Gardai say cyclists must change attitude

07Lapierre

The Specialist wrote: »

Legal compulsion that could save your life. When I drive at night I have to put my headlights on, I can't not do that because it would make me invisible to other road users. I don't see why cyclists would object to the same, i don't want a death on my conscience because a cyclist doesnt agree with the fashion of a high vis.

I object to high-viz at night! Why? Because I have (and use) LIGHTS!

magicbastarder

The Specialist wrote: »

Legal compulsion that could save your life. When I drive at night I have to put my headlights on, I can't not do that because it would make me invisible to other road users. I don't see why cyclists would object to the same

you missed the bit where bike lights are also compulsory. sounds like you're talking about a lack of enforcement, not a lack of a law.

ThisRegard

The Specialist wrote: »

Legal compulsion that could save your life. When I drive at night I have to put my headlights on, I can't not do that because it would make me invisible to other road users. I don't see why cyclists would object to the same, i don't want a death on my conscience because a cyclist doesnt agree with the fashion of a high vis.

What person on this thread has objected to lights at lighting up time?

AndrewJRenko

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.

I regularly see cars running on DRLs in the dark, so they have absolutely no lights at the back. Cars don't have lights at the side, so really they should have hi-vis colours and stripes at the side to make them visible.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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

Because 50% of head injuries occur in cars vs 2% on bikes.

Lemming

The Specialist wrote: »

Love the butthurt from some of ye here. It's sound advice but yet some take it as a personal offence that they are being asked to wear hi vis. I've nearly put enough of ye under the wheels in dark clothes on unlit country lanes to say this advice could save lives. You are not exempt from road safety just because you cycle.

Driven country-roads a-plenty across several countries; and given that I currently live in Sheffield there are no shortages of such trips through the Peaks District. I have encountered many a cyclist, and many a cycling group and not once have I ever come remotely close to winging them never mind putting any under the wheels of my car, as you so seem to almost be thrilled to mention ... which says that you are, like Maryanne, exceedingly careless with your driving and rather unobservant. It's not difficult to spot a cyclist. F*ck, it's not particularly difficult to spot an unlit cyclist in dark conditions either. It's people not paying attention to what's going on around them that causes the issues; not whether or not a cyclist is lit up like a christmas tree.

I also cycle in bright clothing, with a florescent, reflective cover on my backpack (and have lights before anyone asks); and yet I have still had motorists come close to removing me from my bike. In broad daylight. So you tell me how mandatory hi-viz and helmets would solve that?

The Specialist

magicbastarder wrote: »

you missed the bit where bike lights are also compulsory. sounds like you're talking about a lack of enforcement, not a lack of a law.

Bike lights are compulsory? Well that's another topic altogether. I drive quite a bit at night and i would confidently say about 1 in 12 cyclists i meet have any sort of lights/indicators on the bike.

tomasrojo

The Specialist wrote: »

When I drive at night I have to put my headlights on, I can't not do that because it would make me invisible to other road users. I don't see why cyclists would object to the same

No, there is no controversy around the existing requirement for cyclists to use lights at night. Once you're using good, modern lights, there is no need for hiviz.

I'm aware I've said this a few times now.

EDIT: Sorry, I'm just repeating what everyone else said already.

magicbastarder

The Specialist wrote: »

I drive quite a bit

wow, you drive a car?
you should have mentioned before.
what are cars like? us cyclists would love to know.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

For card-dealing in the 25th century

Unfortunately dealers have been superceded by robots in the 25th century, as expounded in this documentary.

The only helmet wearers are the oppressive casino police force. Irony!

07Lapierre

The Specialist wrote: »

Bike lights are compulsory? Well that's another topic altogether. I drive quite a bit at night and i would confidently say about 1 in 12 cyclists i meet have any sort of lights/indicators on the bike.

Agree! Lots of stupid cyclists out there who cycle at night with no lights. So the real issue here is enforcement! Why are the Gardai looking to introduce another law (the wearing of hi-viz), when clearly they can't or won't enforce existing laws?

Chiparus

magicbastarder wrote: »

wow, you drive a car?
you should have mentioned before.
what are cars like? us cyclists would love to know.

He must be really rich.

dreamerb

tayto lover wrote: »

And helmets are compulsory here too.

No they are not.

magicbastarder

Chiparus wrote: »

He must be really rich.

is it true that the handlebars in a car is actually a circle?
are they having the same argument about disc brakes too?

The Specialist

magicbastarder wrote: »

wow, you drive a car?
you should have mentioned before.
what are cars like? us cyclists would love to know.

Wow what an incredbile force of wit you are, whats it like to cycle a bicycle oh mighty one?

Jimoslimos

John_Rambo wrote: »

Personally, I find Dublin bus drivers and modified car owners the most patient and understanding of the rules.

For all the bad press they get, surprisingly true. Certainly they tend to be the one group of motorists who don't have an inherent fear of crossing the dashed white line in the middle of the road when performing an overtaking manoeuvre. Either that or they're patiently waiting for a nice gap to open up ahead in which they can gun it .

IME the worst for close passes for some reason are highway and council maintenance vehicles. Groups you'd think would be well-versed in road safety.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

Unfortunately dealers have been superceded by robots in the 25th century, as expounded in this documentary.

The only helmet wearers are the oppressive casino police force. Irony!

Ah, that's fantastic stuff. It's uncanny how much they got right about the future.

dreamerb

The Specialist wrote: »

Legal compulsion that could save your life. When I drive at night I have to put my headlights on, I can't not do that because it would make me invisible to other road users. I don't see why cyclists would object to the same, i don't want a death on my conscience because a cyclist doesnt agree with the fashion of a high vis.

My lights make me visible. So why do you think I should be compelled to wear hi vis?

PS, there are all too many drivers who forget to switch on their lights. Should you be required to paint your car yellow with fluorescent stripes?

Chuchote

The Specialist wrote: »

Legal compulsion that could save your life. When I drive at night I have to put my headlights on, I can't not do that because it would make me invisible to other road users. I don't see why cyclists would object to the same, i don't want a death on my conscience because a cyclist doesnt agree with the fashion of a high vis.

You are assuming the magical properties of hi-viz actually work.

If I may just once more repeat what every experienced poster on this thread has said more than once, hi-viz does not have a repellent effect on vehicles. It does not even make drivers see you better.

Look at some of the cyclist close pass and crash videos on YouTube. In most, you can see that the cyclist is wearing a helmet and hi-viz. For instance:

When cycling at night I have high-tech, high-visibility lights (See.Sense's Icon lights, which change the cadence of their flashing as I slow, to call drivers' attention); I wear a jacket that is completely made of high-visibility luminescent material (Pro-Viz) - the same thing used by starlets to dazzle paparazzis' cameras. I wear two broad yellow luminescent bands on my moving legs. I wear the best helmet (Giro with MIPS) that I can get. I also cycle extremely defensively, avoiding traffic-heavy roads and staying away from large vehicles. I'm a maniac for safety.

None of this works. It doesn't stop drivers nearly driving into me, and shouting at me because they failed to see me - or failed to watch for me.

None of this or similar saved any of the five cyclists killed by drivers in the last month.

But you don't want to hear this. You want to think the kindly State is wisely protecting us from ourselves. And if you won't be said, you can't be said.

The Specialist

dreamerb wrote: »

My lights make me visible. So why do you think I should be compelled to wear hi vis?

PS, there are all too many drivers who forget to switch on their lights. Should you be required to paint your car yellow with fluorescent stripes?

It's an extra safety measure, the same as if tomorrow they made it law to have your headlights on during the day. I wouldn't have a problem with that as it might save a life or 2.

There are bad drivers and there are bad cyclists but we are all responsible to make sure each other get where we're going in one piece.

John_Rambo

magicbastarder wrote: »

heh, because the latter have the largest insurance premiums and have to assiduously avoid trouble?

That may be the case, or it could be they're younger, more aware, have better reactions, better spacial awareness and can see further down the road than the older guy that's concentrating on getting past the pesky cyclist. Maybe a mix of both.

Either way, it's usually the car driver (and this is coming from a two car owner with a very hefty insurance, tire, service bills paying over €1750 per year engine tax) that's at fault.

I live on the coast road on the North side of Dublin (city to Howth) the cycle track is out of action and there's little space. 100% of dangerous overtakes, close passes, risky driving is carried out by drivers. And that's my experience driving the route, not cycling.

magicbastarder

The Specialist wrote: »

There are bad drivers and there are bad cyclists but we are all responsible to make sure each other get where we're going in one piece.

this is such a trite, facile piece of nonsense which is constantly trotted out.
it's a hoary old chestnut, but since the last time a cyclist was responsible for the death of another person, approximately 4,500 people have died on irish roads.
'we are all responsible' is just bull**** for motorists to try to equalise the responsibility for road safety. if i *tried* to kill someone on my bike i'd probably fail.

dreamerb

The Specialist wrote: »

It's an extra safety measure, the same as if tomorrow they made it law to have your headlights on during the day. I wouldn't have a problem with that as it might save a life or 2.

There are bad drivers and there are bad cyclists but we are all responsible to make sure each other get where we're going in one piece.

Well fine, if and when you're required to repaint your car, I'll happily wear my newly compulsory hi vis! In the meantime, I'll content myself with proper lights as appropriate and cycling sensibly, considerately and with regard to the law.

PeadarCo

The Specialist wrote:

It's an extra safety measure, the same as if tomorrow they made it law to have your headlights on during the day. I wouldn't have a problem with that as it might save a life or 2.

Then why not should all of us drivers be required to wear 5 point safety harness, fire suits, have a roll cage fitted, wear a safety harness have the car painted high vis green. Sure if might save a life a life or two.

dreamerb

magicbastarder wrote: »

[...]if i *tried* to kill someone on my bike i'd probably fail.

Try aiming at the very old or very young?! :P

magicbastarder

too easy.

magicbastarder

the 'sure we have to use daytime running lights' argument which is a supposed proxy for the helmet law, is a funny one.

i'd love to see the reaction of motorists if they had to carry the daytime running lights around with them after they lock their car. or if they had to carry different clothes to just get into the vehicle.

Professor Moriarty

PeadarCo wrote: »

Well if you want to go about proposing new laws yes I'd expect you to have done research. I'm sure aware that the issue with anecdotes/personal experiences is that they may not be representative of the actual situation.

Yes a person can have an opinion but don't expect people to take them seriously when they don't have a clue. And be prepared for people to take you to task when your lack of knowledge is pointed out. Which is all that is happening here.

I've pointed out two very good threads which will provide a large amount of easily accessible information.

Well, to be honest, I'm not going to stop posting on driver safety or cyclist safety because you think that I "don't have a clue" or haven't done enough research. Nor will I be run off the thread by patronising elitism because I haven't "built up trust" "over a few years" for a poster. I'm sure they know where the ignore button is.

It's just another thread on a chatroom, not the Star Chamber FFS. A little bit of perspective might not go amiss. I appreciate the referral to other threads but I'm just going to offer my two cents worth on the subject matter when I feel like it. Feel free to engage or not as you see fit.

Professor Moriarty

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I regularly see cars running on DRLs in the dark, so they have absolutely no lights at the back. Cars don't have lights at the side, so really they should have hi-vis colours and stripes at the side to make them visible.


Because 50% of head injuries occur in cars vs 2% on bikes.

Pro rata, I see far more cyclists cycling without lights than cars being driven without proper lighting at night. But neither is defendable.

How many of that 50% are not wearing seat belts or are in cars that do not have airbags?

Lumen

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How many of that 50% are not wearing seat belts or are in cars that do not have airbags?

Dunno about airbags but seatbelt wearing not a factor in 80% of people killed and 90% of people seriously injured.

Source: http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2014/1-in-5-Drivers-and-Passengers-Not-Wearing-Seatbelt-at-Time-of-Collision/

"Not wearing a seatbelt was a contributory factor in almost 1 in 5 fatalities and 1 in 10 serious injuries on our roads between 1997 and 2011. "

Professor Moriarty

Lumen wrote: »

Dunno about airbags but seatbelt wearing not a factor in 80% of people killed and 90% of people seriously injured.

Source: http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2014/1-in-5-Drivers-and-Passengers-Not-Wearing-Seatbelt-at-Time-of-Collision/

"Not wearing a seatbelt was a contributory factor in almost 1 in 5 fatalities and 1 in 10 serious injuries on our roads between 1997 and 2011. "

Ok. I wonder, of that 50% quoted above, how many had not been wearing a seatbelt, didn't have airbags, were drunk, under the influence of drugs, speeding etc. I wonder how many of that 50% were sober and driving with due care and attention in a car with modern crash protection.