Road issues that irritate me.......

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Some of the lights are like strobes, I definitely agree with that. A constant light can easily be missed though, at least with a flash there's some activity so it's easier to spot. There's a really simple test you've probably seen online, it's a picture of a number of dots & you focus your attention on one dot. Gradually the other dots disappear out of your vision, its the way the brain filters information. This is the same principle with lights on a vehicle.

The schools out on the effectiveness of either a constant light or strobe on a bike when it comes to be seen. My light on my bike can toggle between each modes easily. I'll usually cycle with it on strobe in urban areas, constant on country / unlit roads. Sometimes I'll go from constant to strobe when approaching a junction / roundabout - it seems to alert people better.

Strobe lights on a bike are perfectly legal - I believe the maximum allowed flashes is 60 per minute.Road Traffic (Lighting of Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations (SI No. 487 of 2009) cover this. It doesn't however deal with intensity, which is probably where the issue lies. And of course alignment needs to be pointing downwards and not in motorists / pedestrian / other cyclists' faces.

One of the issues I see is lights that are bought from Aliexpress, ebay etc that have crazy outputs - 1000 / 1200 lumen is not unusual, so they're brighter than a car's headlight. These should be illegal on public lit roads IMO. They're more suited for off road / mountain biking where this kind of intensity is required for night cycling. A LED light with a quality lens flashing at 100 - 200 lumen is perfectly adequate for urban cycling.

Some EU countries so prohibit the use of strobes - Germany in particular. Then again, their cycling infrastructure and motorist / cyclist relationship is far superior to us, so cyclists tend to be more relaxed around cars. I can confirm this from first hand experience when living in Germany.

murpho999 wrote: »

If drivers are going to have an epileptic fit from a brief encounter with a flashing cyclists lights then they shouldn't be driving in my opinion.

Flashing lights on roads are everywhere, from flashing amber on traffiic lights, road works etc.

I believe that epilepsy prevents people from driving, there's certain stipulations from the last seizure (1 year I think). It also begs the question what people do with ambulances, police cars etc - their strobes would be of a higher intensity than most bike lights.

prinzeugen wrote: »

Shows your ignorance. Not point with you as you are not going to accept anything.

As for "maimed".. What is the definition you would use!??

You used the term first.

I'll accept anything that is based on fact, but I haven't seen too many of those round here. By 'maimed', I was referring to the RSA's category of 'seriously injured'. What were you referring to, and what is your source for the 600 pedestrians maimed by cyclists in the UK each year?

prinzeugen wrote: »

Again have you been to inquests? Going round in fecking circles now..

I'm not quite sure I see the relevance of the question. I follow road safety matters fairly closely, so I see reports of deaths of pedestrians and cyclists, including court reports and inquest reports.

If you have some source that shows that there is someone else generally responsible when a driver kills another driver/passenger/pedestrian/cyclist, then by all means, share the details here. I'm not holding my breath though.

prinzeugen wrote: »

What gets on my pisser is road warrior cyclists that post up stuff on twitter..

UK law coming in to stop that and hope it will be here soon also.

" 18-LK12345 parked illegally " posted on social media = court for the person posting it.

I haven't heard about any pending change in the law in the UK or here that would stop somebody from posting a photo taken in a public place, but again, if you have something to share, please do.

Is it just the photos posted by cyclists that get on your pisser, or do the photos posted by drivists and walkists also get on your pisser?
https://www.facebook.com/dublinparking

prinzeugen wrote: »

If you follow road safety YOU can post the info and sources. It is you making the claim that motorists are directly responsible for 200+ killings or maimings each year.

It's not a claim. It is a fact. Motorists kill 200-ish people on the road each year. Which bit of the facts are you having trouble with, or who are you suggesting is to blame for these deaths, other than one or other or both of the motorists involved?

prinzeugen wrote: »

The planned law in the UK is to prosecute any one that makes claims of law breaking by named individuals or using info that could identify an individual on social media (ie reg plate).

