Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should Cycle Helmets and fluorescent PPE be made cumpulsory by law?.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Jaysus on a stick!
    Mandatory helmets and a bleeding bicycle licence WTF!
    And a 18 month waiting list for the test no doubt! I will personally lead the revolution if anybody tries to bring this in!

    Hire bikes are a great idea. Until someone sues the Dublin Corpo or JC Del.. when they loose it across a set of Luas tracks on one. Then they'll end up taking the rest of them off the street, the ones that aren't in the Liffey anyway.
    Anyway I'll bet it'll never happen, or I'll eat my back wheel.

    I see they gave planning permission on Henry street and Liffey street. Eh? Aren't they pedestrian areas? Twats...


  • Options
    #33
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    I think its good to be seen. Is that not why its sometimes saferto be in the traffic lane rather than the cycle lane?


  • Options
    #34
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Very true! I tend to stay out a bit, and plenty of eye contact with drivers where possible.
    I think I'd rather be run over than wear a high viz vest:D


  • Options
    #35
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    I don't mind the high viz. Its like saying "er like HELLO" to sleepy motorists & cyclists for that matter.


  • Options
    #36
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Fion_McCool wrote: »
    Perhaps it also might also be interesting to see how many were killed because of wearing a helmet.

    If you like being sideswiped by road vehicles... wear a helmet !

    see http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking110906.html

    .

    It'd be interisting to see the same kind of research done for high vis vests.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    BostonB wrote: »
    I don't mind the high viz. Its like saying "er like HELLO" to sleepy motorists & cyclists for that matter.
    The argument for high-vis vests is that motorists don't or cannot see cyclists. I think that's incorrect.

    They DO see cyclists but they still make incorrect overtaking decisions.


  • Options
    #38
    blorg
    Registered Users Posts: 15,989 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    NewDubliner wrote: »
    The argument for high-vis vests is that motorists don't or cannot see cyclists. I think that's incorrect.

    They DO see cyclists but they still make incorrect overtaking decisions.
    This is certainly true, but there are many who simply don't see cyclists, I was rear-ended by one on a bright sunny day (breaking my arm) who simply had a cyclist-sized blind spot.

    Of course whether these people should be on the road is another matter; I don't think this failure is simply passive, it's caused by a lack of active attention to your surroundings.


  • Options
    #39
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    NewDubliner wrote: »
    The argument for high-vis vests is that motorists don't or cannot see cyclists. I think that's incorrect.

    They DO see cyclists but they still make incorrect overtaking decisions.
    Technically, yes you can argue that the person's eyes pick up the light reflected from the cyclist and pass that information into the motorists brain.

    However, studies have shown that motorists often fail to recognise that cyclists, motorcyclists or pedestrians are approaching/in their field of vision, despite being completely visible.
    That is, the person is completely visible and the motorist is looking right at them, but because the motorist is focussing on searching for a particular item, the presence of a motor/cyclist pedestrian doesn't invoke a stimulus response in their brain.

    Or to put it more obviously - because they're looking for a car or a bus (or another large moving object), smaller moving objects become part of the background scenery and are ignored.

    It's quite a natural method of operating (they reckon it has to do with hunting behaviours) but it's quite difficult to recognise when you do this until you've just done it (i.e. nearly pulled out in front of someone), but it is possible to train yourself to get out of it.

    A high-vis vest creates an unexpected distraction in the motorist's field of vision and causes them to focus on the cyclist instead of the cyclist melting into the background.


  • Options
    #40
    Mucco
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Mucco


    seamus wrote: »
    Or to put it more obviously - because they're looking for a car or a bus (or another large moving object), smaller moving objects become part of the background scenery and are ignored.

    It's been posted before, but no harm in sticking it up again:
    http://www.dothetest.co.uk/


  • Options
    #41
    MOH
    Registered Users Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭MOH


    Junior wrote: »
    No, it isn't, there has been an increase in the amount of Cycling Death and Injuries in the overall Accident Rate, however the overall Accident Rate itself has decreased.

    So you're less likely to be in an accident, but more likely to die if you are?

    Cabaal wrote: »
    oh no not another can of worms...if people want to be safe let them be safe, if people want to cycle around wearibng all black leave them do that...its their life

    I don't think the new bike scheme is targeted just at priests? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    MOH wrote: »
    So you're less likely to be in an accident, but more likely to die if you are?
    I think what it means is that overall the number of accidents and deaths has increased, but as a percentage of the number of cyclists, the number is down overall.

    That is, if you had ten cyclists last year and 2 died, and you have twenty this year and 3 died, then the number of deaths have increased, but the death rate is down.


  • Options
    #43
    MOH
    Registered Users Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭MOH


    seamus wrote: »
    I think what it means is that overall the number of accidents and deaths has increased, but as a percentage of the number of cyclists, the number is down overall.

    That is, if you had ten cyclists last year and 2 died, and you have twenty this year and 3 died, then the number of deaths have increased, but the death rate is down.

    Ah, OK, ta.


  • Options
    #44
    Fion_McCool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭Fion_McCool


    monument wrote: »
    It'd be interisting to see the same kind of research done for high vis vests.
    I am not aware of any similar research on Hi-Vis clothing.

    Whereas I disagree with the wearing of helmets for normal road use, because of the lack of evidence for their efficacy, I firmly believe visibility is very important. I nearly always wear a hi-vis jacket and leave my powerful rear light blinking at all times - day and night.

    Ian Walker did investigate 'time of day effects' on drivers overtaking bicycles. He found a tendency for drivers to give more leeway when overtaking a bicyclist later in the day than early in the day, with different behaviour in the two rush-hours: drivers seem to get closer in the morning rush-hour than in the evening.

    http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=24

    He also found that the stereotypical image of “White Van Man” was true, white vans on average passed 10 cm closer to the experimenter’s bicycle than black cars across all the overtaking incidents recorded.

    http://philica.com/display_observation.php?observation_id=10
    .


  • Options
    #45
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    seamus wrote: »
    Or to put it more obviously - because they're looking for a car or a bus (or another large moving object), smaller moving objects become part of the background scenery and are ignored.....
    A high-vis vest creates an unexpected distraction in the motorist's field of vision and causes them to focus on the cyclist instead of the cyclist melting into the background.
    What about pedestrians, parked cars, mini-roundabouts, chicanes, skips, bends in the road, cones etc? Cars have no problem avoiding them (most of the time).

    Any kind of bright contrasting clothing is a good idea, even lurid Lycra. What I don't understand why there are so many silver or black cycle helmets. It's a missed safety opportunity not to make the helmet high-vis.


Advertisement