last couple of weeks amount of teenagers going home 5 ish without any high vis or any lights is nuts , do schools not teach how important lights are any more ?
But who is deflecting? No one is saying the main focus should be on cyclist or drivers, everyone has personal responsibility to be safe and seen at night time.
Just because cyclist are not dying or drivers are doing something wrong does not equate to cyclist breaking the law not being important.
The only deflection I see on this thread is cyclist giving out about motorist. Why can't people just accept that it is wrong to cycle without lights at night and that's OK to agree it's not right, no need to find a bigger wrong. We don't need to turn every thread into them vs. us, it's getting very tiring at this stage.
Adjectives tend to be proper intensifiers. "However" is an intensifier only insofar as it is used for contrast.
If you take your sentence with the word "however" in it, it doesn't make sense as a stand-alone statement. The "however" can only be in contrast to what you previously said.
While I enjoy talking about English grammar, it's still deflection.
Lets look at some things you could have said that aren't deflection;
I don't have statistics to back up my claim.
It seems to me that there are more bikes without lights than cars with poorly maintained lights.
Both drivers and cyclists should ensure they have functioning lights.
which makes no sense at all as they're not harming anyone and they are a net benefit to society, keeping people fit etc., no congestion, fumes etc. etc.
i can never understand why they're so loathed.
You'd have to ask a cyclist. As a motorist I find a lot of motorists will deflect to cyclists when it comes to bad behaviour on the road particularly online and on social media.
Final warning about the thread topic. No more whataboutery
I haven't seen anyone here defending motorist behaviours.
I haven't seen anyone on here defending bad driver behaviour. I have both agreed that it's prevalent and condemn it. Why do some cyclists find it hard to accept any responsibility for their own safety? The immediate thing seems to be to blame the motorist. Well, that's all well and good until it matters.
Often used as an alternative word to emphasise Professor Cletus. As with many words, they have many meanings and uses. Full stops are pretty definite however. 😁
"What is the rule with however?
When you use however, furthermore, moreover or therefore as intensifiers or for emphasis, we usually put commas around both sides of them. We, however, do not agree with the verdict. You can, therefore, do whatever you like."
Source: writing-skills.com
If anything they should be getting angry about pedestrians not wearing high vis, they seem to be killed regularly at night, 2 in the last few days.
Very very very few, but people will jump up and down & continually deflect from bad driver behaviour.
right well i'm just making the point that any deaths on bikes I can think of in Ireland have been during the day and i keep a close eye on this stuff. this invisible cyclist thing sure gets harped on about a lot when there doesn't seem to be a problem in the first place.
If we're giving lessons in English,
however
/haʊˈɛvə/
adverbs
1. Used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously.
So, the two sentences that I quoted are directly linked with the adverb above. The second sentence is set up in direct contrast to the first sentence
Perhaps you were unaware of the use of, or correct meaning of, the word "however".
Or perhaps you are still deflecting.
My Uncle was one. About 20 years ago now. It didn't form any statistic about lights afair. Driver didn't see him crossing a junction.
has there ever been a case recorded of a cyclist killed at night with no lights in Ireland?
The distraction seems to be for you and others on the thread to continually default to bad driver behaviour. One could be forgiven to think they are in the motors forum with all the deflection going on.
There is no excuse for a driver to use their phone while driving, or to put on make-up while driving, or read a book, or anything else that takes their attention off the road.
If a cyclist chooses not to make the effort to be more easily seen, then they more likely to get a smack of a car by the driver who just might have seen them had they (as required by law) used appropriate lighting on their bicycle.
Motorists have huge restrictions, responsibilities and costs placed on them for using a car. They are expected to have the car in a road worthy condition, including working lights. I'm not responsible for the drivers who don't maintain their cars, or who use their mobile phones. I am responsible for what I do and I take responsibility for how my kids use their bicycles. If idiots want to take a bigger risk and cycle without lights and other safety equipment, that is on them. Blame the driver for the dead cyclist with no lights, but it's still a dead cyclist.
I know where they are because of looking at the statistics of both cycling numbers and accidents. Similarly with the cause of accidents from that data aswell. It's been discussed and quoted for years on these forums
MOD WARNING: I am going to look at the use of the word reflective as someone trying to skirt around the HI Vis ban. Lights are the only thing up for discussion here, do not mention Hi Vis or reflective devices or reflective clothing again, anyone, even in response to another poster that says it takes a perma ban at this point.
Once again you throw out words as if I said them. I didn't say we should make anything the main focus. Whatever about priorities, I would hope that cyclists AND motorists do what they can do themselves to prevent serious injury or death on our roads. As a cyclist, this means being seen among other things relating to safety. As a motorist, lets face it, they can worry a bit less about their personal safety, as the car offers a reasonable level of protection, especially in a collision with a cyclist.
If you don't agree that using lights and reflective devices on bikes and on the cyclist in an effort to be seen by motorists falls within the realm of common sense, then I don't know what to say to you. I wouldn't be waiting for a published study before using lights, a vest and a helmet while cycling.
If we want teenagers to obey the law regarding bicycles, there needs to be a set of consequences for not following the law. I find it funny that you ridicule my comment for a lack of study or research....then you throw out a statement about teens mostly cycling around well lit urban environments. Where is the published study you gleamed this from?
I don't need to see teens from space, but it would be helpful and prudent of them if they used front and back lights at a minimum, because they're not always parked underneath these lamp posts, waiting for cars to pass by. Sometimes the best you can hope for is to see the light from their phone while they browse tik-tok and cycle carelessly across the road without looking.
I actually can't though, although I strongly presume your location plays a strong role in this. If you mean by pure numbers, not percentages, there are more motorists with issues than there are cyclists in total. Out in the countryside, light use by cyclists at night time is >99% in my experience, south east and midlands, but it does drop as you come into towns and cities. Presumably because many can see fine they think that everyone else can see them. Lowest areas I have seen in regards light usage is around places like UCD, where it probably drops to 60%, and even then, a few of these are like motorists, they have lights but never turned them on.
On a similar note, out in the country, it happens but most motorists will have their lights on properly but its probably a slightly lower % than cyclists but negligible. A few with DRLs, a few with only one light, and on occasion, one with no lights, rare as it is. An odd one is drivers knocking off their lights at junctions to see if they need to stop. Recently this ended up with two neighbours driving into each other at a cross road, I suspect it was more than lights that were the issue but thats a different story. This, just like cyclists, seems to decrease as you get close to towns and cities, with issues like DRLs or no lights at all becoming quite common.
This long story is to highlight, that all this whataboutery is just that. Its just people being people, it is not cyclists or motorists. Some are ignorant, some are stupid, some think they are smart but they aren't but their mode of transport only highlights the issue, it doesn't cause it.
Are cyclists actually getting into accidents in the dark because of no lights though? For all the talk about it I don't think they are. It only seems to be pedestrians killed by motorists at night, another one last night in Tullamore.
"Anyone with eyes can see this to be true"
Imagine they had no lights and we couldn't see them.
If you're going to quote me, how about you actually quote what I said. I did not say there are more bikes without lights than cars without properly maintained lights. You took two separate sentences and melded them together to suit your narrative. What I said was
"There are plenty of motorists who fail to maintain or at times, turn on their lights." <= [See the full stop? That means end of statement/sentence.] I then went on to say....."There are however a greater number of cyclists without lights on their bike. I don't excuse motorists who don't use their lights properly, but who needs to be seen if it were one or the other?"
So, I pointed out that there are plenty of motorists who don't maintain or even turn on their lights. I have seen it often, as I assume you have too. I then pointed out that there are more cyclists without lights on their bike. The majority of cyclists on our roads do not have lights on their bikes. Anyone with eyes can see this to be true.
The n72 I linked would have circa 400 vehicles/hour at peak time, 6-7 per minute.
Not my idea of a safe or pleasant cycle with or without lights on a road without a hard shoulder.
The actual risk may in fact be higher on a lower traffic volume road as the outlier driver won't be inhibited by other vehicles and may in fact travel faster and not be warned by other drivers as typically happens when people flashing/indicating to warn.
If its a very quite (as in an empty road) its possible to cycle in the dark without that much risk. When I used to mtb at night in the forest I often turned off lights on slight downhill sections as deer tend to be super unpredictable when they see bright lights.
the road i mentioned was the R130 past kilcoskan, which goes over the flyover into what was meant to be thornton prison, off the old N2 - it's used on a circuit by swords CC, so a few here would know it. there are two sharp bends on it, but would have heavy traffic at times.
it can get pretty dark, the road is almost overhung completely by trees in sections.
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4677791,-6.3403617,3a,75y,22.11h,101.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxfewfVA6URTmxEH-mMrv9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
In urban and streetlight areas, cycling without lights probably doesn't add all that much to the general risks associated with cycling. It must add some risk though.
I've occasionally met commuting cyclists in the evening time on some pretty risk high speed national secondary roads. Including the two below
https://goo.gl/maps/oG8sJarbvWEkgVVx6
https://goo.gl/maps/X46pgjAayYXWXTuZ6
In the second one above the cyclist was on his way to Carr's hill at about 6pm on a Friday evening in winter. I was cycling the other way on my regular (at the time) weekend commute to west Waterford. I partially admired his ambivalence to my perception of risk😁
You'd be surprised how well your eyes adjust without artificial light around, you can't go as fast but you can definetly get around reasonably safely provided there is no one speeding. Would I do it, of course not, but its not as difficult to see as you might think. This said, I go at a speed where I wouldn't be comfortable, other road users aside, without them.
I was curious why things you'd think are dangerous don't seem to cause accidents. But when you think about it cars have powerful lights. Also in studies drivers give cyclists with no lights etc. more space than cyclists with lights etc. Which is counter intuitive until you think about it.
i mean when there were no drivers around; ythey'd barely be able to see where they were going; cars would make it safer for them in a sense!
Good drivers with strong headlights and blind luck.
there's a rural road i'm on quite regularly (both driving and cycling) and most of it is unlit. i've seen cyclists cycling on it at night, with no lights, on several occasions, and i struggle to understand how they don't come a cropper simply from not being able to see where they're going.
This is hilarious. "teenagers wearing black at night on their bikes with no lights, I see them all the time!"
As a taxi driver said to me about a e-scooter rider one night "look at him, you can't see him"
