Cyclists

davoxx

Blowfish wrote: »

Wrong.
Lights obviously should be obeyed, but Irish cycle lanes are complete crap, plus this shows how much more likely you are to be in a collision due to being on a segregated cycle facility.
Yep, they were an idiot for skipping the light.
Wrong. One of the most common statements from motorists involved in a collision with either a bicycle or motorbike is that they 'came out of nowhere' or 'I didn't see them'. If a cyclist wants to use flashing lights to make them more visible, why exactly would you want to stop them?

You really should stop saying wrong all the time.

The flashy light is normally applied as - flashy = stationary ... ie .. i'm getting closer to it based on length of flash and position.

defeats the purpose if it is moving.

constant light means, it's getting closer to me, as it's light never goes off ...

there was a law for this ... might have been changed since i last looked at it ... reason is if i had a 1 sec flash time, for one second i have no idea where moving object is.

seems the law has changed -- another step backwards in safety

(changed in SI 487 of 2009, since 14 December 2009 it is legal to use flashing front and rear lamps)

Blowfish

And here's the quote about cycle lanes from the National Cycling Policy framework created by minister for transport Noel Dempsey:

15.4 Mandatory Use Regulation

We will revoke the Statutory Instrument that requires cyclists to use cycle tracks where they are provided - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Amendment Regulations, S.I. No. 274 (1998). This regulation is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons:

• (i) it is clear that the cycling infrastructure that has been constructed to date is often of a poor standard and is poorly maintained, and cyclists are required to use it;

• (ii) it can force cyclists to be on cycle tracks and (when they are planning on continuing straight ahead) to be on the inside of left-turning vehicles, including Heavy Goods Vehicles;

• (iii) if a group of cyclists (on a weekend cycle for example) is using a road with an off-road cycle-track alongside it, then they are required to use it – which is not practicable.

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

You really should stop saying wrong all the time.

The flashy light is normally applied as - flashy = stationary ... ie .. i'm getting closer to it based on length of flash and position.

defeats the purpose if it is moving.

constant light means, it's getting closer to me, as it's light never goes off ...

there was a law for this ... might have been changed since i last looked at it ... reason is if i had a 1 sec flash time, for one second i have no idea where moving object is.

seems the law has changed -- another step backwards in safety

(changed in SI 487 of 2009, since 14 December 2009 it is legal to use flashing front and rear lamps)

also all evidence is from other countries that have must better enforcing of rules for cyclists (hence most death by stupidity is avoided) does not really apply here ...(i have seen that actual irish data, and they do not support the conclusion you purport)

davoxx

Blowfish wrote: »

And here's the quote about cycle lanes from the National Cycling Policy framework created by minister for transport Noel Dempsey:

has it been revoked yet?

i like the way that something is broken .. let's not fix it .. just ignore it .. are they going to remove the tracks so? another waste of tax payers money?

seamus

The flashy light is normally applied as - flashy = stationary ... ie .. i'm getting closer to it based on length of flash and position.

I've never heard that flashing == stationary. Works vehicle move all the time with flashing lights. And the length of the flash doesn't change based on the observer's position or speed. Unless it's some super light which can alter the speed of light.

davoxx wrote: »

defeats the purpose if it is moving.

Can you provide evidence to show that flashing lights are more dangerous than solid ones?

there was a law for this ... might have been changed since i last looked at it ... reason is if i had a 1 sec flash time, for one second i have no idea where moving object is.

One second is a very long time for a light to have a flash. I've never see one. Most are of the order of 0.3 seconds. They are also usually visible from at least 50m away, typically 100m, so unless you're travelling at 270km/h, the light will flash again before you're even half the distance between you and the light.

Can you prove that flashing lights are less safe than solid ones?

davoxx

seamus wrote: »

I've never heard that flashing == stationary. Works vehicle move all the time with flashing lights. And the length of the flash doesn't change based on the observer's position or speed. Unless it's some super light which can alter the speed of light.

Can you provide evidence to show that flashing lights are more dangerous than solid ones?
One second is a very long time for a light to have a flash. I've never see one. Most are of the order of 0.3 seconds. They are also usually visible from at least 50m away, typically 100m, so unless you're travelling at 270km/h, the light will flash again before you're even half the distance between you and the light.

Can you prove that flashing lights are less safe than solid ones?

Can you prove otherwise?:rolleyes: has deaths fallen now since flashy lights are allowed?
flash lights (especially front ones) are very distracting to me personally as they change the back ground light and since they can be much brighter than rear ones this can be quite bad.

slow moving vehicles are 'nearly stationary' but more importantly they have constant lights on too ... sure we should all have flashy lights on our cars since it is soo much safer.

i'll dig up the research link over flashy vs constant when i get a chance .. i thought it would have been common sense, but i guess not.


just to say 0.3 of a second is enough time for an accident to happen.

seamus

davoxx wrote: »

Can you prove otherwise?:rolleyes: has deaths fallen now since flashy lights are allowed?

I don't have to prove otherwise. You made the assertion. I didn't say flashing lights were necessarily safer, I just said they're not less safe.

flash lights (especially front ones) are very distracting to me personally as they change the back ground light and since they can be much brighter than rear ones this can be quite bad.

Well, they make the bike stand out. Which is important when you're a minority road user who may not be travelling at the same speed as the rest of the traffic. The same basis on which work vehicles have large flashing lights on the rood.
I understand what you mean by saying that they can screw with the background light - particularly bright lights have the effect of making everything invisible except the light - but in general flashing front lights are rarely powerful enough to overwhelm the light around them.

In any case, if a Garda feels that the lights are not safe, he has every power to stop the cyclist.

i thought it would have been common sense, but i guess not.

Nope. I've never had any difficulty with flashing -v- constant lights.

just to say 0.3 of a second is enough time for an accident to happen.

Agreed. But there's never 0.3 seconds between the cyclist becoming visible and the motorist encountering him. So the light will flash at least once before any collision.

davoxx

seamus wrote: »

Nope. I've never had any difficulty with flashing -v- constant lights.

sorry never meant you personally .. i meant the government ... they same ones that have traffic from right merging into traffic from the left .. and then have some places the other way round while saying in the ROTR that you must give way to traffic on the right while merging (like roundabouts)


now i really have to dig up the research ... it is quite interesting, a lot of work on how the brain analyses data for position and how often it updates that.

Blowfish

davoxx wrote: »

You really should stop saying wrong all the time.

You're probably right, lack of sleep is making me a tad grumpier/more confrontational than normal.

davoxx wrote:

flash lights (especially front ones) are very distracting to me personally as they change the back ground light and since they can be much brighter than rear ones this can be quite bad.

Ultimately, that is precisely the point of flashing lights. Lights are there to make the cyclist visible, if they just fade into the background, they aren't doing their job.

davoxx wrote:

slow moving vehicles are 'nearly stationary' but more importantly they have constant lights on too ... sure we should all have flashy lights on our cars since it is soo much safer.

Cars/motorbikes have the advantage of being able to accomodate high powered, large beamed lights. Since bikes can't, having something somewhat 'distracting' means you get noticed rather than your lights being drowned out.

Either way, personally I tend to cover both bases by having a minimum of one constant and one flashing rear light.

davoxx

drawing attention should not be distracting .. driver should see a light and say .. "i should watch out for that" .. "not what is flashing in front of me? a skip? a road cone? a moving bike? where is it now? in the same place?"

At the end of the day .. the law says okay .. i think it's wrong ... but it is what it is.

Germany still has these as illegal ... but that is because they enforce the law a bit better than us ...

fenris

If Germany is so much better, then why not go there and drive for a bit?

http://www.ryanair.com/ie/cheap-dublin-ireland-frankfurt-hahn-germany-flights

What's next - cyclists in Thailand are awful because they carry assloads of chickens on their bikes and the chckkens are not wearing helmets?

If you go far enough then you will almost always find something to substantiate a point of view but it does tend to make the thread into a meaningless rant against cyclists instead of the very nice local one that we were having where we could play spot the bus/taxi driver, cyclist, veggie, latest Tim Allen alias.

We have covered most of the best ones here:
cyclists are evil, ohh yes they are, ohh no they are not!
cycle lanes are great, ohh yes they are, ohh no they are not!
motorists are evil, ohh yes they are, ohh no they are not!
flashey lights are'nt flashey enough, ohh yes they are, ohh no they are not!

There must be more that we are missing, keep our rants local I say!!!

BostonB

davoxx wrote: »

...
slow moving vehicles are 'nearly stationary' but more importantly they have constant lights on too ... sure we should all have flashy lights on our cars since it is soo much safer....

Indicators.

Emergency vehicles.

davoxx

fenris wrote: »

There must be more that we are missing, keep our rants local I say!!!

my rants are local .. i'm not complaining about German cyclists .. they stop at lights, so i'll think you'll find that this is a local rant

and it's not a full rant at cyclists for flashing lights (they were using them while illegal before the law was changed)
... obviously this rant is at the government that have no idea of how to properly implement anything properly
... and the traffic is no exception, gaybo never sat the driving test for feck sake.
all their crap against young drivers, speed cameras, etc etc ... i've seen the data .. bad road design is the most important factor, then alcohol in fatalities ... not speeding, not the fact that they just passed the test, not the fact that the car was 10 years old with no nct
.... good to see how we now need a pre-course and multiple arbitrary choice question set to get learner license ... .. i can just see the accident rate crashing (excuse the pun)

the only reason flashing lights became legal is because they never enforced it. In germany, you'd be pulled over and a word would be had. same thing if you drive with the foglights on instead of the head lights. what is the accident rate in germany for cyclists? a lot less than ireland based on population (i don't have the link ... but it was on bbc news a while back)

fenris wrote: »

If you go far enough then you will almost always find something to substantiate a point of view but it does tend to make the thread into a meaningless rant against cyclists instead of the very nice local one that we were having where we could play spot the bus/taxi driver, cyclist, veggie, latest Tim Allen alias.

that's not true .. just because somewhere else is having succeeding or failing, does not mean we can not extract useful information from this.
the rest of that statement hurts my head so i think you'll need to post a pic where we can spot a veggie ....:D

fenris wrote: »

If Germany is so much better, then why not go there and drive for a bit?

http://www.ryanair.com/ie/cheap-dublin-ireland-frankfurt-hahn-germany-flights

if german spoke english like we did, and i did not have a house, i'd be gone like a flash ... and you know you'd do the same
and i have driven there .. they are mad, but much much better drivers than ireland ... you should go and then you'll understand the difference :rolleyes:

and they have better beer .... feck it i'll head over again .. thanks for the linky

i think the moral is that there are bad people no matter what means of transport they use .. i think everyone should be made ride a motorbike for a year to truly understand the hazards of driving ...


anyway off to Germany for a road trip!!!

davoxx

BostonB wrote: »

Indicators.

Emergency vehicles.

at night with no other lights? that's against the law, and dangerous

davoxx

fenris wrote: »

What's next - cyclists in Thailand are awful because they carry assloads of chickens on their bikes and the chckkens are not wearing helmets?

that is racist .. those chickens did nothing to you and are tasty when fried ...

BostonB

davoxx wrote: »

at night with no other lights? that's against the law, and dangerous

No U turns. Thats not what you asked. They are on vehicles exactly because they attract your attention. Flashing lights on a bike are not illegal, and do the same thing.

davoxx

BostonB wrote: »

No U turns. Thats not what you asked. They are on vehicles exactly because they attract your attention. Flashing lights on a bike are not illegal, and do the same thing.

so are horns, thats why we we should all paint our vehicles bright yellow and have a air horn all at all times .. can't miss that.

i did not do a u turn, work vehicles are not only lit by flashing lights .. i don't understand your point to be honest.

Paparazzo

Blowfish wrote: »

As a cyclist, I can only wish this were true. Cycle lanes are quite often not safe for cyclists to be in, never mind anyone else.

Aside from that I don't particularly mind motorbikes in the cycle lane as long as they are half sensible about it (well apart from mopeds, they annoy me as they are quite often slower than I am).

I cycle too, so I know how not to annoy cyclists in cycle lanes. Simple really, and I did it before I cycled. Don't tailgate, and don't slow anyone down. If i see a gap ahead that's too narrow because the taxi driver is half in the cycle lane, and there's a cyclist behind me, I always pull back into the traffic. And never stop at the end of a cycle lane when turning left, move up to let cyclists into the bike space at the front of the line of cars. Do this and cyclists won't even notice motorbikes in cycle lanes.

RosieJoe

I think this debate is going to go nowhere! As bikers we all feel that we are the minority of road users, constantly ignored or victimised depending on the situation. The same can be said for the militants on 2 wheels cyclists.

With regards to the the lights, either flashing or constant; well either are better than the Ninja Cyclists that you can encounter on a dark night!

KamiKazi

From http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2011/January/jan1411-bikes-banned-from-bus-lanes-over-other-peoples-crashes2/

Motorcyclists are to be booted out of bus lanes following a rise in cycle collisions, despite not being involved a single one.

