Completed it there now.
The questions are a little bit weird. I selected "cyclist" and "driver" and all the questions about cyclists were given in 1st person (how often are you distracted distracted by your phones as a cyclist) whereas the motorist questions were all in the third person (how often do you think drivers are distracted by their phones). If we're doing like for like it should be "how often are you distracted as a driver" also, people are obviously going to paint their own actions differently to other peoples
I realise these polls aren't easy to get right but kinda feels they have the article already written and want some stats to say it's "backed by public opinion"
Filled it out. A couple of loaded questions on helmets/hi-viz.
Strange one also where they ask whether pedestrians realise how difficult they are to see for cyclists. I don't ever recall having difficulty seeing a pedestrian while cycling!
RSA doing their thing 🙄
Tis all those politicos demanding hi-vis legal requirement for anyone outside
Do you think Cyclists are aware of hard they are to see?
When you got hit in broad daylight, were you aware it we were going to use your lack of a helmet to make it sound like it was your fault?
Feel like we are picking on you, no worries, here is a question that makes it sound like it's a pedestrians fault for getting hit, no matter the circumstances.
WERE YOU WEARING HI VIS? WERE YOU? WERE YOU?
COULD PEDESTRIANS BE THE PROBLEM?
They can f*ck off if they think I'm answering those sort of questions.
As someone mentioned above, the article is already written - they just need some bullsh*t stats.
Headline: "Cyclists too thick to realise high-viz and helmets will save their lives"
what's special about those professions?
also, it asks how often you cycle on roads of type 'Other' (after you've answered questions about how often you cycle on 60km/h roads, N roads etc.)
i was wondering what Other meant and the next question is 'no, you tell us what you mean by 'Other''? a strange question.
Other - a canal towpath, a shared pedestrian/cycle route, loose gravel paths/pedestrian shortcut
Other also includes 80km/h urban roads
All the argument is designed to do is to shift the onus of responsibulity (translation: blame) from perpetrator to victim, so that a motorist has access to get off the hook for an incident where the cyclist wasn't wearing "hi viz".
Even if asked, "well did you see the cyclist?" the answer can now be "yes of course, but he still wasn't wearning hi viz…..ergo your honour".
The longer the conversation is allowed to continue the more normalising it becomes, and the greater the likelihood that motorists will have growing leverage over cyclists in the eyes of the public and the judiciary. Which was/is the point all along.
The very last thing it is about is SAFETY least of all cyclist safety.
Just wondering if it's just me but can anyone find a reference to the RSA survey on their website?
In the UK, new research shows that prospective SUV buyers are not swayed by knowledge of the dangers that those vehicles may pose towards vulnerable road users.
Drivers who are told about the safety risks posed by SUVs to cyclists and pedestrians are very unlikely to be deterred from buying one, a new study has found.The findings indicate that if governments want to reduce the number of large, dangerous vehicles on the roads, it is likely to require financial penalties, according to the psychologists at Swansea University who led the research.
Drivers who are told about the safety risks posed by SUVs to cyclists and pedestrians are very unlikely to be deterred from buying one, a new study has found.
The findings indicate that if governments want to reduce the number of large, dangerous vehicles on the roads, it is likely to require financial penalties, according to the psychologists at Swansea University who led the research.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/20/suv-risks-warnings-road-safety-buyers-uk-study
There's a link in a banner at the top of their website and it's mentioned in a news and events piece from 15/05/26.
IInteresting opinion piece on road safety in today's IT by Sadhbh O'Neil...
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2026/06/23/opinion-road-deaths-are-not-inevitable-stop-referring-to-them-as-accidents/
there is a new way of thinking emerging in the community of researchers that study mobility.
There's nothing new in that though!
True but it's good to have the message repeated for thoose unaware of it
I presume those jobs are predicted to bias your opinions. I presumed other meant Lanes, Boreens, greenways etc.
yeah, i figure a presumed bias as well. i know a couple of lads who work in some of those areas, must ask them if they know what the presumed bias is.
Completed that RSA survey last night. Some strange questions along the lines of
Q3 Do you work in an envelope making factory and eat pork sausages once a week…if so, tick
A. Cyclists should wear Hi-viz
B.Cyclists should wear hi-viz when cycling on a road
C. Cyclists should wear hi-viz when cycling on a footpath
D. Cyclists should wear hi-viz when cycling on a bicycle.
E. Cylists should wear hi-viz when breaking red lights.
Anyway, the last question regarding one thing that would make the roads safer, I said more visible and engaged roads police
How can we make this survey not seem like victim blaming, while victim blaming.
"they usually do this kind of thing to disqualify those respondents" according to a friend who's worked in market research for years.
whatever the reason - and i think it's that they're too canny when it comes to filling out surveys, but that's very much like a 'have you ever been a member of an organisation…' question on US immigration questionnaires.
Pop up at the top of the RSA site has a link to it when I go in.
I think the best chance for reducing risk to VRU is likely to be a technological driver's aid rather than anything else.
Having seen a 2022 BMW up close hitting a child at a pedestrian crossing last year, and the difference it's "Active Driving Assistant" made in reducing harm I'd imagine they'll be the norm soon and a legal requirement before long.
I don't see any legislation coming to lower bonnet height, and the "active bonnet" feature in BMW cars is not going to be effective until leading edge of bonnet is around knee height rather than torso height in your large SUV.
Technology on the one hand is keeping a lid on road deaths through occupant protection system and driver aids while different technology i.e. those massive screens linked to phones is increasing distraction while making mobile phone laws irrelevant.
It almost seems like a deliberate convergence to bring about autonomous vehicles
I liked that last question. I decided to read it as:
"What one change would you make to the RSA?"
You have it there in your last comment. Seems to be a consistent mentality of removing responsibility for dangers caused by cars from drivers as much as possible - "ah, it was the tech that caused it"… "ah, he was walking without hi viz"… "ah, he wasn't wearing a helmet"… "ah the speed van was in an unfair position"… "ah, technically the Guard shoulda done X when arresting me for being off my head behind the wheel". We're all fully familiar with it at this point. Meanwhile, how many deaths or serious injuries on Irish roads were cause by things other than motor vehicles last year?
Anything to be said for more hi-viz? That'll fix everything.
‘Carspreading’ could lead to extra 2,600 crash deaths a year by 2040, study finds | Travel and transport | The Guardian
Does this belong here? Not sure...
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZpb-h5sPOP/?igsh=dGkydGxjZHljNTJl
The first comment commends the cyclist for hugging the side of the road. And he gets hosed in the replies.
