Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

Jawgap

Snickers Man wrote: »

I respectfully disagree as a motorist. (I am also a fairly frequent cyclist and pedestrian too)


If bicycles had lights that were the same size and power rating of cars then yes, there would be no need for high viz clothing. .....

I'm exempted from any potential requirement to wear hi-viz then???

My Exposure Six Pack pumps out a retina scorching 2000 lumens - about the same as a 35W HID!

I've been stopped by the Guards (one Garda) and asked about it.......

Chips Lovell

Snickers Man wrote: »

Why do so many cyclists not take this simple feedback on board?

Perhaps because it doesn't tally with our own experiences as motorists. Nor does it tally with research.

What do I find easy to see while driving? Cyclists with decent lights and reflectors. What do I find hard to see? Cyclists with no lights or inadequate lights.

A yellow vest makes shag all difference. So I'm bemused that the RSA focusses so much energy on them without asking for something more effective like better enforcement of bike lighting regulations and calling for a minimum bicycle lighting standard.

Snickers Man

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously, the number Copenhagers cycling while dressed in black, no hi viz, no helmets etc is unreal. I surprised Denmark has not ceased to exist!!

http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/

Ding....dong......:D

Er. You can see that this is daylight, right? Or were you looking at something else?

Bongalongherb

If cyclists are using the roads, they should be paying road-tax. But that will be coming in soon I hope. Pay like the rest of us road users.

Cyclists might be more considerate and respect the rules of the road if they had to pay this tax.

Snickers Man

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Perhaps because it doesn't tally with our own experiences as motorists. Nor does it tally with research.

Go on then. Link.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

What do I find easy to see while driving? Cyclists with decent lights and reflectors. What do I find hard to see? Cyclists with no lights or inadequate lights.

"inadequate" covers a multitude.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A yellow vest makes shag all difference.

A reflective vest makes a hell of a lot of difference. In MY experience and observation. And no, I don't work for RSA or any other hi viz manufacturer.

Macy0161

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Exactly right. This pack mentality is a big part of the problem. There are bad drivers, there are bad cyclists - let's punish both, its not a competition...

You can find loads of threads on here in which cyclists are calling for fixed penalty notices. There probably won't be new offences in this despite how the anti cyclist TD's and media are presenting it - just a different and more appropriate way of dealing with them.

Macy0161

Bongalongherb wrote: »

If cyclists are using the roads, they should be paying road-tax. But that will be coming in soon I hope. Pay like the rest of us road users.

Cyclists might be more considerate and respect the rules of the road if they had to pay this tax.

Would this be on top of, or instead of, what I already pay for three motorised vehicles I already pay motor tax on?

Bongalongherb

Macy0161 wrote: »

Would this be on top of, or instead of, what I already pay for three motorised vehicles I already pay motor tax on?

No, if you are already paying road-tax for a vehicle then that covers you for cycling.

Chloris

Two incidents I've had in the last week with cyclists:

One rounding a corner on the wrong side of the road at night with no light, only one reflector. He nearly crashed into my car.

I walked out my front gate with my special needs brother and had to grab him out of the way of a cyclist zooming down the footpath.

It should be common sense to be visible, keep yourself out of danger and look out for pedestrians. I'm not sure why we'd need fines for those things, you should just do them if you have any self preservation or decency.

Skrynesaver

Bongalongherb wrote: »

If cyclists are using the roads, they should be paying road-tax. But that will be coming in soon I hope. Pay like the rest of us road users.

Cyclists might be more considerate and respect the rules of the road if they had to pay this tax.

Perhaps you should put the bong down and read the thread...

There is no such thing as road tax.

The vast majority of the cyclists on this thread are in favour of the introduction of fixed penalty notices.

Paying motor tax doesn't seem to have any effect on getting some motorists to obey speed limits, traffic lights and the licensing system seems not to be able to get some motorists to display any lane dicipline.

Skrynesaver

Chloris wrote: »

Two incidents I've had in the last week with cyclists:

One rounding a corner on the wrong side of the road at night with no light, only one reflector. He nearly crashed into my car.

I walked out my front gate with my special needs brother and had to grab him out of the way of a cyclist zooming down the footpath.

It should be common sense to be visible, keep yourself out of danger and look out for pedestrians. I'm not sure why we'd need fines for those things, you should just do them if you have any self preservation or decency.

We have fines/penalties/snactions available to the justice system for all sorts of behaviour that is obnoxious, it'd be nice if there weren't any disrespectful muppets, but there are and teaching them through penalties is the way we try to modify their behaviour.

Bongalongherb

Chloris wrote: »

Two incidents I've had in the last week with cyclists:

One rounding a corner on the wrong side of the road at night with no light, only one reflector. He nearly crashed into my car.

I walked out my front gate with my special needs brother and had to grab him out of the way of a cyclist zooming down the footpath.

It should be common sense to be visible, keep yourself out of danger and look out for pedestrians. I'm not sure why we'd need fines for those things, you should just do them if you have any self preservation or decency.

But this is why there are fines, because some folk don't have self preservation or any decency.

pablo128

Bongalongherb wrote: »

If cyclists are using the roads, they should be paying road-tax. But that will be coming in soon I hope. Pay like the rest of us road users.

Cyclists might be more considerate and respect the rules of the road if they had to pay this tax.

It's Motor tax, bud. Anything with a motor.

Bongalongherb

pablo128 wrote: »

It's Motor tax, bud. Anything with a motor.

Ok ok. Cyclists should be forced to do the theory test, how's that ?. I think this would be the number one best idea as it would definitely sort out most problems regarding bad cyclists.

Grandpa Hassan

To everyone who's suggesting compulsory high viz, tests for cyslists etc.....how would you deal with tourists on Dublin bikes. Or kids cycling with their parents in the park? Where are the lines drawn? It is things like that which make legislation unworkable, since, unlike cars, there are no restrictions on who is allowed to ride a bike, or where (except pavements of course!)

07Lapierre

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Ok ok. Cyclists should be forced to do the theory test, how's that ?. I think this would be the number one best idea as it would definitely sort out most problems regarding bad cyclists.

I think a better idea would be anyone learning to drive must learn to cycle FIRST and cycle on the road for a few weeks. This would make people better "Road users".

pablo128

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Ok ok. Cyclists should be forced to do the theory test, how's that ?. I think this would be the number one best idea as it would definitely sort out most problems regarding bad cyclists.

I'm intolerant of bad cyclists as much as you are, but that won't happen. Sure how would you test a 6 year old child? Or a young teenager cycling to school?

Jawgap

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Ok ok. Cyclists should be forced to do the theory test, how's that ?. I think this would be the number one best idea as it would definitely sort out most problems regarding bad cyclists.

My four year old nephew can't reach the screen - would that mean he can't ride his bike......

Bongalongherb

pablo128 wrote: »

I'm intolerant of bad cyclists as much as you are, but that won't happen. Sure how would you test a 6 year old child? Or a young teenager cycling to school?

It would be difficult indeed, but there's always some way of sorting it out.

Don't get me wrong, I have respect for cyclists as I was an avid cyclist myself in the past, But every day I see cyclists dangerously coming onto the road, something needs to be done about it before more die on the roads.

DeJa VooDoo

Eamonnator wrote: »

Fines on Spot for cyclists

From Today's Irish Indo.
Finian will be pleased

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/rogue-cyclists-set-to-face-onthespot-fines-30884855.html

Not before time.

tomasrojo

Snickers Man wrote: »

Go on then. Link.

Not sure what Jep had in mind, but it might have been some of these:

In a 2012 paper, (Miller, P (2012) The use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and the risk of crashes involving other road users: a population based case-control study. Miller tried to analyse the actual effect on cyclist casualties of wearing or not wearing hi-vis. To the surprise of many, he found that there was no statistically significant benefit – in fact he measured a non-significant disbenefit, after controlling for all the factors he could. The study was a case-control study, and therefore very susceptible to confounding factors, especially as riders who choose to wear hi-viz are likely to be more risk-averse than those who don’t. This would tend to reduce the apparent risk of cycling wearing hi-viz as against not wearing it, but this wasn’t found.

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/10/31/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-sensible-precaution-or-victim-blaming/

Cyclists cannot stop drivers overtaking dangerously, research suggests

A new study from the University of Bath and Brunel University suggests that no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2% of drivers will pass dangerously close when overtaking.

