Am I a bold cyclist?

skidpatches · 26-10-2006 10:43am

ferdi wrote:

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

what is on your agenda then? cos safety, legality or consideration of other road users don't seem to be.

daymobrew · 26-10-2006 11:19am

kinaldo wrote:

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.

The Garda Inspector in charge of the Traffic Division in Store Street told me that he and his staff do prosecute cyclists for various offences including red light breaking. I don't know about bike lights, but they might.

cunnins4 wrote:

I definitely choose to have lights. Unfortunately, little buggers robbing them leaves me taking them off all the time.

Unless your lights are not detatchable, you should simply remove them when you leave your bike. They can't weigh much. I take my lights and speedometer off when I park it, and put them into my upturned helmet. Very simple.

I use rechargable batteries. If I think they are getting low I charge them overnight.

dalk · 26-10-2006 11:24am

Gil_Dub wrote:

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

Some people have the most bizarre revenge fantasies... In this case it even involves dressing up and having people watch.

Ghost Rider · 26-10-2006 11:29am

No disrespect taken, Bill. But I do think we need to separate out some of the points here. First, the implication that traffic is a system in which all elements contribute equally to the efficiency/inefficiency of that system is spurious. Who seriously disputes the fact that what causes congestion is cars (and trucks etc.), not bikes? That's not to say that cyclists can't cause chaos; they're just an awful lot less likely to do so.

I'll go even further. To my mind, the idea that both cars and bikes are part of a single system is more or less ideological. Specifically, the law imposes, or tries to impose, a single set of rules on all road users (with some notable exceptions), thus creating the illusion that congestion is a problem caused by all road users, the logical implication of that being that congestion relief is a burden to be shared by all. Even as someone who generally obeys red lights (for entirely separate reasons), I find that conclusion very dodgy.

Note that I'm not proposing any alternative to the one-rule-for-all system right now; I haven't thought it through that far yet. I'm just trying to show why I think cyclists believe the same rules shouldn't apply to them, and why they genuinely have a case.

That's not to say there aren't other factors (e.g. desire to maintain momentum) involved in cyclists breaking red lights. But there will always be individual psychological factors in the commission of crimes; there's not a whole lot we can do about those in the short or medium term. What we can change are laws that criminalise behaviour that is not intrinsically anti-social.

Of course, there are other agendas here. Would a government like ours make it legal for cyclists to ignore red lights if they thought it might increase the number of legal actions taken against the state (say, in case of accidents between cars and cyclists)? I very much doubt it. They want to "protect us from ourselves" i.e. avoid litigation (- the modern meaning of the nanny state!)

Turbulent Bill wrote:

With respect, I don't think that this stands up. Like it or not, cyclists, motorists (and sometimes pedestrians) form a traffic system that relies on everyone playing their part. The best you can do is obey the rules and hope that others do the same. A bike by itself isn't going to cause much damage if crashed, but could lead to carnage if you run a red light. You have no idea what the other people using the junction might do, or whether they might appear suddenly.

IMHO the reason cyclists break lights is that it retains momentum, and because they can get away with it. I'm an irregular commuter now, but the buzz of flying by traffic does make it difficult to stop: it takes discipline. It's also good for PR if you're a responsible road user.

Lights on bikes should be a no-brainer. Dark bike/clothes + distracted driver = roadkill. Helmets I can give or take.

daymobrew · 26-10-2006 11:37am

daymobrew wrote:

The Garda Inspector in charge of the Traffic Division in Store Street told me that he and his staff do prosecute cyclists for various offences including red light breaking. I don't know about bike lights, but they might.

I just rang the Inspector and he told me that he tries a 'behaviour change' approach. He tells the cyclist to buy some lights and then come into the station and show him the new lights. He feels that this is better than bringing someone to court because the person can pay the fine and still not have bike lights.

skidpatches · 26-10-2006 11:56am

Ghost Rider wrote:

I'll go even further. To my mind, the idea that both cars and bikes are part of a single system is more or less ideological. Specifically, the law imposes, or tries to impose, a single set of rules on all road users (with some notable exceptions), thus creating the illusion that congestion is a problem caused by all road users, the logical implication of that being that congestion relief is a burden to be shared by all. Even as someone who generally obeys red lights (for entirely separate reasons), I find that conclusion very dodgy.

Note that I'm not proposing any alternative to the one-rule-for-all system right now; I haven't thought it through that far yet. I'm just trying to show why I think cyclists believe the same rules shouldn't apply to them, and why they genuinely have a case.

on the surface, i think it's quite logical to say that cyclists are a different class of road user and that we should have our own set of laws. these broadly speaking would be somewhere between those for a motorist and those for a pedestrian. so for argument's sake, we could be able to ignore red lights when turning left, if safe to do so (as cars can do in other juristictions). We could think of a whole load of current road traffic laws that arguably shouldn't apply to cyclists, but do because we're treated as vehicles.

However, I would fear that the motoring lobby and others would sucessfully argue that if cyclists don't have the same responsibilties as motorists, then we should have fewer rights as well... for our own safety of course. We could end up losing all sorts of rights to use the public highway, right of way in certain situations, etc. We'd be in a worse state overall.

Turbulent Bill · 26-10-2006 12:11pm

Ghost Rider wrote:

No disrespect taken, Bill. But I do think we need to separate out some of the points here. First, the implication that traffic is a system in which all elements contribute equally to the efficiency/inefficiency of that system is spurious. Who seriously disputes the fact that what causes congestion is cars (and trucks etc.), not bikes? That's not to say that cyclists can't cause chaos; they're just an awful lot less likely to do so.

I'll go even further. To my mind, the idea that both cars and bikes are part of a single system is more or less ideological. Specifically, the law imposes, or tries to impose, a single set of rules on all road users (with some notable exceptions), thus creating the illusion that congestion is a problem caused by all road users, the logical implication of that being that congestion relief is a burden to be shared by all. Even as someone who generally obeys red lights (for entirely separate reasons), I find that conclusion very dodgy.

Note that I'm not proposing any alternative to the one-rule-for-all system right now; I haven't thought it through that far yet. I'm just trying to show why I think cyclists believe the same rules shouldn't apply to them, and why they genuinely have a case.

That's not to say there aren't other factors (e.g. desire to maintain momentum) involved in cyclists breaking red lights. But there will always be individual psychological factors in the commission of crimes; there's not a whole lot we can do about those in the short or medium term. What we can change are laws that criminalise behaviour that is not intrinsically anti-social.

Of course, there are other agendas here. Would a government like ours make it legal for cyclists to ignore red lights if they thought it might increase the number of legal actions taken against the state (say, in case of accidents between cars and cyclists)? I very much doubt it. They want to "protect us from ourselves" i.e. avoid litigation (- the modern meaning of the nanny state!)

I think it's more a question of safety than the efficiency of getting from A to B. There's no doubt that cyclists contribute little (if anything) to congestion on the roads, and that for many people it would be quicker to go on two wheels than be stuck in a car. However, running lights compromises the safety of all road users, and each of us _does_ have an equal responsibility to ensure the safety of others. Cyclists around Dublin are still very much in the minority and thus are less likely to cause accidents, but an individual can still lead to an accident if they decide to do their own thing.

Ghost Rider · 26-10-2006 12:51pm

Maybe they would argue something like that, but the logic would be questionable. Decriminalising certain acts doesn't remove responsibility. On the contrary: it increases individual responsbility precisely because the law is no longer there to dictate what to do.

skidpatches wrote:

However, I would fear that the motoring lobby and others would sucessfully argue that if cyclists don't have the same responsibilties as motorists, then we should have fewer rights as well... for our own safety of course. We could end up losing all sorts of rights to use the public highway, right of way in certain situations, etc. We'd be in a worse state overall.

Ghost Rider · 26-10-2006 1:00pm

I think there's a subtle distinction to be made here. What all road users share is a duty of care. However, I believe the amount of responsibility each road user has depends on their potential for causing harm, something which varies hugely according to vehicle.

Because a bus can, say, plough into a bus stop and kill several people, the driver of a bus has much greater responsibility than a cyclist, who probably wouldn't kill anyone if he did the same thing.

In other words, it's a question of degree of responsibility or, if you prefer, of comparative risk. At present, it seems to me that the law in relation to cyclists largely fails to acknowledge this fact.

Turbulent Bill wrote:

I think it's more a question of safety than the efficiency of getting from A to B. There's no doubt that cyclists contribute little (if anything) to congestion on the roads, and that for many people it would be quicker to go on two wheels than be stuck in a car. However, running lights compromises the safety of all road users, and each of us _does_ have an equal responsibility to ensure the safety of others. Cyclists around Dublin are still very much in the minority and thus are less likely to cause accidents, but an individual can still lead to an accident if they decide to do their own thing.

vasch_ro · 26-10-2006 1:04pm

kinaldo wrote:

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.

Generally I take the route of severe warning, you can only confiscate a bicycle if the cyclist refuse to provide their name and address, most of the time the all a lot of the people I stop have lights in their bags !!! Though this thread has slowly convinced me to take a more zero tolerance approach !.

Mad Finn · 26-10-2006 2:00pm

pokypoky wrote:

I've been cycling about 4 years and generally dont wear a helmet, have no lights and occasionally break the traffic lights when its safe enough. I personally dont see anything wrong with any of these things, do you?

Helmet: Your choice. I never wore one because the sweat blinding me was more dangerous than the chance of falling/being knocked off.

No Lights: If we had the mentality to produce a legal system which decided automatically that a cyclist not conforming to the law (eg with no light on at night) would in the event of a collision causing grievous damage to him or her self have no right of claim against the motorist and in addtion would be liable for any of the damage caused to the motorist's car, then I'd say 'Off you go'.

It takes a hardness of nose that we do not possess to send to a widowed mother the bill to repair the fender and wash the blood out of the wheels of the car that has just killed her progeny who was too dumb or heedless to obey the law that is there for THEIR safety. But I believe other countries do it. Germany for instance. Mind you, they have so many SAFE cycle paths that there is NO excuse for a German to be cycling on the road without a light.

Any cyclist who gets hit at night while not wearing lights and who sues the motorist for damages should be mugged of his or her winnings, IMHO.

On crashing lights: Yes. If you slow down when you see a red and make ABSOLUTELY sure there are no pedestrians about to pop out. I have seen an old lady wiped out by a heedless cyclist who was approaching a T-Junction from across the top of the T and was naturally looking right to see how to avoid the traffic turning into his path. Of course he didn't see the little old lady on his left who stepped out on to the road when she saw the little green man, and sent her flying.

Fair play to him, he waited until the ambulance came, but he should have been severely reprimanded by the courts.

So why not turn on your lights and pause at traffic lights.

skidpatches · 26-10-2006 2:20pm

the crazy dutch have got it right
http://www.awfulgood.com/doa-archives/000185.php

daymobrew · 26-10-2006 2:37pm

Mad Finn wrote:

Helmet: Your choice. I never wore one because the sweat blinding me was more dangerous than the chance of falling/being knocked off.

I sweat lot but the forehead pad inside my helmet soaks it all up. Anyhow, your choice.

cunnins4 · 26-10-2006 4:22pm

vasch_ro - all i was saying was that it seems a lot of people don't use lights. I do obey the law - i use lights. And i honestly have never seen anyone being stopped, but i that's just me. I'll prob see loads later today!

Daymobrew - I do take them with me, but sometimes when i get home, i leave them on my desk or something, and forget to put them in my bag on my way to college or work. It's not a hastle or anything, i just forget them sometimes!

daymobrew · 26-10-2006 5:19pm

cunnins4 wrote:

Daymobrew - I do take them with me, but sometimes when i get home, i leave them on my desk or something, and forget to put them in my bag on my way to college or work. It's not a hastle or anything, i just forget them sometimes!

How about putting them in your bag with some item that you always bring with you on the bike.
My bag has a little keyring on the inside. I attach my bike keys. Since I always have my bag, I always have my keys.

pokypoky · 26-10-2006 8:07pm

Mad Finn wrote:

So why not turn on your lights and pause at traffic lights.

Yep agree with all that went before that and that too. Much more helpful than Gil Dub's kamakaze pedestrian policy which I doubt would end in anything but his own demise.

Gil Dub I think the only way to settle our differences is through an honest to God challenge of chicken bicycle style. You can wear body armour if you really want to live up to the title of the game.

cunnins4 · 26-10-2006 8:45pm

daymobrew wrote:

How about putting them in your bag with some item that you always bring with you on the bike.
My bag has a little keyring on the inside. I attach my bike keys. Since I always have my bag, I always have my keys.

I don't cycle in the dark too much, so i just don't use them as much, so i tend to be forgetful. I usually put them in the front pocket in my bag, but as i said, i'm a tad forgetful. as is life. anyways, we've hammered out the whole lights thing a bit too much. Basically, lights are good, be safe, be sensible on the bike, and foremost, just be responsible.

As for this "am i a bold cyclist" thing, it screams to me of attention seeking, as it has done, as it's received 4 pages of replies.

The key to staying alive on the bike is being sensible. Be a bold cyclist all you like, but when you are turned into a red streak on the road, we won't miss you. you'll just be another statistic.

jman0 · 26-10-2006 8:56pm

Cyclists in this country are a dying breed.
In the eyes of motorists every single one of us is a kind of ambassador for cycling. I am cognisant of this and try hard to stick to the rules of the road.

kinaldo · 26-10-2006 9:13pm

cunnins4 wrote:

Be a bold cyclist all you like, but when you are turned into a red streak on the road, we won't miss you. you'll just be another statistic.

Don't say that, I'd miss my cycle buddy! He is quite the attention loving narcissist but I think this thread may have served a good purpose.

cardshark202 · 26-10-2006 9:14pm

@ Kinaldo: I know for a fact you cycle while listening to your ipod meaning you can't hear a thing.

Oh yeah, any time I see cyclists break a red light during the middle of the day I assume they are mildly retarded or something. Also, although I don't have one, if you are a regular cyclist you should wear a helmet. It just makes no sense. Anyone who refuses to wear one is just stupid. 'But I don't look cool with one on' lol. People are stupid.

kinaldo · 26-10-2006 9:18pm

cardshark202 wrote:

@ Kinaldo: I know for a fact you cycle while listening to your ipod meaning you can't hear a thing..

A) I don't own one of those silly fashion accessories and

if u think I can't hear anything then you're just showing up your own ignorance as a non-cyclist.

chicoben · 26-10-2006 10:15pm

i cycle with one earphone in, in actual fact i find that the wind rushing past my ear is louder than the music most of the time.......

cardshark202 · 26-10-2006 10:54pm

kinaldo wrote:

A) I don't own one of those silly fashion accessories and if u think I can't hear anything then you're just showing up your own ignorance as a non-cyclist.

Sorry I meant Iriver. Also I know for a fact you are ignorant to your surroundings judging by the number of times you have cycled passed me and not 'heard' me shouting your name.

kinaldo · 26-10-2006 11:23pm

cardshark202 wrote:

Sorry I meant Iriver. Also I know for a fact you are ignorant to your surroundings judging by the number of times you have cycled passed me and not 'heard' me shouting your name.

Random name gets shouted out and I'm expected to take notice in the mix of loud city traffic, music/talk radio, the speed I'm traveling at, heavy weather, and how far away you are - lol!

I'd actually love to be able to get hold of some headphones that block out all outside noise such as hundreds of loud speedy engines. Even then the volume would probably have to be turned up to the extreme for it seriously affect me.

Anyway, who cares what a non-cyclist / non-driver / part-time pedestrian / troll thinks?

DirkVoodoo · 26-10-2006 11:31pm

On my way to UCD, down the N11, I will break the odd light, especially if their are cars waiting to turn left. So many drivers dont check mirrors or look over their shoulders when turning left, so I feel safer going through the junction when I see the way is clear (generally, this is before the main road im on is about to get the green light).

Cycling without lights is shocking though, I live in a badly lit area and have seen many cyclists doing a good Navy Seals impression, honest to God you would not see these guys until the whites of their eyes are staring blankly back at you. I forgot my lights there this week, rather than spend the night in college i just cycled along the cycle lane and dismounted/walked when i reached the aforementioned "badly lit area".

Really top notch white LED light, very powerful, on sale for 20 euro in the campus cycle store.

Trojan · 27-10-2006 12:50am

I usually have my proper gear on but there's always one...
http://sportcrazy.net/cycling/reality-of-bike-safety-a-mothers-lecture/

Smoggy · 27-10-2006 8:50am

Helmets should be manditory, like wearing a safetybelt in a car. If not for the reason to make everyone else look like a tit head like me with my helmet on.

dalk · 27-10-2006 9:41am

Smoggy wrote:

Helmets should be manditory, like wearing a safetybelt in a car. If not for the reason to make everyone else look like a tit head like me with my helmet on.

Oh please god... don't start the helmet debate going again.

cardshark202 · 27-10-2006 5:17pm

kinaldo wrote:

Random name gets shouted out and I'm expected to take notice in the mix of loud city traffic, music/talk radio, the speed I'm traveling at, heavy weather, and how far away you are - lol!

Lol like when I'm right beside you lmao.

kinaldo wrote:

I'd actually love to be able to get hold of some headphones that block out all outside noise such as hundreds of loud speedy engines. Even then the volume would probably have to be turned up to the extreme for it seriously affect me.

You do know that with earphones in you are less likely to hear things which could alert you to danger? Its just ignorance and stupidity imo. Why don't you hook your portable tv up on the handlebars? That would help block out all those annoying things like traffic and pedestrians and traffic lights. God forbid they disrupt you from cycle along the 'bicycle road'.

tywy · 27-10-2006 6:03pm

I probably would do that if I could afford it...watch Lost on the way to college while getting some excercise.

Hmm...I think DID are selling 8" LCDs fairly cheap at the moment, might try pick one up...I have an idea on how to make a fixture to hold the TV on the front of the bike.

Am I a bold cyclist?

Comments