Cyclists

Ray Bloody Purchase · 07-12-2018 10:27am

This is a bizarre thread.

flatface · 07-12-2018 10:33am

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

This is a bizarre thread.

Yep, I think someone accidentally divided by zero.

magicbastarder · 07-12-2018 10:40am

...and then invaded russia in the winter.

jjpep · 07-12-2018 11:26am

Hi First up,

A little summary:

No one here thinks cycling without lights is a good idea.

Hi Vis (and helmets) are actually very nuanced topics - two mega treads on the topics.

If we lived in a world of infinitive Gardai resources I don't think there would be any objection enforcing all relevant legislation for all road users. However, resources are limited so therefore most people would prefer enforcement to be directed in the area's where the most harm is caused. All stats point to motorist mis-behaviour as being the most dangerous thing on the road.

Nearly every cyclist I know (and here also on boards) is also a driver. The vast majority of drivers are not cyclists. This doesn't give us any kind of superpowers or anything but it does mean that most cyclists probably have a more nuanced opinion regarding issues around transport/commuting. The hi-vis and helmet topics being good examples - on the surface (or intuitively) they would seem to be good ideas. Scratch beneath the surface though and it gets more complicated very fast.

daragh_ · 07-12-2018 11:39am

First Up wrote: »

And a cyclist hit by a car doing 49kph in a 50kph zone will be just as dead.

Look, I understand that martyrdom is an important part of some cyclists' psyche but with all those dangerous speeding motorists out there, don't you think they owe it to their families to do everything they can to get home safe?

Yeah. Going out on their bikes dressed like that - sure they are just asking for it.

AndrewJRenko · 07-12-2018 11:46am

First Up wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I have posted there frequently but this is about cyclists.

Have you posted there telling motorists that they need to slow down? A link or two would be appreciated.

No, but if you want to tell me what is a safe speed for motorists to be able to spot unlit cyclists in dark and wet conditions I'll consider it.

The speeding issue goes way beyond unlit cyclists. Speeding is one of the top three causes of road deaths. Most road deaths are motorists killing themselves, other motorists or passengers. So getting motorists to slow down would have a significant impact on road deaths.

To answer your specific question, getting motorists to stick to the speed limit would be a great start.

And a cyclist hit by a car doing 49kph in a 50kph zone will be just as dead.

Speed has a huge impact on survival rates

First Up wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I have posted there frequently but this is about cyclists.

Have you posted there telling motorists that they need to slow down? A link or two would be appreciated.

No, but if you want to tell me what is a safe speed for motorists to be able to spot unlit cyclists in dark and wet conditions I'll consider it.

The speeding issue goes way beyond unlit cyclists. Speeding is one of the top three causes of road deaths. Most road deaths are motorists killing themselves, other motorists or passengers. So getting motorists to slow down would have a significant impact on road deaths.

To answer your specific question, getting motorists to stick to the speed limit would be a great start.

Look, I understand that martyrdom is an important part of some cyclists' psyche but with all those dangerous speeding motorists out there, don't you think they owe it to their families to do everything they can to get home safe?

The most important thing cyclists can do to make sure that they get home safe is to clearly identify the root causes of danger. Unlit cyclists are not the big issue.

First Up · 07-12-2018 11:52am

jjpep wrote: »

Hi First up,

A little summary:

No one here thinks cycling without lights is a good idea.

Hi Vis (and helmets) are actually very nuanced topics - two mega treads on the topics.

If we lived in a world of infinitive Gardai resources I don't think there would be any objection enforcing all relevant legislation for all road users. However, resources are limited so therefore most people would prefer enforcement to be directed in the area's where the most harm is caused. All stats point to motorist mis-behaviour as being the most dangerous thing on the road.

Nearly every cyclist I know (and here also on boards) is also a driver. The vast majority of drivers are not cyclists. This doesn't give us any kind of superpowers or anything but it does mean that most cyclists probably have a more nuanced opinion regarding issues around transport/commuting. The hi-vis and helmet topics being good examples - on the surface (or intuitively) they would seem to be good ideas. Scratch beneath the surface though and it gets more complicated very fast.

Then why the hostility, sarcasm and "'what about the motorist" responses when I question why some cyclists increase the risk to their lives by not being visible?

There is nothing nuanced about wearing a (free) hi viz, using lights or wearing a helmet.

