Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

To play devils advocate, what if the proposal was refined along the lines of hiviz mandatory on a road with no footpath and speed limit greater than or equal to 60kmh.

Let's go with that.

You need to carry hi-vis for everyone in a car. 5 per car. And they'll need to be worn most of the time while driving, because otherwise how do you get out of the car without breaking the law if the car breaks down? And obviously a special baby-sized hi-vis for babies in the car. Or an exemption for children under a certain height. So maybe task the gardai with having measuring tapes for height exemptions.

School buses will need 60 vests. And they'll all need to be worn at all times too.

And public buses are more fun, because if someone gets off the bus wearing the hi-vis that leaves room for someone to get on, and what if there's no hi-vis for them when the bus breaks down? So you need a near endless supply for public buses. Which is fine but the loading times will increase significantly if you wait for everytone to get their vest on, making bus journeys much slower/worse.

Or….and this is just an idea….we could enforce the existing rule that says drivers must drive to the conditions and be able to stop in the space they see in front of them.

Don't read the comments!

I had to. They don't disappoint!

When did we lose the ability to use common sense? Where's the evidence and data to say that there is a disproportionate number of pedestrian deaths/ injury on roads with no footpaths and 60kmph speed limits? Off the top of my head there were two pedestrians killed in car parks in the past year.

And why the obsession with regulating the ability of vulnerable road users to use the roads, when at the same time the biggest danger on the roads and the sector with the highest number of casualties, is resolute against any attempt to bring in regulation or anything that might change their behaviour on the roads?

What if your suggestion came in - who's going to police that? Who's going to prosecute it? All while at the same time as ignoring the speeding motorists, and phone using drivers on the same stretches of road? Because if you can't police that new rule then it does nothing more than undermine the respect of legislation. AND if you can't police existing laws around motor use of the roads then it stands to logic that you sure as hell won't be able to police new ones. Unless of course there is a concerted effort to target compliance by the one sector of road user that is responsible for minimal destruction of roads, minimal harm to the environment, minimal financial cost to the tax payer and minimal death/ injury to other road users.

In short - any argument for mandatory hi viz use is moral cowardice, click bait journalism, populist politics or pure old fashioned ignorance.

Maybe if we turned it on its head and had laws like the Netherlands that apportions the blame to the motorist automatically. Even if the cyclist/pedestrian is completely at fault, the motorist is still attributed 50% of the blame. Perhaps it might make motorists slow down and, for once, be always on the look out for the unexpected around the next corner, or in the dark on a country road.

Yeah, it absolutely astounding the lack of any meaningful, scientific/ peer reviewed data analytics referenced/ cited by the numpties who spout on about the need for measures targeting vulnerable road users.

It's almost as though people don't actually care.

Even the Prime Time piece on it, had a road engineer talking about redesigns before they had (the excellent) person from stoproaddeaths.ie talking about enforcement and accountability! Then waffle from a politician without proper commitments to enforcement.

It's definitely not habeaus corpus, which is solely about unlawful detention (so wouldn't apply to civil law)

There's nothing in common law or the constitution that says you can't assign civil liability on a statutory basis based on clear criteria. The presumption of innocence only goes so far as "You must prove that the act, as set out by relevant legislation, happened" - so if motorists were automatically found to be 50% civilly liable simply for being involved in a collision, the presumption of innocence only goes as far as "proving on the balance of probability that the collision happened and the accused was the driver".

Generally, when the law is blamed for some positive change not being able to be brought in, it's an excuse.

Discussing the Dutch cyclist first streets approach on NT. Ciaran Cuffe: "you only have to look at your local neighbourhood facebook group to see the rage between cyclists and motorists"

I guess we are further ahead than Oz https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-24/active-transport-cycling-bikes-cities-safety/106710436

Like the creation of the footpath to separate pedestrians, Haworth says installing the ubiquitous painted bike lanes on roads was as much about ensuring bike riders “weren’t actually slowing down and interfering with the traffic” as it was about safety.

Nice, interesting and historical article. Thanks for posting. Alarming quote "One in 25 boys cycle to school in Ireland, but just one in 250 girls do" yikes. More encouragement needed like with some of the below.

Not journalism but still thought yous'd like it