Should traffic laws be further enforced for cyclists?

Undercover Elephant · 05-08-2011 03:59PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

go one step further, cycle in the nip, everyone will notice you!

That's the last time I split a boards jersey order with you.

Davyhal · 05-08-2011 04:06PM

No, it's not down to paying attention, it's because there are some roads with blindspots, single lane country roads with lots of bends, hedges growing in at the sides etc. You can be driving in a perfectly legal manner, and still not see the cyclist til you are almost upon them. And cyclists are not infallable either, sometimes cyclists come out of side roads etc. It is on both parties to be responsible on the road. If it is evening, the cyclist may have a chance to hear the car / see the much more noticable lights approacing / be more expectant. The motorist will not hear the bike, and may not see the much less visible light. All I'm saying is, wearing a visible jacket will do much more good than harm. Surely you should be thinking of your own safety. You cannot trust everyone on the road. And I apply the same rules about high vis jackets to pedestrians as well. I always wear one when I go for a run if it is approaching dusk. I know I look like an idiot wearing it, but I'd rather look like an idiot unharmed than be well-dressed whilst pinned between a bumper and a wall

seamus · 05-08-2011 04:06PM

Davyhal wrote: »

it would be in your own interest to wear a high-vis jacket.

How so? Read the rest of this thread. If you have some evidence that a high-vis jacket is a useful safety supplement to lights, please provide it.

Chips Lovell · 05-08-2011 04:09PM

So wearing a high viz jacket will allow you to be seen around the corner of a blind spot? That's brill.

doozerie · 05-08-2011 04:09PM

blorg wrote:

Yes, I threw in an anecdote, as that is what we are doing! The stats however show much lower serious injury rates from bike/bike and bike/pedestrian collisions, versus those involving a motorised vehicle.

The world is not safe, you could slip in the bath, you could be kidnapped if you step outside your front door. We all have to make our decisions on risk, and cycling is just not inherently risky, especially if cars are not in the equation.

My point is that a collision with a cyclist is not free of risk of injury. So those people on bicycles that habitually break the rules of the road and justify their actions with the argument of "well what harm can I cause [others], sure it's not like I am driving a car which can actually hurt people" are talking rubbish. What you are saying seems to be entirely unrelated to what I am saying, though we overlap on the point that bike collisions are not the harmless little bumps that some would like to believe.

Undercover Elephant · 05-08-2011 04:11PM

Davyhal wrote: »

No, it's not down to paying attention, it's because there are some roads with blindspots, single lane country roads with lots of bends, hedges growing in at the sides etc.

Hi-vis won't help drivers see round corners.

EDIT - oh, never mind.

Davyhal · 05-08-2011 04:13PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So wearing a high viz jacket will allow you to be seen around the corner of a blind spot? That's brill.

I was saying that in response to the argument that if you don't see a cyclist you must be driving irresponsibly.

Do you not agree that High-Vis jackets make you more visible in the dusk?! that is the purpose of them! and that cannot be a bad thing! This is the thing that gets on my nerves in a discussion, when people jump on one line and ignore the entire argument!

-K2- · 05-08-2011 04:16PM

This is what is required.

Lumen · 05-08-2011 04:20PM

Davyhal wrote: »

Do you not agree that High-Vis jackets make you more visible in the dusk?! that is the purpose of them! and that cannot be a bad thing!

At "dusk" I use decent lights. I assume you do the same. If that's the case, why do you need hi vis?

Idleater · 05-08-2011 04:23PM

Davyhal wrote: »

Do you not agree that High-Vis jackets make you more visible in the dusk?! that is the purpose of them! and that cannot be a bad thing! This is the thing that gets on my nerves in a discussion, when people jump on one line and ignore the entire argument!

Idleater wrote: »

Posting as a motorcyclist, drivers claim not to see me either despite me driving a large bright orange bike, dipped beams that I cannot turn off and a full "hi-viz" jacket (it would be higher viz if it were washed every now and again).

No amount of legislation and demands for increasing visibility are going to change whether people see what they are looking at or not.

Relying on such legislation would be futile IMO.

To add to this, a motorcycle is larger than a bicycle therefore even more conspicuous, it also has a loud horn (as opposed to a bell) to alert traffic.

I have done my advanced rider RoSPA test 3 times now to Garda level and I still am amazed at the amount of times I have to alter my position to take account of motorists "not seeing" me.

Undercover Elephant · 05-08-2011 04:23PM

doozerie wrote: »

My point is that a collision with a cyclist is not free of risk of injury. So those people on bicycles that habitually break the rules of the road and justify their actions with the argument of "well what harm can I cause [others], sure it's not like I am driving a car which can actually hurt people" are talking rubbish.

I don't speak for blorg, but the thread is about enforcing traffic laws. In an ideal world, they would all be fully enforced, and we would also have cycle lanes which didn't just end abruptly when the planners couldn't quite work out what to do.

But in the world we live in, there are limited resources, and so it makes sense to enforce rules selectively in a way which will best protect life and limb. Cyclist-cyclist and cyclist-pedestrian KSIs do happen, sadly. But they are vanishingly rare compared to the number of people killed or maimed by cars, even though we see stupid behaviour like salmoning and riding on the footpath all the time. So I would much rather see the gardai clamping down on - say - the use of phones while driving (which is proven to increase the risk of an accident fourfold) than set out to stop RLJs or whatever out of some misguided concept of fairness.

It's not a justification of the idiotic actions of some cyclists. It's a justification for not doing anything specific about it.

There's a counterargument that ubiquitous low-level lawlessness breeds general incivility, of course. But that's a lot more tenuous.

Davyhal · 05-08-2011 04:23PM

Dusk, then going on into the evening when it is getting darker as well. Cyclists eyes adjust better to the dark than those of a motorist, you must admit that from personal experience.... Oh never mind, it is your own death trap. Thinking I might drive home from work down along the bike lane. Maybe that will teach ye!

blorg · 05-08-2011 04:27PM

doozerie wrote: »

My point is that a collision with a cyclist is not free of risk of injury. So those people on bicycles that habitually break the rules of the road and justify their actions with the argument of "well what harm can I cause [others], sure it's not like I am driving a car which can actually hurt people" are talking rubbish. What you are saying seems to be entirely unrelated to what I am saying, though we overlap on the point that bike collisions are not the harmless little bumps that some would like to believe.

Nothing is "free of risk of injury." There is only a scale ranging from say, falling from a plane without a parachute (which is not actually guaranteed to kill you), through colliding with a car, colliding with another bike, walking to your mailbox, and so on. Colliding with a bike is a lot lower down on the risk scale compared with colliding with a car. No-one ever said it was entirely harmless, that is a straw man.

Idleater · 05-08-2011 04:29PM

Davyhal wrote: »

Cyclists eyes adjust better to the dark than those of a motorist, you must admit that from personal experience....

zuh???

is it a different darkness inside a vehicle?

Davyhal wrote: »

Oh never mind, it is your own death trap. Thinking I might drive home from work down along the bike lane. Maybe that will teach ye!

erm, do you not think that it's you that needs teaching?

Chips Lovell · 05-08-2011 04:29PM

Davyhal wrote:

I was saying that in response to the argument that if you don't see a cyclist you must be driving irresponsibly.

Indeed, and I'm highlighting why your counterpoint makes no sense.

Davyhal wrote:

Do you not agree that High-Vis jackets make you more visible in the dusk?! that is the purpose of them! and that cannot be a bad thing! This is the thing that gets on my nerves in a discussion, when people jump on one line and ignore the entire argument!

This is the essence of the logic fail that seems to overcome people when debating safety. Measure X will make you safer. Therefore it is irresponsible for you not to employ measure x.

blorg · 05-08-2011 04:33PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

This is the essence of the logic fail that seems to overcome people when debating safety. Measure X will make you safer. Therefore it is irresponsible for you not to employ measure x.

Especially when measure Y (adaquate lighting at night) is actually the important one, which many high-vis wearers don't bother employing.

I have damn good lights and am honestly not concerned about dressing in black at night... I actually feel more visible at night than during the day, and motorists tend to give me more room when passing.

doozerie · 05-08-2011 04:34PM

blorg wrote:

No-one ever said it was entirely harmless, that is a straw man.

*sigh* Well my straw man is more pleasant than your straw man, your straw man smells.

galwaycyclist · 05-08-2011 04:34PM

Davyhal wrote: »

No, it's not down to paying attention, it's because there are some roads with blindspots, single lane country roads with lots of bends, hedges growing in at the sides etc. You can be driving in a perfectly legal manner, and still not see the cyclist til you are almost upon them.

Ok the central rule about speed is that you cannot drive at a speed exceeding your ability to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear. If you can't see around a bend - and you are driving too fast to stop if there is an obstacle around the corner - then you are breaking the law. This is regardless of what the stated speed limit happens to be.

The speed limit is not a target. You are expected to adapt to the road conditions if they change.

Even if a motorist is under the speed limit they can still technically be speeding. Indeed on some country lanes most of them probably are.

Undercover Elephant · 05-08-2011 04:34PM

Davyhal wrote: »

Do you not agree that High-Vis jackets make you more visible in the dusk?! that is the purpose of them! and that cannot be a bad thing! This is the thing that gets on my nerves in a discussion, when people jump on one line and ignore the entire argument!

Even if you were right about hi-vis making you more visible in the dusk, which is lacking in any evidential basis, there is a downside.

Dressing cyclists up in ugly gear that you would never wear anywhere else puts other people off cycling. It gives a message that it is an abnormal activity which is unreasonably dangerous.

This is a bad thing. The health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks 20 to 1. And furthermore, the single best way of reducing the risks of cycling is for there to be more people cycling - a doubling of numbers only leads to roughly a 60% increase in accidents.

Indirectly, hi-vis kills.

doozerie · 05-08-2011 04:39PM

Undercover Elephant wrote:

I don't speak for blorg, but the thread is about enforcing traffic laws. In an ideal world, they would all be fully enforced, and we would also have cycle lanes which didn't just end abruptly when the planners couldn't quite work out what to do.

I don't like your ideal world. My ideal world doesn't have cycle lanes 'cos they suck.

Undercover Elephant wrote:

So I would much rather see the gardai clamping down on - say - the use of phones while driving (which is proven to increase the risk of an accident fourfold) than set out to stop RLJs or whatever out of some misguided concept of fairness.

You seem to be describing clamping down on cycling RLJ'ers as unwarranted. What about, for example, cars parked in cycle tracks, or cars parked on footpaths, should they not be ticketed either 'cos they are not in the act of squishing someone?

Davyhal · 05-08-2011 04:42PM

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

hi-vis kills.

Ok, that's all I needed to hear. *Clicks Unfollow*

oflahero · 05-08-2011 04:44PM

blorg wrote: »

Especially when measure Y (adaquate lighting at night) is actually the important one, which many high-vis wearers don't bother employing.

This. This. This. I see this all the damn time now, numpties along the length of Rathgar Road, high-viz flapping in the gloom without a single light on their bike. They presumably think that because they were handed the high-viz for free during a road safety blitz by some authority figure, that they've pretty much done their bit and Gay Byrne'd be proud.

On the main point, I think Vlad El-Kurtains-Tonto has nailed it - just because something might 'make you safer' doesn't mean it's a good idea. By that logic, all motorists and their passengers should wear motorbike helmets in their cars.

Lumen · 05-08-2011 05:02PM

Drivers are not perfect. Sure, they have a legal responsibility to drive to the available visibility, but as the more vulnerable party cyclists should take all reasonable precautions to keep themselves safe. Hi-vis garments are a bit uncomfortable and don't look very stylish, but they're not expensive and definitely reduce the risk of being run over. So it's really the case that cyclists who refuse to wear hi-vis and then get run over only have themselves to blame.

Men are not perfect. Sure, they have a legal responsibility to get consent for sex, but as the more vulnerable party women should take all reasonable precautions to keep themselves safe. Burkas are a bit uncomfortable and don't look very stylish, but they're not expensive and definitely reduce the risk of being raped. So it's really the case that women who refuse to wear burkas and then get raped only have themselves to blame.

goldencleric · 05-08-2011 05:06PM

Lumen wrote: »

Drivers are not perfect. Sure, they have a legal responsibility to drive to the available visibility, but as the more vulnerable party cyclists should take all reasonable precautions to keep themselves safe. Hi-vis garments are a bit uncomfortable and don't look very stylish, but they're not expensive and definitely reduce the risk of being run over. So it's really the case that cyclists who refuse to wear hi-vis and then get run over only have themselves to blame.

Men are not perfect. Sure, they have a legal responsibility to get consent for sex, but as the more vulnerable party women should take all reasonable precautions to keep themselves safe. Burkas are a bit uncomfortable and don't look very stylish, but they're not expensive and definitely reduce the risk of being raped. So it's really the case that women who refuse to wear burkas and then get raped only have themselves to blame.

tomasrojo · 05-08-2011 05:11PM

The problem I find with the tenor of a lot of road-safety advice now is that it seems to be based on the principle that there is no "adequate" level of, in this case, visibility. You must strive to be more and more visible, even when the return on the investment must tail off considerably after installing good lights.

So you get the astonishing advice of Randy Swart (of the one-man Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute):

http://www.helmets.org/lights.htm

The more I observe about urban light clutter the more I favor big, big lights and lights that have a signature. You will find this concept better developed on Ken Kifer's Web page discussion of the Flashing Neon Light Display, although I would not favor his use of a diesel generator to power the array.

Ken Kifer's discussion is obviously a spoof, but some people are now so trapped in the mindset that all precautions are now indispensable that the following strikes them as a plausible and welcome strategy, only baulking at trailing a diesel generator to power the set-up (even the presence of 'humor' in the URL isn't enough to make it clear that it's a joke):
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/humor/addit.htm

The Flashing Neon Light Display (FNLD) is intended to make the cyclist more visible on the road at night. It includes a sign with six foot high blue neon letters which spell "CYCLIST" and a series of bright red, interlocking arrows beneath that descend to point to the cyclist below. As an added safety feature, every five seconds, the entire light rapidly flashes off and on several times. At the bottom of the sign are mounted two floodlights, one on either side of the arrow, that illuminate the cyclist, dressed in a cycling jacket covered with sequins, brilliantly (in fact, blindingly). Unfortunately, this device eats up battery power at a frightful rate. It seems that the inventor lived in an area with frequent high-power powerline crossings and therefore did not see the necessity of providing more than a small auxilliary battery which would automatically recharge while passing under each powerline. The best solution seems to be a small motorized trailer to hold the sign and an electric generator. Such a trailer is now being tested, but, in my opinion, the small diesel engine produces undesirable exhaust fumes.

Undercover Elephant · 05-08-2011 05:15PM

Davyhal wrote: »

Ok, that's all I needed to hear heard. *Clicks Unfollow*

FYP.

Bye then.

tomasrojo · 05-08-2011 05:18PM

(I should point out that I have been prone to disproportionate hyper-illumination in the past, and I am not making fun of people who take extensive precautions, unless they go as far as Randy Swart. I think if you are that afraid of travelling in the dark, you need counselling, not more lights.)

coolbeans · 05-08-2011 05:18PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

The problem I find with the tenor of a lot of road-safety advice now is that it seems to be based on the principle that there is no "adequate" level of, in this case, visibility. You must strive to be more and more visible, even when the return on the investment must tail off considerably after installing good lights.

So you get the astonishing advice of Randy Swart (of the one-man Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute):

http://www.helmets.org/lights.htm

Ken Kifer's discussion is obviously a spoof, but some people are now so trapped in the mindset that all precautions are now indispensable that the following strikes them as a plausible and welcome strategy, even down to trailing a diesel generator to power the set-up (even the presence of 'humor' in the URL isn't enough to make it clear that it's a joke):
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/humor/addit.htm

LOL, what a tool!! He must really be afraid of cycling. That site is comedy gold. Eg; Response to "truck ran over cyclist's head"
A helmet can help, but will crush if squarely run over." Brilliant!

Undercover Elephant · 05-08-2011 05:20PM

doozerie wrote: »

You seem to be describing clamping down on cycling RLJ'ers as unwarranted. What about, for example, cars parked in cycle tracks, or cars parked on footpaths, should they not be ticketed either 'cos they are not in the act of squishing someone?

Do I think they should be ticketed? Yes. Do I think it should be a priority? No.

Do I think RLJs should be prosecuted? Yes. Do I think it's a good use of resources to set out to catch as many as possible? No.

That said, as a practical matter, I can see the sense in having random days where specific low-level illegal behaviour is specifically targeted. We all know that that is not really what is being suggested, though.

tomasrojo · 05-08-2011 05:41PM

Just as an aside, seeing as pedal reflectors were mentioned in passing, anyone ever seen one of these?

http://bikexprt.com/bicycle/reflectors/reflwrk.htm

Large glass beads were once commonly used as cat's-eye reflectors. The photo below shows a single glass bead used as a pedal reflector on a 1964 Raleigh bicycle.

Came across it the other day, and was quite taken by it. Not that it's as good as cube-corner reflectors, I assume.

Should traffic laws be further enforced for cyclists?

Comments