Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Useful Cycling Tips for Commuters.

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    ^^^^^^Agree......

    I think it boils down to the #1 cycling tip for commuters (which should be enshrined in law for all road users, not just cyclists).......

    ......don't be a d1ck :D


  • Options
    #123
    looie
    Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭looie


    CramCycle wrote: »
    people with no respect for others

    This is it in a nutshell. It has nothing to do with safety or anything like that, it's just people not giving a damn about anyone else but themselves.


  • Options
    #124
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,632 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    Anyone who thinks that they need to break a red or go beyond the stop line to stay safe shouldn't really taking a bike out on to the road.

    Yes, get into your cars, much safer! :pac:


  • Options
    #125
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Jawgap wrote: »
    How is slipping left or rolling through an unoccupied pedestrian crossing (which is all I'm advocating) hazardous?

    If you do it with a bit of common sense and cop-on there's zero issue.

    Pretty much everybody who breaks a light does so because they think it's safe.

    Just last week I had a cyclist take a left at a T-junction and pull out in front of oncoming traffic, namely me. I seriously doubt he did it deliberately. More likely he didn't see me for some reason and thought he was OK.

    Fortunately we both reacted quickly and a collision was avoided. But he would have been much better off by waiting for a green and not putting himself in a hazardous situation in the first place.


  • Options
    #126
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    Pretty much everybody who breaks a light does so because they think it's safe.

    Just last week I had a cyclist take a left at a T-junction and pull out in front of oncoming traffic, namely me. I seriously doubt he did it deliberately. More likely he didn't see me for some reason and thought he was OK.

    Fortunately we both reacted quickly and a collision was avoided. But he would have been much better off by waiting for a green and not putting himself in a hazardous situation in the first place.

    ah come on? An anecdote?

    This morning I drove into the city and saw several cyclists break the red light at Collins Avenue / Whitehall junction - no near misses, no collisions - but that doesn't make it sane or safe - in other words anecdotes are not really evidence of anything, are they?

    Surely, if slipping left is dangerous it'd would be represented in the collision stats (and in the studies that cover near misses)?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Fair enough, I think its hazardous. You don't. Let's leave it there.


  • Options
    #128
    OleRodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭OleRodrigo


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Surely, if slipping left is dangerous it'd would be represented in the collision stats (and in the studies that cover near misses)?

    How accurately are they recorded ?

    You are misrepresenting the value of data in your assertions, by your own admission.

    When you advise commuters to record their collision data for more accurate analysis, you are tacitly accepting there isn't enough to make a good judgement. Yet when someone counters your point, you ask them to show you the data to back up their point.


  • Options
    #129
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    OleRodrigo wrote: »
    How accurately are they recorded ?

    You are misrepresenting the value of data in your assertions, by your own admission.

    When you advise commuters to record their collision data for more accurate analysis, you are tacitly accepting there isn't enough to make a good judgement. Yet when someone counters your point, you ask them to show you the data to back up their point.

    No, I readily admitted the data wasn't as complete as it could or should be - but what data there is, for example the TfL study (or the "Fatal and serious collisions involving pedal cyclists and trucks in London between 2007 and 2011" study from Loughborough) I quoted, indicated that strict adherence to the laws can, in fact, be hazardous.

    At least I posted some data.


  • Options
    #130
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,632 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Jawgap wrote: »
    strict adherence to the laws can, in fact, be hazardous.

    You're right...

    Though I don't like to confuse safe behavior with law-abiding behavior. You can follow every law and still put yourself in a terribly dangerous position.

    I like to be safe and legal where possible though!


  • Options
    #131
    detones
    Registered Users Posts: 963 ✭✭✭detones


    Some great contributions here and some really useful tips for commuters, and of course some healthy debate too!!! Did not expect such a big reaction to my post.

    My whole family, Mam/Dad 2 brothers 1 Sister were nearly killed 20 years ago by a motorist whom was arguing with his daughter lost focus mounted a curb flew through the air and landed on our parked car, we were all in it enjoying an ice-cream. My youngest brother was in a coma for 2 weeks. My dad was on crutches for 2 months, I received 20 stitches to my face and was nearly blinded but luckily we all lived. Why I tell this story is that even if you are completely in the right and minding your own business there is still a chance of being in an accident. So take control of what you can, you can control you behaviour and your attitude to other road users so do what you can to stay safe and stay alive.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,598 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    MOD VOICE: Posts edited, this is a debate/discussion. Play the post, not the poster.


