Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
13-11-2018, 08:46   #61
Fighting Tao
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by incentsitive View Post
Hmmm....maybe its how we read it Fighting Tao! I don't think he was. I think he was just making the point.

Out of curiousity, has anybody ever challenged a cyclist on it? I have done it and won't again.

Now I would wonder if lights, helmets, high-vis, etc should be exempt from VAT for example (maybe they are already?). But its hardly the 20 quid it costs which is the barrier to people doing it.

You won't find a cyclist who will defend one with no lights, but you will find somebody ready to jump in with the "drivers are worse" attitude!
I've only said it to a woman on a Dublin bike and she thanked me. I did ask a guy to signal before manoeuvring a few weeks ago as he decided he wanted to turn right as I was overtaking him. He threw a curse my way. It's not worth engaging with some people.

All safety equipment should be VAT exempt. Although I don't think it would make a difference as lights can be bought quite cheaply. I don't think it will change the mentality of someone who chooses to cycle without them.
Fighting Tao is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
13-11-2018, 08:47   #62
average_runner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJRenko View Post
The data shows clearly exactly who is responsible for road deaths. In a strong majority of cases, it is a motorist.

Can you show us? Usually the reports doesn't blame anyone.
And we want the majority of them.
average_runner is offline  
13-11-2018, 08:55   #63
average_runner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJRenko View Post
The difficulty is that you've just made that up. It's not part of the forum rules for either forum.


Certainly, the cycling forum has frequent discussions about keeping cyclists safe. By and large, this involves getting motorists to comply with the law.







The best way to avoid the rest of us suffering is to point out how ridiculous any kind of collective responsibility is.


Do the rest of motorists suffer 'pesky drivers' labelling because of the few idiots driving round with no back lights because they don't know how their DRLs work?


Great, so let's stop motorists from getting away with routinely breaking speed limits and red lights, and then cyclists will certainly follow. The bigger problem is the motorists that kill and maim.




I don't think that's how policing works.


If I'm a pedestrian with no lights and a black jacket crossing the road and a car driver knocks me off, who are we going to blame?

We don't need to become a nanny state and have the police hold our hands, we need to become responsible adults that sets a responsible example to our kids. That's the way we change things.


By saying it needs to be police your passing the bucket to some one else, which is not a good example to show your kids.

Instead man/woman up, lead by good example and if the majority of us do that, we will see the effect of it in the long term.
average_runner is offline  
Thanks from:
13-11-2018, 09:17   #64
Tombo2001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by pomgh View Post
I am a cyclist and a car user, yet everyday as I driver to and from work at 5am I see cyclists with no lights front or back. They are putting themselves in danger and others also. I have written to the RSA and they have ignored this issue I have highlighted to them. These cyclists are cycling on back roads with no lights either. The road traffic regulations clearly state that cyclists must have working lights on their bikes, yet a lot of them put themselves in danger and others as well as pedestrians by not following a simple rule.
The RSA have on radio and TV highlighted to give cyclists space on the road, cycle lanes, but have not once highlighted to cyclists that they like other vehicle users to have working lights on their bikes between the hours of dusk to dawn especially now that we are again in these dark evenings. The Gardaí are to blame also for not implementing the law for they will stop a car user, but I have never heard of a Garda stopping a cyclist....I am missing something here.....does it have to take a cyclist to get killed before the RSA / Gardaí broadcast this ever so important information for all?
Fed up with this bull. There must be some guidebook somewhere that says if you are going on a rant about cyclists, then it offers extra punch to your rant if you start it with 'I'm a cyclist myself but....'

Everyone can ride a bike. Thanks for sharing.

I'm a cyclist who actually cycles, for example to work and back.

In light of this particular stereotype comment, I actually stood at the traffic lights in Drumcondra early one morning last year and counted the cyclists going through the traffic lights in the dark. After about 50 cyclists in a row went by with lights and with some form of hi viz , and none went by without any lights, I moved on......never to take this type of comment seriously again.

And ALSO - Mods? Are people allowed sign up and with their first ever comment start a confrontational thread such as this?

Last edited by Tombo2001; 13-11-2018 at 09:20.
Tombo2001 is offline  
13-11-2018, 09:27   #65
Macy0161
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Co. Wicklow, ~228m asl
Posts: 4,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_runner View Post
But you are forgetting the bigger problem. If we allow one group away with something, all the other groups will behave the same way. Thats human behaviour.

So we need to treat all the same which in turn will make the roads safer for all and save lives.
I agree. But you start with the mode that will have the biggest impact on deaths and life changing injuries, which is the motorist.

Many motorists seem to have a bee in their bonnet about enforcement of cyclists, when the biggest offenders are motorists. Try to stick to the speed limits (even by GPS not speedo), and see how often you're passed or how quickly traffic builds. Even in urban areas, like the N11 (if it's clear enough).

This morning on my commute, every cyclist had lights that I saw for the first 3/4's (which was already outside of lighting up times). It was only passed stillorgan I saw people without lights. I didn't see any cyclist breaking any lights.

On the other hand, before parking up I was overtaken through our 50km/hr village for daring to stick to the limit. I saw people driving in the hardshoulder to avoid jams. When on the bike, as per usual, my light had gone green at Johnstown Road, Whites Cross, Brewery Road, Tree's Road and Fosters Avenue, and I still had cars entering past a clear red from the side roads. I saw many abusing the bus lane (2 gear Tuesday).

The premise that there's no enforcement on cyclists but there is on other road users is false. There's just a lack of enforcement.

Motorists are so untouchable, that the use of camera's/ ANPR is politically toxic even for our supposedly apolotical road safety organisation. We can have campaigns against the enforcement of drink driving laws. Enforcing speeding is dismissed as "Flash for Cash" - even the terminology used and accepted show how normalised law breaking is for motorists, as it's always apparently "shooting fish in a barrel". Like that is a bad thing...

fwiw I generally do 16,000km plus in the car. I'm hoping to get to 5000km on the bike this year.
Macy0161 is online now  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
13-11-2018, 09:34   #66
Baron de Charlus
"On his little bike"
 
Baron de Charlus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Learning something new
Posts: 20,439
Mod Note

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombo2001 View Post
And ALSO - Mods? Are people allowed sign up and with their first ever comment start a confrontational thread such as this?
Leave the moderating to the mods please. If you've an issue with a post, reported, don't complain on thread. And yes, people are entitled to express concern about cyclists cycling with no lights.
Baron de Charlus is offline  
13-11-2018, 10:52   #67
jjpep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 478
What I find annoying about these kind of debates is the idea that all cyclists must take responsibility for the action for other cyclists. I know other posters in this tread have touched on this already but it really must be called out for the BS that it is. I am not responsible for the actions of other people. I am no more responsible for a cyclist not having a light on than I am if another driver goes through a red light. This idea that if you use a bike you must some how take collective responsibility for other bike riders is nuts. I'm not a cop. I'm not going to start asking other people why don't they have any lights on or whatever. I'm not going to chase after someone in a car and tell them they shouldn't be breaking red lights.

As a tax payer and road user (bike, car and bus) I want the finite resources of the state put to their most sensible use. If all the stats tell us that people being stupid in cars is the biggest cause of injury and death on the road then that's where we aim at. Its not about being 'fair' or that all road users should be targeted the same. This is the group that causes the most problems so this is the group that we (society) needs to fix. Its not cyclists vs motorists. Its people who take care not to cause harm vs the careless multiplied by capacity to cause harm. Better to have an idiot on a bike than in charge of something actually dangerous.

If you find that annoying or unfair perhaps its your conduct you need to look at, not everyone else's.
jjpep is offline  
13-11-2018, 10:58   #68
incentsitive
Registered User
 
incentsitive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombo2001 View Post

In light of this particular stereotype comment, I actually stood at the traffic lights in Drumcondra early one morning last year and counted the cyclists going through the traffic lights in the dark. After about 50 cyclists in a row went by with lights and with some form of hi viz , and none went by without any lights, I moved on......never to take this type of comment seriously again.
I call bull on that claim.....there is no way 50 cyclists went by with lights AND some form of hi viz. I think a trip to specsavers might be in order!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjpep View Post
Better to have an idiot on a bike than in charge of something actually dangerous.
A bike is dangerous to pedestrians and I saw a very serious injury being doled out at Kildare Street in such an instance.

But everybody (cars, bikes, bus, motorbikes) need to stop blaming everybody else and say "they are the problem on our roads".....
incentsitive is online now  
(2) thanks from:
13-11-2018, 11:10   #69
Moflojo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by incentsitive View Post
But everybody (cars, bikes, bus, motorbikes) need to stop blaming everybody else and say "they are the problem on our roads".....
I'm a simple man, but I'm going to continue to blame the motor vehicles that are responsible for more than 99% of road fatalities and I'll continue to say that motor vehicles are the problem on our roads.

Appeals to "share the road" are just an attempt to share the blame, nothing more.
Moflojo is offline  
(4) thanks from:
Advertisement
13-11-2018, 11:20   #70
seamus
Dental Plan!
 
seamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: :getName()
Posts: 59,435
Send a message via MSN to seamus
Quote:
Originally Posted by incentsitive View Post
A bike is dangerous to pedestrians and I saw a very serious injury being doled out at Kildare Street in such an instance.
Relatively speaking, it's really, really, not. You see people falling off and tripping on kerbs on a constant basis. Does that mean kerbs are dangerous? No. Because any injury suffered is typically minimal.

Relative risk; how likely is an incident, and how severe are typical injuries.

Comparing to other risks - including tripping on kerbs, slipping down stairs, being hit by a vehicle, being outside in windy conditions, falling out of bed - bikes are not dangerous to pedestrians.
seamus is offline  
(2) thanks from:
13-11-2018, 11:22   #71
Tombo2001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by incentsitive View Post
I call bull on that claim.....there is no way 50 cyclists went by with lights AND some form of hi viz. I think a trip to specsavers might be in order!!



A bike is dangerous to pedestrians and I saw a very serious injury being doled out at Kildare Street in such an instance.

But everybody (cars, bikes, bus, motorbikes) need to stop blaming everybody else and say "they are the problem on our roads".....
Give over - you cant lash out at cyclists, and then also take the moral high ground of 'everyone needs to stop blaming everyone else'.

Regarding the other comment, its not bull and I don't need to go to specsavers thanks for the advice.

You will find that the vast majority of cyclists who commute daily to work tend to invest in lights, in hi viz and are prepared and don't need to be lectured about visibility on the roads.

Of course that doesn't stop people lecturing them.

That is not to say all cyclists wear hi viz all of the time - I'd completely agree with you if you said teenagers on the way to football training in the evening are desperate culprits for both cycling on the footpath and not having lights or hi viz.
Tombo2001 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
13-11-2018, 11:34   #72
Baron de Charlus
"On his little bike"
 
Baron de Charlus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Learning something new
Posts: 20,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjpep View Post
As a tax payer and road user (bike, car and bus) I want the finite resources of the state put to their most sensible use.
But the topic of this thread is cyclists and lack of lights. At the moment, far more of the finite resources of the state are being ploughed into promoting high viz vests than they are into promoting adequate lights. On the rare occasions the RSA have handed out free lights, they've been the type that no experienced cyclist would rely on. In that context, it's reasonable to wish that a greater focus be put on promoting adequate lighting.

Last edited by Baron de Charlus; 13-11-2018 at 11:37.
Baron de Charlus is offline  
13-11-2018, 11:34   #73
jjpep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by incentsitive View Post

A bike is dangerous to pedestrians and I saw a very serious injury being doled out at Kildare Street in such an instance.

But everybody (cars, bikes, bus, motorbikes) need to stop blaming everybody else and say "they are the problem on our roads".....
For me, the problem with your statement is that you are again grouping road users by the type of transport they use. Its not the type of transport that dictates if someone is a danger (type of transport only increases or lessens potential impact) its the level of care and attention they give to what they are doing. The person who cycles without lights is the same kind of person who texts and drives. In the example you give of the accident you saw, the pedestrian is many times better off being hit by an idiot on a bike than an idiot in a car, bus, truck etc.
jjpep is offline  
Thanks from:
13-11-2018, 11:41   #74
jjpep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron de Charlus View Post
But the topic of this thread is cyclists and lack of lights. At the moment, far more of finite resources of the state are being ploughed into promoting high viz vests than they are into promoting adequate lights. On the rare occasions the RSA have handed out free lights, they've been the type that no experienced cyclist would rely on. In that context, it's reasonable to wish that a greater focus be put on promoting adequate lighting.
Agree completely on lights vs hi-vis, and for me it is a waste of resources to give these out as opposed to proper lights. I was in a city in Germany recently on a work trip where one of the city by-laws is that all bikes (sold and on the road) must have as a minimum a set of dynamo lights installed. This kind of enforcing the law at point of sale is something we should bring in here too.

On the 'in use' enforcement side though I would still stand by my point. If 99.9999% of all road accidents are caused by someone being stupid in a car then we direct 99.9999% of our enforcement resources in that direction. I cannot think of a compelling reason not to.
jjpep is offline  
13-11-2018, 11:42   #75
Tombo2001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,829
Just to take the contra argument here.*

Maybe the government should make it mandatory at point of sale - enough money goes into the Bike to Work scheme, bike shops make a lot from this.

Surely wouldn't be that hard to say - here is a standard light spec that every bike needs to have, and cant be sold without that.

Could you sell a car without lights?

*Note that this doesn't take away from the much more important point that even with every single bike having an impeccable front and rear light, it wouldn't change the fact that the biggest risks to cyclist safety are poor driver attitude and bad road layouts.
Tombo2001 is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search