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

ThisRegard

I don't think anyone had said anything about being blameless. For what it's worth I don't wear headphones when cycling, nor do I when running on rural roads.

However I'm currently out walking with them in, and not wearing high vis, at one stage alongside a busy road. And to make the trifecta I'm browsing the internet and posting while doing so

The statements the IRHA are making has me expecting an artic drop out of the sky at any time now. Take the headphones out, put a vest on and I'm safe.

Danjamin1

ThisRegard wrote: »

I don't think anyone had said anything about being blameless. For what it's worth I don't wear headphones when cycling, not do I when running on rural roads.

Hasn't been seen much in this thread but in general you come across some awfully stupid statements regarding the issue.

However I'm currently out walking with them in, and not wearing high vis, at one stage alongside a busy road. And to make the trifecta I'm browsing the internet and posting while doing so

The statements the IRHA are making has me expecting an artic drop out of the sky at any time now. Take the headphones out, put a vest on and I'm safe.

Living on the edge :pac:

ThisRegard

Unfortunately what I think may happen is that next incident involving one of their members and a cyclist, no matter the time of day, they'll be awaiting with a big I told you so, no matter the cause of the accident

magicbastarder

http://www.thejournal.ie/maynooth-train-lines-delays-3303521-Mar2017/

maybe he was wearing headphones.

andy69

I was wondering if we, as cyclists, actually have anyone representing us in this Oireachtas Committee for Transport, or if they're only hearing from the lobby groups like the IRHA and that caveman from the Farmers assoc.

Anyone know?

I used the 'contact us' form on the CI website to ask them - would really be interested to know if they are giving some input. Like someone pointed out earlier...this is really important as these lobby groups are talking to legislators (politicians who might take their word as gospel :eek: )

brianomc

http://www.thejournal.ie/maynooth-train-lines-delays-3303521-Mar2017/

Well, who will they blame on that one? Damn that bridge anyway for moving recklessly at 0kmph not paying proper attention to it's own safety.

I don't listen to music on the bike, but more because it's the only time I don't have tv/radio on so it's a complete getaway. Just like drivers should check their mirror every time before changing lanes, cyclists should look over their shoulder. Unless the headphones prevent you turning your head I don't see an issue wearing them.

I can't see it being any more of a distraction than drivers listening to music or even talking on speakerphone. Nobody thinks either of those should be banned or penalty point offences.

andy69

brianomc wrote: »

...I can't see it being any more of a distraction than drivers listening to music or even talking on speakerphone. Nobody thinks either of those should be banned or penalty point offences.

true, but then think of the audience the lobby groups are getting face time with - I'd be worried the committee might actually pay some attention to the rubbish their spouting, and might even think their points are valid...

there's plenty of posters here on this forum that could represent us with some very good and strong and articulate arguments - it's a pity only the lobby groups seem to get the pleasure of rubbing shoulders with the TD's. I'm sure there's more interaction between them than just what we see on TV sitting at desks opposite each other

Corca Baiscinn

andy69 wrote: »

I was wondering if we, as cyclists, actually have anyone representing us in this Oireachtas Committee for Transport, or if they're only hearing from the lobby groups like the IRHA and that caveman from the Farmers assoc.

Anyone know? )

Good question Andy! I think the answer is that you have to be invited to address the committee. As to how you get an invitation, I don't know but maybe lobbying of your own TD's, or TD's on the committee (Transport),or request by Cycling Ireland or Cyclist.ie? I think that up to now Cycling Ireland has seen its role as being solely the Administrative Body for the Sport of Cycling but maybe if enough members got onto them they might consider a bit of a political role. One problem though is that groups like CI which rely on Government funding in part may be reluctant to appear to be criticising the same government but someone has to bite the bullet on our behalf and there are a lot of CI members/voters!

brianomc

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cycling-ireland-statement-cyclists-using-headphones-call-ban/

Cycling Ireland have replied. A good, common-sense response in my opinion

JMcL

Thinking on this again after witnessing yet more absolute numpty driving from HGV drivers, on the commute

When

1. They retrofit cyclops mirrors to ALL their trucks
2. Their members accept that maybe, just maybe, they don't have to be first to that roundabout 30m away putting the cyclist into one of their many blind spots (see 1) as a consequence by doing so
3. They stop putting indefensible delays on the introduction of safer cab design on trucks (ok, finger mostly pointed at the manufacturers on that one)

Then, maybe then, can they start bleating about what other road users responsibilities should be

magicbastarder

Deedsie wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/DublinAirport/status/843818216380088320

Interesting, motorists have been taking lives on Irish roads for nearly 150 years.

Not a doubt in my mind they have blaming pedestrians and cyclists since then.

i was wondering why dublin airport were tweeting this.
you'd think it'd be more in their line of work to tweet that not only was offaly the location of the first fatal RTA, it was also the location of the world's first air disaster:

https://www.offalyhistory.com/reading-resources/history/tullamore-history/the-tullamore-balloon-fire-first-air-disaster-in-history

shootermacg

Cameras need to be installed in urban areas. Instant ban for anyone caught driving with anything in their hands. Jumping red lights also an instant ban.

I was cycling behind this woman, who was actually driving in a cycle lane, she was spending five or more seconds looking at her phone then one second looking at the road.

That's simply unforgivable in a built up area, with kids on their way to school.

cdaly_

wotswattage wrote: »

Fines yes, I can't see points working though.

To generalise, many of the really dodgy moves I see are made by cyclists wearing headphones seemingly in their own world (whether I'm driving or unfortunately less often, cycling). I'm talking genuinely dodgy close call stuff - changing Lane into faster moving traffic, undertaking a vehicle indicating left etc.

So the cyclist couldn't hear the left indicator because they were wearing headphones? Is that what you're trying to say?

DaithiMC

Personally I would like to see the laws in place enforced more rigorously before adding more rules that will not be enforced. I think calling for new rules when the record of enforcement of the standing ones is abysmal is lazy and self serving. The majority of cyclists I see cycling after dark have good lights but there are many who don't and before any other rule is imposed that will be added to the list of rules that are ignored we should at least get used to seeing sanctions for current rule infractions. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/vehicle_standards/lighting_of_bicycles_in_ireland.html

magicbastarder

i had a great taxi ride yesterday where after some usual racist commentary about the events in london, the taxi driver gave us the 'car drivers are treated like vermin these days and cyclists are treated like royalty'. thankfully this came about 30s before our destination so i didn't stay and argue the point.

tomasrojo

DaithiMC wrote: »

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

Every year in Ireland, many cyclists are hurt, seriously injured or killed as a result of improper lighting on their bicycles.

I don't think they have any evidence to back this up. Not saying it's not true, and strong (non-dazzling) lights are a good idea to which I wholeheartedly subscribe, but there aren't many KSIs at night (there aren't that many cyclists out at night for a start).

greenspurs

magicbastarder wrote: »

i had a great taxi ride yesterday where after some usual racist commentary about the events in london, the taxi driver gave us the 'car drivers are treated like vermin these days and cyclists are treated like royalty'. thankfully this came about 30s before our destination so i didn't stay and argue the point.

Were you wearing headphones ? :pac:

DaithiMC

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't think they have any evidence to back this up. Not saying it's not true, and strong (non-dazzling) lights are a good idea to which I wholeheartedly subscribe, but there aren't many KSIs at night (there aren't that many cyclists out at night for a start).

Not everything needs empirical evidence but bad lighting is bound to be a factor in many collisions and that's good enough for lights not to be just "a good idea" but THE LAW! http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/189/made/en/print.

Chips Lovell

I'm sure the IRHA don't know this, but headphones are also a vital part of any bike toolbox.

A few years ago, a fellow cyclist told me they were her solution to a creaking bottom bracket.

Pinch Flat

DaithiMC wrote: »

Not everything needs empirical evidence but bad lighting is bound to be a factor in many collisions and that's good enough for lights not to be just "a good idea" but THE LAW! http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/189/made/en/print.

And yet I've had drivers "not see" my 300 lumen front strobe and half watt rear led.

DaithiMC

Pinch Flat wrote: »

And yet I've had drivers "not see" my 300 lumen front strobe and half watt rear led.

We have all had those experiences, on either side of the equation in multiple vehicle types. Its not my original point.

tomasrojo

DaithiMC wrote: »

Not everything needs empirical evidence but bad lighting is bound to be a factor in many collisions and that's good enough for lights not to be just "a good idea" but THE LAW! http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/189/made/en/print.

Yes, but they're making a factual statement (or semi-factual, as "many" is a very subjective term) that, as far as I can tell, isn't true.

It maybe isn't true because relatively few cyclists cycle at night. They could phrase it differently: "cycling without proper lighting carries a high risk of injury or fatality". (I don't know what that risk is, and I've never seen anyone try to evaluate it, but it's not an unreasonable statement, depending on where the person is cycling.)

It's hard to know the true figures, because they threw "hurt" into the mix, and we don't have reliable figures (to say the least) for injuries that are less severe than a KSI.

The rest of the article is informative and clear. I like Citizen's Information. I wrote to them that their article on Motor Tax contained some incorrect information (that it was collected for upkeep of the national road network), and they changed the article within about an hour.

DaithiMC

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, but they're making a factual statement (or semi-factual, as "many" is a very subjective term) that, as far as I can tell, isn't true.

It maybe isn't true because relatively few cyclists cycle at night. They could phrase it differently: "cycling without proper lighting carries a high risk of injury or fatality". (I don't know what that risk is, and I've never seen anyone try to evaluate it, but it's not an unreasonable statement, depending on where the person is cycling.)

It's hard to know the true figures, because they threw "hurt" into the mix, and we don't have reliable figures (to say the least) for injuries that are less severe than a KSI.

The rest of the article is informative and clear. I like Citizen's Information. I wrote to them that their article on Motor Tax contained some incorrect information (that it was collected for upkeep of the national road network), and they changed the article within about an hour.

Ok - but I didn't mean to get into semantics about evidence of the lack of lights etc. and their relationship to numbers "hurt" - different argument for a different day. My original point was about the call for new "laws" in relation to the wearing of headphones when in fact our law enforcement officers do such a poor job of enforcing the ones we have, i.e., the legal requirement to have lights and reflectors. Adding new laws clutters the statute books but also deflects from a more insidious problem in my opinion - lack of enforcement.

Incidentally - how many would consider altering the look of their fancy bike by complying with this regulation...."All bicycles used on public roads in Ireland must at all times display a rear reflector."? I'm sure we're all at fault here when racing or training.

tomasrojo

Not me; all my bikes have rear red reflectors. However, one of my bikes has a rear-facing yellow reflector, which is expressly forbidden.

tomasrojo

No harm to keep mind is that many of these regulations were written when the standard bike looked like this:



Not sure there's such a thing as a standard bike now.

Pinch Flat

Bike Technology has moved on so much

ThisRegard

One good thing to come out of a headphone ban if it was to come to fruition, it might make any future wold tour events that come here a little more exciting with the lack of radio comms.

AndrewJRenko

riemann wrote: »

I see cyclists breaking red lights, not using lights, cycling with no hands, dressed in dark colours.

Do you see drivers breaking lights every day, drivers with one missing headlight or one or two missing brake lights, or a whole cluster of lights out at the back, or running on DRLs with no back lights at all, drivers with one or two hands tied up between phone, fag, make-up, coffee, breakfast cereal and spoon (as I saw today), drivers driving dark coloured cars (which have a worse safety record tthan bright coloured cars?

check_six wrote: »

It's a 'retaliation' for the 1.5m minimum distance overtake proposals. The Haulier Chief lady on the radio had some disturbingly bonkers ideas about that rule when asked. The idea that trucks should be allowed pass as close and as fast as they like was the jist of it.

Quite why a 'retaliation' is required at all is beyond my capability to understand.

Perhaps someone could do that thing they do in those murder thrillers where the cop has to put themselves in the same mindset as the frothing at the mouth maniac in order to catch them?

Any frothing should be reported here as soon as it takes hold!

You're nearly there - more than just a 'retaliation' - it is a classic PR strategy of 'look over there'. It is a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from the stuff trucks need to do, like better mirrors, see through doors, extra crew members on watch.