  • Options
    #133
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,847 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i wonder if this is the time of year when there's the biggest difference between morning and evening weather. left the house just before 7am and it was a little chilly, but i'm a sweat factory on the way home.


  • Options
    #134
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    Was talking to a 93-year-old friend; she's small and can't move too fast, and she's terrified of cyclists. Worth noting that if you bomb through red lights you may hit someone who'll be much worse damaged by the hit than you might yourself, if hit in the same way at your age and fitness.


  • Options
    #135
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Chuchote wrote: »
    Was talking to a 93-year-old friend; she's small and can't move too fast, and she's terrified of cyclists. Worth noting that if you bomb through red lights you may hit someone who'll be much worse damaged by the hit than you might yourself, if hit in the same way at your age and fitness.

    I don't think anyone is advocating "bombing" through red lights......that would be both illegal and not terribly compliant with "the #1 cycling tip for commuters" cited above.

    Incidentally, my 87 year old mother-in-law regularly laments having to give up cycling 4/5 years ago. I'd say if I left a bike lying around her house she'd be off into town on it :D


  • Options
    #136
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,427 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Chuchote wrote: »
    Was talking to a 93-year-old friend; she's small and can't move too fast, and she's terrified of cyclists. Worth noting that if you bomb through red lights you may hit someone who'll be much worse damaged by the hit than you might yourself, if hit in the same way at your age and fitness.
    No one said bomb, and tbh if she's 93 and slow it may often be a green light by the time she's mid way across.


  • Options
    #137
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    ted1 wrote: »
    No one said bomb, and tbh if she's 93 and slow it may often be a green light by the time she's mid way across.

    Both true; however, humanity and consideration should come into play.


  • Options
    #138
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,847 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    twinsen wrote: »
    Nah, it is always a race.
    case in point; i passed someone yesterday on newtownpark avenue, about halfway along and heading uphill. as i was passing him i was starting to think 'maybe i shouldn't have passed this guy'.
    i ended up having to give it full gas the rest of the way up so as not to suffer the ignominy of being passed by someone i'd passed. i burst myself. but hey, glad i did it.


  • Options
    #139
    a148pro
    Registered Users Posts: 2,204 ✭✭✭a148pro


    ted1 wrote: »
    I feel safer going through red pedestrians lights when there's no one there , than having a bus or truck pull up beside me setting off at the same time.

    You'd also feel safer in the bus or truck presumably but that's not an argument for driving one


  • Options
    #140
    a148pro
    Registered Users Posts: 2,204 ✭✭✭a148pro


    Jawgap wrote: »
    How is slipping left or rolling through an unoccupied pedestrian crossing (which is all I'm advocating) hazardous?

    1. Sooner or later you will make a mistake and mistakes on bikes, particularly ones that other road users could not anticipate, can have serious consequences.

    2. It encourages other road users to disrespect the rules of the road. It would, of course, be similarly unhazardous for cars to break the same lights you're talking about breaking, I assume you're not advocating that.

    3. It leads to denigration of cyclists in general and a lack of respect for us which is only going to make conditions for cyclists in general less safe.


  • Options
    #141
    a148pro
    Registered Users Posts: 2,204 ✭✭✭a148pro


    Look over your shoulder and make eye contact with the car coming behind you. You will be amazed how much this affects driver conduct.

    Where the lane is too thin for cars to pass safely, occupy the centre of the road and be and remain assertive. If you know the road is thinning up ahead, occupy the centre of the lane at the traffic lights beforehand.

    Assume all vehicles approaching junctions are going to turn left whether they are indicating or not. Sooner or later one will.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    dreamerb
    Registered Users Posts: 174 ✭✭dreamerb


    Chuchote wrote: »
    Both true; however, humanity and consideration should come into play.

    It's also worth us all bearing in mind that because cyclists are generally moving fairly quietly, we can startle people out of all proportion to any possible danger they were in (which may be none). And that's a good reason for both moderating speed and giving a wide berth.


  • Options
    #143
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,968 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    a148pro wrote: »
    ... It would, of course, be similarly unhazardous for cars to break the same lights you're talking about breaking...
    Eh no!

    Leaving the illegality to one side, are you suggesting that being struck by a moving bicycle and a moving motorised vehicle is similar? :confused:

    I know which I'd prefer if given the choice.


  • Options
    #144
    a148pro
    Registered Users Posts: 2,204 ✭✭✭a148pro


    But its unoccupied and they're doing it safely, remember, so there's no risk
    Wishbone Ash wrote: »

    I know which I'd prefer if given the choice.

    The point is you shouldn't be given the choice. You should be able to trust that if the traffic light is telling you to go, you can go, without being hit by bike or car.


  • Options
    #145
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,598 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    A green traffic light gives you right of way nothing more. It in no way is telling you it is safe to do so.


  • Options
    #146
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    a148pro wrote: »
    1. Sooner or later you will make a mistake and mistakes on bikes, particularly ones that other road users could not anticipate, can have serious consequences.

    in that case best not cycle at all for fear I'd mis-judge a Luas track and tip over, fail to anticipate a pedestrian stepping out or jay-walking, wobble in a group and touch another cyclist's wheel or miss the "amber-gambler" who blasts through a red when I'm on a green?
    a148pro wrote: »
    2. It encourages other road users to disrespect the rules of the road. It would, of course, be similarly unhazardous for cars to break the same lights you're talking about breaking, I assume you're not advocating that.

    How would it encourage anyone to do anything? If people respond to what they see are you seriously suggesting that if all cyclists obeyed the letter of the law 100% of the time then other road users would follow suit? Would pedestrians stop jay-walking, would drivers stop speeding? (And as a by-the-way, I'm not saying this is a justification for slipping left on red, I'm just pointing out that your argument doesn't hold water)

    And again physics tells us that the consequences of a ton of metal hitting someone are greater than a 100kg rider hitting someone......maybe re-read the bit where I discuss risk (or probability) and hazard (or consequence).
    a148pro wrote: »
    3. It leads to denigration of cyclists in general and a lack of respect for us which is only going to make conditions for cyclists in general less safe.

    Us?

    Who is this 'us'?

    And you really think cyclists slipping left or rolling through an unoccupied pedestrian crossing "is only going to make conditions for cyclists in general less safe."?

    The ongoing infra-structure deficit, the constant attempts to transfer responsibility for collisions to cyclists (instead of tackling the root cause, because that would be politically unacceptable), etc - surely they rank waaaaaay ahead of what I'm suggesting as issues that compromise cyclist safety?


  • Options
    #147
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    a148pro wrote: »
    2. It encourages other road users to disrespect the rules of the road. It would, of course, be similarly unhazardous for cars to break the same lights you're talking about breaking, I assume you're not advocating that.

    Because this is what drivers tell themselves when they go through lights on amber/red, or roll through pedestrian lights, or break the speed limit, or go on their phone when sitting in traffic - "I'm only doing this when its safe, if it wasn't safe I wouldn't be doing it"


  • Options
    #148
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,598 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    RayCun wrote: »
    Because this is what drivers tell themselves when they go through lights on amber/red, or roll through pedestrian lights, or break the speed limit, or go on their phone when sitting in traffic - "I'm only doing this when its safe, if it wasn't safe I wouldn't be doing it"

    You give more respect than is due to some of these people, they don't do it because they think it is safe, they do it because they think they will get away with it.


  • Options
    #149
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    CramCycle wrote: »
    You give more respect than is due to some of these people, they don't do it because they think it is safe, they do it because they think they will get away with it.

    okay, that's true of some of them, just like there are some cyclists who'll go through a red because they're on a bike, so whatever

    But equally there are those who do these things because they think its safe


  • Options
    #150
    a148pro
    Registered Users Posts: 2,204 ✭✭✭a148pro


    CramCycle wrote: »
    A green traffic light gives you right of way nothing more. It in no way is telling you it is safe to do so.

    Come on. The road system works, if it works at all, because people are entitled to assume that other road users will respect the lights. The vast vast majority of road users will think a green light means they can pass through without getting ploughed into by someone from the side who has broken the lights. That's what makes breaking lights so dangerous - its unexpected. At some junctions they may not be able to see the traffic coming from the other side.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    a148pro wrote: »
    Come on. The road system works, if it works at all, because people are entitled to assume that other road users will respect the lights. The vast vast majority of road users will think a green light means they can pass through without getting ploughed into by someone from the side who has broken the lights. That's what makes breaking lights so dangerous - its unexpected. At some junctions they may not be able to see the traffic coming from the other side.

    Then the vast majority of road users are ill informed.

    Seriously, it never fails get a giggle from me when people admonish cyclists about their lack of knowledge of the RotR and then go on to mis-state the principles articulated therein......

    Green doesn't mean go - it means proceed with caution.
    A green light means you may go on if the way is clear. Take special care if you intend to turn left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing. A green light is not a right of way – it is an indication that you can proceed with caution.


Advertisement