Going to step in here as a mod, as this is low. A bit of decency please.

Get your facts right, and choose your language more carefully in future.

cjt156 · 07-12-2018 11:58am

And you can say categorically that he would be alive if he was wearing a helmet?

No back seat modding, please. if you have an issue with another poster, use the 'report post' option.

AndrewJRenko · 07-12-2018 1:16pm

First Up wrote: »

jjpep wrote: »

Hi First up,

A little summary:

No one here thinks cycling without lights is a good idea.

Hi Vis (and helmets) are actually very nuanced topics - two mega treads on the topics.

If we lived in a world of infinitive Gardai resources I don't think there would be any objection enforcing all relevant legislation for all road users. However, resources are limited so therefore most people would prefer enforcement to be directed in the area's where the most harm is caused. All stats point to motorist mis-behaviour as being the most dangerous thing on the road.

Nearly every cyclist I know (and here also on boards) is also a driver. The vast majority of drivers are not cyclists. This doesn't give us any kind of superpowers or anything but it does mean that most cyclists probably have a more nuanced opinion regarding issues around transport/commuting. The hi-vis and helmet topics being good examples - on the surface (or intuitively) they would seem to be good ideas. Scratch beneath the surface though and it gets more complicated very fast.

Then why the hostility, sarcasm and "'what about the motorist" responses when I question why some cyclists increase the risk to their lives by not being visible?

There is nothing nuanced about wearing a (free) hi viz, using lights or wearing a helmet. A school principal died recently when a car reversing from a driveway knocked him over in broad daylight. He wasn't wearing a helmet; the driver was at fault but he is the one dead.

The driver wasn't reversing. He was driving in the same direction as the cyclist. Both driver and passenger stated in court that they had seen the cyclist. So I've no idea how you came to a conclusion that a helmet was significant.

Is it only cyclist deaths that you analyse? Do you go back over the 75% of road deaths that are motorists and passengers and see who might have been saved if they wore a crash helmet, or had a yellow car?

Weepsie · 07-12-2018 1:36pm

Mod note: Look it suits me to have all the old clichéd arguments going back and forth in one thread, and one thread only.

Any more factually incorrect retelling of accidents, and victim blaming and you're taking some time out. A bit of decorum ffs

CramCycle · 07-12-2018 1:42pm

First Up wrote: »

Then why the hostility, sarcasm and "'what about the motorist" responses when I question why some cyclists increase the risk to their lives by not being visible?

Your missing the point, everyone here agrees about the use of lights. Everyoen here agrees thaqt being seen is very important (huge difference between being seen and being visible though, something to keep in mind).

There is nothing nuanced about wearing a (free) hi viz, using lights or wearing a helmet. A school principal died recently when a car reversing from a driveway knocked him over in broad daylight. He wasn't wearing a helmet; the driver was at fault but he is the one dead.

It is actually very nuanced, you should read the mega threads and try and grasp the nuances before making such blanket statements. Ironically, Hi Vis does not always make you more visible, and in some scenarios makes you less visible, but read the mega thread and post there for that. As for the Helmet, same thing, there are several scenarios where wearing a helmet may increase in injury, many where it will reduce it, it is quite counter intuitive. The important thing to note is that in areas where helmets are mandatory, helmet injuries have not decreased but the number of cyclists have. Again though, a topic for the mega thread, not for here.

EDIT: Missed mod warning

ED E · 07-12-2018 1:43pm

Unless you're a neurosurgeon or FCI and have seen the relevant evidence you cannot assert that a helmet would have saved Padraic Carney.

Not that you'll listen but helmets are only rated to prevent skull fractures. They're not tested as to whether they'll protect your brain.

First Up · 07-12-2018 1:51pm

As the mods are unhappy I'll leave it at that. I wish everyone safe travels - and a bit of commonn sense.

rubadub · 07-12-2018 1:52pm

First Up wrote: »

As the mods are unhappy I'll leave it at that. I wish everyone safe travels - and a bit of commonn sense.

I prefer rational logical sense. Lots of "common sense" has very little thought behind it.

magicbastarder · 07-12-2018 2:05pm

common sense would have you believe that increased helmet use makes for safer cycling. evidence does not support this.
common sense would have you believe that use of hi-vis makes for safer cycling. evidence is limited (in either direction) and equivocal at best.

flatface · 07-12-2018 2:26pm

First Up wrote: »

As the mods are unhappy I'll leave it at that. I wish everyone safe travels - and a bit of commonn sense.

I think why a lot of posters are arguing with your position is that frustratingly the public common sense of road safety issues and cyclists perspective differ so. I know a driver that converted to cycle commuter this year and it has been an eye opener for him seeing the road from a different perspective. There is a lot of effort by cyclists to rebalance the focus and sometimes that can appear shouty or preachy but I hope you can understand that it’s because sensible argument is being drowned out and the common sense is still a huge way off seeing the big problems on our roads. This is very concerning as we universally want and need more people cycling in the future.

First Up · 07-12-2018 2:57pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

common sense would have you believe that increased helmet use makes for safer cycling. evidence does not support this.
common sense would have you believe that use of hi-vis makes for safer cycling. evidence is limited (in either direction) and equivocal at best.

What's the evidence?

I am finished with this thread but these statements are too ridiculous to leave unchallenged.

Does the evidence support a practice of no lights too? If lights help, why not hi viz?

Internet Friend · 07-12-2018 3:15pm

First Up wrote: »

What's the evidence?

I am finished with this thread but these statements are too ridiculous to leave unchallenged.

Does the evidence support a practice of no lights too? If lights help, why not hi viz?

Helmets attract cars to cyclists

When a helmet is useless and when it might save your life

Make yourself seen. reflective clothing & lights - Not HiVis

To share but a few. Loads more here

AndrewJRenko · 07-12-2018 3:16pm

First Up wrote: »

magicbastarder wrote: »

common sense would have you believe that increased helmet use makes for safer cycling. evidence does not support this.
common sense would have you believe that use of hi-vis makes for safer cycling. evidence is limited (in either direction) and equivocal at best.

What's the evidence?

I am finished with this thread but these statements are too ridiculous to leave unchallenged.

Does the evidence support a practice of no lights too? If lights help, why not hi viz?

Have you any evidence to support your position?

CramCycle · 07-12-2018 3:20pm

First Up wrote: »

What's the evidence?

I am finished with this thread but these statements are too ridiculous to leave unchallenged.

Does the evidence support a practice of no lights too? If lights help, why not hi viz?

MOD VOICE: 3 Quick points
1. There is a mega thread for this (Helmet talk), in future please move this discussion point there but there are links and data in that thread.

2. No one here, and this is the last time I will say it, is condoning no lights. Insinuate it again and I will have to assume you are not engaging in the discussion

3. Hi Vis again has its own megathread, the debate on the issue is heated and there are valid points both in favour and against them for cyclists, bring such talk over there

Internet Friend · 07-12-2018 3:26pm

Apologies Cram, should have linked the megathreads as opposed to stoking the fire

07Lapierre · 07-12-2018 3:58pm

Helmets, Lights and Hi-viz .. the Holy trinity of gripes against cyclists!

treade1 · 07-12-2018 4:13pm

You forgot red-light jumping!

07Lapierre · 07-12-2018 4:24pm

treade1 wrote: »

You forgot red-light jumping!

nah...that's only no. 6 on my list!

Its Friday...can you guess No.'s 4 and 5?

Ray Bloody Purchase · 07-12-2018 4:26pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

nah...that's only no. 6 on my list!

Its Friday...can you guess No.'s 4 and 5?

Road tax?

Even though i tax two cars and have to declare all my taxable income. :mad:

treade1 · 07-12-2018 4:30pm

Cycling on the footpath?
Not using cycle lanes where provided?

treade1 · 07-12-2018 4:34pm

Cycling 2 abreast?

Macy0161 · 07-12-2018 4:49pm

treade1 wrote: »

Cycling 2 abreast?

Only 2 abreast?

07Lapierre · 07-12-2018 4:50pm

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

Road tax?

Even though i tax two cars and have to declare all my taxable income. :mad:

treade1 wrote: »

Cycling 2 abreast?

well done..sure its not the hardest quiz is it?

Ray Bloody Purchase · 07-12-2018 5:12pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

well done..sure its not the hardest quiz is it?

Answers will only be accepted if they're shouted out the window of what vehicle:

a) Taxi
b) Bus
c) White van
d) All of the above

Cyclists

Comments