Make helmets lights bells and hiviz compulsory for cyclists

Zipppy

Make helmets lights bells and hiviz compulsory for cyclists in the city....madness that all this 'make the streets safe for cycling ' is going on and these safety measures are rarely mentioned...

magicbastarder

oh dear.

bk

NO

Please educate yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY

micar

Fine motorists for not using indicators and being non observant endangering the life of a cyclist.

magicbastarder

paschal donohue confirmed that the government is not considering making helmets compulsory.

Arthur.beaker

I thought lights were mandatory?

I walk up to 2 hrs a day as part of commute and exercise, I regularly encounter cyclists without any lighting on roads and footpaths in the dark.

Chuchote

Lights are mandatory after lighting-up hours; red on the back, white at the front.

Bells are mandatory except on sports bikes.

Hi-viz has not been shown to have any effect in making drivers more aware of cyclists.

Helmets are almost unknown in cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen which have tens of cyclists cycling fast through the city every day; these cities have the lowest rate of head injuries. However, I wear a helmet myself, purely to reassure my driving friends. Really, though, they're the one who should be wearing head protection - head injuries are the second commonest cause of death of drivers and passengers in car crashes.

Could I suggest, while we're making rules for people others than ourselves, that we set up an automatic tracker for mobile phones that would fine people using them while going faster than walking pace? This would catch all the drivers dangerously using phones while driving. Maybe just ban mobile phones in cars altogether unless they're in the boot?

magicbastarder

lights are compulsory. bells also, except for 'bikes adapted for racing' or some such terminology.

Chuchote

Oh, and cameras on traffic lights that would scan licence plates and automatically add points to licences when drivers go through on a red.

bk

Lights are compulsory and rightfully so. Modern LED's are super bright and super cheap. Just €10 will now get you fantastic front and rear lights that will allow you be easily seen from far.

Hiviz is pretty much completely useless, has little benefit if at all and can cause a false sense of security if you use it instead of a bike light.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Whatever about helmets (ie leave that one up to the cyclists if they choose to wear them) hi-vis should definitely be mandatory, especially when cyclists are out on country roads.

NIMAN

Couldn't agree more. And walkers too.

Should be illegal to be on a main road as a cyclist or a walker without these things, the number of people I see out in the dark and you can hardly see them is scandalous.

bk

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Whatever about helmets (ie leave that one up to the cyclists if they choose to wear them) hi-vis should definitely be mandatory, especially when cyclists are out on country roads.

Nope, they have been found to be largely useless from research done. The legally mandated lights are far superior at making you visible at night, end of story.

magicbastarder

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Whatever about helmets (ie leave that one up to the cyclists if they choose to wear them) hi-vis should definitely be mandatory, especially when cyclists are out on country roads.

grand so. black and dark coloured cars should be banned from the roads at night then. cars create the danger; why treat the symptom instead of the cause?

magicbastarder

NIMAN wrote: »

Should be illegal to be on a main road as a cyclist or a walker without these things

you mean that if i go walking to the shops 200 yards away (i live on a 'main road'), the police should be able to prosecute me?
what sort of proto-fascist nonsense is this?

bk

Yes, so much victim blaming.

The blame should be laid at the feet of people who are dangerously driving. If you can't see the lights of a cyclists bike, then you certainly aren't going to see some silly hiviz and you really are 100% to blame if you hit a cyclist with lights.

Dr Turk Turkelton

bk wrote: »

Nope, they have been found to be largely useless from research done. The legally mandated lights are far superior at making you visible at night, end of story.

Obviously lights are still mandatory, hi-vis is to compliment them. Especially now with the dark evenings coming in.
Hi-vis needs to made mandatory as a matter of urgency. I'm not too sure about in the cities but definitely on country roads.

NIMAN

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean that if i go walking to the shops 200 yards away (i live on a 'main road'), the police should be able to prosecute me?
what sort of proto-fascist nonsense is this?

If you live in am urban area with street lights, no.....but I live rurally and we have no lights around but idiots out walking in dark clothes. They should be liable to fines.

If a driver can get points and a fine for making the decision not to wear a seatbelt, then walkers should get a fine for walking in the dark with no hi-viz

magicbastarder

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Hi-vis needs to made mandatory as a matter of urgency. I'm not too sure about in the cities but definitely on country roads.

how do you implement a law which applies on a country road but not a city road?
how big is the problem you're trying to fix? i.e. how many people are injured or killed on their bikes at night on country roads, people who were using lights but not hi-vis?

dbagman

magicbastarder wrote:

grand so. black and dark coloured cars should be banned from the roads at night then. cars create the danger; why treat the symptom instead of the cause?

Ridiculous comment.

runnerholic

As a cyclist I think Lights and hi viz should both be compulsory after dark and a bell at all times.

bk

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Obviously lights are still mandatory, hi-vis is to compliment them. Especially now with the dark evenings coming in.
Hi-vis needs to made mandatory as a matter of urgency. I'm not too sure about in the cities but definitely on country roads.

If a driver can't see bright LED lights, then they definitely won't see a stupid hiviz and the driver is simply a dangerous driver and should not be on the road.

dbagman

I find it outrageous that people are claiming a hi-vis to be useless. How can it not be of use? As a construction worker I have to wear one every day, indoors, during daylight and away from any form of traffic yet they are compulsary. Cyclists can easily hit speeds of 30-40km. As the smallest of the road users I would of thought common sense should come into play and the use of anything that makes them more visible, no matter how slight people seem to think, can only be a good idea.

Chuchote

If cyclists have to wear hi-viz, will drivers be jailed every time they fail to see a cyclist? Just sayin'…

magicbastarder

dbagman wrote: »

Ridiculous comment.

sure if you're going to mandate the the colour cyclists should wear at night, why shouldn't this be a universal principle for vehicles, if it's that effective? it's a simple legislative change, doesn't cost anyone anything if they're told their next car has to be bright yellow. reflective strips down the side too, so they're more easily seen as crossing traffic.

magicbastarder

or maybe we could bring back the principle that a car needs someone walking in front of it ringing a bell to warn people of its approach.

It wasnt me123

magicbastarder wrote: »

how do you implement a law which applies on a country road but not a city road?
how big is the problem you're trying to fix? i.e. how many people are injured or killed on their bikes at night on country roads, people who were using lights but not hi-vis?

If the road you are walking on doesn't have street lights, then you should have to wear hi viz. Rural Ireland doesn't do footpaths and people have to walk on the roads.

I also live in rural Ireland and constantly meet walkers and their dogs on small country roads in dark clothing. Its frightening. You don't have to be driving fast but when its pitch black outside, you can see nothing unless its lit up.

Commotion Ocean

I don't agree with mandatory helmets because they do little for safety.

However, I do agree with mandatory hi viz. If motorists are encouraged to increase their visibility with dipped headlights during the day, the why shouldn't cyclists increase their visibility too. I say this as a non-cyclist, so I stand corrected on any issues.

Chuchote

dbagman wrote: »

I find it outrageous that people are claiming a hi-vis to be useless. How can it not be of use? As a construction worker I have to wear one every day, indoors, during daylight and away from any form of traffic yet they are compulsary. Cyclists can easily hit speeds of 30-40km. As the smallest of the road users I would of thought common sense should come into play and the use of anything that makes them more visible, no matter how slight people seem to think, can only be a good idea.

Some comments:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/10/cycling-high-visibility-safe-fluorescent

Why cycling in high-vis may be not as safe as you think
A study of motorcyclists shows head-to-toe fluorescent yellow does not always ensure you are visible

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29894590

Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly, according to independent research firm the Transport Research Laboratory.
So it would appear to make sense for cyclists to be as visible as possible… Hordes of lycra-clad cyclists in high-vis colours indicate that many agree.
Reflectors are already a requirement at night. And the government's Highway Code advises "light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light".
But research by Dr Ian Garrard, of Brunel University, casts doubt on assumptions about high-vis. Dressed in various outfits - from casual clothes to professional high-vis gear - Garrard measured how much space 6,000 motorists gave him as they passed his bike.
Clothing made almost no statistically significant difference - 1-2% of drivers always drove dangerously close. Only two outfits altered driver behaviour - one which said "police", and another with "polite". The latter is an intentional imitation popular with cyclists and horse riders.

magicbastarder

i'd consider it *far* more useful if out walking on an unlit road without a footpath, to carry a torch rather than wear hi-vis; a light is proactive, hi-vis is reactive.

dbagman

magicbastarder wrote:

sure if you're going to mandate the the colour cyclists should wear at night, why shouldn't this be a universal principle for vehicles, if it's that effective? it's a simple legislative change, doesn't cost anyone anything if they're told their next car has to be bright yellow. reflective strips down the side too, so they're more easily seen as crossing traffic.

Cars have multiple lights, make a lot more noise and are a hell of a lot bigger making them far more noticeable. If you fail to spot a black car on the road because it's dark you shouldn't be on the road full stop.

bk

dbagman wrote: »

How can it not be of use? As a construction worker I have to wear one every day, indoors, during daylight and away from any form of traffic yet they are compulsary.

This is little or no scientific evidence that show it to be useful. Builders having to wear it is simply H&S rules gone mad, with little in the way of science to back it up.

The same people would like to bring the same madness to cycling. Please go watch the TEDx video I linked to above which goes into the same faulty logic that goes into mandating helmets for cyclists.

Dr Turk Turkelton

What amazes me is that some people are dumb enough to try and argue over whether or not the most vulnerable of road users should be lit up?
They should be like fcuking Christmas trees. Any time I'm out running or walking in the dark I always wear hi-vis and carry a torch.

magicbastarder

dbagman wrote: »

Cars have multiple lights, make a lot more noise and are a hell of a lot bigger making them far more noticeable. If you fail to spot a black car on the road because it's dark you shouldn't be on the road full stop.

hang on, we're arguing here though that even a small marginal gain is beneficial and should be seriously considered.

this is what rubs cyclists up the wrong way - nearly all cyclists i know wear helmets, insist on decent lights, and wear clothes with bright patches and reflectors printed onto them - including the legs - while cycling in the dark.

motorists are usually quite keen to tell cyclists how the regulations which apply to cyclists chould change, but act with puzzlement if there's any suggestion about changing the laws on cars (as per the reaction to my tongue in cheek suggestion above).

there are several issues here - one is the 'dangerisation' of cycling. one of the single greatest factors for cyclist safety is getting as many cyclists on the road. the notion that cycling is so dangerous that we have to mandate all these extra safety features buys into the idea that cycling is a danger sport. it's not, but it keeps people from taking up cycling, and that means less normalisation of the activity.

there's a certain amount of victim blaming going on too; you do hear comments in news reports like 'the victim was not wearing hi-vis at the time' which is an implication they were to blame (at least partly) in their own misfortune, where visibility may not have been a factor.

thirdly, as i was getting at above, it is irritating that the balance of addressing the danger these days is placing the increased safety burden on the people least likely to cause the danger. you don't deal with the crime of stabbing by making stab vests mandatory (that's a deliberately parodic comparison, lest anyone take it seriously).

and lastly, hi vis is one of those things - a bit like helmet laws, which on a superficial level would appear to make sense - seems to be quite a bit more nuanced than people realise.

getting back to regulations relating to cycling, one thing (just thinking out loud) which might make sense would be to mandate (maybe at a european level) connectors for lights built directly into the frame; so lights could be standardised and easier to mount.
or maybe make the sale of lights of a certain quality mandatory with any new bike sale.

ArmaniJeanss

dbagman wrote: »

I find it outrageous that people are claiming a hi-vis to be useless. How can it not be of use? As a construction worker I have to wear one every day, indoors, during daylight and away from any form of traffic yet they are compulsary. Cyclists can easily hit speeds of 30-40km. As the smallest of the road users I would of thought common sense should come into play and the use of anything that makes them more visible, no matter how slight people seem to think, can only be a good idea.

Good idea, but obviously cars should also have to have luminous tarpaulins 24 hours a day, anything which would add to visibility&safety no matter how slight can only be a good idea.

nekuchi

I cycle but have never understood the purpose of bells being compulsory. They're no good against a car and of minimal use against pedestrians unless you're in the city centre or cycling on a path. Can anyone enlighten me?

magicbastarder

speaking of the increased danger of travelling at night - why is it logical that i can drive my car on a road on a sunny day at 80km/h, but the law says i can drive at the same speed on that road at night?
why not a mandatory decrease in the posted speed limit on all roads by 15km/h during lighting up hours?

magicbastarder

nekuchi wrote: »

Can anyone hi-vis me?

FYP. your question is more likely to be seen now.

TheChizler

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

What amazes me is that some people are dumb enough to try and argue over whether or not the most vulnerable of road users should be lit up?
They should be like fcuking Christmas trees. Any time I'm out running or walking in the dark I always wear hi-vis and carry a torch.

Who said they shouldn't be lit up? I don't think anybody has argued against carrying lights.

Macy0161

How does HiViz help in the dark? I presume posters mean the reflective bit, which does work in the dark? In which case the builders vest that people normally mean when they refer to "hi-viz" isn't actually the best place. Ankles and arms, where there is movement, is more effective than torso. You could also use an old style sam browne belt - no need for the yellow material attached to it.

Most of my cycling and running gear has reflective detail built in, if I want more I use ankle or arm bands.

Lights/ headlights/ torches are far more effective and get more of reaction than reflective material in my experience - a light can often be seen before reflective material has even been hit by the vehicle lights.

magicbastarder

one of the problems with legislating for hi vis i guess would be defining it.
lights are easy - it's simple to get a lumen value from a light, especially LEDs which have a pretty constant output.
but what's hi-vis? if i go walking out in a yellow jumper, can i claim that's hi vis? do we have to define a percentage of the clothing which has to be reflective?
if i'm wearing a hi-vis jacket on the bike but because i'm commuting to work, i have a bag on my back with clean clothes, does that negate the fact that i'm wearing the jacket?
or would we get into the rather bizarre situation of having to wear government standardised clothing while on the bike?

P_1

OP when you refer to hiviz, can you clarify if you are referring to reflective strips (which are useful) or the builders vest (which is about as useful as a chocolate fireman)?

the_pen_turner

hi vis jackets should be mandatory for all cyclists and pedestrians 100% of the time it is loosing full light. even if it is 3 o clock in the afternoon

the best thing they could do to help this is to make it an offence and take away any responsibility from a motorist if they hit a pedestrian or cylist (and motorists ) if they failed to make themselves visible.

ED E

bk wrote: »

Nope, they have been found to be largely useless from research done. The legally mandated lights are far superior at making you visible at night, end of story.

Preface: Cyclist, hit at night a few years ago. HiVis 24hrs, High output LEDs from dusk on.

While I know the studies show they arent so great I have to say from sitting in a passenger seat my anecdotal experience is they do have an impact. If you're paying attention then you see all cyclists but if you're not quite looking (a la texters) then you never miss a yellow christmas tree but that teen in a hoody can really sneak up on you. A few times I've caught myself only seeing the latter when we're down to 8-10m away.

Science > Anecdotes but I think we need studies to cover heavily distracted drivers (unless I've missed them).

bk

The real danger is motorists not paying attention. I personally just 10 minutes ago had a real life experience of a motorist try and kill me!!!!

I headed out to walk to my local shop just down the road to pick something up for the OH. I came to a 4 way crossing and waited for the pedestrian light to turn green. It changes to the green man and I start walking across the road. To my right a car that has been stopped at the lights for the last two minutes, starts coming straight through the junction and right at me!

This is a super brightly lit junction in Dublin City. I've a green crossing man, he still has a red light, but he barrels straight through the red light from stopped position straight at me and despite the bright lights of his big car he continues to come straight at me as I'm crossing the junction.!

Other cars stopped at the junction start beeping at him, I manage to just jump out of the way. Guy in his 50's looking confused at me like I'm in the wrong. Completely insane.

Clearly he wasn't paying attention at all. He most have thought because he had already been stopped at the junction for two minutes, that it was now his turn to go, rather then the pedestrians turn. Not that that excuses anything! But how he could continue straight at me, I've no idea!!!

It just goes to show the some of the really dangerous, distracted (maybe drunk?) drivers who are on the road and how no matter how brightly you are lit up and how careful you are to use pedestrian crossings, etc. they can still try and run you down.

the_pen_turner

last year I nearly hit cyclist . I was driving along . I went around a tight bend so I was going slow. I was accelerating back up on the straight after the bend . there was a car coming against me . it was dark and the car had its lights on. . something caught my eye in the pitch black on my side of the road. I slowed and hit the head lights. there was this stupid idiot of a cyclist cycling towards me all dressed in black . I put some of it down to the lights of the car coming against me but that idiot is luck I didn't hit him.
I still don't know what made me cop the fool was there.


that fool should be fined for cycling with without lights or a hi vis

Cookie_Monster

Helmets are a legal requirement in NZ and Aus and as a result cycling levels, particularly for commuting, are in the gutter compared to European levels.
While there may be a very small benefit for individuals involved in certain type of accidents, on the whole mandatory helmet use is bad for society as it reduced cycling numbers and hence reduces activity levels, increases obesity etc.

magicbastarder

the_pen_turner wrote: »

hi vis jackets should be mandatory for all cyclists and pedestrians 100% of the time it is loosing full light. even if it is 3 o clock in the afternoon

the best thing they could do to help this is to make it an offence and take away any responsibility from a motorist if they hit a pedestrian or cylist (and motorists ) if they failed to make themselves visible.

this is dystopian madness. government mandated clothing for anyone walking outside during the day?
blame shifting from the motorist to the victim?

if we're at a point in society that we have to take such measures to protect us from cars, we really, really need to rethink our relationship with the car. or have annual testing of motorists.

the_pen_turner

bk wrote: »

The real danger is motorists not paying attention. I personally just 10 minutes ago had a real life experience of a motorist try and kill me!!!!

I headed out to walk to my local shop just down the road to pick something up for the OH. I came to a 4 way crossing and waited for the pedestrian light to turn green. It changes to the green man and I start walking across the road. To my right a car that has been stopped at the lights for the last two minutes, starts coming straight through the junction and right at me!

This is a super brightly lit junction in Dublin City. I've a green crossing man, he still has a red light, but he barrels straight through the red light from stopped position straight at me and despite the bright lights of his big car he continues to come straight at me as I'm crossing the junction.!

Other cars stopped at the junction start beeping at him, I manage to just jump out of the way. Guy in his 50's looking confused at me like I'm in the wrong. Completely insane.

Clearly he wasn't paying attention at all. He most have thought because he had already been stopped at the junction for two minutes, that it was now his turn to go, rather then the pedestrians turn. Not that that excuses anything! But how he could continue straight at me, I've no idea!!!

It just goes to show the some of the really dangerous, distracted (maybe drunk?) drivers who are on the road and how no matter how brightly you are lit up and how careful you are to use pedestrian crossings, etc. they can still try and run you down.

you cant legislate for a random lunatic. if he wasn't going to stop for a red light then he doesn't care about anything else

Cookie_Monster

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you cant legislate for a random lunatic. if he wasn't going to stop for a red light then he doesn't care about anything else

yet you want to legislate for pointless high-vis on the basis that motorists can blame shift?

bk

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you cant legislate for a random lunatic. if he wasn't going to stop for a red light then he doesn't care about anything else

Not even the first time at this junction, happened another time just a few months ago. To be honest, I see distracted drivers all the time, on their phones usually or sometimes fixing hair, etc.

These are the people who are the true danger. Getting in a car is a really serious responsibility, but far too many people drive without really understanding the danger involved.

We should be focusing on where the real danger lies, dangerous motorists and stop victim blaming.