Cyclists

First Up · 05-12-2018 11:02pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

In heavy traffic on a wet evening, no I didn't see many motorists breaking the speed limit but I wouldn't defend them if I did.

The important question isn't so much about who defends what, but who chooses to get excited about what.

Motorists kill 3 or 4 people each week on the roads and maim many more. 60% - 80% of motorists break speed limits in the RSA Speed Survey. Speeding is one of the top three causes of road deaths.

Do you think that maybe your top priority should be to get your fellow motorists to slow down and stop killing people before you start jumping up and down about unlit cyclists?

First Up wrote: »

You on the other hand seem to be defending cyclists without lights or high-viz clothing and I'm wondering why.

Where exactly did I defend cyclists without lights? A specific quote would be great.

First Up wrote: »

Not all cyclist accidents result in deaths but I am intrigued at the attitude on display here. If an unlit cyclist is knocked over because he is virtually invisible, who do you think is responsible?

Generally I find it more productive to focus on the real world rather than hypotheticals. In the real world, you have incidents like this where a cyclist with lights and hi-vis got run down and killed by a bus driver.

http://www.thejournal.ie/bus-driver-cyclist-death-4335560-Nov2018/

If you actually want to reduce road deaths, get motorists to slow down, put their phones down and put their pints down.

If you want to divert attention from the real dangers on the road, you can jump up and down about ninja cyclists.

Not one word of which does anything to explain why you object to criticism of unlit cyclists on dark winter evenings.

eeeee · 05-12-2018 11:08pm

Steve wrote: »

Just to balance your point, this only gives merit to the motorists (of which I am one) for their awareness and care on the roads.

Unlit cyclists need to cop on to the fact that they are next to invisible on suburban roads, especially when there is oncoming traffic (cars with lights on).

It beggars belief that they take risks like this.

Everyone needs to take responsibility for their ****ty behaviour on the road.

Steve · 05-12-2018 11:11pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The important question isn't so much about who defends what, but who chooses to get excited about what.

I disagree.

I think the discussion should be based on facts and laws of physics than things that 'excite' you.

I commend and respect those that are properly 'lit' and will always give them road room, those that I simply cannot see do not deserve the same respect or room yet I am still in the wrong?

AndrewJRenko · 05-12-2018 11:20pm

First Up wrote: »

Not one word of which does anything to explain why you object to criticism of unlit cyclists on dark winter evenings.

Perhaps you missed my earlier point?

. Last year, two out of fifteen cyclists deaths occurred after dark. It's just not a significant issue

AndrewJRenko · 05-12-2018 11:22pm

nee wrote: »

Everyone needs to take responsibility for their ****ty behaviour on the road.

Indeed they do - but it's worth remembering that not all sh1tty behaviours result in death and serious injury.

AndrewJRenko · 05-12-2018 11:23pm

Steve wrote: »

I disagree.

I think the discussion should be based on facts and laws of physics than things that 'excite' you.

I commend and respect those that are properly 'lit' and will always give them road room, those that I simply cannot see do not deserve the same respect or room yet I am still in the wrong?

When you're considering facts, have you considered looking at the actual causes of road deaths?

Steve · 05-12-2018 11:25pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

When you're considering facts, have you considered looking at the actual causes of road deaths?

Yes.

07Lapierre · 05-12-2018 11:28pm

First Up wrote: »

Not one word of which does anything to explain why you object to criticism of unlit cyclists on dark winter evenings.

Nobody is defending cyclists that don't use lights at night. IMO even if every cyclist in the country did use lights on dark winter evenings, it would not reduce the number of cyclists fatalities that much.

If I remember correctly, only one cyclist was killed during the hours of darkness in 2017. The other SIXTEEN were all killed during the hours of daylight. Their deaths were the result of lack of awareness on the part of drivers and also in some cases, lack of cycling experience on behalf of the cyclists. IMO lack of cycling experience and a lack of driving experience combined with a lack of awareness of dangerous situations leads to a lot of accidents.

First Up · 05-12-2018 11:32pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Not one word of which does anything to explain why you object to criticism of unlit cyclists on dark winter evenings.

