Will you wear a high-viz if it is mandated by law?

Evaex

pixiebean22 wrote: »

FYP.

I dont have a breakdown of stats involved generally but I personally know two motorcyclists who had fatal accidents due to grossly excessive speed on country roads. No other road users were involved.

goldie fish

Evaex wrote: »

I dont have a breakdown of stats involved generally but I personally know two motorcyclists who had fatal accidents due to grossly excessive speed on country roads. No other road users were involved.

Was it the speed that killed them, or impact with a hard surface?

Because wearing a yellow vest will not protect you from high speed impact.

daenerysstormborn3

Evaex wrote: »

I dont have a breakdown of stats involved generally but I personally know two motorcyclists who killed themselves due to grossly excessive speed on country roads. No other road users were involved.

Good for you.

I don't personally know the hundreds of idiots in cars that kill themselves and others each year through speeding, drink driving, carelessness, general muppetry.

daenerysstormborn3

goldie fish wrote: »

Was it the speed that killed them, or impact with a hard surface?

Because wearing a yellow vest will not protect you from high speed impact.

Yeah, i think he's in the wrong thread. Speeding has nothing to do with hi viz vests.

goldie fish

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Good for you.

I don't personally know the hundreds of idiots in cars that kill themselves and others each year through speeding, drink driving, carelessness, general muppetry.

I know someone who was killed crossing the road. Actually I know more than one.
Crossing roads should be banned.

--amadeus--

Ignoring the trolls and wind up merchants the people defending High Vis from a safety point of view are forgetting one thing...

Bikers don't particularly want to die! Or worse end up without a leg, or brain damaged. We all have self preservation hard wired in from millions of years of evolution. That is why we all weigh up the risks and rewards, the benefits and the costs of everything. Pretty much every biker I know or see on the roads has headlights on because we can see and prove that it greatly increases visibility and so safety, even though DRL are not mandatory and many older bikes don't have them on automatically. The same applies to PPE - how often do you see a biker without a proper jacket on? It's because we can see and prove the benefit.

With high vis a lot of (most?) bikers wear it in low visibility conditions, in the dark, the wet or whatever. But in daylight the benefits just don't justify the extra layer of clothing (and heat). We are adults who can make adult decisions.

Cyclists - like the schoolkids riding on the wrong side of the road against the traffic - don't have to wear high vis, PPE, helmets, have any form of training and routinely flout the most basic road safety standards. There are hundreds of people injured - many seriously - on bikes every year but there are no proposals to address that. I can be lit up like a Xmas tree but a driver who doesn't look will not see me - high vis will not make him look, driver education will.

CJhaughey

Its not just a highvis vest that was being talked about AFAIR it was full sleeve high vis, which is kind of unusual and hard to get.

daenerysstormborn3

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Ignoring the trolls and wind up merchants the people defending High Vis from a safety point of view are forgetting one thing...

Bikers don't particularly want to die! Or worse end up without a leg, or brain damaged. We all have self preservation hard wired in from millions of years of evolution. That is why we all weigh up the risks and rewards, the benefits and the costs of everything. Pretty much every biker I know or see on the roads has headlights on because we can see and prove that it greatly increases visibility and so safety, even though DRL are not mandatory and many older bikes don't have them on automatically. The same applies to PPE - how often do you see a biker without a proper jacket on? It's because we can see and prove the benefit.

With high vis a lot of (most?) bikers wear it in low visibility conditions, in the dark, the wet or whatever. But in daylight the benefits just don't justify the extra layer of clothing (and heat). We are adults who can make adult decisions.

Cyclists - like the schoolkids riding on the wrong side of the road against the traffic - don't have to wear high vis, PPE, helmets, have any form of training and routinely flout the most basic road safety standards. There are hundreds of people injured - many seriously - on bikes every year but there are no proposals to address that. I can be lit up like a Xmas tree but a driver who doesn't look will not see me - high vis will not make him look, driver education will.

Well said. Your point about cyclists is something i know a lot of bikers have brought to the attention of Noel Brett (RSA) in their submissions about the proposals.

daenerysstormborn3

CJhaughey wrote: »

Its not just a highvis vest that was being talked about AFAIR it was full sleeve high vis, which is kind of unusual and hard to get.

They sure won't be unusual or hard to get or cheap if this becomes law.

Evaex

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Good for you.

I don't personally know the hundreds of idiots in cars that kill themselves and others each year through speeding, drink driving, carelessness, general muppetry.

That was a response to someone who said car drivers kill motorcyclists.

In reality motorcyclists kill themselves with dangerous driving and grossly excessive speed. It is good to see the government take action to protect them from themselves.

It is bizarre to see motorcyclists objection to wearing a yellow jacket. Reminds me of a 4 year old child disgruntled with wearing a school uniform.

The more safety for motorcyclists, the better for everyone. And afterall it's just a light yellow luminous jacket. Bring on the new legislation as soon as possible, and protect these road users from themselves.

lord lucan

Evaex wrote: »

They are afraid they will look like gardai.

Could be on to something here. Maybe i should get a yellow hi-vis jacket,replace my helmet with a white one and change my black bike for a white one. It would be like the parting of the red sea on my commute into work when they all think i'm a bike cop approaching!:pac:

I've worn a hi-vis vest for the last number of years but tbh i still encounter the same crap on the roads that i did when i didn't wear one. Quite what a hi-vis jacket will do i don't know.

daenerysstormborn3

Evaex wrote: »

That was a response to someone who said car drivers kill motorcyclists.

In reality motorcyclists kill themselves with dangerous driving and grossly excessive speed. It is good to see the government take action to protect them from themselves.

It is bizarre to see motorcyclists objection to wearing a yellow jacket. Reminds me of a 4 year old child disgruntled with wearing a school uniform.

The more safety for motorcyclists, the better for everyone. And afterall it's just a light yellow luminous jacket. Bring on the new legislation as soon as possible, and protect these road users from themselves.

What has speeding got to do with hi viz jackets? You're gone off on your own little tangent there.

"The more safety the better" + "it's just a light yellow luminous jacket" = bit of a contradiction there.

Evaex

pixiebean22 wrote: »

What has speeding got to do with hi viz jackets? You're gone off on your own little tangent there.

"The more safety the better" + "it's just a light yellow luminous jacket" = bit of a contradiction there.

Wearing a high vis jacket is akin to having to use lights when it is dark. Not just so you can see where you are going but also to increase visibility to other road users.

I recall an episode of Traffic Blues aired a few weeks ago, may still be available on player. A wreckless motorcyclist was caught driving at at over 200kmp/h + on the M4. He was wearing all dark clothes also and barely visible on the video footage shown. The gardai also pointed this out to him.

I suppose if he had an accident, it would all be some "cage drivers" fault though :rolleyes:

daenerysstormborn3

Evaex wrote: »

Wearing a high vis jacket is akin to having to use lights when it is dark. Not just so you can see where you are going but also to increase visibility to other road users.

I recall an episode of Traffic Blues aired a few weeks ago, may still be available on player. A wreckless motorcyclist was caught driving at at over 200kmp/h + on the M4. He was wearing all dark clothes also and barely visible on the video footage shown. The gardai also pointed this out to him.

I suppose if he had an accident, it would all be some "cage drivers" fault though :rolleyes:

Yes, if a "cage driver" had caused an accident.

There was no footage on traffic blues about wreckless car drivers no?

I don't believe the gardai have the right to lecture anyone on something that is not law.

Evaex

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Yes, if a "cage driver" had caused an accident.

There was no footage on traffic blues about wreckless car drivers no?

I don't believe the gardai have the right to lecture anyone on something that is not law.

The Traffic Corps are there for the safety of motorists and that includes giving safety advice to a wreckless motorcyclist on a badly maintained bike travelling at nearly twice the speed limit on a dark night with nothing but one dim rear light to identify himself to "cage" drivers.

daenerysstormborn3

Evaex wrote: »

The Traffic Corps are there for the safety of motorists and that includes giving safety advice to a wreckless motorcyclist on a badly maintained bike travelling at nearly twice the speed limit on a dark night with nothing but one dim rear light to identify himself to "cage" drivers.

I don't believe they have the right to lecture anyone on something not legally required.

I must keep an eye out for all these wonderfully maintained cars (i don't know why you insist on calling them cages. Do you feel like a caged animal?) being driven carefully and considerately not the morons driving wrecklessly, pulling out in front of me, cutting across me on roundabouts and driving around with one light working.

uncle betty

Evaex wrote: »

The Traffic Corps are there for the safety of motorists and that includes giving safety advice to a wreckless motorcyclist on a badly maintained bike travelling at nearly twice the speed limit on a dark night with nothing but one dim rear light to identify himself to "cage" drivers.

Troll. Or sheep. Or maybe just troll...

Problem is people are expected to nod and smile even when they are on the receiving end of condescending cheap shots from the Traffic Corps heroes.

... from the same poster in a previous thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74019810&postcount=100.

May I suggest we all ignore this flutehead from here on ?

Evaex

uncle betty wrote: »

Troll. Or sheep. Or maybe just troll...



... from the same poster in a previous thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74019810&postcount=100.

May I suggest we all ignore this flutehead from here on ?

