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

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Rogerrabit

Hi cycling in footpaths is very dangerous for pedestrians especially now with this virus pandemic. Every day I witness these events cyclists on the footpaths spewing out germs as they cycle past pedestrians less than two feet from them. If any of these cyclists have the virus the pedestrians have no chance they will pick up the disease. Why do the police allow this carry on. They should be protecting the elderly instead of turning a blind eye to this outrageous carryon. What do yo think out there in Ireland the country whose population do not know how to wear a facemask.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

donvito99

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not so, if visibility is poor then all road users are or should be obliged to make them selves more visible.

I think it's clear who is introducing the danger to the circumstances you describe. For that reason, I think the onus should be on the driver, and not the pedestrian or cyclist, to make the effort.

[Deleted User]

Spook_ie wrote: »

Keep Digging

If you wish to wear glass that reflects light, red reflectors ( considerably larger than the reflectors normally on bicycles, Lighting with mirror backing ( that reflects light when the light isn't in use, etc' as a cyclist then feel free to lobby for that change to cyclists law, I myself feel that it would be overkill though and as suggested look for ways to attain better visibility of road users with minimal discomfort and expense.

Perhaps rather than constantly dissing Hi Viz people actually look to what it is meant to achieve.

Did you not say that hi-vis stripes on dark cars would improve visibility in dark conditions?

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

Why is there 34 pages (standard view) of posts arguing about solutions for non problematic issues?

Because people keep interjecting with meaningless drivel about horses having reflectors on their legs when discussing day glow and how it does actually improve the visibility and safety of road users, or throwing in acres of posts about hi viz on cars when they know it's a non runner because their arguments have already been buried by fact. Keep digging Andrew

Spook_ie

donvito99 wrote: »

I'm not sure if that is necessary. If visibility deteriorates, drivers should slow down and drive to the conditions, thereby avoiding any issues with cyclists.

Not so, if visibility is poor then all road users are or should be obliged to make them selves more visible.

Hurrache

Why is there 34 pages (standard view) of posts arguing about solutions for non problematic issues?

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except on dark, parked cars on dark nights?

This is what I love about drivers, if it goes against them etc etc

Keep Digging

If you wish to wear glass that reflects light, red reflectors ( considerably larger than the reflectors normally on bicycles, Lighting with mirror backing ( that reflects light when the light isn't in use, etc' as a cyclist then feel free to lobby for that change to cyclists law, I myself feel that it would be overkill though and as suggested look for ways to attain better visibility of road users with minimal discomfort and expense.

Perhaps rather than constantly dissing Hi Viz people actually look to what it is meant to achieve.

donvito99

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps then it's time we brought in an obligation for bicycles to be fitted with lighting that is available to the user 24 hours a day, maybe even a lighting that is standardised for when the cyclists are caught out by deteriorating visibility in rain etc. during daylight hours or work a little later or take more time shopping than they intended?

I'm not sure if that is necessary. If visibility deteriorates, drivers should slow down and drive to the conditions, thereby avoiding any issues with cyclists.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

It was a biased study...

Also I think you're looking at a different study, as the study was based on people questioned on their experience when wearing/not wearing Hi Viz and is a direct comparison of accident rates of two cycling groups

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528

8042 participants were randomly assigned to the test and control groups. Of these, 6793 participants confirmed their participation (test group, n = 3402, control group, n = 3391). The test group participants received the yellow bicycle jacket to wear during the study period, while the control group used their regular bicycle garments with the prospect of receiving a yellow bicycle jacket after the completion of the study.

[Deleted User]

Spook_ie wrote: »

I am persisting in saying that Hi Viz makes you more visible to drivers

Except on dark, parked cars on dark nights?

This is what I love about drivers, if it goes against them etc etc

Spook_ie

donvito99 wrote: »

If a driver cannot see a bicycle with adequate lighting, the driver should be worried about more than cyclists without "hi viz".

Perhaps then it's time we brought in an obligation for bicycles to be fitted with lighting that is available to the user 24 hours a day, maybe even a lighting that is standardised for when the cyclists are caught out by deteriorating visibility in rain etc. during daylight hours or work a little later or take more time shopping than they intended?

I have no problem seeing cyclists AFAIK when they are lit up legally, with sufficient standard of lighting, however, who knows how many cyclists I haven't seen because they don't have lights on ( legal requirement ) or Hi Viz ( a good standby if caught out by reasons outlined above )

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

It was a biased study...

All studies have a tendency to be biased, as it says about the Italian study, no one checked to see if people were adhering to the law or if it was being enforced, this is what I love about cyclist's debating skills, if it's against them it's biased if it's for them it's gospel.

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

I don't need you to try educate my about anything on this topic.

However you have contradicted your persistence that high vis should be worn.

I'm sorry, I haven't persisted that HI Viz should be worn at all, I am persisting in saying that Hi Viz makes you more visible to drivers, how the driver reacts to that additional information is the subject that you should be concerning yourself about.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

sounds very unaerodynamic if you ask me.

Northwave are on the case!

BladeJrsSs_89201277_66_F.jpg?w=430&h=430&a=7

beauf

Drivers not seeing other cars and vehicles is the main reason for acidents in general afaik.

So it seems there is something else going on than things not being easy to see.

magicbastarder

liamog wrote: »

let's hope that our cyclists avoid urban camo and trash based ghillie suits.

sounds very unaerodynamic if you ask me.

donvito99

If a driver cannot see a bicycle with adequate lighting, the driver should be worried about more than cyclists without "hi viz".

Hurrache

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would you ever learn the following

Day Glow Flourescent clothing designed to "pop" with daylight

Reflective clothing designed to reflect light

Hi Viz a combination of the two

I don't need you to try educate my about anything on this topic.

However you have contradicted your persistence that high vis should be worn.

liamog

I think the main outcome is that contrasting clothing is the main requirement, let's hope that our cyclists avoid urban camo and trash based ghillie suits.

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

The Italian Study
j. The effect of an Italian nationwide mandatory visibility aids law for cyclists by Gabriele Prati
(2018). Published in the Journal of Transport and Health
This was, according to the author, the first study on the impact on bicycle safety of legislation
imposing “bicycling visibility aids” (by law, cyclists in Italy must wear a reflective vest when riding
at night - sunset to sunrise - and in tunnels.
Having looked at official monthly data on road crashes from 2001–2015, the author concluded
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.”

Gaps in information about how the law was introduced, the degree of enforcement by the police
since, and whether cyclists have changed their behaviour, however, made it impossible for the
author to consider the findings in the wider context (i.e. is it because the police have not
enforced the law and/or because cyclists are ignoring it?).

The abstract says:
“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

The premise is that hi viz makes you more visible and thus safer. That would be intuitive.

using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning

However the results of data in real life all point to that the outcomes are counter-intuitive.

contrary to intuition or to common-sense expectation.

This is the problem with the disproportional focus on Hiviz. Its distracting from the issues that have far bigger impact on safety.

Not that this discussion is about safety. Its about inconveniencing cyclists so as to not to inconvenience drivers. If thats the aim, the lockdown will have a bigger long term impact on car use than any irrational rant about Hi Viz.

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

The Denmark Study
3. The research from Denmark (2017)

The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents by Harry Lahrmann
et al. Aalborg Uni, Denmark, published in Safety Science. (August 2017).

This paper’s main conclusion is that: “This randomised controlled study delivered
strong evidence that cyclists are protected against multiparty accidents when
wearing a bright-coloured jacket.”

It was a biased study...

...criticism of the experiment, though, is the fact that the research subjects knew that
they were looking out for cyclists, although the authors do say that their instructions were
delivered in such a way as to limit “expectancy that they would encounter a planted/scripted
researcher on a bicycle during their trip”. This could mean, though, that the test was more about
how cyclists’ clothing affects the ability of drivers who are looking out for cyclists to be confident
that what they have noticed is a cyclist, i.e. is not the same as testing whether clothing makes a
difference to the likelihood of a driver having their eye caught by a cyclist in a situation where they
may or may not be paying attention.

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

Not high vis so.

I've plenty of jackets, for running and cycling. One is a bright yellow winter one which is waterproof, I wear that when I need it. None of my running ones are yellow, some are even black. However they light up extraordinarily well when hit with an artificial light source due to the flashings they have scattered around in places, there's even some on the heals of some of my runners. I have a running bib that does the same. As I live alongside an unlit country lane without a footpath I obviously wear them during the winter or late at night. I would never wear them during the day thinking they're a means of protection.

If someone met me they'd be complaining about me being a ghob****e for now wearing the free baggy RSA yokes some people feel are mandatory for everyone stepping outside their door, at any time.

Would you ever learn the following

Day Glow Flourescent clothing designed to "pop" with daylight

Reflective clothing designed to reflect light

Hi Viz a combination of the two

LeinsterDub

Spook_ie wrote: »

The Denmark Study
3. The research from Denmark (2017)

The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents by Harry Lahrmann
et al. Aalborg Uni, Denmark, published in Safety Science. (August 2017).

This paper’s main conclusion is that: “This randomised controlled study delivered
strong evidence that cyclists are protected against multiparty accidents when
wearing a bright-coloured jacket.”

It's the level of protection that has always been argued versus the risk of discouraging riding . More people cycling bikes has been show to have a significant impact on drivers behaviour

Hurrache

Spook_ie wrote: »

The Denmark Study
3. The research from Denmark (2017)

The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents by Harry Lahrmann
et al. Aalborg Uni, Denmark, published in Safety Science. (August 2017).

This paper’s main conclusion is that: “This randomised controlled study delivered
strong evidence that cyclists are protected against multiparty accidents when
wearing a bright-coloured jacket.”

Not high vis so.

I've plenty of jackets, for running and cycling. One is a bright yellow winter one which is waterproof, I wear that when I need it. None of my running ones are yellow, some are even black. However they light up extraordinarily well when hit with an artificial light source due to the flashings they have scattered around in places, there's even some on the heals of some of my runners. I have a running bib that does the same. As I live alongside an unlit country lane without a footpath I obviously wear them during the winter or late at night. I would never wear them during the day thinking they're a means of protection.

If someone met me they'd be complaining about me being a ghob****e for not wearing the free baggy RSA yokes some people feel are mandatory for everyone stepping outside their door, at any time.

Spook_ie

The Denmark Study
3. The research from Denmark (2017)

The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents by Harry Lahrmann
et al. Aalborg Uni, Denmark, published in Safety Science. (August 2017).

This paper’s main conclusion is that: “This randomised controlled study delivered
strong evidence that cyclists are protected against multiparty accidents when
wearing a bright-coloured jacket.”

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/study-high-visibility-jackets-do-little-to-protect-cyclists-469368.html

The Italian Study
j. The effect of an Italian nationwide mandatory visibility aids law for cyclists by Gabriele Prati
(2018). Published in the Journal of Transport and Health
This was, according to the author, the first study on the impact on bicycle safety of legislation
imposing “bicycling visibility aids” (by law, cyclists in Italy must wear a reflective vest when riding
at night - sunset to sunrise - and in tunnels.
Having looked at official monthly data on road crashes from 2001–2015, the author concluded
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.”

Gaps in information about how the law was introduced, the degree of enforcement by the police
since, and whether cyclists have changed their behaviour, however, made it impossible for the
author to consider the findings in the wider context (i.e. is it because the police have not
enforced the law and/or because cyclists are ignoring it?).

The abstract says:
“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

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

Switch your headlights on. And glue reflectors onto the stirrups and horses legs, similar set up to most bikes.

Look at the background, it's daytime, unless you have illegal intensity lights they would be unlike to make a difference. The photograph was selected to show the difference between day glow materials and none. The actual Hi Viz would contain reflective elements as well

magicbastarder

yep, if you visit the cycling forum you'll find the unofficial mantra is 'lights, lights, lights'.

the reason cyclists roll their eyes when hi vis is mentioned, is that any time cyclist safety comes up, almost always the first thing mentioned is hi vis and lights. which is actually at the bottom of the list of what needs to change for safety, by any measure.
the standard hierarchy of safety protocols always puts PPE at the bottom, because otherwise it's a tacit admission that all other measures are inadequate.

what will make me safer on my commute is not wearing hi-vis. i always commute(d) with two front and two back lights on in the dark, and one back light on in the daylight, and it did not seem to reduce close passes and SMIDSYs or SMIDGAFs, but one thing that would reduce that exposure is decent road design and sustained enforcement. but listening to some of the usual talking heads on this, the main issue with cycle safety is people not donning a light plastic hat to protect against one and a half tons of steel travelling at 30km/h, or 50km/h or whatever.

beauf

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/study-high-visibility-jackets-do-little-to-protect-cyclists-469368.html

In Italy, a nationwide law was introduced in October 2010 that requires cyclists to wear high-visibility clothing when riding after dusk and before dawn.

However the Journal of Transport & Health has published a long-term study of Italian road statistics from before and after the introduction of this law that has cast doubt on its effectiveness.

Gabriele Prati of the Department of Psychology at the University of Bologna looked at both the number of bicycles involved in crashes and the proportion of accidents involving bicycles on a monthly basis between the years 2001 and 2015.

“The data showed that the implementation of legislation imposing high-visibility clothing for cyclist did not have either immediate or long-term effects on the number of bicycles involved in road crashes as well as on its proportion in the total vehicles involved in road crashes,” the study concluded.

“Therefore, the findings of the study provide reason for caution about mandating the use of high-visibility clothing for cyclists,” it said.

a 2013 Danish study finding that riders using flashing lights during the daytime were 47 per cent less likely to be involved in collisions with vehicles.

Hurrache

Spook_ie wrote: »

Spot two horses or maybe the same horse twice,

Switch your headlights on. And glue reflectors onto the stirrups and horses legs, similar set up to most bikes.

FinnC

liamog wrote: »

Personally I run in the bike lane because its usually asphalt instead of concrete. I find it much less fatiguing over a long distance. I can also pay slightly less attention to the surface as it tends to be more even than the concrete section of the path which often has 'lips'.

I'd run a lot in the cycle lanes also. Never had any problems off anyone for doing it either. It's pretty easy go around me, and I obviously then don't mind anyone running in them when I'm out cycling either.