Legal Requirement for a high-vis?

Joxer_S

I was stopped by a guard at 11pm tonight on the bottom of O' Connell st. He then asked me where my high-vis jacket was. I responded by saying that I didn't think that it was a legal requirement to wear one, I had a working front and rear light on at the time.

He informed me that under the 2008 Road Traffic act all cyclists were required to wear a high vis after dark. This came as new to me and we had a bit of a back and forth about it, during which he also gave out to me for not wearing a helmet (I usually do but that's beside the point). He sent me on with a warning.

There was another guard on the beat outside the GPO so I pulled in and asked him to clarify it, he wasn't able to tell me if the first guy was right or not.

Was he right? And has anyone else ever been pulled in for this before?

NamelessPhil

There's no Road Traffic Act 2008. It's bollox. You can check on http://www.irishstatutebook.ie

There's no legal requirement to wear hi-vis, just a suggestion that you wear reflective clothing at all times, as per the rules of the road.

Mycroft H

Wow. Doesn't inspire confidence in AGS if they don't even know the law.

No legal requirement for a cyclist or a pedestrian for that matter to wear high visibility equipment. Only requirement is for a front and rear light.

SI 189.1963 RTA Lighting covers the usage of lights on bicycles

Joxer_S

That is incredible, he started getting pissed with me when I challenged him on it too.

I'm at a loss to understand this one.

tomasrojo

Joxer_S wrote: »

That is incredible, he started getting pissed with me when I challenged him on it too.

I'm at a loss to understand this one.

It's not unprecedented for Gardaí to say things like this:

Pulled me over told me he could take me to the station for not having a hi vis vest no helmet and overtaking on the inside

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showpost.php?p=57506571&postcount=20

Qualitymark

At the same time, speaking as a driver as well as a cyclist, he may have saved your life. I've actually got out of my car and asked a cyclist to give me his coat and get into the car and see if he can see me on his bike - cyclists are often unaware of how invisible they are in dark clothing, even with lights - the lights disappear among the mass of other lights on a busy road, and are not strong enough on a dark country road.

The original cycle lights, when the law was made, were something like halogen - blindingly bright. Today's wimpy LEDs would blush before them.

Personally I cycle in lurid high-viz even during daylight, and have started wearing a helmet after discovering how to fasten it properly so it didn't make me gulp like a frog.

AltAccount

Qualitymark wrote: »

At the same time, speaking as a driver as well as a cyclist, he may have saved your life. I've actually got out of my car and asked a cyclist to give me his coat and get into the car and see if he can see me on his bike...

That may or may not be true, but it's hardly the point of the thread.

Qualitymark wrote: »

The original cycle lights, when the law was made, were something like halogen - blindingly bright. Today's wimpy LEDs would blush before them.

You need to spend more on your lights, decent LEDs are plenty bright.

tomasrojo

The legal obligation for bicycles to have lights at night goes back many decades. Lights were probably filament bulbs at the time, though carbide lamps were available before that. Modern high-intensity LEDs are considerably brighter than traditional (non-halogen) filament bulbs and, I assume, better than carbide lamps. Certainly more convenient:

BostonB

Qualitymark wrote: »

At the same time, speaking as a driver as well as a cyclist, he may have saved your life. I've actually got out of my car and asked a cyclist to give me his coat and get into the car and see if he can see me on his bike - cyclists are often unaware of how invisible they are in dark clothing, even with lights - the lights disappear among the mass of other lights on a busy road, and are not strong enough on a dark country road.

The original cycle lights, when the law was made, were something like halogen - blindingly bright. Today's wimpy LEDs would blush before them.

Personally I cycle in lurid high-viz even during daylight, and have started wearing a helmet after discovering how to fasten it properly so it didn't make me gulp like a frog.

While I agree you in general about the cyclists being easier to see with bright coloured clothing, and reflective strips. (doesn't have to be hi viz) I can't agree with you about the lights. The problem is a lot of people use dire cheapo lights perhaps with batterys unchanged since they bought it. A good 0.5~1W LED is very bright. Especially if its flashing. A mix of flashing and steady is best IMO.

Dermot Illogical

What you've encountered is the absence of a training budget within AGS.

Joxer_S wrote: »

I was stopped by a guard at 11pm tonight on the bottom of O' Connell st. He then asked me where my high-vis jacket was. I responded by saying that I didn't think that it was a legal requirement to wear one, I had a working front and rear light on at the time.

He informed me that under the 2008 Road Traffic act all cyclists were required to wear a high vis after dark. This came as new to me and we had a bit of a back and forth about it, during which he also gave out to me for not wearing a helmet (I usually do but that's beside the point). He sent me on with a warning.

There was another guard on the beat outside the GPO so I pulled in and asked him to clarify it, he wasn't able to tell me if the first guy was right or not.

Was he right? And has anyone else ever been pulled in for this before?

Lumen

Qualitymark wrote: »

At the same time, speaking as a driver as well as a cyclist, he may have saved your life. I've actually got out of my car and asked a cyclist to give me his coat and get into the car and see if he can see me on his bike - cyclists are often unaware of how invisible they are in dark clothing, even with lights - the lights disappear among the mass of other lights on a busy road, and are not strong enough on a dark country road.

The original cycle lights, when the law was made, were something like halogen - blindingly bright. Today's wimpy LEDs would blush before them.

Personally I cycle in lurid high-viz even during daylight, and have started wearing a helmet after discovering how to fasten it properly so it didn't make me gulp like a frog.

There is so much nonsense in that lot I can't even be bothered to dissect it.

monkeypants

Is it legal to have the light flashing? I have a Cateye 610 or 620 on the back and normally have it set to flash. I ask because the chap in my LBS said that the British police could take exception to it flashing and I was wondering would the GS feel the same way.

Chips Lovell

Not the first and won't be the last time a guard has said something is illegal when it isn't.

Bunnyhopper

Did you by any chance note the ID on his epaulettes? Probably not, given that you were being distracted by the fountain of nonsense

I think O'Connell Street comes under Store Street Garda Station. If you really wanted to follow up on this you could write a polite letter to the District Super there, recount your experiences and ask for an explanation.

monkeypants wrote: »

Is it legal to have the light flashing?

Yeah - flashing lights were made legal here a few years ago. I'm not sure what the situation is if you venture north of the border.

Tonyandthewhale

Well what's the point of being a guard if you don't get to make up laws?

Joxer_S

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's not unprecedented for Gardaí to say things like this:

It might be a trivial enough issue but the fact that the first guard was plain wrong, and the second didn't know isn't very confidence inspiring. I don't want this to come across as a guard bashing thread, to be fair his intentions pulling me over were more from a safety concern than enforcing the law. I'd just be more inclined to listen to him if he knew what he was talking about.

I made the point that I'd much rather have lights on my bike than a high vis, I'm curious if that's what he was doing there all night or just decided on a whim to pull me in, I don't think I seen a single high vis jacket on a cyclist around the city that night, and plenty with no lights.

coolbeans

Clueless cop is clueless. Thankfully there is no requirement for hi vis and no helmet requirement either. Good lights,and lights have never been so good, are all that's necessary according to the law. For once sense reigns. @Quality, lumen is right, everything you've written is wrong.

As an aside, i wish the RSA Would stop ranting on about hi-vis which is nowhere near as effective as thought especially when one has good lights. The result is that many people seem to think hi-vis is more important than lights evidenced by idiots cycling around with yellow jackets on at night instead of lights. Sometimes they'll have a helmet too but still no lights. Truly bizarre.

tomasrojo

I think part of the fascination with helmets and hi-viz is down to being able to measure fairly easily your success in persuading people to adopt the measure. Measuring success in persuading people to get road craft or do maintenance, for example, would require more than a few people with a clipboard and a clicker.

Mind you, it might also be down to the RSA being heavily staffed by engineers, rather than, say, statisticians or psychologists. Or even cyclists.

Qualitymark

How do I put people on 'ignore' from the 'thanks' field, please?

Joxer_S

Qualitymark wrote: »

How do I put people on 'ignore' from the 'thanks' field, please?

Get back in your box and you won't have to worry about it.

familystand

Joxer_S wrote: »

I was stopped by a guard at 11pm tonight on the bottom of O' Connell st. He then asked me where my high-vis jacket was. I responded by saying that I didn't think that it was a legal requirement to wear one, I had a working front and rear light on at the time.

He informed me that under the 2008 Road Traffic act all cyclists were required to wear a high vis after dark. This came as new to me and we had a bit of a back and forth about it, during which he also gave out to me for not wearing a helmet (I usually do but that's beside the point). He sent me on with a warning.

There was another guard on the beat outside the GPO so I pulled in and asked him to clarify it, he wasn't able to tell me if the first guy was right or not.

Was he right? And has anyone else ever been pulled in for this before?

Would it occur to you that you would be way more visible to motorists if wearing a high visibility tabbard, Lots of cyclists are injured by motorists who cannot see them and any subsequent compensation award for injuries will be affected due to the cyclists contributory negligence by not wearing high visibility clothing during the hours of darkness, A front and rear light are not realy adequate anymore on the roads.

Joxer_S

familystand wrote: »

Would it occur to you that you would be way more visible to motorists if wearing a high visibility tabbard, Lots of cyclists are injured by motorists who cannot see them and any subsequent compensation award for injuries will be affected due to the cyclists contributory negligence by not wearing high visibility clothing during the hours of darkness, A front and rear light are not realy adequate anymore on the roads.

The thread was simply to determine whether or not the guard was right. I'm not interested in starting yet another clueless debate about safety, do a search if you want to read fifty other threads that have covered this.

Mods: We've established that the guard was wrong so you can probably lock up this thread before the lads here get too excited.

monument

familystand wrote: »

Would it occur to you that you would be way more visible to motorists if wearing a high visibility tabbard, Lots of cyclists are injured by motorists who cannot see them and any subsequent compensation award for injuries will be affected due to the cyclists contributory negligence by not wearing high visibility clothing during the hours of darkness, A front and rear light are not realy adequate anymore on the roads.

You and many other people need better lights.

If you search past threads you'll also find that cyclists who dress up like Christmas trees (high-vis, one or more set of bright lights etc) still have problems with motorists.

As an aside: As the evenings are getting darker, again this year you have more idiots bothering with helmets but without lights!

smacl

Joxer_S wrote: »

Mods: We've established that the guard was wrong so you can probably lock up this thread before the lads here get too excited.

Suggesting that a thread relating to hi-viz, with a mention of helmets thrown in, should run for less than ten pages! Shame on you

Mycroft H

familystand wrote: »

A front and rear light are not realy adequate anymore on the roads.

I've one of the Planet bike super flash rear LEDS. Are you suggesting a good light is totally useless?

Joxer_S

smacl wrote: »

Suggesting that a thread relating to hi-viz, with a mention of helmets thrown in, should run for less than ten pages! Shame on you

It would be a first for sure :rolleyes:

True, and we could probably get another few pages out of the guard's moral obligation to pull me over in the face of my impending doom.

manwithaplan

I wouldn't be seen dead in high vis.

Dermot Illogical

manwithaplan wrote: »

I wouldn't be seen dead in high vis.

Anyone tries to put one on me and I'll knock their lights out.

Dermot Illogical

BX 19 wrote: »

I've one of the Planet bike super flash rear LEDS. Are you suggesting a good light is totally useless?

Ain't yellow, may as well be invisible.

manwithaplan

familystand wrote: »

Would it occur to you that you would be way more visible to motorists if wearing a high visibility tabbard

I'm 41 years of age.

Joxer_S

A tabard is a short coat common for men during the Middle Ages. Generally used while outdoors, the coat was either sleeveless or had short sleeves or shoulder pieces. It could also be worn with or without a belt. Tabards might be emblazoned on the front and back with a coat of arms, and in this (livery) form they survive now as the distinctive garment of officers of arms in heraldry. In the modern day, a tabard is the overall garment of the same description as its middle age's counterpart, but is primarily worn by dinnerladies in the UK.

opti0nal

Joxer_S wrote: »

I was stopped by a guard at 11pm tonight on the bottom of O' Connell st.

He must have a legal reason to stop you and he must tell you why he stopped you before you're obliged to speak to him.

If he stopped you quoting a non-existent law, you could lodge a complaint with the ombudsman. Technically, it's a wrongful arrest.

I am not a lawyer.

Joxer_S

opti0nal wrote: »

Technically, it's a wrongful arrest.

I wasn't arrested, though if I had kept insisting that he was wrong it may have ended up that way.

doozerie

familystand wrote: »

Would it occur to you that you would be way more visible to motorists if wearing a high visibility tabbard,

The OP had lights on their bike. If a motorist managed to avoid seeing the lights what gives you any reason to believe they'd see a hi-viz vest instead?

Besides, I often see mangled hi-viz road signs (usually the "watch yer driving, 'tis dangerous here!" ones, ironically) which have clearly been hit by motor vehicles. Hi-viz's cloak of invincibility is clearly over-rated.

familystand wrote:

A front and rear light are not realy adequate anymore on the roads.

Nonsense.

opti0nal

Joxer_S wrote: »

I wasn't arrested, though if I had kept insisting that he was wrong it may have ended up that way.

A Garda cannot stop you going on your lawful way for no reason.

But, if you've no witnesses, better to play along.

Joxer_S

opti0nal wrote: »

A Garda cannot stop you going on your lawful way for no reason.

But, if you've no witnesses, better to play along.

Either he realised he had no leg to stand on or he thought he was doing me a favour but he sent me on my way. It would have been gas to get a summons though just to see how that would have played out. There was actually another guard with him but she didn't get involved in the discussion.

DirkVoodoo

familystand wrote: »

Would it occur to you that you would be way more visible to motorists if wearing a high visibility tabbard, Lots of cyclists are injured by motorists who claim they cannot see them

FYP.

A front and rear light are not realy adequate anymore on the roads.

Rubbish:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfEheW4Dtms

Silvics

Joxer_S wrote: »

I was stopped by a guard at 11pm tonight on the bottom of O' Connell st. He then asked me where my high-vis jacket was. I responded by saying that I didn't think that it was a legal requirement to wear one, I had a working front and rear light on at the time.

He informed me that under the 2008 Road Traffic act all cyclists were required to wear a high vis after dark. This came as new to me and we had a bit of a back and forth about it, during which he also gave out to me for not wearing a helmet (I usually do but that's beside the point). He sent me on with a warning.

There was another guard on the beat outside the GPO so I pulled in and asked him to clarify it, he wasn't able to tell me if the first guy was right or not.

Was he right? And has anyone else ever been pulled in for this before?

You need to find this guy get his ID # and report him. Anything to prevent a dipstick like him from rising in rank.

Jawgap

familystand wrote: »

Would it occur to you that you would be way more visible to motorists if wearing a high visibility tabbard, Lots of cyclists are injured by motorists who cannot see them and any subsequent compensation award for injuries will be affected due to the cyclists contributory negligence by not wearing high visibility clothing during the hours of darkness, A front and rear light are not realy adequate anymore on the roads.

Wronger than a big bag of wrong things - would there be any evidence to back up any of your statements, esp the bit about contributory negligence?

opti0nal wrote: »

He must have a legal reason to stop you and he must tell you why he stopped you before you're obliged to speak to him.

If he stopped you quoting a non-existent law, you could lodge a complaint with the ombudsman. Technically, it's a wrongful arrest.

I am not a lawyer.

This isn't the US - a Garda is quite entitled to stop you, ask you your name, request id, and ask you where you're going to / coming from, without any reason.

opti0nal wrote: »

A Garda cannot stop you going on your lawful way for no reason.

But, if you've no witnesses, better to play along.

CramCycle

Joxer_S wrote: »

Mods: We've established that the guard was wrong so you can probably lock up this thread before the lads here get too excited.

smacl wrote: »

Suggesting that a thread relating to hi-viz, with a mention of helmets thrown in, should run for less than ten pages! Shame on you

MOD VOICE: Rare as it is, thread closed.