Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

High-vis law would apply to motorists and cyclists who have exited their cars or dismounted their bicycles.

Look, I'm prepared to let this one go as long as it also applies to motorists whilst operating their vehicles. And their passengers.

tomasrojo

The MPDL and hi-viz amendments won't be debated. The MPDL will be looked into separately from the drink-driving amendment. Probably as it should be. I'm not sure about earmarking, especially if it potentially gets populist counterproductive stuff in under the radar.

http://irishcycle.com/2018/02/28/traffic-law-amendments-on-high-vis-and-cycling-passing-distance-ruled-out-of-order

(In passing, doesn't IrishCycle do a great job?)

tomasrojo

Just in case, it's not clear, I very much appreciate the huge work the MPDL campaigners have put in, and I hope the separate strand bears fruit.

magicbastarder

no links given, but they mention a study which shows wearing hi-vis during the day reduces the chance of accidents. 34s in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFFjJgkfZM8
if anyone knows the study they're referring to, please share it with the class.

Grassey

magicbastarder wrote: »

no links given, but they mention a study which shows wearing hi-vis during the day reduces the chance of accidents. 34s in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFFjJgkfZM8
if anyone knows the study they're referring to, please share it with the class.

High Vis and lights I believe they said.

Only things I found from a quick search was:

a Danish randomised trial involving 6,793 cyclists, published in scientific journal Safety Science in August this year [2017].

It found a 47 per cent reduction in incidents involving other road users where the cyclist was injured when cyclists were wearing a hi-vis jacket with reflective strips.

A 2013 Danish study in Accident Analysis & Prevention found cyclists who use flashing daytime lights had 47 per cent fewer collisions with other road users,

a 2017 study in the same journal that found drivers who are cyclists tend to be better at spotting cyclists, so perhaps training is the answer.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/what-is-the-evidence-that-wearing-hi-vis-clothing-makes-you-a-safer-cyclist-358674

tomasrojo

Not sure if the 47% study is a new one, or this one that was mentioned in the media a while ago:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101436251&postcount=931

Just some notes I made at the time it appeared in draft. It's not a very strong study, I think, mainly because it's got clear evidence of reporting bias (participants telling researchers what they think they want to hear), and self-reporting (which is a typical source of reporting bias). I got the impression from something that passed by my eyes briefly on Twitter that there's a new study out with a similar finding, but maybe it's this same study appearing in an academic journal.

tomasrojo

Incidentally that article is a bit misleading about Jesse Norman looking into making hi-viz and helmets compulsory in the UK. He said he was going to have a safety review, and he was sure that someone would bring up compulsion. He's right, of course, but it's not something he's actively interested in.

what_traffic

We had our own Robert Troy TD trying to do the same for pedestrians and probably cyclists. Covered here on irishcycle.com

http://irishcycle.com/2018/03/09/has-solidarity-with-pedestrians-been-set-aside-by-cycle-campaigners/

tomasrojo

Didn't know Italy had tried a hi-viz law, and not sure what it tried to impose, but it doesn't seem to have done much good anyway.

Results revealed that the implementation of legislation imposing high-visibility clothing for cyclist did not influence the number of bicycles involved in road crashes as well as its proportion in the total vehicles involved in road crashes. The introduction of the legislation did not produce immediate effects, nor did it have any effects over time. Lack of knowledge on how the law was introduced, the degree of enforcement by the police, and behavioral changes in response to the law makes it difficult to attribute the lack of effect on bicycle crashes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518300045?dgcid=raven_sd_aip_email

H/T
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978052032241152000
via @cyclistie

magicbastarder

i know it's not relevant really to the above issue, but i saw this in the subsequent twitter conversation:
https://twitter.com/JN_Rachele/status/978102872716935168

and it just makes my toes hurt. it's so often trotted out by cycling advocates and just makes them look stupid. it's actually kinda similar to some of the arguments about gun control in the states.

Steoller

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know it's not relevant really to the above issue, but i saw this in the subsequent twitter conversation:
https://twitter.com/JN_Rachele/status/978102872716935168

and it just makes my toes hurt. it's so often trotted out by cycling advocates and just makes them look stupid. it's actually kinda similar to some of the arguments about gun control in the states.

Would it be better to point out that anywhere bicycle registration (with plates) has been attempted before, it hasn't even paid for the administration required?

magicbastarder

yes - but the 'motorists continue to behave badly even though it's against the law, so we shouldn't bother with laws' argument is wilfully stupid. and undermines whatever point the person is trying to make.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes - but the 'motorists continue to behave badly even though it's against the law, so we shouldn't bother with laws' argument is wilfully stupid. and undermines whatever point the person is trying to make.

I think the argument is that we should ENFORCE existing laws for All road users?

I think that's what People calling for Road tax for Cyclists are really looking for.

tomasrojo

In this case, the person was putting forward registration and licensing as an alternative to an apparently ineffective hi-viz law. There is no connection between the two except via a tacit suggestion that cyclists are the authors of their own misfortune, these collisions being primarily down to law-breaking behaviour by cyclists.

I don't see any reason whatsoever to believe this.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know it's not relevant really to the above issue, but i saw this in the subsequent twitter conversation:
https://twitter.com/JN_Rachele/status/978102872716935168

and it just makes my toes hurt. it's so often trotted out by cycling advocates and just makes them look stupid. it's actually kinda similar to some of the arguments about gun control in the states.

It also means that they miss the point of such things being implemented on motor vehicles.

Motor tax is because cars are more polluting than cyclists. Hence bigger or more polluting cars pay more. Road tax (in other countries) because cars and larger vehicles cause more damage to roads.

Insurance was made mandatory because the cost of accidents was often to much for people to bear and the state would also struggle to cover all the costs. I think the typical road death due to a collision with more than one party is a few hundred thousand and possibly around the million mark when you add in every single cost).

Bicycle accidents are so infrequent and cause so little damage that in many cases, those involved can cover the costs and the cost of mandatory insurance would be more than the service would cover.

tomasrojo

It's a seductive argument (equality of treatment for all road users), except it makes no sense at all when you look into it in any detail.

This is more about "shared responsibility" than registration and licensing, but the arguments are broadly the same.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2288206/great-horsepower-comes-great-responsibility

(Implicitily arguing that licensing and registration do no good because they're not successful in preventing widespread rule flouting isn't all that logical either; fair enough.)

magicbastarder

07Lapierre wrote: »

I think the argument is that we should ENFORCE existing laws for All road users?

i read the tweet i quoted (possibly lumping it in with other similar comments i've seen) that there's no point in creating a law because the law has no effect when applied to motorists. which is quite clearly horse****, and creating a straw man.

it's like saying the police have no effect, because you once witnessed an armed robbery.

Carawaystick

Theres the obvious bit that any law to make people cycling register or get insurance etc will not apply to a large cohort of people who cycle, those under 12

Sleeper12

HugoMyBoss wrote:

How may motorists lives would be saved if they wore crash helmets while at the wheel?

Motorists have to wear seat belts. Small children must have booster seats. I don't see helmets being much different.

Helmets don't effect me as a motorist so I really don't care about them too much. Viability is more important to me. I'd like to see luminous or high vis vests. I see /don't see too many cyclists and pedestrians dressed head to toe in black or dark clothing on dark winter nights. I don't want to hit /kill someone but if I can't see them???

Sleeper12

ted1 wrote:

They frequently travel at 120 kmh.

And many have died going slower than some posters have boasted going down the hill of Howth on a pushbike.

As I said, helmets don't bother me as a motorist. You'll either hurt yourself or you won't. It's the dark clothing at night bothers me as there is a much greater chance of me hitting something I don't see

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

And many have died going slower than some posters have boasted going down the hill of Howth on a pushbike.

As I said, helmets don't bother me as a motorist. You'll either hurt yourself or you won't. It's the dark clothing at night bothers me as there is a much greater chance of me hitting something I don't see

No high vis vest / light coloured clothing will substitute a good set of lights and often in the dark is usless, really all thats of use on that clothing is the reflective strip and thats limited too. If you're at a T Junction and looked left and right on a dark road you'd not see a cyclist coming with a high vis vest and no lights.

Good lights can be spotted from much further away and in more situations.

EDIT: Actually the no lights at night is a major peeve of mine that I would love to see a massive clamp down on.

Cookie_Monster

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's the dark clothing at night bothers me as there is a much greater chance of me hitting something I don't see

why, what impact does it have when lights are required anyway?
Do you drive a luminous yellow car? If not, why not if visibility is such an issue to you?

07Lapierre

Sleeper12 wrote: »

And many have died going slower than some posters have boasted going down the hill of Howth on a pushbike.

As I said, helmets don't bother me as a motorist. You'll either hurt yourself or you won't. It's the dark clothing at night bothers me as there is a much greater chance of me hitting something I don't see

Dark clothing? I think you mean cyclists cycling at night with no lights? This is illegal and nobody here will endorse that type of behaviour! The Gardai have the power to stop any cyclist and issue penalty points to them for this offence. The fact that so many people choose to,cycle without lights at night simply highlights the complete lack of enforcement of this law.

My car is black, the bumpers are black, the tyres are black,even the alloy wheels are black. The interior trim is black, the seats are black and even the carpet is black. I drive at night while wearing a black jacket, dark jeans and black shoes. It's not a problem because my car has LIGHTS.

Oh and as for helmets while cycling? They are useless if you descend Howth at speed! There made of styrofoam for gods sake! Useless!

Brian

07Lapierre wrote: »

My car is black, the bumpers are black, the tyres are black,even the alloy wheels are black. The interior trim is black, the seats are black and even the carpet is black. I drive at night while wearing a black jacket, dark jeans and black shoes. It's not a problem because my car has LIGHTS.

Buy some black jeans.

Tenzor07

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's the dark clothing at night bothers me as there is a much greater chance of me hitting something I don't see

Hopefully you don't drive with your headlights off? Generally they help to illuminate things on the road...And that you drive at a speed which allows you to stop your vehicle should a horse/cyclist/pedestrian/fallen tree appear in front of you?
Hopefully you wont' require roadside trees to wear high-vis either..

Sleeper12

Tenzor07 wrote:

Hopefully you don't drive with your headlights off? Generally they help to illuminate things on the road...And that you drive at a speed which allows you to stop your vehicle should a horse/cyclist/pedestrian/fallen tree appear in front of you? Hopefully you wont' require roadside trees to wear high-vis either..

I haven't come across any trees on the road and I don't drive in ditches so trees aren't an issue.

There was a lie down protest yesterday by cyclists. They wanted safer roads. It seems that cyclists safety is always someone else's responsibility. If you don't want to ware hi viz clothing why not tie it to the Cross bar, handle bar or back of bike.

Anyone involved in roadworks /maintenance have a wear hi viz clothing. It's part of health and safety. I don't see why cyclists & pedestrians are exempt from from this.

A safety feature in my Ford Connect van is always a on lights. I can't turn off my daylight lights & as a result I'm more visible than other road users.

Hurrache

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I haven't come across any trees on the road and I don't drive in ditches so trees aren't an issue.

There was a lie down protest yesterday by cyclists. They wanted safer roads. It seems that cyclists safety is always someone else's responsibility. If you don't want to ware hi viz clothing why not tie it to the Cross bar, handle bar or back of bike.

Anyone involved in roadworks /maintenance have a wear hi viz clothing. It's part of health and safety. I don't see why cyclists & pedestrians are exempt from from this.

A safety feature in my Ford Connect van is always a on lights. I can't turn off my daylight lights & as a result I'm more visible than other road users.

This is the thread you're looking for
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057864865

droidus

Lights aren't good enough, you need to paint your van in hi-viz. Take some responsibility for your safety.

Tenzor07

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There was a lie down protest yesterday by cyclists. They wanted safer roads. It seems that cyclists safety is always someone else's responsibility. If you don't want to ware hi viz clothing why not tie it to the Cross bar, handle bar or back of bike.

You have the wrong end of the stick there completely! It was a group of vulnerable road users protesting at the lack of budget provisions for road safety measures, the U.N have stated that Ireland is grossly under-performing in the realm of budget expenditure for sustainable transport. If you think that a hi-vis jacket will protect a cyclist from being squeezed off the road or run over than you are sadly misinformed.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Anyone involved in roadworks /maintenance have a wear hi viz clothing. It's part of health and safety. I don't see why cyclists & pedestrians are exempt from from this.

Cycling and walking aren't considered as being hazardous occupations like in construction, therefore one does not need to dress up like Bob the builder to cycle or walk to the shop, what you should be paying attention to is the root cause of your assertion that hi-vis is needed if you're a vulnerable road user, in that the roads are being made hazardous by the almost complete lack of cycle related road infrastructure.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

A safety feature in my Ford Connect van is always a on lights. I can't turn off my daylight lights & as a result I'm more visible than other road users.

I think most people would have lights on in daytime, however if someone has an issue seeing a big white van approach them then that's an issue for them and there optician!

John_Rambo

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If you don't want to ware hi viz clothing why not tie it to the Cross bar, handle bar or back of bike.

It could get caught in the spokes of the wheel or the workings of the brakes/gears causing an accident.

You’ve a lot to learn about safety on the road.