- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
hi-viz-cyclist-c2a9-simon-macmichaelIreland’s transport minister backs compulsory hi-visibility gear for cyclists
Ireland’s transport minister says he is in favour of making hi-visibility gear compulsory for cyclists – although before introducing any legislation, he would like to see people encouraged to wear it through road safety campaigns. However, cycling campaigners have said the notion of requiring riders to wear such clothing is "ludicrous."
Shane Ross, the country’s minister for transport, tourism and sport, made the comments in a written answer to Robert Troy, the transport spokesman of the opposition Fianna Fail party.
Troy had asked Ross, who sits as an independent, to set out "his plans to bring forward legislation to make it compulsory to wear a high-visibility top and reflective clothing on unlit roads after dark; and if he will make a statement on the matter."
In a written reply, Ross said: "To create a statutory obligation on the wearing of reflective clothing would entail making it a criminal offence under Road Traffic legislation for any person guilty of not wearing high visibility clothing.
"A person in breach of such a provision would fall to be issued with a fixed charge notice or summonsed to court, depending on whatever procedure would be put in place for the processing of such offences. I am of the view that despite certain obstacles, this measure is worth pursuing, if it could save even one life."
He added: "However, in the short term, I am exploring whether the wearing of high visibility clothing is better achieved by way of educational and publicity campaigns run by the Road Safety Authority (RSA) rather than by pursuing a punitive approach to the issue, particularly having regard to the large numbers of children and young people who cycle."
In February this year, when Troy previously raised the issue of making hi-viz clothing mandatory for cyclists, the CEO of the RSA, Moyagh Murdock, rejected the idea and told a parliamentary transport committee: “This is not a police state.”
Dublin Cycling Campaign spokesman Mike McKillen said that it was “ludicrous” to make cyclists wear hi-viz gear.
He told The Times: “We need to target the less-than-careful drivers who are causing all the mayhem and ruin lives.
“Asking potential victims to wear high-visibility clothing is just ludicrous and stands health and safety management principles on their head.
“It’s being pedalled as a panacea for making our roads safer. It won’t.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- HoarseMann 7 min 32 sec ago
It would be the Thames Valley area and I've had a poor response from them recently. Basically, there's not really any point reporting this. I was...
- brooksby 10 min 54 sec ago
TfL to fine firms whose electric bikes block pavements https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/26/tfl-fine-electric-bikes-...
- chrisonabike 15 min 1 sec ago
That is some rustic sashimi there...
- chrisonabike 15 min 55 sec ago
Got that I think, but I on the same point missed "the sun was in my eyes" and "I couldn't see the cyclist because it was dark"....
- hawkinspeter 25 min 12 sec ago
No, you're thinking of the rat-race....
- wtjs 28 min ago
I bought the excellent Edge 1040 last year with a good, but not sensational, reduction, and this year I have bought a couple of expensive academic...
- anotherflat 1 hour 19 min ago
Having been through redundancy due to an employer going bankrupt, it's good to read that the employees should get their redundancy and pension...
- andystow 1 hour 41 min ago
Well, my aluminium mudguards are looking a little beat up. Might as well make my wallet match them.
- brooksby 3 hours 1 min ago
There are a lot of people out there who seem to think exactly that. It's like all those times that the traffic lights change as you are halfway...
- hawkinspeter 4 hours 18 min ago
That still annoys me about the BBC - iplayer only keeps some programmes available for a short time, so we have to rely on people making copies to...
Add new comment
67 comments
We really do need to stop voting them into positions from which they can impose their incompetence dont we!
I didn’t vote for these twats. I voted for a completely different set of twats altogether. But at least my twats like bicycles.
Well as someone who commutes everyday into Dublin, this is a daft idea. Apart from anything else there are never any Gardai (Irish police) around to do anything about it. Shane Ross really needs to understand the problem and not try enforce a solution that will only agrivate cyclists, turn potential cyclists away. If he wants to enforce something on cyclists, lets try mandatory helmets first?
Uh no. You need to go listen to the guy whose name (I assume) is on your bicycle. He's made a few videos about cycle safety.
why does there have to be mandatory anything?
Even if it could be clearly and unequivocally shown that wearing a helmet, or hi-viz, or dressing like a duck and praying to the Great Lord Tharrl five times a day with a soup spoon up your arse saved even one life, that does not constitute an argument in favour of compulsion.
We’re adults, sound of mind, we - or at least I - don’t need other people making our decisions for us.
And if you do, who will you choose to make which decisions, and why?
Careful now: we're getting dangerously close to someone invoking godwin's law...
I posted about this very thing in the Jesse Norman thread - my exact words were
call me cycnical but I think that "improving safety for cyclists" will be things like:
mandatory hi viz/lights/reflectives.....
And here we have it.
Thin end of the wedge this.
ffs.
Yet another step in the process of blaming the victims and excusing the cause of the problem.
I'm really looking forward to the UK government's examination of road safety, as long as they start from first principles i.e. remove or reduce the cause of the danger. Which would not only improve road safety but would reduce congestion, pollution, global warming and massively improve health. Of course they won't just go off into the knee jerk reaction of the petrolheads by blaming the victims would they? So Jesse Norman won't be having anything to do with the process.
Well if that's the benchmark, there are far more obvious things that could be done, like banning cars. You know, if that's really your principal motivation and other considerations are secondary.
Hi-vis clothing makes little to no difference to cyclist safety. They need to look at the research. What does make a difference is contrasting colours, highly reflective tape, & good lighting. Oh, and of course, good driving by other road users.
does it? You shouldn't need 'good' lighting or reflectives, just require those doing the killing and maiming to drive at a speed they can stop well within the distance they can see to be clear (as per the HC), to act with respect to human life and bother to actually look and act to ensure they don't hit/make someone feel fear of being harmed, not think they have to chip along at XX speed to get where they are going without giving a flying fig about anything except themselves.
As a late to the party driver who didn't start driving until 23 and did most of my circa 300k as a serial London/SE commuter and going up the A1 to visit the family I've never managed to hurt anyone, nor have I forced someone off the road or made them feel fear of harm, I manage to 'see' ninja cyclists (funny how people always see them if they bother to look), manage not to hit unlit objects/animals in the road even if around a blind bend, okay that one time a pheasant flew into my grill but hey, can't do anything about that.
Giving motorists a get out clause by forcing the vulnerable to wear or use x, y and z only serves to aid them to drive poorly and lower their responsibility whilst having no impact on safety for the vulnerable. Throughout history we have seen this failure and all the while despite massive medical advancements, massively improved brakes, steering controls, better tyres ridiculously bright headlights and improved street lighting and so called pedestrian safety features on vehicles there's not much changed in the being struck by vehicles.
What we do see is a change in who gets blamed or absolved or blame, even with 'good' lights and reflectives the police and juries will still blame the victim and let off killers.
Amen.
And for the law to be applied equally.
This will happen, along with I feel compulsory helmets.
Look at MP Jesse Norman. The people in charge of our legislation are clueless, or worse simply don't care, when it comes to cyclist safety. They will force through things like this because they need to be seen to be taking action.
Yes, may well be clueless, maybe not, quite possibly are, but that doesn't matter so much. It's the "simply don't care" / "need to be seen taking action" bit which is the real problem. "My party is down in the polls. Which will get us more votes, cracking down on non-existent cycling offences, while letting thousands of motorists off the hook, or vice versa?" I rather suspect that is all there is to it.
....or worse, they have another agenda: many MPs are funded by the road hauliage industry. All are looking for a quick win, victimising cyclists is a quick win in their eyes.
In the case of Shane Ross I doubt it. At the moment he's a fairly unpopular minister, going up against the transport unions and failing to implement the "reforms" he mouthed-off about in opposition. Parts of Dublin are becoming restricted to private motorised vehicles (especially the narrow quays beside the river Liffey) due mainly to Green party initiatives dating back decades.
Any distraction is welcome for him right now and as cyclists are widely derided in media coverage and considered to be either rich, environmentalist, arrogant middle-class tossers or poor, drunken, ignorant, immigrant plebs it's a safe bet for him to be seen doing something to "make them behave".
In addition the Gardai are glad to have a distraction and show that they can "do something" as they have been widely exposed lying in court for political puprposes (1) and making up drink-driving test statistics on an industrial and institutionalized scale(2) or discussing the rape of environmental activists (3).
In addition there are the usual just-literate, but almost completely innumerate "charities" promoting hysteria about safety who latch onto any half-baked campaign to Save Just One Life.
So, making cyclists wear motley works out very nicely and rationally for all the people that are not actually cyclists. Some cyclists even actually believe it makes a difference!
(Meanwhile Irish citizens keep sending vast amounts of money out of our small economy to buy cars and oil, none of which is actually produced in Ireland while simultaneously moaning about how hard they have it.)
1. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/criticism-of-garda-evidenc...
2. http://www.thejournal.ie/garda-scandal-timeline-alcohol-fcpn-3313178-Mar...
3. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/shell-to-sea-protest-disciplinary-a...
"making cyclists wear motley " - there's an idea. We could all wear quartered-coloured clothing, tights, and hats with bells on.
Motorists would bl**dy well notice us then!
They're effectively anti-cycling and would prefer it to disappear altogether.
This needs to be accompanied by change to presumed liability for motorists. Hit a well lit cyclist and careless driving charge will be brought every time.
One of difficulties will be categorising clothing, I.e. Is a high vis gillet enough or is a jacket required; is there an industry standard for reflective elements on various garments?
There is a BS for high viz gear - BS EN 471 which is harmonised with some European Standard.
The best high viz gear I've seen is blue jacket and trousers with white reflective parts with the word "POLITE" on the back. Drivers not looking properly see the word "POLICE"
Unfortunately if you wear a backpack then it doesn't work. You need yellow high viz panniers with white stripes, or blue/black ones with reflective white stripes. Only people like me would know the police on bikes tend to use the latter.
I don't have it to hand but there was a study at one point that showed this didn't work. In fact if I recall correctly it generated the worst close passes out of all the various garments on test. I don't think the researchers got into the reasons. Deliberate close passing once drivers realised their mistake would be my guess.
It’s being pedalled as a panacea for making our roads safer. It won’t.”
Christ, it's bad enough the amount of people who use peddled when they mean to move by rotating the pedals, now we have the reverse!
I took it as a comedic play on words.
Or a pun as it is more commonly, and rather more succintly, known.
we must put a stop to this use of words where another one already exists.
Indeed. The Anti-thesaurus co-operative is up and running and recruiting lots of new members.
"co-operative" or "syndicate "?
(or even "association "...)
Could be a Popular People's Front, maybe...
Indeed. The Anti-thesaurus co-operative is up and running and recruiting lots of new members.
[/quote]
"co-operative" or "syndicate "?
(or even "association "...)
Could be a Popular People's Front, maybe...
[/quote]
Splitter.
Don't you oppress/challenge/threaten me!
Pages