Service seems to be slow. Not registering on the Torygraph to read the article, but I've my bike to work due next year and seeing very little vfm on complete bikes, at least in terms of what I consider an upgrade on my TCR Advanced. As things stand, I'll probably save BTW and attempt to build up my own.
I'm certainly busier fixing co workers bikes of late.
That's mad - it came up on my phone's newsfeed and I didn't need to register to read it. Opening it now on my laptop and I need to login to view.
Seth is clearly a subscriber to the telegraph.
Kill me now!
WTF have civil or nautical twilight got to do with anything? Accident was 20 mins after lighting up time; 20 mins later than legislators in the UK in 1957 and here in 1961 saw fit to determine when lights were needed. (At a time when lights and battery technology was pretty basic and expensive)
You seem to know better and there is no increased risk in not using lights 20 mins after the legislated time.
Some real world data from tonight for context; an overcast night but no rain.
Sunset 21:50 Light level: 60-70 lux
Lighting up time. Light level 8-9 lux
49 mins after sunset Light level 0.5lux
You would want to be a dishonest or an idiot to suggest that being on a high speed N road 49 minutes after sunset without lights is very risky and substantial more dangerous than doing so at sunset.
For a vulnerable road user especially on high speed roads, lighting up time shouldn't even be in play; after sunset lights should be on.
I am neither a liar or an idiot, so let's be civil about this. I said he should have lights, as we all should but I also drive only while being of sound mind and body and with an expectation of the unexpected.
The point with both twilight's is that unless visually impaired, you should still be able to see an unlit pedestrian or cyclist. It would be easier if they had lights.
In this case, I am stating that it is not a mitigating factor, other cars moments before noted seeing the cyclist, included in the Garda statement. All said he was hard to see but all still seen and avoided him.
You seem to be mixing up my opinions on this specific case with my opinions in general. I can think in more than black and white. Yes, all cyclists should have good lights. Yes, cycling without them from dusk till dawn is both illegal and stupid. Yes, having them will reduce the likelihood of you being in an accident. Despite this, it is possible that not having lights at that time of year, at that time of the day, does not make you invisible.
The only leap I'm making is the driver was reported at the time to be not of sound mind but I didn't see that in the report.
Other factors that weigh heavily against the driver are the implications that if he had stopped and called an ambulance the guy might still be alive.
So once more, yes he should have lights but no, this in no way absolves the driver.
"Lights are not an issue and how it is even a consideration is beyond my comprehension"
There your words for 6 days ago.
Compare it with what you just wrote.
And it still stands, in this case I don't think lights are a consideration in regards the attribution of guilt. You seem to be mistaking what I am saying as some way condoning not wearing lights at night. It is not. Yes he should have had them but I do not believe that in this accident it was a contributing factor to his death. That's is my view. Sadly I think he would be dead if he had been lot up like a Christmas tree, this is opinion and we will never know but an assessment of the conditions, that other drivers both seen and avoided him, that I wasn't much further south than him and playing hurling with my son till half 11 without any need for lights, and a driver who had a history of drug abuse and a non roadworthy car, who did not stop at the scene, yes, I firmly believe that the cyclist in this case having lights would not have saved his life.
There maybe more data that changes my mind which I do not know about. I'm going on what info I have.
Absolutely as above- this is totally on the driver & those who let him be in a position to be behind the wheel.
It's no wonder the cyclist family withdrew their cooperation from the report, blatant ass covering going on.
No amount of lights would have helped there - driver was literally out of his mind.
Rattling on about lights is a form of not-so-overt yet not-subtle victim blaming.
Why we get sucked into this again and again I have no idea. We know lights are good, we know good tyres are good, we know appropriate clothing for the conditions is good. Pointing at the victim and commenting to the effect of "well, what do you expect" is not good.
