Indicators on bicycles?

Capt'n Midnight

How about flashing both indicators at the same time.... who needs to indicate ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1317536#post1317536

Originally posted by MojoMaker
You're not a driver are you? The use of hazards is a universal driving signal to other users that the vehicle in question is slowing down with a view to stopping. A single indicator does not always convey the intention to stop, merely to to turn. This use of hazards is a lot more common on the continent where it is accepted road practice to warn other roads users behind of impending traffic jams, accidents, or other reasons for sudden deceleration and eventual stopping. In this instance the use of hazards by taxi drivers indicates stopping for a period of time, not merely pulling to the side, and as such is quite correct practice. Just we in this country are perhaps not as aware of this as in other countries.

seamus

lmao

I object. On the grounds that that post is not submissible as evidence due to being ridiculous

BrianD

Captain Midnight, you arguement about insurance and driving licences is spurious and irrelevant to the debate. Lack of insurance is not a safety issue. There are many countries who do not have manandatory insurance requirements e.g. Australia and New Zealand. There are very strong arguements for abolishing manadatory isurance requirements in this country but that's not relevant to this debate. It still does not excuse cyclists from not having adequate lighting.

Lack of either insurance or a drivers licence is NOT A SAFETY ISSUE. Many could drive safely and accident free without either and demonstrate common courtest to are two wheeled friends! Therefore it would be not necessary for the authorities (but they can by law) to confisicate a vehicle unless it was otherwise defective. Lack of lights on a bike is a safety issue affecting all road users. As it happens my boss got no warming. He was stopped by a Garda and the vehicle taken on the spot.

seamus

Originally posted by BrianD
Captain Midnight, you arguement about insurance and driving licences is spurious and irrelevant to the debate. Lack of insurance is not a safety issue. There are many countries who do not have manandatory insurance requirements e.g. Australia and New Zealand. There are very strong arguements for abolishing manadatory isurance requirements in this country but that's not relevant to this debate. It still does not excuse cyclists from not having adequate lighting.

I think his point is to do with the "in for a penny, in for a pound" principle. Anyone who doesn't realise the grave importance of insuring their vehicle for third party damages, and accordingly doesn't bother with it, is much more likely to be a poor driver. Quite similar to people who drive around badly damaged, or unroadworthy vehicles. The state and status (ie tax/insurance/NCT) of the vehicle is usually a pretty good indicator of how much the driver is willing to comply with traffic laws and act towards other drivers. Just from my own experience - there are a lot of scumbags in the motorcycle courier game. However, the worst/craziest, and accordingly easiest to spot couriers, are those with an iffy engine, bald tyres, chunks of their bike missing, no indicators, and parts of the bike being held together with masking tape. Not only are their bikes wrecked, but they're always terrible drivers too.

I would agree with Capt'n Midnight that there are a lot of drivers who fall into the above ignorant category.

BrianD

Well you may agree but it is irrelevant to the arguement. We are not discussing the standards of driving by motorists nor the standard of cycling. It seems that cyclists are unable or unwilling to comply with basic safety regulations - lights on their bikes. Instead of acknowledging this fact, they are quick to point to the failings of other road users as if it excuses their behaviour. It doesn't. It is time to start pointing at others and start taking remedial action. Lack of lights endangers both the cyclist and every other roaduser to a greater or lesser extent. Inadequate lighting on bikes is a widespread problem.

I take exception to your remarks about insurance. Lack of insurance does not infer poor driving skills. It may be illegal not to have insurance in this country but it it is perfectly legal in other countries. It has no relationship with road safety. It is there to cover the cost of an accident for those who could not afford to do so otherwise. I agree that those who could not care less for any road user or law would probably not have insurance but these individuals are outside the realm of any reason or laws.

BTW are motorcycles allowed use cycle lanes? I often feel sorry for cyclists who suddenly find a high powered motorcycle coming up behind them!

Victor

I saw two cyclists the other night with flashing LED headlights (a tight cluster, not the usual distributed pattern), quite distinct from well over 100m away. Anway they were white, but with a blue tint. The lights were out of sequence (one, the other, one, the other, one, the other, one, the other) which made me stop and think - "why are there flashing blue lights coming towards me, that slowly".

Originally posted by BrianD
It seems that cyclists are unable or unwilling to comply with basic safety regulations - lights on their bikes.

There is a mix of authoritive and societal ambivalence that contributes to the problem, much the same as most problems in Ireland.

Originally posted by BrianD
Instead of acknowledging this fact, they are quick to point to the failings of other road users as if it excuses their behaviour.

There is an element of truth in this, however cyclists cause very few accidents and are primarily the victim of others neligence, not their own. The primary and disproportionate cause of raod fatalities and injuries is motorist error.

Originally posted by BrianD
Lack of insurance does not infer poor driving skills.

However, it can dramaticly effect the aftermath. And as suggested, lack of insurance is associated with a lack of care - that is a safety issue.

Originally posted by BrianD
BTW are motorcycles allowed use cycle lanes?

Only if they have a Garda riding it.

cyclopath2001

>> It seems that cyclists are unable or unwilling to comply with basic safety regulations<<

This statement is equally true for motorists. What percentange respect the 30mph limit? How many stop on amber or even red? How many use handphones while driving? How many use proper seating & restraints for young passengers?

>>Instead of acknowledging this fact, they are quick to point to the failings of other road users as if it excuses their behaviour. <<

I do not think concientious cyclists look to excuse illegal or unsafe behaviour by other cyclists. The point is that the best way to prevent serious accidents is by concentrating the limited resources of Gardai on the unsafe & inconsiderate behaviour of motorists.

Lets get the risks into perspective: unsafely driven cars are more dangerous than unsafely driven bicycles.

gurramok

Both issues are due to lack of garda enforcement of rules of the road for motorists and cyclists.
I used to cycle for about 10 years before i took up driving. I was never stopped once for no lights and i cycled alot at night especially on busier roads through/near city centre where you would expect to find loads of gards about.

Now i drive, i've only met one checkpoint(garda with guns) and that was for the ongoing violent crime spree(ERU), not checking tax etc.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by cyclopath2001
>> It seems that cyclists are unable or unwilling to comply with basic safety regulations<<

This statement is equally true for motorists. What percentange respect the 30mph limit?

Answer - less than 1% !

http://www.connect.ie/dcc/docs/stats/speed.html

Urban Arterial Roads (standard limit 30 mph)
Average free speed of cars within the 30 mph zone is 45 mph.
99% of cars exceeded the 30 mph speed limit.

And I'm certain that some of the 1% were looking for a turn or for one reason or another were travelling slower than normal.

[edited for free speed]

BrianD

What's the relevance? We're talking about lights on bikes! If you wish to use speeding motorists as an excuse for not complying with the law why not blame falling trees, aircraft etc.........

As a motorist, I comply with the speed limit of 30 mph when posted (sometines you need to be very observant to spot the signs). At that speed I will still seriously injure or kill a cyclist who I might be unfortuate enough to collide with. If he has lights and I can see him we will happily use the same stretch of road together.

Victor

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Answer - less than 1% ! http://www.connect.ie/dcc/docs/stats/speed.html And I'm certain that some of the 1% were held up in traffic , looking for a turn or for one reason or another were travelling slower than normal.

Free traffic only counts the car in front, not those "congested" behind the front car.

cyclopath2001

>>What's the relevance? We're talking about lights on bikes! If you wish to use speeding motorists as an excuse for not complying with the law why not blame falling trees, aircraft etc.........<<

Actually the topic was indicators on bikes, so we're both off-topic.

The only excuse I offer for not complying with the law is when it is unsafe to do so. This means that in certain circumstances (read my post) I will choose not to indicate.

I never sought to excuse riding with no lights, but would explain out that if the cycle facilities,which cyclists are obliged by law to use, were of proper quality, this would make it easier to keep lighting equipment in working order.

>> At that speed I will still seriously injure or kill a cyclist who I might be unfortuate enough to collide with.<<

In that case, why not drive more slowly? 30mph is a maximum, to be reduced if it poses a risk to the safety of others, regardless of who breaks the rules. If you wish to be properly considerate of others, 20 mph would mean less injury in the event a pedestrian or cyclist mistakenly falls into your path.

C.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Victor
Free traffic only counts the car in front, not those "congested" behind the front car.

I apologise if anyone misconstrued my previous post as implying that some or all of the 1% of motorists who adhered to safety laws were doing so only because their progress was impeded.

My general opinion on laws is unless you are ready, willing and able to enforce a law there is no point in bringing it in. Otherwise you just encourage people to break the law - it's the broken window theory - but let's call it the "driving on the third provisional / having a bell on your bike" (what is the point of bells since cars are deliberately soundproofed from road noise ???)

Even if the law was enforcable then you would have to enforce similar laws to prove you wern't victimising one group...

BrianD

I don't think that at any time during the development of the automobile would a bicycle bell have been audible to a motorist!

Cyclists might find the bell useful to warn unsuspecting pedestrians as they pass through pedestrian crossings.

Raam

I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but...
is it illegal to listen to a walkman/discman/whatever while cycling?

KR

seamus

Originally posted by King Raam
I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but...
is it illegal to listen to a walkman/discman/whatever while cycling?

KR

Well, since the same rules as all vehicles apply to bikes, i.e. driving with due care and attention, and without distractions, then it probably falls under the same remit as driving with a mobile phone. However, you'd never get pulled up on it. Cycling with a walkman on fairly low is equivalent to driving with the radio on in my experience.

BrianD

I wouldn't agree. The motorist has the advantage of rear and wing mirrors while a cyclist has to concentrate on looking forward. Being able to hear sound and 'place' the sound is of enormous advantage to a cyclist. Ears are acting as eyes!

SteM

Originally posted by BrianD
I wouldn't agree. The motorist has the advantage of rear and wing mirrors while a cyclist has to concentrate on looking forward. Being able to hear sound and 'place' the sound is of enormous advantage to a cyclist. Ears are acting as eyes!

I'd agree with BrianD there, I cycle from Thomas Street to Pearse Street every day to work and am shocked by the amount of people I see wearing headphones. There's no way I'd risk doing that as I find hearing cars/motorcycles coming up behind me as important as seeing what's in front of me.

Stark

Besides headphones tend to block out external sounds far more than having a radio on in the car. Ever compare trying to grab the attention of someone wearing headphones to someone listening to a radio?
I even greatly dislike wearing a helmet in the city centre because of the muffling effect on my hearing.

TacT

Ridiculous, you'll never get bicycles with indicators for many of the reasons above posted by others. BrianD clearly has a chip on his shoulder when it comes to cyclists.

Problem is, you're going to swing your anti-cycling point of view out there and people who cycle are going to swing their anti-motorists point of view right back at you until this descends into a spiral of infinity.

Would I like some extra weight on my bike while I cycle? No
Would I like to pay even more money for my cheaper alternative to transport? No
Can I not just use my arms to indicate? Yes (I don't see what everyone is getting at about the roads etc, I've yet to find a piece of road or cyclepath that was too bumpy to indicate with one arm..)
Would I like to pay more money for extra batteries to power this new fangled device? No
Are the Government going to start implementing indicators for bicycles? No
Not even in the next 10 Years? Not a hope in hell

Listening to a walkman while on your bicycle will only get you a warning from the gardai, I used to do it cycling to school and back but soon got more sense

rain on

my 2 cents...

As someone who cycles maybe five miles a day, most of that after dark (at this time of year) and who has already been hit by one car (in broad daylight may i add... flashing amber lights mean 'go if the way is clear' and it is NOT clear if i am in it!)... i would love to have better lights than LEDs. I FANTASISE about having better lights than LEDs. Because no LEDs can stand up to the beam of a car light. But there's no such thing (I can't have dynamos because i go up some damn steep hills that i'd have to walk if I had that sort of impedance).

I am a conscientious cyclist. I stop at red and amber lights. I obey the rules of the road. But at this time of year, I still have at least one near miss every couple of days.

What do the anti-cyclist side make of that?

seamus

Originally posted by rain on
my 2 cents...

As someone who cycles maybe five miles a day, most of that after dark (at this time of year) and who has already been hit by one car (in broad daylight may i add... flashing amber lights mean 'go if the way is clear' and it is NOT clear if i am in it!)... i would love to have better lights than LEDs. I FANTASISE about having better lights than LEDs. Because no LEDs can stand up to the beam of a car light. But there's no such thing (I can't have dynamos because i go up some damn steep hills that i'd have to walk if I had that sort of impedance).

Halogens. Point them straight ahead of you. Blind your enemies.

http://www.vistalite.com/vistalite_03/03code25.html

Anyone who doesn't see you cycling with those babies shouldn't be on the road.

BrianD

rain on! what are you doing to have a near miss everyday????

I don't drive every day but I certainly don't come close to hitting a cyclist when I do. I certainly see many situations where if I or the cyclist were careless where an accident could occur. That is the nature of road use - being proactive, observant and taking the right action.

Because I am critical of the fact that most cyclists do not use lights does not mean I am anti-cyclist!!

Stark

Halogens. Point them straight ahead of you. Blind your enemies.

http://www.vistalite.com/vistalite_03/03code25.html

Anyone who doesn't see you cycling with those babies shouldn't be on the road.

They're cool but they're nearly as expensive as the average bike.

Victor

Originally posted by seamus
Halogens. Point them straight ahead of you. Blind your enemies. ... Anyone who doesn't see you cycling with those babies shouldn't be on the road.

If they are blind, they can't see you ...

seamus

Originally posted by Victor
If they are blind, they can't see you ...

They're also not going to keep moving forward, if they're blind, unless they've decided to commit suicide

rain on

Originally posted by BrianD
rain on! what are you doing to have a near miss everyday????

Did you see the bit where I said "I am a conscientious cyclist. I stop at red and amber lights. I obey the rules of the road."?

It's not what I'm doing.