First they came for the bikers...

Lumen

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bikers-out-in-force-against-new-safety-rules-2887242.html

"Members of MAG (Motorcyclists' Action Group) Ireland held a series of rallies across the country to protest against proposals including making high-visibility clothing compulsory for all motorcyclists"

tomasrojo

It's an EU-level proposal, isn't it?

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's an EU-level proposal, isn't it?

Not according to the article.

"The Road Safety Authority (RSA) is proposing the use of hi-vis, full-sleeve jackets for all riders".

The EU bit is about stopping noisy/decatted exhausts.

Junior

I saw this poster for this 'protest' the weekend.. I give up..

tomasrojo

It's covered here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056394851

The hi-viz bit seems to be a bit of balloon-floating at EU level, but I presume the RSA is embracing it whole-heartedly, because they like neat, simple solutions that push the burden of responsibility off the shoulders of drivers and onto everyone else.

tomasrojo

More here:

The Road Safety Authority (RSA) in Ireland have proposed in their National Motorcycle Action Plan, to make “the introduction of regulations for the mandatory wearing of high visibility upper body clothing with full sleeves for ride [sic] and pillion passenger.”

Mr Damen points out that, “Many motorcycling jackets are also adjustable for “climate control” with vents that can be opened in hot weather and closed when it is cold. If anything is put over the top this feature is immediately affected. Experienced riders also know how important it is that all clothing works together and does not flap in the wind or restrict movement.”

Road Safety Authority (RSA) Ireland

First we asked the RSA for clarification if the proposals in their 2009 consultation regarding the compulsory wearing of high visibility upper body clothing with full sleeves for riders and pillion passengers are being introduced into Ireland.

While we have had an initial response from the RSA that states, “Regarding the using of Hi-Vis clothing , Action 8 requires the Road Safety Authority to provide such clothing to increase wearing rates and to promote their usage (Action9).

There is no reference to compulsory wearing.

The response continues “in the actions (Action 23) there is a plan to introduce compulsory wearing of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) scheduled for the end of 2014. However Actions 24 requires the Road Safety Authority to promote the usage of such clothing on an annual basis and Action 25 requires the authority to carry out a comprehensive research project on the matter. This research is ongoing at the moment.

The RSA representative ended his response with “I hope this clarifies the issue for you and your members.”

Well no, not really! In fact we’re now completely bamboozled!

http://www.righttoride.eu/?p=7487

This bit seems about right:

“Hi-vis clothing is unlikely to improve conspicuity on bright sunny days when visibility is good and it may even lull people into a false sense of security. However, we would always advise people to wear it in poor weather or low light conditions, when some drivers may struggle to see and identify a motorcycle and rider or indeed a cyclists or pedestrian.”

It's perfectly possible to see a motorcyclist on a sunny day.

Dermot Illogical

It's the nature of the bureaucrat. Where they see something that resembles freedom, they're overcome with an urge to regulate.

tomasrojo

Also, these would be more effective, but the RSA is fixated on jackets.


http://survivalskills.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/dont-forget-your-goat-leggings/

I’ve been saying for quite a while that conventional hi-vis vests and jackets are too high up to get lit up by dipped beams in traffic.

By contrast, the legs happen to be one of the most visible bits of the bike/rider from behind and the sides, yet few riders wear hi-vis clothing on their legs.

tomasrojo

Are they paying Al Murray royalties?

Lumen

RT66 wrote: »

It's the nature of the bureaucrat. Where they see something that resembles freedom, they're overcome with an urge to regulate.

This.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Also, these would be more effective, but the RSA is fixated on jackets.

I don't care what the RSA or anyone else thinks is effective. It's my life and I'll protect it (or not) as I see fit.

Every weekend, thousands of Irish cyclists are bombing around country lanes and trails protected only by lycra and a foam hat. How long before compulsory body armour is mandated and road racing on bicycles becomes illegal?

Bureaucrats and busybodies: get back in your box. If I want your opinion on my personal safety I'll ask for it.

If they are looking for something to make illegal they can start with "filling potholes with gravel".

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

Every weekend, thousands of Irish cyclists are bombing around country lanes and trails protected only by lycra and a foam hat. How long before compulsory body armour is mandated and road racing on bicycles becomes illegal?

I think, as for helmets, the government commitment to the dublinbike scheme probably rules out a similar measure for adult cyclists -- though providing a hiviz vest with every bike would be much easier than for helmets, but would drive up the cost of the scheme.

It is a curious philosophy that the international road safety establishment follows though. To follow their logic to its conclusion, they might as well outlaw motorcycling, since it has no real health benefits and it's considerably more hazardous than every other transport mode.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

If they are looking for something to make illegal they can start with "filling potholes with gravel".

Couldn't agree more.

seamus

Maybe cyclist.ie should make representations to the RSA and the relevant ministers to show solidarity with our engined brethern and also pre-emptively attack the idea that the same proposals should be extended to cyclists.

tomasrojo

I'd really quite like to see the RSA replaced with something that isn't so centred around helping careless or unskilled drivers get away with their mistakes, to the exclusion of the rights and welfare of others.

Some kind of recognition that road safety isn't exclusively a law-enforcement and engineering problem would be a start. Psychology and perception are totally neglected by the RSA's approach -- as well as objective analysis of how well their previous initiatives have worked.

DePurpereWolf

The RSA is only involved in making the roads safer, not better.
They would technically be for an overall speed limit of 20 km/h and pedestrians with helmets and knee protectors. It's a one sided group.
Would they also be responsible in increasing flow and reduce time wasted waiting for the green light, it would be a different story.

High-vis is a load of BS,
but so is the 'oh no it's the big bad EU' mentallity.

Jawgap

I wear hi-vis all the time for two very important reasons - to stop the wife nagging me and to stop the ma worrying about me......


.....beyond that I think it has no real useful purpose, other than the occasional fright it gives people when they think you're a Guard:)

smacl

I wear high vis for much the same reason, and much like the helmet, while it may not be doing any good it certainly isn't doing any harm (crimes against fashion excepted).

ROK ON

Hi viz.

I live in the countryside almost 4km outside the town.

The area where I live has a popular loop for local walkers.
If I am driving into town after dusk/in the dark, the hi viz brigade are only very slightly more c visible than the ninja walkers.

People carrying a small light or an "on" mobile phone can be seen by me on a straight stretch of road from a fair distance back ( defined as enough time in bad weather to move the car toward the middle of the road to make sure that I avoid clipping them).
Nonsense.

kenmc

smacl wrote: »

I wear high vis for much the same reason, and much like the helmet, while it may not be doing any good it certainly isn't doing any harm (crimes against fashion excepted).

I only wear high vis in winter or when it's raining. I chose to buy dayglo yellow winter and rainjackets for the simple fact that when I am likely to be wearing these, there is likely to be reduced visibility due to rain or early, dark cold evenings with stressed drivers and I figure that since I'm going to be wearing a jacket anyway it might as well be highvis, as it might give me an extra chance of survivial. I don't wear it otherwise.

Lusk Doyle

Why not make cars hi-vis with luminous strips, etc? Plenty of drivers don't put lights on when required.

galwaycyclist

seamus wrote: »

Maybe cyclist.ie should make representations to the RSA and the relevant ministers to show solidarity with our engined brethern and also pre-emptively attack the idea that the same proposals should be extended to cyclists.

I think that might be worth exploring as we have an (intermittent) line of communication with Jim Higgins MEP who is also on the EU transport committee.

But the way things are, it would need MAG to come looking for allies rather than the other way around. Pretty much everyone I can think of in Cyclist.ie is maxed out with other projects. I bring it up under AOB for the October meeting.

tomasrojo

kenmc wrote: »

I only wear high vis in winter or when it's raining. I chose to buy dayglo yellow winter and rainjackets for the simple fact that when I am likely to be wearing these, there is likely to be reduced visibility due to rain or early, dark cold evenings with stressed drivers and I figure that since I'm going to be wearing a jacket anyway it might as well be highvis, as it might give me an extra chance of survivial. I don't wear it otherwise.

I sometimes regret buying my bright yellow rain smock (it really is a screaming yellow colour), but I employed exactly the same logic, and I only wear it when it's raining.

I also keep a Sam Browne rolled up in my pannier in case of poor visibility, when I think my lights might need a supplement, but I think the reflectors on my rear mudflap and pannier are probably more effective anyway, since they're in the zone where dipped headlights shine.

Saint_Mel

I got caught behind a "go slow" on the M6 between Tullamore and Athlone yesterday. Bikers were swerving in and out between cars and taking up both lanes in doing so!

Can't see how that will infuence the EU, but it pi**ed me off no end!!!! :mad:

concussion

Sounds like a motorised "Critical Mass"...

loyatemu

Lumen wrote: »

I don't care what ... anyone else thinks is effective. It's my life and I'll protect it (or not) as I see fit.

I'm pretty sure that the same arguments were made when motorcycle helmets were made compulsory and ditto for car seatbelts, both measures which have saved hundreds* of lives in Ireland alone.

I've no idea about the rights or wrongs of these proposed regulations, but you're arguing for no regulation of anything


*arbitrary figure I can't be bothered to research, feel free to contradict this.

Lusk Doyle

loyatemu wrote: »

I've no idea about the rights or wrongs of these proposed regulations, but you're arguing for no regulation of anything

Lumen is a well known anarchist! his rantings can be seen on IHateEverything.Com!!!

seamus

loyatemu wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the same arguments were made when motorcycle helmets were made compulsory and ditto for car seatbelts, both measures which have saved hundreds* of lives in Ireland alone.

I've no idea about the rights or wrongs of these proposed regulations, but you're arguing for no regulation of anything

I was trying to explain this on the motorbike thread, but it's hard to.

Choice in regards safety really only applies insofar as someone can be in a position to make those choices.

The headline safety equipment - motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, airbags, etc - take effect when the user has no choice. These are things which do not affect anyone's chances of being in accident, they simply take over after the accident occurs. In that regard, the road user is incapable of enacting choice - when the accident occurs, they are unable to "choose" if they want the safety equipment or not. So we regulate/legislate to cover the "out of control" scenarios.

A high-vis is not an "out of control" scenario. A high-vis is designed to prevent accidents, however once the accident has occured, the high-vis offers zero protection over normal clothing. That is, the cyclist/biker is consciously capable of managing his own behaviour such that wearing a high-vis presents no additional safety to him. The same cannot be said for a helmet, since the helmet only applies after the collision has occured, removing the "consciously capable" part from the motorcyclist.

This is hard to explain, but I know what it means in my head . Perhaps if we categorise safety equipment into the categories of "pre-collision" and "post-collision" and then arrange the mandatory and non-mandatory things into those groups, it would make more sense.

In general, things are mandatory so that additional protection is afforded when something goes wrong. Very rarely do we make things mandatory to prevent something going wrong, when the primary input factor is human.

Emergency systems/processes/equipment should be mandatory (where life is at risk)

Safety systems/processes/equipment should not.

galwaycyclist

loyatemu wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the same arguments were made when motorcycle helmets were made compulsory and ditto for car seatbelts, both measures which have saved hundreds* of lives in Ireland alone.

I've no idea about the rights or wrongs of these proposed regulations, but you're arguing for no regulation of anything


*arbitrary figure I can't be bothered to research, feel free to contradict this.

Seat belt laws why you should be worried

http://www.oocities.org/galwaycyclist/info/seatbelts.html

(Introduction of compulsory seatbelts in this country was accompanied by a 4% increase in deaths among the targeted population eg motorists)

Bigcheeze

Saw the report on the 9 O'Clock news last night. Way to go burning rubber on a pavement in the centre of Dublin. That's really going to show everyone that bikers don't need regulation.

seamus

galwaycyclist wrote: »

(Introduction of compulsory seatbelts in this country was accompanied by a 4% increase in deaths among the targeted population eg motorists)

In one year? Not enough information. While I don't doubt the sincerity, it doesn't make sense that on one hand that page espouses the dangers mandatory seat belts pose to other roads users, and says that it caused a 4% increase in car occupants deaths in one year, while failing to address the overall drop in road deaths which occured in that same year and continued on for the next 7.

Road deaths were abysmal in the 70's peaking at 640 in '72 and 628 in '78. Mandatory seatbelts were introduced in 1979 and deaths dipped to 378 by 1986, showing an almost constant drop in deaths after 1978.

Without more detailed figures to dig into, it would appear from the outset that at the very least mandatory seat belt legislation certainly didn't make the roads less safe.

Your point is valid - having more safety equipment doesn't necessarily equate to increased safety, but seatbelts probably aren't the one to be attacking

Lumen

loyatemu wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the same arguments were made when motorcycle helmets were made compulsory and ditto for car seatbelts, both measures which have saved hundreds* of lives in Ireland alone.

I've no idea about the rights or wrongs of these proposed regulations, but you're arguing for no regulation of anything

Cars carry passengers. If you're going to require passengers to wear seatbelts (which is eminently reasonable since they are not in control of the vehicle) you may as well require the same of the driver.

I think people should be left alone unless there is an incredibly clear case for doing otherwise.

If you're going to make very marginally and very arguably risky behaviour illegal, where do you stop? Ban extreme sports?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWfph3iNC-k

Stark

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Seat belt laws why you should be worried

http://www.oocities.org/galwaycyclist/info/seatbelts.html

(Introduction of compulsory seatbelts in this country was accompanied by a 4% increase in deaths among the targeted population eg motorists)

<Homer> "Seatbelts, pff! They kill more people than they save!"
<Lisa> "That's not true, you're thinking of airbags!"

DePurpereWolf

BASE jumping is often forbidden yes. Maybe it's also not the best example, from wiki:

BASE jumping is one of the world's most dangerous recreational activities, with overall fatalities in 2002 estimated at about one fatality per sixty participants.

Lumen

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

BASE jumping is often forbidden yes. Maybe it's also not the best example, from wiki:

One in sixty participants every year?

Smoking beats that, surely. As does battorborga eating. Lets make them illegal too.

you can take my battorborga from my cold dead hand...

tomasrojo

The DoT in the UK have been exaggerating the benefits of the seat belt law there.

See John Adams' blog:
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/16/seat-belts-again-2/
(Note that "counter-intuitive" Mayer Hillman makes an appearance.)

But I don't think anyone argues that seat belts don't fulfill their purpose very well in the event of a crash (however more likely they might make such a crash, due to risk compensation), so they're not a controversial measure anymore.

To make a measure compulsory, you really should have very good evidence that your measure on the balance of probability is going to make a big difference. I don't think there is very good evidence that hi-viz makes a big difference in times of good visibility. The RSA would be on stronger ground if they required it during heavy fog or darkness. Even then, they'd be better off requiring a type of hi-viz that actually lies in the beam of dipped headlights rather than jackets, which decidedly don't. Motorcycles with a fairing probably obscure a jacket, especially if it's a motorcycle with a crouching position.

loyatemu

Lumen wrote: »

If you're going to make very marginally and very arguably risky behaviour illegal, where do you stop? Ban extreme sports?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWfph3iNC-k

well, he's wearing a helmet, but he'd be even safer with a luminous vest on also.

Lusk Doyle

loyatemu wrote: »

well, he's wearing a helmet, but he'd be even safer with a luminous vest on also.

And multiple air bags

Victor

Hust ont eh whole Hi-viz thing - its not much use at night if it isn't also reflective.

seamus wrote: »

Without more detailed figures to dig into, it would appear from the outset that at the very least mandatory seat belt legislation certainly didn't make the roads less safe.

What it did do is shift the balance of risk from motorists to pedestrians.

Lumen wrote: »

If you're going to make very marginally and very arguably risky behaviour illegal, where do you stop? Ban extreme sports?

Extreme sports tend to only be hazardous to the participants.

Lusk Doyle

Victor wrote: »

Extreme sports tend to only be hazardous to the participants.

Tell that to the people who have died when hit by cars, bikes, planes, etc while spectating at such events.

Victor

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Tell that to the people who have died when hit by cars, bikes, planes, etc while spectating at such events.

I wouldn't include powered vehicles in extreme sports - they would go under motor sports. I would consider the caregory to include the likes of sky diving, downhill mountain biking, snowboarding, bungee jumping, stunt skateboarding, free diving.

Lumen

Victor wrote: »

I wouldn't include powered vehicles in extreme sports - they would go under motor sports. I would consider the caregory to include the likes of sky diving, downhill mountain biking, snowboarding, bungee jumping, stunt skateboarding, free diving.

And cycling without hi-vis?

smacl

Lumen wrote: »

If you're going to make very marginally and very arguably risky behaviour illegal, where do you stop? Ban extreme sports?

On facilities such as the open road, designed, built and funded for a different non-sporting usage, yes. Sure, the precedence can be shifted to sport for events such as organised races, but for the most part the roads serve as a transport network and the focus should surely be on making that network as efficient and safe as possible for the largest number of users.

Personally, I couldn't give a flying f**k for cycling fashion, and the notion that some pot bellied geezer in pink lycra thinks I look ridiculous because I'm wearing a high vis gilet always makes me smile. The motorbike fraternity obviously have more cause for concern, because high-vis and leather is a real no-no, even to my seriously fashion challenged mind. Uma Thurman managed pretty well in Kill Bill, though.

Lumen

smacl wrote: »

Personally, I couldn't give a flying f**k for cycling fashion, and the notion that some pot bellied geezer in pink lycra thinks I look ridiculous...

I'm sure he doesn't care what you wear.

Lusk Doyle

Lumen wrote: »

I'm sure he doesn't care what you wear.

Yes, and it's important not to forget that he looks awesome in his pink!

seamus

smacl wrote: »

The motorbike fraternity obviously have more cause for concern, because high-vis and leather is a real no-no, even to my seriously fashion challenged mind.

Actually, they do have valid concerns in those terms because proper motorbike jackets are designed to be worn as the top layer, and sticking a high-vis vest over them will interfere with venting and the like, not to mention flap around ridiculously at 120km/h.

The big yellow jackets like the Gardai wear are actually quite hard to come by in bricks-n-mortar shops (from what I recall, maybe that's changed), and even harder to come by is a good full-featured jacket in high-vis yellow.

If you imagine that you had to wear a yellow high-vis bib during an A1 race, you get the idea.

Jawgap

Lumen wrote: »

One in sixty participants every year?

Smoking beats that, surely. As does battorborga eating. Lets make them illegal too.

you can take my battorborga from my cold dead hand...

Stats can be misleading - I wonder what the fatality rate for base jumping is on a per jump basis, rather than a per jumper basis.

Anyway base jumping is so last century - wingsuits are where it's at!! Why jump off a mountain when you can fly through it!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15057234

monument

The OP was right and maybe quicker than expected....

"EU calls for cyclists to wear "crash helmets & warning jackets"

101. Calls on the Member States:

− to make the carrying of warning jackets for all vehicle occupants compulsory and

− to encourage cyclists, especially at night outside built-up areas, to use crash helmets and wear warning jackets or comparable clothing as a means of improving their visibility;

tomasrojo

I suppose it's only "encourage", rather than "make compulsory".

I wonder whether the bit about "outside built-up areas" is influenced by the French law that requires you to wear some kind of visibility top on interurban routes at night (or is it at all times?).

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

I suppose it's only "encourage", rather than "make compulsory".

Sure, it's only a yellow badge. What harm?

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

Sure, it's only a yellow badge. What harm?

Implied godwin fail.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

Implied godwin fail.

I didn't even get a chance to get in a segregated cycle lane/Jewish ghetto metaphor.

Also, we shall fight them on the beaches.