Cyclists' responsibility for their own safety *warning* infractions given liberally for trolling etc

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180164#Comment_121180164

Neither are cyclists. An all black car (of which there are many) not running it's lights...as does happen.. should surly have hiviz panels for those among us who do use our lights. Only fair

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180221#Comment_121180221

So generally night time is dark.

If the cyclist wears dark clothes the cyclist would appear invisible.

It’s not that hard to understand tbh.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180364#Comment_121180364

😂 ok chief.

Sure take it up with the car makers and explain why they need to make the panels on a car hi viz 🤦‍♂️

Citizen Six

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180479#Comment_121180479

Probably makes sense to just ban dark cars, and have high vis panels. Even trains have high vis panels on the front of them these days!

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180471#Comment_121180471

It was a simple question. What are you trying to say.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180503#Comment_121180503

If you can’t understand that a cyclist wearing dark clothes with no lights nor reflectors, in the dead of night is practically invisible if there is no street lighting then there’s not much point carrying on this conversation.

Have a good day 👍

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180530#Comment_121180530

If you can't explain the point of your own story, it's obvious there's isn't one.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180164#Comment_121180164

No one is required to have hiviz, but if the driver had fitted hiviz panels to their car, the cyclist would have seen the car and not fallen on it.

There IS a motorway though, the driver just chose the local road, and the cyclist had a go at him for not choosing the other route. That's how it works, right? We all get to have a go at those road users who choose routes that don't suit us?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180153#Comment_121180153

How does the driver know what hit his car if the cyclist was completely invisible?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180491#Comment_121180491

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180479#Comment_121180479

No need for the drama. You can buy hiviz stick-on markings on eBay and elsewhere for a few quid.

When are drivers going to take responsibility for their own safety?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180530#Comment_121180530

No reflectors? You just added that bit in now. It would really help if you gave the full story up front rather than leak it out in dribs and drabs. What happened to the mandatory reflectors that were fitted to the bike when it was sold?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121179536#Comment_121179536

You never seemed to have a problem with lumping all cyclists in together as lethal aggressors because one came within 10m of you on the footbridge on the Liffey. Why do you only have a problem with generalisations when directed at your cult-like community of drivers?

Perhaps you're right though, perhaps we're not being fair to the 2% of drivers who do obey speed limits when we slur all drivers as law-breakers?

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180268#Comment_121180268

Can't inflict the same damage, true, but can certainly raise the stakes such that even the slightest error from a driver results in their own serious injury or death.

It was contended earlier in the thread (in response to the hi-vis study I posted), that it it may have been biased due to attracting people who are more inclined to ride safely, as to perhaps explain why fewer cyclist-only accidents were reported when wearing hi-vis too.

A reasonable enough contention, in that cyclists (and all road users) do need to make responsible decisions to protect their own safety, and those decisions can be very effective at protecting themselves.

Back to the OP of this thread - cyclists responsibly for their own safety...

Not to you specifically, but I can't stand the response to a driver complaining about an "invisible cyclist" being "well if you saw them they weren't invisible". Yes there are drivers who notice notice nothing, but an otherwise attentive driver happening to catch a shadow moving across in front of them, is luck, and not much more. The response of putting 100% of the blame on the driver in that scenario is ridiculous. And I appreciate that most people here have no-time for cyclists with not lights.

I mentioned earlier that I worked on tech to eliminate blindspots. A little vague (I can't give too much information) but I recently travelled literally halfway around the world, specifically to look at technology who's main purpose is to detect cyclists and pedestrians - because the best visible light cameras in the world are not capable of detecting cyclists, at night, wearing matt black fabric. Almost zero light is reflected, so an entirely new technology is needed. Just for pedestrians. Black cars are reflect way more light (and are mandated by law to have reflectors too).

Humans are expected to drive cars using their eyes and ears only. That comes with responsibility, but also expectation that other road users will comply to their responsibilities too.

Even with perfect training, it's a physical impossibility that all drivers, can see all around them, at all times, in all conditions. I have no doubt that if I was suicidal enough, I could put myself in a position whereby an poster on this thread would knock me down in their car - and they would be held responsible.

In an environment where the roads are shared, more vulnerable road users need to be aware of a drivers limitations.

magicbastarder

Most cyclists (well, on boards anyway) will fall back to a position of lights trumping clothing. Clothing is reactive and requires light to fall on it - which with dipped beams can be hit and miss - but lighting is proactive and can be seen from a greater distance. I've seen bike lights from over a kilometre away at times. Way before I'd see a cyclist, even if they were dressed as brightly as possible and I had full beams on.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180793#Comment_121180793

Bicycles are mandated by law to have reflectors too.

Given the expectation that road users need to make responsible decisions to protect their own safety, and that of others, can we expect motorists to fit hiviz panels to their vehicles, particularly dark vehicles. The cost of these hiviz is negligible, in the context of overall ownership and running costs of a vehicle.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180793#Comment_121180793

That's why lights are a requirement for cyclists.

What you're really saying is those who don't obey the law should. But that's not really understanding that these people are deliberately not obeying the law.

The whole tech thing is irrelevant.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121181034#Comment_121181034

All cars are fitted with reflectors, and lights, pretty much for the past 100 years.

I'm not advocating for mandatory hi-vis for cyclists anyway, so why do you keep going on about vehicle hi-vis?

I, and every emergency service the world over (and conversely, military), knows that brighter colors reflect more light. This aids drivers who are looking. It's not some panacea, or protection shield, and you can still be hit.

I can understand that, and also not believe that it should be mandatory, for anyone.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121181194#Comment_121181194

Ignorance of the law is no defence, as I'm sure you would agree, if it were laws which were applicable to motorists.

You are effectively saying that someone navigating our roads, at night, with no lights, and no retroreflective material, bears absolutely zero responsibility for the outcome of a collision, because they didn't know any better, and that the motorist should have seen them instead.

I'm reminding you that state of the art visible light cameras, with a 360 degree field of view, which never ever so much as blink, are not good enough to see a cyclist wearing matt black at night, but motorists are expected to do so.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121181335#Comment_121181335

I'm saying someone who's deliberately flouting the law isn't going to care about responsibility.

Never did I say they were ignorant of the law. In fact I said the opposite. "Deliberately not obeying the law".

Drivers have their own obligations. Are you "effectively" saying if someone perhaps drunk or sick wanders out into the road. A driver has no obligations.

magicbastarder

Is that a case that there's not enough contrast for those cameras to intelligently recognise and track them, or that they simply don't show up in the image at all? I.e. would a human looking at the same image spot them?

Also, I wouldn't expect someone to see an unlit cyclist on an unlit road in the dark, nor would I expect a camera to easily do it. But that ignores the effect of a motorist needing headlights to see any potential obstacle. Everyone should have lights.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121181458#Comment_121181458

Some companies decided to use cameras instead of radar, lidar, lasers etc. It's had its problems. Come a long way no argument.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121181435#Comment_121181435

Apologies, I read it as "not deliberately not obeying".

My point is that there are expectations of all road users, and limits to what can be reasonably expected from other road users. As a cyclist and driver, I'll always wait the extra few seconds for a cyclist to pass me on the left for example (and have been beep for doing so).

A cyclist who is A) riding in a predicable manner, not sitting in a blindspot, with a light, makes my job of looking out for them so so much easier than the cyclist who is B) wearing black, with no lights, who has just passed traffic behind me on the right, cut behind me, and now passing me on the left.

If I was to left hook the second guy, it would be my fault on paper, but they have created almost the entire situation which I now bear full responsibility for.

The bus driver did a great job here for example, but would it be reasonable to blame the driver had the woman been killed?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-44639208

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121181458#Comment_121181458

A human looking at the same image would see nothing. Headlights are limited too really, they can't be overly bright so as not to blind oncoming traffic When someone is wearing matt black at night, you're very much reliant on them passing in front of another light source so as to be seen.

As per the first post on the thread, leaving the scene is abhorrent, and there should be jail time for that alone. You'd have to question why he left the scent of course, but I really can't see much issue with victim blaming if you get hit from behind at 10.15 pm with no lights.

Flinty997

Even a cyclists with rear lights will be a fraction of the power of a cars headlights.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121181666#Comment_121181666

Is that to say it is easier to see a cyclist using your headlights, than if they had a light?

When it comes to being seen, emitting light is infinitely more efficient than 1) the car's headlights emitting light, scattering, 2) some light falling on a matt black coat, 3) a tiny percentage of that being reflected, 4) scattering, and 5) some of that reflected light landing in the driver eyes.

Flinty997

If the driver can't see what's in front of them with the headlights that's a bit of a problem.

kirving

If you wear black clothing with almost zero reflectivity, what are the headlights supposed to reflect against?

Can you think of a reason, any reason at all..... why road signs, bollards, cats eyes, cones, bollards and registration plates use retro-reflective materials as opposed be being made from black cotton?

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180761#Comment_121180761

I was a daily pedestrian in Ireland's major cities for the best part of a decade. In that capacity, I indeed generalise as I certainly saw enough lawbreaking by cyclists (and had enough near-misses) to warrant this.

Not sure where there the "cult like" part comes into things, 2.8 million is a fairly large cult, but all I'm asking you to do is to clarify (be specific!) which of Ireland's 2.8 million drivers you so readily accuse of "killing X or Y people every week."

Because 2.8 million is a very large group to tar with a brush of "killers" I'm sure you'll agree. But perhaps you can explain why you use such large groupings as "motorists" or "drivers" aware that it's such a large group?

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182206#Comment_121182206

Drivers observation day and night is brutal?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182260#Comment_121182260

So generalisation is OK, based on personal anecdote and and confirmation bias, but not based on independent professional measurement that comes out with 98% non-compliance? That's some twisted logic there.

I'm not sure where you got the term 'killers' from, because you didn't get it from me. By cult-like, I was referring to the fervour of your defence of law-breaking drivers (who are killing three or four people each week on Irish roads) particularly when contrasted against the fervour of your attacks on cyclists (who are killing one person each decade on Irish roads).

magicbastarder

just a personal anecdote, take from it what you will; while out driving, on several occasions i've come across unlit cyclists not wearing hi-vis on *proper* dark country roads, but none of those situations could i claim anyone was in any danger. i saw them in enough time.

the one occasion where i did come close to knocking down a cyclist was at the link below - and it happened in broad daylight. IIRC it was my wife shouting a warning which saved the situation; i think what happened was that whatever combination of speed i was doing, and the cyclist who was coming from the right was doing, he was obscured by the A pillar in my car (an octavia, i don't know whether they're particularly well endowed in that department); we both came to an emergency stop. i got quite a scare, probably trivial to the one i gave him.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4322038,-6.3453014,3a,75y,306.03h,76.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPiVMkf5JPL48QYbI1CgeZg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

that's my memory of it - perhaps i'm making excuses for myself with the A pillar story.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182477#Comment_121182477

I consider lawbreaking by cyclists in Ireland to be universal. So I find your complaints about "non-compliance" to be a little rich.

You are on record as accusing "motorists" and "drivers" of "killing X or Y people every week." Yet, each time, you seem to leave out the fact that Irish drivers are a very large cohort, and have difficulty defining which of the cohort fall into the group of "killers." And yes, if you accuse a group of killing people, then it follows that people in the group are killers, unless you can clarify which members of the larger group you are accusing, which so far you haven't really.

But at least we're getting somewhere as you've narrowed it down slightly to 98% of drivers in Ireland, or about 2,744,000 drivers. Still most of that number have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the small number of incidents you refer to. So what is your basis for blanket accusing 2,744,000 people of "killing X or Y people every week?"

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182510#Comment_121182510

Modern cars have terrible vision out of them. Hence they are reverting to cameras, on mirrors, everywhere.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182616#Comment_121182616

Are you suggesting that drivers aren't killing three or four people each week?

Or are you playing some pedantic word game to fulfil some obligation to your cult to protect them from the harsh reality of drivers killing three or four people each week?

I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't tell you which drivers will the be the ones to kill three or four people each week. It may not be three or four this week. It could be one or two, or it could be five or six, but on average, drivers are killing three or four people each week. You can play whatever word games you like. They don't change the facts.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182640#Comment_121182640

I'm not "suggesting" anything of the sort. I'm coming right out and saying it. Explicitly and unmistakably. "Drivers" or "motorists" are not a collective hive-mind, and accusing the entire group would make as much sense as accusing other groups in society based on a very small number of bad actors or outcomes.

Besides, some fatal incidents don't even have a motorist as the cause, like 70% of pedestrian-motorist collisions.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182684#Comment_121182684

It is a fact though, that drivers are killing three or four people each week on Irish roads.

Your taking of offence on this doesn't change the facts.

What definition of culpability are you using for that 70% statistic you quoted?

CramCycle

This is comical, when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force but we never find out what happens because they skirt within the boards rules for not engaging in discussion.

Truth is, as pretty much everyone has said, everyone should have lights, everyone should open their eyes and pay attention. In the well documented absence of one or both of these things from drivers and cyclists (not all but some), if the number was small enough and everyone else followed the first two points, we would all be grand. Sadly this is not the case and there should be more done in regards enforcement of road traffic laws as they stand which if properly enforced are more than adequate enough to reduce our death toll to almost zero on the roads.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182435#Comment_121182435

So both retro-reflective material, and matt back clothing is equally visible, and it's only drivers observation that's the issue? Got it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182477#Comment_121182477

The Free Speed survey is total massaged nonsense to be honest.

Unknown locations, good weather, no other traffic, straight roads, no hills, intersections, 5.30am-7:30am.

Yes drivers speed, a high percentage too, but the experiment was specifically designed to inflate numbers.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182732#Comment_121182732

Your so-called "fact" is at best a misleading platitude, designed to deceive and manipulate. And that's being generous. And such broad-brush demonisation would not be accepted for any other group in society.

The actual facts are clear. Ireland's 2.8 million "drivers" are largely blameless in these incidents.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182964#Comment_121182964

I genuinely don't think that enforcement alone is, or ever will be enough to limit road deaths.

Enforcement will never target vulnerable road users, who (as per the thread title) do have a responsibility to their own safety, as it's repeatedly derided as victim blaming.

Look at how the Construction industry tackled deaths. They brought in mandatory Safe Pass training for everyone on a site, in 2001 or so.

Enforcement is no good if someone is dead, and noone intends to go out and kill someone, so enforcement isn't much of a deterrent IMO.

I'd love to see data on how many penalty points drives who have caused fatalities have, I'd bet it's no more than average.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182964#Comment_121182964

I genuinely don't think that enforcement alone is, or ever will be enough to limit road deaths.

Enforcement will never target vulnerable road users, who (as per the thread title) do have a responsibility to their own safety, as it's repeatedly derided as victim blaming.

Look at how the Construction industry tackled deaths. They brought in mandatory Safe Pass training for everyone on a site, in 2001 or so.

Enforcement is no good if someone is dead, and noone intends to go out and kill someone, so enforcement isn't much of a deterrent IMO.

I'd love to see data on how many penalty points drives who have caused fatalities have, I'd bet it's no more than average.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121183018#Comment_121183018

It IS a fact though. Drivers are killing three or four people each week, regardless of how fervently you deny this.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121182979#Comment_121182979

It's a measure of how drivers speed when they have the opportunity to speed.

Flinty997

"....The State’s workplace safety watchdog issued more than 340 notices to cease dangerous activity last year as more than €1.2m in fines were handed out in the courts over breaches of legislation.

The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) annual report for 2022 said it completed 11,150 workplace investigations or inspections last year, its highest level since 2013...."

The irony of saying enforcement doesn't work in this thread. Is that the driver who should have been in custody and not on the road anyway. Was stopped at a check point and let continue, even though driver and car were not legal on the road. Then killed someone. Drove on and hid the car.

The cyclist was wearing dark clothes. He had a small red rear reflector, one yellow reflector on each pedal and a yellow armband.

Enforcement is definitely not going to work if you don't do it.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121183140#Comment_121183140

No, it is not. "Drivers" in Ireland are a group of around 2.8 million people. You need to be more specific, otherwise you can rightly be accused of generalisation or collective demonisation.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121183211#Comment_121183211

Accuse all you like. None of it changes the fact that drivers are killing three or four people each week on our roads.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121183226#Comment_121183226

So you claim, but you can't even answer a basic question like: Which of Ireland's 2.8 million "drivers" are you accusing?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121183145#Comment_121183145

This is coming from a cyclist, to whom the entire concept of obeying laws is at best theoretical :D

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121183175#Comment_121183175

My point stands.

A) I said "enforcement alone" ie: in conjunction with training.

B) I never said enforcement doesn't work. I said it wasn't a deterrent - which it clearly isn't. (Unless the place was plastered with cameras, which I'm totally in favour btw.)

C) In any case, the HSA have serious powers, and yet, they are still dishing out fines all the time for non compliance. Doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent, does it?

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121183050#Comment_121183050

Anyone who thinks the safepass helped with site safety has clearly never done a safepass course. The updated 2006 SHWW act was on the way, I'd say the decent fines there done more for the big sites than the safepass. H&S site managers didn't exist in a lot of places, now it is one of the best paid jobs in the bigger construction companies.

Enforcement by my definition means hardcore enforcement, average speed cameras (with motor tax, insurance etc runs against databases, fining people for driving faster than conditions allow (not just over the limit), fining people driving round at night with just DRLs, fining cyclists without lights (in fact in the latter two, seizing and putting the motors/cycles to auction would be my next change to the law). Reduction in points to losing your license.

Education doesn't work in regards road safety as witnessed by most road users having a license and few being able to obey the most rudimentary of rules which they knew about before they got their license. Same for cyclists, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121183700#Comment_121183700

I've done it multiple times, albeit over 10 years ago. It was a day well spent each time I thought.

Enforcement, of any crime, is far less effective than education, because people don't believe they will be caught. Look at the M7 Average Speed cameras - they still catch dozens of people every day. Does that translate into fewer road deaths? Hard to tell - depends on the reason for the fatal collision. Having 6 points on your license won't stop you pulling out in front of someone you didn't see.

I was in the US last weeks. The place was absolutely crawling with police (border town). Two cars which passed me speeding on the motorway were pulled. Didn't register with people whatsoever, they kept the speed up. Few miles later, another car pulled. It was comical nearly. Probably saw 7/8 stops in 2.5 hours. They're enforcing laws, rightly enough, but the drivers haven't a clue. Their driving test is a joke.

We don't have education in Ireland either, 12 lessons and then 35 minutes pottering around a local town is wholly inadequate, particularly in the context of most deaths occurring on our rural road network. To dismiss education based on that is wrong. Look at countries with the lowest road deaths - education and training is absolutely key to the whole agenda of road safety, coupled of course to road design, and enforcement too.

It's the same in other types of criminal justice, workplace management, schooling, etc. - education over disciplinary action every time. Why is enforcement the #1 in road safety only?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121183700#Comment_121183700

Can we sieze and auction all the cars with broken brake lights or no back lights because DRLs too please?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121183290#Comment_121183290

I've answered your question three times. Do I need to repeat it a fourth time?

And this from a lad who complains about generalisations! You crack me up Seanie.