Nobody is defending cyclists that don't use lights at night. IMO even if every cyclist in the country did use lights on dark winter evenings, it would not reduce the number of cyclists fatalities that much.

If I remember correctly, only one cyclist was killed during the hours of darkness in 2017. The other SIXTEEN were all killed during the hours of daylight. Their deaths were the result of lack of awareness on the part of drivers and also in some cases, lack of cycling experience on behalf of the cyclists. IMO lack of cycling experience and a lack of driving experience combined with a lack of awareness of dangerous situations leads to a lot of accidents.

Not all accidents are fatalities.

07Lapierre · 05-12-2018 11:33pm

First Up wrote: »

Not all accidents are fatalities.

Which is a good thing right?

Chips Lovell · 05-12-2018 11:35pm

Can we relax with the whatabouery and hostility please?

Be nice. Be reasonable.

AndrewJRenko · 05-12-2018 11:36pm

Steve wrote: »

Yes.

Did unlit cyclists come up as a significant factor when you did?

Steve · 05-12-2018 11:40pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Nobody is defending cyclists that don't use lights at night. IMO even if every cyclist in the country did use lights on dark winter evenings, it would not reduce the number of cyclists fatalities that much.

If I remember correctly, only one cyclist was killed during the hours of darkness in 2017. The other SIXTEEN were all killed during the hours of daylight. Their deaths were the result of lack of awareness on the part of drivers and also in some cases, lack of cycling experience on behalf of the cyclists. IMO lack of cycling experience and a lack of driving experience combined with a lack of awareness of dangerous situations leads to a lot of accidents.

It doesn't matter what time of day or night it was.. if you have a bright flashing light on your bike that makes you visible day or night and may save your life then why would you not have that??? let alone cycle unlit in dark clothes at night??? that is nuts!!

LennoxR · 05-12-2018 11:42pm

All bikes should be equipped with good lights, both front and back, if used after dark. Full stop. Reflective clothing is also a good idea. I find my functional cycling to be much safer when I have both; a lot more room seems to be given.

But I do wish that motorists would reflect on this attitude that they are doing cyclists a favour by 'giving them room' on the roads. The cyclist has the same right to be there as a car. This attitude is what creates hostility in both directions.

07Lapierre · 05-12-2018 11:47pm

Steve wrote: »

It doesn't matter what time of day or night it was.. if you have a bright flashing light on your bike that makes you visible day or night and may save your life then why would you not have that??? let alone cycle unlit in dark clothes at night??? that is nuts!!

Agreed..I use lights when I'm cycling. Yet every day, even with bright lights, I experience close passes by cars. Every day on my commute I know at least one driver will be too impatient to wait until the oncoming truck passes me before overtaking me. Instead, the car will squeeze past me with only millimetres to spare! These are daily occurrences in daylight and at night and have nothing to do with visibility.

Steve · 05-12-2018 11:52pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agreed..I use lights when I'm cycling. Yet every day, even with bright lights, I experience close passes by cars. Every day on my commute I know at least one driver will be too impatient to wait until the oncoming truck passes me before overtaking me. Instead, the car will squeeze past me with only millimetres to spare! These are daily occurrences in daylight and at night and have nothing to do with visibility.

I've seen drivers do that and really wish I had a gun I could evaporate them with. Fair is fair, there are a lot of a$$holes out there.

AndrewJRenko · 05-12-2018 11:54pm

First Up wrote: »

Not all accidents are fatalities.

It's well past time that we would follow the lead of Gardai and RSA and stop downplaying road deaths by calling them 'accidents'. They are crashes or collisions.

But you're right, not all crashes or collisions are fatalities. So when we look at the big picture of crashes and collisions, that often cause death or serious injury, does unlit cyclists feature as a significant cause?

AndrewJRenko · 05-12-2018 11:55pm

Steve wrote: »

It doesn't matter what time of day or night it was.. if you have a bright flashing light on your bike that makes you visible day or night and may save your life then why would you not have that??? let alone cycle unlit in dark clothes at night??? that is nuts!!

And if a bright, hi-vis stripe all round your car makes you visible day or night and may save your life, then why would you not have that???

