PlaneSpeeking wrote: » I'm going to ask a dumb but genuine question here. What good is a high vis jacket in the daylight ? At night yeah I get it but surely WHAT you driving/walking/cycling conduct is matters more ??? Am I missing some hi-vis importance ???
timbel wrote: » On the last point, cycling 2 a breast discourages drivers from trying to squeeze past cyclists even when there is oncoming traffic. This is particularly important on winding sections of road to discourage drivers passing on blind corners. In this case if a car comes in the opposite direction on a corner, the natural reaction of the driver will be to avoid it, and the cyclist gets hit.
gmacww wrote: » Well there have been plenty of studies in this area and to fully answer it would take up an entire screen of text so let me try to minimize it as best I can. A hi-vis is useless in the day time and studies show the ones the RSA hand out (yellow ones) can actually have a negative affect when cycling on country roads as they blend in with scenery. At night time they can make some difference but again studies show it's only really when in a pitch black environment with a light shining directly at it. Under incandescent lighting (city center) the affect is all but neutralized. What has to be considered is that the vast majority of cyclist deaths were during day light hours and as a result from rear end collisions. Now the why and the how can be debated for hours but lets leave that aside for now. So if it's in day light then the hi-vis is not going to have any affect on safety. Why do the RSA persist with it? It's the cheapest and easiest option. Ordering 500 vests at €200 and handing them out for free is simple. Ordering decent lights will costs multiples of that. Now I'm not saying cyclists should be given these things for free christ no. I buy my own. But my stand point (and if you ever read any of the cycling forum) would be that in this day and age of led and cree led lights there is absolutely NO excuse for anyone riding a bike without a good set of lights. What annoys cyslists is that the RSA have placed so much emphasis on the hi-vis that it's being used in court now in a number of cases to place the blame on the cyclist for getting hit with no mention of lights! All the studys I've mentioned above regarding hi-vis show that they are absolutely nothing when compared to a decent set of lights. The lights I use on my bike are an expensive set called See.Sense. Honestly I've seen a difference in motorist behavior since I've started using those around this time last year. I use it even when out training during the day with blazing sunshine.
cfuserkildare wrote: » " Recognising the relative numbers involved is an important part of the prioritisation of activity and resources - but in general, you're on the right track. Check out the RSA analysis of road deaths - the big issues are the usual suspects - speeding, drink/driving, tiredness, bad equipment." Again, This analysis Only concentrates on deaths caused by Car Drivers, What about the Cyclists that assume they are entitled to head through minute gaps between cars that have not quite stopped yet? Is the car driver at fault there? Is the car driver at fault when a Drunk falls in front of the car when there is not enough distance to brake/react? Again that is a Biased piece of information.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Agreed on lights though - why are they not automatically installed on all bikes ??
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Perhaps they're tapped out after paying Gaybo's fees ???
seamus wrote: » Fixed lights on bikes aren't a great solution, since unlike a motorised vehicle you don't have a permanent source of power for your lights. There are also exemptions in law not requiring lights to be permanently installed on racing bikes. This makes it unfeasible for lights to be fixed to bikes at the point of sale and instead leaves it up to the owner to arrange it. Modern dynamos are considerably better than in the past (look at Dublinbikes), but there's been no desire at a political level to change this law. I'd have no major issue with the law changing to require bikes to be fitted with magnetic dynamo lights at the point of sale. People who don't want them can easily remove them, but the other 99% will leave them on and they'll run and run with little maintenance.
d'Oracle wrote: » I don't think enforcement is the issue. I think education and cultural change will fix it.
seamus wrote: » I'd have no major issue with the law changing to require bikes to be fitted with magnetic dynamo lights at the point of sale.
dense wrote: » Nor has it been proven to be so by that video.
07Lapierre wrote: » The "Uniform" is important..only yesterday i saw a guy cycling up Howth wearing a Polka Dot Jersey! .... Brave man!
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Sorry, I haven't cycled in years so I'm not in my wheelhouse here - why not include a voucher for kit with every bike - appropriate and preferred lights, lock, whatever else ? Would that be a help ?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/rsa-rents-office-for-chairwoman-liz-o-donnell-for-29-500-1.2815164
Fighting Tao wrote: » Did he get the KOM on Strava?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » A help for what? What problem are we trying to solve here?
