Am I a bold cyclist?

DadaKopf

And anyway. I'm not sure what people mean by people "wobbling the handlebars" when starting up or cycling? You mean doddery people veering all over the place because they're in the wrong gear, or 'honking' to get a bit of extra power when you're taking off, or going up a hill.

Just a different cycling style/technique, no?

youcancallmeal

blorg wrote:

youcancallme>al: Did you point out to him that he was driving a motorbike in the cycle lane?

I said absolutely nothing to him as I always do in sitautions like this. Tis best not to provoke already angry motorists I find. I'm a pretty big guy and could definitely defend myself but I have seen cyclists actually being beaten up by road raging motorists before and even once I witnessed a hit and run on a cylist who annoyed a jeep driver by cutting in front of him. Its pretty damn dangerous out there(even with lights, helmet annd obeying the road rules to the letter) so I always try and keep my wits about me.

Civilian_Target

Cycling without lights is particularly retarded. And breaking traffic lights in this city will eventually lead to becoming a large red streak across the road/pavement.

Its your choice, put personally I'd rather not end up being a road stain.

freetoair

Generally (but not at all) there are pedestrian crossings at traffic lights, these crossings have their own little lights, a red man means the pedestrian must wait, a green man means the pedestrian can cross. There is also a sound that bleeps to signal to a blind person when it is safe to cross.

Outside Connolly station about 18 months ago, green man appears on a pedestrian light, traffic had stopped, there's the sound of an almighty thump as a cyclist decides that the red traffic light is only for the motorist and proceeds to plough through an old lady at high speed as she was legally crossing the road. The old woman survived the accident (to the best of my knowledge) but appeared to have severe injuries to her hip and legs. The plonker on the bike took off before the abulance arrived sensing the hostility in the passers by.

There are several hierarchies of road users, each with their own requirement. Cyclists need the safety of a dedicated cycle lane (I'm a cyclist myself) wherever possible, motorcyclists need their own protection too and should have access to the bus lane, but from reading this post where everyone seems to agree that it is OK to cycle through a red light provided they think it is safe for them, or an earlier comment that the traffic would come to a standstill if we all obeyed the speed limits is just ignoring the needs of road users further down the hierarchy. Speed limits enable a pedestrian in a urban area to judge how safe it is to cross a road where there are no pedestrian crossings - ignoring these limits puts them at risk. Breaking red lights also plays with the safety of pedestrians leaving it up to you "to judge" what is a danger to them. If motorists adopted the same approach (and some do) there would be outcry! The rules of the road are there for good reason, so we can all predict and judge what will happen next when certain signals are given by motorists with their indicators or traffic lights, so as cyclists, think of other people in the road user hierarchy!

blorg

I do sometimes talk to motorists when they do something stupid/illegal as some of the time it actually does produce a positive result; e.g. a few weeks ago a guy drove out of a side road in front of me and I had to screech to a halt. He said he misjudged my speed; I just pointed out that it's downhill and so cyclists will be going quite fast, he said sorry, he'd bear that in mind. Being polite helps.

At the same time often it is pointless. A van driver pulled into me off a side road just this afternoon nearly sending me into a truck on the other side of the road. He was completely unapologetic; he didn't see me and it was _my fault_ for not wearing a high visibility vest. At 12.30 in the afternoon.

fish-head

ferdi wrote:

that does not pose a problem for me as i do not cylce on the footpath, nor do i encounter pedestrians hurtling down the road at 50mph that often.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No! It's.... a pedestrian?

DadaKopf

What about cycling down a quiet road and skidding into a pedestrian because he didn't look where he was going? Lucky I was watching him being a moron.

Where does the responsibility lie there? I was cycling on the road. He wasn't crossing at a pedestrian crossing. I felt like telling him off, but just went on. I hope the impact will make him more aware in future.

pokypoky

The main reason for my lack of an illuminated bicycle can be blamed upon the scum who frequent the Pearse Street area coupled with my clinical forgetfulness which means they are always gone when i return leaving me with nothing but the bracket and sometimes thats gone too.

But lights arent as hugely important in the city anyway, I'm quite visible with all the street lighting around and i don't cycle in the rain at night.

blorg

pokypoky wrote:

But lights arent as hugely important in the city anyway, I'm quite visible with all the street lighting around

You might think this, but it's simply not the case from the inside of a car.

tywy

freetoair wrote:

There are several hierarchies of road users, each with their own requirement. Cyclists need the safety of a dedicated cycle lane (I'm a cyclist myself) wherever possible, motorcyclists need their own protection too and should have access to the bus lane, but from reading this post where everyone seems to agree that it is OK to cycle through a red light provided they think it is safe for them, or an earlier comment that the traffic would come to a standstill if we all obeyed the speed limits is just ignoring the needs of road users further down the hierarchy. Speed limits enable a pedestrian in a urban area to judge how safe it is to cross a road where there are no pedestrian crossings - ignoring these limits puts them at risk. Breaking red lights also plays with the safety of pedestrians leaving it up to you "to judge" what is a danger to them. If motorists adopted the same approach (and some do) there would be outcry! The rules of the road are there for good reason, so we can all predict and judge what will happen next when certain signals are given by motorists with their indicators or traffic lights, so as cyclists, think of other people in the road user hierarchy!

In a previous post I mentioned the speed limits. People love to get up on their high horses about this. Most people get irritated when they get "stuck" behind a learner driver...and why? because they are obeying the speed limit on a nice wide road that people would normally drive 60km/hr on.

When there is a learner on a wide road it's amazing how quickly a tail back builds up.

I am talking about a wide road! One without bends etc. Also you talk about people crossing the road where there are no pedestrian crossings. Isn't that breaking the law too? I think it's called jaywalking.

skidpatches

ferdi wrote:

i dont wear a helmet and most of the time i dont have lights.

i do however wear one of these at night:

wearing a nerd vest is sooo much cooler that having lights... not.

ferdi wrote:

and i only break a red light when i am cycling late at night and there are literaly no other road users around.

except joyriders and drunk drivers

ferdi

thanks for your comments skidmark, however coolness is not on my agenda when it comes to cycling.

DadaKopf

Can't be cool if you're dead. Unless that's cool these days. Is it?

ferdi

being dead is kinda cool - kurt cobain, james dean

mcgratheoin

tywy wrote:

In a previous post I mentioned the speed limits. People love to get up on their high horses about this. Most people get irritated when they get "stuck" behind a learner driver...and why? because they are obeying the speed limit on a nice wide road that people would normally drive 60km/hr on.

Actually, if everyone obeyed the speedlimits there would be less tailbacks. It's difficult to imagine, but traffic travelling at higher speeds is a lower density than at a lower speed i.e. each car needs more road space to accommodate itself. The act of someone slowing down to the speed limit or to stop at lights causes a concertina effect where each car behind must brake progressively earlier and earlier, hence pushing the tailback futher back. This principal can be seen in reverse when pulling away from trafficlights. A car 10 cars back won't begin to move as soon as the lights go green.
It's one of those prinicples that is counter intuitive, but trust me on this one. If everyone on the M50 drove 10kph slower there would be less tailbacks.

edit - as regards learner drivers, I think the irritation that is directed at these drivers is inexcusable and symptomatic of a nation of bad drivers. It must be the only country in the world where people are less patient with someone who is clearly learning. The number of times cars attempted aggressive manouvers on me when I had L plates up is much less than when I don't.

BeardyGit

To the OP, you're being more than 'bold', you're breaking the law and endagering your own and others wellbeing through your irresponsible actions.

Did somebody hit you with the stupid stick once too often when you were a nipper?

cunnins4

DadaKopf wrote:

And anyway. I'm not sure what people mean by people "wobbling the handlebars" when starting up or cycling? You mean doddery people veering all over the place because they're in the wrong gear, or 'honking' to get a bit of extra power when you're taking off, or going up a hill.

Just a different cycling style/technique, no?

I mean both, well, mainly when they're in motion - it can't be helped much when you're taking off, everyone wobbles somewhat. Next time you're out on the bike, just watch how much some people wobble relative to the speed their legs are turning - usually it's quite a slow rpm and the bike's wobbling all over the place. It's not really their fault, it's usually due to lack of experience i.e. it's easier to spin up a hill, than power up it, as in the long run it takes less energy, and i think it takes people a while to realise things like this.

The hill thing, as you said is a different style i guess, but i think most cyclists prefer to spin, but the wobbling on a level road because you're in the wrong gear is a bit dangerous.

my $.02

pokypoky

Gil_Dub wrote:

To the OP, you're being more than 'bold', you're breaking the law and endagering your own and others wellbeing through your irresponsible actions.

Did somebody hit you with the stupid stick once too often when you were a nipper?

wow thats a pretty damning statement of falsehood. I opened myself up to be condemned as a bold boy but stupid stick criminal is a bit too far. My cycling is safer than the majority of dublin cyclists simply because I'm aware of whats going on around me unlike most.

Tell me how is it dangerous to break a red light when there is absolutely no chance of me being run over. Lets not go mad with this safety thing. I bet u wear ur helmet in bed incase the ceiling falls in on you.

kinaldo

pokypoky wrote:

Kinaldo i think you will find I posted that one on the "it completely wasnt my fault" forum. And i didnt injure the dog I injured the old lady to clarify. But anyway that is not the point.

Didn't u attribute this accident to tiredness on your part? Sounds like another example of irresponsibe cycling behaviour to me.

pokypoky wrote:

But lights arent as hugely important in the city anyway, I'm quite visible with all the street lighting around and i don't cycle in the rain at night.

This quite simply isn't true. I've witnessed you many a time end up cycling in the rain at night.

pokypoky wrote:

My cycling is safer than the majority of dublin cyclists simply because I'm aware of whats going on around me unlike most.

Your awareness may be great but what about the maniac drivers and pedestrians out there? Some of the junction lights u break is actually scary. You're nothing but a road hazard imo.

Lets not go mad with this safety thing. I bet u wear ur helmet in bed incase the ceiling falls in on you.

Lol, can't wait to use that one on my mum.

cunnins4

blorg wrote:

This is wrong, it's NOT just "your own choice," you are endangering other road users by not using them. Motorists can't see you and as a result may need to swerve suddenly putting themselves and whatever they may swerve into at risk. Other cyclists can't see you and as a result may hit you or need to swerve suddenly. And pedestrians can't see you and may walk out in front of you.

If you didn't expect to be out, fine, happens to us all, but just try to have them next time. I find just leaving the lights on the bike all the time during the winter is easiest.
QUOTE]

Well, i know it's illegal, but i've never seen a garda stop anyone for having no lights. So i guess, the lack of enforcement leaves it down to choice. I definitely choose to have lights. Unfortunately, little buggers robbing them leaves me taking them off all the time. I actually found my rear light in my bag this morning, so it turns out i had it all along, but just missed it when i went looking. As is life.

blorg

tywy wrote:

Also you talk about people crossing the road where there are no pedestrian crossings. Isn't that breaking the law too? I think it's called jaywalking.

Only if you cross within 15 metres of an actual pedestrian crossing, e.g. if there is a pedestrian crossing within 15 metres, you have to use that, otherwise you can cross where you are. Of course you have to exercise due care as well which would preclude simply stepping out without looking.

blorg

cunnins4- it's not just that it's illegal, it is extremely dangerous to others, including other cyclists. I have come very close to hitting other cyclists because they were completely unlit and I didn't see them. If another cyclist hits you _both_ are coming out of it badly.

It's your responsibility to have them, so make sure you take them off and bring them with you if you need to. "They keep getting stolen" is a pretty lame excuse; plenty of cyclists manage to hang on to their lights just fine. And the basic flashing LED type can be had from €5-10 so it's not as if you can't afford spares.

kinaldo

cunnins4 wrote:

Well, i know it's illegal, but i've never seen a garda stop anyone for having no lights. So i guess, the lack of enforcement leaves it down to choice. I definitely choose to have lights. Unfortunately, little buggers robbing them leaves me taking them off all the time. I actually found my rear light in my bag this morning, so it turns out i had it all along, but just missed it when i went looking. As is life.

I do have lights but have been stopped on countless occasions in the past for not having them, usually because of those little buggers you refer to or having the batteries run out. I've even been stopped for not having working batteries for just the front light. When they pull u up they usually aggressively threaten to take the bike off you or give you a €500 fine the next time you're caught. Almost makes me laugh in their faces.

XJR

tywy wrote:

I SHAKE MY FIST AT THOSE WEAVING BASTÁRDS!

Cyclists who break lights generally cause no inconvenience to the traffic with the green light is the thing...cyclists are smaller than cars and motorcyclists. Most cyclists who break red lights have decent enough judgment to know they can't break a red light through a crossroads :P

and cycslists don't weave ?

and breaking a light doesnt cause inconvenience to other road users ?

and cyclists have enough judgement?

Listen I'm all for cycling but lets not pretend that you are all destined for sainthood - I don't even make that pretence about me!

vasch_ro

cunnins4 wrote:

Well, i know it's illegal, but i've never seen a garda stop anyone for having no lights. So i guess, the lack of enforcement leaves it down to choice.

I regularly stop cyclists around clonskeagh for just this reason, but surely the law should be obeyed whether its enforced or not ? Isn't that the point of having laws ?:rolleyes:

kinaldo

vasch_ro wrote:

I regularly stop cyclists around clonskeagh for just this reason, but surely the law should be obeyed whether its enforced or not ? Isn't that the point of having laws ?:rolleyes:

Just out of curiosity, apart from telling cyclists something they almost certainly already know, have any of you lot ever actually done anything that might seriously dissuade them from not having lights? I've been stopped in the past a good few times myself and threatened with hefty fines or confiscation of the bike, but I've still never heard of a cyclist getting done for that. Perhaps they would pay more attention if the threats weren't so idle.

BeardyGit

pokypoky wrote:

wow thats a pretty damning statement of falsehood. I opened myself up to be condemned as a bold boy but stupid stick criminal is a bit too far. My cycling is safer than the majority of dublin cyclists simply because I'm aware of whats going on around me unlike most.

Tell me how is it dangerous to break a red light when there is absolutely no chance of me being run over. Lets not go mad with this safety thing. I bet u wear ur helmet in bed incase the ceiling falls in on you.

It's dangerous to cycle a bike with no lights. You could hit a pedestrian if they don't see you. A car/motorbike could hit you if they don't see you. So, that's dangerous.

Break lights if you want - You'll be fine, protected by your superior position as a 'safe cyclist' in the eyes of the law, above that of other road users, right? Wrong. You'll just be another a**hole as far as everyone is concerned.

Bearing that in mind, maybe the best thing you can do is leave the helmet and lights off and then break a red light when you've not quite paid attention to the traffic around you....That just might do wonders for the human gene pool.

I'm nearly considering donning some discrete body armour so I can step off the footpath at the last minute in front of such cyclists, just after they've broken a light, in plain view of witnesses.....Now that could prove effective, couldn't it?

tywy

my brother was brought up in court for having no lights and breaking a red light on his bike at 3am. They just got him to pay a €50 donation to a charity. Waste of the courts time and money in my opinion. It was stricken from the record.

blorg

Sounds about right in fairness, what did you expect, the death penalty?

It's not a lot of money but he also had to take time off to show up in court, etc. I'm sure it inconvenienced him and he _might_ just think a little more about it in the future.

Motorist penalty point offences are all €60-80 and most of them are probably a lot more serious.

skidpatches

Gil_Dub wrote:

Bearing that in mind, maybe the best thing you can do is leave the helmet and lights off and then break a red light when you've not quite paid attention to the traffic around you....That just might do wonders for the human gene pool.

I'm nearly considering donning some discrete body armour so I can step off the footpath at the last minute in front of such cyclists, just after they've broken a light, in plain view of witnesses.....Now that could prove effective, couldn't it?

oooh nasty ... hopefully that body armour isn't too effective