Steve · 06-12-2018 12:00am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And if a bright, hi-vis stripe all round your car makes you visible day or night and may save your life, then why would you not have that???

Because it would not save your life? In a car? are you actually serious with that point or are you just trolling now? the former I am willing to discuss, the latter - mmm.

AndrewJRenko · 06-12-2018 12:04am

Steve wrote: »

Because it would not save your life? In a car? are you actually serious with that point or are you just trolling now? the former I am willing to discuss, the latter - mmm.

Are you sure? There's good evidence that bright colour cars have less crashes;

https://www.carbuyersguide.net/motoring-news-ireland/details/which-is-the-safest-colour-car-to-have

That's why Gardai and ambulances use then.

So why wouldn't you have a hi-vis stripe on your car?

Or is it only cyclists have to do things to reduce the death toll on the road caused by motorists?

AndrewJRenko · 06-12-2018 12:06am

Steve wrote: »

those that I simply cannot see do not deserve the same respect or room yet I am still in the wrong?

If you're not driving in a manner that allows you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear (as required by law), then yes, you are still in the wrong.

07Lapierre · 06-12-2018 12:12am

Steve wrote: »

I've seen drivers do that and really wish I had a gun I could evaporate them with. Fair is fair, there are a lot of a$$holes out there.

Yep lots of assholes out there,which is why we really need better enforcement by the Gardai of the ROTR for all road users.

But given the Gardai's limited resources, focusing on the assholes who are a danger to themselves and others should be their priority. In the greater scheme of things, cyclists without lights are a rare breed and a danger to themselves alone.

Steve · 06-12-2018 12:22am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you're not driving in a manner that allows you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear (as required by law), then yes, you are still in the wrong.

Your argument is self defeating. If I cannot see an obstacle, legally it is not there... i.e. If I can see a clear road ahead, yet there is an 'invisible' cyclist then meh...

Please stop defending illegal cyclists with no lights.

07Lapierre · 06-12-2018 12:26am

Steve wrote: »

If I cannot see an obstacle, legally it is not there

I doubt that. Can you post a link to the relevant legislation?

AndrewJRenko · 06-12-2018 12:31am

Steve wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you're not driving in a manner that allows you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear (as required by law), then yes, you are still in the wrong.

Your argument is self defeating. If I cannot see an obstacle, legally it is not there... i.e. If I can see a clear road ahead, yet there is an 'invisible' cyclist then meh...

It's not 'my argument'. It's the law.

Steve wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you're not driving in a manner that allows you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear (as required by law), then yes, you are still in the wrong.

Please stop defending illegal cyclists with no lights.

As I said to another poster earlier :

Where exactly did I defend cyclists without lights? A specific quote would be great.

I'd also be interested in hearing your thoughts about the hi-vis stripes for all cars, given the actual evidence that brighter cars have less crashes.

Steve · 06-12-2018 12:31am

07Lapierre wrote: »

I doubt that. Can you post a link to the relevant legislation?

Eh no, there is none. How can I link to something that does not exist?

AndrewJRenko · 06-12-2018 12:34am

Steve wrote: »

07Lapierre wrote: »

I doubt that. Can you post a link to the relevant legislation?

Eh no, there is none. How can I link to something that does not exist?

There is legislation that requires you to drive in a manner that allows you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear

06-12-2018 12:34am

Steve wrote: »

Eh no, there is none. How can I link to something that does not exist?

Then what are you saying ? I'm tired and confused now.

Rodin · 06-12-2018 12:38am

Lack of enforcement of existing laws in all facets of life and paltry sentences for those that do get caught are two of the state's biggest scourges.

Steve · 06-12-2018 12:41am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where exactly did I defend cyclists without lights? A specific quote would be great.

You didn't, I concede that point and apologise.

I'd also be interested in hearing your thoughts about the hi-vis stripes for all cars, given the actual evidence that brighter cars have less crashes.

All cars, by law, are required to have 'hi viz' reflectors front and back and they all do. Number plates on front and back and red reflectors on rear.

07Lapierre · 06-12-2018 12:42am

Steve wrote: »

Eh no, there is none. How can I link to something that does not exist?

Well then, like it or not..if your driving and you hit someone or something, you cannot use "sorry,but I didn't see you/it" as "a get it of jail free" card.

As drivers, we have a responsibility to drive within our own abilities and in accordance with the road conditions. It's still no excuse for people not to use lights when it's dark, but as a drivers, we bare a greater responsibility in the event of a RTA that involves a more vulnerable roaduser.

But don't worry...if you do hit a cyclist, who is using lights, who is wearing a helmet, who is wearing a hi-viz jacket, and even if you were speeding, a fine and a few penalty points is probably the worst case scenario. Makes you wonder why anyone would cycle in Ireland doesn't it?

Hurrache · 06-12-2018 12:42am

Steve wrote: »

If I cannot see an obstacle, legally it is not there....

It's an argument I've only ever seen in the context of toddlers, and dogs when you make their ball disappear when you pretend to throw it but put it behind your back.

AndrewJRenko · 06-12-2018 12:43am

Steve wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where exactly did I defend cyclists without lights? A specific quote would be great.

You didn't, I concede that point and apologise.

I'd also be interested in hearing your thoughts about the hi-vis stripes for all cars, given the actual evidence that brighter cars have less crashes.

All cars, by law, are required to have 'hi viz' reflectors front and back and they all do. Number plates on front and back and red reflectors on rear.

Thanks for your clarification above.

What about the sides of cars - shouldn't they all be hi-vis to make them visible?

ED E · 06-12-2018 12:47am

Lights, Sirens, Hivis, Chevrons, the dogs proverbials.

Still hit.

https://twitter.com/SussexRoadsPol/status/968288116577579009

Also see the Irish Rail bridges that see like 300 strikes per year despite being covered in big fvck off yellow warnings. Can't make people see if they don't bloody look.

CramCycle · 06-12-2018 2:27am

Steve wrote: »

I disagree.

I think the discussion should be based on facts and laws of physics than things that 'excite' you.

I commend and respect those that are properly 'lit' and will always give them road room, those that I simply cannot see do not deserve the same respect or room yet I am still in the wrong?

The big issue here is alot of drivers miss the idea of what they see to be clear. At night time with dims, if a cyclist or pedestrian have a light, you tend to see them well before you see the road ahead to be clear. Many drivers mistakenly believe the road they know to be there to be what they see to be clear, when in fact this distance is only as far as their dims hit the road. Of course, this would mean drivers, driving at 50 or 60kmph max which is crazy talk.

Steve wrote: »

Your argument is self defeating. If I cannot see an obstacle, legally it is not there... i.e. If I can see a clear road ahead, yet there is an 'invisible' cyclist then meh...

I agree 100% with lights and believe that all cyclists should have a decent set, but this doesn't absolve drivers of not seeing cyclists or pedestrians because they were driving faster than conditions allow. If you hit a cow or horse who broke out while the fault may lie partially with the farmer, should you not have been driving slower?

Please stop defending illegal cyclists with no lights.

I don't think anyone is.

AndrewJRenko · 06-12-2018 9:07am

I often wonder if the creativity and enthusiasm of. many motorists for 'fixing'cycling was applied to' fixing 'motoring, could we manage to halve our road death statistics?

First Up · 06-12-2018 10:45am

It would certainly help but nothing very creative is needed to wear a (free) RSA hiz viz jacket or stick on a flashing light or two.

Like everything else to do with the roads (drink driving being the obvious example) the only remedy is enforcement. If enough drivers went around without lights, the Gardai would be forced to act. The only question is how many is enough.

The same goes for cyclists.

average_runner · 06-12-2018 10:55am

Funnily enough, there is enforcement on O'Connell bridge this morning, but once the gardai turn their back, the only ones going through the red with people crossing the road is the cyclists!!!!

Just can't win, we want safe roads but can't help ourselves!!

Macy0161 · 06-12-2018 10:56am

First Up wrote: »

If enough drivers went around without lights, the Gardai would be forced to act. The only question is how many is enough.

But there are loads of motorists driving with defective lights - one headlight out/ one tail light or brake light out/ driving around on DLR.