This suggests there is little a rider can do, by altering their outfit or donning a high-visibility jacket, to prevent the most dangerous overtakes from happening. Instead, the researchers suggest, if we want to make cyclists safer, it is our roads, or driver behaviour, that need to change.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2013/11/26/overtaking-cyclists/

Conspicuity aids may not be effective in preventing bicycle–motor vehicle crashes in New Zealand

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/31/eurpub.cku117

This is quite interesting too:
http://victorianmotorcyclecouncil.org.au/uploads/INFO/Prof%20Huggins%20Hi%20Viz%20Letter%2006%202014.pdf


EDIT: Forgot about that Australian study mentioned on Wikipedia:

A 2009 Australian study of drivers trying to see stationary cyclists on a closed circuit found that fluorescent vests (without retro-reflective stripes) were not a significant improvement on black clothing at night, and that retro-reflective strips were more effective when attached to knees and ankles than on a more or less static jacket.

and this one is mentioned too:

In 2014, a further case-control study conducted in Canada reported a decrease in the odds of a collision with a motor vehicle when wearing 'light' (not specifically fluorescent) coloured clothing in daylight but an increase in the odds of a collision for cyclists using fluorescent clothing (and lights) at night. The number of conspicuity aids used was positively associated with an increase in collision crash odds but a non-significant reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation. These results show a large safety effect in simulated or experimental conditions but little if any benefit of conspicuity aids use in observations of actual utility cyclists. This apparent contradiction may arise because of a form of risk compensation. Cyclists using conspicuity aids might be overestimating the level of protection conspicuity aids actually confer when used whilst cycling in traffic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-visibility_clothing#Cyclists

Grandpa Hassan

Bongalongherb wrote: »

It would be difficult indeed, but there's always some way of sorting it out.

Don't get me wrong, I have respect for cyclists as I was an avid cyclist myself in the past, But every day I see cyclists dangerously coming onto the road, something needs to be done about it before more die on the roads.

Sometimes people are just idiots.

There is no theory test which would stop that. Nor wearing a high viz vest. And licences are unworkable for the reasons stated above and experienced in other cities (kids, tourists etc)

The law is in place. The Garda just need to pay some attention. Maybe with the increased power of on the spot fines

Pinch Flat

Bongalongherb wrote: »

If cyclists are using the roads, they should be paying road-tax.

It's motor tax, since 2008 based on emissions. Cyclists cause zero emissions (well, unless you're on our Sunday spin). So how about taxing cyclists based on weight - a 10kg bike weighs about 1% of a modest family car. My car costs €200 to tax - 1% would equate to €2 per annum. I'd gladly pay this even to stop the ridiculous argument.

Bongalongherb wrote: »

But that will be coming in soon I hope. Pay like the rest of us road users.

Like they already do - many cyclists have (surprise!) a car as well. 'Road tax' for cyclists will never happen - not a single example in the entire world where it does. In Dublin, the private car is actively been discouraged as a means of short to medium distance commuting - if anything you'll see congestion charges before a tax on cyclists.

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Cyclists might be more considerate and respect the rules of the road if they had to pay this tax.

Yeah right, just like it does for cars. And where do people get this silly notion that cyclists are subservient and should doff their cap to the hard pressed motorist?

Chips Lovell

I'm reopening this thread following review.

We've had to issue several cards and will close it again if things don't improve.

As per the earlier reminder, please read the charter. This is the Cycling forum, not the Rant About Cyclists forum.

morana

I have to say post #202 is great! all of that info debunking the hi-vis myth in one place! Chapeau Tomasrojo!

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

This apparent contradiction may arise because of a form of risk compensation. Cyclists using conspicuity aids might be overestimating the level of protection conspicuity aids actually confer when used whilst cycling in traffic.

Or perhaps crap cyclists wear hi vis in a failed attempt to even up the odds.

ArnieSilvia

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

To everyone who's suggesting compulsory high viz, tests for cyslists etc.....how would you deal with tourists on Dublin bikes. Or kids cycling with their parents in the park? Where are the lines drawn? It is things like that which make legislation unworkable, since, unlike cars, there are no restrictions on who is allowed to ride a bike, or where (except pavements of course!)

It is already in place outside Ireland. I had to pass a basic rules of the road exam at age of 10 to gain a "bicycle permit" that allowed me to ride bicycle on public road. Without that I was only allowed to ride alongside my parent. This was a law in Poland, about 25 years ago and introduced much earlier due to accidents.

