Compulsory hi viz from 2014 in Ireland

daenerysstormborn3

I'm sure carsQhere will be along to substantiate what I'm saying but I've just read on the EU Hands off Biking facebook page that hi viz gear is being made compulsory in Ireland from 2014.

Does anyone have anymore information on this? What type of hi viz? Is it for all licence holders?

I suppose this will spell the end of all SMIDSYs :rolleyes:

Kev.OC

Awesome!

A governing body essentially telling me what to wear, I'll save so much time in the mornings now!

:rolleyes:

MrJoeSoap

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056403722

Please Kill Me

pixiebean22 wrote: »

I suppose this will spell the end of all SMIDSYs :rolleyes:

Of course it won't, and you know it won't!! Hi vis jackets won't stop twats texting while driving or applying make-up while driving or cooking a full Irish breakfast while driving. And if they DO hit ya, what's their bullsh!t excuse going to be?? They can't say they didn't see you if you have a full hi-vis jacket on!!! :mad:

daenerysstormborn3

Please Kill Me wrote: »

Of course it won't, and you know it won't!! Hi vis jackets won't stop twats texting while driving or applying make-up while driving or cooking a full Irish breakfast while driving. And if they DO hit ya, what's their bullsh!t excuse going to be?? They can't say they didn't see you if you have a full hi-vis jacket on!!! :mad:

Well from what I've read not wearing a hi viz vest won't automatically void your insurance if you're involved in an accident, much the same as not having L plates up or driving without a fully licenced driver doesn't automatically void your insurance.

I'd love to know how wearing a hi viz would've saved me from the idiot on his mobile, who, just before a crossroads, did a u-turn into my path, and who still didn't realise I existed until he then decided to take the same right turn practically on top of me (me in the correct lane and him in the wrong lane. cutting across both lanes), with no indicator and still on his mobile. I beeped my horn 3 times and flashed my lights. Hi viz? God yeah, it will save my life I'm sure :rolleyes:

amacca

I have to say I find being dictated to in this manner by RSA/gov hugely irksome

were any of mags/bikers concerns, opinions etc taken on board/even acknowledged etc.......................................hugely disappointed

I had no problem making the choice to wear high viz at times I felt it was appropriate (nighttime or very poor visibility conditions on the road)

I have a big problem being told what to wear beyond a helmet and perhaps proper safety gear (which I think would be a better thing to consider making mandatory than High viz)

+ this probably makes my jackets with elbow protection and shoulder protection etc essentially obsolete

hate the thought of being forced to wear some council worker style balloon luminous sh1te on a fine summers day........

when this comes in I expect them to then enforce legislation to make all cars/trucks/buses a high viz luminous col our also + all cyclists and pedestrians also must wear high viz...............................we can all swim round in a nice sea of fluorescence.......................if it saves one life etc

daenerysstormborn3

amacca wrote: »

I have to say I find being dictated to in this manner by RSA/gov hugely irksome

were any of mags/bikers concerns, opinions etc taken on board/even acknowledged etc.......................................hugely disappointed

I had no problem making the choice to wear high viz at times I felt it was appropriate (nighttime or very poor visibility conditions on the road)

I have a big problem being told what to wear beyond a helmet and perhaps proper safety gear (which I think would be a better thing to consider making mandatory than High viz)

+ this probably makes my jackets with elbow protection and shoulder protection etc essentially obsolete

hate the thought of being forced to wear some council worker style balloon luminous sh1te on a fine summers day........

when this comes in I expect them to then enforce legislation to make all cars/trucks/buses a high viz luminous col our also + all cyclists and pedestrians also must wear high viz...............................we can all swim round in a nice sea of fluorescence.......................if it saves one life etc

This was a point I made in my submission to MAG and the RSA and the local TDs. They constantly put us in the category of "vulnerable road users" but while we have lights and an engine underneath us and are as visible as cars, they seem unconcerned with the likes of pedestrians and cyclists who may as well be ghosts in the night with the choices they make as regards making themselves more visible.

Hotblack Desiato

Just because you read something on facebook doesn't make it true.

Anyone got a credible source?

MrJoeSoap

4.4.5 The Motorcycle Safety Action proposes the introduction of regulations for the
mandatory wearing of high visibility upper body clothing with full sleeves for
ride and pillion passenger.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Motorcycles/National_Motorcycle_Action_Plan.pdf

This has been fairly big news for a while now. The hi-vis part is easily the most acceptable part of the plan. Not being able to ride a bike older than 7 years in a city is the one that bugs me.

Hotblack Desiato

FFS. That document has nothing about any 7 years thing. That was a French local council's proposal which somehow got blown up out of all proportion. It was never going to happen here. The document only says that hi-vis is being considered, it doesn't say that it will be introduced and doesn't give 2014 as a date.

So still no credible source.

Mr Motorcycle

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Motorcycles/National_Motorcycle_Action_Plan.pdf

This has been fairly big news for a while now. The hi-vis part is easily the most acceptable part of the plan. Not being able to ride a bike older than 7 years in a city is the one that bugs me.

Nope its only been considered by the rsa and i know there was a protest ride to rsa headquaters in mayo late last year.
I wear hi viz when im on my bike coz its part of my job but it should be by choice in my opinion
The seven year thing is a nonrunner it aint going to happen

gipi

ninja900 wrote: »

FFS. That document has nothing about any 7 years thing. That was a French local council's proposal which somehow got blown up out of all proportion. It was never going to happen here. The document only says that hi-vis is being considered, it doesn't say that it will be introduced and doesn't give 2014 as a date.

So still no credible source.

Here's where the story may have originated: The MAG UK website news section.

http://www.mag-uk.org/en/newsdetail/a6937

daenerysstormborn3

ninja900 wrote: »

Just because you read something on facebook doesn't make it true.

Anyone got a credible source?

Try reading my first post properly. Did I say it was true? No, that it why I asked if anybody has more information :rolleyes:

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Motorcycles/National_Motorcycle_Action_Plan.pdf

This has been fairly big news for a while now. The hi-vis part is easily the most acceptable part of the plan. Not being able to ride a bike older than 7 years in a city is the one that bugs me.

Mr Motorcycle wrote: »

Nope its only been considered by the rsa and i know there was a protest ride to rsa headquaters in mayo late last year.
I wear hi viz when im on my bike coz its part of my job but it should be by choice in my opinion
The seven year thing is a nonrunner it aint going to happen

The bikes over 7 years ban was never proposed for Ireland it is a domestic French proposal.

And yes, we know it has been big news for a while, the point of all the proposals was that the powers that be would eventually have to vote on them and it would appear (if what I have read is correct) that they have voted and compulsory hi viz will be introduced in 2014.

As I said already I'm sure carsQhere will be along when MAG have official information on the subject.

chasm

The only thing i could find was Leo Varadker's written answer to questions by Deputy Michelle Milherin in November 2011. The Full reply is in the link below but the 2 parts of interest are

"Contrary to suggestions that have been made by various parties, the proposed Regulations do not provide for banning older motorcycles from urban areas or changes to driver licensing."

And

"the RSA’s Motorcycle Safety Action Plan provides for the national compulsory wearing of high visibility vests by 2014. This is based upon research into road traffic collisions involving motorcyclists. It should be noted that the RSA already encourages the use of high visibility vests and offers them free of charge to motorcyclists.

Previous observation studies conducted by the RSA have reported high visibility clothing wearing rates of approximately 40% by motorcyclists in Ireland. The RSA is carrying out a follow up study which is due to commence this month. Once the data from this study is analysed the RSA will release its findings by the end of the year.

In the event that there are high wearing rates by 2014, the Road Safety Authority will then re-evaluate the need for compulsory wearing of high-visibility vests. "



http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/11/02/00410.asp

Hotblack Desiato

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Try reading my first post properly. Did I say it was true?

Yes, in your thread title.

daenerysstormborn3

I think somebody needs glasses.

KamiKazi

Well on the plus at least I'll save time in the mornings now as I wont have to put on my leathers, boots & gloves.

Thanks RSA for deciding that a hiviz jacket is the only bit of PPE we need :rolleyes:

Paparazzo

KamiKazi wrote: »

Well on the plus at least I'll save time in the mornings now as I wont have to put on my leathers, boots & gloves.

Thanks RSA for deciding that a hiviz jacket is the only bit of PPE we need :rolleyes:

Don't forget a helmet. And indecent exposure laws probably means some sort of pants.
Basically, you can drive your bike with a hi-vis, helmet and speedos

Didn't a newspaper do an article on this? Had a picture of some guy with flip flops, shorts and a tee shirt, hi vis and helmet beside a guy with proper leathers with pads, boots and back protector. And it was the guy in the flip flops that was legal!

daenerysstormborn3

Paparazzo wrote: »

Don't forget a helmet. And indecent exposure laws probably means some sort of pants.
Basically, you can drive your bike with a hi-vis, helmet and speedos

Didn't a newspaper do an article on this? Had a picture of some guy with flip flops, shorts and a tee shirt, hi vis and helmet beside a guy with proper leathers with pads, boots and back protector. And it was the guy in the flip flops that was legal!

Might be wrong but i think that was MAG or maybe MAG just had it on their website

pyxxel

amacca wrote: »

+ all cyclists and pedestrians also must wear high viz...............................we can all swim round in a nice sea of fluorescence.......................if it saves one life etc

That really made me LOL hard! Thanks mate!

I wear my high-viz all the time anyway as I don't think I'm as visible as a car and anything that might help me being seen better is a good thing, but I actually would love to see real figures from a study (i.e. introduction of compulsory wearing reduced accidents by x %).

And the point that pedestrians and cyclists should be compulsory wearers then also is still valid. Plus, we need more car drivers being pulled over for using phones while driving - that is totally out of order in my view.

reece

wear hi viz all the time (if pulled for driving in bus lane ill look all responsible like and hopefuly blag me way out of a ticket). Id imagine that it will become as annoying as that mandatory L sign (worn once for the test). im sure unky gaybo has some input to it.

carsQhere

Right, sorry, bit late to the party here, was offline for a while.

Speaking with my official MAG Ireland hat on...

Firstly, there is no change to the sitaution here in Ireland. The RSA have said to MAG Ireland that if voluntary wearing rates increase to a sufficient level they see no reason for it to be mandatory. What that level is, we have yet to pin down for sure. Last figure I saw was 75%.

Second, high visibility clothing is already mandatory here, but only for learners who must wear a high visibility tabard with an L plate clearly visibile to front and rear. A lot of people seem to forget that point, but it's important because the precedent is there.

MAG Ireland is still in correspondence with the RSA on this issue and is likely to meet with the RSA again in the not too distant future, although there is no date fixed as of right now. The proposal for mandatory high viz remains in the National Motorcycle Safety Action Plan, and the RSA is pursuing it's stated policy of promoting voluntary use at the moment.

MAG Ireland continues to promote the riders right to choose, as at present, whether to use high visibility clothing or not. We've published the preliminary results of our high visibility survey, and the final report is in the works. We've met with both Noel Brett of the RSA and Minister for Transport Dr. Leo Varadkar T.D.

Keep an eye on the MAG Ireland web site at www.magireland.org for ongoing updates.

carsQhere

reece wrote: »

wear hi viz all the time (if pulled for driving in bus lane ill look all responsible like and hopefuly blag me way out of a ticket). Id imagine that it will become as annoying as that mandatory L sign (worn once for the test). im sure unky gaybo has some input to it.

As I read that, you're quite dismissive of the proposal because you already use high viz all the time which is fair enough, but consider this...

In a worst case scenario, you'll have to dress up in full sleeve government approved day-glo, and you'll get 2 points and an €80 fine for not doing so when riding your bike. You'll pay VAT at the luxury rate on this compulsory "safety" kit and it will do nothing whatsoever to make you any safer.

Even in a not-quite-worst-case, you'll have to wear some form of high visibility kit (like you do now) and you'll get fined if you don't, and you will still pay VAT on it and you still wont be any safer.

In the best case scenario, you'll retain the choice to wear high viz if you think it'll help, and you'll still pay VAT on it. If you get knocked off while not wearing it, the other sides insurance company will attempt to claim contributory negligence because you weren't wearing it.

Lot's of us, myself included, choose to wear high viz when we think it'll be to our advantage. That doesn't mean we shoul d be complacent about a proposal for mandatory wearing.

http://www.magireland.org/forms/GettheFactsRSAHi-VisProposals.pdf

daenerysstormborn3

I just want to make a point on the contributory negligence issue. There are plenty of precedents where judges have thrown out contributory negligence arguments, such as inexperienced learner drivers driving without L plates thus giving no warning to other motorists of their inexperience, because for most judges it boils down to the simple fact that when someone causes an accident and seriously injures someone else it's too hard to prove (almost impossible I would say) that if the victim had L plates up or whatever the case may be, the accident would not have occurred.

MargeS

I don't wear hi viz 'cause I carry a back pack 100% of the time.
The only full sleeved hi viz I have ever seen available are the fully padded ones. It would be impossible to have any mobility with a padded hi viz jacket over my CE armoured jacket and then a bag over that!

daenerysstormborn3

MargeS wrote: »

I don't wear hi viz 'cause I carry a back pack 100% of the time.
The only full sleeved hi viz I have ever seen available are the fully padded ones. It would be impossible to have any mobility with a padded hi viz jacket over my CE armoured jacket and then a bag over that!

There's VAT on PPE, so if this does law does come into being and the only solution is to buy a new hi viz padded/armoured jacket well isn't that a nice money spinner?

I also carry a bag 100% of the time and with the bag obstructing the view from behind, the straps obstructing the majority of the view from the front and the shape of the bike obstructing the rest of the view from the front, the only solution would probably be a long sleeved jacket.

Just to clarify I don't wear hi viz, just saying if I did wear the usual vest it would be totally obscured.

reece

carsQhere wrote: »

As I read that, you're quite dismissive of the proposal because you already use high viz all the time which is fair enough, but consider this...

No, dismissive because im pro choice and dont like the man telling me what to do. I choose to wear it but am totally with people that dont want to wear it.

gipi

The proposal is for a full hi-vis jacket of some kind. There are lightweight options, I remember being given one when I did the Silver Star training course with Fingal Co Council. There are also the rainproof jackets like the Gardaí wear. They've got no padding.

The other option is an armoured jacket with hi-vis panels.

It's not only backpacks that block hi-vis. I was behind a biker recently who was wearing a hi-vis jacket but his bike had a top box - he wasn't that easy to see from any great distance.

subway

If 75% of people wet them who is going to give a ****? If everyone wears them we won't make it illegal to not wear one?
Does no one realise how stupid this is?

The morons protesting about hi vis while wearing hi vis are what will get this passed.

Mag rep, if you agree to some arbitrary number of bikers wering hi vis, you don't represent bikers, you represent the rsa as you are giving them what they want. How do you propose to choose the lucky 25% ?

carsQhere

subway wrote: »

Mag rep, if you agree to some arbitrary number of bikers wering hi vis, you don't represent bikers, you represent the rsa as you are giving them what they want. How do you propose to choose the lucky 25% ?

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Let me clarify a couple of things in my capacity as a member of the MAG Ireland executive.

MAG Ireland represents it's members first and foremost, they're the ones who keep the lights on, and it's our membership we answer to, nobody else.

MAG Ireland's position on mandatory high viz is simple - we say "Let the rider decide". There is no suggestion of MAG Ireland agreeing "to some arbitrary number of bikers wering hi vis" and MAG Ireland does not represent the RSA in any way, shape or form, nor is MAG Ireland affiliated to any political party or organisation.

As an organisation, MAG Ireland works constantly to promote and protect motorcycling.

From http://www.magireland.org/faq/

There have always been, and will always be, differences of opinion regarding how best to achieve our objectives. Each substantive decision taken by MAG will inevitably alienate some who feel that a different approach could or should have been taken. MAG Ireland makes it’s choices in the best interest of it’s membership. Some choices will always be divisive, but they are made in pursuit of the overall goal of defending our right to ride. Now more than ever, we as riders need to present a united front towards that common goal.

I trust this clarifies MAG's position in relation to MHV for you.

subway wrote: »

The morons protesting about hi vis while wearing hi vis are what will get this passed.

People who choose to wear high visibilty clothing are not morons. They're making a choice that suits them, same as people who choose not to wear it. MAG Ireland is campaigning to retain this choice.

carsQhere

pixiebean22 wrote: »

I just want to make a point on the contributory negligence issue. There are plenty of precedents where judges have thrown out contributory negligence arguments, such as inexperienced learner drivers driving without L plates thus giving no warning to other motorists of their inexperience, because for most judges it boils down to the simple fact that when someone causes an accident and seriously injures someone else it's too hard to prove (almost impossible I would say) that if the victim had L plates up or whatever the case may be, the accident would not have occurred.

MAG Ireland's resident solicitor is studying the implications of the contributory negligence aspect. I understand that the concern arose out of case law where a biker was found partially at fault when knocked off due to his being in a bus lane during it's hours of operation, and that that precedent has been cited in numerous cases since. I believe the contributory factor was cited as 25% but I don't have the details available unfortunately.