Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

RainyDay · 07-01-2015 12:01am

07Lapierre wrote: »

An excellent idea! If more kids in Ireland were taught cycling "road craft" in schools, maybe more kids/teenagers would cycle to school?

Several local authorities fund cycle training courses for primary schools, around 4th class or 5th class.

Bongalongherb · 07-01-2015 12:06am

RainyDay wrote: »

Indeed, the increase in deaths is worrying. Have you any particular reason to attribute this increase to lack of hi-vis wearing by cyclists?

Because critical mass is important for cyclists. The more people cycle, the safer cycling gets - safety and numbers, and all that.

It's not so much that it is unnecessary - the main issue is the absence of any evidence that it will actually help. I follow cycling safety issues fairly closely, and I've never seen any inquest report that was attributed to lack of hi-vis. I'm open to correction on this, of course.

Yes, we do need to make to roads safer for everyone. But why do you assume that hi-vis will fix this? Or that mandatory hi-vis will actually solve a problem?

You seem to miss a key issue in public policy making. Personal experience does not constitute evidence for good policy.

Spending one night in an A&E dept does not make one an expert in health service management. Getting your house burgled does not make one an expert in the legal system. And being a driver (or indeed a cyclist) does not make you an expert in traffic safety.

If we're going to go for something like mandatory hi-vis, we need;
1) evidence that it will actually work
2) evidence that it won't have unintended consequences (such as reduced numbers cycling, leading to reduced safety for cyclists).

They don't have helmets for the bike share systems.

Just to be clear - who gets punished? What % of drivers who speed get punished? What % of drivers who use their phones get punished? What % of drivers who fail to indicate get punished?

Here's one possibility - mandatory hi-vis could well put some people off cycling. That might seem strange to you (or to me), but it could be one possible outcome. You need to think through your proposals.

Why do you want to seperate or divide motorists and cyclists. Most cyclists are motorists. Many motorists are cyclists.

Because forcing drivers to do a theory test has sorted out most problems regarding bad driving?

You have to understand that with a theory test - it will make a difference for most folk but you will of course still have people that will still cycle dangerously is all I'm saying. It's a start, so I think this would be a benefit to the majority of cyclists, and to their well-being.

RainyDay · 07-01-2015 12:09am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

You have to understand that with a theory test - it will make a difference for most folk but you will of course still have people that will still cycle dangerously is all I'm saying. It's a start, so I think this would be a benefit to the majority of cyclists.

How's that working out for you, in terms of drivers? What % of drivers (who have already passed the theory test) still speed, or use the phone, or fail to indicate, or overtake dangerously? What will be the cost of implementing a theory test? How will this work for tourists who want to avail of the Dublin Bike scheme? Has this been tried anywhere else and worked successfully?

eeeee · 07-01-2015 12:16am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

You have to understand that with a theory test - it will make a difference for most folk but you will of course still have people that will still cycle dangerously is all I'm saying. It's a start, so I think this would be a benefit to the majority of cyclists.

The majority of cyclists have a car license. The majority of cyclists are not the problem. A minority are. The majority of car drives do not cycle.
Cyclists are responsible for their own safety, but not for driver inattention or stupidity. High-Viz does little really in an urban environment, (as links posted above will attest to), and even in a rural environment, by the time you see the High Viz only it is too late. Lights, hover, are a far more useful safety application.
This smacks of yet again absolving motorists of their responsibilities to other road users. Whilst visibility is paramount - lights are essential - high viz is of little use in reality. No sane cyclist is going to make it deliberately easier for a car to hit them, as the cyclist is always going to come off worse. What has not happened is more driver awareness campaigns. A balance is needed.

07Lapierre · 07-01-2015 12:21am

RainyDay wrote: »

Several local authorities fund cycle training courses for primary schools, around 4th class or 5th class.

Great... Do they teach cycling or cycling road craft or both?

Bongalongherb · 07-01-2015 12:23am

RainyDay wrote: »

How's that working out for you, in terms of drivers? What % of drivers (who have already passed the theory test) still speed, or use the phone, or fail to indicate, or overtake dangerously? What will be the cost of implementing a theory test? How will this work for tourists who want to avail of the Dublin Bike scheme? Has this been tried anywhere else and worked successfully?

It will at least work for some folk. For example...

I passed my driver theory test 8 years ago and I remember it all to this day, I follow it to a T because it makes absolute sense, and is also for my well-being as a driver to be alert at all times and expect the unexpected.

This is why I see such an implementation of a theory-test for cyclists as a good thing. You will always get folk that are idiots, but there will be less idiots if this was implemented, ie: saving one life of a cyclist is good.

The driver theory test explains to a person the importance of using indicators when needed and to follow the rules of the road for their own benefit and safety. Any-one that disregards the theory test and it's common-sense instructions shouldn't be cycling or driving on any road, as they have not got the full grasp of safety.

ted1 · 07-01-2015 12:30am

Deedsie wrote: »

You have never seen anyone cycle on the footpath along the N11? I cycle it daily and I don't remember a time I didn't see it. The footpath near the traffic lights along Leeson street upper near Appian way on the way in every morning. Skipping the traffic lights and between there and donnybrook on the footpath every evening on the way home. Rampant with people breaking lights, dangerous cycling all the way in. God bless the bad weather days when they get the bus.

So really your talking just about lesson street because the N11 goes all the way out to bray.
I cycle from the 15km of it each way as far into Ballsbridge and not once have I seen a bike on the footpath

Bongalongherb · 07-01-2015 12:34am

High-Viz does little really in an urban environment, (as links posted above will attest to), and even in a rural environment, by the time you see the High Viz only it is too late.

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with your post. When I'm driving in an urban area it makes a huge difference as I can see the cyclist's Hi-Vis a good distance off, and also the shimmering of their Hi-Vis, so it is most definitely an important and assured thing to wear for a cyclist. If they were dressed in dark clothes as I see every day it is much harder to see them at night obviously.

At night I have seen some cyclists on the back-roads with no lights or Hi-Vis jackets and of which are wearing dark clothing and only for the shimmer of their aluminium wheels you would hardly see them until the car lights make a reflection off the metal bicycle.

Hi-Vis for a cyclist is a must, and no-one should cycle without wearing this as it makes a huge difference to drivers to spot them from a good distance away. If a driver of a vehicle cannot see this Hi-Vis cyclist from a good distance away then they should not be driving.

Tenzor07 · 07-01-2015 12:34am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

The driver theory test explains to a person the importance of using indicators when needed and to follow the rules of the road for their own benefit and safety. Any-one that disregards the theory test and it's common-sense instructions shouldn't be cycling or driving on any road, as they have not got the full grasp of safety.

Going by that you're statement, it would take thousands of full licence holders off the road who either got a licence before the theory test or back in "The Amnesty?"

07Lapierre · 07-01-2015 12:37am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with your post. When I'm driving in an urban area it makes a huge difference as I can see the cyclist's Hi-Vis a good distance off, and also the shimmering of their Hi-Vis, so it is most definitely an important and assured thing to wear for a cyclist. If they were dressed in dark clothes as I see every day it is much harder to see them at night obviously.

At night I have seen some cyclists on the back-roads with no lights or Hi-Vis jackets and of which are wearing dark clothing and only for the shimmer of their aluminium wheels you would hardly see them until the car lights make a reflection off the metal bicycle.

Hi-Vis for a cyclist is a must, and no-one should cycle without wearing this as it makes a huge difference to drivers to spot them from a good distance away. If a driver of a vehicle cannot see this Hi-Vis cyclist from a good distance away then they should not be driving.

If a driver can see my hi viz jacket, it's because my lights have gone out!

eeeee · 07-01-2015 12:39am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with your post. When I'm driving in an urban area it makes a huge difference as I can see the cyclist's Hi-Vis a good distance off, and also the shimmering of their Hi-Vis, so it is most definitely an important and assured thing to wear for a cyclist. If they were dressed in dark clothes as I see every day it is much harder to see them at night obviously.

At night I have seen some cyclists on the back-roads with no lights or Hi-Vis jackets and of which are wearing dark clothing and only for the shimmer of their aluminium wheels you would hardly see them until the car lights make a reflection off the metal bicycle.

Hi-Vis for a cyclist is a must, and no-one should cycle without wearing this as it makes a huge difference to drivers to spot them from a good distance away. If a driver of a vehicle cannot see this Hi-Vis cyclist from a good distance away then they should not be driving.

I would like to draw your attention to the actual evidence provided in this post:

tomasrojo wrote: »

Not sure what Jep had in mind, but it might have been some of these:

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/10/31/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-sensible-precaution-or-victim-blaming/

Cyclists cannot stop drivers overtaking dangerously, research suggests

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/31/eurpub.cku117

This is quite interesting too:
http://victorianmotorcyclecouncil.org.au/uploads/INFO/Prof%20Huggins%20Hi%20Viz%20Letter%2006%202014.pdf

EDIT: Forgot about that Australian study mentioned on Wikipedia:

and this one is mentioned too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-visibility_clothing#Cyclists

Lusk_Doyle · 07-01-2015 12:40am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Hi-Vis for a cyclist is a must, and no-one should cycle without wearing this as it makes a huge difference to drivers to spot them from a good distance away.

Nonsense.

Bongalongherb · 07-01-2015 12:41am

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Going by that you're statement, it would take thousands of full licence holders off the road who either got a licence before the theory test or back in "The Amnesty?"

Good point, my father was given a free license way back in the day but he even said he'd probably fail the theory test. This is why old full license drivers will never be told to do a theory-test. There again who knows what the future holds.

Bongalongherb · 07-01-2015 12:42am

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Nonsense.

Excuse me, how is it nonsense ? I should know as I drive every day and night, I see how much difference it makes for a cyclist to wear Hi-Vis. It's a no-brainer.

Lusk_Doyle · 07-01-2015 12:52am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Excuse me, how is it nonsense ? I should know as I drive every day and night, I see how much difference it makes for a cyclist to wear Hi-Vis. It's a no-brainer.

If it was a must as you claim, then it would surely be a legal requirement, no?

As for your "I should know as I drive every day and night", I bow down to your almighty and all knowing wisdom. Never driven myself at all, anywhere, at any time, day or night, so I really couldn't counter your perfectly valid point.

ezra_pound · 07-01-2015 12:52am

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Going by that you're statement, it would take thousands of full licence holders off the road who either got a licence before the theory test or back in "The Amnesty?"

As well as all the drivers who have a licence since before the driving test was brought in in 1964 and were never expected to pass any standard or test.

shruikan2553 · 07-01-2015 1:00am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Excuse me, how is it nonsense ? I should know as I drive every day and night, I see how much difference it makes for a cyclist to wear Hi-Vis. It's a no-brainer.

If the bike has lights it wont make a difference. Somehow when I was driving I was able to see cars and cyclists with lights despite not all being bright yellow.

Bongalongherb · 07-01-2015 1:09am

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

If it was a must as you claim, then it would surely be a legal requirement, no?

As for your "I should know as I drive every day and night", I bow down to your almighty and all knowing wisdom. Never driven myself at all, anywhere, at any time, day or night, so I really couldn't counter your perfectly valid point.

But does it really need to be a legal requirement ? surely it is just common sense as the more you are seen the safer you will be on those crap roads of ours, also with crap drivers as well. If I can see you a decent distance away with your Hi-Vis then I am happy, as I can gently move forward with plenty of time to pass you safely.

So yes, Hi-Vis is a must for all cyclists imo.

Bongalongherb · 07-01-2015 1:11am

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If the bike has lights it wont make a difference. Somehow when I was driving I was able to see cars and cyclists with lights despite not all being bright yellow.

I'd rather see a bright christmas-tree than just one low-light bulb. If you are lit up brightly then happy days.

Pinch Flat · 07-01-2015 1:45am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

But does it really need to be a legal requirement ? surely it is just common sense as the more you are seen the safer you will be on those crap roads of ours, also with crap drivers as well. If I can see you a decent distance away with your Hi-Vis then I am happy, as I can gently move forward with plenty of time to pass you safely.

So yes, Hi-Vis is a must for all cyclists imo.

Thing is though that regardless of what hi vis a cyclist wears or the amount of lights he or she uses, you'll still get the odd clown in a car for whom that is not enough.

I'm all fir being visible - I've spent hundreds of euros on high quality lights - but u don't want to be told what to wear when cycling.

shruikan2553 · 07-01-2015 1:50am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I'd rather see a bright christmas-tree than just one low-light bulb. If you are lit up brightly then happy days.

The key is finding balance. No point making it law to wrap everyone in fairy lights and for them to make loud noises so people hear them.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 07-01-2015 2:04am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I'd rather see a bright christmas-tree than just one low-light bulb. If you are lit up brightly then happy days.

Too bright can be bad too.

Bongalongherb · 07-01-2015 4:10am

Fairy lights and all too bright ?

How could a Hi-Vis jacket be too bright ? I just don't understand that statement. If I didn't care about the welfare of cyclists I wouldn't be posting here.

I also get the feeling that some cyclists do not like the idea of wearing said Hi-Vis jackets, I wonder why ? when it is basically down to your own safety. The further away you're seen the better. If I went back out on the bike I can tell you straight away that I'd have a Hi-Vis jacket on. Respect the road and it might just respect you regarding visibility.

Shep_Dog · 07-01-2015 7:15am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

surely it is just common sense as the more you are seen the safer you will be on those crap roads of ours, also with crap drivers as well.

Then, all cars should be high vis yellow and not allowed park on the road at any time.

Better safe than sorry.

ezra_pound · 07-01-2015 9:11am

We need more cyclists not more hi VIs.

CramCycle · 07-01-2015 9:54am

MOD VOICE: The same points have now been made for several pages, unless your next post has something new to add, its probably best to let this go. If anyone would like me to reopen the thread with some deeply fascinating insight into the on-the-spot fines that the thread is about then PM and I will re open.

TL:DR Everyone here thinks on the spot fines or FPNs are a good idea, I can add a list of people who don't if they want to PM me but that seems to be the overriding sentiment. Anything more about Hi Vis should be discussed in the Hi Vis thread, I recommend reading it before posting, as there is a small chance that what you are posting has been posted before in some form or another.

Chips Lovell · 07-01-2015 11:55am

Inquitus wrote: »

I'd like to ask how this can be enforced. I am cycling with only my phone and a fiver in my pocket, I get stopped, I have no proof of ID on me, unlike in the case of cars I don't have a registration 1) How are the Guards able to ensure I give the right name, address etc. 2) How do the Guards now a fine has been issued to the right person in the absence of said ID if it is queried once receeved in the post.

I really don't see how it can be enforced given we do not have a reg that ties us to the vehicle from an identification PoV.

Same way as enforcement has been done to date. If a Garda doesn't believe you're giving them the correct information, they've the power to seize your bicycle until they're satisfied about your identity and address.

Only difference now is that instead of a summons, you'll be getting an on-the-spot fine.

Inquitus · 07-01-2015 11:55am

I'd like to ask how this can be enforced. I am cycling with only my phone and a fiver in my pocket, I get stopped, I have no proof of ID on me, unlike in the case of cars I don't have a registration 1) How are the Guards able to ensure I give the right name, address etc. 2) How do the Guards now a fine has been issued to the right person in the absence of said ID if it is queried once receeved in the post.

I really don't see how it can be enforced given we do not have a reg that ties us to the vehicle from an identification PoV.

CramCycle · 07-01-2015 12:00pm

How did you manage such a fast response

Macy0161 · 07-01-2015 12:12pm

Inquitus wrote: »

I'd like to ask how this can be enforced. I am cycling with only my phone and a fiver in my pocket, I get stopped, I have no proof of ID on me, unlike in the case of cars I don't have a registration 1) How are the Guards able to ensure I give the right name, address etc. 2) How do the Guards now a fine has been issued to the right person in the absence of said ID if it is queried once receeved in the post.

I really don't see how it can be enforced given we do not have a reg that ties us to the vehicle from an identification PoV.

It's no different from now. If you get stopped this morning, the cop has to take your details to issue you a summons.

As I've said before, if someone is going to risk a second offence of giving false details for a more appropriate fixed penalty, why wouldn't they risk it for the much more punitive court summons/ date and associated costs?

Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

Comments