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

jive · 24-02-2017 11:59AM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Wow, almost 200 posts on "Cyclists with no lights"...

Should have been 2 or 3 posts!

Get's dark out: Switch on bicycle lights...Case closed!

Otherwise this is just another Motorist Vs. Cyclist thread!

Nothing like a cycling thread to get the juices flowing. Doesn't even matter what the original question is they all follow the same old routine.

07Lapierre · 24-02-2017 06:07PM

Bingo! 200

Professor Moriarty · 24-02-2017 06:42PM

Carawaystick wrote: »

Cars have lights, to light up the road ahead of them. If a driver can't see what's ahead, they should not be driving that car.

Yeah. Forget what the driver should or shouldn't see. Anyone who wears black clothes on a dark, wet night and cycles a bike with no lights is not a cyclist. They are a fool.

AndrewJRenko · 25-02-2017 02:26PM

helimachoptor wrote: »

Last year on the Rock road, i overtook a cyclist with a hi-viz and in writing "Pregnant cycle please be careful"
She had no lights (it was summer so maybe didnt feel the need)
no helmet

Why would she have needed lights in the summer? And why would she need a helmet? There is no legal requirement and evidence to support their use is spotty at best.

Madisyn Chubby Someone wrote: »

So a cyclist wears dark clothes, has no lights and it's the driver's fault he can't see him...The mind boggles!

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah. Forget what the driver should or shouldn't see. Anyone who wears black clothes on a dark, wet night and cycles a bike with no lights is not a cyclist. They are a fool.

Would you say the same about a pedestrian in black crossing the road? Do they need to wear some kind of special clothing before they cross?

AndrewJRenko · 25-02-2017 02:34PM

Roadhawk wrote: »

Cycling at night without lights at night is like going into the desert without water...your chances of survival are dramatically decreased.

Saw this today on a bumper sticker...just had to add it

Slighty dramatising the problem, no? Have there been many deaths caused by cyclists not having lights in recent years?

Sam Russell wrote: »

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?

Ask drivers to put their phones down. Ask drivers to give you 1.5m passing space. Ask drivers not to speed in urban areas.

lucernarian · 25-02-2017 06:51PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would she have needed lights in the summer? And why would she need a helmet? There is no legal requirement and evidence to support their use is spotty at best.

Would you say the same about a pedestrian in black crossing the road? Do they need to wear some kind of special clothing before they cross?

I'd agree if the point was about just high visibility clothes. It wasn't. Not wearing lights is irresponsible and wrong.

I'd say that the passing distance of 1.5 metres is a misguided cause compared to motorists acting like they own the road and driving with impunity, and EXISTING laws not being enforced. Cars turn a corner and upon finding a pedestrian crossing the road, they get all bent out of shape and believe somehow that swerving and beeping is the correct response to pedestrians already crossing a road.

What is wrong with Irish motorists? Do we forget the driving lessons and test the moment we pass?

Professor Moriarty · 25-02-2017 10:56PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would she have needed lights in the summer? And why would she need a helmet? There is no legal requirement and evidence to support their use is spotty at best.

Would you say the same about a pedestrian in black crossing the road? Do they need to wear some kind of special clothing before they cross?

Depends on where the pedestrian is crossing. But a cyclist should always have lights.

07Lapierre · 25-02-2017 11:07PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Depends on where the pedestrian is crossing. But a cyclist should always have lights when it's dark!

FYP

First Up · 25-02-2017 11:08PM

I was at a bus-stop on Morehampton Rd in Dublin for about 20 minutes around 7pm this evening.

12 cyclists passed by with ages ranging from teens/20's to I'd guess 50's. Not one had a working front light - three had lamps but none was illuminated. One bike had a rear reflector.

Every one of the cyclists was wearing dark clothing.

AndrewJRenko · 25-02-2017 11:40PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Depends on where the pedestrian is crossing. But a cyclist should always have lights.

lucernarian wrote: »

I'd agree if the point was about just high visibility clothes. It wasn't. Not wearing lights is irresponsible and wrong.

Yep, not wearing lights while cycling is wrong. And drivers still need to be able to see a pedestrian wearing black clothes and stop in time.

First Up wrote: »

I was at a bus-stop on Morehampton Rd in Dublin for about 20 minutes around 7pm this evening.

12 cyclists passed by with ages ranging from teens/20's to I'd guess 50's. Not one had a working front light - three had lamps but none was illuminated. One bike had a rear reflector.

Every one of the cyclists was wearing dark clothing.

Did you try counting the number of cars missing one headlight, or one brake light or back light? Or the number of new cars with no back lights at all because they're running on DRLs? It would make an interesting comparison.

But it's good to hear that you were able to see all these cyclists well enough to count them anyway.

magicbastarder · 25-02-2017 11:47PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Did you try counting the number of cars missing one headlight, or one brake light or back light?

i know it's whataboutery, but why is this forum (as far as i can tell) far more heavily populated with threads about lawbreaking cyclists than it is about lawbreaking motorists?
to be fair, i don't post to the motoring forum, so is that full of threads about 'one eyed jacks' from motorists complaining about other motorists giving them a bad name?

AndrewJRenko · 26-02-2017 12:17AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know it's whataboutery, but why is this forum (as far as i can tell) far more heavily populated with threads about lawbreaking cyclists than it is about lawbreaking motorists?

The direct answer probably is: Because most posters here don't cycle.

First Up · 26-02-2017 08:37AM

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Did you try counting the number of cars missing one headlight, or one brake light or back light? Or the number of new cars with no back lights at all because they're running on DRLs? It would make an interesting comparison.

If you check my posting history you will see that I have advocated a campaign against improperly lit cars on several ocassions.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

But it's good to hear that you were able to see all these cyclists well enough to count them anyway.

The ones I saw were cycling right past me. I might have missed a few on the other side of the road

Going Forward · 27-02-2017 07:52AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or the number of new cars with no back lights at all because they're running on DRLs? It would make an interesting comparison.

I've always wondered why the EU mandarins treated (and continue to) the rear of the car differently myself.

ted1 · 27-02-2017 11:46PM

First Up wrote: »

I was at a bus-stop on Morehampton Rd in Dublin for about 20 minutes around 7pm this evening.

12 cyclists passed by with ages ranging from teens/20's to I'd guess 50's. Not one had a working front light - three had lamps but none was illuminated. One bike had a rear reflector.

Every one of the cyclists was wearing dark clothing.

I left the house at 7:15 and it was bright , left the office at 5 and got home at 6:05 and it was still bright.

No real need for lights at those times.

* as a disclaimer I got a hub Dynamo years ago so my lights are high powered LED that are always in and don't need batteries

ted1 · 27-02-2017 11:47PM

Going Forward wrote: »

I've always wondered why the EU mandarins treated (and continue to) the rear of the car differently myself.

Or why VRT is charged on safety features.

TallGlass · 27-02-2017 11:50PM

Yeah. Why is that? Front lights on but backs off. Weird. You'd think they'd have linked em all up and turn all on.

First Up · 28-02-2017 08:32AM

ted1 wrote:

I left the house at 7:15 and it was bright , left the office at 5 and got home at 6:05 and it was still bright.

What does that have to do with cyclists with no lights on a dark evening?

Sam Russell · 28-02-2017 11:33AM

ted1 wrote: »

Or why VRT is charged on safety features.

VRT is an Ireland controlled item, not EU.

ted1 · 28-02-2017 01:18PM

First Up wrote: »

What does that have to do with cyclists with no lights on a dark evening?

The evenings are no longer dark

First Up · 28-02-2017 01:24PM

ted1 wrote: »

The evenings are no longer dark

I can assure you that at 7.20 pm last Saturday evening, it was fully dark on Morehampton Rd.

Sunset in Dublin tonight is 18.03.

Roadhawk · 28-02-2017 01:25PM

ted1 wrote: »

The evenings are no longer dark

This is touching on semantics. If you want to get really pedantic on it then take a look at the following link:

https://www.reference.com/science/hours-considered-evening-6ac1233898d1d3ba

It saying that an evening stretches to 10pm then yes it would be dark and cyclists would be required to have and use front and rear lights.

Roadhawk · 28-02-2017 01:27PM

First Up wrote: »

I can assure you that at 7.20 pm last Saturday evening, it was fully dark on Morehampton Rd.

Sunset in Dublin tonight is 18.03.

I agree, and if you take into account that some people only leave work at 18.00 or after then they will be caught in the darkness on their way home.

Roadhawk · 28-02-2017 01:33PM

First Up wrote: »

Sunset in Dublin tonight is 18.03.

Looking at the link below, the sunset in Dublin tonight is at 18.01...every minute counts

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/ireland/dublin

Sam Russell · 28-02-2017 03:00PM

Lighting up time is 30 minutes after sunset and ends 30 minutes befor sunrise.

So plenty of time to get home if leaving work at 6 pm.

ted1 · 01-03-2017 12:28AM

First Up wrote: »

I can assure you that at 7.20 pm last Saturday evening, it was fully dark on Morehampton Rd.

Sunset in Dublin tonight is 18.03.

Haha hands up , my mistake I read the post as 7:25 am ,which was bright, still dark at 7;15 pm.

07Lapierre · 01-03-2017 09:58AM

Cycled in this morning...it was daylight...I had my lights ON.

Roadhawk · 01-03-2017 12:35PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cycled in this morning...it was daylight...I had my lights ON.

Great example of safety awareness!

Not legally required but your actions toward safety are inspiring. If only the others had a fraction of your approach.

07Lapierre · 01-03-2017 02:48PM

Roadhawk wrote: »

Great example of safety awareness!

Not legally required but your actions toward safety are inspiring. If only the others had a fraction of your approach.

It was dark when I left the house...I just didn't bother to turn them off when it brightened up. When I leave work this evening it will be bright, so I'll switch them on and leave them on until I get home (when it will be dark!) just common sense and still no guarantee that somebody won't see me! The joys of cycling!

Roadhawk · 01-03-2017 03:05PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

It was dark when I left the house...I just didn't bother to turn them off when it brightened up. When I leave work this evening it will be bright, so I'll switch them on and leave them on until I get home (when it will be dark!) just common sense and still no guarantee that somebody won't see me! The joys of cycling!

But at least you care about your safety and reduce the risk of injury or death by using a light.

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

Comments