Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?

Marhay70

John_C wrote: »

I agree completely. It's also true that the cyclists behavior doesn't excuse the dangerous driving. There are three people breaking the law in the situation you described. Both cyclists should have had lights and the driver should have been able to stop his car in the distance he could see to be clear.

It reminds me of a quote from The Great Gatsby; A bad driver is safe until she meets another bad driver.

No doubt it could be argued that the driver should have seen the danger sooner but there coulid have been several reasons for that. It was a wet, windy night, there was spray and dazzle etc. but it doesn't change the fact that lights or reflective clothing would have made the cyclists visible from a much greater distance.
I just don't understand why people won't equip themselves properly for the conditions. How many more people could have been affected that night, did they have families and children at home? Just pure selfishness IMO.
Perhaps a tour of the rehab should be included in schools curricular.

John_C

Marhay70 wrote: »

No doubt it could be argued that the driver should have seen the danger sooner

I don't think it could be argued any other way. The driver had to swerve to avoid a hazard, that's exactly the legal definition of driving too fast. I've copied the bit of law below. He should have been going slower to allow for the rain & poor visibility.

General obligation regarding speed
18. A driver shall not drive at a speed exceeding that which will enable him to halt the vehicle within the distance he can see to be clear.

hardCopy

Marhay70 wrote: »

I was driving the road from Delgany to Drummin before Christmas at about 7pm when a car coming toward me suddenly veered into my path, I had to brake hard to avoid hitting him. Only when I had stopped did I see the reason, two cyclists abreast on the road and not a light between them, the irony was they both wore helmets.
Not only had these people no regard for their own safety but I, or the occupants of the other car could have been killed or seriously injured.
At least reflective clothing might have given some chance of seeing them.
It's high time cyclists were made to take responsibility for their own actions and at least required to carry some form of insurance.

How would a cyclist's insurance help in the event of ahead on collision between two cars?

Marhay70

hardCopy wrote: »

How would a cyclist's insurance help in the event of ahead on collision between two cars?

If you can prove liability against a third party it can at least mitigate your circumstances.
There is also the possibility of pedestrians or others, injured by cyclists, claiming against the offender rather than claiming against the state

SeanW

John_C wrote: »

I don't think it could be argued any other way. The driver had to swerve to avoid a hazard, that's exactly the legal definition of driving too fast. I've copied the bit of law below. He should have been going slower to allow for the rain & poor visibility.

The driver may have thought it was clear. The cyclists probably blended in well with the colour of the road, giving the road some appearance of being clear, and its likely that the "mental scotoma" of the drivers (something all human beings have, it's a fact of life) completed the ninja cyclist effect.

No Pants

Marhay70 wrote: »

There is also the possibility of pedestrians or others, injured by cyclists...claiming against the state

Is this what is happening now?

John_C

SeanW wrote: »

The driver may have thought it was clear. The cyclists probably blended in well with the colour of the road, giving the road some appearance of being clear, and its likely that the "mental scotoma" of the drivers (something all human beings have, it's a fact of life) completed the ninja cyclist effect.

Yeah, these things are all possible. Whatever the reason, the driver didn't have a clear view of the road ahead of him and should have slowed down to allow for that.

hardCopy

Marhay70 wrote: »

If you can prove liability against a third party it can at least mitigate your circumstances.
There is also the possibility of pedestrians or others, injured by cyclists, claiming against the offender rather than claiming against the state

If they're liable they're liable, insurance or not.

SeanW

John_C wrote: »

Yeah, these things are all possible. Whatever the reason, the driver didn't have a clear view of the road ahead of him and should have slowed down to allow for that.

Despite the likelihood that the road (may have, I did not see the incident obviously) appeared to him to be clear?

John_C

SeanW wrote: »

Despite the likelihood that the road (may have, I did not see the incident obviously) appeared to him to be clear?

Exactly, you can't just assume the road ahead of you is empty. You need to be able to see it clearly. If the rain and other conditions reduced his visibility, he should have reduced his speed to match.

Macy0161

Lights/ torches are more important than hi vis at night.

I do tend to use reflective ankle bands as well as a bike light/ head torch if I'm cycling or running at night on unlit roads - that's enough (as you can tell when on coming cars dip their lights well in advance). If a vehicle can't see you with a light, and ankle bands, they're not paying enough attention. A jacket isn't much benefit if they're on dipped lights anyway.

Some of the hi-vis isn't that great during the day anyway - as someone somewhat red-green colour blind, orange hi vis on a green back ground is much much worse for me than a dressed in black from head to foot (to bike) pedestrian or cyclist.

Spook_ie

John_C wrote: »

Exactly, you can't just assume the road ahead of you is empty. You need to be able to see it clearly. If the rain and other conditions reduced his visibility, he should have reduced his speed to match.

But surely it would be the cyclists breaking the law that made the road appear clear?
If they had been using lights the road wouldn't have appeared clear so therefore (according to your argument ) we shouldn't be driving at above 30 kph on motorways incase an errant cyclist or pedestrian is on there

monument

John_C wrote: »

I agree completely. It's also true that the cyclists behavior doesn't excuse the dangerous driving. There are three people breaking the law in the situation you described. Both cyclists should have had lights and the driver should have been able to stop his car in the distance he could see to be clear.

But the cyclists without lights would be far more to blame?

SeanW

John_C wrote: »

Exactly, you can't just assume the road ahead of you is empty. You need to be able to see it clearly. If the rain and other conditions reduced his visibility, he should have reduced his speed to match.

Tell me, if the above is something that a motorist should reasonably expect (i.e. cyclists, doing their best to blend in with the road in the darkness of night) then why do we have a requirement for road vehicles (motors and cycles) to have rear lights?

Surely they're not needed, if a hazard without them is something one should reasonably expect, indeed they should be considered dangerous as their presence gives a false sense of security?

John_C

SeanW wrote: »

Tell me, if the above is something that a motorist should reasonably expect (i.e. cyclists, doing their best to blend in with the road in the darkness of night) then why do we have a requirement for road vehicles (motors and cycles) to have rear lights?

The lights make things more visible at night, that's pretty obvious. But you can't depend on every hazard having lights. On another night there might be a parked car on that patch of road, or a pedestrian or a stray animal or any other hazard. The same driver would have had to swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid any of these. That's why the law says you have to be able to stop in the length of road you can see to be clear. It's not just the law, it's also very good advice.

@monument: I've no real interest in debating who was more to blame. Certainly the cyclists were taking the mickey by travelling two abreast when unlit but bombing down the road on a wet night isn't exactly ethical behavior either.
Like I wrote earlier, all three people involved were breaking the law. The danger would have been avoided if any of them had behaved more responsibly.

@spook: I did a quick google and the stopping distances for different speeds are listed here. It says stopping at 120kph will take a bit over 100m. You should be able to see that distance clearly on any motorway, they're designed like that.

Del2005

monument wrote: »

But the cyclists without lights would be far more to blame?

With our current laws the majority of the time the motorist is held responsible as they are the less vulnerable, except for some reason when cars and motorbikes are involved!, which the majority of the time is correct. Unfortunately this has led to a culture where people now expect others to look after their own safety and the until recent, and still very limited, enforcement of cyclists using lights during lighting up hours has led to this mess.

There where 3 people in the wrong on the road. The car driver for not being able to stop safely on THEIR OWN SIDE OF THE ROAD in the distance they can see and the cyclists for cycling until. As said there can be any number of other things on the road which don't have a requirement for lighting so the car driver was travelling too fast for the conditions.

IMO there should be more serious consequences for cyclists, and pedestrians who break the law such as the addition of penalty points to their licence or if underage mandatory road safety training. As at the end of the day the you are responsible for your own safety.

No Pants

Del2005 wrote: »

still very limited...enforcement of cyclists using lights during lighting up hours has led to this mess.

Is a court summons the only option a guard has, or can he/she apply a fixed penalty?

Macy0161

No Pants wrote: »

Is a court summons the only option a guard has, or can he/she apply a fixed penalty?

No fixed penalties yet. Was proposed, some excuse used, and now seems to have vanished off the agenda.

No Pants

Macy0161 wrote: »

No fixed penalties yet. Was proposed, some excuse used, and no seems to have vanished off the agenda.

That's part of the problem then. The expense to the guard is too great, so it doesn't get enforced.

Macy0161

No Pants wrote: »

That's part of the problem then. The expense to the guard is too great, so it doesn't get enforced.

Also makes it a disproportionate penalty (court + fine) for the cyclists/ pedestrian, in comparison to the on the spot fixed penalty on a motorists.

Del2005

Macy0161 wrote: »

Also makes it a disproportionate penalty (court + fine) for the cyclists/ pedestrian, in comparison to the on the spot fixed penalty on a motorists.

It's because motorists have something which can be endorsed, , a licence to drive, pedestrians and cyclists don't have anything to endorse. Which is why IMO all offences committed on the road should result in penalties being applied to the drivers licence, since the majority of road users have one even if they aren't driving when they commit the offence.

No Pants

Del2005 wrote: »

It's because motorists have something which can be endorsed, , a licence to drive, pedestrians and cyclists don't have anything to endorse. Which is why IMO all offences committed on the road should result in penalties being applied to the drivers licence, since the majority of road users have one even if they aren't driving when they commit the offence.

In my opinion, that would be disproportionate and unfair.

Macy0161

Del2005 wrote: »

It's because motorists have something which can be endorsed, , a licence to drive, pedestrians and cyclists don't have anything to endorse. Which is why IMO all offences committed on the road should result in penalties being applied to the drivers licence, since the majority of road users have one even if they aren't driving when they commit the offence.

That would be just as disproportionate. A pedestrian crossing on a red man isn't the same or as dangerous as a motor vehicle breaking a red. It doesn't deserve the same penalty.

iirc the excuse used for the delay was something bogus like confirming the identify a cyclist or pedestrian for a fixed penalty notice. Not sure why that's an issue for a fixed penalty and not for a summons, but I think that was the excuse used.

No Pants

Macy0161 wrote: »

That would be just as disproportionate. A pedestrian crossing on a red man isn't the same or as dangerous as a motor vehicle breaking a red. It doesn't deserve the same penalty.

iirc the excuse used for the delay was something bogus like confirming the identify a cyclist or pedestrian for a fixed penalty notice. Not sure why that's an issue for a fixed penalty and not for a summons, but I think that was the excuse used.

Assuming that all cyclists have driving licences, which they don't, either due to age or choice, then how would these points be applied? There is currently no requirement for me to carry a driving licence when cycling.

Del2005

Macy0161 wrote: »

That would be just as disproportionate. A pedestrian crossing on a red man isn't the same or as dangerous as a motor vehicle breaking a red. It doesn't deserve the same penalty.

iirc the excuse used for the delay was something bogus like confirming the identify a cyclist or pedestrian for a fixed penalty notice. Not sure why that's an issue for a fixed penalty and not for a summons, but I think that was the excuse used.

It's hardly like the current penalty points are proportional, driving without a seat belt is considered the same as driving the wrong way on a motorway, but there is no reason why they can't introduce half or quarter points for non motoring offences. The current system doesn't work so we need something radical

No Pants

Del2005 wrote: »

The current system doesn't work so we need something radical

Correction: the current system isn't being used.

AlekSmart

Macy0161 wrote: »

No fixed penalties yet. Was proposed, some excuse used, and now seems to have vanished off the agenda.

One possible option,in the absence of any Permit/Licence based sanctions,would be to expand the Anti-Social Behaviour elements of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.

Currently it's definition of Adult ASB is somewhat limited,as it was intended primarily to deal with the "Noisy Neighbour" type of situation.

For example,on Wednesday Morning at c.0800,I witnessed a Garda car stopping,with some difficulty,a very conspiciously attired cyclist who was proceeding the wrong way along Nassau Street.

After finally managing to stop this fellow completely and persuade him to dismount,the Garda engaged in what appeared to be a somewhat heated conversation,however the Garda left the car,but did wait until the Cyclist WALKED his machine the rest of the way to Dawson Street junction.

It appeared that the Cyclist was not acceptant of the Garda's point of view on Cycling against Traffic Flow in a one-way street,however given that the Trinity College Gate Rammer had been active in the area a little earlier,it seemed that the Garda was in no mood for debate on the issue.

Now,my sense is,that by engaging in this form of behaviour,the Cyclist was placing himself and other pedestrians and road-users in a situation of increased danger...ergo,engaging in Anti-Social Behaviour.

I would see the extension of the ASBO element to be a quite sensible,feasible and proportionate manner of dealing with such chicanery ?

What was equally illuminating was the responses of my boarding passengers who were observing this little Law Enforcement Tableau...several people remarked that the Bicycle should be "confiscated off of him for the day"..so perhaps the commonsense of the common-man is a little more prevalent than we think...?

Del2005

No Pants wrote: »

Assuming that all cyclists have driving licences, which they don't, either due to age or choice, then how would these points be applied? There is currently no requirement for me to carry a driving licence when cycling.

You commit an offence while cycling or walking you have the opportunity to produce your licence to get penalty points, see my previous post. If you don't have one or choose not to produce you have to attend road safety classes* at your expense, with real world examples of how a soft human body reacts when hit by vehicles, as the main person responsible for your safety is yourself not other road users or the Gardaì.

*These should be offered to motorists who commit some low risk offences, instead of points for a first offence, and mandatory for more serious offences along with points or court.

beauf

AlekSmart wrote: »

Although deemed OT in this thread...

"Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?"
...

If there are legal requirements. Then that answers your question.

bk

The problem with all these suggestions is they all are trying to punish and demonise cyclists and pedestrians, people who are the most vulnerable road users for the benefit of motorists.

I think it is entirely the wrong approach.

Instead we should be doing the opposite. We should be trying and get as many people as possible cycling and walking by promoting the benefits of it (e.g. health and speed). And thus create safety in numbers.

Also better education of cyclists from a young age in school. And by that, I don't mean telling them to wear stupid high-viz and helmets, instead promoting the use of quality bike lights and safe cycling techniques.

I think a major problem is that people go into bike shops and see that lights cost about €40 and don't buy them. While in reality just as good bike lights can be bought online for €10.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

If there are legal requirements. Then that answers your question.

Not really, the OP is asking if it is of value not if it's legal, IMO a lot of people believe that it is of value, some cyclists believe it would be detrimental to the mantra of getting more people on bikes as it makes cycling seem more dangerous, however, again IMO, all activities on the road in poor conditions are hazardous, that's why there are now laws regarding DLR lights for cars manufactured after 7th Feb 2011 under European Union Directive 2008/89/EC, I see no reason why the EU shouldn't ( at some time ) apply similar to cyclists in respect of bibs conforming to EN471.

monument

Del2005 wrote: »

With our current laws the majority of the time the motorist is held responsible as they are the less vulnerable,

That's not reflected in what I've seen in district courts -- where're actions of people walking and cycling is always questioned.

Del2005 wrote: »

Unfortunately this has led to a culture where people now expect others to look after their own safety

It's a cornerstone of our traffic law that everybody is not just partly responsible for their own safety but they are partly responsible for the safety of others.

That does not given anybody the right to not use lights at night etc -- those types of people are mostly to blame if something goes wrong.

John_C wrote: »

The lights make things more visible at night, that's pretty obvious. But you can't depend on every hazard having lights. On another night there might be a parked car on that patch of road, or a pedestrian or a stray animal or any other hazard. The same driver would have had to swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid any of these. That's why the law says you have to be able to stop in the length of road you can see to be clear. It's not just the law, it's also very good advice.

@monument: I've no real interest in debating who was more to blame. Certainly the cyclists were taking the mickey by travelling two abreast when unlit but bombing down the road on a wet night isn't exactly ethical behavior either.
Like I wrote earlier, all three people involved were breaking the law. The danger would have been avoided if any of them had behaved more responsibly.

It matters more what percentage people are in the wrong -- and having lights is more basic than not speeding, so the cyclists would be viewed as more in the wrong and they would share a larger percentage of the blame.

