nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cyclists mega-thread (WARNING: Before posting you must read post #1)

madra dubh

Moderator warning and notes:

Reminder to all: The Commuting and Transport charter applies -- it is stricter than many forums. You must read it before posting on this or other threads.

And remember, this is a thread on the Commuting and Transport board, so talk about how transport modes compare is relevant and attempts to state otherwise and/or tell people what they can't or can talk about will be viewed as back seat modding.

There's been a few of these threads recently, so this is likely going to become the official give out about cyclists megathread (I'll come up with a better title before renaming the thread).

These will be to contain such discussion away from other threads and bring them off topic and to stop new threads of the same vain from always happening.

This thread will be different than normal thread and arguments should not be repeated unless you have something new to add -- at some point soon in the future a FAQ type first post will deal the repeated arguments and outline both sides of arguments like "road tax" etc.

Normal rules in the charter apply, including not replying to this mod warning.

- moderator

Original opening post follows:

Why do we tolerate them on our roads. I have been a cyclist, motorcyclist, car driver, van driver & minibus driver and by far the worst are cyclists. Colour blind (don't recognise traffic lights). They moan continually about other road users not being considerate yet a large amount make no effort to keep themselves seen and safe. Pay no road tax yet are allocated cycle lanes. Need no insurance yet can cause damage (ever tried to claim off one that is at fault). Motorcyclists tend to get a bad rap mainly due to speed but I have found them to be the best on the road for consideration and road awareness.
There can of worms opened.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Macy0161

07Lapierre wrote: »

Couldn't agree more! and the RSA and Gardai handing out free Hi-Viz only adds to this notion!

The hi viz they hand out even has "be safe be seen" plastered on it.

When they have given out lights, the ones I've been given are really crap lights which were barely any use as secondary lights!

amcalester wrote:

I would wager that of all the cyclists without lights the majority are not motorists and just don't realise how difficult it is to see an unlit cyclist.

I'm not so sure - plenty of people driving cars, particularly at dusk, don't bother with lights when all they've got to do is turn a switch (or even more illogically, go to the bother of turning on parking lights (and I mean parking lights, not daytime running lights)).

I don't think any road user group is immune from some of their number thinking just because they can see, that it means everyone else can see them.

amcalester

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'm not so sure - plenty of people driving cars, particularly at dusk, don't bother with lights when all they've got to do is turn a switch (or even more illogically, go to the bother of turning on parking lights (and I mean parking lights, not daytime running lights)).

I don't think any road user group is immune from some of their number thinking just because they can see, that it means everyone else can see them.

Yeah you may be right but apart from motorists with blown bulbs I think in most cases if a motorist is driving with their lights off or just their parking lights on its either because they've forgotten to turn them on or don't know the difference rather than thinking everyone else can see them.

Roadhawk

Macy0161 wrote: »

The hi viz they hand out even has "be safe be seen" plastered on it. When they have given out lights, the ones I've been given are really crap lights which were barely any use as secondary lights!

They clearly feel there is a need to try provide this safety equipment. To be honest they shouldn't have to give out any safety items for free. A cyclist, being a responsible road user, should purchase their own equipment...particularly front the rear lights if they are traveling in the dark.
With the RSA attempting to provide this equipment it only opens the door to criticism of the quality of the item.

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'm not so sure - plenty of people driving cars, particularly at dusk, don't bother with lights when all they've got to do is turn a switch (or even more illogically, go to the bother of turning on parking lights (and I mean parking lights, not daytime running lights).
I don't think any road user group is immune from some of their number thinking just because they can see, that it means everyone else can see them.

In general, some people driving during the day with headlights on and for those who dont they will turn them on around dusk...give or take a half hour or so. Im aware that a motorist must have their lights on during lighting up hours which is usually when the street light are on. For the best part, the vast majority would have their lights on at this point. There are cases when a motorist will start a journey with no lights on when its pitch black out but you can be guaranteed that most other motorist who see this will beckon them to turn on their lights. I cant imagine this happening with cyclists...there are quite a lot of cyclists who knowingly start a journey with no lighting or reflectors installed on their bike in the dark of night. there is no excuse for this...it doesn't matter what way you look at it, its still irresponsible, negligent and downright idiotic.

amcalester

Roadhawk wrote: »

There are cases when a motorist will start a journey with no lights on when its pitch black out but you can be guaranteed that most other motorist who see this will beckon them to turn on their lights. I cant imagine this happening with cyclists...

I was thinking the same recently, I left for work on the bike at my usual time of 7am, so quite dark, and I forgot to turn on my lights. It wasn't until I was stopped at a set of traffic lights that I noticed my lights were off.

Not 1 car flashed their lights at me but i'm sure loads would have if I was driving.

I didn't see any better with the lights on though, which is not the case when driving.

[Deleted User]

07Lapierre wrote: »

:eek: What? do you not have Pockets?, a backpack?...

Not always, no. Not everywhere I go is it well received to have a handful of bike lights. If people would stop interfering with other people's stuff in the first place it wouldn't be an issue.

I'm just throwing out a theory as to why some people might not have lights on the bikes.

First Up

amcalester wrote:

Not 1 car flashed their lights at me but i'm sure loads would have if I was driving.

They probably assumed you didn't have any.

amcalester wrote:

I didn't see any better with the lights on though, which is not the case when driving.

No, but you were a lot more easily seen.

Macy0161

Roadhawk wrote: »

They clearly feel there is a need to try provide this safety equipment. To be honest they shouldn't have to give out any safety items for free. A cyclist, being a responsible road user, should purchase their own equipment...particularly front the rear lights if they are traveling in the dark.
With the RSA attempting to provide this equipment it only opens the door to criticism of the quality of the item.

All the hi viz is basically the RSA being seen to do something. Lights seem way down their promotional agenda, after builders jackets and helmets, which is wrong. So it's easy, imo, to see why some people think that it is enough.

A cyclist should provide their own equipment - that should be decent lights. If they want reflective detail, and most cycling (and running) clothing has this already anyway, they'd be better with ankle bands rather than something on their torso.

Roadhawk wrote: »

In general, some people driving during the day with headlights on and for those who dont they will turn them on around dusk...give or take a half hour or so. Im aware that a motorist must have their lights on during lighting up hours which is usually when the street light are on. For the best part, the vast majority would have their lights on at this point.

Between people not bothering to put on full lights, having bulbs out (both front and rear), unnecessarily bright bulbs, and poorly aligned lights I wouldn't see much difference in the two groups to be honest. If you don't notice you haven't got a front bulb out, even in an urban setting, imo you're not paying enough attention.

amcalester

First Up wrote: »

No, but you were a lot more easily seen.

Absolutely.

What I meant was that lights often do nothing to improve the cyclists visibility which is probably why so many don't bother using any.

That's not to defend them at all, they should have lights but lights on a bike serve a different purpose than lights on a car.

07Lapierre

Deleted User wrote: »

Not always, no. Not everywhere I go is it well received to have a handful of bike lights. If people would stop interfering with other people's stuff in the first place it wouldn't be an issue.

I'm just throwing out a theory as to why some people might not have lights on the bikes.

nah, people don't have lights on their bikes at night because their lazy and/or stupid! it has nothing to do with the convenience or inconvenience of lights.

Roadhawk

Macy0161 wrote: »

All the hi viz is basically the RSA being seen to do something. Lights seem way down their promotional agenda, after builders jackets and helmets, which is wrong. So it's easy, imo, to see why some people think that it is enough.

I do think that a hi-vis should be a mandatory item for a cyclist but that's a whole other topic. Front and rear lights on the other hand are legally required along with a front and rear reflector. The amount of cyclists without this basic requirement is farcical.

Macy0161 wrote: »

A cyclist should provide their own equipment - that should be decent lights. If they want reflective detail, and most cycling (and running) clothing has this already anyway, they'd be better with ankle bands rather than something on their torso.

Unless its cycle team spandex i find that most cycle clothing is plain black. Some do have retroflective stripes or bands but they are only useful when light shines onto them.

Macy0161 wrote: »

Between people not bothering to put on full lights, having bulbs out (both front and rear), unnecessarily bright bulbs, and poorly aligned lights I wouldn't see much difference in the two groups to be honest. If you don't notice you haven't got a front bulb out, even in an urban setting, imo you're not paying enough attention.

I completely agree...id estimate a good 30%-40% of vehicle on the road have some sort of defective lighting albeit in the front or rear. It is completely unacceptable and these drivers should be issued with on the spot fines...per issue. The bottom line is if you can afford to drive you can afford to replace a set of bulbs. no excuse. The same can be said about cyclists who choose to use lights...some have a white lights on the back (making it look like they are traveling on the wrong side of the road), some have crap lights that can barely be seen(probably from the RSA), some have great lights but need to change the batteries to perform better...and so on.

All that aside, its extremely rare to see a vehicle with set out deliberately and complete a full journey with no lighting at all on the road at night. The same cannot be said about cyclists...at the moment.

First Up

amcalester wrote:

That's not to defend them at all, they should have lights but lights on a bike serve a different purpose than lights on a car.

Not sure what is your point. Lights on a car help the driver see where they are going but they also help oncoming traffic see you. An unlit dark coloured car can be hard to spot even in lit-up urban areas and especially in bad weather.

A front light on a bike only marginally helps you see where you going but far more importantly it helps others see you.

amcalester

First Up wrote: »

Not sure what is your point. Lights on a car help the driver see where they are going but they also help oncoming traffic see you. An unlit dark coloured car can be hard to spot even in lit-up urban areas and especially in bad weather.

A front light on a bike only marginally helps you see where you going but far more importantly it helps others see you.

Just pointing out a possible reason why so many cyclists think it is OK to cycle without lights.

First Up

amcalester wrote:

Just pointing out a possible reason why so many cyclists think it is OK to cycle without lights.

Only if they think its a good idea to be invisible.

[Deleted User]

07Lapierre wrote: »

nah, people don't have lights on their bikes at night because their lazy and/or stupid! it has nothing to do with the convenience or inconvenience of lights.

Oh, sorry. I didn't realise you knew, 100% factually the reason behind every cyclist not having lights on their bikes. My apologies.

Can we wrap this thread up folks, Lapierre sorted it for us.

jive

07Lapierre wrote: »

"Donohoe said while the new system did not create any new specific offence dealing with those who wear headphones, the ‘cycling without reasonable consideration’ provision could be applied.

It means members of the Garda now have discretion in deciding whether cyclists are putting their own safety and that of other road users at risk by using headphones."

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/gardai-now-have-power-to-fine-cyclists-wearing-earphones/

Not using lights on your bike should be a straight forward fine but it's not enforced. I don't see how anyone can argue against using lights and it should be enforced.

The above regarding headphones is just daft, however. Will they issue a ban on deaf people cycling or just give them an on the spot fine of €40 every time they catch a deaf person on a bike?

jive

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, sorry. I didn't realise you knew, 100% factually the reason behind every cyclist not having lights on their bikes. My apologies.

Can we wrap this thread up folks, Lapierre sorted it for us.

It's true though. People just can't be arsed 1) buying lights 2) replacing batteries. They don't care because it's not enforced, the same can be said for motorists not using indicators or parking wherever they want as long as they throw their hazard lights on.

BlinkingLights

I'm seeing quite a few of these around Cork City too. It's really dangerous as you literally don't see them at all sometimes until you're practically on top of them and your headlights catch their pedal reflectors.

There's just a complete lack of any kind of cyclist education going on at the moment. If you're out on a road at night, at the very least you should be carrying one of those reflective sashes in your pocket so you can ensure you're highly visible and working lights should be legally require and enforced. If you don't have them, the Garda should simply put your bike in the boot and you pay a fine to get it back.

Also some of those lights that are mounted on the back of helmets and so on are really confusing. You need a properly bright red light positioned in the correct place on the back of the bike so that it looks like a bike and isn't flickering all over the place. When it's on your head, every time you turn your head, it disappears out of view to drivers and may not immediately look like another vehicle on the road from a distance.

As for batteries, didn't we all used to have dynamos at one stage?? Shouldn't need to change the battery, it's being topped up all the time as you cycle if you've the right setup...

wtlltw

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I also think a lot of people think wearing a high vis makes them stand out like a beacon. Better than nothing but no substitute for lights.

Drove behind a cyclist tonight with no lights. Pulled up to them at the lights and told them they should get some lights. She swung her courier type bag and showed me her back light and called me something childish. She turned back round and cycled off with her bag blocking her light again. At least the high viz would have least made her stand out.

amcalester

First Up wrote: »

Only if they think its a good idea to be invisible.

Well that's obviously not the reason.

Alf Veedersane

wtlltw wrote: »

Drove behind a cyclist tonight with no lights. Pulled up to them at the lights and told them they should get some lights. She swung her courier type bag and showed me her back light and called me something childish. She turned back round and cycled off with her bag blocking her light again. At least the high viz would have least made her stand out.

Some lights are pitiful.

I still remember the night I was heading down the quays and realised how little extra visibility the high vis jackets afford. I always wear mine because it's better than my black jacket.

Lights are more important but so many seem to think that having things that qualify as lights is enough and don't actively think about ensuring they have equipment that protects them.

BlinkingLights

High visibility stuff generally works better when it's actually dark and headlights are bouncing off it. The problem is that in urban areas it's usually more dusky with orange street lighting and you don't stand out at all.

07Lapierre

jive wrote: »

Not using lights on your bike should be a straight forward fine but it's not enforced. I don't see how anyone can argue against using lights and it should be enforced.

