Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do tell, in which bit of MagicBastarders post does he mention Taxi,Hackney or Limousine? Is it not more probable that they were ordinary motorists.

first one, the woman, took a left into horizon business park, second lad had two small kids in the car with him, no taxi plates on either.

When I’m cycling with my wife, we cycle two abreast. If a car approaches from behind, I accelerate a bit and move ahead, BUT I don’t move in. Every single time I do this, the car overtakes with out an issue! I’m convinced it’s a mental thing whereby, the motorist sees me making an effort to allow him/her to overtake. They don’t realize that they are overthinking two cyclists who are, in effect, cycling two abreast. People are strange!

SeanW wrote: »

That's because cars are already high visibility. Lights (including DRLs on modern cars), reflectors and so on. They are also a lot larger than a bicycle as I'm sure you're aware. If you're on the road and you don't see/perceive a car, you shouldn't be on the road.

Cars don’t have any lights when they’re parked with the engine off. They have a small pair of reflectors at the rear, often blocked by other cars. So no, they’re really not hi-vis at all. They are low-vis, and now, being extra, extra dark is marketed as an extra feature at extra cost;
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/08/27/bmw-vbx6-vantablack-car-design/
While the drivers whinge about cyclists needing to look like builders.

SeanW wrote: »

As you correctly point out, Garda cars have additional high-vis requirements, both static additions, strobe lights and sirens. This is because police cars, fire tenders and ambulances have different duties to normal cars and because by the very nature of their work, require additional distinction. If the average driver regularly had to stop in the middle of the road to fight house fires, then yes, hi-vis strips, strobe lights and so on would be warranted. No idea what this has to do with cycling when private cars are already adequately visible.

So no need for cyclists to wear hi-vis then, given that they don’t have any different or duties, and are quite visible, once they have lights at night of course? That’s your logic, right?

SeanW wrote: »

The only reason for this must be that you either:
1) Always wear hi-vis
2) Have never been nearly hit by a driver.

Eh no, I’m guessing you don’t cycle much. I've never been nearly hit by a driver who didn't see me because of my lack of hi-vis. I’ve often been nearly hit by a driver who didn’t see me because they were playing with their phone. I’ve often been nearly hit by a driver who didn’t see me because they didn’t bother their ass looking in their mirror before they pulled out in traffic. And i’ve often been nearly hit by a driver while wearing hi-vis and with multiple lights, flashing and solid..

SeanW wrote: »

[sarcasm]Of course, we're all out to get you[/sarcasm] :rolleyes: It couldn't possibly be because any suggestion that cyclists should adhere to best practices and obey the law is met with scorn and derision (especially when cyclists condemn others on the same grounds). Nor could it be the sanctimonious hypocrisy of condemning motorists for exceeding "urban" speed limits on roads miles into the countryside while you yourselves disregard every law in the book and menace pedestrians as a matter of routine. No, that could not be it either. Sure, convince yourself that all us horrible motorists just hate you for no reason :rolleyes:

I’m not going to take lectures on ‘disregarding every law in the book’ from the lad who comes up with every excuse in the book for speeding drivers (which is, just in case you forgot, one of the top three causes of road deaths). I’m not going to take lectures on menacing pedestrians from those who kill one pedestrian each week on the road.
But aside from all that, isn’t the clear hypocrisy evident? The guy who steps out of his into busy city traffic multiple times every working shift doesn’t need hi-vis himself of course, but every other man/woman/child needs hi-vis to accommodate him apparently. Can you really not see through this?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Who said anything about a real enviroment, I just said a blue car in a blue environment, a burgandy car in a burgandy environment a black car in a black environment but if you want something as an example of a real life environment why not this

So you were referring to fake or hypothetical environments, but you just forgot to mention it? Bart Simpsons has more credible excuses than yourself.
The veil slipped, you confirmed that hi-vis would indeed help for cars at night, and now you’re desperate to reel it back in to hide any possibility that drivers should be expected to take any action to stop them killing 2 or 3 people each week.

Spook_ie wrote: »

That's fine then, all these near misses are because the drivers see people just in time, personally I'd prefer it if I had as much input to my visual senses as possible, so that it isn't a near miss, you don't agree and that's fine.

It’s not that I don’t agree with you. I don’t see any credibility in the man who steps out into traffic multiple times on every working shift telling everyone else in the world except him and his car that they should be hi-vis. Breathtaking hypocrisy, almost Trumpian.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Oh now you think that cars need flashing blue lights as well, you'd like us all to pretend to be Garda vehicles. That'll workout well ( NOT! )

Do you actually read replies? I referred to Garda cars having blue flashing lights, not all cars; “ picking out their cars - the cars with blue flashing lights and GARDA written in big letters on them.”.
But seriously, why would it be difficult to pick out Garda cars from all the hi-vissed cars, but not difficult to pick out Gardai from all the hi-vissed people? Why the double-standard?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes you are, don't worry though most of your arguments on Boards seem to end this way

More of the Bart Simpson level debating there.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Really, I have answered, for some reason you just don't seem able to relate logic and science to real life situations. Perhaps you never attended the Junior science lessons where the laws of physics and how light reflects, gets absorbed, etc. were done.

No, you haven’t answered. I asked you why you would assume that I hadn’t reported the issue, and you didn’t answer the question. I asked you do you think it's OK for buses to be blocking paths and bike lanes at the time that they've never been needed more and you didn’t answer the question? I asked you why the bus can't just wait on the road and you didn’t answer the question?

Why would you expect the courtesy of a reply from me when you won’t give an answer yourself? Is this another one of those things that you expect other people to do but not yourself, like the oul hi-vis thing?

Can someone get back to posting about obstructions on paths?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can someone get back to posting about obstructions on paths?

Oh well, if you insist - one minute on Rathgar Road this morning - five commercial vehicles blocking footpath and cycle lane when they are needed most - three builders vans, one large truck and one taxi - nice, spacious driveways available for most of them too.

6034073

But yeah, cyclists...

Motorists see cyclists. They see them all the time, they pass them all the time and as long as they don't make physical contact (with their passenger door mirror), what's the problem? At least that's what most motorists think.

I experience close passes in daylight more often than at night. That's because I have bright lights when cycling at night and I suspect, my rear light is so bright, motorists don't realise that it's "only" a cyclist ahead. So they give me more room when overtaking. Like I said...people are strange.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Cars don’t have any lights when they’re parked with the engine off. They have a small pair of reflectors at the rear, often blocked by other cars. So no, they’re really not hi-vis at all. They are low-vis, and now, being extra, extra dark is marketed as an extra feature at extra cost;
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/08/27/bmw-vbx6-vantablack-car-design/
While the drivers whinge about cyclists needing to look like builders.

So no need for cyclists to wear hi-vis then, given that they don’t have any different or duties, and are quite visible, once they have lights at night of course? That’s your logic, right?

Eh no, I’m guessing you don’t cycle much. I've never been nearly hit by a driver who didn't see me because of my lack of hi-vis. I’ve often been nearly hit by a driver who didn’t see me because they were playing with their phone. I’ve often been nearly hit by a driver who didn’t see me because they didn’t bother their ass looking in their mirror before they pulled out in traffic. And i’ve often been nearly hit by a driver while wearing hi-vis and with multiple lights, flashing and solid..

I’m not going to take lectures on ‘disregarding every law in the book’ from the lad who comes up with every excuse in the book for speeding drivers (which is, just in case you forgot, one of the top three causes of road deaths). I’m not going to take lectures on menacing pedestrians from those who kill one pedestrian each week on the road.
But aside from all that, isn’t the clear hypocrisy evident? The guy who steps out of his into busy city traffic multiple times every working shift doesn’t need hi-vis himself of course, but every other man/woman/child needs hi-vis to accommodate him apparently. Can you really not see through this?

NOT MY REPLYS

So you were referring to fake or hypothetical environments, but you just forgot to mention it? Bart Simpsons has more credible excuses than yourself.
The veil slipped, you confirmed that hi-vis would indeed help for cars at night, and now you’re desperate to reel it back in to hide any possibility that drivers should be expected to take any action to stop them killing 2 or 3 people each week.

No it's only you constanstantly disregarding a 1/3 of the post to try and convince yourself that I was referring to night time, if I was referring to night time I would have typed night time not typed 3 different colours, Hell I wouldnt have even typed two colors.

It’s not that I don’t agree with you. I don’t see any credibility in the man who steps out into traffic multiple times on every working shift telling everyone else in the world except him and his car that they should be hi-vis. Breathtaking hypocrisy, almost Trumpian.

Seriously, what makes you think I'm in and out of my car multiple times into traffic, do you think I deliver fast food or something?

Do you actually read replies? I referred to Garda cars having blue flashing lights, not all cars; “ picking out their cars - the cars with blue flashing lights and GARDA written in big letters on them.”.
But seriously, why would it be difficult to pick out Garda cars from all the hi-vissed cars, but not difficult to pick out Gardai from all the hi-vissed people? Why the double-standard?

Well you seem to be introducing more and more requirements every time you post, however, I think that the 2 rear reflectors at bumper level, the 2 integrated reflectors in light clusters and the reflective number plate render a normal car quite visible to anyone driving with the requisite lights on.

More of the Bart Simpson level debating there.

Says the man posting replies to himself, never mind though hopefully the effects of covid19 lockdown aren't permanent

No, you haven’t answered. I asked you why you would assume that I hadn’t reported the issue, and you didn’t answer the question. I asked you do you think it's OK for buses to be blocking paths and bike lanes at the time that they've never been needed more and you didn’t answer the question? I asked you why the bus can't just wait on the road and you didn’t answer the question?

Why would I answer, I'm not driving the buses or scheduling them, I did mention that if they just ran them continuously then the timetables probably wouldn't be that far out.

Why would you expect the courtesy of a reply from me when you won’t give an answer yourself? Is this another one of those things that you expect other people to do but not yourself, like the oul hi-vis thing?

I thought I'd answered most of the silly posts you put up but still if you think I didn't then in your mind I didn't.

Can someone get back to posting about obstructions on paths?

Yeah definitely CoVid19 lockdown syndrome

liamog

Will we go back to vehicles abandoned causing people to have to change direction and avoid them?

I had to move a whole 1m out from the pavement when driving round that corner, probably should get clamped for parking too close to a junction

ewc78

07Lapierre wrote: »

Like I said...people are strange.

Indeed! there are some so strange even and that crave attention so much, they even reply to their own posts because almost everyone else is ignoring them!

magicbastarder wrote: »

worth noting that this has come up a few times for this junction, posted about by me:

further to this (this was about blatant RLJing at the clontarf road/alfie byrne road junction); this appears to be that junction:

https://twitter.com/AlanDub13/status/1270686953286098947

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Cars don’t have any lights when they’re parked with the engine off. They have a small pair of reflectors at the rear, often blocked by other cars. So no, they’re really not hi-vis at all. They are low-vis, and now, being extra, extra dark is marketed as an extra feature at extra cost;
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/08/27/bmw-vbx6-vantablack-car-design/
While the drivers whinge about cyclists needing to look like builders.

As to cars having no lights when they are parked and the engine is off, this is both false and irrelevant. Irrelevant, because nobody is claiming that your bicycle needs to be lit up like a Christmas tree when it's parked in the bike shed. That would be stupid. And false, because cars do have emergency light systems for times when the vehicle must be stopped in a place it might not be expected. This system is normally activated by a button on a drivers central control panel, and when activated turns on both pairs of flashing amber directional indicators. Like a bicycle that does not have elevated visibility requirements when it's parked in the bike shed, a car does not have elevated visibility requirements when parked in a driveway or parked properly in a car park. As to the BMW design, I agree it's not a good idea, as do many of the people in the comments section there.