In reference to a motorist who had everything in order and was aggressively threatened with a summons for producing his paper Irish licence which had undergone wear and tear, and was no longer deemed valid as result.

"
Originally Posted by JimmyCrackCorn

That not the point though if the OP had just nodded and smiled he wouldn't have a problem.


"Problem is people are expected to nod and smile even when they are on the receiving end of condescending cheap shots from the Traffic Corps heroes. The OP is perfectly right to question the validity of the guards argument. If his licence is valid and hasnt been tampered with (such as adding on parts of another licence), he has absolutely nothing to worry about and is fully compliant with the law. It's not his fault that Irish licences are made of cheap paper, 20 years behind the rest of the world and practically disposable."

Alanstrainor

uncle betty wrote: »

Troll. Or sheep. Or maybe just troll...



... from the same poster in a previous thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74019810&postcount=100.

May I suggest we all ignore this flutehead from here on ?

Warning given.

Attack the post, not the poster.

mikeyboy

We'll be forced into it by the insurance industry which will refuse to provide cover if we are involved in an accident and weren't wearing our "safety equipment"

uncle betty

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Warning given.

Attack the post, not the poster.

Have you anything interesting to contribute to the subject, no ? Probably not.

Considering that this is the motorcycling forum, such comments as below, from the same individual, might be construed as ''attacking the poster''...

Motorcyclists should grow up and wear their high vis jackets. It's time they stop acting like 2-year olds and worrying about not looking cool in front of their fellow motorists

It is bizarre to see motorcyclists objection to wearing a yellow jacket. Reminds me of a 4 year old child disgruntled with wearing a school uniform.

Evaex

Actually looks quite well

http://seattlecycle.com/images/products/detail/NOVAVESTyellow.jpg

simplybam

MyKeyG wrote: »

Yes cyclists travel around at 120kph. Great point, very well made...NOT! And in case you've been in a coma for the past five years using your phone in a car get's you a fine and possible penalty points AND they're planning on banning smoking in cars too so if you're going to use an example educate yourself on the facts and try to use a sensible one!

Firstly, yes, mobile phone use while driving IS illegal, still not a day goes by that I don't see someone using it while operating a vehicle. Even saw a garda doing it just yesterday. And the issue with banning smoking in cars is only when there are children in the car. So maybe you're the one who needs a bit of education.

Stark

As far as I know, gardaí are exempt from the law that says you can't use a mobile phone when driving. And they plan to ban smoking in cars altogether, not just when there are children in the car. The reasoning being that it would be harder to enforce the ban if it only applied when there were children present.

phoenix0250

silly law, why not just require bikes to have 4 wheels so they are more stable

You're the man! it seems to me this is almost the strategy that rsa is undertaking.

Now, as it was mentioned before, bikers KNOW the risks. They are aware of them and protect themselves in whatever way suits them. PPE (personal protection equipment) is not mandated by the law for bikers to wear, yet, most, if not all biker wear it as it is in their interest and safety to do so.

Question for the plethora of trolls; Should we mandate it? No, as most people do it anyway plus, there is no bloody need to legislate EVERYTHING!

Safety barriers cut the bikers in half, yet ireland voted AGAINST it. and they have quite a reasonable tax of 21% on helmets.:mad: Safety is not what they are looking after, its the rsa trying to show that it is doing something, rather than working on issues that matter and actually do concern bikers and their safety.

/end of rant :cool:

Tigger

Evaex wrote: »

Actually looks quite well

http://seattlecycle.com/images/products/detail/NOVAVESTyellow.jpg

thats not long sleeved

P.C.

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Warning given.

Attack the post, not the poster.

uncle betty wrote: »

Have you anything interesting to contribute to the subject, no ? Probably not.

Considering that this is the motorcycling forum, such comments as below, from the same individual, might be construed as ''attacking the poster''...

Alanstainor was posting as a motoring mod.
He was not contributing to the thread.

Arguing with a mod on thread is not tolerated - please don't do it.

uncle betty

P.C. wrote: »

Alanstainor was posting as a motoring mod.
He was not contributing to the thread.

Arguing with a mod on thread is not tolerated - please don't do it.

When the two of you have finished waving your mod-sticks about so zealously...

I've pointed out very clear examples of an individual doing precisely what your pal got so uptight with me about.

Mod that.

P.C.

I am locking this thread.

It is too long for me to clean up, and if I did try, it would not make sence to readers.

Feel free to start a new thread, and I will keep an eye on it, and delete post, give warnings/bans as needs be.

dceire

I heard some fool of a DJ on 2FM Monday make the following statement in support of the high-viz:

"How can a motorist see you at night if you're not wearing a high-viz jacket?"

:eek:

I didn't realise we weren't allowed to use our lights anymore. :rolleyes: