Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

tomasrojo

This amendment business (as the YouTube clip suggests) is making our law-making very like the US system of earmarks.

Hurrache

What's the legal definition of a pedestrian as covered by the RTA?

tomasrojo

(5) A reference to a vehicle in these Regulations shall, unless otherwise specified, mean a mechanically propelled
vehicle (other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair) and a pedal cycle.

(6) For the purpose of these Regulations, a pedestrian shall include a person in charge of a vehicle which is not
mechanically propelled.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print


I don't think they can bundle cyclists in as "pedestrians", but a bicycle is not mechanically propelled.

CramCycle

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

And now he's trying to make it mandatory that pedestrians wear high viz. I'm sure we can all raise a glass to Robert and toast his commitment to keeping us all safe on the road.

To be fair, someone else here pointed out, possibly in Motoring or C&T that it was just a smoke screen, trying to seem proactive but get the bill shot down. Looks like they are correct.

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's pretty badly written so Troy might not have considered that his amendment makes the hi-viz mandatory during daylight as well. Maybe it doesn't. Does "unlit road" generally mean a road that has either daylight or artificial light at the time of use?

It doesn't really matter though, it is simply blame shifting for motorists not driving for the conditions. I see a few people around Shankhill running with decent LEDs on their arms and ankles. BY this legislation, they are committing an offence because they are not using a largely either ineffective or inferior Hi Vis builders vest.

Hurrache

That's looks an odd definition. What if you don't have a vehicle that is not mechanically propelled with you, i.e. walking or running, can you legitimately (not necessarily sccessfully) argue that you're not a pedestrian as defined in section 4.6?

tomasrojo

Hurrache wrote: »

That's looks an odd definition. What if you don't have a vehicle that is not mechanically propelled with you, i.e. walking or running, can you legitimately (not necessarily sccessfully) argue that you're not a pedestrian as defined in section 4.6?

I'm not sure what they're getting at. I think maybe the important bit, which is elsewhere on that page is that traffic doesn't include pedestrians. So I guess humans not in mechanically propelled vehicles or on pedal cycles are pedestrians. So wheelchair users are pedestrians, for example.

tomasrojo

http://irishcycle.com/2018/02/27/irish-parliament-to-debate-mandatory-high-vis-for-pedestrians-and-cycling-passing-distance-law/

High-vis law would apply to motorists and cyclists who have exited their cars or dismounted their bicycles.

Hurrache

Mentions unlit roads and streets. Unlit streets imply to me streets with footpaths but no street lighting. So basically kids walking to school, people walking to local shops or just walking their dogs in such places, during daylight hours, are required to wear highvis. Idiotic.

Edit, the actual amendments don't mention street despite the story and tweets doing so.

Their definition of highvis is

“ ‘high-visibility jacket’ means a jacket made from high visibility
material, i.e. clothing material that is easily discernible from any
background and has reflective properties;
‘high-visibility vest’ means a vest made from high visibility material,
i.e. clothing material that is easily discernible from any background
and has reflective properties;”,

From any background? Standard high vis can blend into the background of most roads covered by the act, and there's no mention of day or night.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

High-vis law would apply to motorists and cyclists who have exited their cars or dismounted their bicycles.

Look, I'm prepared to let this one go as long as it also applies to motorists whilst operating their vehicles. And their passengers.

tomasrojo

The MPDL and hi-viz amendments won't be debated. The MPDL will be looked into separately from the drink-driving amendment. Probably as it should be. I'm not sure about earmarking, especially if it potentially gets populist counterproductive stuff in under the radar.

http://irishcycle.com/2018/02/28/traffic-law-amendments-on-high-vis-and-cycling-passing-distance-ruled-out-of-order

(In passing, doesn't IrishCycle do a great job?)

tomasrojo

Just in case, it's not clear, I very much appreciate the huge work the MPDL campaigners have put in, and I hope the separate strand bears fruit.

magicbastarder

no links given, but they mention a study which shows wearing hi-vis during the day reduces the chance of accidents. 34s in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFFjJgkfZM8
if anyone knows the study they're referring to, please share it with the class.

Grassey

magicbastarder wrote: »

no links given, but they mention a study which shows wearing hi-vis during the day reduces the chance of accidents. 34s in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFFjJgkfZM8
if anyone knows the study they're referring to, please share it with the class.

High Vis and lights I believe they said.

Only things I found from a quick search was:

a Danish randomised trial involving 6,793 cyclists, published in scientific journal Safety Science in August this year [2017].

It found a 47 per cent reduction in incidents involving other road users where the cyclist was injured when cyclists were wearing a hi-vis jacket with reflective strips.

A 2013 Danish study in Accident Analysis & Prevention found cyclists who use flashing daytime lights had 47 per cent fewer collisions with other road users,

a 2017 study in the same journal that found drivers who are cyclists tend to be better at spotting cyclists, so perhaps training is the answer.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/what-is-the-evidence-that-wearing-hi-vis-clothing-makes-you-a-safer-cyclist-358674

tomasrojo

Not sure if the 47% study is a new one, or this one that was mentioned in the media a while ago:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101436251&postcount=931

Just some notes I made at the time it appeared in draft. It's not a very strong study, I think, mainly because it's got clear evidence of reporting bias (participants telling researchers what they think they want to hear), and self-reporting (which is a typical source of reporting bias). I got the impression from something that passed by my eyes briefly on Twitter that there's a new study out with a similar finding, but maybe it's this same study appearing in an academic journal.

tomasrojo

Incidentally that article is a bit misleading about Jesse Norman looking into making hi-viz and helmets compulsory in the UK. He said he was going to have a safety review, and he was sure that someone would bring up compulsion. He's right, of course, but it's not something he's actively interested in.

what_traffic

We had our own Robert Troy TD trying to do the same for pedestrians and probably cyclists. Covered here on irishcycle.com

http://irishcycle.com/2018/03/09/has-solidarity-with-pedestrians-been-set-aside-by-cycle-campaigners/

tomasrojo

Didn't know Italy had tried a hi-viz law, and not sure what it tried to impose, but it doesn't seem to have done much good anyway.

Results revealed that the implementation of legislation imposing high-visibility clothing for cyclist did not influence the number of bicycles involved in road crashes as well as its proportion in the total vehicles involved in road crashes. The introduction of the legislation did not produce immediate effects, nor did it have any effects over time. Lack of knowledge on how the law was introduced, the degree of enforcement by the police, and behavioral changes in response to the law makes it difficult to attribute the lack of effect on bicycle crashes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518300045?dgcid=raven_sd_aip_email

H/T
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978052032241152000
via @cyclistie

magicbastarder

i know it's not relevant really to the above issue, but i saw this in the subsequent twitter conversation:
https://twitter.com/JN_Rachele/status/978102872716935168

and it just makes my toes hurt. it's so often trotted out by cycling advocates and just makes them look stupid. it's actually kinda similar to some of the arguments about gun control in the states.

Steoller

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know it's not relevant really to the above issue, but i saw this in the subsequent twitter conversation:
https://twitter.com/JN_Rachele/status/978102872716935168

and it just makes my toes hurt. it's so often trotted out by cycling advocates and just makes them look stupid. it's actually kinda similar to some of the arguments about gun control in the states.

Would it be better to point out that anywhere bicycle registration (with plates) has been attempted before, it hasn't even paid for the administration required?

magicbastarder

yes - but the 'motorists continue to behave badly even though it's against the law, so we shouldn't bother with laws' argument is wilfully stupid. and undermines whatever point the person is trying to make.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes - but the 'motorists continue to behave badly even though it's against the law, so we shouldn't bother with laws' argument is wilfully stupid. and undermines whatever point the person is trying to make.

I think the argument is that we should ENFORCE existing laws for All road users?

I think that's what People calling for Road tax for Cyclists are really looking for.

tomasrojo

In this case, the person was putting forward registration and licensing as an alternative to an apparently ineffective hi-viz law. There is no connection between the two except via a tacit suggestion that cyclists are the authors of their own misfortune, these collisions being primarily down to law-breaking behaviour by cyclists.

I don't see any reason whatsoever to believe this.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know it's not relevant really to the above issue, but i saw this in the subsequent twitter conversation:
https://twitter.com/JN_Rachele/status/978102872716935168

and it just makes my toes hurt. it's so often trotted out by cycling advocates and just makes them look stupid. it's actually kinda similar to some of the arguments about gun control in the states.

It also means that they miss the point of such things being implemented on motor vehicles.

Motor tax is because cars are more polluting than cyclists. Hence bigger or more polluting cars pay more. Road tax (in other countries) because cars and larger vehicles cause more damage to roads.

Insurance was made mandatory because the cost of accidents was often to much for people to bear and the state would also struggle to cover all the costs. I think the typical road death due to a collision with more than one party is a few hundred thousand and possibly around the million mark when you add in every single cost).

Bicycle accidents are so infrequent and cause so little damage that in many cases, those involved can cover the costs and the cost of mandatory insurance would be more than the service would cover.

tomasrojo

It's a seductive argument (equality of treatment for all road users), except it makes no sense at all when you look into it in any detail.

This is more about "shared responsibility" than registration and licensing, but the arguments are broadly the same.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2288206/great-horsepower-comes-great-responsibility

(Implicitily arguing that licensing and registration do no good because they're not successful in preventing widespread rule flouting isn't all that logical either; fair enough.)

magicbastarder

07Lapierre wrote: »

I think the argument is that we should ENFORCE existing laws for All road users?

i read the tweet i quoted (possibly lumping it in with other similar comments i've seen) that there's no point in creating a law because the law has no effect when applied to motorists. which is quite clearly horse****, and creating a straw man.

it's like saying the police have no effect, because you once witnessed an armed robbery.

Carawaystick

Theres the obvious bit that any law to make people cycling register or get insurance etc will not apply to a large cohort of people who cycle, those under 12

Sleeper12

HugoMyBoss wrote:

How may motorists lives would be saved if they wore crash helmets while at the wheel?

Motorists have to wear seat belts. Small children must have booster seats. I don't see helmets being much different.

Helmets don't effect me as a motorist so I really don't care about them too much. Viability is more important to me. I'd like to see luminous or high vis vests. I see /don't see too many cyclists and pedestrians dressed head to toe in black or dark clothing on dark winter nights. I don't want to hit /kill someone but if I can't see them???

Sleeper12

ted1 wrote:

They frequently travel at 120 kmh.

And many have died going slower than some posters have boasted going down the hill of Howth on a pushbike.

As I said, helmets don't bother me as a motorist. You'll either hurt yourself or you won't. It's the dark clothing at night bothers me as there is a much greater chance of me hitting something I don't see

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

And many have died going slower than some posters have boasted going down the hill of Howth on a pushbike.

As I said, helmets don't bother me as a motorist. You'll either hurt yourself or you won't. It's the dark clothing at night bothers me as there is a much greater chance of me hitting something I don't see

No high vis vest / light coloured clothing will substitute a good set of lights and often in the dark is usless, really all thats of use on that clothing is the reflective strip and thats limited too. If you're at a T Junction and looked left and right on a dark road you'd not see a cyclist coming with a high vis vest and no lights.

Good lights can be spotted from much further away and in more situations.

EDIT: Actually the no lights at night is a major peeve of mine that I would love to see a massive clamp down on.

Cookie_Monster

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's the dark clothing at night bothers me as there is a much greater chance of me hitting something I don't see

why, what impact does it have when lights are required anyway?
Do you drive a luminous yellow car? If not, why not if visibility is such an issue to you?