nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Iwannahurl

MOD VOICE: So as not to take up room on the helmet thread I have taken out the last few pages of hi vis related material and put it together here. All material or threads relating specifically to hi vis will be moved in here or locked if it repeats what is already said in here. There are a few off topic posts but from now on if we could keep the discussion to Hi Vis, and related topics.

Cram

Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar was interviewed by Sean O'Rourke on RTE Radio 1 this morning.

Questions were submitted by listeners, and someone asked whether hi-viz and helmets were to be made mandatory for cyclists.

The Minister's response (paraphrased) was "hi-viz possibly, but the evidence is not great that helmets have a big impact on road safety."

I have mixed views on that response. The situation with helmets has been well rehearsed in this thread -- evidence of modest benefit versus anti-cycling effect of mandatory laws -- but it's odd that the Minister might consider making hi-viz mandatory given that there is no evidence (to date) that it reduces casualties.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Tenzor07 wrote:

You're basically on the cusp of calling for mandatory hi-vis

I'm calling on cyclists to take responsibility.

Tenzor07 wrote:

"Moan" about safety, or just require that the government commit a sufficient percentage of the transport budget on cycling..

Tenzor07 wrote:

You're still trying to shift the burden of responsibility for road safety onto the most vulnerable road users, don't you think that's wrong?

I think most cycle lanes aren't fit for purpose. Sharing a small footpath with children walking or mothers with buggies isn't a suitable solution. I agree that the roads are crap for the most part for cycling but maybe part of the safety changes will be hi vis & helmets. Maybe not

07Lapierre

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Has to be the most ridiculous statement of the week.

I'm driving over 30 years & never hit anyone but it's hard to see cyclists at times. Some weave in & out of the traffic. Some go through red lights. I rarely see a hand signal. The best I can hope for is a half turn of your head so I as you want to change lane. I'm supposed to be a mind reader. I'm supposed to assume that the cyclist will break the red light. I'm to guess is he going straight or turning left because a hand signal is too much effort.

There used to be a road safety campaign. Think once, think twice, think bike. The gist of it was that motorbikes are much harder to see on the road. In fact invisible at times. Well bikes are twice as hard to see

All I'm saying is that cyclists have some responsibility for their own safety. You can't blame the big bad motorist for everything.

I've never gotten the whole cyclist against the motorist type of mentality or the motorist against the cyclist. We all share the same road

Only you can drive your car...it's up to you to ensure you can see where you are going at all times. I'm not condoning cyclists who make your life difficult but you are driving a car that has the potential to kill someone. With great power comes great(er) responsibility.

There used to be a safety ad on the tv and it said " if you had The only car in the world, you could drive as you please...but you haven't, so you can't"

[Deleted User]

Fighting Tao wrote:

Thank you for not hitting anyone. Well done! From what youâ€™re saying it sounds like youâ€™ve been lucky and need to learn to use your mirrors better.

Here's the thing I drive a van. No back windscreen so no rear mirror. I have 2 good side mirrors. I constantly glance in both. However it's easy to miss a cyclist with a split second glance. As I say at times I'd have several cyclists weaving either side or both sides of me no hand signals yet it's my fault if I hit them.

Fighting Tao

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Here's the thing I drive a van. No back windscreen so no rear mirror. I have 2 good side mirrors. I constantly glance in both. However it's easy to miss a cyclist with a split second glance. As I say at times I'd have several cyclists weaving either side or both sides of me no hand signals yet it's my fault if I hit them.

I had a van for years and I drove a truck for a few years. These days it’s only a car that I’m in. So here’s the thing, I am speaking from experience too.please stop trying to shift the blame.

07Lapierre

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Here's the thing I drive a van. No back windscreen so no rear mirror. I have 2 good side mirrors. I constantly glance in both. However it's easy to miss a cyclist with a split second glance. As I say at times I'd have several cyclists weaving either side or both sides of me no hand signals yet it's my fault if I hit them.

I don't agree with that. It's not your fault if the cyclist has done something illegal?

Tenzor07

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Here's the thing I drive a van. No back windscreen so no rear mirror. I have 2 good side mirrors. I constantly glance in both. However it's easy to miss a cyclist with a split second glance. As I say at times I'd have several cyclists weaving either side or both sides of me no hand signals yet it's my fault if I hit them.

Oh come on, when bicycles filter through motor vehicles, there's hardly enough room to fit the handlebars through, never mind wave your hands around and give a hand signal! Instead of giving a split second glance, why not use your mirrors for a sufficient amount of time to see what's around you? Other road users don't always have headlights and indicators fitted..

Cookie_Monster

Tenzor07 wrote: »

So what you're basically saying is Mandatory Hi-vis for all road users, due to the dangerous nature of our roads, which are the same as a construction site in your opinion.

no, not at all. DOn't you see, just the annoying cyclists and pedestrians need to look ridiculous. No need to have motorised vehicles impacted by the high vish requirement at all, per usual.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm the motorist. I'll most likely be be OK if we ever have an accident. You are the vulnerable one. You need to protect yourself.

short of some kind of steel cage with an aero shell and probably some kind of motor to drag it around what level of protection is adequate for motorists not paying attention and driving into me in reality?
Motorists as the people in charge of heavy, fast moving machinery need to use it responsibly, it's not up to others to clear out of the way and have excessive safety gear just so motorists can abdicate responsibility.

Pinch Flat

Beep beep out of my way I’m a motorist

https://youtu.be/5GqCHdG1dLQ

Thinkingaboutit

If the excise on diesel, plus motor tax on it, is suitably increased (so what if people were taken in by that German green diesel con-trick, decisions have consequences, at least an incentive to crush new VWs), there'll be less young asthmatics, existing ones (like me) will have less misery, and that hi viz work jacket I wear when cycling won't keep turning a dull grey. Diesel is only suitable for freight vehicles.

peasant

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Oh come on, when bicycles filter through motor vehicles, there's hardly enough room to fit the handlebars through, never mind wave your hands around and give a hand signal!

Then maybe, just maybe you shouldn't get yourself into such tight situations in the first place.
Indicating your intentions in advance (by blinker or hand signal) is part of the rules of the road. Don't squeeze yourself into situations where you can't do that and then try to shift the blame on others.

Tenzor07

peasant wrote: »

Then maybe, just maybe you shouldn't get yourself into such tight situations in the first place.
Indicating your intentions in advance (by blinker or hand signal) is part of the rules of the road. Don't squeeze yourself into situations where you can't do that and then try to shift the blame on others.

How would you suggest I give a handsignal here?

07Lapierre

peasant wrote: »

Then maybe, just maybe you shouldn't get yourself into such tight situations in the first place.
Indicating your intentions in advance (by blinker or hand signal) is part of the rules of the road. Don't squeeze yourself into situations where you can't do that and then try to shift the blame on others.

Your right...hand signals and good road position (and making eye contact) with drivers are vital skills that more experienced cyclist use on a daily basis. Knowing when to "Filter" between cars is also a skill that needs to be learned and seems to be lacking by a lot of cyclists.

eeeee

Tenzor07 wrote: »

How would you suggest I give a handsignal here?

<snip>

Unless the cyclist (ahead in the pic) was already there and the buses pulled up beside them, that's a wildly dangerous, irresponsible and indefensibly stupid position to be in. Absolutely no need to follow that whatsoever.

Tenzor07

nee wrote: »

Unless the cyclist (ahead in the pic) was already there and the buses pulled up beside them, that's a wildly dangerous, irresponsible and indefensibly stupid position to be in. Absolutely no need to follow that whatsoever.

That's reality of cycling in Dublin CC unfortunately!

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/photo-captures-scary-reality-of-dublin-cycling-and-story-behind-it/

eeeee

Tenzor07 wrote: »

That's reality of cycling in Dublin CC unfortunately!

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/photo-captures-scary-reality-of-dublin-cycling-and-story-behind-it/

Nope. I've cycled around Dublin city centre for 13 years now and have never ended up in a position like that. That's in front of the garda station coming onto college green isn't it?
You stay behind the buses, or if you have to rush on by get off your bike and walk through the junction. Stupidly dangerous and utterly unnecessary position for the cyclist pictured to be in.

Hurrache

Westmoreland Street heading to O'Connell Street apparently. ****ty street for driving, never mind cycling, which I've always avoided doing.

eeeee

Hurrache wrote: »

O'Connell Street apparently.

Ah I see.
Anywhere that's an inexcusable position to be in.

07Lapierre

nee wrote: »

Nope. I've cycled around Dublin city centre for 13 years now and have never ended up in a position like that. That's in front of the garda station coming onto college green isn't it?
You stay behind the buses, or if you have to rush on by get off your bike and walk through the junction. Stupidly dangerous and utterly unnecessary position for the cyclist pictured to be in.

Your an experienced cyclist and you know the danger. But to be fair, a lot of cyclists do filter between buses and are totally oblivious to the danger they are putting themselves in.

eeeee

07Lapierre wrote: »

Your an experienced cyclist and you know the danger. But to be fair, a lot of cyclists do filter between buses and are totally oblivious to the danger they are putting themselves in.

That's true, but even when I was starting out cycling around the city going up between a load of buses never seemed like an even vaguely good idea! I hope that was the first and only time the cyclist pictured did that...

It was cemented once for me early on, similar looking situation to the above, the buses were moving. I stayed behind, but a courier went up between them. banging their bars off each bus several times as they filtered through.
So utterly, utterly, utterly unnecessary.

Tenzor07

nee wrote: »

Ah I see.Anywhere that's an inexcusable position to be in.

Plenty of other similar instances of bicycle users being squeezed into dangerous positions whilst cycling in Dublin, how is it "inexcusable" when through no fault of there own the bicyclist finds themselves surrounded by traffic? As you say get off and walk, so therefore these city center areas are effectively "No go" areas for cyclists who don't have 13 years of cycling experience in DCC...

Chips Lovell

Seriously, it doesn't take 13 years experience to realise that cycling up between two buses is a very, very dangerous thing to do.

tomasrojo

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Would rather see all motor vehicles become fitted with GPS tracked speed limiting devices, which can scan the area and it's speed limit therefore reducing the numbers of vehicles breaking the speed limits, sure if it saves one life...

Apparently vehicles that strongly cajole the driver into obeying the speed limit are already completely feasible. There's no will to impose them though.

(My understanding is that the accelerator resists the driver's foot at the speed limit and you have to push through the resistance if you absolutely need to go faster. I only say this because someone always mentions how important it is to break the speed limit in some circumstances, which usually sound reminiscent of the hijinks in a 70s cop buddy movie, but I suppose might occasionally be applicable to someone who is driving in measured fashion.)

07Lapierre

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Seriously, it doesn't take 13 years experience to realise that cycling up between two buses is a very, very dangerous thing to do.

Just a thought...maybe the buses on the left are parked and the cyclist was cycling past them when the traffic lights ahead turned red? An experienced cyclist would move to the right and "take the lane" to prevent a bus from squeezing past. we call it "taking the lane" while motorists call it "bloody cyclists cycling in the middle of the bloody road!"

Macy0161

The buses on the left will be going left, and the ones on the right going over the bridge? Taking the lane would only work if the traffic was flowing, which it often isn't if it's where I think it is.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Apparently vehicles that strongly cajole the driver into obeying the speed limit are already completely feasible. There's no will to impose them though.

Speeding is so normalised it's not even seen as law breaking. All these motorists in threads, such as the current after hours thread are keen on enforcement and extra rules on cyclists, but speed enforcement is "shooting fish in a barrel", "perfectly safe to x kph, on y road" etc bloody etc.

Tenzor07

07Lapierre wrote: »

Just a thought...maybe the buses on the left are parked and the cyclist was cycling past them when the traffic lights ahead turned red? An experienced cyclist would move to the right and "take the lane" to prevent a bus from squeezing past. we call it "taking the lane" while motorists call it "bloody cyclists cycling in the middle of the bloody road!"

Take the lane and still end up as a Bus sandwich, you can't stop a wall of steel from driving up along side you as you pass the parked buses, there are no provisions to stop it from happening, if the buses don't do it, you can move out into the middle of that wide street and take the chance of being sandwiched between a line of buses and taxi's. Very intimidating for a cyclist with 3 years experience to come up against..

Now of course that street has the Luas, however there's still a number of bus routes which travel that street.

Chips Lovell

Macy0161 wrote: »

The buses on the left will be going left, and the ones on the right going over the bridge? Taking the lane would only work if the traffic was flowing, which it often isn't if it's where.

In that case you wait for the traffic to move. What you don’t do is go squeezing between two buses.

07Lapierre

Tenzor07 wrote: »

you can't stop a wall of steel from driving up along side you as you pass the parked buses,

Yes you can, but it takes confidence to do and I admit a lot of people don’t do it. If your on a heavy bike it’s also harder to do but if you move over far enough and move at a reasonable pace, traffic will stay behind you.

eeeee

There is no need to be where that cyclist is in that pic.
You either take the lane as mentioned, or hang back, wait behind the buses and move when they do in front.
You do not, under any circumstances try and squeeze up between them. The cyclist pictured should have pulled out in front of the bus to the right if they were caught, and stayed there until all moved around them.

In all my years and many thousands of km around the city I have never found it necessary to be in that position. I have been close, but I take the lane when it's busy and tight like that.

That said, the more inexperienced/bereft of any modicum of self preservation may do it. It is an indefensible way to get through that situation on the road.

eeeee

07Lapierre wrote: »

You can, but it takes confidence to do and I admit a lot of people don’t do it. If your on a heavy bike it’s also harder to do but if you move over far enough and move at a reasonable pace, traffic will stay behind you.

My commuter is 16kg, weight is no impediment to road positioning!

Every day I do wish I had a lighter commuter though for pleasurable reasons. If anything the heavy bike makes me feel more solid on the road, as he is a tank.

07Lapierre

nee wrote: »

My commuter is 16kg, weight is no impediment to road positioning!

Every day I do wish I had a lighter commuter though for pleasurable reasons. If anything the heavy bike makes me feel more solid on the road, as he is a tank.

My commuter bike is 10kg ! Jealous?