Always wear a helmet! (pic)

Raam

Traumadoc wrote: »

The guy I saw had apparently stopped is bike , then a HGV pulled up beside him. The HGV got a green feeder light to turn left and the cyclist was crushed.

Well, let us all learn a lesson from this one. If a HGV starts to move behind or beside you, get the hell out of the way.
As a rule, I will never ever let myself be positioned to the left of a HGV.

doozerie

Traumadoc wrote: »

Obeying the traffic lights may put you in more danger. see my previous post.

The article linked to in your previous post makes an impressive leap of logic in suggesting what you state here. "Impressive" in the sense of being a huge leap and one which is based on little or no actual logic, that is. Their "Road survival code" is impressive too, suggesting for example that you should pass a lorry "only on the right" presumably in the wildly optimistic hope that traffic in the lane to your right will leave plenty of room to get past safely. The author of the article should probably take to a bike and follow their own advice for a few weeks, and write a follow-up ...assuming they are not being scraped off the road with a shovel at that stage, that is.

Funnily enough, I see as many women break red lights as men. They must have the fear of god of lorries in them. Ironically, one of the regular light breakers that I see wears a hi-vis vest with a large handwritten slogan on it that says "Cyclist, Not Target!!" - I can only presume she is dyslexic, or maybe she wrote the slogan using a mirror.

Traumadoc

I myself do not generally break the lights , but I do believe that there are instances that you may obey the rules and die or break the rules and live.

Cycling is dangerous, its up to the cyclists to make themselves visable and not get in situations where they may be invisable.

Chips Lovell

Raam wrote: »

As a rule, I will never ever let myself be positioned to the left of a HGV.

Same here. I'd always move away. At lights I'll often take the lane, i.e. stay behind vehicles rather than alongside them. If you're directly in someone's line of sight, there's less chance of them pulling across you.

doozerie

Cycling is no more dangerous than many things that people do casually each day, such as travel by car, climb ladders, turn on electrical appliances, swim, etc. In fact, accident statistics will probably show that cycling is far less dangerous than many of those relatively routine things.

Articles like that one in the Times do nothing to make cycling safer, they just promote the view that you are taking your life in your hands each time you sit on a bike. They don't bother to mention the other risky things that we all do regularly 'cos those are somehow deemed less news worthy - headlines like "Danger posed by sticking fingers in plug sockets" don't sell as many newspapers I guess.

petethedrummer

If a truck pulls up beside you, you should position yourself so he can see you. go out in front of it, or at the very least make sure you can see his face in one of the mirrors. I would never ever stand on the inside of a truck.

And if the truck still starts to turn left, don't stand like a dummy waiting for it to crush you, get on the bloody pavement. They don't pull off that quickly.

We have to get a bit of perspective on this debate. I don't think any is suggesting you religiously follow every road rule to the letter of the law. What I think people are advocating is that cyclists should cycle on the correct side of the road, get lights, obey the majority traffic lights, and not cycle up between buses etc... That's not too much to expect is it?..but an awful lot of cyclists won't even do that.

There are instances when its necessary to break the law, but in the vast majority of cases it is not.

ozt9vdujny3srf

I go out in front of cars at lights generally and then when the light goes green pull out to the left again as I pull away. I always feel safer when I know I can be seen.

I do break lights sometimes when i feel its safe, (most often turning eft into a road with a cycle lane) but at the same time, I often have to slow down / stop for people coming across the cycle lane when I have right of way, stop for people cutting across me on roundabouts. I also ignore mandatory cycle lanes if I feel they are dangerous or stupid.

The way I cycle might not be lawful, but its safer then it would be if I obeyed every letter of the law and trusted drivers to the extent that I'll always assume they'll give me right of way when I am due it.

bealbocht

Mathew Alive Sidecar the Uncivil wrote: »

I go out in front of cars at lights generally and then when the light goes green pull out to the left again as I pull away. I always feel safer when I know I can be seen.

I do break lights sometimes when i feel its safe, (most often turning eft into a road with a cycle lane) but at the same time, I often have to slow down / stop for people coming across the cycle lane when I have right of way, stop for people cutting across me on roundabouts. I also ignore mandatory cycle lanes if I feel they are dangerous or stupid.

The way I cycle might not be lawful, but its safer then it would be if I obeyed every letter of the law and trusted drivers to the extent that I'll always assume they'll give me right of way when I am due it.

I'm pretty much the same.

I do like to pull infront of cars when stopped at light, cos they see ya that way. I have a few times, stood up on the bike and raised my and and waved it about a bit, when I found myself more or less under a trucks wing mirror, even tapped on the window once.. , cos if you dont there is no way , he know you are there. Hasnt happed for ages, so must be better at not getting in the situation in the first place.

At the bottom of Christchurch hill, is a place where, you have to stop at the red, (unless you are really really insane) , but I like to jump it early, cos I am normally turing right on the other side of the bridge. If I stay were I am supposed to be, I can have cars on both sides, and some of the cars on my right, turn right, and some go straight.. which is dangerous, I find it best to go a little early and hold the center of the center lane, until I have made the trun. Suits me.

Chips Lovell

I've never found myself in a situation where I have to break the lights in order to feel safe

Raam

el tonto wrote: »

I've never found myself in a situation where I have to break the lights in order to feel safe

Nor I.

brayblue24

Mathew Alive Sidecar the Uncivil wrote: »

I also ignore mandatory cycle lanes if I feel they are dangerous or stupid.

Yeah some of them defy logic alright.

dub_skav

It's never necessary to break lights, however, as many others here have said stopping a few metres in front of the stop line and in the middle of the lane is the safest way to ensure you are given adequate consideration.

unionman

blorg wrote: »

Jeez, you're a whizz with the photoshop there unionman

Years of practice. It's how myself and Al Gore used to while away our evenings when we were inventing the internet back in the day:D

irishmotorist wrote: »

Photoshop? Yeah right! It looks like Unionman is more of a Google Images whizz to have found those photos in the archives!
:rolleyes:

Dang, foiled again...:rolleyes:

unionman

Spotted Helmethead today cycling past the Coombe hospital about 2pm.

Was a bit starstruck to see the man himself in the flesh. Didn't manage a pic:(

daymobrew

Mathew Alive Sidecar the Uncivil wrote: »

So you guys never break lights on your bike?

Never.

Bicyclegadabout

I saw him getting money out of the boi atm on Camden Street on Friday night. I explained who he was to a friend. I then fell to my knees and wept as it became clear that my entire world has finally been consumed by TEH INTERNETS.

Raam

Bicyclegadabout wrote: »

I saw him getting money out of the boi atm on Camden Street on Friday night. I explained who he was to a friend. I then fell to my knees and wept as it became clear that my entire world has finally been consumed by TEH INTERNETS.

Admitting it is the first step.

Raam

Raam wrote: »

Admitting it is the first step.

Admitting it via the internet is the second.

Trojan

It seems that you need to be aggressive and assertive to survive as a cyclist

I'd agree 100% with that and it reflects my cycling style, particularly in Dublin traffic (touring in France is a whole other story). Also, while I obey reds 99% of the time, there are always occasions. No real debate is served by absolutes.

For context, from the linked article above:

Peter Wright, the father of Rosie and a vehicle safety expert who heads the commission which regulates safety in international motorsport, criticised TfL for failing to publish the study. “Rosie was reasonably cautious, which seems to be the problem. It seems that you need to be aggressive and assertive to survive as a cyclist,” he said. “TfL’s attitude is unacceptable.

“It should stop withholding the study because we need an open public debate about the findings to seek ways of preventing more deaths. There is something wrong if the only way you can survive on a bike is to skip the lights.”

unionman

Myth wrote: »

Admitting it via the internet is the second.

Yes, but probably a backward step.:D

tibor

When stopped at lights I usually take off with the pedestrain green light if the way is clear to get across the junction before the cars move. Cars are stopped at reds all round, no pedestrians around...

I guess you guys are agin this too? If so, why?

Raam

tibor wrote: »

When stopped at lights I usually take off with the pedestrain green light if the way is clear to get across the junction before the cars move. Cars are stopped at reds all round, no pedestrians around...

I guess you guys are agin this too? If so, why?

Because it's illegal. I can understand why you do it, to a point. However, many times, slower cyclists will do this to other cyclists who are faster and who have already passed them out, but who have decided to obey the law and wait for the green. It's incredibly annoying. I'm not saying you are one of those cyclists.

Gavin

tibor wrote: »

When stopped at lights I usually take off with the pedestrain green light if the way is clear to get across the junction before the cars move. Cars are stopped at reds all round, no pedestrians around...

I guess you guys are agin this too? If so, why?

Yeah I used to do this. I validated it by saying I could just hop off the bike, walk across with the pedestrian lights, hop back on and away I go. Sure, it's much the same as staying on the bike to do it !

Now I just don't bother, the peer pressure from boards.ie users and the responsibility of a boards.ie jersey is overpowering. I also came to the conclusion that when going through the city center, it simply doesn't save one any noticeable time to skip some lights and not others.

kenmc

ditto
although if I have JUST missed a green light and face a long wait, I'll still cross the road as a ped with the little green man rather than waiting for the lights to eventually turn for me again

doozerie

tibor wrote: »

When stopped at lights I usually take off with the pedestrain green light if the way is clear to get across the junction before the cars move. Cars are stopped at reds all round, no pedestrians around...

I guess you guys are agin this too? If so, why?

I see people do this regularly on my commute. One of the crossroads that I pass through has pedestrian+cycle lights across all four roads at the junction. They are intended to let pedestrians and cyclists cross just one individual road at a time, but when they go green many of the cyclists that are stopped at the lights just blast through the entire junction, illegally cutting across two sets of green lights in doing so. Maybe they check for pedestrians or cyclists crossing before they do so, but I have seen cyclists skim past both pedestrians and other cyclists (both adults and very young children), legally crossing the roads, quite a few times.

So, if you want one reason why not to do this, then it is the fact that you are putting others at risk. Just because you haven't seem them does not mean that someone won't appear in front of you when you least expect it. I would imagine that most people that walk away from a car crash, for example, will swear blind that they hadn't seen the thing that they collided with - the unexpected nature of them is why they are diplomatically called "accidents" rather than "incidents of people choosing to collide with things/others".

But social responsibility aside, another reason not to break the lights is a good old-fashioned sense of self-preservation. The Critical Mass Campaign used to have, and presumably still do have, the slogan of "We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic!". To prove this point the Dublin branch would get a bunch of cyclists together every now and then and cycle slowly through Dublin city, impeding the traffic behind them by their slow speed and mass. I was never a fan of their methods, but their message was certainly a good one. It is important that all other road users acknowledge cyclists as valid road users and therefore as traffic - without that recognition, we cyclists are perceived as just an inconvenient obstacle that doesn't belong on the road and there are plenty of aggressive people behind the wheels/handlebars of motorised vehicles that would be more than happy to shove us off the road to make way for themselves (some will do this anyway, but most people think twice about it if they perceive that you have at least some right to be on the road in the first place). So it is in the best interests of all cyclists that as a group we be treated as traffic and given space on the roads, etc., as such. However, if we want to be treated as traffic, and benefit from the some of the safety that this provides, then we have an obligation to act like traffic, which means obeying traffic lights amongst other basic things.

As already mentioned, dismounting and walking across with the pedestrian green light is perfectly legal and safe. In fact, the design of many of the specific cycling traffic lights that I have seen actually encourage this behaviour. It's not usually my choice (I prefer to wait for the green light for traffic), but it is certainly a perfectly valid one.

tibor

Interesting points.

penexpers

blorg wrote: »

Full face is best for maximum protection when casually drifting through red lights!

I spotted this guy again the other day, still breaking red lights. He possibly had a Mad MTB jersey on him too.

Gavin

How do you know it was the same guy ?

Lots of DH events on at the moment, so quite likely the MAD chap was going to/from an event or practice.

(Doesn't excuse his red light jumping. I'm sure the Chairman will deliver a stern admonition)

penexpers

Verb wrote: »

How do you know it was the same guy ?

Lots of DH events on at the moment, so quite likely the MAD chap was going to/from an event or practice.

(Doesn't excuse his red light jumping. I'm sure the Chairman will deliver a stern admonition)

Similar bike and similar helmet (yes I realise full face helmets are all roughly the same). Do MAD have events around lunchtime on Tuesday?

Speaking of jerseys, please PM me about that jersey, next week some day should suit.

daveharnett

Myth wrote: »

Nope, except when there's a traffic loop set up which won't detect me.

This could be wrong, but I have heard that ataching a strong magnet to the frame of a bike can allow traffic loops to detect the bike. Might be worth looking into.

daveharnett

daveharnett wrote: »

This could be wrong, but I have heard that ataching a strong magnet to the frame of a bike can allow traffic loops to detect the bike. Might be worth looking into.

Having anything magnetic that exposed & close to the ground is looking for trouble methinks.

daveharnett

Myth wrote: »

Having anything magnetic that exposed & close to the ground is looking for trouble methinks.

On the upside, you could hoover up any change lying around the street.



Goes off to check whether currency is magnetic

Crippens

I obey traffic lights almost all the time but it is difficult sometimes to decide the best way to negotiate a junction. Take one example from my commute: going along Fortunestown Way in the Citywest direction there is a T-junction with the Jobstown Road. On my side there is one lane of traffic leading to one lane on the opposite side of the junction. Traffic approaching from the other direction heading towards Tallaght has 2 lanes; one for turning right into the Jobstown Road and the inside for going straight on. So, when I cross the junction I am faced with a road that has three lanes and unfortunately there really isn't sufficient space for all 3 and they are all relatively narrow. On one occasion a lorry started to squeeze by me as I cleared the junction and only for the fact that I jumped the kerb to get off the road I would have been hit. From then on I have always jumped the red in order to clear the junction before the traffic gets moving behind me. I realise that another option is to cycle well out into the lane to prevent overtaking but this creates so much aggression and abuse that I really feel the only safe option I have is to jump fast as soon as the lights turn red for the Jobstown Road and before my lights go green.
I would appreciate comments and advice but waiting for the green and then cycling a "normal" distance from the kerb is NOT a safe option so please don't tell me the rules must be obeyed.

monument

Crippens wrote: »

I realise that another option is to cycle well out into the lane to prevent overtaking but this creates so much aggression and abuse

It's often not to prevent overtaken, but rather than to prevent dangerous overtaking. Cycling close to the kerb and allowing cars, vans, and trucks to become too close between you and the kerb poses more danger to you.

That's the option, I think, the majority of people here would go with.

But it's not just our opinion, it's back by expert opinion in Cyclecraft, which is written by "John Franklin, is a consultant and registered Expert Witness on cycling skills and safety and was a member of the CTC reference group that set up the [UK] National Cycling Training Standard, now known as Bikeability. Cyclecraft is required reading for instructors accredited to teach the Standard".

The book is the "official course book for the [UK] National Cycle Training Standard, endorsed by all principal cycle training providers."

It's £12.50 (around €14) plus p&p, which is well worth it. It can also be found in Eason etc.

And a good description of the book can be found by clicking here (where the intro chapter can be read):

Cyclecraft teaches cycling technique in a similar way to teaching someone to drive a car – how to integrate with traffic, not fear it. The general aims are to maximise your safety and riding efficiency, while minimising inconvenience to others and wear to your machine.


Advice is given on how to deal with all common road situations,
recognising how impractical it often is to avoid the more difficult ones. It follows the supposition, well endorsed by skilled riders, that the only way to be safe is to learn to control a cycle as a vehicle and to read and respond to what is going on around you. For this reason the cyclist is frequently referred to as a vehicle driver, for that is what you must be. Cyclecraft also outlines the problems experienced by other road users; by taking these into account, you can react in the ways most likely to benefit your journey.