Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cyclists

12357

Comments

  • #202
    Ray Bloody Purchase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 689 ✭✭✭Ray Bloody Purchase


    hesker wrote: »
    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.

    It's all about perspective with it. There's sh1t drivers and sh1t cyclists.

    The problem is that we're all crammed into absolutely sh1t infrastructure. All the talk about hi-vis, lights, 1.5 metres is only bollocks. We've a government that is actively doing fcuk all to improve the welfare of anyone on the roads, including drivers or cyclists. I wouldn't like to be a driver or a cyclist in any of our major towns or cities because of the crap state of the roads.

    The whole cyclist vs motorist debate is only masking the ineptitude of our elected representatives, giving them an easy 'out' as opposed to doing anything about the situation. Fooking ****.


  • #203
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    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.
    And completely validated you not using the cycle path.....


  • #204
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    First Up wrote: »
    And completely validated you not using the cycle path.....

    If you cycled the Leopardstown road you might understand why a cyclist would not use the cycle path, it's pretty sh1t in several places. Please though, do continue.


  • #205
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    CramCycle wrote: »
    First Up wrote: »
    And completely validated you not using the cycle path.....

    If you cycled the Leopardstown road you might understand why a cyclist would not use the cycle path, it's pretty sh1t in several places. Please though, do continue.
    Then use that as your explanation/justification and not an irrelevant point about DLRs.


  • #206
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    First Up wrote: »
    Then use that as your explanation/justification and not an irrelevant point about DLRs.

    It wasn't irrelevant, they were brought up int he previous post. They are constantly referred to in other threads as this great safety initiative. I had an opinion on it so I expressed it. If you hadn't responded that part would be over by now. I'd recommend reporting the post in future if you feel it is so far off topic.

    The point about the cycle lane being poor is irrelevant though as well, whether the cycle lane was perfect or a disaster, it gives no other road user to be intimidating or threatening to another. I shouldn't have had to make the point at all, and your snippy comment about needing to be validated to not using a cycle path was irrelevant. The poster doesn't need to be validated, they were breaking no laws and placing no one in danger, that is all that needs to be said on the matter unless I am missing something.

    I was in the bus lane myself this morning on the N11. Taxi behind me clearly didn't like this, brought his car upto my wheel while moving. In the end i had to indicate and move over into the general traffic lane. It was uneducated and illogical behaviour. I was moving as fast as traffic in the lane, in fact i was capable of moving faster but that doesn't bother me as much as others. If he had paid attention, he would have seen the twwo taxis stopped just ahead behind a bus, and that the cycle lane was closed just after the bus stop, and it made more sense to move into the bus alne early and avoid interaction with bus users and pedestrians unnecessarily. Clearly I deserved it though for not being in the cycle lane and needed some sort of validation.


  • #207
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    We all have anecdotes about being irritated by other road users - in fact their are numerous threads devoted to it. None of it justifies unlit cyclists.

    Using the bad behaviour of others to justify our own is plain stupid. We should be benchmarking ourselves against the standards of the best road users, not the worst.


  • #208
    granturismo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭granturismo


    hesker wrote: »
    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.

    There's a whole thread dedicated to dash cams, mostly showing bad to fatal driving but there is the occasional cyclist and pedestrian showcased.


  • #209
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    First Up wrote: »
    We all have anecdotes about being irritated by other road users - in fact their are numerous threads devoted to it. None of it justifies unlit cyclists.

    Using the bad behaviour of others to justify our own is plain stupid. We should be benchmarking ourselves against the standards of the best road users, not the worst.

    Nobody is doing that though, I took the post as an ironic statement that the driver was giving out about a perceived wrong (which it wasn't), also was breaking numerous rules themselves, including improper use of a horn, Using DRLs during times of darkness, threatening behaviuor and so on.

    No one is justifying unlit cyclist, the closest was AJR clearly pointing out that if safety is our concern, there are more important targets but AJR never condoned not using lights, in fact, unless mistaken, no one has. I could be wrong.


  • #210
    average_runner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,857 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    hesker wrote: »
    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.

    But that doesn't make it right. Also I doubt many motorists on the motor forum are cyclists, but I would say a high percentage of cyclists are motorists.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,382 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    First Up wrote: »
    Then use that as your explanation/justification and not an irrelevant point about DLRs.
    First Up wrote: »
    Using the bad behaviour of others to justify our own is plain stupid.
    From reading your posts it seems you think he was in the wrong to be cycling on the road -when he has no obligation not to be. He was explaining why the driver was using the horn (which was possibly illegal use?).

    It would be no different to me explaining why a driver was wrongly/misguidedly beeping at me crossing at a zebra crossing.


  • #212
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,236 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    First Up wrote: »
    And completely validated you not using the cycle path.....
    not quite sure what your point is. or whether you misread what i was trying to say.

    i don't need my non-use of the cycle path 'validated'.


  • #213
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    CramCycle wrote: »
    First Up wrote: »
    We all have anecdotes about being irritated by other road users - in fact their are numerous threads devoted to it. None of it justifies unlit cyclists.

    Using the bad behaviour of others to justify our own is plain stupid. We should be benchmarking ourselves against the standards of the best road users, not the worst.

    Nobody is doing that though, I took the post as an ironic statement that the driver was giving out about a perceived wrong (which it wasn't), also was breaking numerous rules themselves, including improper use of a horn, Using DRLs during times of darkness, threatening behaviuor and so on.

    No one is justifying unlit cyclist, the closest was AJR clearly pointing out that if safety is our concern, there are more important targets but AJR never condoned not using lights, in fact, unless mistaken, no one has. I could be wrong.
    Just about every post in response to me raising the subject of unlit cyclists either just gave examples of other bad behaviour or said it isn't causing accidents (fatal ones anyway.)

    But its a forum for cyclists so what else would I expect


  • #214
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    First Up wrote: »
    Just about every post in response to me raising the subject of unlit cyclists either just gave examples of other bad behaviour or said it isn't causing accidents (fatal ones anyway.)

    But its a forum for cyclists so what else would I expect

    You can expect to find, and you have done so, not one person defending the non use of lights in the dark.


  • #215
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Hurrache wrote: »
    First Up wrote: »
    Just about every post in response to me raising the subject of unlit cyclists either just gave examples of other bad behaviour or said it isn't causing accidents (fatal ones anyway.)

    But its a forum for cyclists so what else would I expect

    You can expect to find, and you have done so, not one person defending the non use of lights in the dark.
    We must be reading different threads.


  • #216
    LennoxR
    Registered Users Posts: 414 ✭✭LennoxR


    CramCycle wrote: »
    If you cycled the Leopardstown road you might understand why a cyclist would not use the cycle path, it's pretty sh1t in several places. Please though, do continue.


    It is is basically unusable, having the equivalent of ramp (a sunken drive way into a house) every five metres or so for over a kilometre. No matter how slowly you are cycling it's just not viable in its current form.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    First Up wrote: »
    We must be reading different threads.

    Show me one post defending the non use of lights in the dark, because maybe we are as I didn't notice all of them.


  • #218
    Tomred13
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 290 ✭✭Tomred13


    no back seat modding or attacking other posters, thank you

    if you feel another poster is breaching the forum charter, please use the 'report post' function.


  • #219
    mamax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 880 ✭✭✭mamax


    magicbastarder wrote: »

    i don't need my non-use of the cycle path 'validated'.

    May I jump to your defence ;)

    http://irishcycle.com/2018/08/18/cyclists-dont-have-to-use-cycle-lanes-new-legislation-confirms/


  • #220
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,488 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    First Up wrote: »
    And completely validated you not using the cycle path.....
    I really don't know how it is so hard for some people to grasp - if the cycle lanes were good, cyclists would use them. The Leopardstown Road one is appauling.