By posting a picture of a car, with the reg and a claim of some sort (or even posting X beats the bollox out of his girlfriend), you are acting as judge and jury.

This stuff spreads and the person involved does not have the chance to reply to or defend themselves against the twitter/Facebook posters allegations.

They can in court but the damage is done by false posts on social media. Reputations destroyed etc.

By posting a reg number up on twitter, any future owner of that car could be associated with the incident you posted, even although they are innocent.

How are these 'allegations' or 'innocent'? If the picture shows the car parked on the pavement, or on the double-yellows, or on the disabled parking bay - then that's what happened.

Any of the photos or videos that I've seen don't name a person - they show the car, sometimes with the reg number. It is simply a photo taken in a public place, and no permission is required to take a photo in a public place or to publish that photo.

And more importantly, why are you so negative about a little bit of extra pressure on law-breaking motorists to stop blocking pavements and disabled parking bays?

prinzeugen wrote: »

That is why the Garda twitter block twats that post reg numbers. Data protection.

Data Protection law relates to 'personal data'. How is a car/registration number 'personal data'. It doesn't name or identify a person - just a car.

The Garda Twitter account's approach of blocking accounts that post reg numbers makes no sense. Blocking the account doesn't make the photos go away. They're still there, in public view. It just allows the Gardai to say 'we never knew this was happening'. It is like the 'see no evil' monkey putting his hands over his eyes to pretend that something is not happening.

If the Gardai have genuine concerns about data protection, they should be reporting these photos to the Data Protection Commissioner for action. But they're not - because they know there is no data protection issue here.

It is just a damage limitation exercise for their own reputation.

paleoperson wrote: »

I've always wondered how it is that if a goal is let in in soccer, you have actions replays and clear analyses all of the problems that led to the goal, you have suggestions that would prevent the same thing happening again. Everything is looked over closely and studied in minute detail, and improvements made for next time. You also have people glued to shows like CSI that go over evidence with a fine comb, and in the newspapers theories on evidence such as murders etc.

Yet when there are car accidents, there are no clear, free, public reports of how they occurred, not available easily anyway. And why not? Why isn't there an advert taken out every now and then about how a car accident occurred? Surely it's relevant to us since we're all driving.

I don't think there is any great mystery about the causes of collisions (not 'accidents') on the roads. The RSA do serious research on this, including this report that is based on Garda fatality reports;

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/News-2016/RSA-and-Gardai-Publish-Mid-Year-Review-of-Road-Safety/

The causes are fairly clear: drink-driving, speeding, driving while excessively tired - the usual suspects.

chicorytip wrote: »

A standard led type bicycle lamp in flashing mode bears no relation whatsoever to strobe lighting which flashes at a far greater frequency and with a far greater intensity and can actually cause permanent sight damage when viewed directly by the naked eye for even a brief moment.

Yeah I was just using the term strobe in place of flashing really, my light flashes but it's nowhere near the intensity of a strobe light. Some lights on bikes are near as bad as a strobe light in a rave.

When I'm getting the revs up to change into 4th or 5th gear and the bollix in front of me decides to stick it to the road for no apparent reason (probably to go messing with their phone! :mad:)

Maybe covered up the thread, but what's the story with people not being able to just roll up and stay at the line at lights?

The amount of people that creep forward is ridiculous. Watched a guy the other evening creep right into the middle of a junction near my house. The lights went green, we both took off. I caught up with him at the next junction.

Just wait for the light to go green and learn some patience FFS.

outinthefields wrote: »

People that go walking or cycling on the motorway.

Like those ****ers who creep along in the outside lane.

If you aint overtaking get the **** out of the lane.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Maybe covered up the thread, but what's the story with people not being able to just roll up and stay at the line at lights?

The amount of people that creep forward is ridiculous. Watched a guy the other evening creep right into the middle of a junction near my house. The lights went green, we both took off. I caught up with him at the next junction.

Just wait for the light to go green and learn some patience FFS.

What really bugs me about these is when they block the crossing route for pedestrians. This can be a huge issue for wheelchair users, where the crossing route at the dropped kerb is blocked. And it is awkward for parents pushing buggies, who now have to twist their way around the bonnet. And it's just plain rude - people who don't give a crap about others.

Mint Sauce wrote: »

And when the lights do go green, alot of the time they cant take off. Best one I seen, i'm in the left lane, they are in the right, they creept through the Bike Stop Box, the pedestian crossing, right up to the very edge of the junction. They was nearly a full car gap between us when the lights turned green, at which point they were still creeping, didn't accelerate, and I still got through the junction ahead of them.

Worse still, after a few more junctions, i am still in the left, them in the right, at the 60 kph marker, at the start of a climbing/overtaking lanes, they tried to over take me, they did edge ahead briefly, but had to break the limit to do so. Few hundred yards later at the 100kph marker, still only had an edge on me, they were quickly left behind, where they were still sitting in the overtaking lane, seemingly incapable or lack of want to go any faster, forcing every other car behind to pass on their left.

They were driving a Yaris, and I would imagine they were one of them constant 60/70kph drivers, regardless of the speed limit.

Hate them the most.

In fairness a yaris is dead slow to take off and pick up speed even if you put the boot to the floor.

People who are in such a hurry one minute they pull out in front of you nearly causing a crash and then meander along at 20 mph the next wtf.

Likewise in such a hurry they creep forward past the lights and then can't see when they turn green and sit there till you blow the horn.

Blowing up the merging lane to skip a long line of static traffic and muscling their way in. Gives me no bigger pleasure than not letting them in and they're forced to take an exit they didn't want.

Every morning people doing easily 40 kph over the limit. I'm doing the limit and its like I'm standing still. If the Guards had an unmarked car on the lead up to the dunkettle roundabout in Cork in the mornings they would clean up. Fine its 6.30 in the morning but theres still other cars on the road.

And people, traveling fast, not indicating and crossing the continuous white line in the Jack Lynch tunnel. Its just outright dangerous.

Heckler wrote: »

Blowing up the merging lane to skip a long line of static traffic and muscling their way in. Gives me no bigger pleasure than not letting them in and they're forced to take an exit they didn't want.

I think going up to almost the very end of the merging lane is actually the "correct" and recommended way of merging. I know it sounds odd, like you're giving yourself no chance if you can't merge at that time, but for some reason that's how you're supposed to merge. Possibly because it's less confusing if everyone merges at the same point.

In traffic engineering, the late merge or zipper method is a convention for merging traffic into a reduced number of lanes. Drivers in merging lanes are expected to use both lanes to advance to the lane reduction point and merge at that location, alternating turns.

The late merge method contrasts with the early merge method. A related scheme is the dynamic late merge.

The late merge method has not been found to increase throughput (throughput is the number of vehicles that pass through a point in a given period of time). However, it considerably reduces queue ("backup") length (because drivers use the ending lane until its end) and reduces speed differences between the two lanes, increasing safety.[1]

Governments hold campaigns to promote the late merge method because irritation, aggression and feelings of insecurity easily occur while "zipping". Often drivers who change lanes too early do not like to see other drivers continue until the end of the drop-away lane, even though this late merging is encouraged by the authorities. In Belgium and Germany, a driver can be penalized for not using the late merge method. In Austria only where a traffic sign so indicates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merge_(traffic)



I realize there are many different contexts though, it's not always black and white.

Sam Kade wrote: »

In fairness a yaris is dead slow to take off and pick up speed even if you put the boot to the floor.

A lot of cars who you think are dead slow to take of just because they have a smaller engine then you may surprise you this is because of there weight. Lighter cars can have a surprising pick up. Now will tour car outpace them on very high speeds for pick up maybe so but for getting going a see a lot of small engine cars get of more quickly then a bigger car even when they go at the same time