Should cyclists be issued with traffic fines and have to pay road tax / insurance?

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

What I'm trying to do is combat this nonsense idea that it's someone else's fault when one performs a risky manouver.
You are the only person driving your vehicle. You are in full control of it, you make every decision in relation to how it moves. When you overtake, you overtake because you choose to. Own your actions, take responsibility for them. There's far too much eagerness to pass off blame for one's own actions to someone else because one was "forced" to do it.

You keep implying that I said I was forced to overtake so yet again I will clarify for you and I will hope you get it this time. I never said I was forced to overtake! I remained behind them for a while hoping that they would show some consideration, when they didn't I waited until I was on a long, straight stretch of road and I slowly got past them allowing a safe distance for them.

You seem to have trouble with my use of the word forced in my original post so I will rephrase the sentence for you: "When I overtook, at a time of my own choosing with due consideration for the safety of myself, the cyclists and other potential road users, I was left with very little space to the opposite verge such that a driver in a larger car than mine would not have been able to successfully carry out the maneuver, a situation which could have been avoided had there been a law stating that cyclists are required to cycle single file in such instances."

So hopefully there will be no more need for "gun to the head" quips.

Fizzlesque

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Which junction did you have in mind, actually? Crossing the road at the bottom of the street where it meets Trinity is pretty bad, but where (IMO) it gets really dangerous is about half way up Dame Street where it joins South George's Street. Those lights seem to be invisible to about half the population I see in the mornings while walking to college, and in all honesty I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist stop for the lights there.

It's not as if they're taking a chance going through a light which was orange a second ago, that's one thing, this is when it's been red for ages, tons of pedestrians crossing, and some eejit just decides "Meh I can try to weave through them"...

The junction I was talking about is the one where it joins South George's Street. While I agree with you, it's almost as if the lights don't exist (for motorists as well as cyclists) to be fair, I see lots of cyclists stopped there. I always stop and wait, and often there are other cyclists beside me, also waiting.

Yesterday I was crossing as a pedestrian there and there was a bus on the yellow box because the driver decided to try skim through even though the lights had gone red and pedestrians had started to cross - it was only because the pedestrians were on the road the driver stopped, forcing people to walk around the bus.

Then, as I cycled home, across O' Connell bridge, when the lights went green for me, I had to duck between the cars that were on the yellow box because they'd continued to drive even though their lights were red and got stuck unable to move in the middle of the road. The bus that couldn't pass was getting annoyed and cars were beeping at them, but they couldn't move, nor could those who had right of way. Except cyclists. The woman in the car, right on the yellow box looked terrified. I felt sorry for her, even though it was her own fault, and hope she learned how to avoid such a situation in future.

I am fully aware there are some severely selfish cyclists out there; I see all sorts as I wait for my traffic lights to go green, but, equally, there are bad/dangerous/selfish motorists making a mess of the roads as well.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

"When I overtook, at a time of my own choosing with due consideration for the safety of myself, the cyclists and other potential road users, I was left with very little space to the opposite verge such that a driver in a larger car than mine would not have been able to successfully carry out the maneuver, a situation which could have been avoided had there been a law stating that cyclists are required to cycle single file in such instances."

For the record, please note that you were the one who kept using the word "forced", but thanks for the rewording. However if your car successfully carried out the manouver in a manner which you considered safe, what purpose would the legislation serve? If there was no danger, then what's the problem?

Jawgap

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you a bee......?

Bus lanes need to be re-named because they are more than that - whether you like it or not. Dublin Bus and taxi drivers need this (and recent legislative changes applying to these priority lanes) explained to them.......in small words with clear diagrams.

The Government should introduce provisions allowing the Guards to issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists who jump lights, ride on the path etc.

The Guards should enforce existing rules better such as the prohibition on dangerous passing - there should be no minimum passing distance specified in law.

I cycle and I pay 'motor tax' - I also pay VAT, income tax etc

I also wonder when will avowed motorists (of which I am one too) will finally get their heads around the idea that the more people who cycle, the more road space it will free up for car journeys - but to do that means encouraging and embracing the activity rather than demonising it.

Death and Taxes

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

POLL IS MULTIPLE CHOICE, SO CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

Cyclists use the excuse "we are saving the planet" and other jibe when confronted by motorists, or when they are told they should pay road tax / insurance, they say "we don't pollute", we are not dangerous etc.

My argument is that cyclists are using the road, if a car were invented that ran off air, it would still have to pay road tax, so why should cyclists (who use the road have to be exempt).

Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light, very often onto on-coming traffic, they plough through pedestrian area, and should therefore have to pay insurance.

For the reason above, they should also be fined for breaking lights, disregarding traffic rules etc

This is not a trolling thread, but mods, feel free to lock etc. if you feel this thread might get out of hand, or if it has been done before. Let's not this turn into a cyclist-hating thread or flame each other. Keep it civil or face the wrath of the moderators :P

Poll only allows one choice, actually they should have to pay tax/insurance/and be subject to the full rigours of the law.!

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

For the record, please note that you were the one who kept using the word "forced", but thanks for the rewording. However if your car successfully carried out the manouver in a manner which you considered safe, what purpose would the legislation serve? If there was no danger, then what's the problem?

Okay seamus,, how about this? If you are serious and you can honestly tell me you see no benefit in a rule being enforced which states that, in the case of narrow roads, when two abreast cyclists are obstructing the progress of other road users they must move into single file, I will admit I must be wrong and will admit defeat.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

No, I see no overall benefit of such a rule. It needlessly duplicates a rule which already exists for no other reason than to demonise cyclists.

The net effect will not result in less delays for motorists, but will result in increased danger to cyclists.

RobFowl

I am not a cyclist

We don't pay "Road tax" cos we don't need roads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug7VL1CxdQE

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

The net effect will not result in less delays for motorists, but will result in increased danger to cyclists.

Out of interest, how does extra space for overtaking result in increased danger for cyclists?

Jawgap

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Okay seamus,, how about this? If you are serious and you can honestly tell me you see no benefit in a rule being enforced which states that, in the case of narrow roads, when two abreast cyclists are obstructing the progress of other road users they must move into single file, I will admit I must be wrong and will admit defeat.

The problem is that it invites a close pass which can be quite dangerous.

The RSA stats (and stats from other countries) show that while there are many more incidents involving cyclists in towns and cities, there are more serious ones on country roads because speeds are much higher. Cyclists should be allowed to protect themselves by adopting appropriate road behaviours.

I'd agree with the idea of a single-file rule if there was aggressive enforcement of speed limits on the R-roads - if you want to put your safety in someone else's hands you've got to trust them and be convinced that their behaviour will be mature.

It's a sweeping generalisation to be sure, but drivers in Ireland are - by and large - poorly educated and quite immature in their driving - you don't need to go on a narrow country road to have that view confirmed, 10 km on the M50 at any time is enough.

TonyStark

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Okay seamus,, how about this? If you are serious and you can honestly tell me you see no benefit in a rule being enforced which states that, in the case of narrow roads, when two abreast cyclists are obstructing the progress of other road users they must move into single file, I will admit I must be wrong and will admit defeat.

If by "obstructing progress" you mean impede people in cars who "know the road" travelling at speeds of 80 kmph and upwards. Bear in mind that this is the upper limit on some national primary roads.

Perhaps if you were to look at it from the cyclists point of view and think that perhaps that they were doing this not to impede you personally but to stay safe because they heard stories of people who "know the roads" in cars driving at excessive speeds around narrow roads.

Neewbie_noob

I'm a cyclist

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

POLL IS MULTIPLE CHOICE, SO CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

No, it's not.

Cyclists use the excuse "we are saving the planet" and other jibe when confronted by motorists, or when they are told they should pay road tax / insurance, they say "we don't pollute", we are not dangerous etc.

Excuse for what? Sounds like you're just bitter against cyclists.

My argument is that cyclists are using the road, if a car were invented that ran off air, it would still have to pay road tax, so why should cyclists (who use the road have to be exempt).

Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light, very often onto on-coming traffic, they plough through pedestrian area, and should therefore have to pay insurance.

I can't tell if you're serious. I've only been cycling for four weeks, and so far, I've had some moron almost kill me by turning left in a right-only lane and a number of pedestrians walk right out in front of me. Half of my route has no cycle lane and I spend much of my journey trying to avoid potholes and shi!tty patch jobs.

So, what would I be paying tax for, exactly?

Lusk Doyle

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Okay seamus,, how about this? If you are serious and you can honestly tell me you see no benefit in a rule being enforced which states that, in the case of narrow roads, when two abreast cyclists are obstructing the progress of other road users they must move into single file, I will admit I must be wrong and will admit defeat.

Where were you off to that day in such a hurry anyway?

doozerie

RobFowl wrote: »

We don't pay "Road tax" cos we don't need roads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug7VL1CxdQE

"Coming through, coming through! Single file there, SINGLE FILE! JAYSUS! Feckin' mud tax dodgers, etc. Grrr!"

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Where were you off to that day in such a hurry anyway?

I was off to see a man about a dog.

RobbieTheRobber

I am not a cyclist

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Where were you off to that day in such a hurry anyway?

Probably missing an episode of emmerdale!

Jawgap

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I was off to see a man about a dog.

I hope if you got the dog you paid the requisite tax licence fee on it:D

galwaycyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Okay seamus,, how about this? If you are serious and you can honestly tell me you see no benefit in a rule being enforced which states that, in the case of narrow roads, when two abreast cyclists are obstructing the progress of other road users they must move into single file, I will admit I must be wrong and will admit defeat.

You were doing 70-80km/h so this clearly was unlikely to be a narrow road.

Instead it sounds like a 2-lane road with room for oncoming cars to pass each other. In that case it suggests you had another lane available for any overtaking manouevre. The only way your progress was impeded is if it was not a safe place to overtake without risk of encountering oncoming traffic.

In that circumstance it would not be a safe place to overtake regardless of wether the cyclists were in single file or side by side.

ash23

I'd like to see any pedestrian or cyclist who walks/cycles in the dark with no reflective gear/lights fined.
Other than that, not bothered.

RobbieTheRobber

I am not a cyclist

ash23 wrote: »

I'd like to see any pedestrian or cyclist who walks/cycles in the dark with no reflective gear/lights fined.
Other than that, not bothered.

:D

That would be hilarious on a Friday/saturday night in the city. Everyone dressed in their finery and then covered in hi viz.

Comical!

jester77

Not sure why Ireland is so backward when it comes to these sort of laws. A cyclist breaking the rules of the law is not just a danger to him/herself but also to other users on the road.

Here in Germany you get punished if you break the rules of the road, doesn't matter what your means of transport is. And if you seriously break the rules, like cycling while under influence, then you lose your drivers license and most likely have to partake in a medical-psychological assessment to see if you can get it back.

Nate--IRL--

jester77 wrote: »

Not sure why Ireland is so backward when it comes to these sort of laws.

It isn't - the laws are there.

Nate

jester77

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

It isn't - the laws are there.

Nate

OK, then maybe they are not enforced, I've never heard of anyone losing their license for cycling drunk.

ThisRegard

jester77 wrote: »

Not sure why Ireland is so backward when it comes to these sort of laws. A cyclist breaking the rules of the law is not just a danger to him/herself but also to other users on the road.

Here in Germany you get punished if you break the rules of the road, doesn't matter what your means of transport is. And if you seriously break the rules, like cycling while under influence, then you lose your drivers license and most likely have to partake in a medical-psychological assessment to see if you can get it back.

Like this guy ?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-2228117.html

jester77

ThisRegard wrote: »

Like this guy ?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-2228117.html

They need to do more of this, some of the cities here have clamped down big time on it and it has made a huge difference. Cyclists are a lot more respectful of their fellow road users now.

ash23

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

:D

That would be hilarious on a Friday/saturday night in the city. Everyone dressed in their finery and then covered in hi viz.

Comical!

On roads obviously.....we are talking about road tax. Ever rounded a corner in a car on a dark road and (not) seen a moron completely hidden by the dark? Scary stuff. I don't think some people who don't drive realise just how difficult it is to see someone when driving in the dark.
Seriously idiotic of anyone to walk or cycle in the dark with no reflective gear.

Shenshen

Should pay some form of road tax

Jawgap wrote: »

The problem is that it invites a close pass which can be quite dangerous.

The RSA stats (and stats from other countries) show that while there are many more incidents involving cyclists in towns and cities, there are more serious ones on country roads because speeds are much higher. Cyclists should be allowed to protect themselves by adopting appropriate road behaviours.

I'd agree with the idea of a single-file rule if there was aggressive enforcement of speed limits on the R-roads - if you want to put your safety in someone else's hands you've got to trust them and be convinced that their behaviour will be mature.

It's a sweeping generalisation to be sure, but drivers in Ireland are - by and large - poorly educated and quite immature in their driving - you don't need to go on a narrow country road to have that view confirmed, 10 km on the M50 at any time is enough.

Can I add to that wish list that R roads be reviewed and speed limits applied according to the status and lie of the particular road in question?

Currently, all R roads have a blanket speed limit of 80 kph, unless the local council has made an exception ruling. In consequence, I've recently been on an R road with the corresponding 80kph speed limit, with the road being barely wide enough for one car, extremely windy with very tight corners and grass growing down the middle of it.
Enforcing a maximum limit of 80 on such a road is not going to do anything to help the safety of cyclists.

RobbieTheRobber

I am not a cyclist

ash23 wrote: »

On roads obviously.....we are talking about road tax. Ever rounded a corner in a car on a dark road and (not) seen a moron completely hidden by the dark? Scary stuff. I don't think some people who don't drive realise just how difficult it is to see someone when driving in the dark.
Seriously idiotic of anyone to walk or cycle in the dark with no reflective gear.

ok but sometimes people who go out int he city cross roads, so while not in nightclubs/bars under your law they would need hi viz.

Can i ask how cars manage not to crash into walls, seeihng at they are not covered in hi viz or even parked cars seeign as they dont wear hi viz?

Jawgap

ash23 wrote: »

On roads obviously.....we are talking about road tax. Ever rounded a corner in a car on a dark road and (not) seen a moron completely hidden by the dark? Scary stuff. I don't think some people who don't drive realise just how difficult it is to see someone when driving in the dark.
Seriously idiotic of anyone to walk or cycle in the dark with no reflective gear.

I cycle with no reflective gear all the time* - morning and evening. Hi-viz is not nearly all it's cracked up to be and should never be relied upon. A decent set of lights is your only man, hi-viz should only be worn if you are on a building site, working on the railways or wanting to dress up as a citrus fruit.



*I do have some serious lights on though;)

ash23

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

ok but sometimes people who go out int he city cross roads, so while not in nightclubs/bars under your law they would need hi viz.

Can i ask how cars manage not to crash into walls, seeihng at they are not covered in hi viz or even parked cars seeign as they dont wear hi viz?

Um I said "in the dark".

ash23 wrote: »

I'd like to see any pedestrian or cyclist who walks/cycles in the dark with no reflective gear/lights fined.
Other than that, not bothered.

Cars have lights and the lights are reflectors even when they are off. So you can usually see a car even if it's parked. You can't see a person until you're almost on top of them unless they have some sort of reflectors etc.

City streetlights mean the paths and roads aren't dark.

RobbieTheRobber

I am not a cyclist

ash23 wrote: »

Um I said "in the dark".

City streetlights mean the paths and roads aren't dark.

But what if there is a power failure?

Can the garda then go around and arrest everyone not in hi viz?

and surely you wouldnt see them its dark, which makes your point abut any pedestrian you see in the dark a bit redundant.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

High-vis is a con because it leads to a false sense of security for road users. There was a thread on boards recently enough where a parent described how their young child nearly ran straight across the road in front of traffic because they believed their school-mandated high-vis jacket would protect them from a tonne of metal travelling down the road.

The RSA's campaign to get cyclists wearing high-vis seems to be slowly backfiring on them as I increasingly see cyclists pottering around wearing high-vis jackets, but nary a light to be seen on them. Unless there is a direct light shining on a high-vis jacket (like a full-beam headlight or a torch), then it's no more effective than a light-coloured piece of clothing.

On the roads, high-vis really only has merit on unlit roads because full beam headlights on a high-vis jacket will allow a person to be seen from a few hundred meters. In lit-up areas, dipped headlights do not shine on high-vis jackets and the point of them is lost.

ash23

Jawgap wrote: »

I cycle with no reflective gear all the time* - morning and evening. Hi-viz is not nearly all it's cracked up to be and should never be relied upon. A decent set of lights is your only man, hi-viz should only be worn if you are on a building site, working on the railways or wanting to dress up as a citrus fruit.



*I do have some serious lights on though;)

Agree, but high viz is better than nothing. I was driving home from work the other night and there was a young teen on a bike, with a dark hoody and no sort of lights at all. I would have hit him only for the tiny little reflectors on his pedals alerted me to the fact that something was ahead of me but I was about a foot from him before I "saw" him properly.
Just plain stupidity.

I am not a city dweller so am more coming at this from the perspective of a country road user (little or no lighting).

Shenshen

Should pay some form of road tax

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

ok but sometimes people who go out int he city cross roads, so while not in nightclubs/bars under your law they would need hi viz.

Can i ask how cars manage not to crash into walls, seeihng at they are not covered in hi viz or even parked cars seeign as they dont wear hi viz?

I suspect if you put a human-size piece of black wall on any road at night time, chances are drivers will hit it.

And as for the parked cars, they've got these things called "reflectors" as part of their rear lights... you know, the stuff that reflects the light of the head lights of other cars? The equivalent of a high viz jacket but for cars?

Shenshen

Should pay some form of road tax

seamus wrote: »

High-vis is a con because it leads to a false sense of security for road users. There was a thread on boards recently enough where a parent described how their young child nearly ran straight across the road in front of traffic because they believed their school-mandated high-vis jacket would protect them from a tonne of metal travelling down the road.

The RSA's campaign to get cyclists wearing high-vis seems to be slowly backfiring on them as I increasingly see cyclists pottering around wearing high-vis jackets, but nary a light to be seen on them. Unless there is a direct light shining on a high-vis jacket (like a full-beam headlight or a torch), then it's no more effective than a light-coloured piece of clothing.

On the roads, high-vis really only has merit on unlit roads because full beam headlights on a high-vis jacket will allow a person to be seen from a few hundred meters. In lit-up areas, dipped headlights do not shine on high-vis jackets and the point of them is lost.

That said, I'm driving in the dark a good bit recently, and mainly along country roads.
While there is no contest with a set of working lights on a bike (and who in hell thought up these flickering things??? What's the point of them??), a high-viz jacket is something I'm really grateful seeing, as it means I do get to see the pedestrian or cyclist a good 50 to 100 meters before I see the guy in dark clothes with no high viz stuff on him.

So no, it's not a failsafe, not by a long shot, but it is a safety feature that I as a driver definitely welcome.

SunnyDub1

Should pay insurance

I hate cyclists that think the own the roads of Dublin city center in the mornings. :mad::mad::mad:

They are all a danger to themselves

That is all

galwaycyclist

seamus wrote: »

On the roads, high-vis really only has merit on unlit roads because full beam headlights on a high-vis jacket will allow a person to be seen from a few hundred meters. In lit-up areas, dipped headlights do not shine on high-vis jackets and the point of them is lost.

And the problem with that is that it makes motorists less likely to dip their lights - because the high viz disappears. Blinded cyclists can have a tendency to move out towards the centre of the road - away from the ditch etc.

ash23

galwaycyclist wrote: »

And the problem with that is that it makes motorists less likely to dip their lights - because the high viz disappears. Blinded cyclists can have a tendency to move out towards the centre of the road - away from the ditch etc.

No, the high viz still works on dipped headlights on a dark road. But it alerts the driver to the fact that there's someone on the road from a safe distance away. Lights are better obviously. But nothing at all is madness.

Shenshen

Should pay some form of road tax

galwaycyclist wrote: »

And the problem with that is that it makes motorists less likely to dip their lights - because the high viz disappears. Blinded cyclists can have a tendency to move out towards the centre of the road - away from the ditch etc.

Meh... for the last 6 weeks I've been driving from Kinsale to Cobh at around 10pm once a week.
I honestly no longer believe the majority of motorists are even aware that they've got their high beams on and are blinding the daylights out of oncoming traffic, or they just don't give a rat's posterior.

Jawgap

ash23 wrote: »

Agree, but high viz is better than nothing. I was driving home from work the other night and there was a young teen on a bike, with a dark hoody and no sort of lights at all. I would have hit him only for the tiny little reflectors on his pedals alerted me to the fact that something was ahead of me but I was about a foot from him before I "saw" him properly.
Just plain stupidity.

I am not a city dweller so am more coming at this from the perspective of a country road user (little or no lighting).

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing but I'd disagree with the idea that hi-viz is better than nothing. As another poster pointed out it generates a false sense of security - people genuinely think it makes them immediately visible to all and sundry and then proceed to behave like they've just donned Iron Man's suit!!!

The RSA, in my opinion, would be better off tackling the more difficult issue of road user behaviour (cyclists, motorists and pedestrians) rather than pushing propaganda on people that suggests if you wear hi-viz and a helmet you are somehow safe.

The great observed irony of my cycle each morning is the number of red light jumpers and foot path cyclists who merrily proceed wearing RSA issue pieces of tat!

ash23

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing but I'd disagree with the idea that hi-viz is better than nothing. As another poster pointed out it generates a false sense of security - people genuinely think it makes them immediately visible to all and sundry and then proceed to behave like they've just donned Iron Man's suit!!!

The RSA, in my opinion, would be better off tackling the more difficult issue of road user behaviour (cyclists, motorists and pedestrians) rather than pushing propaganda on people that suggests if you wear hi-viz and a helmet you are somehow safe.

The great observed irony of my cycle each morning is the number of red light jumpers and foot path cyclists who merrily proceed wearing RSA issue pieces of tat!

But at least with High viz, even if the pedestrian or cyclist is being stupid and not moving in, a driver can at least SEE them. As opposed to being a foot away before you know there's someone on the road.

I agree that a high viz vest and a helmet doesn't make you invincible, nor should it be made out that it does, but from a driver perspective, a pedestrian or cyclist on a country road with no high viz is nigh on impossible to see. You might as well jump in front of the car.
When a driver catches a glimpse of high viz, if they've any sense they slow down and therefore it improves things for the cyclist.

A high viz vest on a dark road - I really can't emphasise how much of a difference it makes on a country road, for the driver at least.

Iwannahurl

seamus wrote: »

High-vis is a con because it leads to a false sense of security for road users. There was a thread on boards recently enough where a parent described how their young child nearly ran straight across the road in front of traffic because they believed their school-mandated high-vis jacket would protect them from a tonne of metal travelling down the road.

The RSA's campaign to get cyclists wearing high-vis seems to be slowly backfiring on them as I increasingly see cyclists pottering around wearing high-vis jackets, but nary a light to be seen on them. Unless there is a direct light shining on a high-vis jacket (like a full-beam headlight or a torch), then it's no more effective than a light-coloured piece of clothing.

On the roads, high-vis really only has merit on unlit roads because full beam headlights on a high-vis jacket will allow a person to be seen from a few hundred meters. In lit-up areas, dipped headlights do not shine on high-vis jackets and the point of them is lost.

Hi-vis is a shiny red herring for the most part, IMO.

I have decided to coin the term hivisteria in order to refer to some people's irrational and evangelical belief in the use of reflective materials by people engaging in normal everyday physical activity such as cycling and walking.

Such lurid evangelism -- especially when it declares the wearing of hi-vis to be a "social responsibility" -- panders to those who favour the privatization of risk and the weakening of state policies in favour of active and sustainable modes of travel.

That said, cycling without lights at night is nutty and irresponsible, and reflectors do have a valuable role on dark roads in certain conditions. No substitute for proper policies in the area of enforcement, engineering and education though.

By the way, I've asked the RSA to provide evidence that hi-vis has made any measurable difference in terms of reduced road deaths among pedestrians, and they have failed to respond so far.

Finally, I think hivisteria needs its own thread somewhere on Boards, if it hasn't been done to death already.

Jawgap

ash23 wrote: »

But at least with High viz, even if the pedestrian or cyclist is being stupid and not moving in, a driver can at least SEE them. As opposed to being a foot away before you know there's someone on the road.

I agree that a high viz vest and a helmet doesn't make you invincible, nor should it be made out that it does, but from a driver perspective, a pedestrian or cyclist on a country road with no high viz is nigh on impossible to see. You might as well jump in front of the car.
When a driver catches a glimpse of high viz, if they've any sense they slow down and therefore it improves things for the cyclist.

A high viz vest on a dark road - I really can't emphasise how much of a difference it makes on a country road, for the driver at least.

Yes, from a driver perspective you have a point - my main argument relates to the way the RSA (and even the Guards) seem to think that road safety for pedestrians and cyclists seems to start and end with hi-viz and, in the case of cyclists, helmets.

My question is always that if hi-viz is so effective how come I'm allowed drive a black car?

galwaycyclist

ash23 wrote: »

But at least with High viz, even if the pedestrian or cyclist is being stupid and not moving in, a driver can at least SEE them. As opposed to being a foot away before you know there's someone on the road.

I agree that a high viz vest and a helmet doesn't make you invincible, nor should it be made out that it does, but from a driver perspective, a pedestrian or cyclist on a country road with no high viz is nigh on impossible to see. You might as well jump in front of the car.
When a driver catches a glimpse of high viz, if they've any sense they slow down and therefore it improves things for the cyclist.

A high viz vest on a dark road - I really can't emphasise how much of a difference it makes on a country road, for the driver at least.

Of course, like cyclists, motorists have a duty to drive at a speed that will allow you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. On an unlit road, driving with dipped headlights, how fast is that in reality?

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

And the problem with that is that it makes motorists less likely to dip their lights - because the high viz disappears. Blinded cyclists can have a tendency to move out towards the centre of the road - away from the ditch etc.

I hope I haven't undermined my own argument by posting the Finnish Road Safety Association link earlier.

http://www.liikenneturva.fi/www/fi/

However, your comment raises an interesting and possibly important point.

I can't find an example just now, but I have seen videos posted on YouTube comparing the visibility (from the motorist's perspective) of pedestrians with and without reflectors.

The extra visibility of the reflectors draws the eye towards the bright points of light and away from the darker objects.

In Finland, pedestrians are required by law to wear reflectors. The compliance rate is about 20% IIRC.

sealgaire

those questions are stupid:

Should cyclists have to pay road tax / insurance / receive fines etc??
Should be fined
Should pay some form of road tax
Should pay insurance
None of the above
I'm a cyclist
I am not a cyclist
View Poll Results

ash23

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Of course, like cyclists, motorists have a duty to drive at a speed that will allow you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. On an unlit road, driving with dipped headlights, how fast is that in reality?

More than a couple of foot anyway which is how close you have to be to see a cyclist/pedestrian dressed in dark clothing - I've not hit one yet so have always been driving at a speed which is safe....but why take the risk?

It's also harder if the person is not walking against you because you can't see their face. Worse again if their clothing is dark.....invisible until you are on them.

Niles

Should pay some form of road tax

Wouldn't be against them being fined for dangerous cycling, but tax is a bit much. The amount of wear caused to a road surface by a bike is negligible - the same can't be said for a car.

Mr Simpson

Should pay some form of road tax

They shouldn't have to pay tax. But they should be subject to fines and penalty points on their drivers licence. If they don't have a licence, points should be put on a 'ghost' licence and apply if and when they apply for a licence.

High Viz's are pointless imo, I'd much rather see a hefty fine given to cyclists riding with no lights during night hours.

Jawgap

MarkMc wrote: »

....... But they should be subject to fines and penalty points on their drivers licence. If they don't have a licence, points should be put on a 'ghost' licence and apply if and when they apply for a licence. .......

I think you need to think that one through a bit.......

such a law would be riddled with inconsistencies and disproportionalities- someone who never gets a licence would never be punished - the potential consequences of me running a light etc are far more severe if I do it in a car compared to a bike so it would be wrong to attach the same level of punishment to both acts......

that's before you get to the usual problem of foreign licences etc

And cyclists are subject to fines - the glaring gap at the moment is lack of a mechanism for a Guard to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice to a law-breaking cyclist.