ATTENTION all cyclists

John Mason

You are invisible without flashing lights on the back AND THE FRONT of your bike.

If you insist on cycling without lights, can you please keep out of the city between 8am- 10am and 4m – 7pm.

Thank You

seamus

You don't need a flashing light on the front, a good strong solid light will do. Don't need lights from 8am - 10am at the moment either unless it's raining. It's fully light by 7.45am.

November is statistically the worst month for cyclist fatalities. I'm not surprised when I see the amount of morons going around without lights at the moment.

Darwinism in action I guess.

John Mason

seamus wrote: »

unless it's raining.

every morning this week has been raining

woolymammoth

seamus wrote: »

Don't need lights from 8am - 10am at the moment either unless it's raining.

There's a reason some car manufacturers will have some lights on by default all the time. It's about visibility, your eyes will pick up a moving light better than a moving object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp

Cookie_Monster

I thought flashing lights were frowned upon and you should only have solid lights?

dunno where I picked that up from though.

John Mason

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I thought flashing lights were frowned upon and you should only have solid lights?

dunno where I picked that up from though.

flashing lights are much easier to see when you are in heavy traffic especially as most people in Ireland only drive with one working light anyway, if its flashing you know there is something moving along even if you cant see the person or the bike, as most cyclist prefer to wear black

seamus

every morning this week has been raining

It's been drizzling a little from 8am to 10am, but not raining enough that using lights will be of any assistance - see below.

woolymammoth wrote: »

There's a reason some car manufacturers will have some lights on by default all the time. It's about visibility, your eyes will pick up a moving light better than a moving object.

I won't get into this one. Needless to say that DRLs are of limited use to bicycles, mainly because the light coming from a bicycle headlamp cannot compare to a car's. At best you will see a small yellow or white glow in the middle of the lamp, but it won't actually project any light because its candlepower is lower than the ambient light around it. When the ambient light is reduced (such as under heavy cloud and medium - heavy rain), then DRLs can work for bicycles.

daedal

pshh...Try telling that to ninja cyclists... :rolleyes:

I practiced ninja training in Japan's mount Fuji for 5 years and the first rule they teach about ninja biking is that lights let the enemy know where you are. Not having a light is like saying "**** YOU CAR, JUST TRY AND FIND ME".

So bike lights can **** right off

Wicklowrider

irishbird wrote: »

as most cyclist prefer to wear black

Tell you what - watch any news report from within the city,like the ones where the reporter is outside government buildings. You will see cyclists whizz by. Count how many you see during the report. Then try and justify your assertion that most wear black its simply not true.

I do agree with you about lights in general, modern ones are economical on batteries etc and I can't see why anyone would risk riding without them in dull/dark.

woolymammoth

seamus wrote: »

Needless to say that DRLs are of limited use to bicycles, mainly because the light coming from a bicycle headlamp cannot compare to a car's.

Agreed, but does that make it completely pointless or useless to have it?

seamus wrote: »

At best you will see a small yellow or white glow in the middle of the lamp, but it won't actually project any light because its candlepower is lower than the ambient light around it.

true enough, for those old sh!te lights. The lights on the dublin bikes work pretty well i have to say. I see them every time, even in bright conditions. A light makes it easier to pick out the bike, where otherwise people seem to love to wear clothes that blend in with the footpath. It's the subtle things like this you catch in your peripheral vision that help prevent molestation by a set of handle bars. That and bells. God damn cyclists. If you have a feckin bell, and you're cycling the wrong way down a one way street, use the feckin bell.

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Then try and justify your assertion that most wear black its simply not true.

ya, most dedicated cyclists do [edit: wear hi vis clothes!] , but i see lots who don't. It's worse now with the dublin bikes, because cycling is now more casual. They hop on unprepared without a high vis vest, etc.

seamus

woolymammoth wrote: »

Agreed, but does that make it completely pointless or useless to have it?

Yep, because it doesn't project any light.

true enough, for those old sh!te lights. The lights on the dublin bikes work pretty well i have to say. I see them every time, even in bright conditions.

Have to say I don't. I can see that there's a light there in bright conditions, but it doesn't catch my attention any more than the moving cyclist. Maybe it's just me.

If you have a feckin bell, and you're cycling the wrong way down a one way street, use the feckin bell.

Or it should just be legal to clothesline them

ya, most dedicated cyclists do [edit: wear hi vis clothes!] , but i see lots who don't. It's worse now with the dublin bikes, because cycling is now more casual. They hop on unprepared without a high vis vest, etc.

More controversy!
High-vis vests are of limited use where the street lighting is in place. The luminescence of high-vis vests requires lights to be shined directly on them. In city conditions, street lights provide non-focussed light and car lights are dipped towards the ground, so a high-vis vest isn't particularly effective. They do stand out, but for the same reason that a white jacket would equally stand out - because it doesn't absorb light and blend into the background.

High-vis is very effective on unlit roads because headlights make the person stand out from miles away.

In either case, high-vis is a supplemental system and I think there's far too much focus on high-vis, especially for city cyclist; you see people cycling wearing a high-vis vest and no lights, when it's the lights that are hundreds of times more important. If we focussed more on stopping and fining people for cycling without lights instead of (or in addition to) handing out high-vis vests on the side of the road, the situation would be much improved.

woolymammoth

seamus wrote: »

Or it should just be legal to clothesline them

now yer talkin'!

seamus wrote: »

High-vis vests are of limited use where the street lighting is in place.

umm.. yes & no! If you focus purely on the reflective material, then yes. If you look at how bright, visible, orangered, and more visible people are with them compared to a black designer jacket, then no, they're not of limited use.

seamus wrote: »

In either case, high-vis is a supplemental system and I think there's far too much focus on high-vis, especially for city cyclist; you see people cycling wearing a high-vis vest and no lights, when it's the lights that are hundreds of times more important. If we focussed more on stopping and fining people for cycling without lights instead of (or in addition to) handing out high-vis vests on the side of the road, the situation would be much improved.

ya they are a supplemental system, and should be used with lights to increase the chances of being seen. For the sake of everyone else, if not their own safety!

RandolphEsq

What's 8am!? Is that a new time to go with the daylight savings time?

The worst is seeing cyclists with no lights who don't obey the rules of the road and plough through red lights! They are asking to be hit. Coaches could do with side lights on their doors, I fail to see them sometimes when there are no lights on inside

Beasty

This thread has been moved from the Dublin City forum, so before anyone gets too worked up about some of the comments made, or the fact this is going over well-trodden ground, please bear in mind that some of the posters are probably not too familiar with the cycling forum.

Thanks

Beasty

woolymammoth

Beasty wrote: »

please bear in mind that some of the posters are probably not too familiar with the cycling forum.

Nor do I need to be. No offense. I'm a non-cyclists ranting about people who use bicycles, not necessarily cyclists. It's my perception of these people from the point of view of, among other instances, getting milled off a a narrow footpath by an idiot on a bike on a one way street going the wrong way. There, i said it. :P

ednwireland

you can f off op i will continue using my 3 solid rear lights and 2 solid front lihgts and beleive me if you dont see me you aint looking

murph226

solid lights will be seen for twice the amount of time that a flashing light would;)

John Mason

Mods, can you move this back to the Dublin Forum?

Its about bicycles and not cyclists

also, i dont like being told to "**** off" in your forum

thanks

John Mason

murph226 wrote: »

solid lights will be seen for twice the amount of time that a flashing light would;)

okay,i onlyuse flashing lights - whatever.

the main points is making sure your bikes have lights , you are invisable without them

SHEEESH:rolleyes:

Beasty

irishbird wrote: »

Mods, can you move this back to the Dublin Forum?

Its about bicycles and not cyclists

also, i dont like being told to "**** off" in your forum

thanks

There is no point in me transferring it back to the Dublin forum when they transferred it here in the first place - I'm simply going to lock it to avoid further problems

I agree that telling you to "**** off" is unacceptable and I have dealt with that