Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

Same here, except it's aliexpress I buy mine from, 2 for €3 and they are small enough to fit in my pocket

You know when a govt TD asks so many questions of other govt TDs it's usually hot air so that they can all look good

He lives quite close to me (near Bakers Corner) I have certainly never seen him on a bike. Given the anti cycling/cycle lane feelings in this area I am surprised that he is raising any kind of cycling issue.

Here's another statistic Anton, 100% of motorists killed were not wearing helmets. Go figure that one out and come back to us.

Ciaran Cannon was on NT Claire Byrne recently saying that we need to change 'the discourse that a cyclist has to be lit like a christmas tree..' Similar mentioned here https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22582619/ Not sure how many times he has to be called on

I agree with you, but you see "lit up like a christmas tree" is just rhetoric. It's one thing venting on a forum like this, but when debating the issue in public facts should trump emotion. Using phrases like that just plays their game and allows them to move away from facts and instead say things like "if it would save just one life" "they're given away free" "why wouldn't you" and "nobody's saying you need to be lit up like a christmas tree". It's a demonstrably stupid idea and should be possible to show that with clear logic. Let them tie themselves up on knots with their own skewed logic. It should be relatively easy for a seasoned communicator to prove the victim blaming mentality being employed. And to immediately cut off a commentator who can't back up his/ her claims with evidence/ reports.

The slide towards nanny-statism should concern every rational citizen, cyclist/ 'pedestrian' (who isn't a pedestrian?) or not.

I fear that cycling Ireland (or any of the cycling representative groups) will only actually act on this meaningfully once its too late. They should be putting ministers on the spot and asking them to confirm their position and that no consideration is being given to the nonsense. I've no doubt that if a balanced national discussion was had, sense would prevail quite quickly. But all we're treated to is click-worthy sensationalist reporting.

yes, they'd still bang on about it because the majority hate cyclists and want more rules imposed on them

But where does it end? Should all pedestrians be wearing high vis too? Many more pedestrians are killed by motorists than cyclists every year in Ireland.

I know I know I know..

But maybe it'll end the fcukin argument. It pulls that rug from underneath. And then in 4 years time or whatever, instead of this interminable debate, with statistics unchanged, they can't argue for more or HIGHER viz, and then maybe the spotlight will be put back on to the real culprits - cars and driving behaviour and road design.

i don't know many dublin bus drivers think it's ok to pass by you as long as they're over the other side of the painted white line for the bike lane. i've had them pass a couple of times in the last year probably only half a meter away from me. one time on the quays an unmarked motorbike garda witnessed it and pulled him over and ticketed him, which was satisfying.

Nope, we'd just be on to insurance then. And then tax and licences and and and. Sometimes we just need to call out the BS for what it is, even when it's uncomfortable.

I'm happy to approach it from the "redictio ad absurdium" side, my reply is effectively: yes you're right we need to have hi-vis on everyone on the road and that includes EVERY vehicle user that potentially steps out of their vehicle during a breakdown". So we're talking about mandatory 5 hi vis vests per car, and demonstrate they're always at reach from the cabin, not just stowed in the boot etc. Otherwise you're walking around a car at night with no hi-vis on, which is dangerous.

Naturally, every child going to school needs one when they're getting out of the car to walk to the school gates. But the driver also needs a replacement hi-vis vest for any car seat that has been vacated by said child. Obviously babies will need dedicated baby-sized hi-vis that needs to be correctly fitted.

If it even saves one life surely it's worth it…because we can't expect drivers (with their headlights, licence, testing, non-intoxicated and non-overtired state) to maintain enough control over their heavy machinery to not simply drive over a person that's not in hi-vis. I feel we're putting too much onus on drivers….etc.

And we obviously need suitable punishment for non-compliance. And why not start a conversation about helmets while we're at it?

People usually aren't slow to tell you where their personal "line in the sand" is and you can walk them back over the "hi vis on cyclists" idea more slowly while gently asking whether lights which are already mandated by law could POSSIBLY be sufficient.

That's just how I approach it. I find people are usually reasonably happy to agree that mandatory hi-vis isn't a silver bullet once they see how absurd it would be in practice.

Edit: I also wear hi-vis and have lights etc. I'm not against using it, I just don't think any kind of sop to a group of people who aren't thinking about real solutions is a good approach. Nobody would agree to "ban dark coloured cars" because everyone knows that lights are the obvious correct answer.