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.”
67 thoughts on “Ireland’s transport minister backs compulsory hi-visibility gear for cyclists”
Helmets for motorists would
Helmets for motorists would save a lot more lives. Presumably that’s the next thing on the agenda.
Bikebikebike wrote:
Awesome. Simpson Bandits all round, everyone’s The Stig.
Even as the ability for
Even as the ability for motorists to see out of their insulated metal boxes gets worse-and-worse, thanks to changes in car design.
Ensuring that all pedestrians
Ensuring that all pedestrians wear a bubble-wrap suit would save a lot more lives and also provide a lot of entertainment.
If it saves even one life, then it’s worth inconveniencing everyone.
The PPE argument has been had
The PPE argument has been had and resolved in engineering and on construction sites. Ask anybody with proper H&S responsibility where PPE should come in the list of actions.
Politicians’ abilities to ignore solutions and repeatedly reinvent square wheels amaze me.
It’s being pedalled as a
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!
DaSy wrote:
I took it as a comedic play on words.
DrJDog wrote:
Or a pun as it is more commonly, and rather more succintly, known.
burtthebike wrote:
we must put a stop to this use of words where another one already exists.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Indeed. The Anti-thesaurus co-operative is up and running and recruiting lots of new members.
burtthebike wrote:
“co-operative” or “syndicate “?
(or even “association “…)
Could be a Popular People’s Front, maybe…
brooksby wrote:
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.
burtthebike wrote:
Don’t you oppress/challenge/threaten me! 😉
DaSy wrote:
Forgetting the opening quotation mark whilst playing chief pedant, that’s got to hurt!
alansmurphy wrote:
Muphry’s Law, innit? 😉
This needs to be accompanied
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?
Grahamd wrote:
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.
Bluebug wrote:
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.
This will happen, along with
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.
kitsunegari wrote:
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.
kitsunegari wrote:
….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.
Username wrote:
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-evidence-in-jobstown-case-focuses-on-identical-errors-1.3147026
2. http://www.thejournal.ie/garda-scandal-timeline-alcohol-fcpn-3313178-Mar2017/
3. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/shell-to-sea-protest-disciplinary-action-against-one-garda-over-rape-tape-comments-26846479.html
Ush wrote:
“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!
kitsunegari wrote:
They’re effectively anti-cycling and would prefer it to disappear altogether.
Hi-vis clothing makes little
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.
keninoz wrote:
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.
BehindTheBikesheds]
Amen.
And for the law to be applied equally.
Quote:
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.
Yet another step in the
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.
ffs.
ffs.
I posted about this very
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.
Well as someone who commutes
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?
boardmanrider wrote:
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.
boardmanrider wrote:
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?
ConcordeCX wrote:
Careful now: we’re getting dangerously close to someone invoking godwin’s law…
Sometimes seems like there’s
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.
ConcordeCX wrote:
We really do need to stop voting them into positions from which they can impose their incompetence dont we!
WashoutWheeler wrote:
I didn’t vote for these twats. I voted for a completely different set of twats altogether. But at least my twats like bicycles.
this is reasonably ok imo,
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!
Freshmn09 wrote:
Reflective ankle straps on their own are useless. You are better of wearing a white or light coloured – not grey – top. Much easier to see in car head lights.
Oh and I agree in poor light particularly heavy grey/dark coloured cars are hard to see.
I believe a similar law
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?
Rod Marton wrote:
You have a rather touching faith in the ability of evidence to change people’s minds. If evidence was effective, there would be no cycle helmet laws, seat belts would be banned and motor vehicles would be limited to 10mph in towns.
I’m all for it. The moment
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.
alansmurphy wrote:
The number of cars I see in the mornings now with no lights on (because its after sunrise), but painted almost exactly the same colour as the road and the rainclouds.
I want to see a law that says
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!
Ryder wrote:
Cars (well, OK, “drivers”) also hit trees and bollards and walls and fences and pedestrians and bus stops pretty regularly. We should also paint all of those things bright yellow.
Then when everything is yellow, my black Rapha will really stand out.
Ryder wrote:
And everything else that drivers are prone to drive into.
The Day The World Turned Day-Glo.
Hi-viz. The clothing most
Hi-viz. The clothing most seeable against really bright autumnal morning sunshine
I think hi-vis works to a
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?
I’m really sick of this “if
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.
Cars must all be Hi-viz and
Cars must all be Hi-viz and road users must wear crash helmets and hi viz. Only solution
Hi-vis does not guarantee
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.
Copsframecyclist wrote:
Personally, I’m all for people driving around wrecklessly…
Copsframecyclist wrote:
Just joining in the pedants jamboree, but that is “recklessly” not “wrecklessly”.
^This. Plus the amount of
^This. Plus the amount of collisions despite Daytime Driving Lamps being mandatory on all new Vehicles since 2009 :-/
Once again we are bad to
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.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
You are right, but the question should be why do we allow people who are clearly not competent to operate a machine which is capable of killing with the slightest error, to operate such a machine? If we banned all the incompetent people, the roads would be much safer, congestion would disappear, pollution would be minimal and life would be much simpler.
They could have a fashion
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.
There are already compulsory
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?
Fine for me if they agree
Fine for me if they agree that all new cars sold must be paint in bright fluorescent yellow
There is a hi-vis fashion
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/
I have a totally unproven
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?
Simboid wrote:
https://fineartmultiple.com/media/product/a0b/big-brother-is-watching-you-sfa-40-1467125051-300-6ce.jpg
Simboid wrote:
I had thought of something similar, but with what looked like a Kalashnikov tucked into the panniers. I’m pretty certain it would have cut down the number of drivers ignoring my right of way.
Ireland’s transport minister
Ireland’s transport minister backs look where you’re fucking going you fucking murderous fuckwits for drivers.
When will I read that one?
Backwards.
Backwards.
It’s interesting how imposing
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.