The above regarding headphones is just daft, however. Will they issue a ban on deaf people cycling or just give them an on the spot fine of €40 every time they catch a deaf person on a bike?

I'd go further and say a Garda should confiscate a bike from a cyclist he catches cycling at night with no lights! When they turn up at the station to collect their bike (and pay the fixed penalty notice) the next day, they don't get the bike back until they fit lights. Introducing fines and then not enforcing the rules is a total waste of time and effort!

07Lapierre

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, sorry. I didn't realise you knew, 100% factually the reason behind every cyclist not having lights on their bikes. My apologies.

Can we wrap this thread up folks, Lapierre sorted it for us.

Apology accepted! I'm a cyclist for over 40 years and a motorist for the last 25years...i do know what I'm talking about.

07Lapierre

First Up wrote: »

Not sure what is your point. Lights on a car help the driver see where they are going but they also help oncoming traffic see you. An unlit dark coloured car can be hard to spot even in lit-up urban areas and especially in bad weather.

A front light on a bike only marginally helps you see where you going but far more importantly it helps others see you.

Everyone's seems to be assuming that cyclists only cycle on streets that have street lighting. My commute is on both lit and unlit roads and I have lights that allow me to be seen, but also allow me to see the road! My front light is powerful enough to light up the who,e Road and if on full power, would be too bright for oncoming traffic. Not only should cyclists have lights, but they also need the correct lights for the roads they cycle on.

First Up

BlinkingLights wrote:

There's just a complete lack of any kind of cyclist education going on at the moment. If you're out on a road at night, at the very least you should be carrying one of those reflective sashes in your pocket so you can ensure you're highly visible and working lights should be legally require and enforced. If you don't have them, the Garda should simply put your bike in the boot and you pay a fine to get it back.

07Lapierre wrote:

Everyone's seems to be assuming that cyclists only cycle on streets that have street lighting. My commute is on both lit and unlit roads and I have lights that allow me to be seen, but also allow me to see the road! My front light is powerful enough to light up the who,e Road and if on full power, would be too bright for oncoming traffic. Not only should cyclists have lights, but they also need the correct lights for the roads they cycle on.

I can't speak for others but I have made no such assumption. I would hope that no cyclist is stupid enough to rely on moonlight to see their way, or rely on motorists to see them in the pitch dark.

In urban environments, the main purpose of lights on bikes is to be seen and it is mostly in urban environments that you see the idiots without them.

plodder

BlinkingLights wrote: »

High visibility stuff generally works better when it's actually dark and headlights are bouncing off it. The problem is that in urban areas it's usually more dusky with orange street lighting and you don't stand out at all.

It works well in low light conditions as well as darkness. In our climate, that means much of the time, even during the day when street lights aren't on. Enforcement and fines is the answer to not having lights. Confiscating bikes generally doesn't make sense, except maybe if a garda is not satisfied that the cyclist has given the right name. Unless we should start confiscating cars with broken headlights as well ....

magicbastarder

one thing which car manufacturers could do to make life easier is supply a set of spare builbs with the car - i think some do, but AFAIK it's certainly not universal.
that said, there are some cars on which it's famously difficult to change the bulbs. a friend drives a megane, and was once told in halfords by a shop assistant that he'd changed bulbs in meganes, and had assisted with difficult calvings on his father's farm, and the megane was the more onerous task.

07Lapierre

plodder wrote: »

It works well in low light conditions as well as darkness. In our climate, that means much of the time, even during the day when street lights aren't on. Enforcement and fines is the answer to not having lights. Confiscating bikes generally doesn't make sense, except maybe if a garda is not satisfied that the cyclist has given the right name. Unless we should start confiscating cars with broken headlights as well ....

Gardai have the power to confiscate cars for no road tax/insurance etc. I see no difference between this and confiscating bikes with no lights. They are confiscated because the vehicles should not be on the road and the users of these vehicles are a danger to themselves and other road users. Makes sense to me.

plodder

magicbastarder wrote: »

one thing which car manufacturers could do to make life easier is supply a set of spare builbs with the car - i think some do, but AFAIK it's certainly not universal.
that said, there are some cars on which it's famously difficult to change the bulbs. a friend drives a megane, and was once told in halfords by a shop assistant that he'd changed bulbs in meganes, and had assisted with difficult calvings on his father's farm, and the megane was the more onerous task.

Having spare bulbs is a legal requirement in some countries. But totally get the calving comparison as well. To change the headlamp bulbs on mine, you have to go through the wheel arch - not something you want to be doing on the side of the road at night.

magicbastarder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMLINNMcWj8