Cyclists with extremely bright white lights flashing

punisher5112

Why are cyclists putting super bright strobes on the rear of their bikes?

It's bad enough with the ones on the front that are turned up towards the sky and are extremely dazzling and blinding.

There is an absolute moron passes Connolly Station every weekday morning at 0720-0722 and does be passing Donnycarney church around the 0730-0733 times.....

He has a good red on the rear but then on the right lower section of the bike he has a white strobe which is blinding, in the wet it throws light everywhere and messes with the eyes making it difficult to see past him.

I would love for some other cyclists to actually tell him to cop on as he is a danger to others and himself as his cycling style wouldn't be the safest either....

He is an aggressive individual and goes out of his way to put himself in harm's way with buses, he seems to have a huge issue.
I've have had to endure a shocking amount of abuse off him and he made it his mission to get in my way on numerous occasions while trying to proceed.
He would cycle out into the road way and be weaving around and such....

07Lapierre

Geez sorry about that.

'Does be'?

Anyway, sounds like someone with issues. If it's that bad you could have a word with the gardai.

punisher5112

07Lapierre wrote: »

Geez sorry about that.

Knew you would be on here ;-)

punisher5112

[Deleted User] wrote: »

'Does be'?

Anyway, sounds like someone with issues. If it's that bad you could have a word with the gardai.

Not the brightest lamp in the shop or actually come to think of it the brightest on his bike either....

Effects

Sounds like he's had a good few close calls with bad drivers, and is trying to be on the offensive about it now.
Maybe you should just try to give him a wide berth, rather than getting into confrontations with him. Or get a dashcam and report to the Gardai, seeing as you have so many run ins with the guy.

punisher5112

Effects wrote: »

Sounds like he's had a good few close calls with bad drivers, and is trying to be on the offensive about it now.
Maybe you should just try to give him a wide berth, rather than getting into confrontations with him. Or get a dashcam and report to the Gardai, seeing as you have so many run ins with the guy.

No it's not due to close calls imo, he went out of his way with me to cause trouble and put himself at huge risk.

I don't want to be involved and leave these nuts off, wide berth, I hang back and leave thenm off

07Lapierre

punisher5112 wrote: »

No it's not due to close calls imo, he went out of his way with me to cause trouble and put himself at huge risk.

I don't want to be involved and leave these nuts off, wide berth, I hang back and leave thenm off

Report it to the Gardai? If he
Passes the same location at the same time every day, they should be able to “have a word” with him.

PhilOssophy

Why not drop in to Store Street Garda Station to tell them, the timing is so specific I am sure they would have a look into it.....

bazermc

And I said, ooh, I'm blinded by the lights
No, I can't sleep until I feel your touch
I said, ooh, I'm drowning in the night
Oh, when I'm like this, you're the one I trust

flatface

Sparksman wrote: »

RANT.

your insightful and daringly original views that cyclists are never wrong look particularly foolish after many posts recommending the OP contacts the guards.

ThewhiteJesus

Contact the gardai is the right call, not for the lights but dangerous cycling.
The best thing a cyclist can do is be seen, personally i don't use the flashing ones as i do agree they are distracting but i always have lights,
if you were a cyclist you know why you need them at this time of year.

Ah , must be that time of year again for the " poor old motorist " !!

Insurance , tax ( possible NCT ) .

Neighbours got a new car .

Loosen your belt buckle , and bend over , motorist guys and gals !!

Meanwhile , the cyclist guy ( with the better than none , bright lights ) , smiles and is relieved that his ass ain't like a " clowns pocket " !!

MarkR

punisher5112 wrote: »

Why are cyclists putting super bright strobes on the rear of their bikes?

It's bad enough with the ones on the front that are turned up towards the sky and are extremely dazzling and blinding.

There is an absolute moron passes Connolly Station every weekday morning at 0720-0722 and does be passing Donnycarney church around the 0730-0733 times.....

He has a good red on the rear but then on the right lower section of the bike he has a white strobe which is blinding, in the wet it throws light everywhere and messes with the eyes making it difficult to see past him.

I would love for some other cyclists to actually tell him to cop on as he is a danger to others and himself as his cycling style wouldn't be the safest either....

He is an aggressive individual and goes out of his way to put himself in harm's way with buses, he seems to have a huge issue.
I've have had to endure a shocking amount of abuse off him and he made it his mission to get in my way on numerous occasions while trying to proceed.
He would cycle out into the road way and be weaving around and such....

Check youtube, he probably has a channel.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Troll banned. Posts and responses deleted

Wildly Boaring

punisher5112 wrote: »

Why are cyclists putting super bright strobes on the rear of their bikes?

Why are motorists putting those super bright lights on new cars?

Am I doing this right?

Perhaps this individual is fed up of being driven too close to.
Perhaps his lights are perfectly fine but angled wrongly.
Is there a legal limit on how bright his lights can be?

Dunno because I cannot speak for other cyclists.

Threads like this are always hilarious.

Ever see a cyclist starting a new thread in the motor forums demanding to know why one specific motorist doesn't indicate?

(Maybe they do, I wouldn't put it past one or two, but I've never, seen it)

sydthebeat

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Why are motorists putting those super bright lights on new cars?

Am I doing this right?

No you're not.

There are laws prescribing rules around car lights..

https://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Your-Vehicle/Your-Vehicle-/Road-Worthiness--Related-Offences/Lighting-/

Is there similar for cyclists?

irelandrover

punisher5112 wrote: »

No it's not due to close calls imo, he went out of his way with me to cause trouble and put himself at huge risk.

I don't want to be involved and leave these nuts off, wide berth, I hang back and leave thenm off

I'll be honest and say it sounds like he gets what he wants. Drivers give him space and time and he can cycle along safely.

Chips Lovell

This is one of those situations where laws and regulations haven't kept pace with technology. While motor vehicle headlights have always required to be dipped when approaching oncoming traffic or driving in built up areas, at the time bicycle lighting laws were drafted, it was inconceivable that bike lights could be so bright they would blind oncoming traffic.

A quick/easy fix would be to just transpose German regulations into Irish law.

Wildly Boaring

sydthebeat wrote: »

No you're not.

There are laws prescribing rules around car lights..

https://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Your-Vehicle/Your-Vehicle-/Road-Worthiness--Related-Offences/Lighting-/

Is there similar for cyclists?

Grr
These motorists with the automatic dipping lights.
Don't dip for pedestrians or cyclists.

Will you have a word with them please?
Better?

billyhead

OP. At least he's not a cycling ninja.

PhilOssophy

billyhead wrote: »

OP. At least he's not a cycling ninja.

I agree. As both an occasional car driver and a cyclist, I would rather see him and know he is there, even if he is fit to blind everybody, than have him in his black jacket on a lashing rain evening with no lights!

Having said that, he is also the worst type of cyclist based on the OP's description but as I said, call the Garda station and I am sure they will have it on their radar and will hopefully nip it in the bud.

magicbastarder

this goes in the 'just because you *can* it doesn't mean you *should*' bin. i'd prefer two lights of lesser power purely for redundancy anyway.

Timfy

I think that we're missing the point that having white lights facing rearwards is an idiotic thing to do, be it on a bike, a car or a MiG 35!

PhilOssophy

I seem to have missed the part that the white and blinding lights are facing rearwards! Yeah, definitely one for the Gardai to deal with.

Macy0161

Not quite sure on the legalities, given he has a red rear light able to be seen, despite the "blinding" white light.

However, there are no clear modern standards for cycling lights in this State. And while I'm not a fan of the cheap CREE lights, the messaging from all arms of the State for vulnerable road users is "Be Safe Be Seen". It seems like the cyclist is complying with that recommendation.

PhilOssophy

Macy0161 wrote: »

Not quite sure on the legalities, given he has a red rear light able to be seen, despite the "blinding" white light.

However, there are no clear modern standards for cycling lights in this State. And while I'm not a fan of the cheap CREE lights, the messaging from all arms of the State for vulnerable road users is "Be Safe Be Seen". It seems like the cyclist is complying with that recommendation.

The RSA website says "Never cycle in the dark without adequate lighting – white for front, red for rear"? Not sure if legally binding though.

Smee_Again

punisher5112 wrote: »

No it's not due to close calls imo, he went out of his way with me to cause trouble and put himself at huge risk.

I don't want to be involved and leave these nuts off, wide berth, I hang back and leave thenm off

You have an inordinate amount of incidents with cyclists and other motorists, maybe it’s time you looked at your own behaviour?

As a wise man once said;

“If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.”

Effects

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Why are motorists putting those super bright lights on new cars?
Am I doing this right?

sydthebeat wrote: »

There are laws prescribing rules around car lights..

Doesn't mean people follow them. I remember when the second gen micra started coming with front fogs as standard and people would drive around with them as their main lights. Really bright and blinding.

Timfy

Ignoring legalities, there is a clearly understood setup for all vehicular orientation, that is White=front, Red=rear and Amber=side (or green and red should your mode of transport be afloat!)

Displaying white lights at the rear is as dumb as offering red lights at the front in that other road users will not be able to immediately assess direction of travel.

Macy0161 wrote: »

Not quite sure on the legalities, given he has a red rear light able to be seen, despite the "blinding" white light.

However, there are no clear modern standards for cycling lights in this State. And while I'm not a fan of the cheap CREE lights, the messaging from all arms of the State for vulnerable road users is "Be Safe Be Seen". It seems like the cyclist is complying with that recommendation.

spaceHopper

I get what you are saying about annoying light on the back and he sounds like a clown but I'm all for good lights on bikes. I struggle to see so many cyclists with no or at best pound shop lights on their bike, espicall coming out of where I work, there's always a que of traffic on the road and it slopes down hill it's near impossible to see them against all the other car lightsl.

Anything bright flashing and it's easy to pick them out. (Then you can get ready to splat them, Joking)

magicbastarder

Macy0161 wrote: »

It seems like the cyclist is complying with that recommendation.

there is also the provision for using the road with due care and attention, which can be a catch all for idiocy not explicitly covered in law, which is what i suspect a garda would threaten him with, were this followed up by the gardai.

ratracer

I’m with the OP on this one. White lights shouldn’t be facing rearward and I’d like to see it checked. I live rurally, and constantly get this from tractors, whose drivers insist on leaving the vehicle work lights switched on while driving at night.

As suggested, if the cyclist passes on a regular basis, report him, and hopefully AGS will look into it ( not directly into in, as that would dazzle them )

Fann Linn

It wasn't me but I might do it. I went out for a spin on Sunday midday. Flashing r&w lamps, hiviz vest, yes I know, orange bike and still a motorist pulled up along side me and said, ' you shouldn't be on the road, I couldn't see you with the low sun! '

For some people they just shouldn't be driving. And yes I am a motorist also, I drive for my living.

cletus

He could have 20 lights on the back of his bike if he wanted, but they should all be red

dave_o_brien

Deleted User wrote: »

'Does be'?

Perfectly acceptable Hiberno-English. It's a hangover from the separation of the continuous present tense and the present tense in Gaeilge. "He does be" means that this is something he does regularly as opposed to the Queen's English version "He is often/frequently/always". EDIT: To expand on the need for it, consider the difference between "He is cycling" and "He does be cycling". In the Queen's English, the difference would be "He is always cycling/ He is cycling all the time".

I mean, sure it's irrelevant to the conversation, but strictly speaking, the OP was completely accurate in his usage of Hiberno-English.

Also, white rear facing lights are idiotic.

Wishbone Ash

Macy0161 wrote: »

Not quite sure on the legalities, given he has a red rear light able to be seen, despite the "blinding" white light...

No, it doesn't work like that.

Rough lay man's translation of the regulations:

While cycling during lighting up hours, your bike must be fitted with a rear light.
The rear light must be red in colour and visible for a reasonable distance.

(I totally accept that the lighting of bicycle regulations are way out of date. My rear lights would be deemed illegal going by the 1963 regulations as they are not at least 2 square inches. A helmet light would also be illegal as no light may be more that 3 feet from the ground.)

Wishbone Ash

dave_o_brien wrote: »

...I mean, sure it's irrelevant to the conversation, but strictly speaking, the OP was completely accurate in his usage of Hiberno-English....

It's kinda quaint all the same and distracts from the message. A bit like when some people say 'yee' instead of 'you'.

Macy0161

I'm not arguing that they're right to have a rear facing white light. But they have a visible red rear, so I guess I was questioning whether they were acting illegally (definitely acting dumb). Probably doesn't comply with the lenses being 2 inch diameter as per the legislation though :rolleyes:

I stand by that vulnerable road users are on the receiving end, and then feel brighter is better, because of the "Be Safe Be Seen" messaging the RSA/ Gardai predominantly peddle (pedal?).

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's kinda quaint all the same and distracts from the message. A bit like when some people say 'yee' instead of 'you'.

I use ye as plural of you quiet a lot. Was surprised it was considered archaic. I do be continuing to use it though.


Oh, yeah, them cyclists!

cletus

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'm not arguing that they're right to have a rear facing white light. But they have a visible red rear, so I guess I was questioning whether they were acting illegally (definitely acting dumb). Probably doesn't comply with the lenses being 2 inch diameter as per the legislation though :rolleyes:

I stand by that vulnerable road users are on the receiving end, and then feel brighter is better, because of the "Be Safe Be Seen" messaging the RSA/ Gardai predominantly peddle (pedal?).

Yes, but convention tells in that red lights are at the back, white lights are at the front. Why not just put a flashing red light back there instead of a white one.

magicbastarder

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

A bit like when some people say 'yee' instead of 'you'.

'ye' is acceptable. 'yee' is weird.

dave_o_brien

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's kinda quaint all the same and distracts from the message. A bit like when some people say 'yee' instead of 'you'.

You are entitled to think so. I think your second example is one that emphasises how Hiberno-English can in many instances (or "does be") more accurate than the Queen's English. The fact that the plural "you" is the same as the singular "you" in contemporary English is potentially confusing, while the pluralised Hiberno-English versions (yiz, ye, youse, etc.) are all clearer.

There is, of course, massive snobbery around Hiberno-English. But one must ask oneself why they think a linguistic mechanism is bothersome if it is useful - the move to quash Hiberno-English is a class based and linguistic form of discrimination.

Anyway, bike lights... What do we think?!

Wishbone Ash

Macy0161 wrote: »

.. so I guess I was questioning whether they were acting illegally (definitely acting dumb)...

Definitely illegal - a light fitted to the rear must be red. I would interpret that as meaning any light fitted to the rear must be red.

Deleted User wrote: »

I use ye as plural of you quiet a lot. Was surprised it was considered archaic. I do be continuing to use it though!...

I say 'yous' for plural which drives my wife nuts.

Fighting Tao

If a driver is driving responsibly and carefully around cyclists, how and why is there any confrontation between the two?


Btw, I do get annoyed when lights are not white on front and red on rear as it plays tricks with perception and expectation of the direction of travel, but it doesn’t cause confrontation.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Definitely illegal - a light fitted to the rear must be red. I would interpret that as meaning any light fitted to the rear must be red.

I say 'yous' for plural which drives my wife nuts.

It had been mentioned to me in a professional context re emails. If I used yous I think a melt down would have ensued. Still use it, but do pause now before thinking... ye simply makes more sense.


White lights on back of bikes - down with this kind of thing.

Hurrache

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's kinda quaint all the same and distracts from the message. A bit like when some people say 'yee' instead of 'you'.

I always use 'ye' or 'youse' for plurality reasons, citing Professor Terry Dolan when someone claims it's slang.

Thelonious Monk

magicbastarder wrote: »

'ye' is acceptable. 'yee' is weird.

It's yous.

Anyway, lol @ people saying report this to the Garda. You can have video footage of cars trying to kill you and they don't care, as if they're going to care about some cyclist with lights that are a mild annoyance.

punisher5112

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Why are motorists putting those super bright lights on new cars?

Am I doing this right?

Perhaps this individual is fed up of being driven too close to.
Perhaps his lights are perfectly fine but angled wrongly.
Is there a legal limit on how bright his lights can be?

Dunno because I cannot speak for other cyclists.

Threads like this are always hilarious.

Ever see a cyclist starting a new thread in the motor forums demanding to know why one specific motorist doesn't indicate?

(Maybe they do, I wouldn't put it past one or two, but I've never, seen it)

Please read my post again.....

He has lights correctly on the bike no issues whatsoever there, I actually said to myself wow he does want to be seen so that's good.

My biggest issue is the light fitted on the right lower down which is a fast flashing strobe which is white, this is a white light flashing back at cyclists and motorists, this is then made much worse with the fact the roads are wet in the dark.

I don't lose sleep over the abuse I get or the near death experiences that they do put themselves very close to and I mean it when I say I stay well back, well clear and don't pass unless plenty of space and can clearly see the road is safe and clear.
We have CCTC throughout the bus as the outside does also.

I've been brought up for all sorts of bizarre complaints and footage looked at to see, never anything further as they could see 1 it was me or 2 it was nothing like what was said.

Fighting Tao

punisher5112 wrote: »

Please read my post again.....

He has lights correctly on the bike no issues whatsoever there, I actually said to myself wow he does want to be seen so that's good.

My biggest issue is the light fitted on the right lower down which is a fast flashing strobe which is white, this is a white light flashing back at cyclists and motorists, this is then made much worse with the fact the roads are wet in the dark.

I don't lose sleep over the abuse I get or the near death experiences that they do put themselves very close to and I mean it when I say I stay well back, well clear and don't pass unless plenty of space and can clearly see the road is safe and clear.
We have CCTC throughout the bus as the outside does also.

I've been brought up for all sorts of bizarre complaints and footage looked at to see, never anything further as they could see 1 it was me or 2 it was nothing like what was said.

I am still confused. If you are so far back and you are driving carefully and responsibility what is the cyclist doing to endanger themselves? Is it filtering?

punisher5112

Smee_Again wrote: »

You have an inordinate amount of incidents with cyclists and other motorists, maybe it’s time you looked at your own behaviour?

As a wise man once said;

“If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.”

You my manager?

On a serious note though I have had numerous over 20 years on the road.

I can't stop others stupidity but trained very well to see it before it happens but saying that driving a bus its size plays a big part in say like where can I go if someone drives head on into it or the same up the rear....

It's actually quite bizarre as the size you would think people would see it easier but no it doesn't work that way and it seems they only see why they want to see.


By the way this isn't a cyclist bashing thread and far from it.

I do cycle believe it or not and like to see others making that effort to be seen that bit better as in my mind it's a win win as chances of getting hurt is much less.