Mandatory hi-vis for cyclists a “timely proposal” coming up to Christmas, say councillors

Enforcing existing requirements for displaying lights at night vehicle drivers not close-passing cyclists, vehicle drivers not going through red traffic lights and vehicle drivers obeying the MUST regulations concerning MOTs and insurance would make more sense

I think that lights (on whatever form) are good for visibility. Hi vis not always works well, a pedestrian without lights might not see the cyclist that only wears high viz reflective. It only works if you shine a light at it.

As for helmets, there's zero evidence it makes a difference in safety while commuting. Yes a road cyclist travels at high speed so it is wise to wear one (plis it looks cool). Example: One of the safest bike countries is the Netherlands. Gues how many commuters wear helmets? Maybe 1% of them. Uk is less safe, as is the US and many other countries, where lots of commuters wear helmets. Myth busted.

The single handedly biggest factor in safety is bike infrastructure. Ever seen a dutch bike lane? Almost always it's sepperate from the road where car speeds are higher than ~50kph, or where there's a lot of traffic. I see tons of unsafe bike lanes in the US that mix with car users (so the lane is inbetween the car lanes, which is very, very dangerous). Poles at the start of UK bike lanes that are 200m long, all sorts of crazy designs that are far from what you see in the netherlands: sepperate bike lanes and the sidewalk is sepperated from that as well.

If we build solid bike infrastructure, you will encounter way less incidents. Even if the cyclist omits his hi viz clothing, helmet and lights, it will result in less issues. Why? A seperate bike lane makes it almost impossible to crash into a cyclist. You'll crash your car into the berm or a curb first.

Also car turns: cylist often don't just go straight on, but the bike oane moves further away from the road and crosses in the distance so the car driver can see them (as in picture). Notice how the bike lane is clearly red? It's almost universally red where bikes and cars mix, so zhe driver always knows what it is.

Bikes first in design, then cars, which is how it's done in the Netherlands. Not design infrastructure for cars, then add bike lanes onto the road. No, bike lanes need to be sepperate on any high speed road above 50kph or busy roads.

Correct. Which is why the Netherlands is such a safe country for bikes. Sepperate bile lanes make it almost impossible to crash into a cyclist; you will crash your car into a berm or curb first on many roads before it even hits the cyclist (unlikely).

Lozcan wrote:

Wearing Proviz at night makes me feel a lot safer, vehicles slow and give you far more space

There's a lot to be said for good reflectives (ProViz use tiny little beads which provides a very wide angle of bright reflection) as they don't need batteries or any maintenance. However, making Hi-Vis materials mandatory is a bad idea as it doesn't distinguish between reflectives (good at night) and flourescents (useless at night) and it doesn't address the important issues that would improve traffic safety (e.g. driver attentiveness).

Ah lol good one!

Not sure you are right about 3

Are you are forgetting the 'grey' strips on a fluorescent waistcoat are highly relective and part of the CE safety spec?

Maybe we need to change bike infrastructure instead. Cyclists on safe bike lanes avoids contact with cars. Period.

Sorry, where is this oxymoron? I always understood an oxymoron to be a figure of speech containing contradictory words, such as deafening silence, organised chaos or even military intelligence. I can't see one in that sentence.

festina wrote:

Cyclists are wrong for wearing headphones as they can't hear the cars around them but all cars are built with in car entertainment systems that play can loud music and have other distracting features.

...and if a car driver bumps into a cyclist they didn't notice because they were distracted or sense impaired they might get 3 points and a couple of hundred quid fine (though most likely they'll get nothing); if a cyclist collides with a car they haven't noticed because they're distracted or sense impaired they might get killed. Whataboutery ain't much good in the grave.

This isn't a matter of whataboutery, it's about hypocrisy and victim blaming. It's about the idea that a cyclist is somehow to blame that they couldn't hear the car behind them that struck them, as if somehow if they'd heard it coming they could have leapt out of the way.

AidanR wrote:

as if somehow if they'd heard it coming they could have leapt out of the way.

There are very many times that I've decided not to make a manoeuvre because the sound of the vehicle behind me has made me edgy that it's coming too fast, being driven by an idiot etc. It's also an extra sense-check for the visual shoulder-check, as I can't claim that my looking back is 100% conscious and thought-through. 

If and when someone decides to plough straight through me, being able to hear it won't help any more than being able to see it. But there are plenty of other potential collisions which cyclists (although we shouldn't have to) can take steps to avoid. Having as many of the senses as you possess focused on the environment you're riding in seems an obvious precaution to me. 

AidanR wrote:

This isn't a matter of whataboutery, it's about hypocrisy and victim blaming. It's about the idea that a cyclist is somehow to blame that they couldn't hear the car behind them that struck them, as if somehow if they'd heard it coming they could have leapt out of the way.

With these idiots (Limerick council), yes it is. But I do think we've got to get out of the habit as cyclists of saying "car drivers don't do X, Y and Z so why should we?" Let's think about what makes us safer and do it regardless of whether car drivers do it, it's our lives on the line. For me (and of course I know from recent discussions on here many disagree) voluntarily choosing to deprive myself of a valuable sense when riding is foolish and I won't do it just because car drivers do.

There are two different contexts here:

1) Personal choice. I too do not use earphones when cycling.
2) Public policy / campaigns.

This falls into the latter category. We need to focus on what causes road danger, not unproven ways that vulnerable road users might possibly maybe avoid it. It increases the perception that cycling is dangerous and that cyclists don't belong on roads, which puts people off cycling and increases antagonism from drivers.

That was indeed exactly what I was trying to say, no it doesn't need a public campaign or legislating, but equally just because some eejits decide it does we shouldn't have a kneejerk "Well I'm going to do the opposite" either.

festina wrote:

Cyclists are wrong for wearing headphones as they can't hear the cars around them but all cars are built with in car entertainment systems that play can loud music and have other distracting features.

not forgetting even the guy arguing against headphones immediately cast doubt on their efficacy.

"cyclists need to be able to hear" but "electric cars don' make any sound"

So perhaps the best approach for cyclists is to 

• ride a predictable line
• look with their eyes before changing lane or direction

works for electric cars, cyclists with headphones and even deaf cyclists

Coming to the next County Limerick Council meeting, banning deaf cyclists because they can't hear electric cars.....