Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1356710

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,632 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,300 ✭✭✭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?

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,179 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,632 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,632 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,179 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,632 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,179 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Del2005 wrote: »
    The current system doesn't work so we need something radical
    Correction: the current system isn't being used.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,004 ✭✭✭✭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...?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,179 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,514 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭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 )


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭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/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,994 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement