Cyclists breaking lights!!

Daith

Macy0161 wrote: »

Lack of lights is the issue there. You'd see them if they had lights, so why the need for hi viz? The helmet doesn't help you see them anyway.

The helmet would help if the cyclist happened to be knocked down because nobody could see him....

Macy0161

Daith wrote: »

The helmet would help if the cyclist happened to be knocked down because nobody could see him....

If he had lights they'd be seen anyway. A cycling helmet would probably be no help in an impact with a car.

Should pedestrians walking have to wear a helmet walking roads at night? Could be awkward on my winter runs...

Chips Lovell

I think it would be safer if everyone wore a helmet. All of the time.

Daith

Macy0161 wrote: »

If he had lights they'd be seen anyway. A cycling helmet would probably no help in an impact with a car.

No help at all? That would depend on the speed of the car and various other conditions, not just because the death machine known as a car was there.

Macy0161 wrote: »

Should pedestrians walking have to wear a helmet walking roads at night? Could be awkward on my winter runs...

We are talking about cyclists here? Not pedestrians. Again...

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

I only saw them when i was right next to them.

If they had a high viz i wouldve saw them well down the road as my car lights would reflect the jacket. Hence high visibility.

Helmet because if i car goes around a bend and hits them and they bounce their head of a car bonnet and then bounce off the road and there goes a skull.

Me arse, its only a helmet and it can only be beneficial. Just like seatbelts

seamus

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Why be so opposed to wearing a helmet and high viz ?

I was driving down the country in an unlit bendy road with a speed limit of 80kmh...... in the opposite direction i saw a cyclist with no lights, no high viz and no helmet.

Your telling me thats alright ?

No, he had no lights. If he had lights, you'd have seen him.

I'm not sure why you think the helmet or the high-vis is necessary.

In fact, neither have been shown to provide any safety benefit for cyclists in regards to traffic. Helmets are known to provide a minimal amount of protection in single-vehicle accidents (i.e. when the cyclist falls off all on his ownio), but provide no protection when other vehicles are involved.

Why are you in favour of helmets and high-vis? Do you wear a helmet and a high-vis when you go for a walk?

Me arse, its only a helmet and it can only be beneficial. Just like seatbelts

Seatbelts can cause more damage or even death if worn incorrectly, and are known to only provide protection up to a certain level. If a 40-tonne truck hits you @ 100km/h, your seatbelt is of little use. Just like helmets.
The difference is that seat belts provide protection for the majority category of accidents - head-on collisions under 80km/h. Helmets provide protection for a niche category of cycling accidents - falling onto the ground at less than 20km/h.

Pinch Flat

Daith wrote: »

The helmet would help if the cyclist happened to be knocked down because nobody could see him....

At 80km/hr? Where can I get one of these helmets, they sound fantastic.

rubadub

swingking wrote: »

I've come across so many cyclists who don't obey the pedestrian lights. So I take photos of them going through and let them know I will be passing this info on to the gardai.

And I would be fully entitled to take as many photos of them as I want.

How do you take photos of these criminials, are you on foot? how do you "let them know", are you shouting after them or catching up to them somehow?

If you want a more efficient informant method I would suggest focusing on jaywalkers, shooting fish in a barrel, you will see groups of 10 or more at a time, you will be able to catch up with them easy too, or maybe get a megaphone for letting them all know at once what you are at.

I have seen numerous Walter Mitty type "keyboard warriors" before, you seem to be a new breed of fantasist, dunno if there is a term for the "keyboard Ned Flanders" or something.

If this bizarre fantasy was true at least the boys down the cop shop would get a good laugh.

Daith

seamus wrote: »

Why are you in favour of helmets and high-vis? Do you wear a helmet and a high-vis when you go for a walk?

I'm generally not sharing the road with cars when I go for a walk though?

Daith

Pinch Flat wrote: »

At 80km/hr? Where can I get one of these helmets, they sound fantastic.

Keep up. I said it would depend on the circumstances and speed. Jesus.

Daith

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So you never have to cross a road when walking?

I cross at pedestrian lights when the little man goes green. Watching out for cyclists of course.

seamus

Daith wrote: »

I'm generally not sharing the road with cars when I go for a walk though?

Do you think a 4-inch kerb is some kind of magical barrier that can stop a 1-tonne car from hitting pedestrians?
You most certainly are sharing the road with cars when you go for a walk.

In fact, in urban areas a pedestrian is more likely to be killed by traffic then a cyclist (per KM travelled), because pedestrians more often cross the traffic at a right-angle, whereas cyclists travel in parallel.

rubadub

Daith wrote: »

I'm generally not sharing the road with cars when I go for a walk though?

It is not just about cars, I expect most head injuries in A&E are not from people being run down by cars or bicycles.

Many people consider others "mad" not to wear a helmet on a bike, logically it would follow that they think it mad no to wear one in a car or out walking or especially when drinking, but these people are illogical and its really them who are "mad". There are studies & articles talking about how it is more benefical to wear one walking and in a car -and this is taking into account seatbelts & airbags. They recommend a cycling style helmet in a car, not a full face rally helmet.

Chips Lovell

Ah here Seamus. Stopping bringing facts and reasoning into the argument. You're spoiling it for everyone.

Daith

seamus wrote: »

Do you think a 4-inch kerb is some kind of magical barrier that can stop a 1-tonne car from hitting pedestrians?
You most certainly are sharing the road with cars when you go for a walk.

The last time I was hit was from a cyclist going over the bridge at the CHQ building. Given the way the cyclist fell I thought a helmet would have helped him.

Fair enough, they don't need to wear one if they don't really help.

Pinch Flat

Daith wrote: »

Keep up. I said it would depend on the circumstances and speed. Jesus.

My apologies. Kopparberg pointed out the cyclist while travelling in his car at 80km/hr

Daith wrote: »

The helmet would help if the cyclist happened to be knocked down because nobody could see him....

To which you replied it depends on the speed. Which is irrelevant really - a car hitting a cyclist will do much damage, regardless of whether a helmet is worn or not.

I can never understand the fascination motorists have with cycling helmets.

Daith

Pinch Flat wrote: »

My apologies. Kopparberg pointed out the cyclist while travelling in his car at 80km/hr



To which you re

Right but given the cyclist had no visibility a helmet was the least of his worries.

So cyclists. Do helmets not help at all? Genuine question not trying to actually pick fights.

ThisRegard

Daith wrote: »

I'm generally not sharing the road with cars when I go for a walk though?

But you could trip and hit your head :eek:

Pinch Flat

Daith wrote: »

Right but given the cyclist had no visibility a helmet was the least of his worries.

So cyclists. Do helmets not help at all? Genuine question not trying to actually pick fights.

Juries out tbh. Cycling countries like holland have very little incidence of head injuries. In New York City, not a single fatality since they introduced their bike hire scheme in 2007. They recorded 40 accidents over 10.3 million bike journeys.

We follow the uk for many things - one of which is the fascination with helmets and especially hi-vis, transferring the risk to the more vulnerable road user. My son is in a local beaver cub troop. For their first hike in a local forest they all had to don hi-vis, which I found bizarre.

CramCycle

EazyD wrote: »

I've probably mentioned this on here before but I personally know of 2 people who've been killed after getting swiped by cyclists breaking red lights.

In Ireland? Funny there are no news reports that I can find to back that up.

Daith

ThisRegard wrote: »

But you could trip and hit your head :eek:

Was I being distracted by a cyclist sailing through a red light at the time?

Canis Lupus

Daith wrote: »

So cyclists. Do helmets not help at all? Genuine question not trying to actually pick fights.

The jury is sort of out on it. The wiki entry on helmets is pretty balanced with the fors and against. Well worth a few minutes of your day.

Personally I come down on the side of personal choice. For commuting etc I don't really see the need/benefit of them. If I was involved in racing however I'd be happy to wear one.

Daith

Canis Lupus wrote: »

The jury is sort of out on it. The wiki entry on helmets is pretty balanced with the fors and against. Well worth a few minutes of your day.

Personally I come down on the side of personal choice. For commuting etc I don't really see the need/benefit of them. If I was involved in racing however I'd be happy to wear one.

Yeah I can see. I guess with the arrival of the Dublin Bikes scheme it's more noticeable especially if you do see near misses with cars and bikes.

preston johnny

Daith wrote: »

Right but given the cyclist had no visibility a helmet was the least of his worries.

So cyclists. Do helmets not help at all? Genuine question not trying to actually pick fights.

I wear a helmet for all my cycling, as do all my cycling friends, thankfully I have never come off the bike at speed.
I have witnessed on at least three occasions over the years when friends of mine have come off and the helmets have saved them from serious head injury, I am convinced of that (as they were)
Getting hit by a car from behind or the side at high speed is another matter.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

<snipped>
You're dismissing bits of posts out of hand apparently just to further your little boards.ie war on cycling and then you have cheek to say I have a "disparaging nature"?!?

Just a little reminder because it seems that you are unclear what I'm doing: All I'm doing extending your silly logic of not trusting posters and turning your disparaging nature back onto you -- like a mirror reflecting back onto you.

People don't indicate all the time and buses cut in on top of people cycling every day, so presuming any if that is fictional is silly and it just shows you're motivated by your silly little war against cycling.

Here we go again with your relentless accusations of me having a war on cycling, I don't, I have a war on people like you who can't understand rational thought or people that don't understand BASIC road craft like

Gongoozler wrote: »

I can't see what those signs are, I'm presuming broken and non broken. My point was there is no difference between cycle lanes anymore despite you wanting there to be one. Regardless of any of your sh!teing on, he was completely wrong. Was it you driving the bus by any chance?

And about the memory thing you obviously don't understand how human memory works.

Look stop trying to defend the indefensible. You just look stupid.

Anyway continue arguing all you want, I'm not going to respond to your silly posts again.

Without proof you have ONE persons view of how something transpired, that person being mistaken in his belief that he was in a dedicated cycle lane that the bus cut into. The bus ( unless he was overtaking the cyclist ) was ALREADY in the lane, if the bus was already in the lane then SI332/2012 reference overtaking on the left comes into play.

Canis Lupus

Spook_ie wrote: »

Here we go again with your relentless accusations of me having a war on cycling, I don't, I have a war on people like you who can't understand rational thought or people that don't understand BASIC road craft like

To be fair, if there's a thread on cyclist bashing you're normally all over it.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Here we go again with your relentless accusations of me having a war on cycling, I don't, I have a war on people like you who can't understand rational thought or people that don't understand BASIC road craft like

I always find these statements amusing when coming from a taxi driver, particularly the latter part of the above.

(Yes, yes, I know, it's a generalisation, but I'm just getting there before you.)

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

Here we go again with your relentless accusations of me having a war on cycling, I don't

And the Pope is a protestant, the Sky is purple, water is not wet? :pac:



Anyhoo, each Tax paying non-car owning Cyclist is paying tax to subsidse road building such as new motorways which doesn't benefit the bicyclist.

Pinch Flat

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Anyhoo, each Tax paying non-car owning Cyclist is paying tax to subsidse road building such as new motorways which doesn't benefit the bicyclist.

Must bring this up with the revenue when I'm doing my return, I'm sure they'll understand. And while I'm at it I'd like a rebate on my motor tax for the 5 days I don't use the car to commute.

Tenzor07

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Must bring this up with the revenue when I'm doing my return, I'm sure they'll understand. And while I'm at it I'd like a rebate on my motor tax fir the 5 days I don't use the car to commute.

Sticking the motor tax onto the price of petrol/Diesel will solve that issue..