

Do you have trouble seeing pedestrians when they cross the road, given that they rarely have lights or hi-vis?

LeinsterDub

Spook_ie wrote: »

.

I mean there are 3 types of cyclist I encounter,
1 the ones I see early enough to modify my driving with ease to avoid a conflict,
2 the ones who appear almost without warning because they are cycling at inappropriate speeds in slow, stationary traffic or at night time with no lights or lights that if they were any dimmer wouldn't classify as lights anyway
3 The ones I never see at all

You shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, you are clearly a danger

Spook_ie

John_Rambo wrote: »

If you're talking about the cities? Two options.

1 - Invade the roads for affordable cycling & public transport infrastructure that's easy to maintain.

2 - Build & maintain expensive infrastructure for single occupant motor vehicles.

The infrastructure is already in place for the single occupant cars, you want more PT what will you be doing about the social distancing aspect, reducing PT capacity by what 50% minimum, so buy twice as many trains and buses, CoVid is going to be around for some time yet, even with phase 2+

Spook_ie

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, you are clearly a danger

Really, and on what do you base that assumption, Can only really be the cyclists that I don't see and I'd warrant that cars and pedestrians that you meet on the road fall into the same three categories.

LeinsterDub

Spook_ie wrote: »

The infrastructure is already in place for the single occupant cars, you want more PT what will you be doing about the social distancing aspect, reducing PT capacity by what 50% minimum, so buy twice as many trains and buses, CoVid is going to be around for some time yet, even with phase 2+

You don't need twice as many buses. Buses are covering routes in nearly half the time because the most inefficient form of transport isn't blocking them.

LeinsterDub

Spook_ie wrote: »

Really, and on what do you base that assumption, Can only really be the cyclists that I don't see and I'd warrant that cars and pedestrians that you meet on the road fall into the same three categories.

You've admitted that your incapable of observing your surroundings in fact forget about your surroundings you've admitted you can't observe what's in front of you

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

"Parked in a black or navy environment" - isn't that pretty much the definition of nighttime?

And sure, we all believe that you use parking lights EVERY night, but for the 99.9999% of vehicles that don't, you agree that hi-vis stripes would improve visibility?

Sorry perhaps you are taking some psychotropic drugs but

It's unlikely, unless it were parked in a black or burgundy or navy environment, maybe if it was speeding perhaps or killing 4 or 5 people a week it would benefit from hi viz stripes

does not describe a night time environment.

I was taught to drive outside of Ireland, parking at night time was more stringently enforced when i was in the UK, old habits die hard, and
I don't tend to park on roads with a 50kph + limit at all if i can help it.

For the 99.999% of cars that don't I would query where that figure is coming from and ask which of these 99.999% of cars are at a significant cross angle to enable hi viz stripes to actually work?

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you have trouble seeing pedestrians when they cross the road, given that they rarely have lights or hi-vis?

At night times, outside of areas without street lights, yes, why do you have night time predators eyes instead of human eyes?

LeinsterDub

Spook_ie wrote: »

Sorry perhaps you are taking some psychotropic drugs but
does not describe a night time environment.

I was taught to drive outside of Ireland, parking at night time was more stringently enforced when i was in the UK, old habits die hard, and
I don't tend to park on roads with a 50kph + limit at all if i can help it.

For the 99.999% of cars that don't I would query where that figure is coming from and ask which of these 99.999% of cars are at a significant cross angle to enable hi viz stripes to actually work?

How can you possibly hold the opinion that many square metres of high vis on a parked car wouldn't work but less than 1 on a cyclist is essential

Spook_ie

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You don't need twice as many buses. Buses are covering routes in nearly half the time because the most inefficient form of transport isn't blocking them.

You have some proof of this near doubling of the average bus speed in city centers

LeinsterDub

Spook_ie wrote: »

At night times, outside of areas without street lights, yes, why do you have night time predators eyes instead of human eyes?

Slow down and drive for the conditions you face

LeinsterDub

Spook_ie wrote: »

You have some proof of this near doubling of the average bus speed in city centers

I've nothing solid however during lockdown we basically got the bus priority BusConnects will deliver and BusConnects is talking about up to 50%. Lots of people on Twitter taking about very impressive travel times too

Spook_ie

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You've admitted that your incapable of observing your surroundings in fact forget about your surroundings you've admitted you can't observe what's in front of you

Really, I think your stretching my post a little thin on the ground for credibility, there are cyclists that I don't see same as there are pedestrians that you don't see, you can't say that you see them all because you can't prove it, where as I'm quite happy to admit that I don't have 180 degree vision out of each eye.