Are you guilty ?

jetsonx

In the past few weeks I am amazed at the amount of cyclists on Dublin
roads without a feckin light. I mean cycling in Dublin is dangerous enough in broad daylight but cycling at night with no lights whatsoever - do these folks have a deathwish ?


Anyone one here who does this on a regular basis ?

TCamen

By the way the thread title is underlined, I thought it read "Are you Quilty", my curiosity was piqued...how disappointing

Yes, I am Quilty, just looking for others so I feel less alone in the world *sob*

Oh, and I don't own a bike, so negative to the real question at hand.

Neil_Sedaka

No I'm not guilty, pet hate of mine though.
Bleedin' can't see ye till I almost kill ye pedal pushers

ps. I am in Quilty (Co. Clare) a fair bit!

Jivin Turkey

Who cares? Cyclists are allowed do whatever they like, and the rules of the road dont apply to them (not that I didnt know before but I found this out twice today, once as a pedestrian and once as a motorist).

Canis Lupus

i used to do it when I lived in Dub.... Its not particularly dangerous as long as you keep yur wits about you and realise cars can't see you.

ferdi

i'm a cyclist, 90% of the time i have lights etc.

seamus

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Who cares? Cyclists are allowed do whatever they like, and the rules of the road dont apply to them.

Completely incorrect.

(moving thread)

Metrobest

jetsonx wrote:

In the past few weeks I am amazed at the amount of cyclists on Dublin
roads without a feckin light. I mean cycling in Dublin is dangerous enough in broad daylight but cycling at night with no lights whatsoever - do these folks have a deathwish ?


Anyone one here who does this on a regular basis ?

Go to Amsterdam and you'll see company directors in suits whizzing around on their bikes minus lights. So long as there's an adequate cycling infrastructure it's okay to cycle without a light. But in places like Rathmines Road you have the vile situation of cars parking on the bike lane at night.. A deathtrap because it forces cyclists onto the road.

Car drivers should be driving VERY slowly at night, keeping an eye out for cyclists. It's not good enough to say, "The cyclist had no light so the driver is exonerated from all responsibility for his/her actions."

Tarabuses

Metrobest wrote:

Car drivers should be driving VERY slowly at night, keeping an eye out for cyclists. It's not good enough to say, "The cyclist had no light so the driver is exonerated from all responsibility for his/her actions."

Perhaps we should have someone with a red flag walking in front of motor vehicles?

It is a legal requirement for bikes to have lights at night and for cyclists to use hand signals. I cannot understand how they can put their own safety entirely in the hands of other people.

the_syco

Two things;

I use lights all the times. If I'm caught without liights (I stayed in my mates to long, listening to metal), I stay on the footpaths, and don't go too fast. I usually have lights, tho.

Secondly, they'll knock you over anyhoo's. In broad daylight, a car hit me from the side. Don't know whose fault it was, as I was knocked into coma for 3 days. Braod daylight = 1pm on a summers day. So some drivers are just blind.

jetsonx

"Cyclists without lights at night deserve to be knocked down" Discuss...

Stark

Did a few times when I forced to because of scum nicking the lights off my bike. Other than that I normally have lights, though they're just the blinker things so not sure how good they are really (the proper lights are way too expensive for a student like me,especially considering they'll probably get stolen at some point ).

Secondly, they'll knock you over anyhoo's. In broad daylight, a car hit me from the side. Don't know whose fault it was, as I was knocked into coma for 3 days. Braod daylight = 1pm on a summers day. So some drivers are just blind.

Or a psycho. Had a near miss before myself, was crossing at a pedestrian crossing (had the green man) when a car sped through the crossing, did a U-turn and sped back towards me, myself and the other pedestrians just managed to get out of the way and luckily my lovely bike wasn't thrashed (though it did get stolen at a later point, f-ing scum). A few seconds later, a plain clothes garda in a nearby unmarked car threw on his siren and gave chase. So the bastard got caught, delighted

Neil_Sedaka

Metrobest wrote:

So long as there's an adequate cycling infrastructure it's okay to cycle without a light."

Well there isn't, so get a light!

A Dub in Glasgo

Not guilty

Metrobest

Tarabuses wrote:

It is a legal requirement for bikes to have lights at night and for cyclists to use hand signals. I cannot understand how they can put their own safety entirely in the hands of other people.

Why can't drivers obey the law? Parking in a cycle lane is the most dangerous and reckless act. You're forcing cyclists into a stream of traffic. Anyone who parks in a cycle lane should be immediately arrested. It's a life and death issue.

And what about taxis? These guys think they can pull in whenever someone sticks their thumb out. People should only be allowed hail taxis at 'taxi points' - the same distance apart as bus stops. Not only would this make the streets safer, it would end the unfair scenario of people waiting at the ranks while some wag stands in the middle of the road with his hand out. When you're cycling along streets like Camden Street at night it's a nightmare: taxis pulling in and out in front of you; buses clipping at your saddle, cars zooming by at reckless speed. Cyclists are by far the most responsible road users compared to this lot.

Finally, central Dublin should be kitted out with a decent cycle lane network - I'm not talking about the one-foot-wide bit of red chalk the DCC paints on the road; I'm talking about stand-alone cycle lanes, seperated by kerb from the road; controlled by traffic lights.

If you want to see how the DCC treats cyclists, pay a visit to Bull Alley Street beside St Patrick's Park. There you'll find a 'bike traffic light' that shows green when the traffic is turning left into your path. The only miracle is the no-one has been killed by this deathtrap.

tk123

Stark wrote:

though they're just the blinker things so not sure how good they are really (

Them blinky ones are a bit crap - get some real lights Starky or you'll be killed!!! :eek:

OfflerCrocGod

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Who cares? Cyclists are allowed do whatever they like, and the rules of the road dont apply to them (not that I didnt know before but I found this out twice today, once as a pedestrian and once as a motorist).

Tell that to the fine I got cycling down an empty one way lane. There are more motorist fined compared to cyclists because cars are far more dangerous then bicycles and are also more numerous.

tribble

I cycle UCD - Foxrock everyday (well, Mon-Fri) irrespective of weather.

I always have lights (xenon front, led rear) 'cept when the batteries die (occassionally).

However, approx. twice a week I am forced to swerve to avoid a car which just pulls out in front of me - or the favourite one, the old cross the solid white lines on the cycletrack while turning left and slam into whatever cyclist happens to be going straight.

Nasty_Girl

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Who cares? Cyclists are allowed do whatever they like, and the rules of the road dont apply to them (not that I didnt know before but I found this out twice today, once as a pedestrian and once as a motorist).

And that's why they're so easy to crunch

tribble

Metrobest wrote:

But in places like Rathmines Road you have the vile situation of cars parking on the bike lane at night.. A deathtrap because it forces cyclists onto the road.

Seriously?
I get annoyed when they are protruding onto the cycle track as they come out of garages, shops ets.
I SLAM my open gloved palm down on their bonnet as I go past.

Metrobest wrote:

Car drivers should be driving VERY slowly at night, keeping an eye out for cyclists. It's not good enough to say, "The cyclist had no light so the driver is exonerated from all responsibility for his/her actions."

Nah, we should have
1/ the cycle tracks as a seperate lane, raised above the level of the road slightly (couple of centimeters, so you can feel youself crossing it in a car).
2/ proper FLAT cycle tracks (not dipping every 2 meters for driveways)
3/ well lit roads
4/ clear, continious right of ways - not a cycle lane painted in the bus lane, with breaks everytime the road engineer doesn't feel like trying.

Victor

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Not guilty

Ha, I'm Innocent.

murphaph

They take this kind of thing seriously in Munich....

http://www.toytownmunich.com/archive/001444.html

jetsonx

Murphaph, Very interesting article. I would love that to happen here !

murphaph

I would agree with you jetson but the cops over there have very little else to be doin' considering the extraordinarily low crime rate. Different story here though.

jetsonx

murphaph, I know what they are like in munchen alright..been there a few times...even at the most innnocuous events e.g. buskers playing slightly rowdy oommpah music they get one (or five) of those green and white vw vans full on cops on standby just in case they might riot...very efficient!

BrianD3

Metrobest wrote:

So long as there's an adequate cycling infrastructure it's okay to cycle without a light.

Eh, not it's not. Bicycles are vehicles and the rules of the road apply to them just as with other vehicles. You must have lights on your bike after dark, whether you're in a cycling lane or not is irrelevant.

Metrobest wrote:

But in places like Rathmines Road you have the vile situation of cars parking on the bike lane at night.. A deathtrap because it forces cyclists onto the road.

:rolleyes: Motorists parking illegally in the cycle lane has got nothing whatsoever to do with cyclists BREAKING THE LAW by cycling without lights.

Metrobest wrote:

And what about taxis? These guys think they can pull in whenever someone sticks their thumb out. People should only be allowed hail taxis at 'taxi points' - the same distance apart as bus stops. Not only would this make the streets safer, it would end the unfair scenario of people waiting at the ranks while some wag stands in the middle of the road with his hand out. When you're cycling along streets like Camden Street at night it's a nightmare: taxis pulling in and out in front of you; buses clipping at your saddle, cars zooming by at reckless speed. Cyclists are by far the most responsible road users compared to this lot

Again, we're talking about cyclists and lights and off you go on a tangent ranting about taxis, buses, people hailing taxis and bad road design. Just because other road users break the law doesn't mean that cyclists should neglect their responsibilities when it comes to lighting up. And to say that cyclists are "by far" the most responsible people on the road is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on boards in a while. If they were that responsible, they'd obey the law and have lights on their bikes, which a good proportion of them don't.

tribble wrote:

I get annoyed when they are protruding onto the cycle track as they come out of garages, shops ets.
I SLAM my open gloved palm down on their bonnet as I go past

So you suffer from road rage. The reason they protrude is to get a better view of the road as they pull out. No they shouldn't do it but often there will be other vehicles blocking the view so people will try to ease out into the traffic. Most road users understand this. Motorists pull out in front of other motorists all the time but you don't see many people getting out of their cars in a fit of rage and slamming their fist off bonnets or pulling mirrors/aeriels off cars. Yet this is the sort of vandalism that many thug cyclists think is perfectly acceptable.

BrianD3

rob1891

yeay thug cyclists. I'd also give the odd car a belt on the window or side when they deserve it. It's not like a cyclist has a horn available to them.

No lights is a bad idea, have my back light glued on to stop me forgetting it. Though I fear it might only frustrate vandals/thieves into doing proper damage to my bike when they come to nab the light :eek:

Metrobest

BrianD3 wrote:

You must have lights on your bike after dark, whether you're in a cycling lane or not is irrelevant.

Many's the time I've been been spotted by uniformed Gardai without a light on my bike. Nothing's been said. I think the gaurds have more to be doing than pestering innocent cyclists.

BrianD3 wrote:

Again, we're talking about cyclists and lights and off you go on a tangent ranting about taxis, buses, people hailing taxis and bad road design.

If we're talking about cyclists' safety I think it's fair comment to refer to road design. The only thing that can kill a cyclist is a car. Cyclists tend to be killed on the road - not in the cycle lane. So if the cycle lane is obstructed by parked cars and random taxis, cyclists' lives are endangered.

BrianD3 wrote:

So you suffer from road rage. . Motorists pull out in front of other motorists all the time but you don't see many people getting out of their cars in a fit of rage and slamming their fist off bonnets or pulling mirrors/aeriels off cars. Yet this is the sort of vandalism that many thug cyclists think is perfectly acceptable.

He's entitled to be angry when a car veers into his space and almost kills him. Cycle around Dublin at night and see how you'd feel.

MrPudding

Metrobest wrote:

....... innocent cyclists.

The law requires lights. If you do not have lights you are breaking the law, therefore you are not innocent. They probably don't say anything to you cos they reckon if you don't care enough about your own life why should they.

Cyclists are possibly the most vulnerable group on the roads. They share the road with car users, many of whom are assholes with little or no grasp of the rules of the road or even common courtesy, I’m sure I don’t need to point this out to most of you. Yeah it stinks but that is life . You need to look out for yourself if you decide that you don’t need lights cos the drivers should be driving slower at night then you are asking to get hit.

A cyclist friend of mine always tells me he would rather be alive than right. I think that is a good view. Perhaps you could ask your next of kin to get the words "But it was dark! He should have been driving slower so he could see cyclists without lights" on your gravestone.

MrP

Metrobest

MrPudding wrote:

The law requires lights. If you do not have lights you are breaking the law, therefore you are not innocent. They probably don't say anything to you cos they reckon if you don't care enough about your own life why should they.

Cyclists are possibly the most vulnerable group on the roads. They share the road with car users, many of whom are assholes with little or no grasp of the rules of the road or even common courtesy, I’m sure I don’t need to point this out to most of you. Yeah it stinks but that is life . You need to look out for yourself if you decide that you don’t need lights cos the drivers should be driving slower at night then you are asking to get hit.

A cyclist friend of mine always tells me he would rather be alive than right. I think that is a good view. Perhaps you could ask your next of kin to get the words "But it was dark! He should have been driving slower so he could see cyclists without lights" on your gravestone.

MrP

You have a point. Of course cyclists have to make sure they don't get hit. But I object to the issue being "why don't cyclists wear lights?" instead of: "why shouldn't drivers be more careful?"

If we're REALLY interested in cyclists' safety, why is Bertie's socialist government not providing FREE lights to every cyclist who wants one? The cost would be minimal, it would put a stop to vandals pinching lights, plus everyone would be kept safe. Then, the focus can be put 100 percent on weeding out all the rogue drivers who make cyclists' lives hell.

seamus

Metrobest wrote:

You have a point. Of course cyclists have to make sure they don't get hit. But I object to the issue being "why don't cyclists wear lights?" instead of: "why shouldn't drivers be more careful?"

Both issues are valid. But you can't claim that onus should be on drivers to be more careful just so that cyclists can choose to disobey the law.

If we're REALLY interested in cyclists' safety, why is Bertie's socialist government not providing FREE lights to every cyclist who wants one? The cost would be minimal, it would put a stop to vandals pinching lights, plus everyone would be kept safe. Then, the focus can be put 100 percent on weeding out all the rogue drivers who make cyclists' lives hell.

Because it's the law, not just a safety measure. By the same logic, why shouldn't the Government pay the cost of putting seat belts and lights on cars, and paying the cost of replacing tyres when they're worn down?
With the exception of walking, all forms of transport have costs inherent in them which must be paid in order to comply with the law. Whether these costs relate to safety measures is irrelevant.

Metrobest

seamus wrote:

Because it's the law, not just a safety measure. By the same logic, why shouldn't the Government pay the cost of putting seat belts and lights on cars, and paying the cost of replacing tyres when they're worn down?
With the exception of walking, all forms of transport have costs inherent in them which must be paid in order to comply with the law. Whether these costs relate to safety measures is irrelevant.

"Because it's the law" is such a mindless statement. It's about whether or not the government wants to prevent road deaths. Cycling is supposed to be a cheap and easy form of transport. At the moment it's neiher of these things: a light alone costs ten Euro.

So, you can chant your mindless mantra, or do something practical to make cyclists' lives easier, which in my mind, from experience in Amsterdam, is:

- No road junction should be complete without provisions for cyclists fully seperating bikes from cars.

- Laws regarding cycle lanes to be implemented with vigour; not becuse it's "the law" - because it "stops people dying"

- Free safety gear for all cyclists, and tax breaks for purchasing new bikes. Free bikes for all kids under 16. (this would do a lot to tackle obesity!)

Stark

- No road junction should be complete without provisions for cyclists fully seperating bikes from cars.

- Laws regarding cycle lanes to be implemented with vigour; not becuse it's "the law" - because it "stops people dying"

Agreed. The rest of your suggestions about free bikes etc. aren't practical I'm afraid.

A bike is still a cheap form of transport compared to the alternatives. A good city bike can be picked up for €100, a little extra for accessories. When you compare that to the cost of a motorised vehicle (both capital and running costs), it's dirt cheap. (Thank god you don't need to insure a bicycle!)

cyclopath2001

Not guilty myself, I sometimes light up during the day too, if conditions demand it.

I certainly have seen cyclists with no lights. Many are kids & I hope motorists will not act as judge, jury & executioner.

C:\

mackerski

the_syco wrote:

I use lights all the times. If I'm caught without liights (I stayed in my mates to long, listening to metal), I stay on the footpaths, and don't go too fast.

I do a similar thing when the last headlamp bulb on my car blows. I just pull into the cycle lane and keep the speed down a bit. Don't see any snag there...

Dermot

Neil_Sedaka

I'm a motorist meself and what I hate is when it's dark, sometimes I don't bother using any lights at all on me car (only in the suburbs though, where it's safe) and a cyclist who doesn't see me swerves madly to avoid me, almost hitting me like!! WTF like? I chase after them and smack their carrier or mudguard, feckin eegits! Open yer feckin eyes will ya! :mad:

rob1891

mackerski, how very humorous of you, taking what syco wrote, about cycling on the path and intelligently transposing the concept to driving in the cycle lane. It's that kind of fine literary wit and talent that makes boards the dwelling of the kings of educated Irish society.

And Neil! Wow, you too, it's great, how you did exactly what mackerski did but with a piece of my/tribble's post and a piece of another post. Like diversifying or something. Gee, what fine young men we have here. Bravo! Both of you have really pointed out how silly us cyclists are and how we don't deserve to be let on the road, and really how you are justified in killing 10 or 20 of us each year. I am sure we all appreciate you contribution to the thread.

How funny you are to parody me chasing someone down and smacking away a their mudguard! Maybe you didn't notice, but I mentioned something about a horn in my post. Something you have right in the middle of your steering wheel, used gratuitously in crazy places like Dublin or 'New' York to signal frustration at another road users behaviour (and on occasion to warn of hazards and other trifling little things).

Now, some cyclists will have a comparable ringy bell attached to their steering wheel. I don't want to go into battle of the sexes or prejudice, but they are mostly girls, under the age of 5. Alas most of us do not have these and even if we did, they are not all that comparable to a car horn and it is very unlikely that the tinkling of our bell would penetrate the glass of your car windows. So, how does a cyclist express his frustration at another road user's behaviour?

Well, the voice may perhaps be a little louder than the tinkly bell, but it won't roar over the din of your engines and through to the little windshielded havens you sit in.

Then there are the hand gestures, but they're mostly futile as the common reason for dissatisfaction with a motoring road user is that the cyclist has not been seen in the first place. (Maybe if they had lights, har har.)

So what is left is the admittedly curt and impolite smack on the side panel or bonnet or window. This will certainly will get the drivers attention, and when he has worked out that it wasn't the roll of a body and bike beneath his axles, the realisation that it could have been might have him pause for thought, and be more cautious and aware of cyclists at that particular spot on the road in future. Though highly unlikely, as I said, like the horn on a car, the purpose is to express frustration and it achieves little else, but you keep honking away and we keep lashing at side panels.

Anyway, I hope I don't come across wrong, as I really do think both you guys are about the greatest guys ever for highlighting the nonsense in this thread. Use lights kids, you don't want to get run down!

Neil_Sedaka

Nah, you're right, but seriously kiddies, wear a light
Hope that's intelligent enough for ye

cyclopath2001

Neil_Sedaka wrote:

Nah, you're right, but seriously kiddies, wear a light
Hope that's intelligent enough for ye

In the interests of safety and of adhering to the law, I think people should know that WEARING a light does not satisfy the law. The lights must be secured to the bicycle, not the cyclist.

I'd add that I've seen people on bikes wearing lights, these lights are not very effective as they do not always point in the right direction.

Parents should make sure that their children's bicycles are properly equipped.

C:\

seamus

Metrobest wrote:

"Because it's the law" is such a mindless statement. It's about whether or not the government wants to prevent road deaths. Cycling is supposed to be a cheap and easy form of transport. At the moment it's neiher of these things: a light alone costs ten Euro.

