Irish Times article: Time to clamp down on the lawless world of cyclists

Beasty

Just to be clear, not reading the rules is against the rules, and can itself lead to a ban...

bbosco

Zab wrote: »

[*]Where there is no left turn and the light is allowing traffic feed in from the right
[/LIST]

Sorry to pick out one part of such a long and generally reasonable post, but that one you listed above is a particular pet hate of mine when I'm driving. I assume you're talking about going straight on through a t-junction where traffic is coming from the right? It can make it very hard for a driver to judge the right turn when a fast-moving cyclist is approaching unexpectedly from the left and narrowing the road for him, especially when you have assorted traffic waiting to go in the opposite direction to the cyclist. Depends on the road layout but it can be a lot more dangerous than I think some cyclists realise when they are doing it.

tomasrojo

bbosco wrote: »

Sorry to pick out one part of such a long and generally reasonable post, but that one you listed above is a particular pet hate of mine when I'm driving. I assume you're talking about going straight on through a t-junction where traffic is coming from the right? It can make it very hard for a driver to judge the right turn when a fast-moving cyclist is approaching unexpectedly from the left and narrowing the road for him, especially when you have assorted traffic waiting to go in the opposite direction to the cyclist. Depends on the road layout but it can be a lot more dangerous than I think some cyclists realise when they are doing it.

It can cause problems for cyclists who are following the green light too. The RLJ forces you out into the traffic stream, if you weren't already in it.

Gophur

Last night, 9:25PM, driving on the N3, in Cavan, I passed a cyclist. He had zero reflective gear, he was wearing a black shirt (orange, non-reflective short sleeves) and , only for my passenger seeing a reflection from his pedals I could very well have clipped him. Idiot.

Does the likes of him have a brain in his head?

Blowfish

Gophur wrote: »

Last night, 9:25PM, driving on the N3, in Cavan, I passed a cyclist. He had zero reflective gear, he was wearing a black shirt (orange, non-reflective short sleeves) and , only for my passenger seeing a reflection from his pedals I could very well have clipped him. Idiot.

Does the likes of him have a brain in his head?

There is no legal requirement to wear reflective gear. If he had no lights however, that's an entirely different story.

ceannair06

Blowfish wrote: »

There is no legal requirement to wear reflective gear. If he had no lights however, that's an entirely different story.

This morning, College Green, three cyclists shot a red light and came close to knocking down a blind person crossing the road.

I'd call them what I called them at the time but I imagine an infraction would be forthcoming!

Blowfish

ceannair06 wrote: »

I'd call them what I called them at the time but I imagine an infraction would be forthcoming!

Why would you think that? They're f'ing idiots, no doubt about it.

ceannair06

Blowfish wrote: »

Why would you think that? They're f'ing idiots, no doubt about it.

Mindreader - that was exactly the line!

I can sort of grudgingly see why RLJ might just be acceptable on a really quiet road at a quiet time where it is safe - but one of the busiest roads in Dublin at rush hour - WHEN YOU CAN SEE SOMEONE WITH A WHITE STICK! - is disgusting.

Gophur

Blowfish wrote: »

There is no legal requirement to wear reflective gear. If he had no lights however, that's an entirely different story.

F**k the "Legal Requirement", I'm talking about common sense. The idiot was asking for trouble, and damn near got it!

Would it be great to hear some say "he's dead, but he was legally dressed!"

At a very minimum he should have had full reflective jacket or vest, as well as some lights.

seamus

Gophur wrote: »

At a very minimum he should have had full reflective jacket or vest, as well as some lights.

The N3 in Cavan is presumably an unlit road where high-vis gear is of quite minimal benefit on top of your set of lights.

VERYinterested

On my bike his morning I was waiting to turn right with traffic coming towards me. I was stationary, a motorist was coming towards me and he veered uncomfortably over the white line, doing approx 50kph. Luckily he looked up in time from his mobile on which he was texting to see me and swerve back on to his side of the road.

Does the likes of him have a brain in his head?

eightyfish

ceannair06 wrote: »

This morning, College Green, three cyclists shot a red light and came close to knocking down a blind person crossing the road.

Gophur wrote: »

He had zero reflective gear, he was wearing a black shirt (orange, non-reflective short sleeves) and , only for my passenger seeing a reflection from his pedals I could very well have clipped him. Idiot.

Stupid cyclist is stupid. They exist. We know already.

Bluefoam

Gophur wrote: »

Last night, 9:25PM, driving on the N3, in Cavan, I passed a cyclist. He had zero reflective gear, he was wearing a black shirt (orange, non-reflective short sleeves) and , only for my passenger seeing a reflection from his pedals I could very well have clipped him. Idiot.

Does the likes of him have a brain in his head?

Sounds like he should have had lights, but why should he have to wear special cycling cloths?

BTW, does your car not have lights? Surely he wasn't entirely invisible in your headlights? It can be difficult to see cyclists without lights sometimes, but if you are travelling at a reasonable speed & are aware of the roads ahead, you should be able to see them. No? Except of course when they suddenly cross your path - that is a different set of circumstances.

Gophur

seamus wrote: »

The N3 in Cavan is presumably an unlit road where high-vis gear is of quite minimal benefit on top of your set of lights.

Minimal benefit? Are you serious?

Proper High-visibility clothing would have rendered this idiot visible from a safe distance, unlike what was actually the case.

Or, are you defending his attire?

Beasty

No-one is defending the lack of lights. Hi-viz is an option, but it's benefits are minimal if the bike has adequate lighting.

cdaly_

Gophur wrote: »

At a very minimum he should have had full reflective jacket or vest, as well as some lights.

Ah, not so. At minimum he should have had a single rear-facing steady (or flashing) red light and a single front-facing steady (or flashing) white light.

OTOH, I run two flashing lights front and rear at all times and have various reflective bits at various points about my person and bike.

Bunnyhopper

Gophur wrote: »

Minimal benefit? Are you serious?

Proper High-visibility clothing would have rendered this idiot visible from a safe distance, unlike what was actually the case.

Or, are you defending his attire?

Did he actually have lights on the bike or not?

Gophur

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Did he actually have lights on the bike or not?

No lights.

I'm stunned at the defence of this idiot. Self-preservation is surely paramount, or should be, yet it seems it's the duty of the motorist to see the cyclist, not his duty to be seen.

Some innocent motorist could have clipped this idiot and be left with this in his/her mind forever, all because the man didn't show some common sense.

cdaly_

Bluefoam wrote: »

BTW, does your car not have lights? Surely he wasn't entirely invisible in your headlights? It can be difficult to see cyclists without lights sometimes, but if you are travelling at a reasonable speed & are aware of the roads ahead, you should be able to see them. No?

Not necessarily. In wet conditions and at dusk or after, there can be pretty poor visibility and/or contrast and something slower moving and close to the ditch will not stand out compared with other motor traffic which will, presumably, have lights on. Dusk is probably the most dangerous time on the roads as seeing is poor.

A cyclist is in a driver's eyeline* much more so when they are some distance ahead on the road than when they are closer and off to the side. Your typical ninja cyclist will be hard to spot at that distance and it's only when they are closer that they will be seen.


* A car driver is typically scanning the road 100m or more ahead to anticipate conditions rather than in the 10m ahead where the ninja cyclist is likely to be spotted.

Chips Lovell

Gophur wrote: »

I'm stunned at the defence of this idiot.

Beasty wrote: »

No-one is defending the lack of lights. Hi-viz is an option, but it's benefits are minimal if the bike has adequate lighting.

Ahem

VERYinterested

How many times have cyclists been cut up or knocked down in broad daylight? These posts about night time attire make me laugh. Yes it's a good idea to have a light front and back, but sometimes it just doesn't make any difference to a bullish motorist.

Chips Lovell

It's more than just a good idea, it's the law.

Bunnyhopper

Gophur wrote: »

No lights.

I'm stunned at the defence of this idiot. Self-preservation is surely paramount, or should be, yet it seems it's the duty of the motorist to see the cyclist, not his duty to be seen.

Some innocent motorist could have clipped this idiot and be left with this in his/her mind forever, all because the man didn't show some common sense.

If he'd had lights you'd have seen him. The law requires him to have lights, it doesn't require him to have hi-viz or reflective clothing on. It might indeed be prudent of someone cycling on a dark road to wear that gear but it's not required. I don't think anyone here is defending idiocy - I'm certainly not - but the fact remains that hi-viz is not a requirement and lights would have solved the problem.

Drivers, like other road users, are indeed required to be observant and to proceed with due care and attention. Cyclists do have a duty to be seen in the sense that they are required to display lights when it's dark out.

Drive in the dark and you have to have your lights on but you don't have to paint your car bright yellow even though doing so would make you more visible

I agree that cycling in dark clothing on a dark road with no lights on your bike is stupid, but getting worked up about the hi-viz gear is a distraction from the main point: If he'd had lights you'd have seen him.

cdaly_

eightyfish wrote: »

Stupid cyclist is stupid. They exist. We know already.

Beasty wrote: »

No-one is defending the lack of lights. Hi-viz is an option, but it's benefits are minimal if the bike has adequate lighting.

Gophur wrote: »

I'm stunned at the defence of this idiot.

As mentioned, nobody is defending his lack of lighting. All we are saying is that adequate lighting is sufficient. The fact that said cyclist had no lights is indefensible...

Gophur wrote: »

yet it seems it's the duty of the motorist to see the cyclist, not his duty to be seen.

While it is the cyclist's duty to be seen (hence the requirement for lights), it is always the duty of the motorist to see other road users (many of whom have no legal requirement for lighting / reflectors etc). Pedestrians are not required to have lighting or any other visibility aids but the motorist (and cyclist) still has a duty of care to see them. Not fair really but that's how it is.

eightyfish

VERYinterested wrote: »

Yes it's a good idea to have a light front and back, but sometimes it just doesn't make any difference to a bullish motorist.

Nah I don't agree. Cyclists without lights at night blend into the black like cats and are, IMO, total and complete morons. No excuses.

There are, of course, moronic motorists too. This we know to be true.

Gophur

Incredible, lads. This cyclist was a 100% idiot. It was 100% his duty to be appropriately dressed and lit up, for his own safety.

I did see him, but I would have seen him a few hundred metres sooner, had he been lit/reflective.

And, his actions have been defended, by the very nature of putting the onus of spotting him on the motorists.

Chips Lovell

Bluefoam

Gophur wrote: »

It was 100% his duty to be appropriately dressed

You just don't get it, do you. It's been explained here dozens of times, so I won't repeat it... but Christ Almightly help me...

Raam

Can I post another one?

VERYinterested

http://www.google.ie/images?q=facepalm&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=Uu50TOXHIIuRjAfjoaWcBg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQsAQwAA&biw=1073&bih=674

Gophur

Bunnyhopper

Gophur wrote: »

And your point is...?

Jawgap

VERYinterested wrote: »

.........These posts about night time attire make me laugh. .........

Gophur wrote: »

Minimal benefit? Are you serious?

Proper High-visibility clothing would have rendered this idiot visible from a safe distance, unlike what was actually the case.

Or, are you defending his attire?

Oh man!!! Do I need "a tyre" for night time too????? This cycling lark is starting to cost too much:)

seamus

Gophur wrote: »

Proper High-visibility clothing would have rendered this idiot visible from a safe distance, unlike what was actually the case.

No moreso than lights. Hi-vis clothing doesn't luminesce, it reflects.

doozerie

Gophur wrote: »

Are you advocating driving with one eye closed? I'm shocked, etc.

Beasty

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

And your point is...?

I think Gophur's point is quite simple - he believes cyclists should have lights and high-viz
Everyone else thinks you only need the lights (and that's clearly what the law "thinks" also)
So we have a difference of opinion - one person's view is different from everone else's - I suspect further debate is unlikely to shift everyone else's opinion, and I get the feeling Gophur is unlikely to change opinion either - perhaps the best thing is to leave it there ...

Bluefoam

Beasty wrote: »

I think Gophur's point is quite simple - he believes cyclists should have lights and high-viz
Everyone else thinks you only need the lights (and that's clearly what the law "thinks" also)

Sorry, I have to disagree with you on this...

Gophur wrote: »

It was 100% his duty to be appropriately dressed

Gophur is stating that cyclists have some sort of legal duty to wear 'special' clothing - thats very different from suggesting cyclists should wear special clothing for their own safety.

There is a big difference between opinion and fact...

stopusingoil

This article is bloody RIDICULOUS.

The reason there are so many traffic laws for cars is because someone could end up dead from as little as a misused indicator. Ie a car is a killing machine. When a reckless cyclist gets into an accident, the cyclist dies. He had it coming to him so good riddance etc. Looks like this journalist is a little b**** and just needed something new to b**** about....

What's next, enforcing j-walking laws or maybe force the blind to wear bells? I thought I had too much time on my hands...

DirkVoodoo

I have to wonder about someone's suitability to drive a car when they rely on passengers to spot hazards and other road users.

niceonetom

stopusingoil wrote: »

...

Sorry, I have to ask, what do you use to lube your chain?

Gophur

Bluefoam wrote: »

S.....

Gophur is stating that cyclists have some sort of legal duty ................

"Legal"?


Eh, no I didn't. I'm suggesting common sense be used, I never mentioned the legal requirements.

Hermy

stopusingoil wrote: »

...a car is a killing machine...

Only when you install a careless driver.

doozerie

stopusingoil wrote: »

When a reckless cyclist gets into an accident, the cyclist dies.

If that were entirely true, then there would be fewer reckless cyclists about. Reckless cyclists are not just a danger to themselves but to others also, and as with reckless behaviour by any road user the reckless idiots are often not the ones to bear the brunt of their actions.

Bunnyhopper

Beasty wrote: »

I think Gophur's point is quite simple - he believes cyclists should have lights and high-viz
Everyone else thinks you only need the lights (and that's clearly what the law "thinks" also)
So we have a difference of opinion - one person's view is different from everone else's - I suspect further debate is unlikely to shift everyone else's opinion, and I get the feeling Gophur is unlikely to change opinion either - perhaps the best thing is to leave it there ...

The question was more specifically about what point he was trying to make with the winker picture.

FWIW, I think you only need the lights (taking 'need' here to refer to legal requirements and the minimum necessary to make you visible to an attentive driver) but it would be prudent, as I said, to wear hi-viz clothing in the kind of road conditions mentioned here. So, I think I probably largely agree with Gophur - but the difference is there in the slipperiness of 'should' and 'need' and 'duty'.

Here, for example, appropriate dress (i.e., hi-viz and reflective) and lighting are twice put on the same level, which confuses the fact that one is a legal requirement and the other an optional safety measure.

Gophur wrote: »

Incredible, lads. This cyclist was a 100% idiot. It was 100% his duty to be appropriately dressed and lit up, for his own safety.

I did see him, but I would have seen him a few hundred metres sooner, had he been lit/reflective.

The cyclist does have legal obligations and a duty of care, so she or he should have lights after dark. Similarly, a motorist should be able to spot the cyclist who does have lights, even when the cyclist doesn't have hi-viz on. The absence of hi-viz shouldn't be any kind of excuse for a driver who fails to see a properly (i.e., legally etc.) lit cyclist. I know that's not what happened in Gophur's case and I'm making a broader point here. When it comes to making that point, conflating the "need" for lights and the "need" for hi-viz doesn't help.

As I said already, if the cyclist had had lights then Gophur would have seen him, and if he hadn't seen him then it would not have been the cyclist's fault. In that case "the onus of spotting" the properly lit cyclist is on the motorist, and if the motorist clips the cyclist then the motorist is not "some innocent motorist" and the cause of the accident is not "all because the man [i.e., the cyclist] didn't show some common sense".

If we start to say that the "need" for lights and the "need" for hi-viz are the same thing then we're on the road to a situation in which the motorist can suggest that the properly lit cyclist they clipped was partly to blame because they hadn't supplemented their lights with hi-viz and so the problem becomes more the cyclist's lack of common sense and a little less the driver's poor observation skills. That, or we're on the road to mandatory hi-viz.

More generally, if we're to decline to debate on boards in any case of a stubborn difference of opinion then we might as well all give up and log off

Beasty

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

More generally, if we're to decline to debate on boards in any case of a stubborn difference of opinion then we might as well all give up and log off

I was not saying we should not debate it - the point I was making was that there had been plenty of debate on this particular topic already in the thread, with absolutely no signs of either side changing their stance. I was trying to minimise the risk of someone going over the top with a response, and hopefully avoid any need for moderator intervention;)

Moflojo

stopusingoil wrote: »

Ie a car is a killing machine.

Fair point.
But then again, if you plug in a toaster oven and chuck it into a bath with your granny it too becomes a killing machine.
Cars don't kill people, people kill people.

Lumen

Moflojo wrote: »

But then again, if you plug in a toaster oven and chuck it into a bath with your granny it too becomes a killing machine.

I very much doubt that. I think it would just short itself out and blow the fuse in the plug.

Beasty

Moflojo wrote: »

But then again, if you plug in a toaster oven and chuck it into a bath with your granny it too becomes a killing machine.

And what evidence do you have to back up this claim?

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

I very much doubt that. I think it would just short itself out and blow the fuse in the plug.

Empiricism ftw!

Moflojo

Lumen wrote: »

I very much doubt that. I think it would just short itself out and blow the fuse in the plug.

No, no, I meant the granny would go nuts at the attempt on her life, fly into a rage, and become a fearsome killing machine.