CramCycle · 06-12-2018 10:58am

Macy0161 wrote: »

But there are loads of motorists driving with defective lights - one headlight out/ one tail light or brake light out/ driving around on DLR.

DRLs are the most idiotic thing in the world. The studies they are based on where referring to dims during the day (so front and rear). Why was it just not made that new cars had no off switch, dims, minimum, all the time.

Hurrache · 06-12-2018 10:59am

average_runner wrote: »

Just can't win, we want safe roads but can't help ourselves!!

A large part of the problem is that cyclists are being likened to the Borg, hence threads like this. It was individuals on bikes breaking the law.

First Up · 06-12-2018 11:19am

Macy0161 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

If enough drivers went around without lights, the Gardai would be forced to act. The only question is how many is enough.

But there are loads of motorists driving with defective lights - one headlight out/ one tail light or brake light out/ driving around on DLR.

The number of broken lights on cars is a disgrace and I'd love to see a crackdown on it. But cars with no lights at all is rare (although I see about one a day) and is usually quickly corrected when the dozy driver is alerted.

Bikes with no lights stay that way.

07Lapierre · 06-12-2018 11:43am

CramCycle wrote: »

DRLs are the most idiotic thing in the world. The studies they are based on where referring to dims during the day (so front and rear). Why was it just not made that new cars had no off switch, dims, minimum, all the time.

Volvo (and Saab) are designed with side lights on permanently.

magicbastarder · 06-12-2018 12:03pm

CramCycle wrote: »

DRLs are the most idiotic thing in the world.

i was blown at by a mazda this morning on the leopardstown road (for not using the cycle path). after giving him my customary cheery wave, i noticed he was driving with DRLs (or maybe no lights at all) - and this was about 7:20am, so still properly dark.
cheered me up.

Wishbone Ash · 06-12-2018 12:19pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Volvo (and Saab) are designed with side lights on permanently.

I had a Volvo years ago. People used to regularly tell me that my lights were on and on the open road many drivers would flash their lights at me. It was a bit of a pain in the arse.

CramCycle · 06-12-2018 12:28pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I had a Volvo years ago. People used to regularly tell me that my lights were on and on the open road many drivers would flash their lights at me. It was a bit of a pain in the arse.

People are a bit of a pain in the arse TBH. I had a Saab 93. Best car I ever owned.

magicbastarder · 06-12-2018 12:37pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I had a Volvo years ago. People used to regularly tell me that my lights were on and on the open road many drivers would flash their lights at me. It was a bit of a pain in the arse.

i read a john mcgahern essay a couple of years back, where he related a conversation he'd had with someone who told him 'i wouldn't vote for (insert name of local councillor) because he'd never flash at you'.
after a bit of a double take, mcgahern realised that the meaning was not one of exposing oneself, but of the local politician flashing lights as a greeting as he drove past.
apparently it was 'a thing' that people would refuse to vote for politicians who didn't flash as it was seen as unsociable.

CramCycle · 06-12-2018 12:39pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i read a john mcgahern essay a couple of years back, where he related a conversation he'd had with someone who told him 'i wouldn't vote for (insert name of local councillor) because he'd never flash at you'.
after a bit of a double take, mcgahern realised that the meaning was not one of exposing oneself, but of the local politician flashing lights as a greeting as he drove past.
apparently it was 'a thing' that people would refuse to vote for politicians who didn't flash as it was seen as unsociable.

I would have taken it as he wouldn't warn you the gardai have a check point or there was something you needed to slow down for up ahead. You would wave at people you knew and flashing would lead to confusion. I think McGahern may have made a mistake there.

average_runner · 06-12-2018 12:46pm

Hurrache wrote: »

A large part of the problem is that cyclists are being likened to the Borg, hence threads like this. It was individuals on bikes breaking the law.

Same as individuals in cars that break the law, but its ok to likened motorists to borg

hesker · 06-12-2018 12:53pm

average_runner wrote: »

Same as individuals in cars that break the law, but its ok to likened motorists to borg

Take a trip over to the Motors forum and see how many threads are started giving out about poor driving. I found one about crappy parking but I’d be surprised there would be the same number of complaints as you see here and reported in the media.

Cyclists

Comments