The ninja cycle epidemic *mod warning - see OP*

seamus

A list of videos is meaningless in terms of whether it's a problem. I'll go back to the white line thing again. We could provide a century of videos of people not stopping behind the white line.

That doesn't make it a "huge" problem.

Tenzor07

It's maybe not a pandemic but certainly a bad infection with car drivers not having lights! No enforcement from the Gardai for this, what are we paying our road tax for!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEbOa41yjhI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB7UHZwwfxI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf-Gieerws8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTbHDl35vGY

And what about fog lights, illegal to have on when there's no fog!

Roadhawk

seamus wrote: »

I didn't say that though.

The application of road traffic laws, from how specific they are, to the penalties for breaching them, to the actual enforcement on the ground, is reflective of the danger posed by the action.

And yet that should not be the case...enforcement on the ground should not be picking and choosing what broken laws they want to act upon. The only factor that should reflect the danger associated with an offense is the penalty itself.

seamus wrote: »

... if you want to make cycling safer you'd have appropriately qualified people watching out for light-breaking and giving advice to cyclists on the roadworthiness of their bikes. Not just mindlessly handing out vests and lights that don't actually make a blind bit of difference (pun intended).

I think if you want to make cycling safer then cyclists should use a light when cycling at night...

seamus wrote: »

They did? In what way?

If you are not aware of the fixed penalties associated with cycling at night without lights then there is no hope.

Roadhawk

seamus wrote: »

A list of videos is meaningless in terms of whether it's a problem. I'll go back to the white line thing again. We could provide a century of videos of people not stopping behind the white line.

That doesn't make it a "huge" problem.

Eh no because thats off topic!

07Lapierre

seamus wrote: »

A list of videos is meaningless in terms of whether it's a problem. I'll go back to the white line thing again. We could provide a century of videos of people not stopping behind the white line.

That doesn't make it a "huge" problem.

It's a huge problem because Roadhawk says its a problem!

seamus

Roadhawk wrote: »

And yet that should not be the case...enforcement on the ground should not be picking and choosing what broken laws they want to act upon. The only factor that should reflect the danger associated with an offense is the penalty itself.

Should not, but of course it is because resources are finite.

If you are not aware of the fixed penalties associated with cycling at night without lights then there is no hope.

Ah right. You implied that the government wrote new legislation specifically and only in relation to unlit cyclists. Which of course is not true.

Roadhawk

seamus wrote: »

Ah right. You implied that the government wrote new legislation specifically and only in relation to unlit cyclists. Which of course is not true.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/si/331/made/en/print

is that not legislation?

So when i said "But yet the government felt the need to further legislate on this exact issue"...this is what i was referring to.

capisce

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/si/331/made/en/print

is that not legislation?

So when i said "But yet the government felt the need to further legislate on this exact issue"...this is what i was referring to.

capisce

There's your mistake right there... "further" implies a recent modification/update..2015 is two years ago.

seamus

Roadhawk wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/si/331/made/en/print

is that not legislation?

So when i said "But yet the government felt the need to further legislate on this exact issue"...this is what i was referring to.

capisce

Yes, but that refutes your own point that the government consider unlit cyclists to be such a huge problem that they "felt the need to further legislate on this exact issue". The penalty structure for a wide range of cycling offences was modified. They didn't especially "further" legislate for unlit cyclists.

JMcL

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

These were the type I had (with the big EverReady batteries). I used two up front - one on each fork. It was difficult to stop them from rattling/vibrating. We didn't really realise it at the time but the light they provided was shíte.

Yep, I had those yokes too, and manys the roll of insulation tape went into holding them together. Was it 2 D cells apiece, or did the front one have one of those weird double cells that looked like a pair of binoculars and usually seemed to start to leak about 10 seconds after the battery went in? With that bit of nostalgia, you will prise my lovely, slim, light USB rechargeables from my cold dead hands!

JMcL

Roadhawk wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/si/331/made/en/print

is that not legislation?

So when i said "But yet the government felt the need to further legislate on this exact issue"...this is what i was referring to.

capisce

No they didn't. They legislated to bring fixed penalties to a raft of traffic offences involving cycles. Lights are specially mentioned because the road traffic act is very particular on lighting - look at S.I. No. 249/2014 for at least some of what applies to other vehicles. The other articles linked to in the SI you quote are general traffic regulations, but in the context of SI 331/2015 "i..n so far as they involve the driving or use of a pedal cycle"

Wishbone Ash

Tenzor07 wrote: »

...And what about fog lights, illegal to have on when there's no fog!

Legal to use during falling snow also.

JMcL wrote: »

... Was it 2 D cells apiece, or did the front one have one of those weird double cells that looked like a pair of binoculars....

Separate batteries in mine. I recall wedging bits of thin card between them to stop them rattling.

Tombo2001

Roadhawk wrote: »

Eh no because thats off topic!

Why is it a huge problem Roadhawk?

Money where mouth is please?

How many cyclists are there? How many cycle with no lights? What problems does this lead to?

Answers please.

Tombo2001

And when I say answers; I mean answers to the questions asked; not answers to questions that were not asked.

dr.fuzzenstein

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Why is it a huge problem Roadhawk?

Money where mouth is please?

How many cyclists are there? How many cycle with no lights? What problems does this lead to?

Answers please.

No problems whatsoever. Leave the lights at home and cycle in the dark to your heart's content. Wear black for extra safety.

mrcheez

Tombo2001 wrote: »

How many cycle with no lights? What problems does this lead to?

Sorry are you implying there is no problem cycling with no lights?

May I ask if you cycle with no lights?

RobertFoster

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

No problems whatsoever. Leave the lights at home and cycle in the dark to your heart's content. Wear black for extra safety.

AndrewJRenko

mrcheez wrote: »

Sorry are you implying there is no problem cycling with no lights?

May I ask if you cycle with no lights?

Can you clarify what the problem actually is? Do many cyclists get killed or injured each year as a result of not having lights?

railer201

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can you clarify what the problem actually is? Do many cyclists get killed or injured each year as a result of not having lights?

Problem is bike on road - no lights on bike - do it often enough - splat !!:eek:- you savvy

AndrewJRenko

railer201 wrote: »

Problem is bike on road - no lights on bike - do it often enough - splat !!:eek:- you savvy

So it's a purely theoretical issue then? Not something that actually kills people on the roads, like speeding, phone use or drink driving then.

odyssey06

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can you clarify what the problem actually is? Do many cyclists get killed or injured each year as a result of not having lights?

I imagine this as a Dilbert cartoon exchange between Dilbert and The Boss.
"Hey boss, I just invented a new mode of transport. Do you think we should put some lights on it in case someone wants to use at night?"
"Don't be stupid. We'll wait till someone gets killed first, then we put the lights on!"

Ah sure, you don't enforce sensible safety legislation until someone dies, it's the Irish way!

AndrewJRenko

odyssey06 wrote: »

I imagine this as a Dilbert cartoon exchange between Dilbert and The Boss.
"Hey boss, I just invented a new mode of transport. Do you think we should put some lights on it in case someone wants to use at night?"
"Don't be stupid. We'll wait till someone gets killed first, then we put the lights on!"

Ah sure, you don't enforce sensible safety legislation until someone dies, it's the Irish way!

Funny, I imagine it as Dilbert telling the boss;

Dilbert: Hey boss, we have 160+ people being killed on the road by drivers that speed, phone/text and drink driving. There's a chance that one of the deaths might be related to cyclists not having lights. What should we prioritise and give the most attention to?

Boss: Oooh, definitely the cyclists with no lights - but make sure you don't say anything about the drivers killing the others.

Beasty

It's without doubt a problem that seems to me to be increasing. And it's not just the cyclists safety we need to consider. Imagine driving along and then coming across some idiot with no lights - you may end up veering into other road users, or crashing into something else.

Just because no-one can find examples of cyclists who may have been harmed when cycling with no lights (and I'm sure there will be many examples) does not mean such cyclists have some kind of immunity from harm or indeed causing harm to others

odyssey06

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Funny, I imagine it as Dilbert telling the boss;
Dilbert: Hey boss, we have 160+ people being killed on the road by drivers that speed, phone/text and drink driving. There's a chance that one of the deaths might be related to cyclists not having lights. What should we prioritise and give the most attention to?
Boss: Oooh, definitely the cyclists with no lights - but make sure you don't say anything about the drivers killing the others.

Who said here it should have "most attention"?
Or prioritise?
We're just asking for the laws to be enforced.
That's not prioritisation, that's the bare minimum that should be expected of a police force.

Please provide statistics of cyclists knocked down by drivers using mobile phones. Oh wait, that must be why it's not enforced!
So let's forget about that one.
Until someone dies.
Seems to be the Garda attitude.

How about the Gardai enforce the laws that are there.
And prevent a death or serious injury.

If we want safe roads, we need to get drivers respecting all the laws that are on the books, and cyclists respecting all the laws that are on the books.
A la carte law-abiding means you will get drivers who think it's ok to use phones when driving because they do it every day and they haven't hit anyone... yet. Cyclists without lights - aside from the hazard this poses to themselves (and others) - contributes to the wider societal perception that the road traffic laws are a la carte. Which ones are actually being enforced this month?

AndrewJRenko

odyssey06 wrote: »

Who said here it should have "most attention"?
Or prioritise?
We're just asking for the laws to be enforced.
That's not prioritisation, that's the bare minimum that should be expected of a police force.

Please provide statistics of cyclists knocked down by drivers using mobile phones. Oh wait, that must be why it's not enforced!
So let's forget about that one.
Until someone dies.
Seems to be the Garda attitude.

How about the Gardai enforce the laws that are there.
And prevent a death or serious injury.

If we want safe roads, we need to get drivers respecting all the laws that are on the books, and cyclists respecting all the laws that are on the books.
A la carte law-abiding means you will get drivers who think it's ok to use phones when driving because they do it every day and they haven't hit anyone... yet. Cyclists without lights - aside from the hazard this poses to themselves (and others) - contributes to the wider societal perception that the road traffic laws are a la carte. Which ones are actually being enforced this month?

There have certainly been cases in the UK of drivers on phones killing cyclists, such as this particularly odious example

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/05/van-driver-with-eight-convictions-for-using-his-phone-at-the-whe/

My own personal theory is that the UK cops are a bit sharper at investigating these things that our local lads, which is why they haven't actually caught any such cases here yet.

We have a finite amount of Garda resources. If the Gardai were to do a blitz on ninja cyclists this week, that will take resources away from other enforcement activity. That's just the nature of things.

In theory, I'm with you. I'd love to see a zero tolerance approach - but with 4 out of 5 drivers breaking speed limits, we're a long way off. Can you imagine the Gardai stopping 4 out of 5 cars on any road, or even on every road?

Beasty

We've already issued one mod warning to keep on topic and move away from all this cyclist versus motorist crap. There will be no more "friendly" warnings. Back onto the topic which is ninja cyclists

Any questions please PM me

railer201

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So it's a purely theoretical issue then? Not something that actually kills people on the roads, like speeding, phone use or drink driving then.

Cyclists can be the architects of their own demise if they wish, or indeed pedestrians or motorists. Just stay unlit for long enough - I used to know a person who tried it.

Kaisr Sose

Beasty wrote: »

It's without doubt a problem that seems to me to be increasing. And it's not just the cyclists safety we need to consider. Imagine driving along and then coming across some idiot with no lights - you may end up veering into other road users, or crashing into something else.

Just because no-one can find examples of cyclists who may have been harmed when cycling with no lights (and I'm sure there will be many examples) does not mean such cyclists have some kind of immunity from harm or indeed causing harm to others

Of course there will be loads of incidents that go undocumented. I may add that an incident like this could end up have terrible consequences for the innocent motorist. Maybe someone's death or serious injury, damage to car leading to higher insurance premiums, anxiety, stress, depression ...you can't quantify it.

All because someone did not have lights on their bike. Very stupid attitude to personal safety and life, and very selfish attitude to other road users. Other countries have these laws too and they enforce them.

ED E

Beasty wrote: »

Just because no-one can find examples of cyclists who may have been harmed when cycling with no lights (and I'm sure there will be many examples)

*gingerly raises hand*

Have a two night stay in the lovely James' ED, MRI+CAT, crushed bike and bald patch thanks to being late home and thus being unlit. That and a pensioner who couldn't see jack.

dr.fuzzenstein

ED E wrote: »

*gingerly raises hand*

Have a two night stay in the lovely James' ED, MRI+CAT, crushed bike and bald patch thanks to being late home and thus being unlit. That and a pensioner who couldn't see jack.

Forget it, some people have decided that it's statistically unlikely they will get hit. Therefore the €20 expense on something that could save your life is not warranted.
I find the argument "I'm not using lights because motorists aren't paying attention" disturbing.
But it fits with cyclist's logic "helmets make motorists more reckless and cause accidents" and "here's a picture of a cyclist completely clad in black and since you can see him just fine I don't need reflective gear".
But of course if someone then does hit them, it's everyone else's fault and at least there's a hefty payout to look forward to.