TEN EURO?! That's nothing. Pittance.

So, you can chant your mindless mantra, or do something practical to make cyclists' lives easier, which in my mind, from experience in Amsterdam, is:

You're skirting around the topic. "Mindless mantra" is not exactly the right phrase. I never commented on the need for better cycle facilities, so don't assume for a second that I think everything is hunky dory. However, poor facilities are no excuse for breaking the law. All road users must obey the law uniformly, or nothing works. Cyclists can hardly complain about dangerous drivers, and then advocate not using lights. It's hypocrasy.

All of the cycle networks and driver training in the world will still not make it safe to cycle without lights. That's the issue here.

BrianD3

And Neil! Wow, you too, it's great, how you did exactly what mackerski did but with a piece of my/tribble's post and a piece of another post. Like diversifying or something. Gee, what fine young men we have here. Bravo! Both of you have really pointed out how silly us cyclists are and how we don't deserve to be let on the road, and really how you are justified in killing 10 or 20 of us each year. I am sure we all appreciate you contribution to the thread.

Getting a bit defensive there aren't you. You sure you're not suffering from the same persecution complex as Metrobest?

I love it how everyone else (the government, taxis, people hailing taxis, buses, motorists) are responsible for the terrible plight of the poor downtrodden cyclist who can't afford 10 euros to put a light on his bike :rolleyes:

Tip for you guys: try to be a bit more reasonable when stating your point of view, that way people might actually pay attention to what you say. Oh, and it might be wise to invest in and read a copy of the Rules of the Road while you're at it.

BrianD3

Metrobest

Imagine if each road had two lanes: the inside lane for 'supertrucks', the outside lane for cars.

Might work fine, you'd think. But then imagine that the supertrucks were allowed weave into the car lane to drop off goods, to park, or even to turn left at junctions. Worse, the car lane would end suddenly at random points, forcing cars into a stream of fast-moving trucks. And on smaller roads there would be no car lane at all, so cars would have to keep close to the kerb as trucks passed by.

That is, in practice, what cyclists endure on a daily basis: lanes obstructed by parked cars, cycle lanes that end suddenly, junctions with no provisions for the humble cyclist.

Some people on this forum would have you believe cyclists are irresponsible. Untrue. Dealing with such awful conditions, the only miracle is that more cyclists aren't being knocked down.

The present system relies on cyclists' intuition to know which road position to take. Let me single our Nassau Street as a deathtrap. Bikes have to move from the kerbside, to the outside lane, to the inside lane again, negotiating a convoy of double deckers pulling and and out of the bus stops that line the street. And now there's talk of putting the LUAS into this jungle.

Metrobest

BrianD3 wrote:

I love it how everyone else (the government, taxis, people hailing taxis, buses, motorists) are responsible for the terrible plight of the poor downtrodden cyclist
BrianD3

That's because they ARE responsible. That's what governments do: they make laws. You obviously don't give a fig about cyclists' safety, so long as they mindlessly dress up as christmas trees so that you can have a laugh at how 'downtrodden' they are.

BrianD3

Metrobest, yet again you're going off topic. We're talking about LIGHTS ON BICYCLES. Not parked cars, not lorries, not motorist being as*holes, not poor road design.

Put a bloody light on your bike front and rear. Make sure you have a rear reflector and pedal reflectors and wear a reflective vest. Once you've done all that *then* come back and complain about other problems on the road but not before because any points you make are invalid while you persist with this irresponsible "I don't need any lights" attitude.
:rolleyes:

AndrewMc

cyclopath2001 wrote:

In the interests of safety and of adhering to the law, I think people should know that WEARING a light does not satisfy the law. The lights must be secured to the bicycle, not the cyclist.

Remember, though, that a longish coat may be obscuring your rear light.

A few years ago I came across some Gardaí on Pearse St. checking tax/insurance, but they also stopped me to check for lights. His words: "Front light, back light and a helmet? I'm impressed." I asked about the blinking/not-blinking legalities bit, and I think he said that they weren't too bothered about it, so long as you had something that made you visible.

So to continue the argument - what are people's opinions on helmets (should they be mandatory?)? I clipped a kerb in the wet once, and I still vividly remember the whack my head got . Without the helmet I'd have been in serious trouble.

bringitdown

Should cyclists ensure they have adequate lights at night?
Yes no argument there, infrastructure or not.
Not wearing lights and being killed as a result is no way to draw attention to the lack of cycling infrastructure.

Do I have said lights attached to bicycle?
Yes.

Do many cyclists not have said lights?
Yes; and they run a much larger risk than the already significant risk lighted cyclists have accepted as soon as the swing their leg over the bar.

Should we restart this thread under the catch all name of - "Safety and Infrastructure for Cycling / Cyclists"?
Yes.

seamus

Metrobest wrote:

The present system relies on cyclists' intuition to know which road position to take. Let me single our Nassau Street as a deathtrap. Bikes have to move from the kerbside, to the outside lane, to the inside lane again, negotiating a convoy of double deckers pulling and and out of the bus stops that line the street. And now there's talk of putting the LUAS into this jungle.

Every system relies on a driver's intuition as regards road positioning, acceleration, deceleration, indication, observation. Every driver has to negotiate in and out of traffic lanes, cyclists are no victim here. Cyclists are part of our road traffic. They don't have a dedicated system, so deal with it. By all means lobby for such a system, but for the moment, what we have is what you're stuck with. If you don't like it, don't use it. Just because what we have isn't ideal, doesn't give anyone a right to disregard or abuse its rules.

Many cyclists *are* irresponsible, I don't know how for a second you can claim that they aren't. Cycling through red lights, weaving around pedestrians, in the city centre bicycle couriers are a menace. All traffic types have their bad apples, but non-compliance is much higher in cyclists and pedestrians than other road users. There's no point in putting on the rose-tinted glasses just because they're soft and squishable.

On the topic of horns - I remember a few years ago seeing a bicycle courier with a whistle in his mouth. Every time he was about to be pulled out in front of, he gave it a sharp blow, and everyone heard him. Great idea.

Metrobest

bringitdown wrote:

Not wearing lights and being killed as a result is no way to draw attention to the lack of cycling infrastructure.Yes.

Tragically, in Ireland it seems to be the ONLY way of drawing attention to it. Look at how the Wellington Quay incident focused attention on the safety of city centre bus termini.

My argument is the cycling infrastructure is so bad, it matters very little what levels of precautions a cyclist takes, for whether with no light or dressed up like a christmas tree, he/she probably stands the same chance of being killed by an irresponsible car driver.

Metrobest

seamus wrote:

Every system relies on a driver's intuition as regards road positioning, acceleration, deceleration, indication, observation. Every driver has to negotiate in and out of traffic lanes, cyclists are no victim here.
On the topic of horns - . Great idea.

Bikes are entirely different mode of transport to cars. Fundamentally different. One has an engine, seats several, drives with speed. The other has two wheels, carries one, is (relatively) safe and goes far slower. Fundamentally different.

I wouldn't approve of cyclists blowing into shrill whistles. The bike's bell is a perfect tool to clear wayward pedestrians from the road.

seamus

Metrobest wrote:

Bikes are entirely different mode of transport to cars. Fundamentally different. One has an engine, seats several, drives with speed. The other has two wheels, carries one, is (relatively) safe and goes far slower. Fundamentally different.

I'm talking about all vehicles, not just cars. The mode of transport is irrelevant, they're all fundamentally the same - they are a form of locomotion to get you from A to B. Roads are a way of easing that locomotion, and for the public safety all vehicles must use the road to get from A to B.

I wouldn't approve of cyclists blowing into shrill whistles. The bike's bell is a perfect tool to clear wayward pedestrians from the road.

Wayward pedestrians are only one of the types of road user that a cyclist frequently needs to make aware of his prescence, and the least lethal.

Sarsfield

Cycling without lights is very dangerous to pedestrians. A bicycle is invisible if it is approaching alongside a car with its lights on.

I've had a few close shaves crossing the road (with the pedestrian lights in my favour!), when an unlit bicycle emerged from between a couple of cars and carried on through the pedestrian crossing.