So no need for cyclists to wear hi-vis then, given that they don’t have any different or duties, and are quite visible, once they have lights at night of course? That’s your logic, right?

No. For reasons of both absolute and relative visibility, it would be a good idea. I don't think cyclists should be legally required to wear hi-vis, but recommended.

Firstly, in absolute terms a bicycle is generally not as well lit as a car, and cars are subject to very precise requirements for lights, brake lights, turning signals, reversing lights, two pairs of headlamps (high and low). A bicycle might only have one small light. Additional visibility would compliment this.

Secondly, in all the actions that human beings take, there will be a difference between what we see and what we perceive. Much of what we perceive is guided by interactions between our conscious and sub-conscious minds as much as our eyes. All human beings are guided almost as much by what we expect as what we encounter. That explains why stopping a car in the middle of the motorway (like they do in China) is so dangerous - the drivers behind may see the stopped car, but they don't expect cars to be stopped in the traffic stream and so might not perceive the danger in good time, making an accident/collision likely. So if you are cycling, for example, in twilight or late at night on a road with no cycle lane and on which cycling is not common, then a motorist might not perceive you in good time. Of course, as motorists we are told to "expect the unexpected." Any good motorist will do their best to observe their surroundings, avoid mental blind spots as much as possible, and treat any road users they observe with respect, but you can help them by enhancing your visibility.

For both of those reasons, you should err on the side of being more visible, not less.

Eh no, I’m guessing you don’t cycle much. I've never been nearly hit by a driver who didn't see me because of my lack of hi-vis. I’ve often been nearly hit by a driver who didn’t see me because they were playing with their phone. I’ve often been nearly hit by a driver who didn’t see me because they didn’t bother their ass looking in their mirror before they pulled out in traffic.

Not going to defend any of that, if a motorist doesn't give a rats, they can go take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned.

But to use your own argument, next time you get "nearly" hit by a motorist, you should go to a "nearly" hospital. After all, that's what pedestrians should do when they have to jump out of the way of a two-wheeled lawbreaker, right? :rolleyes:

I’m not going to take lectures on ‘disregarding every law in the book’ from the lad who comes up with every excuse in the book for speeding drivers (which is, just in case you forgot, one of the top three causes of road deaths). I’m not going to take lectures on menacing pedestrians from those who kill one pedestrian each week on the road.

And I'm not going to take lectures from sanctimonious hypocrites who pontificate from their ivory towers about "lawbreaking" given the manner in which cyclists behave in the real world. Nor do I care much for someone who constantly writes trash about Irish motorists when Irish road fatality statistics demonstrate that such trash is unwarranted.

But aside from all that, isn’t the clear hypocrisy evident? The guy who steps out of his into busy city traffic multiple times every working shift doesn’t need hi-vis himself of course, but every other man/woman/child needs hi-vis to accommodate him apparently. Can you really not see through this?

Eh? Was that aimed at me?

Can someone get back to posting about obstructions on paths?

So, you're sick of moaning about "motorists killing people" and "motorist break speed limits?"

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

Spook_ie wrote: »

No it's only you constanstantly disregarding a 1/3 of the post to try and convince yourself that I was referring to night time, if I was referring to night time I would have typed night time not typed 3 different colours, Hell I wouldnt have even typed two colors.

There is no disregarding. You’ve been invited repeatedly to clarify what you meant by the burgundy environment, and you couldn’t come up with anything. It really doesn’t matter whether you had night time in mind or not. You said that hi-vis for cars would help visibility in black or blue environments. Night time is a black or blue environment, so therefore you’ve confirmed that hi-vis will improve visibility for cars at night time.
But you’re not prepared to act on it and lead by example yourself, because you prefer to tell cyclists and pedestrians what to do and what to wear. What is so irresistible about lecturing cyclists?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Seriously, what makes you think I'm in and out of my car multiple times into traffic, do you think I deliver fast food or something?

You’re a taxi driver, right? Do you not help passengers with their luggage?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well you seem to be introducing more and more requirements every time you post, however, I think that the 2 rear reflectors at bumper level, the 2 integrated reflectors in light clusters and the reflective number plate render a normal car quite visible to anyone driving with the requisite lights on.

It’s not my requirements, it is your own idea – that hi-vis would improve visibility for cars in black or blue environments, like night time. You said it, so why are you so desperate to pull it back now?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Says the man posting replies to himself, never mind though hopefully the effects of covid19 lockdown aren't permanent

It’s funny how you’ve so little matters of fact that you can argue against that you’re now arguing about how I post, not what I’m actually saying. A bit sad really.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why would I answer, I'm not driving the buses or scheduling them, I did mention that if they just ran them continuously then the timetables probably wouldn't be that far out.
I thought I'd answered most of the silly posts you put up but still if you think I didn't then in your mind I didn't.

You’re contradicting yourself now. Which is it – did you answer or did you not?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah definitely CoVid19 lockdown syndrome

You’re right, obstructions on paths are a much bigger issue now given the requirement for social distancing re Covid.

SeanW wrote: »

As to cars having no lights when they are parked and the engine is off, this is both false and irrelevant. Irrelevant, because nobody is claiming that your bicycle needs to be lit up like a Christmas tree when it's parked in the bike shed. That would be stupid. And false, because cars do have emergency light systems for times when the vehicle must be stopped in a place it might not be expected. This system is normally activated by a button on a drivers central control panel, and when activated turns on both pairs of flashing amber directional indicators. Like a bicycle that does not have elevated visibility requirements when it's parked in the bike shed, a car does not have elevated visibility requirements when parked in a driveway or parked properly in a car park. As to the BMW design, I agree it's not a good idea, as do many of the people in the comments section there.

So many false assumptions in this analysis.
You seem to assume that all the lights on the vehicle are working (they’re often not working). Many cars aren’t parked in a driveway or car park, they’re stored on public space on public roads overnight, often facing against traffic so that rear reflectors aren’t relevant. And drivers crash into them with alarming regularity;
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/1026/1085777-dangerous-driving-dublin/
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/drink-driver-crashes-four-parked-11272861
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/pictured-car-ends-up-roof-4041660
https://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/motoring/278297/passing-car-crashed-into-two-parked-cars-on-busy-n80-road-through-mountmellick.html
Given that ‘more helmets and hi-vis’ is generally the drooling Pavlovian reaction to any crash involving a cyclists, I’m not clear on why it shouldn’t apply to cars too. Surely there would be less of these incidents if all cars were covered in hi-vis all around?

SeanW wrote: »

No. For reasons of both absolute and relative visibility, it would be a good idea. I don't think cyclists should be legally required to wear hi-vis, but recommended.

I’ll take these proposals seriously when the people making them have themselves and their vehicles covered in hi-vis.

SeanW wrote: »

And I'm not going to take lectures from sanctimonious hypocrites who pontificate from their ivory towers about "lawbreaking" given the manner in which cyclists behave in the real world. Nor do I care much for someone who constantly writes trash about Irish motorists when Irish road fatality statistics demonstrate that such trash is unwarranted.

I’ve no idea why you consider the behaviour of other cyclists to be relevant to my posts. You’ve never seen me cycling, or if you have, you’ve never connected my cycling to my posting. So what has the behaviour of other cyclists got to do with the relevance or seriousness of my posts?

SeanW wrote: »

Firstly, in absolute terms a bicycle is generally not as well lit as a car, and cars are subject to very precise requirements for lights, brake lights, turning signals, reversing lights, two pairs of headlamps (high and low). A bicycle might only have one small light. Additional visibility would compliment this.

Again, lots of assumptions there. I have four red rear lights in winter, some flashing, some solid – and still get the ‘Oh sorry I didn’t see you’ response. In winter, I regularly one or two cars each evening with no back lights because the driver doesn’t know how DRLs work. On every journey, I see cars with one or two broken brake lights or broken back lights.
So your assumptions about visibility are false. Surely hi-vis stripes for all cars would improve visibility in all circumstances?

SeanW wrote: »

Secondly, in all the actions that human beings take, there will be a difference between what we see and what we perceive. Much of what we perceive is guided by interactions between our conscious and sub-conscious minds as much as our eyes. All human beings are guided almost as much by what we expect as what we encounter. That explains why stopping a car in the middle of the motorway (like they do in China) is so dangerous - the drivers behind may see the stopped car, but they don't expect cars to be stopped in the traffic stream and so might not perceive the danger in good time, making an accident/collision likely. So if you are cycling, for example, in twilight or late at night on a road with no cycle lane and on which cycling is not common, then a motorist might not perceive you in good time. Of course, as motorists we are told to "expect the unexpected." Any good motorist will do their best to observe their surroundings, avoid mental blind spots as much as possible, and treat any road users they observe with respect, but you can help them by enhancing your visibility.
For both of those reasons, you should err on the side of being more visible, not less.

And same for cars, right? They’ll have all the same problems with mental blind spots so they should be covered in hi-vis at all times to help this?

SeanW wrote: »

Eh? Was that aimed at me?

Aimed at you, though referring to Spook , the lad who gets out of his car into traffic multiple times on each working shift but thinks that everyone else should wear hi-vis except him – just slightly hypocritical, no?

SeanW wrote: »

So, you're sick of moaning about "motorists killing people" and "motorist break speed limits?"

Not so much the moaning as the actual actions that I’m sick of – I’m sick of motorists killing people, as a result of their speeding, their mobile phone use, their drink driving.

ewc78 wrote: »

Indeed! there are some so strange even and that crave attention so much, they even reply to their own posts because almost everyone else is ignoring them!

It’s funny how you’ve so little matters of fact that you can argue against that you’re now arguing about how I post, not what I’m actually saying. A bit sad really.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is no disregarding. You’ve been invited repeatedly to clarify what you meant by the burgundy environment, and you couldn’t come up with anything. It really doesn’t matter whether you had night time in mind or not. You said that hi-vis for cars would help visibility in black or blue environments. Night time is a black or blue environment, so therefore you’ve confirmed that hi-vis will improve visibility for cars at night time.
But you’re not prepared to act on it and lead by example yourself, because you prefer to tell cyclists and pedestrians what to do and what to wear. What is so irresistible about lecturing cyclists?

This is what you said

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So a black or burgandy or navy car wouldn't be significantly more visible when parked if hi-vis stripes were fitted on all sides?

This is what I replied

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just keep digging

It's unlikely, unless it were parked in a black or burgundy or navy environment, maybe if it was speeding perhaps or killing 4 or 5 people a week it would benefit from hi viz stripes

Does not mean night time and your convolutions to try and make it mean night time are just you, I have never seen a black, burgandy or navy night as nights tend to consist of multiple colors rather than one overall hue of any color, so really time you dropped the "you said night time" rubbish.

Now as regards pedestrians and cyclists wearing Hi Viz, yes I said that I prefer them to, because it does (and it's a scientific fact) that Hi Viz renders pedestrians and cyclists more visible, now if you want to go the whole hog and go for the visible extras like present day cars feel free to stick a DRL system on you bicycle like these, but if you don't want to go high tech then go Hi Viz

You’re a taxi driver, right? Do you not help passengers with their luggage?

Not normally no, majority of my work would be people from pubs, they have a tendency NOT to be carrying luggage

It’s not my requirements, it is your own idea – that hi-vis would improve visibility for cars in black or blue environments, like night time. You said it, so why are you so desperate to pull it back now?

It's only you that keeps dropping burgandy to try and make it sound as though I was talking about night time, don't you think this tack of yours has ran its course?

It’s funny how you’ve so little matters of fact that you can argue against that you’re now arguing about how I post, not what I’m actually saying. A bit sad really.

Try reading that while looking in a mirror.

You’re contradicting yourself now. Which is it – did you answer or did you not?

Yes I did as far as timetables and my estimation of the effect of not stopping for prolonged times at termini, did you not read it.

You’re right, obstructions on paths are a much bigger issue now given the requirement for social distancing re Covid.

they're the same size now as they were before CoVid19

So many false assumptions in this analysis.
You seem to assume that all the lights on the vehicle are working (they’re often sometimesnot working). Many cars aren’t parked in a driveway or car park, they’re stored on public space on public roads overnight, often facing against traffic Illegal in the UK if not illegal here it should be so that rear reflectors aren’t relevant. And drivers crash into them with alarming regularity;
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/1026/1085777-dangerous-driving-dublin/ Stolen vehicle probably not caring as he was making a getaway after a robbery

t is understood that the driver then abandoned the car and attempted to hijack another vehicle in the area, threatening the driver. No one was injured in the incident.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/drink-driver-crashes-four-parked-11272861Title says it all, drunken driving
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/pictured-car-ends-up-roof-4041660No information as to cause of crash, didn't see it, swerved to avoid something, using a mobile etc.
https://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/motoring/278297/passing-car-crashed-into-two-parked-cars-on-busy-n80-road-through-mountmellick.htmlBehind a paywall

FYP

Given that ‘more helmets and hi-vis’ is generally the drooling Pavlovian reaction to any crash involving a cyclists, I’m not clear on why it shouldn’t apply to cars too. Surely there would be less of these incidents if all cars were covered in hi-vis all around?

there'd be less if people didn't break the law but we aren't in a utopian society

I’ll take these proposals seriously when the people making them have themselves and their vehicles covered in hi-vis.

Why do I need to, do you not think DRLs are sufficent

<snipped the rest of the ranting>

Aimed at you, though referring to Spook , the lad who gets out of his car into traffic multiple times on each working shift but thinks that everyone else should wear hi-vis except him – just slightly hypocritical, no?

If I were constantly in and out of my taxi into traffic, I'd actually agree with you and wear a Hi Viz jacket, but I'm not in and out of the car, and as I said any such time I'm changing my wheels I wear a Hi Viz and use hazard lights, so I don't know where you're trying to go with it.

Not so much the moaning as the actual actions that I’m sick of – I’m sick of motorists killing people, as a result of their speeding, their mobile phone use, their drink driving.

Ah how I've missed you're little speeding cars mantra, nice to see it now includes mobile phone use. Question for you though,
if it's dangerous to use a mobile while driving and indeed illegal without hands free should the same rule not apply to cyclists and maybe even pedestrians

It’s funny how you’ve so little matters of fact that you can argue against that you’re now arguing about how I post, not what I’m actually saying. A bit sad really.

Seems to me that's exactly what you're doing with Black, Burgandy and Navy colored cars but sure what would I know?

Stepped out on to a zebra crossing in Howth yesterday evening. Car stopped. Bike came straight on through and the woman on the bike looked genuinely puzzled as to why someone would step out into the road... Might have been a visitor to Ireland, but unlikely given covid, and everywhere has zebra crossings, don't they?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Stepped out on to a zebra crossing in Howth yesterday evening. Car stopped. Bike came straight on through and the woman on the bike looked genuinely puzzled as to why someone would step out into the road... Might have been a visitor to Ireland, but unlikely given covid, and everywhere has zebra crossings, don't they?

You obviously weren't wearing Hi-Viz!

07Lapierre wrote: »

You obviously weren't wearing Hi-Viz!

I was not, it's true. I was carrying a bright yellow and white mango and vanilla ice cream cone, though.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Might have been a visitor to Ireland, but unlikely given covid, and everywhere has zebra crossings, don't they?

not sure if you saw the discussion about them earlier, but zebra crossings basically have no function, from a legal point of view. so they're not used as much as they could be by councils (i posted correspondence from DCC that they don't favour their use specifically because of the legal shortcomings).
actually, i'm not 100% sure it was in this thread that i posted it.

liamog

magicbastarder wrote: »

not sure if you saw the discussion about them earlier, but zebra crossings basically have no function, from a legal point of view. so they're not used as much as they could be by councils (i posted correspondence from DCC that they don't favour their use specifically because of the legal shortcomings).
actually, i'm not 100% sure it was in this thread that i posted it.

My understanding for Zebra crossings was that once a foot is on the crossing all other road users must yield to the pedestrian on the crossing.

yes, but a pedestrian standing *at* the crossing has no rights whatsoever, legally.
so you're not going to stand into the crossing unless the road is clear anyway, which makes them moot.

in other countries in europe, i'm not sure what the law is, but generally if you so much as look at the crossing, motorists will stop in anticipation of you using it.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So many false assumptions in this analysis.
You seem to assume that all the lights on the vehicle are working (they’re often not working). Many cars aren’t parked in a driveway or car park, they’re stored on public space on public roads overnight, often facing against traffic so that rear reflectors aren’t relevant. And drivers crash into them with alarming regularity;
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/1026/1085777-dangerous-driving-dublin/
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/drink-driver-crashes-four-parked-11272861
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/pictured-car-ends-up-roof-4041660
https://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/motoring/278297/passing-car-crashed-into-two-parked-cars-on-busy-n80-road-through-mountmellick.html

Most motorists keep most of their lights working at all times, usually all of them. It's unusual for me to see more than one light out, usually one of the four front headlights. As to the four accidents (or crashes if you prefer) ALL of them were not caused by the parked car.

Driver was driving a stolen car.
Drunk driver.
Driver Beaver Row was clearly going much too fast for their environment and surroundings. See Google Maps link to the area here. On no account should someone drive so fast on a street like this that if they hit something they'll flip over. Again, this driver should not have been on the road.
The N80 through Mountmellick is a disaster (I know because I've driven through it along that route), with large volumes of long distance traffic sharing some very narrow streets with local road users. This mixing of road use is virtually guaranteed to cause accidents, one reason among many why we bypass as many towns as possible.