I can't speak for large bottle small glass, but I wasn't suggest lights would have saved him (although I think he should probably have been lit up)
I was pointing out the reasons for the judge including it in his report, which was the initial discussion. Regardless of what the lighting conditions were he was legally obliged to have lights on his bike, and the judge drew attention to this, as it had been included in the police report.
And it still stands, in this case I don't think lights are a consideration in regards the attribution of guilt.
The driver is obviously guilty, but if a truck ploughed into a car with no lights on at night it would also be mentioned as potentially contributory.
14 year old driving a SUV (legally??) in Idaho knocks down cyclist.
Just thinking of all the 14 year olds I know and whether I'd let them out on a public road in a SUV
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/jul/07/idaho-bicyclist-in-coma-after-suv-hit-her-on-july-/
Jesus. 14 years old. My eldest fella is 14, I wouldn't let him out on an escooter, don't mind an SUV
Quite a few US states allow very young drivers, as in learner permits.
The two Dakotas, Alaska, Iowa and a few others.
In Montana they used to refer to the length of a journey by 6 pack i.e. how long it took to drink one.
How fast would it go with a 60kg rider atop? Isn't that a Deliveroo bag too?
Assuming the speed of 43 mph is indeed accurate and the bike is around 15 kg, with a 65 kg rider you would need. According to one calculator I found just over 1900 W. This also assumes a 0 gradient and to 0 wind.
Yeah, that's wheel speed with no resistance, I can get my push bike over 90+ if doing that just by spinning the cranks. I imagine the actual speed is a lot lower with real world resistance.
Should have read the tweet properly. The speed of 43 mph was read from the bikes head unit with the wheel off the ground so the bike was unloaded.
With a rider and gear on it as well as air resistance, there is no way it would be able to get close to 43 mph plus the picture clearly shows a small hub motor. I'm guessing it's no more than a maximum of 500 W, although it's most likely 250 W.
On another note, since I was bored, I decided to calculate the kinetic energy difference between a 65 kg rider on a 25 kg E-bike riding at a speed of 45 km/h and a 2000 kg car travelling at a speed of 50 km, which is typically the speed you find in most towns and cities, the car only has a mere 5400% more kinetic energy.
80km/hr over the speed limit is just careless driving now? In an i30? And we wonder why horrific accidents occur?
More Motoring madness here;
https://twitter.com/adamtranter/status/1677361409192075280
^^^ I think it is down to the charge of careless driving being easier to prove than dangerous driving
It just seems like a cop out a lot of the time. I mean, manslaughter and sexual assault are also easier to prove than murder and rape, respectively. Doesn't mean that should be the go-to-option. Can you imagine the outrage? But you're right... it's a case of clear demonstration of how society view's car use and driving behaviour. I think we'll look back in amazement in years to come.
He was charged with dangerous driving and the judge reduced it to careless driving after hearing mitigation (whatever the hell that was).
5 previous convictions which included speeding. Must have been some bloody convincing mitigation to over balance that.
Presume the "mitigation" was the old "I need the car for work" defence.
The reporting is pretty sh1t; it doesn't say what his plea was, but from reading what's in it he got the lower charge because
"Judge Jones said after hearing mitigation he was going to reduce it to section 52".
So pay a solicitor, spin a yarn about being a family man late for work or some other load of drivel and you get rewarded.
When in truth a he put the life of unknown strangers at risk because he's selfish and disorganised. Repeat offender caught red handed shouldn't be getting leniency
Some amount of patronising in this piece, what should otherwise have been a good news story. I wasn't even aware there was such a scheme in Wexford - typical that the first I hear of it is negativity in the press.
Calls for cycle safety campaign following roll-out of e-bike scheme in Wexford town (msn.com)
What muppetry, looks like councillors need to say something about nothing in the same way that paper can't refuse ink. Seen them about the town, nothing dangerous to report so far. Wexford in my experience is a joy to cycle except in the summer when all the tourists, mainly from another county I used to live in, come to visit.
Progress on the Dodder greenway route
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)