Cyclists

davoxx

Simona1986 wrote: »

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!

:eek: all i'll say is, the light is red for a reason.

BostonB

davoxx wrote: »

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.

You said flashing lights only work when stationary and/or on slow moving vehicles, and that we should put them on all vehicles. They ARE on normal vehicles as indicators, and work at speed, IE the motorway, or on emergency vehicles. You said nothing about them being solely lit by flashing lights. But if anything qualifies as slow moving its a bicycle relative to other traffic. The bigger problem is not being able to see cyclists, the cycling ninja's. Or just in general as a cyclist is much smaller, and thus harder to see.

BostonB

davoxx wrote: »

:eek: all i'll say is, the light is red for a reason.

Some lights are only triggered by cars or buses, and a cyclist won't trigger them. Most lights are simply timed. So traffic is stopped, even though theres no traffic coming through the other way at all.

That said the majority of cyclists break the lights on my route. I don't agree with it at all. It becomes a habit, which is dangerous. That said it doesn't seem to be a big factor in accidents/deaths.

RosieJoe

Running Red Lights can lead to this

Alkers

RosieJoe wrote: »

Running Red Lights can lead to this

Only because he crashed though.

davoxx

Simona1986 wrote: »

Only because he crashed though.

correction .. only coz he got caught

davoxx

BostonB wrote: »

You said flashing lights only work when stationary and/or on slow moving vehicles, and that we should put them on all vehicles. They ARE on normal vehicles as indicators, and work at speed, IE the motorway, or on emergency vehicles. You said nothing about them being solely lit by flashing lights. But if anything qualifies as slow moving its a bicycle relative to other traffic. The bigger problem is not being able to see cyclists, the cycling ninja's. Or just in general as a cyclist is much smaller, and thus harder to see.[/QUOTE

"The flashy light is normally applied as - flashy = stationary"

I said that they work better for stationary hazards. and slow moving vehicles would be considered stationary hazard. They are on as the HAZARD lights on the car which you should use when?

The indicators are there coz, you are stationary on the road waiting to turn or slowly turning, and on they work during day time, when cyclists don't have have their lights on.

To be honest ninja cyclists should just not be allowed to ever cycle a bike, period.
The stupid flashy lights, are more distraction that helpful, to me anyway, people will disagree for various reason, some understandable and some just plain stuupoid.

Since cars have indicators and other vehicles has them, cyclists should have horns, and be forced to wear proper protective gear, safety first. All bikes need an NBT (national bike test). Are reasonable assumptions.

By your reasoning, all cyclists should have cupholders, seatbelts, airbags, spare wheel, since cars have them.


I'd accept the government in giving licenses and ensuring the bikes had a reg plate. this would bring collisions to zero.

seamus

Simona1986 wrote: »

Only because he crashed though.

It can also lead to this:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/crackdown-on-trucks-urged-as-cyclist-crushed-by-cement-mixer-1602031.html

The deceased in question broke a red light.

I'd accept the government in giving licenses and ensuring the bikes had a reg plate. this would bring collisions to zero.

Because car accidents are at zero?
In reality, licencing and registration of bicycles is impractical and unnecessary when sufficient law already exists. Enforcement is the problem.

davoxx

seamus wrote: »

It can also lead to this:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/crackdown-on-trucks-urged-as-cyclist-crushed-by-cement-mixer-1602031.html

The deceased in question broke a red light.

Because car accidents are at zero?
In reality, licencing and registration of bicycles is impractical and unnecessary when sufficient law already exists. Enforcement is the problem.

they never mention the full details of the accident unless it is a young boy racer....

I actually think it will as you'll be able to prosecute the offending cyclist easier. .. cars can drive of, can't see who was driving.

Bikes that causes damage/injury and then cycle off (which i have seen) can now be reported, and it is easier to detain a cyclist than a driver. also cameras (the red light cameras) will catch them and a whole lot of income to the revenue!!! hell petrol prices might even come down

seamus

davoxx wrote: »

I actually think it will as you'll be able to prosecute the offending cyclist easier. .. cars can drive of, can't see who was driving.

Bikes that causes damage/injury and then cycle off (which i have seen) can now be reported, and it is easier to detain a cyclist than a driver. also cameras (the red light cameras) will catch them and a whole lot of income to the revenue!!! hell petrol prices might even come down

My point though is that if you require cyclists to have licences and plates, that's just another law that they'll all ignore and the Gardai won't bother policing. Or they'll just get fake ones made up. ANPR with bikes? Yeah, right.

The point is that road traffic violations on bikes aren't seen as being as serious as for motor vehicles. And with valid reason - the number of deaths and injuries caused by law-breaking bikes is negligible when compared to motorised vehicles.

In reality, a massive difference could be made if the Gardai standing at every junction in December positioned themselves in such a way that they could stop and fine every red-light breaker. If people start racking up €200 fines every week, we'll very quickly counteract the red light breaking culture which exists.
The fact that so many cyclists break red lights in full view of Gardai without penalty goes to show that we don't need more laws. That's just more law to be ignored.

Sesshoumaru

seamus wrote: »

It can also lead to this:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/crackdown-on-trucks-urged-as-cyclist-crushed-by-cement-mixer-1602031.html

The deceased in question broke a red light.

Because car accidents are at zero?
In reality, licencing and registration of bicycles is impractical and unnecessary when sufficient law already exists. Enforcement is the problem.

I went past that scene on my motorbike about 15 minutes after the accident. I remember seeing the mangled bicycle and then the body on the road with a sheet over it. Not a nice sight at all! It was later reported that he had run the red light I think.

davoxx

seamus wrote: »

My point though is that if you require cyclists to have licences and plates, that's just another law that they'll all ignore and the Gardai won't bother policing. Or they'll just get fake ones made up. ANPR with bikes? Yeah, right.

The point is that road traffic violations on bikes aren't seen as being as serious as for motor vehicles. And with valid reason - the number of deaths and injuries caused by law-breaking bikes is negligible when compared to motorised vehicles.

In reality, a massive difference could be made if the Gardai standing at every junction in December positioned themselves in such a way that they could stop and fine every red-light breaker. If people start racking up €200 fines every week, we'll very quickly counteract the red light breaking culture which exists.
The fact that so many cyclists break red lights in full view of Gardai without penalty goes to show that we don't need more laws. That's just more law to be ignored.

Well good Gardai would make a huge difference. .... i don't want to turn this into a rant about Gardai....

my point was that a simple camera would help deter most of the casual law breakers ... but true the fact is that implementing a system with our current government is a waste of money.

BostonB

davoxx wrote: »

...
"The flashy light is normally applied as - flashy = stationary"

I said that they work better for stationary hazards. and slow moving vehicles would be considered stationary hazard. They are on as the HAZARD lights on the car which you should use when?

The indicators are there coz, you are stationary on the road waiting to turn or slowly turning, and on they work during day time, when cyclists don't have have their lights on. .

Actually you said...

davoxx wrote: »

....

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..

That they work when stationary is not the issue. The point is they work. Day or night, moving or not. And are more visible than constant lights. Indicators and emergency vehicles are obvious examples.

I hope you are not slow moving or stationary when you use them on a motorway or similar.

davoxx wrote: »

Since cars have indicators and other vehicles has them, cyclists should have horns, and be forced to wear proper protective gear, safety first. All bikes need an NBT (national bike test). Are reasonable assumptions.

Bikes are required to have bell.

Not that having a horn powered by a 12v battery works when a someone driver or cyclist is distracted by a stereo, or mobile phone, or simply talking to the person beside them.

Whats proper protective gear? Should Car drivers should have to wear a helmet and suit like a racing car? Is that not safer?

The research on safety on bikes isn't as clear cut as wear proper protective gear = safer. Because you assume it is, doesn't make it true. These huge debates about the research. You couldn't possibly be aware of it, unless you've done some reading on it. Its not black and white.

davoxx wrote: »

By your reasoning, all cyclists should have cupholders, seatbelts, airbags, spare wheel, since cars have them.

Nope. Not all cars have airbags, cup holders or spare wheels. On a bike Theres nothing to attach a seat belt too. So there no logic to any of that.

davoxx wrote: »

I'd accept the government in giving licenses and ensuring the bikes had a reg plate. this would bring collisions to zero.

Doesn't work for any other form of transport. So its illogical to assume it would work for bikes.

BostonB

Anyway. If you don't like flashing lights you're entitled to your opinion. Fair enough. But its hard to argue that they don't work, when everything that wants to get noticed uses them. From life rafts to aircraft. Fact that you don't like them because they are distraction you. Also suggests they work very well.

I don't see the point in bring in new laws when the cops don't enforce the existing ones hardly all. Red light breakers, no light ninja's etc.

If you think these guys are bad when you meet them when in a car or motor bike and you've got a really powerful lights. Imagine meeting them on a bike when you've got a fraction of the light power. They just appear out of nowhere, especially in the Phoenix Park. Ditto ninja walkers/runners on the cycle path.

Finally many cyclists/motorcyclists also drive. Thats not true of most drivers.

davoxx

BostonB wrote: »

Actually you said...

That they work when stationary is not the issue. The point is they work. Day or night, moving or not. And are more visible than constant lights. Indicators and emergency vehicles are obvious examples.

I hope you are not slow moving or stationary when you use them on a motorway or similar.=

It is the issue, at night they have to be properly illuminated, while moving, flashy lights are not enough .. if they used while moving fast it would not be effective.

And when I use my hazard lights, I am not moving fast, mostly stationary.

BostonB wrote: »

Bikes are required to have bell.

is that the law? did not see that

BostonB wrote: »

Not that having a horn powered by a 12v battery works when a someone driver or cyclist is distracted by a stereo, or mobile phone, or simply talking to the person beside them.

no, it works when someone is not paying attention, better than a flashy light.

BostonB wrote: »

Whats proper protective gear? Should Car drivers should have to wear a helmet and suit like a racing car? Is that not safer?

a smooth helmet, properly covered arms, legs, protective pads for elbows .. i mean this is common sense?
cars have in built safety devices, airbags, side impact protection ....
it's safer to wear a helmet in a car yes, will it make a difference, depends on the outcome. does it reduce visibility, yes.

you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

BostonB wrote: »

The research on safety on bikes isn't as clear cut as wear proper protective gear = safer. Because you assume it is, doesn't make it true. These huge debates about the research. You couldn't possibly be aware of it, unless you've done some reading on it. Its not black and white.

it is clear cut, just because somebody whines and denies something does not make it unclear.
it's like me saying motorbike helmets do not save lives, because i don't think that the do, and that time it looked like it di, well it was raining, the water made the difference.

show me a link that says protective gear is not safer than no gear.

BostonB wrote: »

Nope. Not all cars have airbags, cup holders or spare wheels. On a bike Theres nothing to attach a seat belt too. So there no logic to any of that.

Doesn't work for any other form of transport. So its illogical to assume it would work for bikes.

Not all cars have flashing indicators either. attach the seat belt to the cross bar, who cares? people will just ignore anyway.

BostonB wrote: »

Some lights are only triggered by cars or buses, and a cyclist won't trigger them. Most lights are simply timed. So traffic is stopped, even though theres no traffic coming through the other way at all.

That said the majority of cyclists break the lights on my route. I don't agree with it at all. It becomes a habit, which is dangerous. That said it doesn't seem to be a big factor in accidents/deaths.

really? regardless of why it went red, it IS RED, do not cross the line... you're justifying the unjustifiable.
and regardless even if nobody died because of jumping red lights, does not make it okay.
but people could have died, or being hit, but other drivers were paying attention as they should be, was no flashy lights that save their lives, just proper drive and paying attention, unlike the cyclist.

davoxx

BostonB wrote: »

Anyway. If you don't like flashing lights you're entitled to your opinion. Fair enough. But its hard to argue that they don't work, when everything that wants to get noticed uses them. From life rafts to aircraft. Fact that you don't like them because they are distraction you. Also suggests they work very well.

err no. i'm correct in my opinion, i'd say my opinion is borderline fact.

flashing is at a rate of 60 per second, at 30mph means every 6.7m the ligth is one then off. so in the time that light is off, a cyclists position can have crossed a junction. fact if the light was on constantly he would have been noticed. hence flashy brings NOTHING to the table other than DISTRACT you.

DISTRACTION is bad, it's wastes time processing other data, just coz you notice something like say screaming that everything is ok, does not make it work.

In fact it is hard to argue that they bring anything at all to the table.

everything you quoted have constant lights. they have hazard lights for when stationary also.
how often does a life rafts to aircraft travel a foot beside you then swerve out and cross in front of you, where 6m of which their lights are off?

BostonB wrote: »

I don't see the point in bring in new laws when the cops don't enforce the existing ones hardly all. Red light breakers, no light ninja's etc.

bring in fines, gardai love things that involved fines. or a bike test, the government love things they can charge for

BostonB wrote: »

Finally many cyclists/motorcyclists also drive. Thats not true of most drivers.

that's a weird statement, unbackupable to be honest.
almost everyone can cycle a bike, ergo everyone who drives has cycled. so i'd say more drivers have cycled than cyclists that drive.

i'm not against cyclists just those that think, red lights don't apply to them, that flashy bight lights that distract and annoy others are okay, and use the excuse that they are vulnerable so it's okay, but they won't wear protective gear. they should be forced to ride the bike with no saddle or brakes down a cliff

BostonB

davoxx wrote: »

It is the issue, at night they have to be properly illuminated, while moving, flashy lights are not enough .. if they used while moving fast it would not be effective....

If they are not effective. Then you wouldn't be distracted by them.

davoxx wrote: »

no, it works when someone is not paying attention, better than a flashy light.

As you don't know when someone is paying attention, you'd have to have it on constantly. Which is impossible, and unworkable.

davoxx wrote: »

a smooth helmet, properly covered arms, legs, protective pads for elbows .. i mean this is common sense?
cars have in built safety devices, airbags, side impact protection ....
it's safer to wear a helmet in a car yes, will it make a difference, depends on the outcome. does it reduce visibility, yes.

you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

it is clear cut, just because somebody whines and denies something does not make it unclear.
it's like me saying motorbike helmets do not save lives, because i don't think that the do, and that time it looked like it di, well it was raining, the water made the difference.

show me a link that says protective gear is not safer than no gear.

I'm just pointing out how illogical your suggestions are. Thats not arguing. You seem to be confused between a bicycle and other forms of transport. The result of all the above is weight. Its impossible to carry all of that on a bicycle. Not that much of it helps you with the most common accidents cyclist have. I'm not going to post links. As it just derails any thread its posted in. Its been discussed to death on cycling forums. Go over there or google it. This is the safest country to cycle in...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkgKYjrNLwg&feature=related

davoxx wrote: »

Not all cars have flashing indicators either. attach the seat belt to the cross bar, who cares? people will just ignore anyway.

A bicycle doesn't have most if not any of the characteristics that make a seat belt useful. There would be no point.

davoxx wrote: »

really? regardless of why it went red, it IS RED, do not cross the line... you're justifying the unjustifiable.
and regardless even if nobody died because of jumping red lights, does not make it okay.
but people could have died, or being hit, but other drivers were paying attention as they should be, was no flashy lights that save their lives, just proper drive and paying attention, unlike the cyclist.

Actually I said I don't agree with jumping red lights. I never said it was ok.

I was just pointing out for all the fuss about it. Its just not reflected in accident/death stats. Most people are just annoyed to see people "queue jumping". Which is fair enough.

davoxx

not even going to go over what i already said .. 6.7m of no light is bad.

http://www.m-gineering.nl/touringg.htm (the safest country as you said)

quote:

[SIZE=-1]Cycling is not allowed on Motorways and trunkroads (with or without a hardshoulder), on roads armed with a round red-white sign depicting a bicycle, on roads flanked by a mandatory cyclepath, on roads where you could use the service road instead, or on the footpath. Other laws: it is legal to tow a trailer and we have no mandatory helmet law. Maximum width of a bicycle is 30" (75cm), wider and you have to follow the rules for handcarts which are completely forgotten by motorists, cylists and cops alike. Bicycles should be fitted with a bell, reflectors to the rear, sides and pedals, have a working brake and carry (non flashing) lights after darkness. With the exception of the lights you should, like any Dutchmen, expect to get away without any of the above! [/SIZE]

BostonB

davoxx wrote: »

err no. i'm correct in my opinion, i'd say my opinion is borderline fact.

flashing is at a rate of 60 per second, at 30mph means every 6.7m the ligth is one then off. so in the time that light is off, a cyclists position can have crossed a junction. fact if the light was on constantly he would have been noticed. hence flashy brings NOTHING to the table other than DISTRACT you.

DISTRACTION is bad, it's wastes time processing other data, just coz you notice something like say screaming that everything is ok, does not make it work.

In fact it is hard to argue that they bring anything at all to the table.

How can they be a distraction if you don't see them...

Usually your main concern is with people in front and behind. Not people at right angles. Unless you in the habit of crossing junctions in the dark without looking right and left. Besides you'd be caught in the headlights of the crossing traffic. Its not usual to have lights on the sides of vehicles.

davoxx wrote: »

everything you quoted have constant lights. they have hazard lights for when stationary also.
how often does a life rafts to aircraft travel a foot beside you then swerve out and cross in front of you, where 6m of which their lights are off?

davoxx wrote: »

bring in fines, gardai love things that involved fines. or a bike test, the government love things they can charge for

Theres fines already...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056122976

davoxx wrote: »

that's a weird statement, unbackupable to be honest.
almost everyone can cycle a bike, ergo everyone who drives has cycled. so i'd say more drivers have cycled than cyclists that drive.

The context is cycling on the road/night as transport, not cycling around as a kid. Very different things and its obvious when someone hasn't done it.

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not against cyclists just those that think, red lights don't apply to them, that flashy bight lights that distract and annoy others are okay, and use the excuse that they are vulnerable so it's okay, but they won't wear protective gear. they should be forced to ride the bike with no saddle or brakes down a cliff

You meant these flashy lights you can't see, and protective gear that will save you when a 40 tonne truck rolls over you.

Almost 75% of cyclists killed in Dublin were hit by HGVs turning left - Irish Times

http://www.dublincycling.com/node/13

BostonB

davoxx wrote: »

not even going to go over what i already said .. 6.7m of no light is bad.

http://www.m-gineering.nl/touringg.htm (the safest country as you said)

quote:

[SIZE=-1]Cycling is not allowed on Motorways and trunkroads (with or without a hardshoulder), on roads armed with a round red-white sign depicting a bicycle, on roads flanked by a mandatory cyclepath, on roads where you could use the service road instead, or on the footpath. Other laws: it is legal to tow a trailer and we have no mandatory helmet law. Maximum width of a bicycle is 30" (75cm), wider and you have to follow the rules for handcarts which are completely forgotten by motorists, cylists and cops alike. Bicycles should be fitted with a bell, reflectors to the rear, sides and pedals, have a working brake and carry (non flashing) lights after darkness. With the exception of the lights you should, like any Dutchmen, expect to get away without any of the above! [/SIZE]

They also allow you to use your mobile phone while cycling.

davoxx

BostonB wrote: »

They also allow you to use your mobile phone while cycling.

and the they have hash ... but i thought you were saying about flash lights better than non flashy .. the mobile phone comment has nothing to do with that.

davoxx

BostonB wrote: »

Usually your main concern is with people in front and behind. Not people at right angles. Unless you in the habit of crossing junctions in the dark without looking right and left. Besides you'd be caught in the headlights of the crossing traffic. Its not usual to have lights on the sides of vehicles.

not bothering to re say what i said....

but i will just point out two things,
a) my concern is in front behind, and those things call wing mirrors, yes i use them to check the side. I can now see why you don't get it.

b) i said that cyclist swerving out IN TO MY PATH. i look left and i look right, i have right of way ... hell the light is red .. but i guess the cyclist knows better flash one ... flash two 6m later .... he'll be telling it to the ambulance driver if he's lucky .. i'll need a new bonnet.


from point A and your comment about red lights, some people's driving/cycling skills could do with a brush up.

i can now say that to someone who's only focus is on the front, will never find those flashing lights distracting. he'll be the guy who says 'i never say him coming .. he was not infront of me, he just appeared .. if only he was flashing his lights, oh he was, maybe if he and was right infront of me .. i might have seen him...."

BostonB

davoxx wrote: »

and the they have hash ... but i thought you were saying about flash lights better than non flashy .. the mobile phone comment has nothing to do with that.

Actually I was replying to the comment about "protective clothing".

I didn't say they more better, i said they were more visible. I assume they are banned because they have laws that only allow emergency vehicles to have flashing lights. If they are banned because they are ineffective, or distraction, then why do their emergency vehicles have them? That would be contradictory. I can't find anything on it though, so any official links to why some places have them and some don't would be useful.

I can't answer for people who break red lights. I said that already. What specifically did I say about red lights that needs brushing up on? I don't see how its possible not to notice something thats distracting you. IMO those with no lights is a bigger issue, than those with Flashing lights only.

Jumpy

davoxx wrote: »

err no. i'm correct in my opinion, i'd say my opinion is borderline fact.

flashing is at a rate of 60 per second, at 30mph means every 6.7m the ligth is one then off. so in the time that light is off, a cyclists position can have crossed a junction. fact if the light was on constantly he would have been noticed. hence flashy brings NOTHING to the table other than DISTRACT you.

Maths Fail or typo.

I have that at a flash at every 0.2 metres.