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

magicbastarder

From what I saw, most of the cars there were clear NCT failures. Handy way of dealers or people on the mainland to get rid of cars which would be too expensive to fix after failing the NCT.

standardg60

You do see some extreme examples alright, I doubt the sea air would be much good for metal.

Probably where a lot of cars go to die.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120857757#Comment_120857757

Then I'm sure you'd be fine with all the drivers turning off their Daytime Running Lights ... because more visibility doesn't help?

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120858719#Comment_120858719

DRL was based on a study of driving with front (dims) and rear lights showing a reduction in daytime collisions. I would love to see data on night time single vehicle collision in Europe over the last few years including the date of manufacture of the car because the amount of cars whose DRLs are being used at night and are basically parking lights is astonishing.

I'd agree with you idea of turning off DRLs for cycling safety but not general safety. It would be better, quite possibly, if DRLs were replaced by always on dims. It would be hugely beneficial for cycling safety if cars used their dims as a minimum rather than the parking lights I see on all the time at nighttime. It would be hugely beneficial for motorists who don't think when driving as they might see other road users and stationary objects on the road while out.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120858834#Comment_120858834

Just to clarify, when you say front (dims) do you mean dipped?

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120859590#Comment_120859590

Yes, its a common enough expression, a lot of DRLs are just parking lights with no rear lights at all.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120858719#Comment_120858719

Of course it 'helps', but given the vast majority of motorist/cyclist collisions either happen during the day or when the cyclist is lit at night it's not the answer that some continue to argue.

The right answer is invariably drivers not adhering to the rotr (remember your driving test when the tester would check that you'd look in your left wing mirror before turning left?), not paying sufficient attention when driving, under the influence, and lastly, and the worst, drivers who deliberately endanger cyclists because they've been 'held up' or think they don't belong on the road so they'll teach them a lesson.

Every cyclist has probably experienced one or all of the above, and because they have, they are the most respectful drivers of cyclists when they drive (yes we do drive too). Want to see the other side of it? Go for a cycle, which anyone who's been convicted of an offence regarding a cyclist should be forced to do as part of their sentence, it would open a few eyes.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120859658#Comment_120859658

Must be something to do with cyclists and there own take on the English language, no such thing as dim lights, much the same as there's no such thing as cycling on a footpad!

Anyway, DRLs have a specific output requirement of afaik 2 Lux at 25m, enough to be seen rather than enough to see by and no legal requirement for the rear lights to be wired up to illuminate at the same time, though it's easy enough to see why some drivers in town might not realise they haven't got there DIPPED headlights on when the beams can be lost among the confuddle of street and shop lighting, definitely room for an education campaign there.

Also I thought that there was a requirement for DRLs to switch off when you put dipped lights on, maybe someone can confirm that because it anecdotely doesn't seem to be the case, but given the number of websites that go into the coding details to overide this maybe it's a cosmetic look at my "cool" car thing.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120859840#Comment_120859840

Ah c'mon you know you're indulging in an exercise in semantics there, dimmed/dipped you know what he meant.

crusd

Today I had the Tour de France special. Group of 3 cycling two abreast on a country road with one lad at the rear, as is their right. Car in front of me overtakes, leaving more than adequate space. I follow leaving well in excess of 1.5 meters, when beer belly Lance Armstrong at the back decides now is the perfect time to try to overtake his two mates. It’s a surprise more of these idiots aren’t killed. Another driver may have only left the minimum 1.5m and clipped the gobshite

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120859840#Comment_120859840

Aside from semantics, I think you are broadly agreeing with me. DRLs fail at the very point they were designed for. They were meant to imitate low beams which is what the study was referring too (including rear lights) but DRLs are for some lazy reason just parking lights without rear light. My SAAB had auto lights from 2000, yet DRLs seem to be a retrograde step.

My point being, as you appear to agree with (2 lux at 25m), they are not adequate for a motorist driving around to see enough to drive safely at the speed I see most drivers with DRLs on at. As to whether there is a requirement for DRLs to turn off when dipped/low beams are on is irrelevant.

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120859904#Comment_120859904

Did you not notice any change in the cyclists position, body language, head movement? I'd know well before a cyclist carries out that kind of manoeuvre, the signs are easy to read.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120858719#Comment_120858719

Why exactly would you think that? I show you a data based analysis of incidents involving people on bikes recorded by the police in Scotland which shows that dark clothing isn't the factor it's made out to be. For some reason your interpretation is something completely different.

I have not suggested that people go out without lights on their bikes and to compare the use of a certain type of clothing to having decent lights is feckin stupid! As for getting rid of DRLs, I think the problem of visibility is one predominantly retained by people driving as they seem to be the ones doing most of the crashing into other road users (and stationary objects). Anything to help reduce that is always welcome! If they were even to drive a bit more carefully then they could avoid many of the incidents that occur.

For the record, I drive with my lights on auto. So in normal light, my side lights come on and when it darkens my dips/dims* come on.

My only recollection of anyone who opposed to the use of DRLs were the motorbike crew who reckoned it made them stand out less.

*dims has been a term in use for donkeya years. I was introduced to it, I think, when living in rural Ireland where it was fairly common. Not sure why you might think it has anything to do with cycling (maybe its your anti-cycling bias?) - I recall it being used frequently enough when I was a motors mod here! If you haven't heard of it then thats really only on you!

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860035#Comment_120860035

Tbf cyclists breaking lights does my head in, groups of 2/3 cycling 2 abreast and holding up traffic does my head in, and what that poster described if it happened that the behind cyclist decided to overtake without checking behind would do my head in too.

McGrath5

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860098#Comment_120860098

You poor thing, all those other motorists holding you up must also do your head in?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860098#Comment_120860098

Yes but we all know that this only happened in his imagination!

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860123#Comment_120860123

Mmm, perhaps you'd read my previous posts before deciding which side i'm on.

magicbastarder

beer belly Lance Armstrong at the back

i love a good unbiased internet anecdote.

crusd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860035#Comment_120860035

Does a cyclist not have the responsibility to read traffic before making a manoeuvre on the road or are the free to proceed as if they are in the Tour de France?

In that incidence the cyclist clearly decided the car has overtaken, I’ll take my opportunity to take my turn at the front without checking for other traffic was doing. They were lucky I was both giving them plenty of room and noticed they were not paying attention to other road users and acted accordingly. They may not be so lucky another time.

crusd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860157#Comment_120860157

You were in the car too were you?

crusd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860098#Comment_120860098

Cycling 2 abreast in a group is the safer option for cyclists. If they are in single file it encourages riskier overtaking manoeuvres from drivers and the cyclists are more strected out leaving a driver overtaking more likely to misjudge

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860188#Comment_120860188

I don't know, story doesn't sound very plausible. What made you notice they weren't paying attention before the manoeuvre?

crusd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860184#Comment_120860184

were you in the back seat also eh?

crusd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860246#Comment_120860246

The fact that he moved position on the road without looking prior to going 3 abreast, without looking.

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860270#Comment_120860270

So you knew he was going to overtake.

Good story. One for your friends next time you go to the pub.

crusd

The most dangerous road users are those that behave without paying attention to other road users, be they cars, vans, tractors, pedestrians and even cyclists.

it’s seems however that pointing out that some cyclists can on occasion behave like that greatly upsets people to the extent that instead of engaging in the point will attack the person making the point.

crusd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860294#Comment_120860294

So the cyclist does not also have a responsibility for their own safety, no?

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860244#Comment_120860244

To be clear i said 2 or 3. I've seen lads maintain 2 abreast with a line of cars behind them with no consideration whatsoever.

As said on another thread a 'right' doesn't convey a compulsion.

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120860310#Comment_120860310

They do and most take that responsibility seriously. That's why most accidents with motorists & cyclists are the fault of the motorist & risky cycling is rarely to blame for accidents.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120859907#Comment_120859907

They aren't meant for you to see with they are meant for you to be seen, as such they are far more effective than side lights. and the whole purpose of them is not to imitate dipped lights but rather to enhance visibility during daylight hours when most ( a lot of ) people wouldn't turn on their lights ( that's why DRLs are supposed to come on when the ignition is on )

As I said perhaps time for the RSA to make an educational add about DRLs rather than all this harping on about cyclists and their ads of perfectly alligned group cyclists ( which I don't think people ever see in real life )