Gardai say cyclists must change attitude

Professor Moriarty

tomasrojo wrote: »

As far as I can tell, you said:
Cars are safe (enough) already from the point of view of the occupants
Cyclists should not cycle on the footpath, especially where there's a risk of hitting vulnerable pedestrians

I guess that's true (certainly the second one).

What now?

I said a lot more. For instance regarding cars, the reason that cars aren't safer is because of the bite point between comfort, safety and cost. Regarding cyclists I said that, pro rata, far more bikes are unlit at night than cars. And so on. But in the elitist hubris, none of those (and other points) were addressed.

The_Valeyard

Great news

Next step fines and introduction of penalty points for cyclists for no High Vis or Helmet.


/Valeyard.

dreamerb

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

None thankfully. But if cyclists continue to cycle on the pavement then it's inevitable.

I don't see why it's a straw man. Isn't the title of the thread: Gardaí say cyclists must change attitude?

You're saying that something will inevitably happen (which would not, incidentally, be affected by the actual AGSI proposals since cycling on pavements is already illegal), and then basing your argument on this (still hypothetical) eventuality. That's quite straw-y.

But hey, if you'll agree that cyclists obeying the actual already existing rules will satisfy you, we can finish this up on a happy note .

I only hope that motorists will too :P

tomasrojo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I said a lot more. For instance regarding cars, the reason that cars aren't safer is because of the bite point between comfort, safety and cost.

And not wanting to look like a goofy 25th-century card sharp, yes.

The same goes for all modes of transport though. Municipal bus services don't require seat belts, and they allow people to stand in a moving vehicle that can come to an abrupt halt.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Regarding cyclists I said that, pro rata, far more bikes are unlit at night than cars.

Well, yes, it's relatively uncommon for cars to be unlit. They do have built-in lights that don't require battery replacement or recharging. What's your point though? That the Gardaí should enforce the bicycle lighting law? That would have broad support on this forum. I think it's been mentioned approvingly several times already.

Professor Moriarty

PeadarCo wrote: »

I'm attacking your points and more specifically the lack of evidence backing them up. I've explained that already. I and others have asked for evidence that high vis is beneficial and I mean hard evidence based research. The same for helmets. All your points are anecdotal which means they prove nothing. There's nothing in your posts to refute. You can't prove a negative.

Could you find a post of mine that mentions high vis? Could you find a post of mine that says helmets for cyclists is beneficial? In your own time.

Professor Moriarty

dreamerb wrote: »

You're saying that something will inevitably happen (which would not, incidentally, be affected by the actual AGSI proposals since cycling on pavements is already illegal), and then basing your argument on this (still hypothetical) eventuality. That's quite straw-y.

But hey, if you'll agree that cyclists obeying the actual already existing rules will satisfy you, we can finish this up on a happy note .

I only hope that motorists will too :P

Well, strawy is a tad unfair. But I agree completely. Rather than finger pointing, if all road users simply adhered to the rules then there would be few problems. But threads like this wouldn't exist and then what would people do?

Professor Moriarty

tomasrojo wrote: »

And not wanting to look like a goofy 25th-century card sharp, yes.

The same goes for all modes of transport though. Municipal bus services don't require seat belts, and they allow people to stand in a moving vehicle that can come to an abrupt halt.


Well, yes, it's relatively uncommon for cars to be unlit. They do have built-in lights that don't require battery replacement or recharging. What's your point though? That the Gardaí should enforce the bicycle lighting law? That would have broad support on this forum. I think it's been mentioned approvingly several times already.

I made the point in response to another poster. Taken out of that context, then the point would indeed be lost.

dreamerb

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, strawy is a tad unfair. But I agree completely. Rather than finger pointing, if all road users simply adhered to the rules then there would be few problems. But threads like this wouldn't exist and then what would people do?

(1) Yes, to obeying existing rules and treating each other with respect... almost all of us (as people, not as any single category of road user) recognise there's leeway to assist other road users by ceding a right of way, letting someone in the traffic queue, all that kind of thing. It's nice to get, nice to give.

(2) Go to bed at a sensible hour rather than arguing with folks on tut interwebs!

(3) So glad it's a long weekend

SHOVELLER

Whatever about hi viz jackets and helmets cyclists must stay off the footpaths and stop cycling the wrong way on one streets. How hard can this be?

Gardai getting more proactive on these issues will reduce accidents.

seamus

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Whatever about hi viz jackets and helmets cyclists must stay off the footpaths and stop cycling the wrong way on one streets. How hard can this be?

Gardai getting more proactive on these issues will reduce accidents.

I don't think you'll find anyone on this forum who doesn't support the Gardai getting out there and enforcing the current laws.

07Lapierre

Clearly hi-viz is the answer...

Drug warning over middle-aged motorists who 'borrow' tablets and drive
http://jrnl.ie/3337211

magicbastarder

meeeeh wrote: »

What if you get yourself killed? You think you don't count? Or is it ok to be dead as long as you can feel morally superior?

Eh... how would I feel if I tried to kill someone else on my bike and just ended up killing myself? I'd feel foolish. Dunno why you think I'd feel morally superior.

magicbastarder

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Great news

Next step fines and introduction of penalty points for cyclists for no High Vis or Helmet.


/Valeyard.

Does that signoff mean you won't be posting in the thread again?

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

Maryanne, if you are coming around a blind bend at speed and you hit someone who is - to quote your own expression, 'hogging the ditch' - then you are a) driving beyond what the conditions safely allow and b) driving beyond either and/or both you and your vehicles capabilities to be able to react, gauge speed, and stop if necessary.

What you described above, if reading between the lines, implies that you are rounding blind bends routinely at speed. Your faux concern for the well-being of others comes across as patronising because if it really is a genuine issue, then you are going to hit them regardless of whether or not they are or are not wearing hi-viz, in a car, or lit up like a christmas tree. You cannot see around corners; it may as well be a parked truck for all that matters. It might even be a tank coming the other way (true story ... )

Next time you're hammering it towards that blind bend you know so well, think about having to live with the "what if" scenario that you are trying to lay at everyone else's feet instead of accepting some personal responsibility for your own actions and trying to guilt others for your own peace of mind.

I can assure you it was not at speed. My point was that they had heard me coming so stood well in by a high ditch, where there is no grass margin. They blended in with the ditch, as they were not wearing hi vis clothes. As the old road safety advert goes "Be safe, be seen"

Chuchote

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Whatever about hi viz jackets and helmets cyclists must stay off the footpaths and stop cycling the wrong way on one streets. How hard can this be?

Gardai getting more proactive on these issues will reduce accidents.

Actually no. I can't think of one accident that I've read about which has been caused by either of these.

In many cities this is the norm for cyclists. In fact Dublin City Council's vote to allow cyclists to cycle contraflow on one-ways was a split vote, and was only defeated by the casting vote of then mayor Críona Ní Dálaigh. (This would have made Dublin much safer for cycling, taking many cyclists out of main road traffic.)

Those children who cycle to school along my road almost universally do so by cycling on the pavement. They don't cause the problems; the problems caused by the three schools on the road are caused by huge pollution from vehicles waiting to drop and pick up kids - these vehicles also block in neighbours trying to get to work.

If it's reducing accidents that's important, not bossy-bootsing other road users, then the Gardaí should be enforcing, vigorously, the law against using phones in cars, and the law against speeding in cities.

Deleted User wrote: »

I can assure you it was not at speed. My point was that they had heard me coming so stood well in by a high ditch, where there is no grass margin. They blended in with the ditch, as they were not wearing hi vis clothes.

If you're going around a corner fast enough and close enough to hit someone cringing in the hedge, you're certainly going too fast to see them in time to avoid them, hi-viz or no.

Jawgap

An old one but a good one.......



Plus given the actual incidence of head trauma in road traffic collisions, shouldn't this be the focus of the AGSI (assuming they are looking to blame a group instead of doing some actual road policing).....

Chuchote

Chuchote wrote: »

If you're going around a corner fast enough and close enough to hit someone cringing in the hedge, you're certainly going too fast to see them in time to avoid them, hi-viz or no.

If a pedestrian cannot be seen, they are a danger to themselves, no matter what speed a motorist is doing. The hedge in question is a high solid ditch with no grass margin.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

If a pedestrian cannot be seen, they are a danger to themselves, no matter what speed a motorist is doing. The hedge in question is a high solid ditch with no grass margin.

No they're not.

A driver should be driving at a speed that is safe for the road conditions - that means leaving ample space and time to deal with the 'unexpected' - and the reason unexpected is in quotes is because reasonable use of the road by another road user (for example a pedestrian or cyclist) should be wholly expected - if a drivers has to resort to emergency maneuvers or braking to avoid something like that because it was 'unexpected' then they were driving too fast.

"Be safe be seen" may be the mantra of the driver who wishes to abdicate responsibility but "concentration, observation, anticipation and planning" is the mantra of the defensive driver who recognises their right to the road is conditional not absolute. At least it was when I did my IAM

I love Sean nos

Deleted User wrote: »

They blended in with the ditch, as they were not wearing hi vis clothes.

That's Mary. She doesn't want to scare the wildlife in the hedgerows.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

No they're not.

A driver should be driving at a speed that is safe for the road conditions - that means leaving ample space and time to deal with the 'unexpected' - and the reason unexpected is in quotes is because reasonable use of the road by another road user (for example a pedestrian or cyclist) should be wholly expected - if a drivers has to resort to emergency maneuvers or braking to avoid something like that because it was 'unexpected' then they were driving too fast.

"Be safe be seen" may be the mantra of the driver who wishes to abdicate responsibility but "concentration, observation, anticipation and planning" is the mantra of the defensive driver who recognises their right to the road is conditional not absolute. At least it was when I did my IAM

Thankfully, in this instance the driver was driving responsibly. Her only concern is that other road users take some responsibility for their own safety. A less experienced driver might not have seen them until it was too late.

Fighting Tao

The same arguments going around in circles. Cyclists produce facts, motorist don't.

I'd love to see a study that investigates a link between the motorist hi vis brigade, anti-vaxxers, fake news believers, conspiry theorists, flat earthers etc. I suspect there would be a lot of links between them.

Fighting Tao

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can assure you it was not at speed. My point was that they had heard me coming so stood well in by a high ditch, where there is no grass margin. They blended in with the ditch, as they were not wearing hi vis clothes. As the old road safety advert goes "Be safe, be seen"

So if you had been driving an electric car you'd have mown them down?

For everyone's sake I hope that Maryanne is your real name and that you are either 84 or born in 1984. It may be very useful in a court case against you if you are unlucky enough to hit someone due to your dangerous driving.

I love Sean nos

Deleted User wrote: »

Her only concern is that other road users take some responsibility for their own safety.

Going by your own description, they heard you approach and tried to leave the roadway. The hedgerow prevented that. Not sure what else you can expect.

Deleted User wrote: »

A less experienced driver might not have seen them until it was too late.

First they blended in, now you saw them because experience. Which is it?

ThisRegard

Deleted User wrote: »

I can assure you it was not at speed. My point was that they had heard me coming so stood well in by a high ditch, where there is no grass margin. They blended in with the ditch, as they were not wearing hi vis clothes. As the old road safety advert goes "Be safe, be seen"

Had they been wearing highvis they could have blended in even more. Ironically the white helmet makes those below stand out more.

I've posted in the high vis thread about the instance when I was driving down a country lane one sunny morning not too long ago when I saw something flapping up ahead. Turns out when I got closer it was a runner wearing a highviz jacket which made him completely blend in with the background due to the conditions, it was the darker bottom half that made him stand out.

I love Sean nos

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So if you had beef driving an electric car you'd have mown them down?

jelutong

07Lapierre wrote: »

"Sorry, I didn't see you"....what they really mean is:
"sorry I wasn't looking"
or
"sorry, but I was distracted by....."

Deleted User wrote: »

If a pedestrian cannot be seen, they are a danger to themselves, no matter what speed a motorist is doing. The hedge in question is a high solid ditch with no grass margin.

Look up the definition of "ditch.

Fighting Tao

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Lol. Excellent response to the typo.

Chips Lovell

Locked. Thread has descended into the usual trench warfare. Rather than card or ban a load of people, I think it's best to leave it there.

For anyone whose appetite remains unsated, there's always the Helmet and Hi-Viz megathreads.

Thank you