Gardai say cyclists must change attitude

Beasty

ThisRegard wrote: »

So what are the numbers if they're so huge?

Official Gardaí stats at 9 o'clock this morning - 4 fatalities year to date across the country, pretty similar to previous years

This is a stat they produce I'm inclined to believe

tayto lover

If I had my way i'd ban people running on the road with headphones in their ears.
How can they hear traffic coming?

I wouldn't knock the high viz jacket either. It could save a life.

XsApollo

Roads are dangerous, it's a suggestion to make yourselves more visible to other road users.
What's the problem and why the attitude of " this infuriates me so much".
That attitude stinks.

Roads will always be dangerous, there are vehicles traveling at speed, you think it's wrong that ye should maybe wear a hi vis or a helmet because it might help you be noticed on the road ,or you shouldn't have to and everybody should be paying attention to me.

Your the smallest thing on the road and will likely lose a battle against a vehicle.
Accidents happen a high vis might get you noticed before it does.

Beasty

XsApollo wrote: »

Your the smallest thing on the road and will likely lose a battle against a vehicle.
Accidents happen a high vis might get you noticed before it does.

Presume you are in favour of extending this to all pedestrians then?

Unknown Soldier

"Cyclists need to undergo a change in “mindset and attitude†and always wear fluorescent clothing and helmets, the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (AGSI) believes."

"fluorescent"

I don't recall that being the same as HIGH-VIZ, but I am open to correction.

XsApollo

Beasty wrote: »

Presume you are in favour of extending this to all pedestrians then?

If they are not walking on a footpath yea.

tayto lover

Beasty wrote: »

Presume you are in favour of extending this to all pedestrians then?

I'd agree with that but only if they're on the actual road.

ThisRegard

tayto lover wrote: »

I wouldn't knock the high viz jacket either. It could save a life.

As a tourniquet?

tayto lover

ThisRegard wrote: »

As a tourniquet?

I'd also make flashing lights. front and rear, compulsory.
They are great and easy to see.

ThisRegard

tayto lover wrote: »

I'd agree with that but only if they're on the actual road.

What about when crossing the road?

XsApollo

ThisRegard wrote: »

What about when crossing the road?

Use the safe cross code,
You should be alright

Beasty

XsApollo wrote: »

If they are not walking on a footpath yea.

tayto lover wrote: »

I'd agree with that but only if they're on the actual road.

Every time they cross the road. Every time they walk along a road without a path?

When I take the dog down my unlit road at night I take a light. That makes me much more visible than hi viz ever will. I take the same approach when riding a bike. I will often leave my rear light on in daylight.

Requiring every cyclist to wear hi viz is frankly absurd.

Maybe you guys could have a read through our hi viz (and indeed helmet) megathread(s) (linked from the Charter/FAQ thread) and you may actually learn something rather than thinking you know all about it without undertaking any research

ThisRegard

XsApollo wrote: »

Use the safe cross code,
You should be alright

What makes it safer than walking along the road without highvis?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Everybody knows that all road users within proximity of high viz wearer automatically obey the rules of the road, we just need to saturate the streets with high viz and then there will be zero RTA and all the hell that goes with it.

Our police force is really really stupid.

Chuchote

Looking back at earlier AGSI conferences, did they tell women to wear modest clothing so they wouldn't be raped? Is this their normal carry-on?

Incidentally, d'you know what would be really useful? A sticky with the law relating to cyclists, including cycling two abreast, cycling up the inside of lines of traffic, use of bus lanes, etc.

jcd5971

I hate meeting cyclists on the road especially on country roads, it's usually not a reflection on the cyclists it's more the potential of what can go wrong.

A little bit more care from both sides would help immesurably in my opinion.

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

Incidentally, d'you know what would be really useful? A sticky with the law relating to cyclists, including cycling two abreast, cycling up the inside of lines of traffic, use of bus lanes, etc.

There's a link to the "law" thread in the charter sticky.

rollingscone

XsApollo wrote: »

Roads are dangerous, it's a suggestion to make yourselves more visible to other road users.
What's the problem and why the attitude of " this infuriates me so much".
That attitude stinks.

Roads will always be dangerous, there are vehicles traveling at speed, you think it's wrong that ye should maybe wear a hi vis or a helmet because it might help you be noticed on the road ,or you shouldn't have to and everybody should be paying attention to me.

Your the smallest thing on the road and will likely lose a battle against a vehicle.
Accidents happen a high vis might get you noticed before it does.

Except it doesn't.

People look at a yellow jacket and say "that's very bright"

There's nothing beyond anecdotes to say it makes people more likely to be seen.

They might as well make drinking flat Lucozade compulsory.

tayto lover

Beasty wrote: »

Every time they cross the road. Every time they walk along a road without a path?

When I take the dog down my unlit road at night I take a light. That makes me much more visible than hi viz ever will. I take the same approach when riding a bike. I will often leave my rear light on in daylight.

Requiring every cyclist to wear hi viz is frankly absurd.

Maybe you guys could have a read through our hi viz (and indeed helmet) megathread(s) (linked from the Charter/FAQ thread) and you may actually learn something rather than thinking you know all about it without undertaking any research

I have come across many a cyclist with no visible clothes and no lights on many a night. They give you some fright on a narrow and dark country road.
That gives me the right to air my views.
They give you some fright.

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

There's a link to the "law" thread in the charter sticky.

Can't find it. Found the charter sticky, but can find no link to "law" or "legal" there.

XsApollo

Beasty wrote: »

Every time they cross the road. Every time they walk along a road without a path?

When I take the dog down my unlit road at night I take a light. That makes me much more visible than hi viz ever will. I take the same approach when riding a bike. I will often leave my rear light on in daylight.

Requiring every cyclist to wear hi viz is frankly absurd.

Maybe you guys could have a read through our hi viz (and indeed helmet) megathread(s) (linked from the Charter/FAQ thread) and you may actually learn something rather than thinking you know all about it without undertaking any research

A set of lights front and rear is obviously a better option than a high viz.
Is it mandatory to have lights on your bike?
Or should it be if it isn't .

I drive with my lights on in the car all the time, I don't need to during the day and I shouldn't have to , but I do it because people can see me easier I'm not infuriated that I have to , it makes sense.

tomasrojo

At the risk of stealing the thunder of both the hiviz and helmet threads, there would have to be very convincing statistical evidence of both these measures (that is, evidence that is statistically significant that they have a major net beneficial effect) to promote them as heavily as they are promoted, let alone make them mandatory. As yet, the evidence remains pretty unconvincing, and countries with as good or better safety records than ours don't require either (the hiviz obsession seems to be a particular Irish and British thing anyway).

So, about those hundred of thousands of fake breathalyzer tests ...

tomasrojo

XsApollo wrote: »

A set of lights front and rear is obviously a better option than a high viz.
Is it mandatory to have lights on your bike?
Or should it be if it isn't .

It is mandatory, and has been since the sixties, I think.

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

Can't find it. Found the charter sticky, but can find no link to "law" or "legal" there.

It's under "List of Irish Cycling Legislation"

XsApollo

tomasrojo wrote: »

It is mandatory, and has been since the sixties, I think.

The amount of bikes that I see without them is unreal and in dark conditions , so a change in attitude is needed and more enforcement also.

nullzero

mr spuckler wrote: »

both issues mentioned are caused by other road users but it's the cyclists who need to change behaviour...

Hang on a second, of course motorists need to be more mindful of cyclists and their safety but ultimately as a cyclist and an adult you need to take responsibility for your own safety.
Cyclists not taking every measure possible to ensure their own safety do need to take on board the need to make improvements.
This isn't a case of the poor downtrodden cyclists being subjugated by the Gardai /motorists/ whoever else is out of favour today.

tomasrojo

tayto lover wrote: »

I have come across many a cyclist with no visible clothes and no lights on many a night. They give you some fright on a narrow and dark country road.
That gives me the right to air my views.
They give you some fright.

Well, they should have lights. Modern lights at the >€25 end of the market are usually very good. Those cyclists should be using modern, powerful (but directed downwards) lights.

tomasrojo

nullzero wrote: »

Hang on a second, of course motorists need to be more mindful of cyclists and their safety but ultimately as a cyclist and an adult you need to take responsibility for your own safety.
Cyclists not taking every measure possible to ensure their own safety do need to take on board the need to make improvements.
This isn't a case of the poor downtrodden cyclists being subjugated by the Gardai /motorists/ whoever else is out of favour today.

Every measure? Spine protection? Hövding airbag? Hiviz trousers? Wrist and ankle lights?

All you need to be conspicous at times of poor visibility are modern, powerful lights. That's it.

Chuchote

it is mandatory to have a white light at the front, a red light at the back, working brakes and reflectors, and a bell (except, in the last case, on a racing bike).

There are plenty of ninjas out there who dress in black. But so they are entitled to do, just as the countrymen who stump along unlit roads in Kerry in the dark of the night are entitled to wear their dark clothes.

Trying to force cyclists to wear hi-viz and helmets - which as others have pointed out they don't wear in the countries with the highest number of cyclists - is fascistic.

It's also a total side issue - serious cyclists mostly dress to be seen; look at this video of the cycle last week in support of the Liffey Cycleway:

tomasrojo

XsApollo wrote: »

The amount of bikes that I see without them is unreal and in dark conditions , so a change in attitude is needed and more enforcement also.

Well, who's been promoting hiviz and helmets (which are not legally required) to the detriment of good lights (which are legally required) and functioning brakes (also legally required)? The Gardaí, and the RSA. So they don't need any new laws. They need to change their campaigns to highlight the laws that do exist.