Useful Cycling Tips for Commuters.

Tenzor07

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It never works for me. Is it triggered by metal and therefore not by a carbon bike?

Dya have carbon wheels also?

Wishbone Ash

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Dya have carbon wheels also?

No - too slow to earn them!

(Maybe it's triggered by weight and I'm too light!)

looie

onmebike wrote: »

I don't think I've ever felt the need to go through a red light for safety reasons. I find that if I'm stopped at the light, in the right position, then trucks/buses don't stop 'on top of you'.

If you've gone past a stopped truck/bus to get to the red light ahead of it, then there might be a problem - but one of your own making.

Like I said, I think the whole safety reason angle is a load of nonsense.

Jawgap wrote:

I'll be honest and admit I do it mostly for convenience

Jawgap

looie wrote: »

Like I said, I think the whole safety reason angle is a load of nonsense.

You're right it is......

......there's no risk to pulling a slow sly lefty or rolling through an unoccupied pedestrian crossing.

Is it dangerous? No.

Is it annoying to other road users? Quite probably - in the same way people who don't clean up after their dog are.

Is it illegal? Absolutely.

But if we are going down the route of total legality and strict observance of the laws as they relate to cycling.......

......will we be getting bells on our bikes? If so, I'm looking forward to seeing some of those carbon fibre stealth machines with driing-driiiing bells on them

Wishbone Ash

looie wrote: »

Like I said, I think the whole safety reason angle is a load of nonsense.

I think some posters have referred to moving forward at red lights but not actually going through the junction. I do it at some large junctions - move several meters past the stop sign to be more visible especially where there will be left turning vehicles crossing the cycle track.

OleRodrigo

Not all red lights are created equal.

In the city center, there are plenty of sets whose sequence is determined by keeping motor traffic flow at a low speed. Efficiency of flow is not the priority, safety is. This often causes frustration which results in bursts of speeding traffic (like the south quays, either side of Heuston station, Parnell Square west etc ), as well as RLJing cyclists and jaywalking pedestrians. By and large this priority system works as accidents are minimal and rarely fatal, although it might seem chaotic and dangerous (not to mention annoying) when so many ' break the rules ' .

Out towards the canals and suburbs there is less of an excuse to jump a red light as traffic flow becomes faster and the lights sequence more efficient.

I've yet to see any cyclist stop at the ped lights on O'Connell street for example. There are three sets which automatically go red for peds, along the street, even when there's nobody crossing. Most other busy city centers would have zebra crossings here which are more efficient in high volume traffic. There are lots of other examples of lights that are red for traffic but also red for peds.

The point is, if you cant stop at every red, pick the ones to jump wisely.

Tenzor07

looie wrote: »

Like I said, I think the whole safety reason angle is a load of nonsense.

Just because your disagree with the legitimate safety concerns for passing through a red signal in certain cases, doesn't mean it's a "load of nonsense" people are entitled to put there safety first! And In fact many international local governments fully support the "Idaho law"...

RayCun

Jawgap wrote: »

......will we be getting bells on our bikes? If so, I'm looking forward to seeing some of those carbon fibre stealth machines with driing-driiiing bells on them

but why not? If you're cycling in the city, a bell is kind of useful.

If you don't want a bell on your carbon fibre stealth bike... well, there's a popular solution to that one

OleRodrigo wrote: »

The point is, if you cant stop at every red, pick the ones to jump wisely.

But why can't people stop at every red?

tomasrojo

Deedsie wrote: »

Bells are handy... The too cool for bells and helmets attitude is a bit immature.

It's not always immature to eschew them; for example, if you don't think they're effective. You might be wrong about their effectiveness, and in the case of bells you'd be on the wrong side of the law (albeit a law that never seems to be enforced), but I wouldn't say it's immature.

I'm a late convert to bells myself. I don't think they're massively useful, but they do allow you to give a small warning to pedestrians with minimal effort, especially around blind corners and coming down the side of stationary high vehicles.

Jawgap

RayCun wrote: »

but why not? If you're cycling in the city, a bell is kind of useful.

If you don't want a bell on your carbon fibre stealth bike... well, there's a popular solution to that one



But why can't people stop at every red?

Deedsie wrote: »

Not all cyclist are sports cyclist, many are just urban cyclists commuting around towns and cities. Bells are handy... The too cool for bells and helmets attitude is a bit immature.

Absolutely. I love my dring-dring bell on my old 80s racer.

I'm just pointing out that if people are arguing for strict observance of the road traffic laws in all circumstances, then bells on all bikes is a requirement, from the city commuter buzzing around the town, to the high falutin' high tech speed machines......

Jawgap

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's not always immature to eschew them; for example, if you don't think they're effective. You might be wrong about their effectiveness, and in the case of bells you'd be on the wrong side of the law (albeit a law that never seems to be enforced), but I wouldn't say it's immature.

I'm a late convert to bells myself. I don't think they're massively useful, but they do allow you to give a small warning to pedestrians with minimal effort, especially around blind corners and coming down the side of stationary high vehicles.

I like the 'aural' aesthetics. But if someone stepped out in front of me I would rely more on a throaty roar to warn them rather than my Nerys Hughes, Call-the-Midwife, bell

cython

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It never works for me. Is it triggered by metal and therefore not by a carbon bike?

Typically induction systems do rely on metal, yes, but given that aluminium is not ferromagnetic I don't see it as being any more likely to trigger than a carbon frame. I expect it is metal in the other components triggering it for me. However, I will say for me it is not enough to just be over the sensor anywhere, the bike must be line with an edge of it, to maximise the amount of metal detected since there is a lot less detectable material than in a 4 wheeled vehicle, or indeed a motorbike.

boardbeer

Jawgap wrote: »

if people are arguing for strict observance of the road traffic laws in all circumstances, then bells on all bikes is a requirement, from the city commuter buzzing around the town, to the high falutin' high tech speed machines......

Unless, of course, it's a bike constructed or adapter for racing, so MTBs, road bikes, track bikes, etc...

93. (1) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance, and no other type of audible warning instrument shall be fitted to a pedal cycle while used in a public place.
(S.I. No. 190/1963 - Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) Regulations, 1963)

AndrewJRenko

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that if people are arguing for strict observance of the road traffic laws in all circumstances, then bells on all bikes is a requirement, from the city commuter buzzing around the town, to the high falutin' high tech speed machines......

Also, stopping before every stop line would also be a requirement for a strict observance scenario.

CramCycle

I'd agree with Jawgap only for the fact that there are far too many idiots for such a small country. One persons safe is another road users near fatal accident. So long as anyone caught is prosecuted (does not happen in great numbers to any road usertype, mainly due to paperwork issues within the AGS), I might have been OK with it. Until a large number of population mature immensely, I can't agree with it as there are too large a number of stupid road users that are probably of the mind that they are smart enough to make that call.

Chips Lovell

Anyone who thinks that they need to break a red or go beyond the stop line to stay safe shouldn't really taking a bike out on to the road.

ted1

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that they need to break a red or go beyond the stop line to stay safe shouldn't really taking a bike out on to the road.

We will have to agree to disagree. But in my experience its safer to go through a number of lights ( never through a cross roads) than starting of with busses and trucks etc.

alentejo

Tip: In general Dublin Bus drivers are very good and give cyclists plenty of room. However, beware of Dublin Buses with "Not in Service" because they tend to speed

Effects

alentejo wrote: »

Tip: In general Dublin Bus drivers are very good and give cyclists plenty of room.

3/10 times I've been passed by a bus heading through the Luas works from College Green to Dame St. I've been dangerously squeezed out by the bus.

Thinkingaboutit

onmebike wrote: »

I don't think I've ever felt the need to go through a red light for safety reasons. I find that if I'm stopped at the light, in the right position, then trucks/buses don't stop 'on top of you'.

If you've gone past a stopped truck/bus to get to the red light ahead of it, then there might be a problem - but one of your own making.

Okay then, place youself in the middle of that cycle lane on the side of Stephen's Green leading to Earlsfort Terrace, stopped before the pedestrian crossing like a good lad. Far too often buses turning left on to Leeson Street taking most of the cycle lane, a sweep which suggests they are going much too fast. So no.

Idaho stop is something I do rarely, but I do it when needed. The design of cycle lanes and consideration of cyclists is incompetently and inconsiderately done, the work of men or women who've rarely if ever cycled. Sometimes it assures safety, sometimes.

boardbeer wrote: »

Unless, of course, it's a bike constructed or adapter for racing, so MTBs, road bikes, track bikes, etc...

I've a bell, very good thing to have. Bell and a shout sometimes too.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that they need to break a red or go beyond the stop line to stay safe shouldn't really taking a bike out on to the road.

Just no. There are so many places where that increases risk on Dublin's mis-designed efforts at a road network.

Jawgap

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that they need to break a red or go beyond the stop line to stay safe shouldn't really taking a bike out on to the road.

........or they could be just more aware of the evidence that suggests otherwise Women are over represented in fatal HGV collision stats for a variety of reasons (in London) and a TfL report (Analysis of police collision files for pedal cyclist fatalities in London, 2001 - 2006) into the matter from 2007 concluded.....

".....women may be over-represented in (collisions with goods vehicles) because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights.â€

So until the powers that be bring in better junction design and/or allow for early release, I'd suggest not blindly adhering to the letter of the law if you feel you are in an unsafe situation.

Chips Lovell

Is this the "a truck may pull up beside me so I better skip the red" excuse?

Chuchote

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Is this the "a truck may pull up beside me so I better skip the red" excuse?

Not an excuse but pure safety. If I see a cement lorry or other huge truck or a bus coming up behind me I'll get the hell out of the way by any means possible.

Chips Lovell

That means you're too far to the left. Join the queue of traffic behind the last vehicle. Nobody should be overtaking on a junction, so don't facilitate it.

Chuchote

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

That means you're too far to the left. Join the queue of traffic behind the last vehicle. Nobody should be overtaking on a junction, so don't facilitate it.

#headdesk

Jawgap

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Is this the "a truck may pull up beside me so I better skip the red" excuse?

No, it's the "we've-a-legalistic-based-model-of-road-safety-when-cognitive-based-models- have-demonstrably-been-shown-to-be-safer" excuse.

Fact is, a quick risk analysis will tell you that the 'cost' of slipping a left or rolling through an unoccupied pedestrian crossing is safer than strictly abiding by the letter of the law.....

.....it may be illegal, but its safer - even if most of the time the risk you're eliminating is minimal - the point is the risk may be minimal but the outcome is catastrophic, therefore it's worth eliminating the risk.

As an aside, the idea that the law and strict adherence to it represents safe behaviour is why we get idiots talking about being 'entitled' to do certain things, like inappropriate speeds for given road conditions (because speed limits allow it), overtaking at unsuitable locations (because there's a broken white line) and lack of respect for other road users perceived to be 'lower' in some constructed 'hierarchy.'

Chips Lovell

Just to be clear, I'm saying that that putting yourself in another hazardous situation and breaking the law, isn't the best way of avoiding a hazard if there is a perfectly safe and legal way of doing so.

Breaking the light isn't the most sensible or safe option in these situations.

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

#headdesk

I don't get your point.

I except Jawgaps point, I even concede that there are many times where it is in no way dangerous in my opinion. Having met Jawgap many years ago, I would go as far as to say, he strikes me as a person whose opinion I would trust on whether such a maneuvre was safe or not.

The thing is though, that is my opinion, and to the same extent, it is his opinion. People often confuse there opinions with fact, they regularly do it incorrectly. Just because I think it is safe to cross, does not mean it is. I have seen cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, go through junctions, against the lights, after looking around and thinking it is safe. Several of them have missed approaching traffic, several have missed gardai at the junction, I assume they all thought it was safe though, in their opinion.

I don't break reds anymore because I am sort of reasonable enough to accept two things, firstly, my opinion is not fact and despite what people say, opinions can be wrong. Secondly, doing so, even when safe, reinforces the idea to other road users that either a)it is fine if your a cyclist (I had kids shout this at me one day, did I know cyclists don't need to obey red lights), b) all cyclists are dicks and do not deserve my respect (I have had drivers give out to me about cyclists for breaking lights, while I am waiting at the lights, your all the ****ing same being the phrase of choice).

Jawgap

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Just to be clear, I'm saying that that putting yourself in another hazardous situation and breaking the law, isn't the best way of avoiding a hazard if there is a perfectly safe and legal way of doing so.

How is slipping left or rolling through an unoccupied pedestrian crossing (which is all I'm advocating) hazardous?

If you do it with a bit of common sense and cop-on there's zero issue.

Or let me put it another way - agree or disagree with the data and the conclusions in the TfL report, where is the data to show what I suggested is remotely risky?

Even the data coming out of the Bart's "Bespoke Study" in London doesn't identify it as a risk of collision or even near miss.

Also, as a tip, I'd encourage all cyclists to use bikemaps.org to record incidents and collisions (including near misses) so there's at least some data to work with.

CramCycle

Jawgap wrote: »

How is slipping left or rolling through an unoccupied pedestrian crossing (which is all I'm advocating) hazardous?

Again, 100% correct, but every morning I see cyclists and cars roll through the Zebra crossings in UCD. Often with people on it or just about to be. I never see the cyclist or motorist in danger but I do see people with no respect for others, which now leads to a point that when I stop at said Zebra crossings, people often look confused, one car beeped me the other day. Safety is important, it is not the only thing. Not everyone is like you JG, some people get used to it to the point that they think it is OK in increasingly more often situations where it is not. Some will often just assume because they see people doing it on quiet nights, and the AGS ignoring it, that it must be OK at all times.

I see cyclists rolling up the inside of lorries and busses in town, some no doubt will cite safety, others will cite convenience. It is certainly not the former and by the awkward way it is done, it is rarely the latter. Overtaking on the right would have been safer in most cases, probably more convenient. Some people feel uncomfortable with that, then they should wait behind.

TL:DR People are making the mistake that many people are like them, and that they see the world in similar ways, they do not.