How was it done? Policemen came over to school, did theory training with us and we had to pass exam at the end of the day. We felt really proud of getting that bicycle licence and it actually worked, opened our eyes on various aspects of road safety.

07Lapierre

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

It is already in place outside Ireland. I had to pass a basic rules of the road exam at age of 10 to gain a "bicycle permit" that allowed me to ride bicycle on public road. Without that I was only allowed to ride alongside my parent. This was a law in Poland, about 25 years ago and introduced much earlier due to accidents.

How was it done? Policemen came over to school, did theory training with us and we had to pass exam at the end of the day. We felt really proud of getting that bicycle licence and it actually worked, opened our eyes on various aspects of road safety.

An excellent idea! If more kids in Ireland were taught cycling "road craft" in schools, maybe more kids/teenagers would cycle to school?

RainyDay

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

The real stat that jumps out at me is one that hasn't been broached - there was a big increase in road accidents and deaths in the last year. People need to drop this victim mentality and smarten up.

Indeed, the increase in deaths is worrying. Have you any particular reason to attribute this increase to lack of hi-vis wearing by cyclists?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that the massive rise in cyclists and more specifically, dangerous cycling, hasn't led to an increase in accidents? Dangerous driving does, so why wouldn't dangerous cycling? Apparently intellectual honesty can only be applied one way...

Because critical mass is important for cyclists. The more people cycle, the safer cycling gets - safety and numbers, and all that.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The main issue with mandatory high-viz is not that it's impractical. It's that it's unnecessary.

It's not so much that it is unnecessary - the main issue is the absence of any evidence that it will actually help. I follow cycling safety issues fairly closely, and I've never seen any inquest report that was attributed to lack of hi-vis. I'm open to correction on this, of course.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Could you supply the numbers around cycling related injuries also? Intellectual honesty would suggest you don't have to die to have involvement in a genuine accident, right?

Also, who no mention of the figures in 2014? Again, picking and choosing what to argue with. It isn't something I subscribe to, as it only goes round in circles. We would be much better off if we all stopped looking to win petty battles and looked at the bigger picture - we need to make the roads safer for everyone.

Yes, we do need to make to roads safer for everyone. But why do you assume that hi-vis will fix this? Or that mandatory hi-vis will actually solve a problem?

You seem to miss a key issue in public policy making. Personal experience does not constitute evidence for good policy.

Spending one night in an A&E dept does not make one an expert in health service management. Getting your house burgled does not make one an expert in the legal system. And being a driver (or indeed a cyclist) does not make you an expert in traffic safety.

If we're going to go for something like mandatory hi-vis, we need;
1) evidence that it will actually work
2) evidence that it won't have unintended consequences (such as reduced numbers cycling, leading to reduced safety for cyclists).

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Also, to solve your bike share issue - just do exactly what they do with helmets...

They don't have helmets for the bike share systems.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But they do get punished. They get penalty points and removal from the road for a wide range of offences. There isn't even a way of tracking cyclists as there is no licence or registration system in place. Im not looking for cyclists only to be punished, Im looking for anyone breaking the law to be caught and punished, regardless of their vehicle. I don't see what is so wrong with that.

Just to be clear - who gets punished? What % of drivers who speed get punished? What % of drivers who use their phones get punished? What % of drivers who fail to indicate get punished?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

What is counter-productive about better visibility? What is that taking away from a guy who is less visible?

Here's one possibility - mandatory hi-vis could well put some people off cycling. That might seem strange to you (or to me), but it could be one possible outcome. You need to think through your proposals.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

In fairness tony, what have cyclists done to win the trust of the motorists? Im not saying you are wrong, but it is a two way street and that point seems to be lost on a high number of people. How about less of the victim stuff as a startpoint? Plenty cyclists carry out daft manouvers in traffic putting themselves and others in danger and they should know better, just like driverwls. We have to be pragmatic and proactive about it, not always looking to be hard done by

Why do you want to seperate or divide motorists and cyclists. Most cyclists are motorists. Many motorists are cyclists.

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Ok ok. Cyclists should be forced to do the theory test, how's that ?. I think this would be the number one best idea as it would definitely sort out most problems regarding bad cyclists.

Because forcing drivers to do a theory test has sorted out most problems regarding bad driving?

CramCycle

Snickers Man wrote: »

I respectfully disagree as a motorist. (I am also a fairly frequent cyclist and pedestrian too)


If bicycles had lights that were the same size and power rating of cars then yes, there would be no need for high viz clothing. But sadly, they don't. And the problem for motorists is that given the amount of vehicular lighting on city streets today, the illumination of a cyclist is frequently drowned out (if that is the right term) by the lighting around them. Far from lighting cyclists up, light from other vehicles just seems to swallow them into the darkness.

I am sure there is a physical explanation for all this, but all I am saying IN MY EXPERIENCE is that in busy city centre traffic in the dark, I frequently find it very difficult to see cyclists unless they are wearing reflective strips. I have gone so far as to have my own eyes checked to see if I have a problem with "night blindness". I don't.

Why do so many cyclists not take this simple feedback on board? It's not nanny state interference. It's a simple effortless recommendation that could enhance road safety for careful cyclists. A high-viz device need not be a bulky unattractive overcoat that one might not want to wear while going on the pull. (Although apparently arriving at a social gathering streaming of sweat having pedalled like crazy through every red light on the way is perfectly alluring, if you believe some here)

It could be a simple fold up overall that would fit over another jacket and which could be rolled up into a pocket or handbag.

Facetious comments like "Why don't pedestrians wear high viz" are utterly impertinent. For a start, they walk on pavements while bicycles for the most part share the road with cars. And secondly, in rural regions where there are no pavements it is indeed common practice for pedestrians, at least the sensible ones, to wear reflective clothing and/or carry a torch.

I am not anti-cyclist. I am one myself. But I hate bad cyclists, just like I despise careless drivers and heedless pedestrians.

No to compulsory helmets; yes to compulsory hi-viz.

I am a frequent motorist myself, have been driving for years, almost as long as I have been cycling. My experience is that your mind tells you the hi vis helped but the truth is that I don't see the hi vis wearers at night any earlier in the city than I do non hi vis wearers, coming out of areas where street lights have blown etc. I see them late but on reviewing camera footage of where I remember seeing them from there does not seem to be a difference with the exception of situations where my full beams are on i.e. out in the countryside, but in recent times I have noticed people using mobiles or wind up torches to good effect in these situations. All studies seem to indicate that there is no significant difference to when we notice a hi vis wearing cyclists compared to a non hi vis wearing one. Side on at a junction, if you don't see a cyclists with no hi vis, then there is no light there, you won't see hi vis cyclist either. If they have lights on though, you will. The number of times I have seen drivers running lights at night because they didn't see the cyclist with no lightas or the cyclists running red lights because they thought I have hi vis and did not realise that the crossing light just went green and that they blend in. In fact, I would go far as to say some of the hi vis jacket yellow colouring blends in with cream wall colouring under amber lights but that would be me being facetious to make a point.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Er. You can see that this is daylight, right? Or were you looking at something else?

Thats when Hi Vis jackets were designed for, you know they are often also called day glo jackets as well

Snickers Man wrote: »

A reflective vest makes a hell of a lot of difference. In MY experience and observation. And no, I don't work for RSA or any other hi viz manufacturer.

But oddly enough you should google hi vis manufacturing in Ireland, Mayo and RSA location for some interesting ideas for a conspiracy theory.

Chloris wrote: »

One rounding a corner on the wrong side of the road at night with no light, only one reflector. He nearly crashed into my car

Should be prosecuted and fined for stupidity.

I walked out my front gate with my special needs brother and had to grab him out of the way of a cyclist zooming down the footpath.

While I am all for prosecuting, if you had to shoulder the cyclist for your own and your brothers safety, you would not find me holding it against you, footpath cycling is one of the most obnoxious things an adult can do on a bicycle.

It should be common sense to be visible, keep yourself out of danger and look out for pedestrians. I'm not sure why we'd need fines for those things, you should just do them if you have any self preservation or decency.

+1 unfortunately the world is full of ass hats.

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Ok ok. Cyclists should be forced to do the theory test, how's that ?. I think this would be the number one best idea as it would definitely sort out most problems regarding bad cyclists.

Because the theory test improves motorists behaviour so much?!?

Personally I think road rules and safe usage should be part of the national educational curriculum with classes in National school and secondary school so no one has an excuse of ignorance.