Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
16-01-2014, 11:34   #1
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,000
Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

MOD VOICE: So as not to take up room on the helmet thread I have taken out the last few pages of hi vis related material and put it together here. All material or threads relating specifically to hi vis will be moved in here or locked if it repeats what is already said in here. There are a few off topic posts but from now on if we could keep the discussion to Hi Vis, and related topics.

Cram

Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar was interviewed by Sean O'Rourke on RTE Radio 1 this morning.

Questions were submitted by listeners, and someone asked whether hi-viz and helmets were to be made mandatory for cyclists.

The Minister's response (paraphrased) was "hi-viz possibly, but the evidence is not great that helmets have a big impact on road safety."

I have mixed views on that response. The situation with helmets has been well rehearsed in this thread -- evidence of modest benefit versus anti-cycling effect of mandatory laws -- but it's odd that the Minister might consider making hi-viz mandatory given that there is no evidence (to date) that it reduces casualties.

Last edited by CramCycle; 29-01-2014 at 14:39. Reason: New thread
Iwannahurl is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
16-01-2014, 11:40   #2
Lumen
Registered User
 
Lumen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 24,819
I think 'possibly' is politician-speak for 'no'.
Lumen is online now  
16-01-2014, 12:16   #3
CramCycle
A wholly unreasonable man
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 16,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwannahurl View Post
The Minister's response (paraphrased) was "hi-viz possibly, but the evidence is not great that helmets have a big impact on road safety."
I am pretty sure Leos views on this came up before on either Newstalk or The Last Word. He kept pointing out that there was no evidence and that to force such legislation would be pointless. The presenters started lambasting him about it but fair play he stuck to his guns on it and its rare I would give a modern politician kudos. I think it ended with the presenter calling him wreckless and having a pro helmet speaker on the next day.
CramCycle is offline  
(2) thanks from:
16-01-2014, 12:23   #4
Chips Lovell
Waging war on tan sidewalls
 
Chips Lovell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 20,987
If they ever were to seriously entertain the notion of making high-viz mandatory, aside from the issue of its efficacy, you'd have to question the wisdom of imposing new regulations on visibility when the existing ones are so poorly enforced. There's a massive amount of people riding at night with no lights. And an even bigger number with lights that are so poor they're essentially useless.

The whole hysteria about high viz has a generation of well meaning but gormless individuals riding around decked out greens and yellows but with lights that would barely illuminate a broom cupboard.
Chips Lovell is offline  
16-01-2014, 12:26   #5
Orinoco
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by CramCycle View Post
I am pretty sure Leos views on this came up before on either Newstalk or The Last Word. He kept pointing out that there was no evidence and that to force such legislation would be pointless. The presenters started lambasting him about it but fair play he stuck to his guns on it and its rare I would give a modern politician kudos. I think it ended with the presenter calling him wreckless and having a pro helmet speaker on the next day.
I'm always touched by how many non-cyclists care so passionately about our safety!

That is what's going on - right?
Orinoco is online now  
Advertisement
16-01-2014, 12:28   #6
CramCycle
A wholly unreasonable man
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 16,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orinoco View Post
I'm always touched by how many non-cyclists care so passionately about our safety!

That is what's going on - right?
Memory is hazy but one did cycle, one made comment to the fact that he sees cyclists on his commute by car/taxi and I remember nothing of the other.
CramCycle is offline  
16-01-2014, 12:29   #7
RayCun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 15,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir Kurtains View Post
If they ever were to seriously entertain the notion of making high-viz mandatory, aside from the issue of its efficacy, you'd have to question the wisdom of imposing new regulations on visibility when the existing ones are so poorly enforced. There's a massive amount of people riding at night with no lights. And an even bigger number with lights that are so poor they're essentially useless.
and the amount of cars driving around with one working headlight...

(not whataboutery, just agreeing - enforce the existing laws first)
RayCun is offline  
Thanks from:
16-01-2014, 12:34   #8
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 19,999
Quote:
"hi-viz possibly"
A very brave decision, Minister - very courageous.........
Jawgap is offline  
(2) thanks from:
16-01-2014, 12:41   #9
SeaSlacker
Registered User
 
SeaSlacker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,474
In fairness to Leo, he's a known triathlete. I'm sure that'd entail a fair bit of cycling experience.
SeaSlacker is offline  
Advertisement
16-01-2014, 13:09   #10
CramCycle
A wholly unreasonable man
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 16,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayCun View Post
and the amount of cars driving around with one working headlight...

(not whataboutery, just agreeing - enforce the existing laws first)
My brother got done for this, he passed the NCT the day before so obviously just happened. He is the only person I know to be done and accepts that it was deserved. That said I see cars getting waved through (rare as they are) checkpoints on the N11 after their tax/insurance is OK with parking lights only on, or missing one headlamp. It is infuriating, or the old lady with no lights on as she pulled out to both block a cycle lane/yellow box and therefore blocking all traffic all at once this morning.
CramCycle is offline  
17-01-2014, 00:36   #11
tomasrojo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by CramCycle View Post
I am pretty sure Leos views on this came up before on either Newstalk or The Last Word. He kept pointing out that there was no evidence and that to force such legislation would be pointless. The presenters started lambasting him about it but fair play he stuck to his guns on it and its rare I would give a modern politician kudos. I think it ended with the presenter calling him wreckless and having a pro helmet speaker on the next day.
Sounds like Matt Cooper. He's evangelical on the subject, and in the past has responded to an interview with someone infused with insufficient zeal by having a pro-helmet person on the next day, unchallenged.
tomasrojo is offline  
Thanks from:
17-01-2014, 01:32   #12
tomasrojo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,651
Just on the subject of hi-viz, I thought this was quite interesting, even though the safety film under discussion is just a student exercise:
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/think/

The left-hand side shows Unsafe Reality, and the right-hand side shows Safe Reality


There isn't much difference, but the hi-viz wearer on the right is supposed to be more visible.

Interestingly, the film-makers chose the worst scenario in which to place hi-viz. A dark rural road with the cyclist approaching the motorist from the right means that reflectors have no chance to shine, since they have no incident light, and fluorescent materials don't fluoresce at night.

Quote:
Let’s return to that issue of the front light. Curiously, one of the students who made the video commented below it that “filming the bike head on with a front light obscured the bike and rider, distracting from the other messages of having a rear light, helmet and reflective clothing“. Astonishingly, the front light was omitted precisely because of its visibility: as if a bright light moving along the road is somehow completely unrelated to the likelihood that there is a person somewhere close behind it.

This is quite a prevalent attitude, to the extent that I've noticed people be more put out by a night-time cyclist with lights than a night-time cyclist without lights simply because the latter had hi-viz and helmet and the former did not. It's tokenism in place of thought.
Attached Images
File Type: png 2.png (106.6 KB, 8862 views)

Last edited by tomasrojo; 17-01-2014 at 01:35.
tomasrojo is offline  
17-01-2014, 10:51   #13
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir Kurtains View Post
If they ever were to seriously entertain the notion of making high-viz mandatory, aside from the issue of its efficacy, you'd have to question the wisdom of imposing new regulations on visibility when the existing ones are so poorly enforced. There's a massive amount of people riding at night with no lights. And an even bigger number with lights that are so poor they're essentially useless.

The whole hysteria about high viz has a generation of well meaning but gormless individuals riding around decked out greens and yellows but with lights that would barely illuminate a broom cupboard.


While in Melbourne for a few months in 2012 I was struck by the very high compliance with mandatory helmet laws. On the other hand, since I had preconceived notions about Australian roads policing, I was amazed by the number of cyclists at night time who were dutifully helmeted but had no lights front or back. It seemed to be very common.

There's nowt as queer as folk...
Iwannahurl is offline  
Thanks from:
17-01-2014, 16:47   #14
monument
Moderator
 
monument's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 13,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomasrojo View Post
Sounds like Matt Cooper. He's evangelical on the subject, and in the past has responded to an interview with someone infused with insufficient zeal by having a pro-helmet person on the next day, unchallenged.
Did that happen after Andrew Montague and me were on?

I recall him being stunned by the two of us questioning the effectiveness of helmets but did not hear the show the day after (busy with the paper and bike week).
monument is offline  
17-01-2014, 22:34   #15
tomasrojo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by monument View Post
Did that happen after Andrew Montague and me were on?

I recall him being stunned by the two of us questioning the effectiveness of helmets but did not hear the show the day after (busy with the paper and bike week).
No, before that: 2009.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055699243

(He might well have done the same after you and Andrew though!)
tomasrojo is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet