Ireland’s transport minister backs compulsory hi-visibility gear for cyclists

It's interesting how imposing restrictions on the potential victims of road crime "is worth it if it saves even one life". While banning private motor cars from town centres is not up for discussion.

Backwards.

Ireland’s transport minister backs look where you're fucking going you fucking murderous fuckwits for drivers.

When will I read that one?

I have a totally unproven theory that a large, photorealistic image of an eye is probably the most attention grabbing thing you can display.

You know when you're being looked at even from the very edge of your vision, I'm sure it's a biological or evolutionary thing.

Anyone know of any research? Perhaps a clothing manufacturer could do a range with a big, staring eye on?

There is a hi-vis fashion about. Aside from many cyclists, you do see some school children on trips and workers wearing them and some will keep them on even when not necessary.
I prefer the way it's done at the WNBR as you'll be seen by all better than in hi-vis, guaranteed.
http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org/uk/

Fine for me if they agree that all new cars sold must be paint in bright fluorescent yellow

There are already compulsory rules, for instance you MUST look both ways before pulling out. How about spending money enforcing that message rather than forcing cyclists to pay for their own equivalent of a burka ban?

They could have a fashion week for cyclists hi viz clothing range. Personally I think compulsary anything is rediculous. If you have lights on your bike that should be enough.  A better idea would be to remove cars from our  roads where necessary.

i also ride a motorbike occasionally. Prefer to cycle as it's better for our environment.

Once again we are bad to drivers 'should' see you, even if you are dressed in matt black from head to toe.

You know that the roads are full of people varying ability, both in driving skill and actually physical terms, so why stack the odds against you? There is this argument you'll get run over with or without hi-viz but as I've said before I'd rather be seen as soon as possible and see people as soon as possible.

When I've been driving recently I've come across a few cyclists who have (possibly)been caught out by the increasingly early nights and really aren't doing themselves any favours wearing dark clothes as the sun starts to lose it's power. If you've got a rear light, ok, no problem but if you haven't then people are right to get a bit annoyed. I'm pretty sure I won't be running anyone over as I still have all my faculties but there's plenty of zombies out there.

^This. Plus the amount of collisions despite Daytime Driving Lamps being mandatory on all new Vehicles since 2009

Hi-vis does not guarantee that you'll be seen particularly if the driver or pedestrian are persistent offenders of using roads without due care and attention or wrecklessly. It may help making a claim for damages, that is if you survive the offenders wreckless behavior.
WNBR is an annual protest against car culture and oil dependency and a cycling safety campaign:
http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org/uk/

If you have taken part in this demonstration you realise riding naked will get you noticed better than wearing hi-vis and where nearly all will slow or stop to take a closer glimpse and applaud or enquire. This has been going on for over 10 years and anything that helps promote cycling is good for all.

Cars must all be Hi-viz and road users must wear crash helmets and hi viz. Only solution

I'm really sick of this "if it saves one life, it's worth it" bullshit. You could use that arguement to make pretty much anything either illegal or compulsory depending on your own personal prejudices.

I think hi-vis works to a point and I have hi-vis kit.  I think gloves work quite well but only when they are contrasting - without hi-vis sleaves. 

Pleases like central London I think the real danger would be to make a sea of hi-vis and then.  The hi-vis does not stand out.  Government being a government would probably make a rule that you would have to ware as much as the rider in the pic and then you would miss the objective of making someone stand out.  

Are they using any data to back up that this would be safer for cyclists?

Hi-viz.  The clothing most seeable against really bright autumnal morning sunshine 

I want to see a law that says cars must be bright yellow and no other colour.  I mean, drivers are forever ploughing into each other!  If cyclists need to wear hi-vis for them to be seen, cars need to be hi-vis too!

I'm all for it. The moment every car on the roads is painted fluo yellow, orange or pink is the day I'll consider compulsary hi viz.

I believe a similar law already exists in France. It would therefore be a simple matter to determine whether it has any effect on road safety, accident rates, etc. But do we really think that politicians make decisions based on evidence?

this is reasonably ok imo, 

since i was permitted my my parents to ride I have tried to ride with reflectives of some sort be it a vest, gillet, the old diagonal strap, ankle straps

however, if it is to be legislation,

Motor Vheicles should also be legislated to operate all time running lights, not be painted black/general dark or matte, and to have reflective panels all round, the number of cars on the roads which are just as invisible is far greater than the number of cyclists!

Sometimes seems like there’s a never-ending stream of stupid ideas coming from idiots who think they know what’s best for me.

This person should be bricked up behind the chimney of a remote and deserted house. It’s the best thing for him, and if it saves even one life, it’s worth it.