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

yop

I'm a cyclist

TheDoc wrote: »

I'll apologise in advance if I've maybe mislabelled the phrase wrong.

When I say emergency stop, I press both the brake and the clutch to bring me to a faster halt then just pressing the brake.

And on reflection it probably is an exaggeration, and maybe just because I've had two run ins with cyclists this week, but it seems an all too frequent occurance having to constantly deal with cyclists firing out of nowhere.

I'm always open to driving tips and advice, as I said I'm only on the road a year but its not like I'm tearing around the city centre

Don't want to harp on about it, but, if you want to "halt" your car regardless of whether its an emergency stop or not, pressing the brake on its own isn't going to work, so you are confusing halt and slow down. Time to get back to them advanced lessons

RainyDay

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Do you think cars would be more visible if they were florescent?

Do you think cars would NOT be more visible if they were florescent?

Mr.Crinklewood

RainyDay wrote: »

Do you think cars would NOT be more visible if they were florescent?

I believe all florescent items are more visible than non-florescent items in the dark.

RainyDay

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

I believe all florescent items are more visible than non-florescent items in the dark.

So you'd support mandating florescent cars then? After all, if the car lights are not used or working properly a small change to the colour of the car would be an assistance - right?

roadrunner16

I am not a cyclist

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

of all the deaths on roads this last year how many were caused by or even involved cyclists ?

Mr.Crinklewood

RainyDay wrote: »

So you'd support mandating florescent cars then? After all, if the car lights are not used or working properly a small change to the colour of the car would be an assistance - right?

So you are agreeing that when lights are not used or working properly that a small change to the colour of whatever item is being lit would be an assistance?

In my experience a lot more cyclists do not have lights as opposed to cars, the appropriate laws are also applied more to drivers.

In addition there are a lot more cars on the roads than bicycles.

In regard to the change it would take a lot of more time to apply the change to the cars.

When I was considering this idea I thought it would be a law that you could impose in a few years time, ie in four years time. This would give producers and purchasers time to get used to the idea, and to phase out the old items. For those who do not comply within the given time period the cost to replace a helmet would be a lot less than replacing or spraying a car.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Corrected that for you.

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Where did I say people would ignore the law by not having lights, not wear a hi viz jacket but wear a jacket? luminous Helmet

As already stated, I see more people wearing helmets than wearing hi viz jackets. Therefore if all helmets were luminous then these people would be more visible.

Admittedly this was initially from my own experience, however in the TCD provided by Jawgap this provides statistics showing that more cyclists wear helmets than any other safety gear.

Lets ignore that you're trying to encourage the wrong thing, the least visible bit of kit. Which make no senses for a start.

You're assuming that all or a significant number of people who wear helmets would choose a luminous one rather than another colour. That's a huge assumption, that isn't reflected in the colours people use for the rest of their gear, or equipment. Lots of people use cars. But that doesn't mean any of them would choose a luminous car.

Not to mention that it wouldn't be enforced. So its entirely pointless to introduce yet another law, that won't be enforced. Whats needed is to enforce the existing rules of lights and reflectors. That assumes that not being seen is the most important safety issue and should take priority. Which it isn't. Driver and cyclists education is. A few TV ads would go a long way there.

Mr.Crinklewood

BostonB wrote: »

Corrected that for you.



Lets ignore that you're trying to encourage the wrong thing, the least visible bit of kit. Which make no senses for a start.

You're assuming that all or a significant number of people who wear helmets would choose a luminous one rather than another colour. That's a huge assumption, that isn't reflected in the colours people use for the rest of their gear, or equipment.

Lots of people use cars. But that doesn't mean any of them would choose a luminous car.

Not to mention that it wouldn't be enforced. So its entirely pointless to introduce yet another law, that won't be enforced.

Whats needed is to enforce the existing rules of lights and reflectors. That assumes that not being seen is the most important safety issue and should take priority. Which it isn't. Driver and cyclists education is. A few TV ads would go a long way there.

What i mean by this idea that in a certain point of time that it would be mandatory for the producers to make them florescent, therefore the purchaser would not have a choice.

In relation to the individuals choice in wearing said items, well this has been discussed already.

With the enforcement you are correct. If florescent jackets and proper lights were enforced then my suggestion would not be required.

In one of my previous posts I have also mentioned that education and is also important.

RainyDay

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

So you are agreeing that when lights are not used or working properly that a small change to the colour of whatever item is being lit would be an assistance?

In my experience a lot more cyclists do not have lights as opposed to cars, the appropriate laws are also applied more to drivers.

In addition there are a lot more cars on the roads than bicycles.

In regard to the change it would take a lot of more time to apply the change to the cars.

When I was considering this idea I thought it would be a law that you could impose in a few years time, ie in four years time. This would give producers and purchasers time to get used to the idea, and to phase out the old items. For those who do not comply within the given time period the cost to replace a helmet would be a lot less than replacing or spraying a car.

But regardless of the timescale it might take to implement, are you recommending that all NEW cars should be florescent from an agreed point in time, say 2-3 years out to give the industry time to respond?

Mr.Crinklewood

RainyDay wrote: »

But regardless of the timescale it might take to implement, are you recommending that all NEW cars should be florescent from an agreed point in time, say 2-3 years out to give the industry time to respond?

No, for the reasons given in the post you quoted.(the main one being the compliance /enforcement one)

RainyDay

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

No, for the reasons given in the post you quoted.(the main one being g the compliance /enforcement one)

That's interesting, all right.

hardCopy

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

No, for the reasons given in the post you quoted.(the main one being the compliance /enforcement one)

Fluorescent jackets are not a requirement, hence there is nothing to enforce.

Lights are a legal requirement and there has been a recent drive to stop people who cycle without them.

Mr.Crinklewood

hardCopy wrote: »

Fluorescent jackets are not a requirement, hence there is nothing to enforce.

Lights are a legal requirement and there has been a recent drive to stop people who cycle without them.

Aware of the jackets ( sorry if i did not make that clear ), this would be difficult to enforce as well. Once again, my point is regarding an item of protective gear that is more commonly worn than any other item of protective gear. ( Even when worn they can be ineffective - eg when a backpack is worn over them )

I`m aware of the apparent Gardai drive, however i believe that this is only short term and again solely Dublin based.

TeaAndCake

BostonB wrote: »

Considering taking the driving license off people doesn't deter people if there's no enforcement. We don't need more laws that aren't enforced. They need to enforce the existing ones.

I'm not talking about creating new laws, we have all the laws we need there. We just need them applied to cyclists, when they're currently only applied to motorists.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

What i mean by this idea that in a certain point of time that it would be mandatory for the producers to make them florescent, therefore the purchaser would not have a choice.

In relation to the individuals choice in wearing said items, well this has been discussed already.

With the enforcement you are correct. If florescent jackets and proper lights were enforced then my suggestion would not be required.

In one of my previous posts I have also mentioned that education and is also important.

Getting people to wear these clown hats is the problem. If people don't wear them then no one will bother to sell them. Also its the wrong message, as people will wear jackets and these hats as a substitute for lights. Which is completely backwards. Its also requires lots of resources, where there aren't any, and fundamentally its not where effort is required.

If you look at countries where cycling is more popular, they don't see this as a priority at all. Which suggests its not what should be focused on with limited resources either.

hardCopy

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Aware of the jackets ( sorry if i did not make that clear ), this would be difficult to enforce as well. Once again, my point is regarding an item of protective gear that is more commonly worn than any other item of protective gear. ( Even when worn they can be ineffective - eg when a backpack is worn over them )

I`m aware of the apparent Gardai drive, however i believe that this is only short term and again solely Dublin based.

In my opinion the best thing we can do to improve cyclist safety is to increase the number of cyclists.

Introducing mandatory fluorescent helmets would discourage people from wearing helmets. I don't really want to debate compulsory helmets because it's a divisive subject but I'm against the idea.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

TeaAndCake wrote: »

I'm not talking about creating new laws, we have all the laws we need there. We just need them applied to cyclists, when they're currently only applied to motorists.

Thats because they cause most of the problems. So addressing them is going to get more results than focusing on cyclists who don't.

Targeting cyclists might be satisfying for many. But it has little impact because they aren't really a problem, despite the law breaking. If it was there would be carnage on the street with cyclists. The stats don't reflect that at all.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

hardCopy wrote: »

In my opinion the best thing we can do to improve cyclist safety is to increase the number of cyclists.....

+1.

You might not see 1 cyclists. Will you not see a bunch of 20 or a stream of them. Not as likely. it will certainly raise driver awareness.

Mr.Crinklewood

BostonB wrote: »

Getting people to wear these clown hats is the problem. If people don't wear them then no one will bother to sell them. Also its the wrong message, as people will wear jackets and these hats as a substitute for lights. Which is completely backwards. Its also requires lots of resources, where there aren't any, and fundamentally its not where effort is required.

If you look at countries where cycling is more popular, they don't see this as a priority at all. Which suggests its not what should be focused on with limited resources either.

So you believe that jackets and these hats would offer similar protection to lights?

If people had no alternative then, those that are wise enough to know the the helmets could protect them would continue to do so. The "clown" argument is akin to someone working with chemicals or a welder saying i will not wear goggles as i look like a "clown". Some may believe that they way they look is worth taking a risk in order to look better. For people like this, well there is no helping them.

If you look at other countries where cycling is more popular well take Holland for instance, most people do not wear helmets, it is not law. This is due to the fact that the infrastructure for cyclists is safer.

hardCopy wrote: »

In my opinion the best thing we can do to improve cyclist safety is to increase the number of cyclists.

Introducing mandatory fluorescent helmets would discourage people from wearing helmets. I don't really want to debate compulsory helmets because it's a divisive subject but I'm against the idea.

In my opinion to increase the safety for cyclists the infrastructure should be improved, laws should be enforced and cyclists, motorists and pedestrians should be better educated about the laws of the road.

Re fluorescent helmets, same point applies about them having no alternative.

iamstop

I'm a cyclist

The idea of taxing cyclists is the most ill thought out thing I've ever heard.

Traffic in Dublin is very bad during rush hours and is only getting worse. the reason? Singly occupied cars.

Back in the day (about 14 years ago) mopeds were popular and help to reduce traffic. Yes, they paid tax and had to have insurance but the price wasn't out of reach for people in their late teens and early 20s who had part time jobs.

Nowadays it seems the insurance on a moped is too ridiculous, that coupled with the hoops you have to jump through to get a provisional licence and it's no wonder mopeds are so scarce.

Taxing cyclists will only at to traffic and make the already extended rush hours even longer.

Another gripe of mine is all these pointless speed ramps popping up. I mean there are places where ramps have been installed where I would be very surprised to hear of any accidents having happened even on those roads. No need for them in most places at all.

hardCopy

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

So you believe that jackets and these hats would offer similar protection to lights?

If people had no alternative then, those that are wise enough to know the the helmets could protect them would continue to do so. The "clown" argument is akin to someone working with chemicals or a welder saying i will not wear goggles as i look like a "clown". Some may believe that they way they look is worth taking a risk in order to look better. For people like this, well there is no helping them.

I wouldn't agree with that comparison, if you're a welder by trade you're unlikely to switch jobs because the PPE looks naff. Most cyclists do so for recreation and can simply choose to take the bus instead.

You can buy fluorescent helmet covers but I've only one single cover in use.

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

If you look at other countries where cycling is more popular well take Holland for instance, most people do not wear helmets, it is not law. This is due to the fact that the infrastructure for cyclists is safer.



In my opinion to increase the safety for cyclists the infrastructure should be improved, laws should be enforced and cyclists, motorists and pedestrians should be better educated about the laws of the road.

Re fluorescent helmets, same point applies about them having no alternative.

I'd agree with the bit in bold but I wouldn't expect any significant increase in funding for roads, Gardaí or education. In the meantime the best we can hope for is that the current growth in cycling continues and try not to discourage it by adding more restrictions.

It's important to remember in all this that cycling is not dangerous. Check your brakes, use a light, NEVER pass a HGV on the left, be ready to stop if you see somebody hailing a taxi, take the lane when you need to and you'll be fairly safe.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

So you believe that jackets and these hats would offer similar protection to lights?

If you read what you quoted you'll see I said it was backwards.

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

If people had no alternative then, those that are wise enough to know the the helmets could protect them would continue to do so. The "clown" argument is akin to someone working with chemicals or a welder saying i will not wear goggles as i look like a "clown". Some may believe that they way they look is worth taking a risk in order to look better. For people like this, well there is no helping them.

Giving people no alternative. Is enforcement. Which isn't working. I dunno how many times we have to repeat the same thing.

No its about people seeing something yellow and bulky and thinking its safer, without actually applying some rational thought and common sense and looking at research and stats to see if it actually safer. Also it promotes the presumption that cycling is dangerous, which it isn't. But it discourages cycling, and less cyclists increases the risks.

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

If you look at other countries where cycling is more popular well take Holland for instance, most people do not wear helmets, it is not law. This is due to the fact that the infrastructure for cyclists is safer.


In my opinion to increase the safety for cyclists the infrastructure should be improved, laws should be enforced and cyclists, motorists and pedestrians should be better educated about the laws of the road.

Then the answer isn't yellow hats. Its better infrastructure, and education. Especially to users who cause most accidents. Which is drivers not cyclists.

Then theres this...

"Strict liability", supported in law in the Netherlands,[2] leads to driver's insurance being deemed to be responsible in a collision between a car and a cyclist. Dutch drivers are trained for the interaction with cyclists, for example by checking and re-checking their right-hand side before making a turn to the right.

THENORTHSIDER

iamstop wrote: »

Another gripe of mine is all these pointless speed ramps popping up. I mean there are places where ramps have been installed where I would be very surprised to hear of any accidents having happened even on those roads. No need for them in most places at all.

I live in an estate where no accidents have happened to date but we are crying out for them to slow the traffic in and out down. Yes speed ramps should be pointless only if the selfish drivers considered the children and the people and slowed down. No accidents have taken place but plenty of near misses. So while you may feel they are pointless they might actually be saving lives.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Have to agree on ramps. Hate them. But considering the lack of enforcement on "dangerous" speeding in built up areas I don't see the alternative.

Zab

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

No [to luminous cars], for the reasons given in the post you quoted.(the main one being the compliance /enforcement one)

Just because you had a random thought while driving doesn't mean you have to defend it past the point where you yourself must have realized you aren't making sense any more.

Mr.Crinklewood

hardCopy wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that comparison, if you're a welder by trade you're unlikely to switch jobs because the PPE looks naff. Most cyclists do so for recreation and can simply choose to take the bus instead.

You can buy fluorescent helmet covers but I've only one single cover in use.



I'd agree with the bit in bold but I wouldn't expect any significant increase in funding for roads, Gardaí or education. In the meantime the best we can hope for is that the current growth in cycling continues and try not to discourage it by adding more restrictions.

It's important to remember in all this that cycling is not dangerous. Check your brakes, use a light, NEVER pass a HGV on the left, be ready to stop if you see somebody hailing a taxi, take the lane when you need to and you'll be fairly safe.

I do not believe that cyclist would opt for a different mode of transport due the the colour of the helmet ( though it looks like we`ll have to agree to disagree on this ).

To be honest i was not aware of the fluorescent helmet covers, thanks for pointing that out. Would this not indicate that as the are in production there is legitimate use for them.

I think we`re all in agreement with the education, etc.

Mr.Crinklewood

BostonB wrote: »

If you read what you quoted you'll see I said it was backwards.

Giving people no alternative. Is enforcement. Which isn't working. I dunno how many times we have to repeat the same thing.

No its about people seeing something yellow and bulky and thinking its safer, without actually applying some rational thought and common sense and looking at research and stats to see if it actually safer. Also it promotes the presumption that cycling is dangerous, which it isn't. But it discourages cycling, and less cyclists increases the risks.

Then the answer isn't yellow hats. Its better infrastructure, and education. Especially to users who cause most accidents. Which is drivers not cyclists.

Then theres this...

I have always stated this the my idea would supplement current safety items of clothing ( the only caveat was for those that currently do not wear safety clothing, just the helmet ( re TCD study )).

I have always agreed on the no alternative. Currently this is not being enforced, so i do not see how it is not working. The key to this would be education.

Re the education and infrastructure, i`ve mentioned this numerous times.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

They make any crud if they think people will buy it, before realising they are rubbish.

Theres studies showing that helmet enforcement coincided with drop in numbers cycling.

Its all nonsense since it wouldn't be enforced here anyway.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

...the education and infrastructure, i`ve mentioned this numerous times.

Without knowing what it means. Wear a yellow hat. Seriously.

Mr.Crinklewood

Zab wrote: »

Just because you had a random thought while driving doesn't mean you have to defend it past the point where you yourself must have realized you aren't making sense any more.

I`m still waiting on a reasonable negative reason. ( bar the "clown" suggestion ).

It would all be about education, the way we were educated to wear seat-belts, we were educated to have smoke alarms in our homes, the way we are educated not to talk to strangers.

Admittedly, some person may think, oh this makes me look like a "clown" i`m not wearing one and adverse consequences will arise ( this is the only down point i can think - and a severe one. Though someone with this attidute is probably not wearing a helmet already as they deem it make them look like a clown ), However the same could be applied to the examples a gave above, that is why education is important.

Ruski

I am not a cyclist

Should walkers be introduced leg tax?

Zab

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

I`m still waiting on a reasonable negative reason. ( bar the "clown" suggestion ).

Then give a reason why you don't think all new cars should be luminous

Mr.Crinklewood

Zab wrote: »

Then give a reason why you don't think all new cars should be luminous

I already have, please jump back a page or two.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

I`m still waiting on a reasonable negative reason. ( bar the "clown" suggestion ).

It would all be about education, the way we were educated to wear seat-belts, we were educated to have smoke alarms in our homes, the way we are educated not to talk to strangers.

Admittedly, some person may think, oh this makes me look like a "clown" i`m not wearing one and adverse consequences will arise ( this is the only down point i can think - and a severe one. Though someone with this attidute is probably not wearing a helmet already as they deem it make them look like a clown ), However the same could be applied to the examples a gave above, that is why education is important.

Education would mean you realise you need lights not a party hat.

Its like having a campaign for yellow arrows to point to the door your house in case of fire/smoke, instead of a smoke alarm or a light over the door.

Zab

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

I already have, please jump back a page or two.

Cars have much more regular sales channels than bike helmets. If a law was passed saying that all 2015+ cars had to be luminous then very few non-luminous cars would be sold. Enforcement is easier than with bikes as all cars have registration places that include the date of registration, and they have registered owner to fine. There's little reason to think that a new law should apply to bike helmets and not cars unless you just think luminous cars are a ridiculous idea and the extra safety isn't worthwhile.

A new law and enforcement policy to get people wearing luminous helmets is a shít idea. If we want to make night-time cycling safer then the effort saved by not enacting shítty legislation should be put in to getting people to use lights.

Mr.Crinklewood

BostonB wrote: »

Education would mean you realise you need lights not a party hat.

Its like having a campaign for yellow arrows to point to the door your house, instead of a smoke alarm or a light over the door.

Exactly, I have always stated that this was a supplement for other visual aids.

As already mentioned from my own experience (and now backed up by the TCD study, currently the most common safety aid worn by cyclists is the helmet.

In an ideal world cyclist would be visible due to satisfactory lights and imo bibs, which would lead to more need for my idea. We do not live in that ideal world.

Mr.Crinklewood

Zab wrote: »

Cars have much more regular sales channels than bike helmets. If a law was passed saying that all 2015+ cars had to be luminous then very few non-luminous cars would be sold. Enforcement is easier than with bikes as all cars have registration places that include the date of registration, and they have registered owner to fine. There's little reason to think that a new law should apply to bike helmets and not cars unless you just think luminous cars are a ridiculous idea and the extra safety isn't worthwhile.

A new law and enforcement policy to get people wearing luminous helmets is a shít idea. If we want to make night-time cycling safer then the effort saved by not enacting shítty legislation should be put in to getting people to use lights.

If a lot of cars were currently driving at night with poor or no lighting then there may be a case for this.

Likewise if there was currently little enforcement of cars with poor or no lighting then there may be a case for this.

As the above are not the case I do not believe there is a need for this (as I have already stated)

Zab

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

If a lot of cars were currently driving at night with poor or no lighting then there may be a case for this.

Likewise if there was currently little enforcement of cars with poor or no lighting then there may be a case for this.

As the above are not the case I do not believe there is a need for this (as I have already stated)

Sure, but if we're enacting frivolous legislation why stop at bike helmets? You say it would make cars more visible, so why not make it so?

Why have you ignored the part about there being better ways to spend the money/energy? That's clearly the key question when it comes to safety. Which do you think is better, lights or a luminous helmet?

As already mentioned from my own experience (and now backed up by the TCD study, currently the most common safety aid worn by cyclists is the helmet.

Could you point out where it says that?

Mr.Crinklewood

Zab wrote: »

Sure, but if we're enacting frivolous legislation why stop at bike helmets? You say it would make cars more visible, so why not make it so?

Why have you ignored the part about there being better ways to spend the money/energy? That's clearly the key question when it comes to safety. Which do you think is better, lights or a luminous helmet?

Could you point out where it says that?

Actually on the phone now so can't check. It was in a table with other stats. Something like "using helmets"

If I have read this wrong I'm open to correction, and admittedly this survey was Dublin based.

Didn't see the question about which is best. I'll quote myself to answer-

"In an ideal world cyclist would be visible due to satisfactory lights and imo bibs, which would lead to more need for my idea. We do not live in that ideal world."

RainyDay

Ruski wrote: »

Should walkers be introduced leg tax?

Only if mandatory fluorescent leg warmers are part of the package.

Jawgap

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Exactly, I have always stated that this was a supplement for other visual aids.

As already mentioned from my own experience (and now backed up by the TCD study, currently the most common safety aid worn by cyclists is the helmet.

In an ideal world cyclist would be visible due to satisfactory lights and imo bibs, which would lead to more need for my idea. We do not live in that ideal world.

That would be true, if a helmet was an actual safety aid. It's contribution is marginal at best.

Mr.Crinklewood

Jawgap wrote: »

That would be true, if a helmet was an actual safety aid. It's contribution is marginal at best.

Any item that gives marginal protection is welcome.

Zab

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

"In an ideal world cyclist would be visible due to satisfactory lights and imo bibs, which would lead to more need for my idea. We do not live in that ideal world."

So, we don't live in an ideal world, which somehow means people aren't going to use lights but are going to wear luminous helmets.

For luminous helmets to be a good idea you would have to show that cost to benefit ratio is better than the other options. You have failed to do so. You have also failed to show why the notion is only good for bikes (which do actually have reflectors pointing in all four directions by the way) and not other things such as pedestrians and cars.

If I have read this wrong I'm open to correction, and admittedly this survey was Dublin based.

I'm pretty sure you did read it wrong.

Lights are the way forward. People need lights not luminous helmets.

Mr.Crinklewood

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Any item that gives marginal protection is welcome.

1. Making any form of helmet compulsory = less cyclists, roads more dangerous for those who do cycle, more obesity and ill health due to kids ferried around in cars all day etc

2. a luminous helmet is pointless - car headlights will not pick out a helmet

3. the 'any item that gives marginal protection' argument is clearly a nonsense. On this basis we should all walk, cycle and drive wearing helmets and dressed in padded neon suits. Not going to happen.

Is that enough for you?

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Any item that gives marginal protection is welcome.

No it isn't it discourages cyclists, so increases risks. Also its putting the blame on cyclists when the problem is usually drivers not paying due attention. Its distracts from lights which is what cyclists should be focused on.

Mr.Crinklewood

Zab wrote: »

So, we don't live in an ideal world, which somehow means people aren't going to use lights but are going to wear luminous helmets.

For luminous helmets to be a good idea you would have to show that cost to benefit ratio is better than the other options. You have failed to do so. You have also failed to show why the notion is only good for bikes (which do actually have reflectors pointing in all four directions by the way) and not other things such as pedestrians and cars.

I'm pretty sure you did read it wrong.

Lights are the way forward. People need lights not luminous helmets.

What are the other options? ( the dark helmet? )

I have answered the question in regard to cars. In relation to pedestrians, on the whole they have a dedicated walking space, in addition if a pedestrian were to fall as they walked as optimum walking speed then the potential injuries would not be as bad as for a cyclist cycling at optimum speed.

Could you point out which part of the stats i read wrong ( admittedly i found them confusing ) and as already mentioned my initial opinion on this was from my own experience.

Mr.Crinklewood

Deleted User wrote: »

1. Making any form of helmet compulsory = less cyclists, roads more dangerous for those who do cycle, more obesity and ill health due to kids ferried around in cars all day etc

2. a luminous helmet is pointless - car headlights will not pick out a helmet

3. the 'any item that gives marginal protection' argument is clearly a nonsense. On this basis we should all walk, cycle and drive wearing helmets and dressed in padded neon suits. Not going to happen.

Is that enough for you?

1.I never stated that helmets would be compulsory.

2. I do not agree than a luminous object is less visible than a non-luminous object.

3. See explanation above.

Mr.Crinklewood

BostonB wrote: »

No it isn't it discourages cyclists, so increases risks. Also its putting the blame on cyclists when the problem is usually drivers not paying due attention. Its distracts from lights which is what cyclists should be focused on.

For reasons outlined already, this would be most beneficial to those individuals that do not have lights / lights working correctly.

As already mentioned if cyclists used correct lighting, then my idea would not be required.

Zab

I'm a cyclist

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

What are the other options? ( the dark helmet? )

Or no helmet. Leave it up to the cyclist. You "reckoning" it's a worthwhile safety measure without being able to back that up is not a good enough reason to stick your nose in (or the State's nose in).

I have answered the question in regard to cars. In relation to pedestrians, on the whole they have a dedicated walking space, in addition if a pedestrian were to fall as they walked as optimum walking speed then the potential injuries would not be as bad as for a cyclist cycling at optimum speed.

Pedestrians get hit by cars all the time. Therefore by your logic they should wear luminous helmets, as any marginal safety increase is worthwhile. I reject both your car and pedestrian argument as they both rely on your judgement of the degree of added safety involved, even though you've expressly rejected the notion that the degree of safety matters, and if there does exist a level under which a measure isn't worth it then luminous helmets are also going to be under it.

Could you point out which part of the stats i read wrong ( admittedly i found them confusing ) and as already mentioned my initial opinion on this was from my own experience.

I assumed you were talking about Table 2, and I don't read that as giving the sizes of the various populations.

BostonB

I am not a cyclist

People who wear helmets and no lights have been suckered into the wrong safety information. By people shouting flawed information about Hi Viz when its the least important information at night. The media keep pushing this message because its popular with the ill informed.