Given that ‘more helmets and hi-vis’ is generally the drooling Pavlovian reaction to any crash involving a cyclists, I’m not clear on why it shouldn’t apply to cars too. Surely there would be less of these incidents if all cars were covered in hi-vis all around?

Each of your examples was either a driver that shouldn't have been on the road, or a dangerous road profile (N80 in Mountmellick). As to why you wouldn't wear a helmet, motorists take serious responsibility for their own safety, seat belts, airbags etc. As a cyclist, you don't have any of that, just a helmet.

I’ll take these proposals seriously when the people making them have themselves and their vehicles covered in hi-vis.

Every motor vehicle has a wide array of powerful lights, and a hazard warning system for emergency stops.

And same for cars, right? They’ll have all the same problems with mental blind spots so they should be covered in hi-vis at all times to help this?

As stated before, cars are bigger and generally have more and stronger lights. Also, on many roads, cycling is extremely unusual.

Not so much the moaning as the actual actions that I’m sick of – I’m sick of motorists killing people, as a result of their speeding, their mobile phone use, their drink driving.

No-one here is defending drink driving, yakking on their mobile phone, taking selfies for Instagram or replying to work emails behind the wheel or taking the piss with speed.

But you focus on speed very heavily despite the fact that you've been given good reason to question some of the hysteria. And you seem to consider it irrelevant that Irish motorists compare well in both European and worldwide contexts. Yes, there are some bad apples, but I dare suspect most motorists do pay attention to what they're doing and respect other road users.

Spook_ie wrote: »

This is what you said
This is what I replied
Does not mean night time and your convolutions to try and make it mean night time are just you, I have never seen a black, burgandy or navy night as nights tend to consist of multiple colors rather than one overall hue of any color, so really time you dropped the "you said night time" rubbish.

You said ‘black, burgundy OR navy’ environment. That’s an OR, not an AND. So anyone can restate with one or two of the three options you gave, and it is still reflects what you said. It’s not a complete record of what you said, but it is an accurate, partial record of what you said. I know you’d love to reel it back in, given that when you said black or navy environment, it hadn’t struck you that nighttime outdoors is just that, a black or navy environment. But that’s what you said – you said that hi-vis on cars would improve visibility in a black or navy environment.
But I guess it’s more fun to be lecturing cyclists than actually taking some action yourself.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Now as regards pedestrians and cyclists wearing Hi Viz, yes I said that I prefer them to, because it does (and it's a scientific fact) that Hi Viz renders pedestrians and cyclists more visible, now if you want to go the whole hog and go for the visible extras like present day cars feel free to stick a DRL system on you bicycle like these, but if you don't want to go high tech then go Hi Viz

You know that DRLs are entirely irrelevant when parked, right? They don’t do anything for parked cars. The limited reflectors available on cars are on one of four sides only, which may well not be the side of approaching traffic. What have you got against hi-vis for cars – a very modest cost for an improvement in visibility?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not normally no, majority of my work would be people from pubs, they have a tendency NOT to be carrying luggage

Right so, but for the other taxi drivers who do take passengers with luggage, you’d recommend hi-vis as important, if not mandatory for them, given that they are stepping out into traffic multiple times a day? Have you ever posted about the need for hi-vis for taxi drivers, or brought it up with your fellow drivers? Or do you just get a little bit excited about telling cyclists what to do?

Spook_ie wrote: »

It's only you that keeps dropping burgandy to try and make it sound as though I was talking about night time, don't you think this tack of yours has ran its course?

You made it easy for me to drop burgundy when you said ‘black, burgundy OR navy’ and not ‘black, burgundy AND navy’ – your words, not mind.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Try reading that while looking in a mirror.

More Bart Simpson level stuff there.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes I did as far as timetables and my estimation of the effect of not stopping for prolonged times at termini, did you not read it.

But you didn’t answer my question about why would you assume that I didn’t report them. Why would you think I’d be answering your questions when you don’t have the courtesy to answer mine?

Spook_ie wrote: »

they're the same size now as they were before CoVid19

They are indeed, but the need for social distancing is a bit more significant now, or have you been asleep for the last three months?

Spook_ie wrote: »

FYP

Not really. It’s just fascinating to see the level of analysis that goes into finding other explanations for crashes involving motorists, whereas when it comes to cyclists, the drooling Pavlovian reactions is just: hi-vis, hi-vis, hi-vis..
Why the double-standard? Is there anything to be said for more hi-vis?
https://twitter.com/PPAI_IRL/status/1271174824241618944

Spook_ie wrote: »

there'd be less if people didn't break the law but we aren't in a utopian society

Doesn’t really answer the question though – surely there’d be less of these road deaths and crashes if all cars were hi-vissed up on all sides?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why do I need to, do you not think DRLs are sufficent

No. They don’t work when the car is parked. They don’t work when the idiot driver doesn’t know how to use them.
So hi-vis on all sides would cover all these situations, surely?

Spook_ie wrote: »

If I were constantly in and out of my taxi into traffic, I'd actually agree with you and wear a Hi Viz jacket, but I'm not in and out of the car, and as I said any such time I'm changing my wheels I wear a Hi Viz and use hazard lights, so I don't know where you're trying to go with it.

So have you often spoken to your fellow taxi drivers about their need for hi-vis? Or posted about it here? Strange to see how vocal you are with your obsession about hi-vis for cyclists and how quiet you are about hi-vis for taxi drivers.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Ah how I've missed you're little speeding cars mantra, nice to see it now includes mobile phone use. Question for you though,
if it's dangerous to use a mobile while driving and indeed illegal without hands free should the same rule not apply to cyclists and maybe even pedestrians

Do you need somebody to explain the difference in risk and danger between a 1-3 tonne car doing 20-150 kmph and a 10-20kg bike doing 10-30 kmph? I guess that might be why there are different laws for different types of road users. Same reason as there are different laws for AK47 assault rifles and swiss army penknives.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Seems to me that's exactly what you're doing with Black, Burgandy and Navy colored cars but sure what would I know?

Except it wasn’t ‘black, burgundy and navy’ from you, it was black, burgundy OR navy.

SeanW wrote: »

Most motorists keep most of their lights working at all times, usually all of them. It's unusual for me to see more than one light out, usually one of the four front headlights.

Really, you need to improve your observation on the road. There’s not a day goes by that I don’t see a vehicle with one or two brake lights gone, or one back light gone. It’s not unusual to find a car with an entire cluster on one side gone, so no back light, brake light or indicator on that side. It’s not unusual in winter to find a car with no lights at all at the back, because the fool behind the wheel doesn’t know how to work their DRLs.
So hi-vis all round for all cars, surely?

SeanW wrote: »

As to the four accidents (or crashes if you prefer) ALL of them were not caused by the parked car.
Driver was driving a stolen car.

Drunk driver.

Driver Beaver Row was clearly going much too fast for their environment and surroundings. See Google Maps link to the area here. On no account should someone drive so fast on a street like this that if they hit something they'll flip over. Again, this driver should not have been on the road.

The N80 through Mountmellick is a disaster (I know because I've driven through it along that route), with large volumes of long distance traffic sharing some very narrow streets with local road users. This mixing of road use is virtually guaranteed to cause accidents, one reason among many why we bypass as many towns as possible.

Each of your examples was either a driver that shouldn't have been on the road, or a dangerous road profile (N80 in Mountmellick). As to why you wouldn't wear a helmet, motorists take serious responsibility for their own safety, seat belts, airbags etc. As a cyclist, you don't have any of that, just a helmet.

It’s just fascinating to see the level of analysis that goes into finding other explanations for crashes involving motorists, whereas when it comes to cyclists, the drooling Pavlovian reactions is just: hi-vis, hi-vis, hi-vis.
Why the double-standard? Is there anything to be said for more hi-vis?
https://twitter.com/PPAI_IRL/status/1271174824241618944

SeanW wrote: »

Every motor vehicle has a wide array of powerful lights, and a hazard warning system for emergency stops.
As stated before, cars are bigger and generally have more and stronger lights.

Not when they’re parked up, they don’t. And they’re frequently parked up opposite to the direction of traffic flow, so their rear reflectors won’t be seen.
So hi-vis stripes all round all cars is the obvious solution, surely?

SeanW wrote: »

Also, on many roads, cycling is extremely unusual.

Which puts your claims about how great Irish motorists are into context. Road death stats only tell part of the picture. What about all those who are just too scared to walk or cycle on roads?
Claiming that Irish roads or Irish drivers are generally safe is a bit like claiming that your shark-infested pond is very safe because no swimmers have been killed. It ignores the people who are just scared off the roads.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You said ‘black, burgundy OR navy’ environment. That’s an OR, not an AND. So anyone can restate with one or two of the three options you gave, and it is still reflects what you said. It’s not a complete record of what you said, but it is an accurate, partial record of what you said. I know you’d love to reel it back in, given that when you said black or navy environment, it hadn’t struck you that nighttime outdoors is just that, a black or navy environment. But that’s what you said – you said that hi-vis on cars would improve visibility in a black or navy environment.
But I guess it’s more fun to be lecturing cyclists than actually taking some action yourself.

Once again I said " Black or Burgandy or Navy Enviroment" it's a grammatically correct sentence not some source of Boolean logic where you can take seperate parts of it and de-contextualize parts of the sentence.

You know that DRLs are entirely irrelevant when parked, right? They don’t do anything for parked cars. The limited reflectors available on cars are on one of four sides only, which may well not be the side of approaching traffic. What have you got against hi-vis for cars – a very modest cost for an improvement in visibility?

Pretty much the same as hi viz on cyclists when not cycling, maybe you'd get a kick out of it but I see no reason when you've parked your bike and gone to bed for you to wear it, maybe if you've gone over all pedestrian and are walking along the road after a puncture or something yeah but not in bed.

Right so, but for the other taxi drivers who do take passengers with luggage, you’d recommend hi-vis as important, if not mandatory for them, given that they are stepping out into traffic multiple times a day? Have you ever posted about the need for hi-vis for taxi drivers, or brought it up with your fellow drivers? Or do you just get a little bit excited about telling cyclists what to do?

If they are reading this then yes if you're getting out of your car to offload luggage make sure you can be seen and if necessary wear the high viz jacket in your emergency kit, as to mandatory Hi Viz I think you're the first to mention mandatory I haven't, only that I find it much easier to distinguish pedestrians and cyclists when they're wearing Hi Viz and would prefer it if they wore it.

You made it easy for me to drop burgundy when you said ‘black, burgundy OR navy’ and not ‘black, burgundy AND navy’ – your words, not mind.

We back onto your fantasy voyage of what I didn't say, twice in the same post

More Bart Simpson level stuff there.

Not really, but you should look at yourself more often and think "Hmmm that probably applies to AJR, as well "

But you didn’t answer my question about why would you assume that I didn’t report them. Why would you think I’d be answering your questions when you don’t have the courtesy to answer mine?

You're right I did make the assumption that you wouldn't have deleted any photographs or video you'd have of them if you'd reported them, so did you report them?

They are indeed, but the need for social distancing is a bit more significant now, or have you been asleep for the last three months?

Nope but given that the capacity for PT has been slashed and we now have ( June 8th ) a greater return to work are they still parking there, no is the time we need social distancing on the general footpaths, not the previous 3 months when most people should have been staying at home.

Not really. It’s just fascinating to see the level of analysis that goes into finding other explanations for crashes involving motorists, whereas when it comes to cyclists, the drooling Pavlovian reactions is just: hi-vis, hi-vis, hi-vis..
Why the double-standard? Is there anything to be said for more hi-vis?
https://twitter.com/PPAI_IRL/status/1271174824241618944

Why the twitter about a lorry under a bridge?

Doesn’t really answer the question though – surely there’d be less of these road deaths and crashes if all cars were hi-vissed up on all sides?

Would be less of them if we didn't have criminals trying to make reckless get aways, or people drink driving Hi Viz in any shape or form won't prevent those accidents, and you're the one that selected those reports, I just happen to read them rather than rely on your interpretation.

No. They don’t work when the car is parked. They don’t work when the idiot driver doesn’t know how to use them.
So hi-vis on all sides would cover all these situations, surely?

I must see if I can root out some old videos of cyclists without Hi Viz or Lights and compare them to vids of cars without Hi Viz or lights and see which ones are visible from the greater distance, especially at night time which is when reflected light comes into it's own

So have you often spoken to your fellow taxi drivers about their need for hi-vis? Or posted about it here? Strange to see how vocal you are with your obsession about hi-vis for cyclists and how quiet you are about hi-vis for taxi drivers.

Did I not answer this already in this post, can you try and tidy your posts up so I'm not having to repeat myself so often in the same post

Do you need somebody to explain the difference in risk and danger between a 1-3 tonne car doing 20-150 kmph and a 10-20kg bike doing 10-30 kmph? I guess that might be why there are different laws for different types of road users. Same reason as there are different laws for AK47 assault rifles and swiss army penknives.

Which would you sooner be assaulted with then an AK47 or a bladed weapon, both can kill you

Except it wasn’t ‘black, burgundy and navy’ from you, it was black, burgundy OR navy.

WTF definite deja vu here but again check how the grammar would have needed to change to make it read correctly

Black or Burgandy or Navy environment
Black and Burgandy and Navy environment

Cars, Bins... no mention of bikes though?

https://dublingazette.com/news/news-city-edition/blockers-dublin-29292/

To be fair lads, bikes blocking pavements is a big issue (or was in 2018) in China...

https://news.sky.com/story/in-china-rental-bikes-have-become-a-social-menace-11191053

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Really, you need to improve your observation on the road. There’s not a day goes by that I don’t see a vehicle with one or two brake lights gone, or one back light gone. It’s not unusual to find a car with an entire cluster on one side gone, so no back light, brake light or indicator on that side. It’s not unusual in winter to find a car with no lights at all at the back, because the fool behind the wheel doesn’t know how to work their DRLs.

I don't know where and when you cycle, but I've almost never encountered a motor vehicle so badly lit that I had difficulty with it.

In all my years on the road, I've encountered dangerously unlit vehicles precisely twice. Every other motor vehicle has been lit well enough for me to see and gauge its position in good time.

So hi-vis all round for all cars, surely?

As has already been explained, cars already are hi-vis.

It’s just fascinating to see the level of analysis that goes into finding other explanations for crashes involving motorists, whereas when it comes to cyclists, the drooling Pavlovian reactions is just: hi-vis, hi-vis, hi-vis.

It took me all of 5 seconds in each case to determine that the alleged lack of visibility of the parked cars had nothing whatsoever to do with the accidents. The first 3 of the cases were caused by drivers that should not have been on the road, and Mountmellick needs a bypass desperately. Nothing to do with hi-vis whatsoever.

Why the double-standard? Is there anything to be said for more hi-vis?

(Twitter link removed for brevity) What in Sam Hill does this have to do with hi-vis?

Not when they’re parked up, they don’t. And they’re frequently parked up opposite to the direction of traffic flow, so their rear reflectors won’t be seen.
So hi-vis stripes all round all cars is the obvious solution, surely?

Your bicycle doesn't need hi-vis when it's parked in the bike shed. Likewise, a car that is parked in accordance with generally accepted parking conventions does not have elevated visibility requirements. Additionally, motor vehicles do have hazard warning systems for emergency situations when they may be stopped in a precarious position. This has been explained before.

Which puts your claims about how great Irish motorists are into context. Road death stats only tell part of the picture. What about all those who are just too scared to walk or cycle on roads?
Claiming that Irish roads or Irish drivers are generally safe is a bit like claiming that your shark-infested pond is very safe because no swimmers have been killed. It ignores the people who are just scared off the roads.

Many Irish roads are more useful to motorists than cyclists because the people using them are travelling longer distances, e.g. more than 4 miles. If you're going to be doing something like cycling on a rural road late at night you should take into account the possibility that a motorist (being an imperfect human) might not be expecting you. Like I said, any good motorist will try to avoid mental blind spots and treat with respect the road users they observe, but you can help by erring on the side of being more visible, not less.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In winter, I regularly one or two cars each evening with no back lights because the driver doesn’t know how DRLs work. On every journey, I see cars with one or two broken brake lights or broken back lights.

On every journey? Really, Andrew? Really?

Amazing how you notice that on every journey, but completely miss the cyclists flying through red lights, and cyclists using their phones while actually cycling on the road and/or footpath. (I could have just said "cyclists with phones" but that would have led to a response that it's perfectly fine to have your phone in an armband or on your handlebars).

Cognitive bias, maybe?

07Lapierre wrote: »

To be fair lads, bikes blocking pavements is a big issue (or was in 2018) in China...

https://news.sky.com/story/in-china-rental-bikes-have-become-a-social-menace-11191053

Jaysus! Yeah, that's gonna be fun... Already seeing bleeperbikes left in weird places around Dublin, but none actually blocking paths or cycle lanes yet.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Jaysus! Yeah, that's gonna be fun... Already seeing bleeperbikes left in weird places around Dublin, but none actually blocking paths or cycle lanes yet.

Probably because the bike lanes are not being used!

is that your photo?