To make it simple for a second -- if there's a speeding motorist and an unlit cyclist on an unlit road, I'd generally think blame would be 20/80 between the motorist and cyclist. The cyclist would be mainly to blame and that's central to the debate here.

A parked car obstructing traffic lanes or, maybe lesser so, pedestrian without a torch could be viewed as much to blame as the unlit cyclist.

John_C wrote: »

Like I wrote earlier, all three people involved were breaking the law. The danger would have been avoided if any of them had behaved more responsibly.

Not all wrongful acts are equal and thankfully the legal system takes into account who was most to most at fault.

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

...I see no reason why the EU shouldn't ( at some time ) apply similar to cyclists in respect of bibs conforming to EN471.

Thats because you've a anti-cycling agenda. Which is why you single out cyclist only and not pedestrians. You'll promote anything that makes cycling less popular.

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

... there are now laws regarding DLR lights for cars manufactured after 7th Feb 2011 under European Union Directive 2008/89/EC,...

There are already laws for lights for cyclists. Why not enforce them.

The Rules Of the Road already have guidelines for walkers.

If there is a footpath you must use it.
If there is no footpath, you must walk as near as possible to the righthand side of the road (facing oncoming traffic).
Do not walk more than two abreast. If the road is narrow or carries heavy traffic, you should walk in single file.
You should always wear reflective clothing at night when walking outside built-up areas.
You should always carry a torch when walking at night time.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

There are already laws for lights for cyclists. Why not enforce them.

The Rules Of the Road already have guidelines for walkers.

Mmmm interesting that you seem to agree with the recomendations from the RSA about pedestrians wearing reflective clothing and carrying a torch but can't see the same reasoning being applied to cyclists

http://www.rsa.ie/en/rsa/pedestrians-and-cyclists/cycling-safety/

As a cyclist, you can reduce your risk of death or injury by following some simple advice:

Never cycle in the dark without adequate lighting – white for front, red for rear
Always wear luminous clothing such as hi-vis vests, fluorscent armbands and reflective belts so that other road users can see you
Wear a helmet
Make sure you keep to the left. Always look behind and give the proper signal before moving off, changing lanes or making a turn
Follow the rules of the road, never run traffic lights or weave unpredictably in and out of traffic
Maintain your bike properly – in particular, your brakes should work properly and your tyres should be inflated to the right pressure and be in good condition
Respect other road users – don’t get into shouting matches with motorists; stop at pedestrian crossings; don’t cycle on the footpath
Watch your speed, especially when cycling on busy streets and going downhill
Steer well clear of left-turning trucks: let them turn before you move ahead

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

Mmmm interesting that you seem to agree with the recomendations from the RSA about pedestrians wearing reflective clothing and carrying a torch but can't see the same reasoning being applied to cyclists

http://www.rsa.ie/en/rsa/pedestrians-and-cyclists/cycling-safety/

Its interesting you only see problems with cyclists and not pedestrians. Or indeed cars in dark colours.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-12/dark-cars-hard-to-see/4880246
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7845366/Black-cars-more-likely-to-be-involved-in-crashes.html

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

Its interesting you only see problems with cyclists and not pedestrians. Or indeed cars in dark colours.

Probably because most of my interactions on the road involve cyclists rather than pedestrians and I have very few problems with dark colored cars.

This incessant argument of "What about dark colored cars" is just a wild goose choose from some posters as they know full well that the profile of a dark colored car is far more visible than the profile of a dark colored cyclist ( or pedestrian )

monument

RSA advice seems to be based on flawed ideas which are being discredited by more and more research...

Dr Ian Walker on high-vis and cycling:

“I’d note that there is a surprisingly substantial body of research which suggests there’s no real benefit to wearing it. For example, a recent case-control study found no difference in accident likelihood between users and non-users. So it doesn’t seem to reduce accidents, and it doesn’t seem to stop drivers getting close.”

http://irishcycle.com/2013/11/30/high-vis-on-cyclists-unlikely-to-stop-dangerous-overtaking/

Seaswimmer

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably because most of my interactions on the road involve cyclists rather than pedestrians and I have very few problems with dark colored cars.

This incessant argument of "What about dark colored cars" is just a wild goose choose from some posters as they know full well that the profile of a dark colored car is far more visible than the profile of a dark colored cyclist ( or pedestrian )

Strange. I would assume anyone driving on the roads would have most of their interactions with other motorised vehicles as opposed to cyclists

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably because most of my interactions on the road involve cyclists rather than pedestrians and I have very few problems with dark colored cars.

This incessant argument of "What about dark colored cars" is just a wild goose choose from some posters as they know full well that the profile of a dark colored car is far more visible than the profile of a dark colored cyclist ( or pedestrian )

And a car is less visible than a 4x4 or a bus or truck. So what?

If you have stats to prove that its the major cause of accidents with pedestrians or cyclists, then provide them.That you don't suggests that pedestrian and cycling safety isn't your objective.

Spook_ie

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Strange. I would assume anyone driving on the roads would have most of their interactions with other motorised vehicles as opposed to cyclists

Strange indeed seeing that the title of the thread is

Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?

monument

beauf wrote: »

Thats because you've a anti-cycling agenda. Which is why you single out cyclist only and not pedestrians. You'll promote anything that makes cycling less popular.

Attack the posts and not the poster.

Please drop the anti-cycling agenda line unless you can show it to be such in this thread or at least refer to posts in this thread to make arguments you want to make.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

And a car is less visible than a 4x4 or a bus or truck. So what?

If you have stats to prove that its the major cause of accidents with pedestrians or cyclists, then provide them.That you don't suggests that pedestrian and cycling safety isn't your objective.

Because the EU have already decided that visibilty of cars of all colors should be improved via the provision of legislation for DLRs, given that the profile of a cyclist/pedestian is more difficult to see then IMO only a matter of time before they turn their attention to them.

It would probably be better for all if cyclists/pedestrians realised that just because you can see a vehicle doesn't mean the driver of the vehicle can see you and took steps to make themselves more visible especially at the danger times of dusk and dawn.

Likewise vehicles in fog, a lot of drivers seem to think that lights are to allow you to be seen, newsflash for them, they're not! they're to allow you to be seen.......funnily enough just like cyclists/pedestrians!

Seaswimmer

Spook_ie wrote: »

Strange indeed seeing that the title of the thread is

Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?

Not sure I understand

you state

"most of my interactions on the road involve cyclists rather than pedestrians"

Do you not interact with other cars, buses, trucks ect.

Unless you are driving consistently in an area populated heavily with cyclists and to a lesser extent pedestrians I cant see how your statement can be true.

Spook_ie

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Not sure I understand

you state

"most of my interactions on the road involve cyclists rather than pedestrians"

Do you not interact with other cars, buses, trucks ect.

Unless you are driving consistently in an area populated heavily with cyclists and to a lesser extent pedestrians I cant see how your statement can be true.

Very little to understand if the title was motorised vehicles/cycles and pedestrians then I would say I interact with them all, however as the title of the thread is the visibility of cyclists/pedestrians then the majority of my observations will directly relate to interaction with cyclists/pedestrians, until people throw in the red herring of dark colored cars.

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

Because the EU have already decided that visibilty of cars of all colors should be improved via the provision of legislation for DLRs...

If that's the preferred solution, and if your aware that hi viz according to research is of dubious value, then lights should be promoted for cyclists and pedestrians.

Why promote hi viz if its not law, and not as effective as lights?

Spook_ie wrote: »

...took steps to make themselves more visible especially at the danger times of dusk and dawn.... lights are to allow you to be seen.......funnily enough just like cyclists/pedestrians!

Its already law.

All bicycles used on public roads in Ireland must at all times display a rear reflector. A rear reflector means a red reflector that can be plainly seen for a distance of 99 meters (325 feet) to the rear when the headlights of a vehicle shine directly on it. The only exception to this rule is on a child's bicycle where that bicycle is used during the daytime.

During "lighting-up time", that is, the period beginning half an hour after sunset and ending half an hour before sunrise on the following morning, all cyclists are required to have fitted (and make use of) the following lighting on their bicycles:

One front lamp
One rear lamp
A front lamp means a lamp that is fitted to a non-mechanically propelled vehicle showing to the front a white or yellow light that is visible for a reasonable distance.

A rear lamp is a lamp that is fitted to the rear of your bicycle and when it is lit, showing a red light that is visible for a reasonable distance.

Under SI 487 of 2009, since 14 December 2009 it is legal to use flashing front and rear lamps.

Lamps do not need to be lit when stopped in traffic or when a person wheels the bicycle on foot as near as is possible to the left-hand edge of the road.

Failure to use proper lighting on a bicycle is an offence. If you are stopped by a member of the Gardai, the Garda may take your name and address, details about your bicycle and the time and date of the offence. You may be given a caution or you may be issued with a summons to appear in court.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/vehicle_standards/lighting_of_bicycles_in_ireland.html

The issue is how much of enforcement is going on....

beauf

"Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds
Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury"

he study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found....Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

The cyclists' lobby group CTC said the report showed that the government needed to focus more on driver behaviour...

..."The main cause of crashes seems to be 'failed to look properly', whereas very few cyclists are injured or killed acting illegally, such as failing to use lights at night or disobeying traffic signals,"

Pedestrian Visibility Dims At Night
When scaled by the number of miles driven, pedestrian fatality rate is three times higher at night. Part of the reason is greater chance of driver drinking and fatigue, but the critical factor is lower visibility due to reduced ambient illumination. People have contrast sensitivity in dim light. Moreover, the eye exhibits “night myopia” focusing too near and causing distant objects to blur.

The obvious solution, increased highway lighting, is impractical due to high energy costs. Moreover, there would also be a great outcry against the resulting “light pollution.” Since road lighting cannot be made sufficiently high for daytime safety levels, drivers typically rely on headlamp illumination to detect pedestrians. However, normal low-beams make pedestrians visible only at relatively short distances. The key concept is “assured-clear-distance,” which refers to the distance ahead that a driver can see a pedestrian on the road. Most drivers are taught to drive slowly enough that they could stop for a pedestrian who just falls within their assured-clear-distance, otherwise they would be “overdriving” their headlamps. Some US states have even made this a matter of law; anyone who overdrives his/her headlamps and has an accident is automatically guilty. However, automobile headlamps provide such a short assured-clear-distance that even drivers who obey the speed limit are often overdriving their headlamps.

After all that, I've nothing against Hi Viz. I wear it myself, and would try to do the same when talking at night. But I'm baffled why its always dragged out as the cure of all evils when its not that big a factor in stats at all.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

"Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds
Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury"

So despite there being x% more motor vehicles on the road compared to cyclists the police (and CTC seem to agree ) reckon that upto 1 in 4 accidents are the sole fault of the cyclist!

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

The cyclists' lobby group CTC said the report showed that the government needed to focus more on driver behaviour...

Del2005

bk wrote: »

The problem with all these suggestions is they all are trying to punish and demonise cyclists and pedestrians, people who are the most vulnerable road users for the benefit of motorists.

I think it is entirely the wrong approach.

Instead we should be doing the opposite. We should be trying and get as many people as possible cycling and walking by promoting the benefits of it (e.g. health and speed). And thus create safety in numbers.

Also better education of cyclists from a young age in school. And by that, I don't mean telling them to wear stupid high-viz and helmets, instead promoting the use of quality bike lights and safe cycling techniques.

I think a major problem is that people go into bike shops and see that lights cost about €40 and don't buy them. While in reality just as good bike lights can be bought online for €10.

What's wrong with punishing cyclists who break the law? If a drunken cyclist has lights they're breaking no law, if a sober cyclist doesn't have lights they are breaking the law and should have some consequences. The current system doesn't work, wasting a Garda's time by making take cyclists and pedestrians who break the law to court.

Spook_ie

Stark wrote: »

The boundary of the road generally isn't covered in hi-viz either.

Irrelevant justification anyway. Plenty of incidents of people driving into trees and houses where caution wasn't exercised. So whether they're in the middle of the road or at the side of the road isn't all that relevant.

Most road bounderies and centerlines are retroflective paint when 1st applied, they do need redoing after a while but that's a cost factor of your local council or the roads authority