    There's a section on my commute on the N11 I always take the road as it dumps you in a shocking position and cedes my right of way. There's another section I prefer not to use, but I generally do as essentially it's use it or risk idiots (those illegally using the bus lane being the worst) who I'm costing a few seconds to get to the back of the next queue of cars.


  • #221
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    First Up wrote: »
    Just about every post in response to me raising the subject of unlit cyclists either just gave examples of other bad behaviour or said it isn't causing accidents (fatal ones anyway.)

    But its a forum for cyclists so what else would I expect
    You will actually find probably the highest compliance rate of lights for any form of road user if you were just to talk to the boards cycling forum. Alot of us disagree on many things, from helmets, to Hi Vis but lights are pretty much universally in favour here, at least that is how it appears.
    First Up wrote: »
    We must be reading different threads.
    We are not but I think you might be picking up on something that isn't there. The cyclists frequenting here are typically not ninjas with no lights. Nearly all universally agree that lights should be used. The only whatabouttery is the people posting here going on about cyclist and other road user safety and bringing up Ninja cyclists etc. They may be annoying and endangering themselves but the stats don't bare it out as a big enough issue that with limited resources, the gardai should invest any time in it. The RSA should but they have ballsed up every attempt to look at it with their ineptness. The truth is, a) your preaching to the choir in regards lights here, b) the powers that be should be focusing on something else as it simply is not a big enough problem at present to justify time and investment in it.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    flatface
    Registered Users Posts: 719 ✭✭✭flatface


    I have stopped getting angry about other people not having lights on their bike. I have pointed it out to a few along the way the response is usually negative. I'm not that bothered by others not having lights but I sure am lit up well.

    The previous points about the actual dangers of these ninja cyclists are valid. If they aren't figuring in our fatality figures, along with the demon red light jumpers, its reasonable to figure its not as big a problem as it appears. Perceived vs actual risk is often counter-intuitive. I try to just lead by example and and encourage those who will actually listen to me: friends, family and colleagues, that good lights are better than high-vis and are the essential safety equipment on your bike.

    But if we are discussing saving lives, all the available evidence shows we are looking in the wrong direction.


  • #223
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,487 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    First Up wrote: »
    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.

    Nothing very creative needed to stick a big ugly hi-vis stripe on all cars. Why aren't you pushing for this?

    And why is it a numbers game for Gardai? Why should they wait for things to get really bad to act?


  • #224
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,487 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    First Up wrote: »
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    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.
    And completely validated you not using the cycle path.....
    It doesn't need any validation by anyone. It's a personal choice, fully legal.


  • #225
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    First Up wrote: »
    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.

    Nothing very creative needed to stick a big ugly hi-vis stripe on all cars. Why aren't you pushing for this?

    And why is it a numbers game for Gardai? Why should they wait for things to get really bad to act?

    Because a car with its lights on is perfectly visible. A cyclist in black clothing with no lights is not.

    You would need to ask the Gardai about their enforcement policy but I would like to see far more rigorous enforcement of proper lighting for cars and bikes. I am making no differentiation.


  • #226
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,487 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    First Up wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    First Up wrote: »
    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.

    Nothing very creative needed to stick a big ugly hi-vis stripe on all cars. Why aren't you pushing for this?

    And why is it a numbers game for Gardai? Why should they wait for things to get really bad to act?

    Because a car with its lights on is perfectly visible. A cyclist in black clothing with no lights is not.
    A parked car is definitely not visible, and a car with lights is not always visible from the side.

    So surely the hi-vis would help? Do we need evidence to justify such measures, or just a general gut feeling that it could make things better?

    Do you have difficulty seeing pedestrians in dark clothing crossing the road? Do they all need hi-vis too?
    First Up wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    First Up wrote: »
    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.

    Nothing very creative needed to stick a big ugly hi-vis stripe on all cars. Why aren't you pushing for this?

    And why is it a numbers game for Gardai? Why should they wait for things to get really bad to act?

    I am making no differentiation.
    Usually, if you're trying to solve a problem, differentiation to identify the actual causes of the problem is an essential step to help you to focus your solutions on the actual problem.


  • #227
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    First Up wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    First Up wrote: »
    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.

    Nothing very creative needed to stick a big ugly hi-vis stripe on all cars. Why aren't you pushing for this?

    And why is it a numbers game for Gardai? Why should they wait for things to get really bad to act?

    Because a car with its lights on is perfectly visible. A cyclist in black clothing with no lights is not.
    A parked car is definitely not visible, and a car with lights is not always visible from the side.

    So surely the hi-vis would help? Do we need evidence to justify such measures, or just a general gut feeling that it could make things better?

    Do you have difficulty seeing pedestrians in dark clothing crossing the road? Do they all need hi-vis too?
    First Up wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    First Up wrote: »
    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.

    Nothing very creative needed to stick a big ugly hi-vis stripe on all cars. Why aren't you pushing for this?

    And why is it a numbers game for Gardai? Why should they wait for things to get really bad to act?

    I am making no differentiation.
    Usually, if you're trying to solve a problem, differentiation to identify the actual causes of the problem is an essential step to help you to focus your solutions on the actual problem.
    I'm making no differentiation between the need to enforce the law for cyclists and motorists.

    A few other points;

    Being told to stop jumping up and down about it doesn't suggest you are taking the point very seriously.

    Telling motorists to slow down and put away their phones is good advice but it does shy away a bit from the point about unlit cyclists.

    Parked cars are not going to pull out in front of you.

    Yes, pedestrians are well advised to make themselves visible. They are also well advised not to walk on the road.


  • #228
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,011 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    A parked car is definitely not visible,....
    Most vehicles are required to have rear reflectors for this purpose (and why it's illegal to park on the opposite side of the street/road during lighting up hours).

    I don't think I've ever not seen a parked car.


  • #229
    Tomred13
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 290 ✭✭Tomred13


    Tomred13 wrote: »
    no back seat modding or attacking other posters, thank you

    if you feel another poster is breaching the forum charter, please use the 'report post' function.

    Apologies..lost the run of myself. .


  • #230
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,805 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I can't believe that there's page after page here of someone saying "you can't tell me that you don't think lights are a good idea" with every single other person prefacing anything they say with "yes, lights are a good idea".


  • #231
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,487 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Wishbone Ash wrote: »
    Most vehicles are required to have rear reflectors for this purpose (and why it's illegal to park on the opposite side of the street/road during lighting up hours).

    I don't think I've ever not seen a parked car.

    Rear is just one of the four sides. You could find yourself approaching a parked car from any of those sides, given herringbone parking and perpindicular parking. Three of those sides don't have reflectors. So I find it hard to understand this resistance to pig-ugly hi-vis stripes on all sides to make it better. Sure what harm would it do?
    First Up wrote: »
    I'm making no differentiation between the need to enforce the law for cyclists and motorists.
    Yes, I know. That's a bit like the Gardai saying 'we're making no differentiation between the participants in the Hutch/Kinahan feud, and the lads who take a leak up a laneway on the way home from the pub. The law needs to be enforced for all of these.

    First Up wrote: »
    Telling motorists to slow down and put away their phones is good advice but it does shy away a bit from the point about unlit cyclists.
    First Up wrote: »
    Being told to stop jumping up and down about it doesn't suggest you are taking the point very seriously.
    I take it seriously enough to talk to other cyclists from time to time. The last guy I spoke to told me he's had two good bikes with good lights stolen in the past three months, so he gave up on taking care of the bike. I told him he still needs lights, after sympathizing on his loss.

    But do I think this is a significant priority issue on the roads? Really no. In the top 20 list of priorities on the roads, this is somewhere around number 73.

    There is also a credibility issue for motorists who fly into this forum, demanding that cyclists up their game. I'd take their concerns more seriously if they were doing something, doing anything to stop or reduce the death toll on the roads caused by motorists. Sort out the stone in thine own eye first, then come back here and lecture cyclists.
    First Up wrote: »
    Parked cars are not going to pull out in front of you.
    Multiple times every week I experience parked cars pulling out in front of me, often with no indication.
    First Up wrote: »
    Yes, pedestrians are well advised to make themselves visible. They are also well advised not to walk on the road.
    That's a bit vague. Are you saying that all pedestrians need to wear hi-vis all the time, or what?


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,256 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    First Up wrote: »
    They are also well advised not to walk on the road.

    Not all of us live in urban areas with nice pavements everywhere. A lot of us live in rural areas where there are no pavements at all. This is another reason why motorists must accept that they have a greater responsibility for safety on our roads.

    When I was learning to drive, I was told to always expect the unexpected. On rural roads in particular, you have to be prepared to meet pedestrians, horses, tractors coming out of fields, sheep, cows, etc. Etc.


  • #233
    railer201
    Registered Users Posts: 968 ✭✭✭railer201


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    A parked car is definitely not visible, and a car with lights is not always visible from the side.............

    You don't seem to have much of a problem seeing them when they're obstructing cycle lanes. :pac:

    As regards the side on view I think most people can figure out if they see a white light at one end and a red light at the other, there is a car in between.

    Like motorists, cyclists should adjust their speed so they can come to a halt within the distance they can see ahead.


  • #234
    shootermacg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,845 ✭✭✭shootermacg


    I wear one of these, if you knock me off my bike, I should legally be able to kill you.



  • #235
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,487 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    railer201 wrote: »
    You don't seem to have much of a problem seeing them when they're obstructing cycle lanes. :pac:

    I have frequent close calls with parked cars in bike lanes and elsewhere. Only for my alertness and speedy application of brakes, those cars could have end up badly scratched.
    railer201 wrote: »
    As regards the side on view I think most people can figure out if they see a white light at one end and a red light at the other, there is a car in between.
    On the side on view, the parked cars may well not have any lights on, so there is no glowing ends to be seen. Or it could be in a position in traffic where the headlights or back lights cannot be seen. Or they may have no back lights because they don't know how DRLs work? Or they might have a broken headlight on the near side?

    There are loads of possible reasons why the car may not be visible, so what's the harm in requiring motorists to have hi-vis stripes?
    railer201 wrote: »
    Like motorists, cyclists should adjust their speed so they can come to a halt within the distance they can see ahead.

    I'm a bit confused now - is there a problem seeing unlit things (people, bikes, cars) on the road or not?


  • #236
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,236 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I have frequent close calls with parked cars in bike lanes and elsewhere. Only for my alertness and speedy application of brakes, those cars could have end up badly scratched.
    please tell me you're joking.


  • #237
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,011 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I have frequent close calls with parked cars in bike lanes and elsewhere....
    Any chance that the problem may lie with yourself? Do you 'read' the road ahead?

    I cover a fair bit of ground on the bike and rarely have any incidents or difficulties.


  • #238
    jjpep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 658 ✭✭✭jjpep


    I hate to presume to speak for anyone else but I think the line on cars should have hi vis is a bit tongue in cheek so as to point out the silliness of some people who talk about cyclists wearing hi viz as the cure for all ills.


  • #239
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    jjpep wrote: »
    I hate to presume to speak for anyone else but I think the line on cars should have hi vis is a bit tongue in cheek so as to point out the silliness of some people who talk about cyclists wearing hi viz as the cure for all ills.
    You don't think high viz is any help?


  • #240
    railer201
    Registered Users Posts: 968 ✭✭✭railer201


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I have frequent close calls with parked cars in bike lanes and elsewhere. Only for my alertness and speedy application of brakes, those cars could have end up badly scratched.