07Lapierre wrote: » Enforcement is education and will encourage cultural change. Look at the Drink driving laws...Its a slow process, but drinking and driving is now culturally unacceptable and IMO, this was brought about by more enforcement of the law (and changes to the laws themselves)
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Pointless investing a small amount of money when investing a larger sum would have more benefits really ?
gmacww wrote: » 100% but it's the easier way out. To really change it requires much better enforcement of road laws for both motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. This would produce a culture change which would make roads much safer for all. But that's a much more expensive and difficult solution albeit a much better one. It's easier to hand out hi-vis and say look we're doing all we can!
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Kinda good but very ineffective PR really! Shame on them.
P_1 wrote: » Visibility and the RSA hi vis fetishism
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I'd have no major issue with such a legal change either on its own. I'd have a very major issue with lights for bikes being identified as a priority issue to get time from policy makers, legislators and enforcement authorities. How many people have been killed as a result of not having lights on bikes? How many cars/vans/trucks are driving round with one headlight or one broken brake light? How many newish cars are driving round with no back lights at all because they don't know how their DRLs work? There are bigger fish to fry.
Balanadan wrote: » When talking about investing in transport infrastructure, one uses BCR rather than ROI. BCR has limitations, but it's a useful guide. The BCR for investing in different transport options varies from area to area. .
Balanadan wrote: » Go to any well developed country, and you will find motorways and high quality A roads linking towns, cities, factories and other industry.
seamus wrote: » I never really buy the "bigger fish to fry" argument on its own. You don't avoid making small improvement because there are bigger ones that can be made; you weigh up the size of the effort against the size of the improvement and proceed. In this case it may not necessarily save lives, but as a cyclist it's pretty plain to see that the number of bikes going around with no lights in the dark, is large. Far larger than unlit vehicles. The effort to legislate is small; the RTA gets amended every other year, so there's no reason it can't be slipped in there. If such a provision on its own was going to require hundreds of thousands in experts fees and significant Dail and Seanad time, I'd agree that it's not worth the effort. But it wouldn't. What's more, if bikes come fitted with working lights, as standard, you may find that people are more likely to use their bike later in the day. I wouldn't be surprised if lack of lighting is a significant psychological barrier for people. You wouldn't drive your car at night if you knew you had no lights, so I expect many don't ride their bikes for the same reason.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Have you been to Abbey Street LUAS stop??? Not exactly conducive to skateboard riding. In fact downright f**ktardery. Plus show me where I have EVER bigged up "motorised ttansport". I don't drive currently.
ballyharpat wrote: » I am not saying the location is suitable, what I commented on was how you mention and focus on the guys age, as if he shouldn't be doing it because he is 30 or something. If you do not drive, I am assuming you have not got a drivers licence, and I assume that you have never passed the driving test. Do you really feel that it is your place to tell others about the rules of the road? From what I can see on here, the majority of cyclists on this topic, are also drivers, meaning they can see both sides of the argument. They would also be pedestrians. Granted you use public transport, I rarely do, so I can't really say what problems exist with that, so I wont be chiming in on a debate that involves that. I see that you posted on the lycra topic on people that wear it for evaryday clothes, you said to someone else that it should be none of their business what people wear, the same goes for whether people use skateboards, bicycles, or any other form of transport, and no matter what age they are, and btw, there are di**head cyclists, motorists, pedestrians, skateboarders, public transport users etc, it is not exclusive to any one group.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Riding a skateboard on a city centre street at his age makes him look even more of a berk! The mere riding of it would be bad enough.
ballyharpat wrote: » here you go.......
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » I can drive, I actually learned in a SUV (is that what we call them ??) - a Toyota Spacecruiser, big assed thing.
07Lapierre wrote: » Spacecruiser? was this in the USA? I have a license to drive a truck..the last time i drove a truck was when I passed the Truck driving test. That was 20 years ago. My point is,knowing how to drive is not the same as being an experienced driver.