A report on a trial of motorcycles sharing bus lanes with cycles in Ealing, London, says: “Whilst there were no direct collisions between a motorcycle and a pedal cycle, it is suggested that there must be a causal link given that the only change between the data-sets was the motorcycle experiment.”

It adds: “The most likely reason for the increase [in cycle collisions] is that cyclists are riding closer to the kerb (because of motorcycles passing fast and close), making them less visible to other road users.”

As a result motorcyclists face being banned from the borough’s bus lanes by summer.

davoxx

KamiKazi wrote: »

From http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2011/January/jan1411-bikes-banned-from-bus-lanes-over-other-peoples-crashes2/

that's a weird conclusion .... surely the ipad is causing this, since the ipad came out at the time and all cyclists were think about them when crashing into kerbs ...

but if it was because of the motorbike driving to close, then fair enough, those bad drivers should be banned, similarly if it because the cyclist was cycle with no hand on the bar, eating a mars bar and listing to music when a pedestrian walked out, then they both should be banned.


seriously though .. what is the law about the cycle space (red gripping surface) before the lights. i know cars are meant to stop before the white line, i presume motorbikes are meant to do the same, and that that space is for cyclists. but are cyclists then meant to all move left as the light goes so that motorbikes and car can overtake them? or is it to help cyclist for right turning at the lights?

davoxx

Paparazzo wrote: »

I cycle too, so I know how not to annoy cyclists in cycle lanes. Simple really, and I did it before I cycled. Don't tailgate, and don't slow anyone down. If i see a gap ahead that's too narrow because the taxi driver is half in the cycle lane, and there's a cyclist behind me, I always pull back into the traffic. And never stop at the end of a cycle lane when turning left, move up to let cyclists into the bike space at the front of the line of cars. Do this and cyclists won't even notice motorbikes in cycle lanes.

tailgating bad ...

but slow anyone down is a weird thing to get annoyed by on a bike, true some of you guys can go fast, but if someone is going slower than you, either they are just not as fit, or there is a hazard ahead, hardly anything to get annoyed by?

Blowfish

davoxx wrote: »

seriously though .. what is the law about the cycle space (red gripping surface) before the lights. i know cars are meant to stop before the white line, i presume motorbikes are meant to do the same, and that that space is for cyclists. but are cyclists then meant to all move left as the light goes so that motorbikes and car can overtake them? or is it to help cyclist for right turning at the lights?

It's mainly to counteract this. If cyclists stopped at the same white line as other traffic, they'll be in the blind spot of left turning traffic, even if they are going straight on, which inevitably causes issues. The fact that it stretches across the whole lane, means the first cyclist to reach it can move over a bit to allow other cyclists to fit in the space too and also as you says it helps a bit when turning right.

It's another one that personally I don't mind motorbikes being in as it solves the same issues for them too.

KamiKazi

davoxx wrote: »

seriously though .. what is the law about the cycle space (red gripping surface) before the lights. i know cars are meant to stop before the white line, i presume motorbikes are meant to do the same, and that that space is for cyclists. but are cyclists then meant to all move left as the light goes so that motorbikes and car can overtake them? or is it to help cyclist for right turning at the lights?

It's grippy stuff to allow us to wheely away from the traffic lights

davoxx

Blowfish wrote: »

It's mainly to counteract this. If cyclists stopped at the same white line as other traffic, they'll be in the blind spot of left turning traffic, even if they are going straight on, which inevitably causes issues. The fact that it stretches across the whole lane, means the first cyclist to reach it can move over a bit to allow other cyclists to fit in the space too and also as you says it helps a bit when turning right.

It's another one that personally I don't mind motorbikes being in as it solves the same issues for them too.

legally ... are motorbikes allowed to stop there?

and when i used to cycle :eek:, i was ALWAYS aware of lorries, and never went up the left if i thought that they could be turning, ie slowing down at a junction, obviously if they had their indicator on i dropped back.

shouldn't all cyclist be taught this as a fundamental? i'm not takling away from the drivers responsibility, but it is a know fact that they might not be able to see, and as a car/motorbike driver i still pull back .. or overtake, to ensure i'm not in their blind spot.

I think that some cyclists really just don't comprehend how dangerousness it can be IF they get hit..

Still standing behind my everyone should drive a motorbike/moped to full feel the venerability of the road ...

ThisRegard

You really are a busy man, where did you find the time to observe or interview all, or most, Irish and German cyclists ? Talk about sweeping generalisations.

davoxx wrote: »

some cyclists are good .. most could had died had someone else not taken action to avoid their refusal to obey the rules of the road :eek:

And they think they are right, it what gets me .. breaking red lights okay for a cyclist ... not using a cycle lane where on is provided is okay ...

in town nearly crashed into one cycling across a red junction :mad:

in a car, they are much more aggressive .. kicking doors, hitting mirrors ... .. never had an issue on the motor bike though ..

tbh honest gardai really should do something .... at least stop them using bright flashing ligths (which i believe are only for stationary hazards)

davoxx wrote: »

.. i'm not complaining about German cyclists .. they stop at lights,

seamus

davoxx wrote: »

legally ... are motorbikes allowed to stop there?

No. Although you know yourself, whether that area exists or not, it is safer in many instances for a motorcycle to cross the white line to ensure they are as visible as possible to the traffic at the front.

and when i used to cycle :eek:, i was ALWAYS aware of lorries, and never went up the left if i thought that they could be turning, ie slowing down at a junction, obviously if they had their indicator on i dropped back.

It's a little different for bicycles. The problem isn't so much that the cyclist isn't aware that the lorry is there, for some reason they're not aware that the lorry is turning. Many trucks won't have indicators visible from the left, and the cyclist is completely unaware for whatever reason.

Motorcyclists in general won't overtake any vehicle on the left, unless they can complete the overtake. You wouldn't drive halfway along a truck and then stop. Cyclists however tend to, and in many cases are directed to do so by the existence of the cycle lane (which they're not allowed to leave, remember? ). The truck driver can't see the cyclist below his mirror on the left, the cyclist doesn't have the acceleration to pass the truck before he starts the turn, and the "horizontal" nature of turning trucks means that the truck is on top of the cyclist before he realises what's happened.

It's cop on and experience which prevents this, in the main. People who don't ride bikes very often, or tend to drive the car, assume that everyone else can and does see them - because they're used to that in the car.
Both you and I know that once you get on two wheels, the only safe way to travel is to pretend you're invisible.

A study (in the UK I think) recently showed that female cyclists were more likely to obey the ROTR and maintain their position in cycle lanes, stop at the white line at the top of the traffic queue and so forth. Consequently, female cyclists were the group most likely to be killed by left-turning trucks. So perhaps more distinct rules of the road need to be drafted for cyclists and motorcyclists to recognise areas of vulnerability and allow them to do things which four-wheeled vehicles can't.

FWIW, this seems to happen a lot with many road users. I've seen cars crushed under trailers after attempting to undertake a left-turning artic. Cyclists are just a whole heap more vulnerable when the wheels are 48 inches high.

Still standing behind my everyone should drive a motorbike/moped to full feel the venerability of the road ...

Agreed. I've always said that someone should be required to spend a year on a moped before they're allowed to apply for a car licence.

davoxx

ThisRegard wrote: »

You really are a busy man, where did you find the time to observe or interview all, or most, Irish and German cyclists ? Talk about sweeping generalisations.

i'm an international hitman of mystery i travel a lot and have to hit moving targets :rolleyes:

Cuddlesworth

Blowfish wrote: »

It's mainly to counteract this. If cyclists stopped at the same white line as other traffic, they'll be in the blind spot of left turning traffic, even if they are going straight on, which inevitably causes issues. The fact that it stretches across the whole lane, means the first cyclist to reach it can move over a bit to allow other cyclists to fit in the space too and also as you says it helps a bit when turning right.

It's another one that personally I don't mind motorbikes being in as it solves the same issues for them too.

We also hit a huge recession over the same period which could have reduced the number of cars and increased the number of cyclists. But motorbikes are to blame?

Alkers

I'd nip into the cycle lane occasionally especially along the canal. As said before it doesn't harm anyone if you keep your speed down to around that of a bicycle and make sure you don't ride up any cyclists asses or hold any quicker bikes up.
Then back into traffic once it starts to move.
The one thing I don't get about people's opinions of cyclists is how they get annoyed if a cyclist breaks a read light, like it doesn't affect them in any way yet there are so many posts moaning about this very thing. As a cyclist I would break any lights that I could do safely and if I'm on my motorbike or in a car seeing a cyclist doing the same doesn't bother me in the slightest. Likewise if I'm cycling and I see a motorbike in the cycle lane I would mind at all, maybe try to get a tow by grabbing the grab rails!