    So they are visible, otherwise you wouldn't know just when to take evasive action.
    On the side on view, the parked cars may well not have any lights on, so there is no glowing ends to be seen. Or it could be in a position in traffic where the headlights or back lights cannot be seen. Or they may have no back lights because they don't know how DRLs work? Or they might have a broken headlight on the near side?

    Whatever the lighting or non-lighting arrangements on a parked car your bike lights should be powerful enough to pick up a car outside the distance it would take you to come to a halt.
    There are loads of possible reasons why the car may not be visible, so what's the harm in requiring motorists to have hi-vis stripes?

    No harm at all but why recommend stripes for something which is already conspicuous due to it's size and is adequately equipped with lights ?
    I'm a bit confused now - is there a problem seeing unlit things (people, bikes, cars) on the road or not?

    Well it appears that there is and there isn't. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,805 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    First Up wrote: »
    You don't think high viz is any help?

    There's probably about 140 pages in unpacking that one.


  • #242
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,487 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    please tell me you're joking.

    Did everyone think that FU was joking about near misses only avoided by his alertness and speedy braking?
    First Up wrote: »
    I'm not sure that they aren't but if you are suggesting that unlit cyclists wearing dark clothes on wet winter nights are not a hazard to themselves or others, I'd be interested to know why.

    I can only speak about my own close calls and the reason was alertness on my part and in one instance, speedy use of the brakes.
    First Up wrote: »
    On a 4k round trip in wet conditions last night (Mount Merrion-Dundrum). I had close calls with three black clad unlit cyclists and saw (luckily for them) at least five more.

    Its a bloody plague and I see neither publicity or enforcement.


  • #243
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,487 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    railer201 wrote: »
    No harm at all but why recommend stripes for something which is already conspicuous due to it's size and is adequately equipped with lights ?
    Because those lights are generally off when it is parked, or not working properly.
    railer201 wrote: »
    Well it appears that there is and there isn't. ;)
    I think we're getting to the nub of the issue here.

    So from what I'm hearing, the cars with the 700 lumen headlights has difficulty in seeing things, but we expect all cyclists to see everything all the time.

    Is that the proposed view?


  • #244
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,487 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    First Up wrote: »
    You don't think high viz is any help?

    Any help for what?

    Distracting attention from the need for drivers to drive safely?
    Blaming victims for getting hit by cars?
    Letting murderers move around unnoticed?

    They're all good applications for hi-vis.


  • #245
    ED E
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,169 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    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.

    Sexy people in tight fitting clothing is what you meant, right? :pac:

    7GzW.gif


  • #246
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,805 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Did everyone think that FU was joking about near misses only avoided by his alertness and speedy braking?

    Bit off-topic, but it reminded me of The Odd Couple:

    Oscar: Told you 158 times I can't stand little notes on my pillow. "We're all out of cornflakes. F.U." Took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Ungar


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    First Up wrote: »
    You don't think high viz is any help?

    Any help for what?

    Distracting attention from the need for drivers to drive safely?
    Blaming victims for getting hit by cars?
    Letting murderers move around unnoticed?

    They're all good applications for hi-vis.
    Help to be seen.


  • #248
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,256 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Any help for what?

    Distracting attention from the need for drivers to drive safely?
    Blaming victims for getting hit by cars?
    Letting murderers move around unnoticed?

    They're all good applications for hi-vis.

    Hi viz is great if your a protester! :)

    https://goo.gl/images/GMLaag


  • #249
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    First Up wrote: »
    Help to be seen.

    Gives an opportunity out to blame the victim.

    Sure why do people need eyes these days? They can't be considered responsible enough to use them.


  • #250
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    First Up wrote: »
    Help to be seen.

    Gives an opportunity out to blame the victim.

    Sure why do people need eyes these days? They can't be considered responsible enough to use them.
    Only if there is a victim, which is less likely if they can be seen.


  • #251
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    First Up wrote: »
    Only if there is a victim, which is less likely if they can be seen.

    What about all the poor walls, ditches and poles that are hit by drivers in cars. Should they be covered in hi-viz?


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement