Make helmets lights bells and hiviz compulsory for cyclists

Chuchote

As PeaderCo says.
The problem isn't making cyclists more visible; the problem is making drivers more aware.

How do I make myself visible?
The above mentioned all-reflective jacket at night
http://www.provizsports.com/en-us/proviz-reflective-cycling-jacket-reflect360.html
Spoke reflectors so that sideways-on, my wheels look like whirling circles of light
https://www.amazon.com/Salzmann-Scotchlite-Spoke-Reflector-Bicycle/dp/B00DNG8DSY
Reflective strips Velcroed onto the back carrier behind the saddle (cut from a reflective belt given out by gardaí, and with eyes painted on, because people see staring eyes when they don't see anything else)
Panniers, when I have them, have reflective material facing backwards
High-lumen back (red, flashing) and front (white) lights.
Winter gloves which have reflective material on the back

Have I missed anything? No. But do drivers fail to see me? Yes, regularly. I have had many good heart workouts from my heart leaping into my mouth as someone with a phone pressed to the ear and a gaze into the distance swerves in front of me or passes me within centimetres.

magicbastarder

jimmy blevins wrote: »

Wearing a helmet can also increase risk of neck injury.

i believe the chances of this are fairly marginal. in the same way that wearing a seatbelt in a car does increase the chance of certain types of injuries marginally.

Carawaystick

Everly Wet Racketeer wrote: »

So are you trying to say that if a cyclist is going along on his bike with no lights and dark clothes so he can't be seen until the last minute that it's the motorists fault?

If it's daytime, Absolutely.
If it's night time, there's still a responsibility on a motorist to drive at a speed they can see the road ahead to be clear.
If it's night time, all clothes are dark until a light shines on them...

ted1

dbagman wrote: »

I'd of said the skin tight lycra shorts are ugly, ridiculous even. But hey cyclists love them. Cars don't need to be fluorescent. They are far more noticeable than a guy on a bike. What's not to understand there? And why are cyclists hell bent on fighting suggestions of ways to make things safer for them?? Theyre the vulnerable ones on the road. Why not just wear the gear and that way should you be unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident you can say to the driver "hey I'm lit up like a Christmas tree, whats your excuse?".

If they improved the infrastructure there would be no need to be lit up like a Christmas tree.

Look at countries like Denmark and Holland, high % of people cycle , few weat helmets yet alone hi viz and they have a low accident rate.

Stats show that white cars are less likely to be involved in accidents, should we paint all cars white?

Cars with daytime running lights are also less likely to be in accidents, yet they haven't forced a retrofit.

Most accidents happen when cars turn in and cut off cyclists . Having a hi viz jacket is useless if drivers don't use mirrors.

Most accidents involve speed or alcohol, both could be Eliminated by fitting GPS restricters and breathalysers to cars, this had not bring done.

As for lycra, it's functional. It's warm and drys fast. It doesn't flap in the wind, it has zero risk of getting caught in the drive chain, or a car mirror etc,its light so you can carry a second set in a bag.

I surf and wear a wetsuit is that allowed?
I swim and wear speedos , is that allowed?
I go to meetings and wear suits, is that allowed ?

CramCycle

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Cycling is a dangerous activity in Dublin or Ireland generally.

It is not, that is a lie. Cycling is not and never was a dangerous activity.

magicbastarder

in the absence of another activity to replace it, it's far worse for your health to not cycle.

plodder

ted1 wrote: »

If they improved the infrastructure there would be no need to be lit up like a Christmas tree.

Look at countries like Denmark and Holland, high % of people cycle , few weat helmets yet alone hi viz and they have a low accident rate.

Stats show that white cars are less likely to be involved in accidents, should we paint all cars white?

Cars with daytime running lights are also less likely to be in accidents, yet they haven't forced a retrofit.

Most accidents happen when cars turn in and cut off cyclists . Having a hi viz jacket is useless if drivers don't use mirrors.

Most accidents involve speed or alcohol, both could be Eliminated by fitting GPS restricters and breathalysers to cars, this had not bring done.

FWIW. Those countries are much more urbanised than Ireland. The reason why I use hiviz (bright colours and reflective) is the fact I cycle from a rural area into the city and because of low light levels in this country generally. I don't think research from other countries necessarily applies here.

To reiterate, I don't think hiviz or helmets should be mandatory because the tradeoff is not justified in the majority (urban) case. I just find the argument that they are useless is wrong. Anyone who cycles in a rural area without hiviz needs their head examined in my opinion. Part of the problem actually is the relative lack of cyclists commuting from rural areas and the single biggest thing that will improve cycling safety is more cyclists on the roads everywhere.

lucernarian

Everly Wet Racketeer wrote: »

So are you trying to say that if a cyclist is going along on his bike with no lights and dark clothes so he can't be seen until the last minute that it's the motorists fault?

Less of the straw man please. The law as it stands already mandates lights, front and back. It is indeed stupid and illegal to not have those in the dark, and rightly so.

Chuchote

dbagman wrote: »

I'd of said the skin tight lycra shorts are ugly, ridiculous even. But hey cyclists love them. Cars don't need to be fluorescent. They are far more noticeable than a guy on a bike. What's not to understand there? And why are cyclists hell bent on fighting suggestions of ways to make things safer for them?? Theyre the vulnerable ones on the road. Why not just wear the gear and that way should you be unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident you can say to the driver "hey I'm lit up like a Christmas tree, whats your excuse?".

Cyclists like comfortable clothing. For me, cycling short distances (10-20km) around the city and occasionally longer distances on country spins, I prefer linen; however, lycra is better adapted to the job of fast, long cycles. It lets the air flow over you so you can cycle with less effort, it wicks away sweat, it is cool in heat and warm in cold. There's a reason cyclists no longer were tweed plus-fours, wool stockings and Norfolk jackets as they did in the 1900s.

Should I be involved in an accident, I will indeed have been doing my noted Christmas tree imitation. However, the likelihood is that if I am involved in an accident with a two-ton car travelling at speed and guided by an inattentive driver, I will not be able to speak; I will have severe crushing injuries to the chest which may prove fatal; I may have been thrown 10 metres on to concrete at a killing velocity; my teeth will probably be broken… This will not have happened because I am not easy to see, but because the driver was too selfish to pay attention.

A graph of likelihood of death at different impacts (these are for pedestrians; cyclists travel faster so the percentages would obviously be higher); source: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed/speed_is_a_central_issue_in_road_safety/speed_and_the_injury_risk_for_different_speed_levels_en.htm

Car Speed percentage of fatally injured pedestrians
If a car hits at 32 km/h 5% will die
If a car hits at 48 km/h 45% will die
If a car hits at 64 km/h 85% will die

Macy0161

the groutch wrote: »

instead the government should be putting the information out there in the media about WHY it's in people's best interest to adopt these methods of reducing the risk of injury.

You see this is where the RSA come in. They're obsessed with pushing Hi Viz builders vests rather than the legal requirements of lights. Currently they're running a facebook competition about "be safe be seen" that is entirely focused on Hi-Viz, to win a hi viz jacket (rather than lights).

Rather than providing information on legal requirements, what type of lights (lumens for different circumstances etc), they're actually feeding the hi viz frenzy.

foggy_lad

Chuchote wrote: »

The question is whether it should be mandatory, though.

I look out and see schoolkids walking by in trains of 30 or so - all in hi-viz. Crazy.

Why Crazy? The lesson these children learn will hopefully encourage them to better regard their own safety in the future and hopefully make them better citizens.

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's safer to drive more slowly at night than you do during the day, therefore we should make it mandatory to have lower speed limits at night.
you can pass lots of laws which make things safer. but there's a balance to be struck.

The balance is to make people responsible for their own safety!

Pedestrians should walk properly on roads facing the direction of oncoming traffic where there are no paths and wearing "Reflective" Belts and armbands and bright clothing not just relying on poor quality high vis stuff!

Cyclists should wear helmets and similar "Reflective" clothing or armbands as well as having proper lights illuminated during lighting up times and also should have a bell so they can avoid hitting pedestrians or other cyclists.

foggy_lad

Macy0161 wrote: »

You see this is where the RSA come in. They're obsessed with pushing Hi Viz builders vests rather than the legal requirements of lights. Currently they're running a facebook competition about "be safe be seen" that is entirely focused on Hi-Viz, to win a hi viz jacket (rather than lights).

Rather than providing information on legal requirements, what type of lights (lumens for different circumstances etc), they're actually feeding the hi viz frenzy.

The high vis stuff they supply is the cheapest available and I for one would not rely on it on a dark road! The old reflective armbands or reflective belts are much better to be safe - be seen!

endagibson

Chuchote wrote: »

The driver can count without making notes.

It's a much funnier game for all players if the driver also takes notes.

Macy0161

Chuchote wrote: »

Have I missed anything? No. But do drivers fail to see me? Yes, regularly. I have had many good heart workouts from my heart leaping into my mouth as someone with a phone pressed to the ear and a gaze into the distance swerves in front of me or passes me within centimetres.

Well it's no consolation, but I drive with my lights on all the time. Apparently, both my hatchback and 6 berth motorhome need hi viz, as despite that I appear to be invisible. Cars either don't see me regularly, or just pull out anyway, causing me to brake.

Maybe my red car and big feck off white motorhome need builders vests. Or maybe there's a significant proportion of other motorists not paying attention, not skilled enough to judge speed, or just pig ignorant enough not to care.

But using the logic applied to cyclists, it's definitely my fault for working headlights not being enough.

endagibson

the_pen_turner wrote: »

conversation type call

Is there some other kind?

Do you receive faxes in the car? I hope that you at least pull in to read them.

Saipanne

Chuchote wrote: »

Oh, and cameras on traffic lights that would scan licence plates and automatically add points to licences when drivers go through on a red.

And introduce licence plates for cyclists for the same reason.

Macy0161

foggy_lad wrote: »

The high vis stuff they supply is the cheapest available and I for one would not rely on it on a dark road! The old reflective armbands or reflective belts are much better to be safe - be seen!

I use the lidl/ aldi one's that have the led flashers on them around my ankles if running or cycling at night, on the arms or ankles if walking. I've tested them and am happy with the distance they're visible. The children got an old style browne belt in a duathlon goodie bag - great to see, but haven't tested it and not sure whether it was RSA provided (the other hi-viz tat was RSA marked).

I always have a headlamp if running (have one that's stronger if running to trails (which is more often), or a "be seen" one if sticking to the roads), normally two lights front and back (one static one flashing) if cycling, and always a headlamp or more often a torch if walking.

But apparently I need a builders jacket as well! I should probably wear my cycling helmet running, just in case like...

endagibson

the_pen_turner wrote: »

in a place where she wasn't supposed to cross.

What places are these then? Apart from motorways, people on foot can cross anywhere they like and should be expected to do so.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

truck driver did nothing wrong

It's amazing that driving a truck over a woman is considered by you as "doing nothing wrong."

ThisRegard

Won't be long before people heading away on a night out are expected to be looking like this, based on some of the views in this thread

Chuchote

24,000 people have been killed on the roads of Ireland since records began 57 years ago. If this was a chronic disease, millions would be put into curing it.
http://www.thejournal.ie/road-deaths-ireland-1779370-Nov2014/

Chuchote

Saipanne wrote: »

And introduce licence plates for cyclists for the same reason.

Oooh, good idea! Jobs for 100 civil servants, lots of extra work for gardaí who needn't be bothered with other work. (Though they tried this in Switzerland and gave it up as useless.)

ThisRegard wrote: »

Won't be long before people heading away on a night out are expected to be looking like this, based on some of the views in this thread

Hmmmmm… haven't tried this yet…

Cookie_Monster

Chuchote wrote: »

24,000 people have been killed on the roads of Ireland since records began 57 years ago. If this was a chronic disease, millions would be put into curing it.
http://www.thejournal.ie/road-deaths-ireland-1779370-Nov2014/

what like heart attacks or suicide?, more money goes into the roads than either of these already...

endagibson

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the problem is that if I get into my van now and drive down the road and hit a pedestrian...then I will be blamed

It's political correctness gone mad! :pac:

kirving

Macy0161 wrote: »

Fluorescent material is no good at night. Reflective material/ detail is. It doesn't have to be attached to a builders vest to achieve that. And the torso is probably the worst place for it. Ankles are probably best, as there's movement (hence why old style pedals had reflectors in them!).

A cycling helmet is not designed for multiple impacts that you get when a vehicle hits a cyclist. They're designed for single impact at relatively low speed (compared to the combined speed of vehicle hitting a cyclist). They're designed to absorb the first impact, so they do little for secondary impact that happens in a vehicle v cyclist collision.

But, hey, no need to let facts get in the way of the "if it makes you 0.0002% safer" bolloxology...

Why the need to refer to reflective material as a builders vest? I think when the majority of people post about "Hi-Vis", they mean reflective material. Calling it a builders vest is getting away from the point.

Since you brought up facts, care to explain the facts around helmets only being designed for the first, single impact? This isn't directed at you - but there's a serious amount of pseudo-science on both sides of the fence. I don't think helmets or hi-vis should be mandatory either - but I do think everyone should wear reflective, bright clothing when out cycling.

I'm both a cyclist and a driver. I fully believe that cyclists who have lights and good quality clothing are less likely to be involved in accidents, but their clothing is only part of the equation.

These same cyclists are also aware of their own vulnerability and don't put themselves in situations where an accident might happen - even if the driver would be at fault should one occur. Sitting in a car's blind spot in medium speed traffic is an example.

Chuchote

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what like heart attacks or suicide?, more money goes into the roads than either of these already...

Into the roads, yes. Into preventing crashes, no.

ted1

Macy0161 wrote: »

but haven't tested it and not sure whether it was RSA provided (the other hi-viz tat was RSA marked).
.

I wouldn't hold an RSA approval in high regard, they awarded a supply contract to a local company and After they supplied it , it transpired the gear was t reflective.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/road-safety-authority-left-redfaced-as-highvis-vests-arent-visible-29419807.html

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2013/Voluntary-Replacement-Offer-High-Vis-Vests-between-September-2011-and-December-2011/

endagibson

robertpatterson wrote: »

Oh do we have to provide evidence for our opinions

:pac:

Macy0161

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Why the need to refer to reflective material as a builders vest? I think when the majority of people post about "Hi-Vis", they mean reflective material. Calling it a builders vest is getting away from the point.

I did ask for clarification earlier in the thread. I believe most people advocating it do mean reflective material on a fluorescent material - basically a builders vest! Like what the RSA give out all the time.

As for the helmets - that's just how they are rated. That's why you're told to replace them after a crash (either coming off yourself or collision), as once they do their job once, they're done. Some companies offer a replacement policy. You can get some Downhill MTB helmets that are rated for multi collisions, but I'm not aware of any road helmets that are (even from the likes of POC who make multi impact MTB helmets).

endagibson

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Cycling is a dangerous activity

No it's not.

magicbastarder

actually, speaking of laws which should apply to cyclists, but do not, is the use of mobile phones while cycling allowed?
it's relatively rare, but i did some across a cyclist using a smartphone - not to make a call, but looking at the screen - on the cycle path in blackrock at the weekend.

endagibson

lucernarian wrote: »

Compulsory helmets? Misguided nanny-stateism, shouldn't be necessary to protect myself from being hit from trucks and speeding cars in the first place.

If you think a plastic hat is going to protect you if you get hit by a truck, I have a bridge to sell you.

shootermacg

the_pen_turner wrote: »

last year I nearly hit cyclist . I was driving along . I went around a tight bend so I was going slow. I was accelerating back up on the straight after the bend . there was a car coming against me . it was dark and the car had its lights on. . something caught my eye in the pitch black on my side of the road. I slowed and hit the head lights. there was this stupid idiot of a cyclist cycling towards me all dressed in black . I put some of it down to the lights of the car coming against me but that idiot is luck I didn't hit him.
I still don't know what made me cop the fool was there.


that fool should be fined for cycling with without lights or a hi vis

If you can't see what's in front of you clearly, then stop your car. You are essentially driving blind.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

actually, speaking of laws which should apply to cyclists, but do not, is the use of mobile phones while cycling allowed?
it's relatively rare, but i did some across a cyclist using a smartphone - not to make a call, but looking at the screen - on the cycle path in blackrock at the weekend.

The FPP system would have it covered under "Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration".

Grassey

the_pen_turner wrote: »

it is amazing how close an unlit cyclist or pedestrian needs to be to you before your lights will light them up. you can say slow down all you like but you have to draw the line somewhere

It's also amazing how close a car with no rear lights needs to be before your (dipped) lights will light them up.

Dipped headlights illuminate about 30m ahead of car? Angled downwards. So any high vis worn by pedestrian/cyclist is useless until the beam gets above waist height or probably less than 15m from lamps? So in order to make it safe, there should be high vis shoes and bicycle wheels as they'll be the first illuminated.

If you are driving with full beams on all the time then I'm sure it'd be grand...

Or the RSA could spend more time promoting good light usage for vulnerable users. A bright rear light on a bicycle (not those ****e RSA ones) is a constant height and can be seen from hundreds of meters back by drivers.

lucernarian

endagibson wrote: »

If you think a plastic hat is going to protect you if you get hit by a truck, I have a bridge to sell you.

That's an honestly baffling response. What are you trying to say?

Fwiw I don't believe that helmets achieve much in the face of HGV collisions or being broadsided in some way, and mandatory use of them is a red herring (as opposed to them being strongly encouraged etc, which I would be more in favour of)

endagibson

lucernarian wrote: »

That's an honestly baffling response. What are you trying to say?

That a helmet won't help if you get hit by a truck. :rolleyes:

LuckyLloyd

magicbastarder wrote: »

in the absence of another activity to replace it, it's far worse for your health to not cycle.

There are a myriad of other ways to stay in shape

magicbastarder

endagibson wrote: »

That a helmet won't help if you get hit by a truck. :rolleyes:

i think you were pretty much repeating his original point for him, while making yourself sound like you were disagreeing?

CramCycle

lucernarian wrote: »

(as opposed to them being strongly encouraged etc, which I would be more in favour of)

Which only perpetuates the myth that cycling as a commuting option is incredibly dangerous. Which it is not. Time and money would be better spent on issues that will either increase cycling numbers or actually increase cycling safety (on a population level, not at a "this one time I nearly died" level).

I am also against mandatory hi vis, but I appreciate that in rural settings (never well lit urban ones) it has some use (the reflective strips), but legally required lights make you just as noticeable on a bike, so therefore it is redundant, it does not increase your safety by any amount if your following the rules anyway. Christ, the number of motor vehicles with a light missing or pointing the wrong way (how they manage this is beyond me), it is pot luck if they were any use at all.

magicbastarder

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There are a myriad of other ways to stay in shape

of course there are, but cycling can kill two birds with one stone. it's transport and exercise, if you so wish.

lucernarian

endagibson wrote: »

That a helmet won't help if you get hit by a truck. :rolleyes:

I never implied otherwise?...

kirving

CramCycle wrote: »

I am also against mandatory hi vis, but I appreciate that in rural settings (never well lit urban ones) it has some use (the reflective strips), but legally required lights make you just as noticeable on a bike, so therefore it is redundant, it does not increase your safety by any amount if your following the rules anyway.

So just to be 100% clear what you're saying, bright clothing or reflective strips are NEVER more effective than lights in an urban setting?

I have plenty of dash-cam clips that would say otherwise.

endagibson

lucernarian wrote: »

I never implied otherwise?...

I'm just being a wiseass about the faith that some people place in plastic hats. These people are generally the ones that won't wear them.

magicbastarder

GCN did a test of lighting and jerseys; mixed bag of results for both sides of this argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZRXlrJ3Mi0

i'd question the comment from about 3:07 in - re the fluoro jacket in suburbs at night. it seems visible when the light from the motorbike they're filming from shines directly on it, and you can see the significant variation in reflection as the light bounces around.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

GCN did a test of lighting and jerseys; mixed bag of results for both sides of this argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZRXlrJ3Mi0

i'd question the comment from about 3:07 in - re the fluoro jacket in suburbs at night. it seems visible when the light from the motorbike they're filming from shines directly on it, and you can see the significant variation in reflection as the light bounces around.

That kind of sums up that brighter lights and florescent/Hi-viz clothing is better. I would agree

magicbastarder

general summary - good lights are always visible.
re clothing, flouro depends on lighting conditions, ninja black performs poorly in nearly all subdued conditions.

endagibson

Carnacalla wrote: »

What happens the next time I'm a passenger, or in a bus?

Best have a high vis jacket with you for when you get out and become a pedestrian.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

general summary - good lights are always visible.
re clothing, flouro depends on lighting conditions, ninja black performs poorly in nearly all subdued conditions.

It is getting better though. i see more cyclists wearing hi-viz clothing in general. If i was to put a rough figure on it i would estimate up to 40%-50% are wearing them. the same cant be said for front/back lights. I find it very inconsiderate seeing a cyclist without lights.

magicbastarder

maybe it's the aldi effect with the clothing; i saw a couple of examples at the weekend of people wearing gear from the bicycle gear sale in aldi recently.

bk

Roadhawk wrote: »

That kind of sums up that brighter lights and florescent/Hi-viz clothing is better. I would agree

The problem is that floro jacket costs more then €100! As does any good quality floro jacket worth buying.

While the medium priced bike lights that were so effective. You can get Chinese versions of those with equal lumens for about €12 for a set! *

BTW the cheap LED's they use cost about €2 in your local dealz shop (not recommending them, other then as an emergency backup).

The point being you would be crazy to recommend some broke student who has just bought a second hand bike for €50 to now spend more then €100 on floro.

€12 on decent LED's, maybe you can convince them of that, but €100 on floro, not a hope.And fanrkly they will be much more visible with the legally required €12 LED's then with even that expensive floro.

Now of course if you already have very good quality bike lights, then a nice high quality floro light can be a nice addition. But it certainly shouldn't be mandatory.

As for the useless builders jackets that the RSA give out, completely pointless and possibly unsafe if it results in people use them instead of the much more effective, legally required lights.

* In my experience they have roughly similar lumens, the difference is that the Chinese lights just use standard AA's, where the more expensive ones use lithium ion batteries and fancy USB charging. Also different lights patterns. Some nice to have, but certainly not significantly different.