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

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

how many motorists would understand an 'i'm slowing down' cycling hand signal?

Well the majority of drivers (who have a license) would have had to learn the hand signals to pass both theory and full license tests. The only time they would have the chance to recognize them would be when they observe a cyclist use them. I suppose its a bit like morse code...if we used it more we would understand it.

Macy0161

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well the majority of drivers (who have a license) would have had to learn the hand signals to pass both theory and full license tests. The only time they would have the chance to recognize them would be when they observe a cyclist use them. I suppose its a bit like morse code...if we used it more we would understand it.

I've seen other motorists use them - admittedly mainly old guys with dodgy trailers with no tail board, but driving cars nonetheless.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying only old guys have no tail boards, just younger drivers with no tailboard don't normally bother!

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

So you would signal to a fellow cyclist but not a motorist? Why not?

When cycling in a group, we use hand signals (and verbal warnings) to indicate when we are slowing down. there's a much greater chance of a cyclist (especially a newbie) running into the rear of the cyclist in front when the group is slowing down/stopping, as the distance between each bike is small.

When cycling solo, cars are rarely directly behind me and so close to my rear wheel that i would need to use a hand signal to let them know i'm slowing.

Roadhawk

Macy0161 wrote: »

I've seen other motorists use them - admittedly mainly old guys with dodgy trailers with no tail board, but driving cars nonetheless.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying only old guys have no tail boards, just younger drivers with no tailboard don't normally bother!

Ive seen that too...and ive seen motorcyclists use hand signals but very rarely like when an indicator or breaklight is not working.

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

When cycling in a group, we use hand signals (and verbal warnings) to indicate when we are slowing down. there's a much greater chance of a cyclist (especially a newbie) running into the rear of the cyclist in front when the group is slowing down/stopping, as the distance between each bike is small.

Is that not tail gating?

07Lapierre wrote: »

When cycling solo, cars are rarely directly behind me and so close to my rear wheel that i would need to use a hand signal to let them know i'm slowing.

But still the courtesy is not extended to a motorist...
A cyclist can stop much quicker than a car so it would be sensible to use hand signals to alert. You may not have cars traveling directly behind you but in Dublin there are many cyclists that take the "defense position" and cycle in the middle of the road...they would have vehicles directly behind them.

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

Is that not tail gating?

But still the courtesy is not extended to a motorist...
A cyclist can stop much quicker than a car so it would be sensible to use hand signals to alert. You may not have cars traveling directly behind you but in Dublin there are many cyclists that take the "defense position" and cycle in the middle of the road...they would have vehicles directly behind them.

No its not tailgating, its called good cycling "Road craft"...

Taking your hand off the handlebars is not always the best option.
Taking the Defense Position is usually a good indicator to any motorist following that they should slow down no?

I get the impression your not an experienced cyclist?

First Up

07Lapierre wrote: »

I get the impression your not an experienced cyclist?

There can't be many experienced cyclists who persist in cycling in the middle of the road. They wouldn't be around long enough to get experience.

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

No its not tailgating, its called good cycling "Road craft"...

Taking your hand off the handlebars is not always the best option.
Taking the Defense Position is usually a good indicator to any motorist following that they should slow down no?

I get the impression your not an experienced cyclist?

Road craft? please...come on...I must remember that one if i every get pulled over for tailgating.

You would be right in saying that I wouldn't be considered an experienced cyclist as I have never been part of a group or team however i would have more road experience than a lot of cyclists out there (or at least i would appear to do so). I do however have about 5 years (give or take 6 months) commuting experience 3 of which was in Dublin City so I am well aware how useful the defensive position is at particular times.

It doesn't work when using a car though.

Roadhawk

First Up wrote: »

There can't be many experienced cyclists who persist in cycling in the middle of the road. They wouldn't be around long enough to get experience.

Oh there are pleanty of them...this one take the biscuit though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRcLGDCiz0I

The perfect execution of the defensive position.

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

Road craft? please...come on...I must remember that one if i every get pulled over for tailgating.

You would be right in saying that I wouldn't be considered an experienced cyclist as I have never been part of a group or team. I do however have about 5 years (give or take 6 months) commuting experience 3 of which was in Dublin City so I am well aware how useful the defensive position is at particular times.

It doesn't work when using a car though.

Agreed.

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agreed.

Stuck in a nice little edit above

ThisRegard

First Up wrote: »

There can't be many experienced cyclists who persist in cycling in the middle of the road. They wouldn't be around long enough to get experience.

Are there any incidents of cyclists being killed as a result of cycling in the middle of the road?

ThisRegard

Roadhawk wrote: »

You would be right in saying that I wouldn't be considered an experienced cyclist as I have never been part of a group or team however i would have more road experience than a lot of cyclists out there (or at least i would appear to do so). I do however have about 5 years (give or take 6 months) commuting experience 3 of which was in Dublin City so I am well aware how useful the defensive position is at particular times.

It doesn't work when using a car though.

I see your miserable 3 years and raise you with from sometime in the early 90s until a year or two ago so 20 plus years, all in Dublin City Centre from the suburbs, both cycling and driving. Top trumps.

magicbastarder

ThisRegard wrote: »

Are there any incidents of cyclists being killed as a result of cycling in the middle of the road?

in a very facile sense, someone may argue that 'yes, if they'd been cycling at the side they wouldn't have been hit by that car'. i am not endorsiing this argument, lest there be any confusion.

ThisRegard

magicbastarder wrote: »

in a very facile sense, someone may argue that 'yes, if they'd been cycling at the side they wouldn't have been hit by that car'. i am not endorsiing this argument, lest there be any confusion.

I'm sure there were too, but I was approaching it from the point of view of making laws and legislation for problems that don't really exist, but are rather just some form of confirmation bias.

zulutango

Haven't trawled through all the posts but the first few pages seem to be saying that people keep seeing all these cyclists with no lights. So, if you can see them in the first place then aren't the lights unnecessary?

uck51js9zml2yt

magicbastarder wrote: »

my wife was asking the other day (after seeing a cyclist tailgated by a bus) whether there are rear lights for bikes which can be triggered by a brake pull. i've certainly never heard of them.

Saw a helmet online with a rear light and indicators. Not sure how it worked.

07Lapierre

ThisRegard wrote: »

I see your miserable 3 years and raise you with from sometime in the early 90s until a year or two ago so 20 plus years, all in Dublin City Centre from the suburbs, both cycling and driving. Top trumps.

Late 70's for me!

uxiant

zulutango wrote: »

Haven't trawled through all the posts but the first few pages seem to be saying that people keep seeing all these cyclists with no lights. So, if you can see them in the first place then aren't the lights unnecessary?

There really is no excuse for not seeing a cyclist even with no lights. But there's loads of research showing that bright vivid colours can be seen from further away and spotted quicker by the eyes. All it takes is a speeding car or a careless driver and they might see you too late so you're pretty thick if you cycle without lights as it gives you will be seen earlier by drivers.

magicbastarder

uxiant wrote: »

But there's loads of research showing that bright vivid colours can be seen from further away and spotted quicker by the eyes.

you're gonna be asked for a source on this.

First Up

uxiant wrote: »

There really is no excuse for not seeing a cyclist even with no lights. But there's loads of research showing that bright vivid colours can be seen from further away and spotted quicker by the eyes. All it takes is a speeding car or a careless driver and they might see you too late so you're pretty thick if you cycle without lights as it gives you will be seen earlier by drivers.

Of course there are reasons (or excuses) for not spotting a cyclist dressed in black on a dark night; poorly lit roads, glare from car lights, poor visibility and (especially in Ireland) cyclists being somewhere they are not supposed to be.

No doubt there are accidents due to poor driver observation but a cyclist who makes no effort to be seen is asking for trouble and it is very unfair on drivers to be blamed.

Professor Moriarty

uxiant wrote: »

There really is no excuse for not seeing a cyclist even with no lights. But there's loads of research showing that bright vivid colours can be seen from further away and spotted quicker by the eyes. All it takes is a speeding car or a careless driver and they might see you too late so you're pretty thick if you cycle without lights as it gives you will be seen earlier by drivers.

Yes there is. Dark night, rain, dark clothes, no lights. If I don't see them, it's not my fault, I don't have to make an excuse. They are not visible.

If a cyclist wants to be seen, use a light front and back. It's not rocket science FFS.

JayRoc

zulutango wrote: »

Haven't trawled through all the posts but the first few pages seem to be saying that people keep seeing all these cyclists with no lights. So, if you can see them in the first place then aren't the lights unnecessary?

For me, the most important reason for lighting up on the bike is my visibility to a driver coming from a side road, or a pedestrian on the footpath who is about to step onto the road. Anyone who isn't behind me, basically.

I wouldn't be without either front or back lights, but front lights are far, far more important IMO. Rear lights are a sensible addition to the visibility (to a driver approaching from behind) a cyclist already possesses to some degree by being in the driver's headlights.

Roadhawk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes there is. Dark night, rain, dark clothes, no lights. If I don't see them, it's not my fault, I don't have to make an excuse. They are not visible.

If a cyclist wants to be seen, use a light front and back. It's not rocket science FFS.

I agree. If a cyclists is not using a light especially in those conditions they are asking for trouble.

Sam Russell

On my bike, I have a reflector front and back. I have two rear lights mounted underneath the saddle, both bright - one flashing and one steady. At the front, I have a steady headlight which is strong enough to see potholes but is easily visible. I have reflectors on the pedals and reflector strip built into my tyres.

All lights show sideways as well.

What more can I do?

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

What more can I do?

Not a lot; that's pretty good. As a motorist I'd comment that the flashing/intermittent lights are the easiest to see.

Roadhawk

First Up wrote: »

Not a lot; that's pretty good. As a motorist I'd comment that the flashing/intermittent lights are the easiest to see.

I would also agree and add that they give a better perception of distance.

CatFromHue

zulutango wrote: »

Haven't trawled through all the posts but the first few pages seem to be saying that people keep seeing all these cyclists with no lights. So, if you can see them in the first place then aren't the lights unnecessary?

Reminds me of during the Summer when I was driving home at night and saw something in the dark. Got up closer and could see it was a guy on a bike wearing a black jacket. He's cycling through a dark bit of the road where the trees obscure the street lights. A car coming up the road turns into a drive way but stops at the last moment as he just put the cyclist over his bonnet.

you will eventually see someone on a bike when they've no lights but not so good when you only see them as you're about to hit them.

Alun

Roadhawk wrote: »

I would also agree and add that they give a better perception of distance.

Actually I'd disagree on your second point. Whilst they're easier to spot initially, I find a flashing light more difficult to 'track' once I've seen them.

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

Not a lot; that's pretty good. As a motorist I'd comment that the flashing/intermittent lights are the easiest to see.

The reason for both is
1: in case one fails (say battery dead)
2: The constant on is the legal one (the law predates LED lights).
3: A flashing light is generally harder for others to gauge distance.

However, flashing lights are not used by cars so it does indicate a fragile cyclist.

The reflective tyres was an accident - I bought them as tyres and found they had a reflective strip - bonus. They should be mandatory for all cycle tyres.