Gardai say cyclists must change attitude

pjmn

The Gardai would love implementing this against the 17 million cyclists in Ireland - just think of all the overtime and form filling....

Tenzor07

Isshh that Hooy Visshh ya have there cyclishtt?

mr spuckler

mr spuckler wrote: »

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.

i should add that i also use both front and rear facing cameras owing to my fear / expectation of a collision at some point based on my experience of cycling in Dublin. which goes back to the driver behaviouor comments...

ThisRegard

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Is there an existing problem with not being seen? There is no problem with being unable to see pedestrians and cyclists during the day that requires such drastic measures.

And what's the age limit to which the gardai want to apply this?

ThisRegard

pjmn wrote: »

The Gardai would love implementing this against the 17 million cyclists in Ireland - just think of all the overtime and form filling....

They'll register FPN's against 34 million unique cyclists in no time!

tayto lover

pjmn wrote: »

The Gardai would love implementing this against the 17 million cyclists in Ireland - just think of all the overtime and form filling....

It shouldn't even be down to the Garda
Everyone has a duty to protect themselves and others
Why should people using the road have to be policed into protecting themselves?

RayCun

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Do you think cyclists are not visible without high vis, in broad daylight?

ThisRegard

tayto lover wrote: »

Why should people using the road have to be policed into protecting themselves?

Why shouldn't those endangering others be policed correctly first and foremost?

pjmn

tayto lover wrote: »

It shouldn't even be down to the Garda
Everyone has a duty to protect themselves and others
Why should people using the road have to be policed into protecting themselves?

... think you may have missed my point

tayto lover

ThisRegard wrote: »

Is there an existing problem with not being seen?

There are plenty of reasons to be seen, especially at night. An unlit, unseen cyclist has little chance on a dark narrow road with high hedges at night.
It is a big dread of mine.

Sarz91

tayto lover wrote: »

It shouldn't even be down to the Garda
Everyone has a duty to protect themselves and others
Why should people using the road have to be policed into protecting themselves?

Isn't that what we're more or less asking? Why should the victim, in this case the cyclist, be policed and criticised for not protecting themselves well enough when nothing is being done to solve the issue at hand. I'll happily wear whatever the hell you tell me to wear. I'll place as many lights on my bike as required. I'll wear a helmet, knee pads and a back brace if motorists put away the phone, make a concerted effort to look out for me and give me space on the road.

tayto lover

Sarz91 wrote: »

Isn't that what we're more or less asking? Why should the victim, in this case the cyclist, be policed and criticised for not protecting themselves well enough when nothing is being done to solve the issue at hand. I'll happily wear whatever the hell you tell me to wear. I'll place as many lights on my bike as required. I'll wear a helmet, knee pads and a back brace if motorists put away the phone, make a concerted effort to look out for me and give me space on the road.

100% agree.

ThisRegard

tayto lover wrote: »

There are plenty of reasons to be seen, especially at night. An unlit, unseen cyclist has little chance on a dark narrow road with high hedges at night.
It is a big dread of mine.

You're resorting to your well worn tactic of ignoring the simplest of questions put to you when the answer doesn't suit.

Weepsie

tayto lover wrote: »

There are plenty of reasons to be seen, especially at night. An unlit, unseen cyclist has little chance on a dark narrow road with high hedges at night.
It is a big dread of mine.

You're getting into very specific circumstances there which won't apply to an awful lot of cyclists and the environments they are cycling in. A good light is all that's needed, and mounted correctly too.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

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.

Ireland has a fetish with new rules and laws, you would swear our economy is built on it. Why not focus on current laws and enforce them instead of having a whole heap of laws and rules which are not being enforced. These rules and laws being suggested are not based on fact or studies,

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.

How a helmet helps you get noticed on the road is beyond me, and it's certainly not going to help in any collision with a car going at speed. There's no need for high vis or florescent clothing, the current laws surrounding lights should be enforced as having a light will get you noticed.

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.

I honestly used to have the same opinion as you regarding this. I used to think that we should do everything to help increase visibility, including wearing high vis clothing.

This is the gear I used to cycle with in Dublin;
- Helmet with rear red light
- Florescent jacket with reflective stripes at the seams
- Florescent cover with reflective patches for my back pack
- Bib pants which have long reflective stripes along the legs
- Reflective covers for shoes
- Reflective gloves (Summer, Autum/Spring and Winter pairs)
- High vis arm and leg band for warm weather.
- Standard (low powered) red light low on the bike (pointing towards cars)
- High powered red light on saddle post
- Standard white front LED light
- High powered white front light

The amount of times I heard "sorry I didn't see you", people left hooking me, pulling out in front, close passes at high speed, opening doors, etc etc. There was no correlation between what I wore and how I was treated on the road. I guess what I was missing was more high vis and more lights :pac:

I am now living in Germany and I cycle to work in jeans and a t-shirt/coat. I have one light on the front and back and only recently have I turned them off during the day. I was fed up telling other cyclists that I like to keep them on so vehicles could see me. I only see lights on here at night.

Seriously though, the Gardaí and the RSA are not helping here at all, they might think they are, but it would be best for all if they sought the advice from somebody with more knowledge then them. It feels like they are making decisions based on emotions and not on facts. The attitudes of all road users need readjusting. In this particular thread, the attitudes of 4+ wheeled motorized road users is what the Gardaí and RSA should be focusing on.

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.

They should have decent lights on their bikes. I agree that it does give you a fright. I had the same experience only last week, chap was cycling towards me on the opposite side of the road with no lights on the bike, only seen him when I was right on top of him. Reflective clothing would have helped, but lights would have been far superior in that situation.

dbagman wrote: »

Yeah. Coz imagine dressing up like a builder does. In all that high vis rubbish they have to wear during their day to make them more visable while they're surrounded by potential dangers. Ridiculous.

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.

The thing is, if you force people to "suit up" before getting on a bike, cycling will lose it's appeal to them. If they don't cycle, they are going to drive or use public transport. It's not going to help the traffic situation in the city.

tayto lover wrote: »

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.

At that distance, unless the car is parked, that cyclist is in some serious trouble, high vis or not. I would love to see a picture from about 50-100 meters back to have a good unbiased idea. This picture shows one guy pointing a torch of some sort at the guys upper body, it's not a good representation of a car light.

tayto lover

ThisRegard wrote: »

You're resorting to your well worn tactic of ignoring the simplest of questions put to you when the answer doesn't suit.

I have no agenda here except to see everyone avoid accidents.
Anything that helps achieve that I agree with, good lights, high viz jacket and good road sense as well as common sense. It's not a matter of them versus us. It's a matter of being safe and if any law suggests I wear a flashing beacon on my head when riding a bike at night then that's that. I don't even want a say in it. I'll comply. I won't look for loopholes to try and get out of it. Life is too precious.

Why would an answer not suit me?

07Lapierre

"Sorry, I didn't see you"....what they really mean is:
"sorry I wasn't looking"
or
"sorry, but I was distracted by....."

jelutong

Weepsie wrote: »

Unless HiViz can bend light and travel around corners, that's not going to change the amount of horror you're getting.

You should be anticipating that there could be something around a bend in the road. If it shocks you that much I'd suggest you shouldn't be driving.

It's not the pedestrians responsibility to ensure that a motorist doesn't hit them because a motorist might take a bend too tight. Motorists take some real effin responsibility and sop deflecting.

Speaking as cyclist a motorist and a walker I couldn't agree more.

ThisRegard

tayto lover wrote: »

I have no agenda here except to see everyone avoid accidents.
Anything that helps achieve that I agree with, good lights, high viz jacket and good road sense as well as common sense. It's not a matter of them versus us. It's a matter of being safe and if any law suggests I wear a flashing beacon on my head when riding a bike at night then that's that. I don't even want a say in it. I'll comply. I won't look for loopholes to try and get out of it. Life is too precious.

Why would an answer not suit me?

What's the massive problem with the visibility of cyclists during daylight hours that warrants such a severe measure?

tomasrojo

tayto lover wrote: »

It's a matter of being safe and if any law suggests I wear a flashing beacon on my head when riding a bike at night then that's that. I don't even want a say in it. I'll comply. I won't look for loopholes to try and get out of it. Life is too precious.

This reminds me of the path that leads to Randy Swart's world of neurotic, obsessive hyper-illumination:

http://www.helmets.org/lights.htm
Summary: One cyclist's approach to being seen at night.

I am now using neon orange bikes, and may go to neon lime green.

For headlights I use a car light.

For tail lights I started with two leg lights, showing red to the rear and white to the front.

I added yellow blinkers, starting with a 7 inch barricade light.

After the barricade light I added smaller yellow blinkers. The best was something called the Far Out Flasher, sold by Schwinn stores in the 80's and by the late Ed Kearny (Bicycle Lighting Systems). The Belt Beacon was another, and I used those on my helmet, mounted with Velcro, juiced up by adding chrome tape to make a reflector behind the bulb.

Beginning about 1990 I added the now-standard red LED blinkers [...] I had one on my helmet, mounted with hook-and-loop. [...] I bought a very large LED flasher being test-marketed at a Chinese exporter's booth designed for use by cars as an emergency road flasher, and packaged as a "Highway Safety Light." It is 4" x 6", and has 18 extremely bright LED's in three rows.

I have replaced the incandescent blinking Far Out Flasher on my helmet with an Innova 24/7 led blinker. This is an octagonal light about 2" by 3" (50mm by 75mm) that velcros on well. [...] The light has a rectangular LED area with a rotating switch that selects different blink patterns and colors of LEDs. I use the one that flashes rapid red then white then yellow and looks vaguely like a police car flasher.

I got a sample at Interbike of a single yellow led that screws onto a shraeder valve and goes around. [...] At present I am using an Inova 24/7 light on my helmet. It has red and white leds that blink in a very bright emergency light pattern, and runs happily for months on one CR2 photo battery.

In general, I believe in redundancy

I also like to "layer" my tail lights, with one at the level of the wheel axle, one under the saddle, and one on the helmet. The more I observe about urban light clutter the more I favor big, big lights and lights that have a signature. You will find this concept better developed on Ken Kifer's Web page discussion of the Flashing Neon Light Display, although I would not favor his use of a diesel generator to power the array.

(Ken Kifer's Flashing Neon Light Display is a parody of obsessive hyper-illumination, but the joke seems to have passed Randy Swart by, despite the humorous suggestion of using a diesel generator on a bike purely to generate light.)

In 2010 the battery powering my car light failed once again and I bought a new Magicshine system from Geoman Gear.

For reflectors I use the hottest 3M product I can lay my hands on to add reflectivity to pedals, shoes, cranks (flashes as the cranks go around), panniers, clothing, helmet, anywhere else. 3M markets a "snake" in Europe that weaves around the spoke nipples, and under headlights looks like a ring of white, identifying the bike immediately. [...] I am trying a similar product now from a company called Techflex. [...] I am using one on the front wheel of my night bike, but my panniers obstruct it in the rear.

You can find 3M Scotchlite in many local stores, but for their hotter stuff, you have to go to the Web to places like Itendi-tape. [...] I use it on helmets and some other spots

XsApollo

Weepsie wrote: »

Someone has already noted that roads aren't dangerous. It's the vehicles travelling at speed that are dangerous, not the road. It's the users of the vehicles that travel at speed that should really start doing something about taking care of their own responsibilities. If they out in half as much effort doing so as they do lecturing those who walk or cycle, we'd all be getting from a to b quite intact

Obviously the black strip of tarmac isn't dangerous, its the vehicles travelling at speed that makes the road dangerous.
Did I have to literally have to say that or did ye actually think I was saying the actual road itself was dangerous?

And I am all for everybody on the road taking care for others.
And not just bcyclists.
It's the attitude in the op that it infuriates him that somebody said they should wear high Viz's to make themselves stand out a bit more is what got me.

I drive with my lights on in the car all the time to make myself more visible.
Don't have to.

Motorcycle user for 15 years. Always have my lights on , also got in to the habit of flashing cars that are trying to pull out of junctions so they would see me better because the amount of cars that pull out in front of me on a nearly daily basis is mind boggling.
Revving the engine while filtering and beeping my horn so others would know I'm there and wouldn't turn in on me and pedestrians wouldn't walk out in front of me.
I wouldn't have to do that if all road users were paying attention but they don't ,
I do it to keep myself safe.
Sure I shouldn't have to but if it stops a car pulling out in front of me or a pedestrian walking in front of me it's all good.

I'd wear reflective clothing if was cycling
Not because someone suggested it.
More because it makes sense.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

07Lapierre wrote: »

"Sorry, I didn't see you"....what they really mean is:
"sorry I wasn't looking"
or
"sorry, but I was distracted by....."

I find it means, "I looked, I seen you, but decided that my time is more precious than your life" or "sure you had time to stop" or other such nonsense.

Chuchote

In the vast, vast, vast majority of "close pass" videos floating around the internet, the cyclists who filmed them were wearing fluorescent and brightly-coloured clothing and helmets.

How come these magical objects failed to protect them?

tayto lover

ThisRegard wrote: »

What's the massive problem with the visibility of cyclists during daylight hours that warrants such a severe measure?

You'd need to ask them. They obviously didn't pluck it out of the sky. They must have their reasons.
I always wear one even without being told. I feel safer and from my own experience other people wearing them stand out to me. I see them better, even from a distance.

magicbastarder

tayto lover wrote: »

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

would you also argue that black cars should not be allowed too? if it makes as much difference as you claim, this is a logical step.

tayto lover

magicbastarder wrote: »

would you also argue that black cars should not be allowed too? if it makes as much difference as you claim, this is a logical step.

Actually had an interesting conversation about that today in work.
Googled it --

http://www.theaa.com/newsroom/news-2011/safest-car-colour.html

tomasrojo

XsApollo wrote: »

It's the attitude in the op that it infuriates him that somebody said they should wear high Viz's to make themselves stand out a bit more is what got me.

This isn't generally the suggestion, and it wasn't in this case. The implication was that cyclists were at fault when they were hit because they were refusing (because of their "attitude") to wear hiviz.

For a start, the likely outcome of a hiviz law would be to reduce the number of people making journeys by bike. It's certainly what's happened in jurisdictions with helmet laws. This reduced the "Safety in Number" effect, which means that those still cycling are probably less safe, not more safe. So it's a completely counterproductive suggestion, simultaneously dressed up in the language of exasperation, from a public body that hasn't covered itself in glory in the last few months.

magicbastarder

XsApollo wrote: »

It's the attitude in the op that it infuriates him that somebody said they should wear high Viz's to make themselves stand out a bit more is what got me.
...
I'd wear reflective clothing if was cycling
Not because someone suggested it.
More because it makes sense.

what is being argued here (by most, i think) is not whether or not you should wear hi-vis, but whether it should be made mandatory.

can you not see why the stunt pulled by the gardai would infuriate cyclists? that instead of actually enforcing existing laws that would be beneficial to cyclists (e.g. people parking in cycle lanes, etc.), gardai have tried a distraction by proposing a new law which is policing the effect rather than the cause?

basically it's them saying 'we've failed to make the roads safer, so we're actually going to make it an offence for you not to compensate for our failure'.

and that's without even going into victim blaming, dangerisation, etc.
and the fact that it would have a drastic effect on the number of people cycling which would result in a higher bill for the HSE, not a lower one.

AndrewJRenko

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.

Do motorists need to take responsibility for their own safety and take every possible measure? Like painting all cars hi-vis colours for improved safety and visibility and wearing driving helmets at all times?

tomasrojo

tayto lover wrote: »

You'd need to ask them. They obviously didn't pluck it out of the sky. They must have their reasons.

Protected cycletracks, heavy enforcement of speed limits and of use-of-phone laws: expensive.

Distribution of one-piece, seamless fabric with 3M stripes with simple arm holes and velcro: not expensive.

That's about the main rationale. The shifting of blame from the "right type of people" (owners of multi-tonne fast vehicles) to the "wrong type of people" is a subconscious bonus, probably.

The RSA themselves have never cited any study that showed a reduction in collisions associated with hiviz use.