Should traffic laws be further enforced for cyclists?

Cookie_Monster

Nanazolie wrote: »

They drive everywhere on the right in Europe Mainland, but UK and Ireland. http://users.telenet.be/worldstandards/driving%20on%20the%20left.htm

I'm shocked, didn't know that at all, all those times I've rented cars in Italy and Switzerland and driven on the left :rolleyes:

seamus

Also worth noting that the study mentioned above refers to accidents on interstates - i.e. motorways. In other words 75% of pedestrians killed on motorways were killed at night. Not exactly shocking.

The point of a high-vis and triangle on a motorway is because pedestrians, cyclists and stopped vehicles are not typical fixtures on such a road. So a triangle and high-vis vest will alert other motorists to a "something" on the road ahead and ensure that they take care.

On roads where cyclists and pedestrians are to be expected, then the benefit of high-vis only presents itself when the pedestrian or cyclist is not otherwise illuminated.

Nanazolie

I eat my words

Traffic risks to the bicyclist are similar to those faced by motorcyclists (see SMIDSY), with the main differences being that bicycling speeds are typically lower, and the bicyclist wears less protective gear. Nonetheless, there seems to be even less research on the effectiveness of high-visibility clothing for the bicyclist than for the motorcyclist. However, a number of vendors market high-visibility clothing for bicyclists. From a good vantage point along a road or cycleway with a sight line of 1 km or more, one can watch bicyclists approaching during daylight, and see that those clad in high-visibility clothing become readily visible long before dull-clad bicyclists riding next to themI][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0645ad]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I. Research is needed to quantify the extent to which this plainly evident conspicuity advantage might translate into fewer bike/car collisions. Recent studies have shown that the most critical distance the driver actually needs to see those wearing the gear, is at the distance of 50 meters. From 1 km away, a bicyclist would be barely visible regardless of the visibility of his gear. The critical detection distance is the crucial point where a bicyclist must be detected, because that is the point where most drivers will focus their attention.
A 2009 Australian study found that fluorescent vests were not a significant improvement on black clothing at night, and that retro-reflective strips were more effective when attached to knees and ankles than on a more or less static jacket.[4] Reference: Wood, J.M. et al. 2009. Drivers' and cyclists' experiences of sharing the road: Incidents, attitudes and perceptions of visibility. Accident Analysis & Prevention 41: 772-776. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.014.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-visibility_clothing#Bicyclists

Still, I think I'll keep wearing mine. And look like a Christmas tree with flashing lights. Some drivers don't even seem to notice me in broad day light, I don't want to tempt fate

Lumen

Nanazolie wrote: »

Rules I want inforced for cyclists...Wear high vis jackets / bands

...

Nanazolie wrote: »

No need for sarcasm... Up to you if you don't want to wear one.

???

monument

Want to do your small bit in making cycling safer for everybody?

Then stop wearing high-vis and, if you wear a helmet, stop wearing that too -- make cycling look as normal as possible. Do your bit to make cycling normal and attractive to more people and increase safety by safety in numbers -- the best proven way to make cycling safer!

galwaycyclist

Nanazolie wrote: »

I eat my words
Research is needed to quantify the extent to which this plainly evident conspicuity advantage might translate into fewer bike/car collisions.

There is a difference between conspicuity and perspicuity just because you "can" be seen does not mean you will be recognised for what you are or how far away you are.

This is why pedal reflectors are very useful they mark you out immediately as a cyclist.

Lumen

Nanazolie wrote: »

Still, I think I'll keep wearing mine. And look like a Christmas tree with flashing lights. Some drivers don't even seem to notice me in broad day light, I don't want to tempt fate

Drivers always notice me, and I often wear black.

So you must be doing it wrong.

You are attempting to fix a failed strategy by trying harder to fail.

edit: I probably don't mean "drivers always notice me". I mean "I never find myself in difficulty or danger resulting from not being seen".

goldencleric

monument wrote: »

Want to do your small bit in making cycling safer for everybody?

Then stop wearing high-vis and, if you wear a helmet, stop wearing that too -- make cycling look as normal as possible. Do your bit to make cycling normal and attractive to more people and increase safety by safety in numbers -- the best proven way to make cycling safer!

+1!

I couldn't agree more, the amount of people I see just out for a ride on a utility bike wearing all manner of high-vis garb and helmets is shocking.

Idleater

Nanazolie wrote: »

Still, I think I'll keep wearing mine. And look like a Christmas tree with flashing lights. Some drivers don't even seem to notice me in broad day light, I don't want to tempt fate

Posting as a motorcyclist, drivers claim not to see me either despite me driving a large bright orange bike, dipped beams that I cannot turn off and a full "hi-viz" jacket (it would be higher viz if it were washed every now and again).

No amount of legislation and demands for increasing visibility are going to change whether people see what they are looking at or not.

Relying on such legislation would be futile IMO.

Cookie_Monster

monument wrote: »

Then stop wearing high-vis and, if you wear a helmet, stop wearing that too -- make cycling look as normal as possible. Do your bit to make cycling normal and attractive to more people and increase safety by safety in numbers -- the best proven way to make cycling safer!

go one step further, cycle in the nip, everyone will notice you!


though maybe there might be some problems with hawt ladies and ogle related crashes

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

Haven't checked the law here, but in the UK it is not illegal to stop past the ASL, it is only illegal to cross the ASL when the light is red.

Similarly, it is not illegal to stop in a box junction if you're turning right and only obstructed by oncoming traffic.

I await correction.

Sounds about right.

http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/30/advanced-stop-zones/

As before, what’s prohibited is crossing the line on red. If a car driver or motorbiker has already crossed the first line by the time the light goes red, they won’t commit an offence so long as they stop at the second line. This is why cars and motorbikes can, in some circumstances, stop lawfully in the boxes. It’s also why keeping cars and motorbikes out of the boxes is difficult for the police, who need to see when they enter the box in order to judge whether an offence has been committed.

("First line" is the general stop line for traffic, just before the advanced stop zone; "second line" is the other end of the advanced stop zone.)

tomasrojo

EDIT: monument has already covered the flashing lights law. Still, why waste such beautiful prose ...

Beasty wrote: »

I think flashing lights are not illegal as such, but are not "legal" either!

You are not committing an offence if you have a flashing light on during daytime, or in conjuction with a "legal" steady state one at nighttime

Flashing lights can be used now, even without a constant light.

From 2009:

http://www.dublincycling.com/node/541

FLASHING BICYCLE lights, which have been used illegally for years by many cyclists, have been legalised by Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey.

The use of flashing rather than static lights on the front or rear of bicycles has become increasing popular with cyclists seeking to make themselves more visible to motorists.

However, their use was illegal until just days before Christmas when Mr Dempsey amended the road traffic regulations to allow their use. A spokesman for Mr Dempsey said the amendment regularises a situation where cyclists, mostly unwittingly, were breaking the law.

“This is something the department has been working on for a long time. Most people using the lights, which are widely available, never would have realised that they weren’t legal.”

Nanazolie wrote: »

A system that allows cyclists to turn right on 2 lane roads when the cycle track is on the left hand side of the road. Eg: you cycle on the left hand side of a 2 lane road, the left lane goes straight while the right lane turns right. You need to take the right turn, how do you proceed? Cycle in the middle of the road? Extend your right arm to indicate and pray that the cars behind you will stop? Dismount and cross the road on foot?

That link sort of covers this point.

The Department of Transport is drafting regulations to end the compulsory use of cycle lanes where they exist. The current rules put cyclists in a position of breaking the law if they have to leave cycle lanes because of obstructions such as parked cars.

They also force cyclists to remain in cycle lanes where the surface may be unsuitable or where the lane makes it difficult to safely continue in a straight line, or makes it impossible to make a right-hand turn.

In the end, they still haven't overturned the mandatory use of cycle lanes, but the solution is the same as if they had: you have to carefully signal, negotiate your way out of the cycle lane and into the right-hand lane and make your turn from there. Or, if that seems too hazardous to you, cross as a pedestrian at a suitable point.

Nobody has ever been taken to court for not obeying the mandatory use, as far as I know, and since the two most recent ministers of transport have committed themselves to removing the obligation, it would seem perverse to prosecute anyone now.

tomasrojo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

However as I recall they did not change the law that says the rear light can be no more than 18 inches from the back of the bike. So lights attached to your seat post are probably still illegal.

I have a mount for my bikehod trailer under the saddle, and I put the light on that when not using the trailer. The hitch protrudes back about 8cm from the seatpost, and this brings the light within 40cm of the back of the bike, meaning I just pass this requirement!

tomasrojo

Nanazolie wrote: »

I eat my words

A 2009 Australian study found that fluorescent vests were not a significant improvement on black clothing at night, and that retro-reflective strips were more effective when attached to knees and ankles than on a more or less static jacket.[4] Reference: Wood, J.M. et al. 2009. Drivers' and cyclists' experiences of sharing the road: Incidents, attitudes and perceptions of visibility. Accident Analysis & Prevention 41: 772-776. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.014.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-visibility_clothing#Bicyclists

It was I who added that paragraph to the Wikipedia article, funnily enough.

Biomotion, such as shown by pedal reflectors as mentioned earlier, is important in conspicuity, as opposed to mere visibility, and that's something that's often forgotten in the drive to make more people wear high-visibility jackets and so on.

For example, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/10/14/see-me-don-t-kill-me.html

In numerous studies conducted by Owens and others, drivers spotted pedestrians with strips of retroreflective tape attached to points known to invoke the perception of biomotion significantly better than pedestrians using any other approach to visibility.

This little animation shows how points of light judiciously placed attracts the eye, and makes it clear that a walker is ahead in the dark. If you mess around with the sliders, you can make the walker have a feminine gait, or a heavier person's gait, and so on (female-light-nervous-happy is quite an amusing setting). So a lot of information can be conveyed by relatively little, but not by a swathe of fluorescent fabric (which doesn't fluoresce at night anyway) with retroreflective stripes that are placed quite a bit above where the main beam of a car light falls as it approaches the walker or cyclist.

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/BMLwalker.html


I found some other research (can't remember where, and I don' t think it was in a peer-reviewed article) that said that while ankle band and wrist bands alone were more conspicuous than a tabard alone, their value diminished considerably when the wearer was walking near a flashing distraction, such as a flashing roadworks sign. Not that surprising, compared to the result that static jackets themselves aren't that good at drawing attention. It does make me wonder though whether all these devices for grabbing attention aren't making it harder to read the road, since you can have several people on the road all implicitly vying for your attention, using tactics that until not too long ago would be reserved for emergency workers.

Idleater

Actually speaking of the lighting of vehicles act
I love this exemption

Defence in case of racing vehicles. wrote:

53. Where a person is charged with a contravention in the day time of articles 9, 22, 29 and 33 of these Regulations, it shall be a good defence to show that the vehicle was primarily constructed or adapted for the purpose of racing or trials and was either being used for such purpose or was travelling to or from the venue of a race or trial in which the vehicle had taken part or was intended to take part.

Mucco

I haven't time to read the whole thread, so sorry if this is a repeat of other comments.

In my view, the reason why people get angered by cyclists breaking lights and not about the more dangerous speeding/mobile phone usage of motorists is that more or less every adult is a motorist, but only a small number are cyclists.
It's an us and them situation.
With this in mind, the solution is to turn everybody into an us - encourage more cycling. Extra Dublin bikes, bike lanes, showers at work etc...

elmo33

Yes - as a driver, I see cyclists break red lights every day (not all cyclists but quite a few) and as a result almost hit people crossing the road or swerve into oncoming traffic.

coolbeans

monument wrote: »

Want to do your small bit in making cycling safer for everybody?

Then stop wearing high-vis and, if you wear a helmet, stop wearing that too -- make cycling look as normal as possible. Do your bit to make cycling normal and attractive to more people and increase safety by safety in numbers -- the best proven way to make cycling safer!

OMG, that's such an irresponsible post!

TinyExplosions

coolbeans wrote: »

OMG, that's such an irresponsible post!

I think it's perfectly rational, and correct!

HivemindXX

elmo33 wrote: »

Yes - as a driver, I see cyclists break red lights every day (not all cyclists but quite a few) and as a result almost hit people crossing the road or swerve into oncoming traffic.

While I see cyclists break red lights every day I very rarely see them amost hit pedestrians, let alone swerving into oncoming traffic.

Cookie_Monster

coolbeans wrote: »

OMG, that's such an irresponsible post!

O M G !

doozerie

I think that complacency is a significant factor in the poor behaviour of all road users. Drivers grow complacent about breaking the speed limit, ignoring rules about traffic lights, lane positioning, etc. Cyclists grow complacent about traffic lights, signaling, using lights, etc. Pedestrians too. As each group sees others in their own group do the same (illegal) things it pretty much becomes the norm for them and they start to actively resent efforts to penalise their illegal actions e.g. drivers complaining about speed cameras, cyclists complaining about traffic lights. If you could eliminate the complacency then I think many people would almost instantly become better and safer road users. You'd still have the completely arrogant and obnoxious road users to deal with, of course, but I think they are the minority and the laws already exist to penalise them and encourage them to control their behaviour.

It's not easy to tackle complacency, but a useful step in that process would be for all of us to actually stop and think about the implications of our own actions. If I break a red light, for example. I am guilty of supporting those that do likewise, be they motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian, whether I like it or not. If I want others to respect the laws then I am obliged to respect them too, otherwise I am at best a complete hypocrite and at worst I am actively contributing to making the problem worse.

Or to put it in a tree huggy context, working towards the mutual benefit of everyone is supposed to be what society is about - the road traffic laws are not there to impinge upon anyone's basic rights (what a ridiculous argument that is!) or to turn us all into some sort of puppets of the higher orders (a ridiculous argument with a large chip on its shoulder!), they are there to try to ensure that what we do on the roads is predictable to everyone else and thereby hopefully help prevent us from killing each other by our actions. Debating the merits of particular rules is healthy and constructive, simply opting to ignore the rules is the polar opposite.

I make an exception for cycle lanes though. They are so poorly implemented that as often as not they create more problems/dangers than they solve. The law mandating their use is already recognised as being a poor one it's just a shame it's taking forever to fulfill the promise to remove it.

Oh, and yes the laws should be enforced for cyclists, just like they should be enforced for drivers. That's good for fighting complacency too.

doozerie

Oh, and I think that complacency extends to the dangers, or not, that people perceive of a collision between a cyclists and either another cyclist or a pedestrian. The dangers are often dismissed as insignificant when weighed against those posed by being hit by a car. While it is certainly the case that being hit by a car will most likely lead to greater injury, that does not make a collision between a cyclist and a cyclist/pedestrian "safe". I've seen cyclists collide with other cyclists and collide with pedestrians, and the results are not pretty. I've seen a kid lifted and spun in the air when he stepped in front of a moving cyclist. I've executed a (hopefully impressive) flying, helmeted, headbutt to the face of a careless pedestrian and believe a lingering neck/back problem, several years later, to be a lasting scar that I have to live with. Etc.

So to those people who tend to argue that your being on a bicycle means you pose no danger to other road users by your actions, think again.

goldencleric

coolbeans wrote: »

OMG, that's such an irresponsible post!

Please mods, think of the children!

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

So to those people who tend to argue that your being on a bicycle means you pose no danger to other road users by your actions, think again.

Another anecdote! Bike collisions are inherently MUCH less likely to result in serious injury- that is physics (mass/speed being so much less) and it is again backed up by the statistics.

If we are talking anecdotes, I know plenty of people who have crashed into other cyclists in probably the worst conditions possible, e.g. racing- going extremely fast. None that I know personally are dead, or even severely injured. The same I cannot say of people I knew who have been involved in car accidents.

doozerie

blorg wrote:

Another anecdote! Bike collisions are inherently MUCH less likely to result in serious injury- that is physics (mass/speed being so much less) and it is again backed up by the statistics.

If we are talking anecdotes, I know plenty of people who have crashed into other cyclists in probably the worst conditions possible, e.g. racing- going extremely fast. None that I know personally are dead, or even severely injured. The same I cannot say of people I knew who have been involved in car accidents.

You do realise that you just repeated what I wrote, don't you? Well, apart from you using the logic to try to relegate bike collisions into the category of something not to trouble yourself about, or something.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

You do realise that you just repeated what I wrote, don't you? Well, apart from you using the logic to try to relegate bike collisions into the category of something not to trouble yourself about, or something.

Yes, I threw in an anecdote, as that is what we are doing! The stats however show much lower serious injury rates from bike/bike and bike/pedestrian collisions, versus those involving a motorised vehicle.

The world is not safe, you could slip in the bath, you could be kidnapped if you step outside your front door. We all have to make our decisions on risk, and cycling is just not inherently risky, especially if cars are not in the equation.

Davyhal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If a motorist fails to spot a well lit bike on a unlit road, then they are driving without due care and attention.

Blaming the cyclist is the wrong approach.

If a cyclist is hit by a car, the cyclist will be the one more badly injured. It's not as if the accident was not your fault you will not be hurt. High-Vis jackets should be worn for personal safety. The fact of the matter is, in spite of whatever laws there are, there are still dangerous drivers on the road, and it would be in your own interest to wear a high-vis jacket. I come from a rural area, and I assure you that driving within the speed limit, is it quite possible on a dark evening to not see a cyclist til you are almost passed them, especially if they are in dark clothing. Don't presume that everyone else is going to obey the law, cos we all know that they don't. Also, fairly common occurance out my direction is drivers have to swerve to avoid animals etc, so its best to make yourself as visible as possible

coolbeans

blorg wrote: »

The world is not safe, you could slip in the bath, you could be kidnapped if you step outside your front door. We all have to make our decisions on risk, and cycling is just not inherently risky, especially if cars are not in the equation.

Shur, you'd be grand as long as you're wearing a helmet.

Chips Lovell

Davyhal wrote: »

If a cyclist is hit by a car, the cyclist will be the one more badly injured.

No kidding.

Davyhal wrote: »

It's not as if the accident was not your fault you will not be hurt.

I wasn't saying the accident was your fault I was saying obliging peole to wear one was shifting the onus of responsibility for avoiding an accident.

Davyhal wrote: »

I come from a rural area, and I assure you that driving within the speed limit, is it quite possible on a dark evening to not see a cyclist til you are almost passed them, especially if they are in dark clothing.

If you can't see a well lit bike until you're almost upon them, then you're either driving too fast or not paying attention.

Undercover Elephant

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

go one step further, cycle in the nip, everyone will notice you!

That's the last time I split a boards jersey order with you.

Davyhal

No, it's not down to paying attention, it's because there are some roads with blindspots, single lane country roads with lots of bends, hedges growing in at the sides etc. You can be driving in a perfectly legal manner, and still not see the cyclist til you are almost upon them. And cyclists are not infallable either, sometimes cyclists come out of side roads etc. It is on both parties to be responsible on the road. If it is evening, the cyclist may have a chance to hear the car / see the much more noticable lights approacing / be more expectant. The motorist will not hear the bike, and may not see the much less visible light. All I'm saying is, wearing a visible jacket will do much more good than harm. Surely you should be thinking of your own safety. You cannot trust everyone on the road. And I apply the same rules about high vis jackets to pedestrians as well. I always wear one when I go for a run if it is approaching dusk. I know I look like an idiot wearing it, but I'd rather look like an idiot unharmed than be well-dressed whilst pinned between a bumper and a wall

seamus

Davyhal wrote: »

it would be in your own interest to wear a high-vis jacket.

How so? Read the rest of this thread. If you have some evidence that a high-vis jacket is a useful safety supplement to lights, please provide it.

Chips Lovell

So wearing a high viz jacket will allow you to be seen around the corner of a blind spot? That's brill.

doozerie

blorg wrote:

Yes, I threw in an anecdote, as that is what we are doing! The stats however show much lower serious injury rates from bike/bike and bike/pedestrian collisions, versus those involving a motorised vehicle.

The world is not safe, you could slip in the bath, you could be kidnapped if you step outside your front door. We all have to make our decisions on risk, and cycling is just not inherently risky, especially if cars are not in the equation.

My point is that a collision with a cyclist is not free of risk of injury. So those people on bicycles that habitually break the rules of the road and justify their actions with the argument of "well what harm can I cause [others], sure it's not like I am driving a car which can actually hurt people" are talking rubbish. What you are saying seems to be entirely unrelated to what I am saying, though we overlap on the point that bike collisions are not the harmless little bumps that some would like to believe.

Undercover Elephant

Davyhal wrote: »

No, it's not down to paying attention, it's because there are some roads with blindspots, single lane country roads with lots of bends, hedges growing in at the sides etc.

Hi-vis won't help drivers see round corners.

EDIT - oh, never mind.

Davyhal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So wearing a high viz jacket will allow you to be seen around the corner of a blind spot? That's brill.

I was saying that in response to the argument that if you don't see a cyclist you must be driving irresponsibly.

Do you not agree that High-Vis jackets make you more visible in the dusk?! that is the purpose of them! and that cannot be a bad thing! This is the thing that gets on my nerves in a discussion, when people jump on one line and ignore the entire argument!

-K2-

This is what is required.

Lumen

Davyhal wrote: »

Do you not agree that High-Vis jackets make you more visible in the dusk?! that is the purpose of them! and that cannot be a bad thing!

At "dusk" I use decent lights. I assume you do the same. If that's the case, why do you need hi vis?

Idleater

Davyhal wrote: »

Do you not agree that High-Vis jackets make you more visible in the dusk?! that is the purpose of them! and that cannot be a bad thing! This is the thing that gets on my nerves in a discussion, when people jump on one line and ignore the entire argument!

Idleater wrote: »

Posting as a motorcyclist, drivers claim not to see me either despite me driving a large bright orange bike, dipped beams that I cannot turn off and a full "hi-viz" jacket (it would be higher viz if it were washed every now and again).

No amount of legislation and demands for increasing visibility are going to change whether people see what they are looking at or not.

Relying on such legislation would be futile IMO.

To add to this, a motorcycle is larger than a bicycle therefore even more conspicuous, it also has a loud horn (as opposed to a bell) to alert traffic.

I have done my advanced rider RoSPA test 3 times now to Garda level and I still am amazed at the amount of times I have to alter my position to take account of motorists "not seeing" me.

Undercover Elephant

doozerie wrote: »

My point is that a collision with a cyclist is not free of risk of injury. So those people on bicycles that habitually break the rules of the road and justify their actions with the argument of "well what harm can I cause [others], sure it's not like I am driving a car which can actually hurt people" are talking rubbish.

I don't speak for blorg, but the thread is about enforcing traffic laws. In an ideal world, they would all be fully enforced, and we would also have cycle lanes which didn't just end abruptly when the planners couldn't quite work out what to do.

But in the world we live in, there are limited resources, and so it makes sense to enforce rules selectively in a way which will best protect life and limb. Cyclist-cyclist and cyclist-pedestrian KSIs do happen, sadly. But they are vanishingly rare compared to the number of people killed or maimed by cars, even though we see stupid behaviour like salmoning and riding on the footpath all the time. So I would much rather see the gardai clamping down on - say - the use of phones while driving (which is proven to increase the risk of an accident fourfold) than set out to stop RLJs or whatever out of some misguided concept of fairness.

It's not a justification of the idiotic actions of some cyclists. It's a justification for not doing anything specific about it.

There's a counterargument that ubiquitous low-level lawlessness breeds general incivility, of course. But that's a lot more tenuous.

Davyhal

Dusk, then going on into the evening when it is getting darker as well. Cyclists eyes adjust better to the dark than those of a motorist, you must admit that from personal experience.... Oh never mind, it is your own death trap. Thinking I might drive home from work down along the bike lane. Maybe that will teach ye!

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

My point is that a collision with a cyclist is not free of risk of injury. So those people on bicycles that habitually break the rules of the road and justify their actions with the argument of "well what harm can I cause [others], sure it's not like I am driving a car which can actually hurt people" are talking rubbish. What you are saying seems to be entirely unrelated to what I am saying, though we overlap on the point that bike collisions are not the harmless little bumps that some would like to believe.

Nothing is "free of risk of injury." There is only a scale ranging from say, falling from a plane without a parachute (which is not actually guaranteed to kill you), through colliding with a car, colliding with another bike, walking to your mailbox, and so on. Colliding with a bike is a lot lower down on the risk scale compared with colliding with a car. No-one ever said it was entirely harmless, that is a straw man.

Idleater

Davyhal wrote: »

Cyclists eyes adjust better to the dark than those of a motorist, you must admit that from personal experience....

zuh???

is it a different darkness inside a vehicle?

Davyhal wrote: »

Oh never mind, it is your own death trap. Thinking I might drive home from work down along the bike lane. Maybe that will teach ye!

erm, do you not think that it's you that needs teaching?

Chips Lovell

Davyhal wrote:

I was saying that in response to the argument that if you don't see a cyclist you must be driving irresponsibly.

Indeed, and I'm highlighting why your counterpoint makes no sense.

Davyhal wrote:

Do you not agree that High-Vis jackets make you more visible in the dusk?! that is the purpose of them! and that cannot be a bad thing! This is the thing that gets on my nerves in a discussion, when people jump on one line and ignore the entire argument!

This is the essence of the logic fail that seems to overcome people when debating safety. Measure X will make you safer. Therefore it is irresponsible for you not to employ measure x.

blorg

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

This is the essence of the logic fail that seems to overcome people when debating safety. Measure X will make you safer. Therefore it is irresponsible for you not to employ measure x.

Especially when measure Y (adaquate lighting at night) is actually the important one, which many high-vis wearers don't bother employing.

I have damn good lights and am honestly not concerned about dressing in black at night... I actually feel more visible at night than during the day, and motorists tend to give me more room when passing.

doozerie

blorg wrote:

No-one ever said it was entirely harmless, that is a straw man.

*sigh* Well my straw man is more pleasant than your straw man, your straw man smells.

galwaycyclist

Davyhal wrote: »

No, it's not down to paying attention, it's because there are some roads with blindspots, single lane country roads with lots of bends, hedges growing in at the sides etc. You can be driving in a perfectly legal manner, and still not see the cyclist til you are almost upon them.

Ok the central rule about speed is that you cannot drive at a speed exceeding your ability to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear. If you can't see around a bend - and you are driving too fast to stop if there is an obstacle around the corner - then you are breaking the law. This is regardless of what the stated speed limit happens to be.

The speed limit is not a target. You are expected to adapt to the road conditions if they change.

Even if a motorist is under the speed limit they can still technically be speeding. Indeed on some country lanes most of them probably are.

Undercover Elephant

Davyhal wrote: »

Do you not agree that High-Vis jackets make you more visible in the dusk?! that is the purpose of them! and that cannot be a bad thing! This is the thing that gets on my nerves in a discussion, when people jump on one line and ignore the entire argument!

Even if you were right about hi-vis making you more visible in the dusk, which is lacking in any evidential basis, there is a downside.

Dressing cyclists up in ugly gear that you would never wear anywhere else puts other people off cycling. It gives a message that it is an abnormal activity which is unreasonably dangerous.

This is a bad thing. The health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks 20 to 1. And furthermore, the single best way of reducing the risks of cycling is for there to be more people cycling - a doubling of numbers only leads to roughly a 60% increase in accidents.

Indirectly, hi-vis kills.

doozerie

Undercover Elephant wrote:

I don't speak for blorg, but the thread is about enforcing traffic laws. In an ideal world, they would all be fully enforced, and we would also have cycle lanes which didn't just end abruptly when the planners couldn't quite work out what to do.

I don't like your ideal world. My ideal world doesn't have cycle lanes 'cos they suck.

Undercover Elephant wrote:

So I would much rather see the gardai clamping down on - say - the use of phones while driving (which is proven to increase the risk of an accident fourfold) than set out to stop RLJs or whatever out of some misguided concept of fairness.

You seem to be describing clamping down on cycling RLJ'ers as unwarranted. What about, for example, cars parked in cycle tracks, or cars parked on footpaths, should they not be ticketed either 'cos they are not in the act of squishing someone?