Gardai say cyclists must change attitude

tayto lover

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.

I don't get that.
To me they're saying that the accident may not have happened at all if the cyclist had a high viz on them.
And i don't see why less people would cycle because they had to wear a high viz. It's for safety not a fashion show surely.

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

Nor have I seen any study of cyclists who are injured or killed showing that a higher proportion are normally dressed.

tayto lover

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

Already stated that it doesn't have to be a particular type of jacket once it's reflective and the cyclist can be seen. Agree with phone laws etc for the motorist to.

Professor Moriarty

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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?

Most modern cars have daytime running lights on the front and are very visible from the rear due to clusters of different coloured lights that are also illuminated at night. Also, most cars are brightly coloured and are relatively big compared to a bicycle. Why should a car driver wear a helmet when most modern cars have airbags?

ThisRegard

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Personal opinion is what the garda spokesperson used for reasoning. Is personal reasons to be the basis for gardai proposing laws?

Beasty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Most modern cars have daytime running lights on the front and are very visible from the rear due to clusters of different coloured lights that are also illuminated at night. Also, most cars are brightly coloured and are relatively big compared to a bicycle. Why should a car driver wear a helmet when most modern cars have airbags?

Most cyclists wear helmets. Most use lights at night. Many use hi-viz.....


Oh and if only most modern cars have airbags, perhaps we should legislate that all drivers wear helmets as to pick on those with old, crappy cars may be considered discriminatory, sending out a poor message to the less well off in society

tayto lover

ThisRegard wrote: »

Personal opinion is what the garda spokesperson used for reasoning. Is personal reasons to be the basis for gardai proposing laws?

I'm sure it's more than that.
They are the people who attend at accidents involving cyclists.
They interview both the cyclist and the motorist. They hear the reasons given for the collisions.
It's hardly personal.

Chuchote

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Most modern cars have daytime running lights on the front and are very visible from the rear due to clusters of different coloured lights that are also illuminated at night. Also, most cars are brightly coloured and are relatively big compared to a bicycle. Why should a car driver wear a helmet when most modern cars have airbags?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217397/

Motor vehicle crashes continue to remain one of the highest sources of head trauma [Gennarelli et al., 1994]. Frontal airbag systems are intended to provide maximum protection to front seat occupants in full frontal vehicle collisions. The head, neck, and chest body regions have been considered the most vulnerable to severe trauma in frontal impact. Despite the common notions by clinicians and many automotive trauma researchers, the effectiveness of airbag restraint systems in mitigating head injury has not been well documented in the scientific literature.

tomasrojo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why should a car driver wear a helmet when most modern cars have airbags?

There was a study done in Australia that suggested that helmets would make a difference for car occupants. There are a few angles that can't be covered by airbags, or at least aren't currently covered. It's a basic "if it saves just one life!" argument, which is usually not an especially good argument

ThisRegard

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Most modern cars have daytime running lights on the front and are very visible from the rear due to clusters of different coloured lights that are also illuminated at night. Also, most cars are brightly coloured and are relatively big compared to a bicycle. Why should a car driver wear a helmet when most modern cars have airbags?

If it makes you that bit more protected from head injury, why not? At worse it'll prevent broken noses and black eyes from the air bags.

ThisRegard

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm sure it's more than that.
They are the people who attend at accidents involving cyclists.
They interview both the cyclist and the motorist. They hear the reasons given for the collisions.
It's hardly personal.

They hear the excuses.

The quote is on the first page or two of this thread, personal opinion was explicitly put forward as the reason, no research or statistics were used to back up this opinion, not in any of the stories I've read anyway.

Chuchote

Getting back to the Gardaí - while they're hassling cyclists to dress like scarecrows, are they making any pledges to tackle the scandalous and apparently unchecked level of bicycle thefts?

Professor Moriarty

Beasty wrote: »

Most cyclists wear helmets. Most use lights at night. Many use hi-viz.....


Oh and if only most modern cars have airbags, perhaps we should legislate that all drivers wear helmets as to pick on those with old, crappy cars may be considered discriminatory, sending out a poor message to the less well off in society

Nah. If some of the great unwashed are eliminated in their old crocks then society will be the better for it. Pour encorager les autres, dontcha know. The rest of the proles might even take take up cycling instead.

tomasrojo

tayto lover wrote: »

And i don't see why less people would cycle because they had to wear a high viz. It's for safety not a fashion show surely.

Because image-conscious people won't wear it and it's inconvenient. It also reinforces the notion that cycling is dangerous.

Basically, rather similar to attitudes towards helmets. Here's what happened to cycling levels in New Zealand and how the injury rate changed after helmet compulsion:

https://roaddangerreductionforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/newzealandhelmetsv6.jpg?w=768&h=572

Professor Moriarty

tomasrojo wrote: »

There was a study done in Australia that suggested that helmets would make a difference for car occupants. There are a few angles that can't be covered by airbags, or at least aren't currently covered. It's a basic "if it saves just one life!" argument, which is usually not an especially good argument

Some studies should be burnt at the stake alongside the researchers.

Beasty

ThisRegard wrote: »

no research or statistics were used to back up this opinion, not in any of the stories I've read anyway.

Think they've got better things to do than worry about this sort of stuff



:pac:

tomasrojo

tayto lover wrote: »

Already stated that it doesn't have to be a particular type of jacket

I'm referring to the free hiviz clothing you get from the RSA and the Gardaí. It costs maybe 50c per unit, so you can give away plenty of it and look as if you're being very serious about road safety, while not addressing the underlying causes of risk, or indeed probably not mitigating the risk itself.

tayto lover wrote: »

once it's reflective and the cyclist can be seen.

Again, in broad daylight pedestrians and cyclists can be seen quite easily. At night, cyclists should have lights.

Lumen

@tomasrojo one way to read that is that helmets were introduced just in time to deal with a rising rate of injuries. :pac:

Professor Moriarty

Chuchote wrote: »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217397/

Point?

Beasty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Some studies should be burnt at the stake alongside the researchers.

So Professor, what research have you done or read on the topic, and what conclusions do you draw?

Regulars in this forum do actually see a lot of this stuff in similar threads, and are able to dispel the "theories" put forward by non-regulars coming in and thinking they know better than anyone else when they have little if any expertise in the subject matter

Fighting Tao

So the AGSI met up and the best thing they could think of is "let's use woo to target cyclists to hide the fact that we are generally crap at road law enforcement". It's no wonder they also feel like people respect them less. Scandals and woo really are not heart warmers.

Professor Moriarty

Beasty wrote: »

So Professor, what research have you done or read on the topic, and what conclusions do you draw?

Regulars in this forum do actually see a lot of this stuff in similar threads, and are able to dispel the "theories" put forward by non-regulars coming in and thinking they know better than anyone else when they have little if any expertise in the subject matter

Is this an interview? Is this thread exclusively for "regulars"? Must I sit an exam before I post?

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

@tomasrojo one way to read that is that helmets were introduced just in time to deal with a rising rate of injuries. :pac:

I believe this argument was actually made!

07Lapierre

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Most modern cars have daytime running lights on the front and are very visible from the rear due to clusters of different coloured lights that are also illuminated at night. Also, most cars are brightly coloured and are relatively big compared to a bicycle. Why should a car driver wear a helmet when most modern cars have airbags?

My car is black, the tyres are black, the seats are black, the interior trim is black. Today I drove to work, i got there in one piece, so I assume everyone could see me. ( I had no lights on)

if the Motor trade/government were really serious about road safety, every car would be fitted with a roll cage, bucket seats, 5 point harness and drivers would be required by law to wear a full face helmet! Airbags, 3 point seat belts are tokens towards safety. Airbags do help prevent serious injury, but they can also cause serious injury if seat belts are used incorrectly. A lot of women admit to wearing the shoulder strap under their arm instead of over the shoulder.

Chips Lovell

I wouldn't mind them. Mid-ranking guards making the most of their annual opportunity to say controversial things and get themselves into the papers.

uck51js9zml2yt

Melodeon wrote: »

Don't forget the blue strobes and the siren!

5 pages in and I'm still wondering where on my bike i can put my strobes and siren:)

rollingscone

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Is this an interview? Is this thread exclusively for "regulars"? Must I sit an exam before I post?

I like my medical practitioners to be gutsy newcomers too.

tomasrojo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Some studies should be burnt at the stake alongside the researchers.

You can get a feel for it from this:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/car-helmets-atsb.html

Professor Moriarty

07Lapierre wrote: »

My car is black, the tyres are black, the seats are black, the interior trim is black. Today I drove to work, i got there in one piece, so I assume everyone could see me. ( I had no lights on)

if the Motor trade/government were really serious about road safety, every car would be fitted with a roll cage, bucket seats, 5 point harness and drivers would be required by law to wear a full face helmet! Airbags, 3 point seat belts are tokens towards safety. Airbags do help prevent serious injury, but they can also cause serious injury if seat belts are used incorrectly. A lot of women admit to wearing the shoulder strap under their arm instead of over the shoulder.

I presume it's the bite point at which comfort, cost and safety converge.

tayto lover

tomasrojo wrote: »

Because image-conscious people won't wear it and it's inconvenient. It also reinforces the notion that cycling is dangerous.

Basically, rather similar to attitudes towards helmets. Here's what happened to cycling levels in New Zealand and how the injury rate changed after helmet compulsion:

https://roaddangerreductionforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/newzealandhelmetsv6.jpg?w=768&h=572

That's interesting but being the devil's advocate the number of cyclists actually doubled so therefore the injured would drastically increase too.
Also it didn't specify the type of injury. Maybe head injuries actually decreased but limb injuries increased.