A ban on headphones and penalty point for cyclists...

Chips Lovell

We need to get tough on railway bridges and the causes of railway bridges.

JazzyJ

riemann wrote: »

Quite simply you are safer when wearing a hi-vis as drivers of other vehicles on the roads are more likely to see you, and believe it or not, no driver wants to hit a cyclist.

True, but visibility is an extremely low (~2.5%) factor in collisions. There's a far greater need for focus on other areas.

JazzyJ

magicbastarder wrote: »

note the use of the photo showing three cyclists engaging in criminal behaviour, cycling three abreast across a road. a road that a car would not be able to pass a single cyclist on.

Technically, the cyclist on the right could be overtaking the other two which would be kosher! :pac:

Rokta

riemann wrote: »

Quite simply you are safer when wearing a hi-vis as drivers of other vehicles on the roads are more likely to see you, ...

I disagree and I believe it has been proven wrong. A higher visibility might be given in low light condition however a bicycle light will be always better than a high viz vest. I can tell you from own experience that hi viz in daylight does nothing to save you, if a driver for whatever reason is not paying attention to the traffic no matter how hi viz you are you are in trouble.

This silly high viz vests made things worse, I have seen so many cyclists wearing them thinking to be sufficient instead of having a set of lights on their bikes in winter time in the dark

riemann

Rokta wrote: »

I disagree and I believe it has been proven wrong. A higher visibility might be given in low light condition however a bicycle light will be always better than a high viz vest. I can tell you from own experience that hi viz in daylight does nothing to save you, if a driver for whatever reason is not paying attention to the traffic no matter how hi viz you are you are in trouble.

This silly high viz vests made things worse, I have seen so many cyclists wearing them thinking to be sufficient instead of having a set of lights on their bikes in winter time in the dark

As far as I know lights are a legal requirement during darkness. I always use lights and a hi-vis cover on my backpack (night and day).

As someone who also drives, mainly in Dublin, a good clean hi-vis is far easier to see on a rainy dark night through a water spattered car window than a small flashing light.

Also lights break (especially is wet weather), batteries die. A hi-vis might not be a legal requirement but it is definitely going to help keep one seen, and some day that could be the difference between life and death.

Hungrycol

magicbastarder wrote: »

note the use of the photo showing three cyclists engaging in criminal behaviour, cycling three abreast across a road. a road that a car would not be able to pass a single cyclist on.

Wouldn't be like that if they were roadies :pac:

Hungrycol

Lawdie wrote: »

"There are more accidents with cyclists than with tractors," he said.

Farm fatalities 2016 = 44
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0105/842781-hsa-workplace-deaths/

Cycling fatalities 2016 = 10 (nothing recorded with tractors)
http://irishcycle.com/2017/01/06/10-people-killed-while-cycling-on-irish-roads-in-2016/

Doesn't appear so Mr Moroney, you might want to conduct some research first. I would also estimate there are significant number of cyclists than tractor drivers in Ireland.

It's nothing but a sound bite.

Note he goes on about how tractors should be allowed use hard shoulders also.

You'll never get any accurate stats on cycle "accidents" let alone ones with tractors so effectively he just made it up.

Mercian Pro

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Im familiar with this stretch and have had some crazy overtaking by HGVs, only for them to turn in right 200 metres ahead of us.

My experience on the Garristown road is quite different. Whether riding solo or in a group, the Dennigan trucks always hang back and only pass when it is safe to do so. Private cars are a much greater threats INHO.

Lemming

riemann wrote: »

I'll never understand some cyclists attitude. Being right or winning an argument isn't much use when you're six feet under.

If you never address root causes, no amount of safety equipment will keep you safe in the long run.

Quite simply you are safer when wearing a hi-vis as drivers of other vehicles on the roads are more likely to see you, and believe it or not, no driver wants to hit a cyclist.
.

Wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the white-van driver who stopped mere inches from T-Boning me off my bike into the middle of a roundabout that I was on and he was not in broad summer daylight and low traffic.

Nor would have stopped the HGV driver who sat on my @ss doing the rev-hiss thing repeatedly in a heavily built up urban area with a narrow road and heavy rush-hour traffic, so close as a point of fact that he could most likely not see me underneath his windscreen.

In the first instance I wasn't wearing dark clothing as it was broad summer daylight. and in the second instance I had hi-vis with reflective strips and lights on (as it was dark to boot, being January ...)

Tell me how wearing hi-viz and not addressing bad driver behaviour would have solved those two accidents should they have occurred.

Indricotherium

riemann wrote: »

Quite simply you are safer when wearing a hi-vis as drivers of other vehicles on the roads are more likely to see you, and believe it or not, no driver wants to hit a cyclist.

I have definitely been deliberately target by motorists driving aggressively.

I've had cars nudge my back wheel while stopped in queues of traffic, I've had cars close me into other vehicles, I've had cars aggressively swerve towards me intending to force me off the road. I've also had a cup of piss thrown at me from the window of a van on an off ramp of the n4. There are drivers out there who very deliberately target other road users and attack them.

For what it's worth though, I do think cycling in heavy multi lane stop-start traffic with headphones on is moronic, dangerous and should be discouraged or banned.

I also feel wearing a hiviz should be mandatory in lighting up hours

Danjamin1

Indricotherium wrote: »

For what it's worth though, I do think cycling in heavy multi lane stop-start traffic with headphones on is moronic, dangerous and should be discouraged or banned.

Depends on what the person is listening to, I cycle with earbuds in so I can listen to podcasts, I can still hear everything around me and I have the sense to do a shoulder check before I move out.

For the group making the proposal it's a ridiculous waste of time, it will not be enforced any more than the current laws in place. Garda road presence is practically non-existent no matter how many posts the put on Twitter

Weepsie

Indricotherium wrote: »

.

I also feel wearing a hiviz should be mandatory in lighting up hours

Having good lights should be mandatory. The emphasis there on good. There should be a minimum standard. Hi viz not so much, unless we propose that cars are painted in fluorescent colours too.

Indricotherium

Lemming wrote: »

Tell me how wearing hi-viz and not addressing bad driver behaviour would have solved those two accidents should they have occurred.

That's a ridiculous argument.

What use would a spare tube and a pump be in those situations?

It's the for countless incidents that don't happen because you are seen that you wear a hi-viz.

That kind of "well what about this" argument only fosters a cars vs cyclists atmosphere and helps absolutely no-one.

Kop on.

Driver aggression and low visibility clothing, both cause, sometimes calamitous, injuries to cyclists. A hi-viz helps to prevent one, but not the other.

magicbastarder

Mercian Pro wrote: »

My experience on the Garristown road is quite different. Whether riding solo or in a group, the Dennigan trucks always hang back and only pass when it is safe to do so. Private cars are a much greater threats INHO.

i lived out in garristown for six months a few years ago; on one occasion, i ended up (while driving) in a full slam on, ABS kicking in, emergency brake as a truck came around a bend on my side of the road. with a few 'holy **** that was close' passes by trucks. interestingly, i can't recall issues like that on the road while on the bike.

Indricotherium

Weepsie wrote: »

Having good lights should be mandatory. The emphasis there on good. There should be a minimum standard. Hi viz not so much, unless we propose that cars are painted in fluorescent colours too.

Cars are legally required to have bright electric lights on the front and rear during light up hours.

Further, all new cars have bright running lights on the front at all times.

Bicycles lack both of these features, and requiring them, I feel, would be unreasonably expensive when I'd say many bicycles in Ireland cost less than what I consider a decent light.

In light of that (ah-ha) I feel a hi-viz is a reasonable measure.

mcgratheoin

riemann wrote: »

As someone who also drives, mainly in Dublin, a good clean hi-vis is far easier to see on a rainy dark night through a water spattered car window than a small flashing light.

Firstly, can we stop referring to hi-vis in darkness? Hi-vis clothing is designed for hazardous situations in the hours of daylight. Everyone getting super excited about the benefits of hi-vis in darkness sounds a bit daft when you replace "hi-vis" with "two reflective strips". That's all that a hi-vis jacket is after dark - two tiny little reflective strips!


In response to the small flashing light point, lights have minimum legal requirements for visibility as well. Anyone who cycles in the dark with a €2 cheapo rear light is just as guilty of breaking the law as someone without any lights. The first port of call for ninja cyclists is proper enforcement of lighting requirements, not hi-vis two reflective strips. We run into the same issues over and over again with legislation on the roads in this country - rather than improve enforcement of existing legislation we create another little piece which does nothing to improve the situation. The solution (to a non-existent problem - anybody got figures for after dark cycling KSIs?) is to correctly enforce lighting up requirements. Rather than paying a €40 on the spot fine, the fine should be used to buy adequate lights, directly from AGS if necessary. I'd bet the state could get a great discount if they were buying several thousand decent light sets for sale in lieu of fines.

riemann wrote:

I'll never understand some cyclists attitude.

I'll explain it. The undercurrent coming from politicians, vehicle lobby groups and the RSA regarding hi-vis jackets is extremely disconcerting to cyclists. By legitimising the outlook that wearing hi-vis clothing is an essential, legally required, obligation of cyclists, the discourse surrounding vehicle/bike interactions shifts the safety onus onto the cyclist and away from the driver. It opens up the inference that a cyclist knocked down by a car when not wearing hi-vis is partially responsible for the collision. This is why I get annoyed at drivers who ask about hi-vis.

magicbastarder

it's the conflation of 'it's a good idea' with 'it should be mandatory' which sometimes becomes funny. cycling with tyres pumped to a reasonable pressure is a good idea, so maybe we should have a mandatory national minimum bicycle tyre pressure standard.

Tenzor07

Indricotherium wrote: »

low visibility clothing, both cause, sometimes calamitous, injuries to cyclists. A hi-viz helps to prevent one, but not the other.

Hi-viz isn't gonna protect your bones from a careless speeding driver!

magicbastarder

Indricotherium wrote: »

In light of that (ah-ha) I feel a hi-viz is a reasonable measure.

both bicycles and cars are legally required to have lights on during lighting up hours.
we can all agree that cars are a *far* greater danger to cyclists than cyclists are to cars.
but what you are proposing is that the fresh burden of responsibility be placed on cyclists.

the only study i can find on car colour shows that black cars are 47% more likely to be involved in a collision than white cars are, in subdued lighting conditions (and interestingly, most of that effect evaporates in full darkness); should we have a debate about a mandatory car colour too?

Indricotherium

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Hi-viz isn't gonna protect your bones from a careless speeding driver!

The one that hits you no.

Just have a step back from your own hyperbole, for a second and consider your argument. It seems to be that a hi-viz will not protect you in the event of a crash and that therefore it is of no use to a cyclist.

The purpose of making yourself more visible is not to protect you in the case of being struck by a car.

It is to prevent being struck by a car. This is of course the best way to protect your bones.

Tenzor07

Indricotherium wrote: »

The one that hits you no.
Just have a step back from your own hyperbole, for a second and consider your argument. It seems to be that a hi-viz will not protect you in the event of a crash and that therefore it is of no use to a cyclist.
The purpose of making yourself more visible is not to protect you in the case of being struck by a car.
It is to prevent being struck by a car. This is of course the best way to protect your bones.

Only thing that protected me on my cycle yesterday from the speeding van, the souped up Subaru racing the BMW on main city roads was a few inches of space... all the hi-vis in the world wouldn't have saved me from serious injury had those vehicles come any closer... So your theory holds as much water as a fishing net!

Chips Lovell

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

We already have a Headphones Megathread, for anyone who's interested in discussing the ins and outs of cycling with headphones. Lets keep this thread more to do what the IRHA and FCA are saying.

And I should point out that we have also have a High Viz megathread, where you can get your fix of high viz creamy goodness.

mcgratheoin

Indricotherium wrote: »

Bicycles lack both of these features, and requiring them, I feel, would be unreasonably expensive when I'd say many bicycles in Ireland cost less than what I consider a decent light.

So you're saying that hi-vis should be compulsory in lighting up hours but not lights?

Indricotherium

magicbastarder wrote: »

should we have a debate about a mandatory car colour too?

By all means, but it's an unrelated debate.

I imagine that study is based on data captured before daylight running lights were made mandatory on new vehicles. I reckon safety discrepancies between different coloured cars, in dusk/dawn conditions will filter out as DRL's become ubiquitous, making the debate something of a dead rubber.

Indricotherium

mcgratheoin wrote: »

So you're saying that hi-vis should be compulsory in lighting up hours but not lights?

I don't think I did say that.

mcgratheoin

Indricotherium wrote: »

I don't think I did say that.

Fair enough, I may have misinterpreted one of your posts. Could you expand a bit on the second of these posts just for clarification?

Indricotherium wrote:

I also feel wearing a hiviz should be mandatory in lighting up hours

Indricotherium wrote:

Cars are legally required to have bright electric lights on the front and rear during light up hours.
Further, all new cars have bright running lights on the front at all times.
Bicycles lack both of these features, and requiring them, I feel, would be unreasonably expensive when I'd say many bicycles in Ireland cost less than what I consider a decent light.

magicbastarder

Indricotherium wrote: »

I imagine that study is based on data captured before daylight running lights were made mandatory on new vehicles.

i think i read that that legislation has not been passed yet in ireland, will try to find the source.

Indricotherium

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Only thing that protected me on my cycle yesterday from the speeding van, the souped up Subaru racing the BMW on main city roads was a few inches of space... all the hi-vis in the world wouldn't have saved me from serious injury had those vehicles come any closer... So your theory holds as much water as a fishing net!

My 'theory' is that more visible cyclists are less likely to be accidentally struck by motorists and that this is a good thing.

magicbastarder

increasing the list of things cyclists have to do before they can get on a bike is only going to have a downward pressure on the number of people cycling - and that will reduce the 'safety in numbers' effect.
in short, things don't happen in a vacuum, and your theory that a mandatory hi-vis law will make things safer for cyclists may not be as clear cut as you think.

as posted in another thread, this article shows mandatory helmet laws do *not* have the effect their proponents like to think they do:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels

Indricotherium

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Fair enough, I may have misinterpreted one of your posts. Could you expand a bit on the second of these posts just for clarification?

I was responding to this comment:

Weepsie wrote: »

Having good lights should be mandatory. The emphasis there on good.

What I would define as a 'good' light, would be prohibitively expensive to install on all bicycles, and would in many cases exceed the cost of the bicycle.

In my experience a cheap (often free) hi-viz jacket makes a cyclist much more visible, and thus safer, than many lights that fulfil the minimum legal requirements for rear and front lights in Ireland.