Gardai say cyclists must change attitude

tomasrojo

dbagman wrote: »

Yeah. Coz imagine dressing up like a builder does.

People don't like dressing up like this. Nobody wants to do it, though plenty do it because they think it's safer. If you want to have more people cycling, you can't have them even thinking that this is necessary, let alone making it compulsory.

dbagman wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me how up in arms cyclists get about any notion of them being safer.

More objecting to the notion that they're actually invisible in broad daylight, and that decent lights just can't be seen at night. It's not being oversensitive to well-meaning advice. It's outrage, or at least bemusement, at what is, essentially, bull****.

PeadarCo

dbagman wrote:

Never ceases to amaze me how up in arms cyclists get about any notion of them being safer. Kind of backs up the garda's comments about a change of attitude being needed.

As has been pointed out countless times there's no definite statistical evidence that high vis makes people safer. Good lights which are legally required do a far better job. Maybe instead of thinking up stupid laws maybe they should just start enforcing the current ones.

It never ceases to amaze me how people pontificate about cycling while not having a clue and relying exclusively on anecdotes instead of hard evidence based research. This is what cyclists get up in arms about.

Baron Kurtz

Why don't the people in the tonne (or two) vehicle drive with proper care when there are cyclists on the road? There will always be cyclists. This needs to be understood. I get the feeling that cyclists are the additional nuisance on the road, the second class entity on the road. That mindset had to change by drivers. And just because you attempt an overtaking move around a cyclist at speed doesn't mean it'll be completed quicker, it just means that you've aggressively passed and generally it's far too close. Just wait a bit, and pass at a reasonable speed please. Not like some animal at the wheel.

I love Sean nos

dbagman wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me how up in arms cyclists get about any notion of them being safer. Kind of backs up the garda's comments about a change of attitude being needed.

Does it? :rolleyes:

Have a read of this forum. There are separate megathreads for high-vis and helmets. Cyclists are concerned about their safety all the time.

All. The. Time.

The problem I have with wearing high-vis is that there's no evidence that it does any good.

This is the point where you counter with evidence that it does.

Chiparus

dbagman wrote: »

Y
Never ceases to amaze me how up in arms cyclists get about any notion of them being safer. Kind of backs up the garda's comments about a change of attitude being needed.

If I was to suggest that all car drivers must wear a helmet ( like in motorsport) what do you think the response would be?

tayto lover

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Does it? :rolleyes:

Have a read of this forum. There are separate megathreads for high-vis and helmets. Cyclists are concerned about their safety all the time.

All. The. Time.

The problem I have with wearing high-vis is that there's no evidence that it does any good.

This is the point where you counter with evidence that it does.

A quick google -

https://cyclingtips.com/2016/06/does-reflective-and-fluorescent-clothing-make-us-safer


For maximum visibility during the day, cycling kit should be as bright as possible, ideally fluorescent.
When riding at night, fluoro gear should be traded for clothing that’s as reflective as possible, with particular attention paid to the knees and ankles.
The use of strong front and rear lights should be a given.

jive

If we spent the money on segregated cycle lanes then nobody would have anything to whinge about because, believe it or not, cyclists don't enjoy mixing it with buses.

There's no good argument against cycling so they should be encouraging it not discouraging.

Suppose the gardai have bigger issues though, I think there's half a million drug tests due to take place on the roads tomorrow.

Hrududu

The problem I have with wearing high-vis is that there's no evidence that it does any good.

This is the point where you counter with evidence that it does.

This is what I wanted to ask. Is there any evidence that high vis cuts down on the number of accidents? Because all we seem to be getting is variations of "Sure isn't it common sense." Which I don't think is good enough to make something mandatory.

RayCun

dbagman wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me how up in arms cyclists get about any notion of them being safer. Kind of backs up the garda's comments about a change of attitude being needed.

Because it's victim blaming.

Cyclists are being killed in broad daylight. How would high vis help?

Cyclists are being run over by trucks and cars. Helmets aren't going to help there.

The people who need to change their attitudes are the people who are killing other road users.

tomasrojo

tayto lover wrote: »

A quick google -

https://cyclingtips.com/2016/06/does-reflective-and-fluorescent-clothing-make-us-safer

This is seriously impinging on the Hiviz megathread, which already discusses at least some of the studies mentioned there.

But I don't have a lot of confidence in anything that begins:

We cyclists are the most vulnerable of all road users.

That would be motorcyclists.

Also:

Studies like these seem to point in a clear direction: riders who wear fluorescent cycling gear aren’t just more visible to drivers, they’re also less likely to be hit and injured.

The study he mentions can also be explained by people who voluntarily wear hiviz in a country where not many people wear hiviz (such as NZ) are almost certainly very cautious people. So you have a heavy measure of confounding there.

And all these studies suggest an increase in conspicuity wearing such clothing, which isn't implausible; the problem is that during the day people are already adequately conspicuous, and at night they should have lights, also making them adequately conspicuous.

The only large-ish study carried out into collision rates and hiviz failed to find any statistically significant association between the two. Actually, it did find a higher rate of collision for hiviz wearers, once confounding factors were accounted for (or least an attempt was made to do so).

EDIT: The footnote at the end of the page is quite funny:

3. Professor Wood and her colleagues showed in a subsequent paper that the use of bike lights actually reduced the effectiveness of reflective ankle and knee strips. Wood offers a simple explanation for this surprising finding: “This pattern may have resulted from the bicycle light (mounted on the handlebars) acting as a glare source that reduced the drivers’ ability to see the reflective markings on the ankles and knees.” While Wood et al. don’t say as much, it would seem that the combination of reflective ankle and knees strips + lights, while detracting from the visibility of the reflective items, is still more visible than lights on their own.

In other words, the lights drowned out the hiviz (rather than "reduced their effectiveness"). Well, duh.

tayto lover

RayCun wrote: »

Because it's victim blaming.

Cyclists are being killed in broad daylight. How would high vis help?

Cyclists are being run over by trucks and cars. Helmets aren't going to help there.

The people who need to change their attitudes are the people who are killing other road users.

Good man.
You've just put the entire onus on drivers.

I love Sean nos

tayto lover wrote: »

A quick google -

https://cyclingtips.com/2016/06/does-reflective-and-fluorescent-clothing-make-us-safer

A study from Racist Island? No thanks. :pac:

tayto lover

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is seriously impinging on the Hiviz megathread, which already discusses at least some of the studies mentioned there.

But I don't have a lot of confidence in anything that begins:
That would be motorcyclists.

Yada yada. Just diss what you don;'t like then. It's about safety not being best dressed on the road. Lycra won't save you.

RayCun

tayto lover wrote: »

Good man.
You've just put the entire onus on drivers.

They are the ones with the mass and momentum, they are the ones who should take responsibility.

I love Sean nos

tayto lover wrote: »

You've just put the entire onus on drivers.

Exactly where it belongs?

tayto lover

RayCun wrote: »

They are the ones with the mass and momentum, they are the ones who should take responsibility.

Seeing the cyclist on the road might help them though.
The cyclist has a responsibility to himself too.

I love Sean nos

tayto lover wrote: »

Seeing the cyclist on the road might help them though.

What difficulty do you have with seeing an adult human being on a bicycle in daylight?

mr spuckler

tayto lover wrote: »

Yada yada. Just diss what you don;'t like then. It's about safety not being best dressed on the road. Lycra won't save you.

quick question in the interest of balance? do you both cycle and drive?

jive

tayto lover wrote: »

Seeing the cyclist on the road might help them though.
The cyclist has a responsibility to himself too.

Responsibility to use lights, nothing more nothing less

RayCun

RayCun wrote: »

They are the ones with the mass and momentum, they are the ones who should take responsibility.

But just to be clear, I have no problem with the gardai enforcing the existing laws on cyclists - the requirement for working lights and the usual rules of the road.

But I would like them to do all they can to deal with problem drivers before they start making up new laws for cyclists to follow. They are nowhere near that point.

ThisRegard

tayto lover wrote: »

Yada yada. Just diss what you don;'t like then. It's about safety not being best dressed on the road. Lycra won't save you.

There's a difference between highvis and and fluorescent clothing. You can have black fluorescent clothing, but not black highvis.

Beasty

tayto lover wrote: »

Yada yada. Just diss what you don;'t like then. It's about safety not being best dressed on the road. Lycra won't save you.

Don't think he wears lycra;)

What I can say though is he is one of the (if not the) most knowledgeable people on Boards on this topic, and has contributed extensively to both hi viz and helmet megathreads. I suspect your own views are being informed by perceived intuition while tomasrojo's are informed by facts.

mr spuckler

RayCun wrote: »

But just to be clear, I have no problem with the gardai enforcing the existing laws on cyclists - the requirement for working lights and the usual rules of the road.

But I would like them to do all they can to deal with problem drivers before they start making up new laws for cyclists to follow. They are nowhere near that point.

i think that was mentioned very early in the thread. there is next to zero enforcement of driving offences, particularly in and around urban areas. getting this right would be a huge step forward.

tayto lover

mr spuckler wrote: »

quick question in the interest of balance? do you both cycle and drive?

I use a bicycle to get to work and a car go larger journeys.
I wear a high viz when cycling. Don't cycle at night but have often met poorly visible cyclists and said Jaysus that lad could do with being more visible due to wearing dark clothes or a poor light (if any).

tomasrojo

tayto lover wrote: »

Yada yada.

tayto lover wrote: »

Just diss what you don;'t like then.

Given that I wrote quite a lengthy post that actually addressed points made on the page and introduced some basic epidemiological concepts, I think you're rather dissing what you don't like. "Yada yada" indeed

tayto lover wrote: »

It's about safety not being best dressed on the road. Lycra won't save you.

I just wear normal clothes. I don't expect any item of clothing to save me. I expect people driving heavy machinery to drive at sensible speeds and look where they're going. I avoid roads where this is typically not the case.

tayto lover

ThisRegard wrote: »

There's a difference between highvis and and fluorescent clothing. You can have black fluorescent clothing, but not black highvis.

Once you're seen it doesn't really matter. High viz is very good though as are flourescent stripes. Good lights are a necessity.

mr spuckler

tayto lover wrote: »

I use a bicycle to get to work and a car go larger journeys.
I wear a high viz when cycling. Don't cycle at night but have often met poorly visible cyclists and said Jaysus that lad could do with being more visible due to wearing dark clothes or a poor light (if any).

cheers for replying.
i'm the same, cycle to work and some longer spins for fitness, car for longer journeys.
i choose to wear hi-viz some of the time and wear a helmet all of the time but i also light my bike up with lights front and rear and a helmet mounted light that lights both directions. i can tell you which of lights versus hi-viz i feel massively safer with, which goes back to the enforcement comments. enforce existing laws and all cyclists will be perfectly visible to anyone who cares to look out for them.

Kaisr Sose

Deleted User wrote: »

Coming around a blind bend, being aware that you may come across another road user only to find said road user hogging the ditch while out walking with two young children, out of my line of sight, in dark clothing scares the bajazus out of me. Almost as bad as his missus pounding the road with her earphones in, totally oblivious to the coming traffic. Poke fun all you like, but if I had to hit that man and his children or his wife, who would have to live with the outcome?

I don't fully understand the point you are making or if if you are speaking from personal experience. If the latter, here is some helpful advice to consider.

It's pure madness to go around a blind bend on a rural road day or night. No amount of technology in a car will help you see around a bend. The day you think you have this driving thing sussed, is the time you are at your most dangerous to those sharing the road with you.

In your analogy, if you do hit someone or something, the problem will be yours in explaining why you were driving without due care and attention for the road conditions and geography of the road. Hint: it will take a lot of explaining and if you seriously injure someone or kill them, you will have to live with that forever. It will be a 'high vis' reminder for your conscience - everywhere you go it will glow the most bright and horrible colour. Day and night.

The key to avoiding things like this is always expect the unexpected and slow down before those blind bends you mention.

ThisRegard

tayto lover wrote: »

Once you're seen it doesn't really matter. High viz is very good though as are flourescent stripes. Good lights are a necessity.

So why mandatory highvis during daylight hours then? How many cyclists do you reckon you drive by that you don't see?

tayto lover

ThisRegard wrote: »

So why mandatory highvis during daylight hours then? How many cyclists do you reckon you drive by that you don't see?

I think wearing them all the time is the answer, day and night.
What's wrong with being seen anyway?