It’s been just under two weeks since the Irish government – amid a cacophony of confusion and mixed messages – insisted that cyclists would not be required by law to wear high-visibility clothing every time they get on a bike.
But that hasn’t stopped Ireland’s National Bus and Rail Union, who this week have called for hi-vis jackets to be made mandatory for people on bikes, a move the union says will “make the roads a safer place”.
Speaking at a Joint Oireachtas Committee on transport and road safety in Leinster House, Ireland’s parliament, on behalf of Dublin’s bus drivers, the union’s assistant general secretary Thomas O’Connor said that a legal hi-vis requirement would “make potential hazards easier to spot”.
“Driving a large public service vehicle is hard,” O’Connor told the committee. “Navigating all the hazards when there is a deluge (a daily occurrence in Ireland) or at night is even harder.
“The requirement for mandatory high-viz clothing for all cyclists and scooters, from the perspective of a bus driver, would make the roads a safer place, as it would make potential hazards easier to spot.
“Bus drivers, as they gain experience, learn to anticipate things and often prevent potential accidents through pre-emptive defensive driving. High-visibility clothing would make that task inherently easier.”

Describing mandatory hi-vis clothing as “absolutely essential” in reducing danger on the road, O’Connor continued: “People just don’t realise how hard it is to drive a large public service vehicle or a truck and to be watching out for people who may be in dark clothing in dark evenings, nights, or mornings.
“This is especially important due to the new battery-powered bikes which are very fast, and mandatory hi-vis clothing will save us.”
> Bus company investigates employee filmed driving on cycle lane and pavement
Elsewhere in his speech in parliament, O’Connor called for public transport and the rules of the road to be made a mandatory part of the curriculum, while also urging the government to ensure that illegal parking of cars in bus lanes is properly enforced.
“Every time a bus has to manoeuvre around obstacles, illegally parked cars, or other obstructions, it increases the risk of accidents. Investment in bus lanes and adequate enforcement to keep them free is paramount for safety,” he said.
The union leader also criticised the design and layout of Dublin’s roads, which he claims fail to provide adequate space for bus drivers, while raising the much-publicised issue of so-called ‘floating bus stops’ adjacent to cycle lanes.
“Cycle paths that intersect with bus stops have created a risk for vulnerable passengers, especially those with visual impairments,” he said.

That sentiment was echoed by Dublin Bus Driver Committee President Liam Weston, who told the committee that poor infrastructure and “weak” enforcement were fuelling tensions between bus drivers and cyclists, especially at floating bus stops.
“I would it is essential to have protected cycle lanes, in that they do not cross over with the buses,” Weston argued. “They are also on electric bikes now going at speed, so isolate the cycle lanes.”
> Dublin cyclists allowed to ride through red lights when turning left
Prior to his appearance at the Oireachtas committee, NBRU leader O’Connor told Newstalk that the road safety issue in Dublin has worsened in recent years thanks to the “proliferation” of electric scooters and electric bikes on the city’s streets, claiming that mandatory hi-vis could help address the current problems.
He told the radio station that it is essential to do “everything you can to mitigate the risk” faced in traffic, including wearing bright, reflective clothing if you’re on a bike.
“It’s very difficult driving a large public service vehicle, 40 feet in length, on the way around this sprawling city,” O’Connor said during the interview.
“There’s been a proliferation of faster vehicles, electric scooters and electric bikes, making their way around the streets. And the job of a professional bus driver is difficult enough, and we want to do everything we can to assuage and mitigate that risk.”
The union representative concluded that the best way to reduce risk is to make sure “anyone out there is visible to give the bus drivers an opportunity to avoid accidents”.
The NBRU’s calls for hi-vis come just two weeks after Ireland’s Department for Transport appeared to signal that current government plans to introduce mandatory helmet and hi-vis legislation would include bicycles of all kinds, even those without a motor – only for that official government announcement to be contradicted just hours later by Tánaiste Simon Harris.
Amid serious confusion and backlash from active travel campaigners surrounding the new proposals, which also affect e-scooter and e-bike users, the government issued a statement on 4 February indicating that cyclists not wearing protective gear or reflecting clothing could be fined by the police under the prospective new law – making Ireland the only EU member state to implement such a measure.
“Requirements for mandatory helmets and high-visibility equipment are currently being considered for e-scooters, bicycles, and e-bikes,” the department said in a statement when asked about the scope of the proposals first revealed in January, seemingly in a bid to tackle concerns about the growing number of collisions involving e-scooter users.
However, speaking in the Dáil the morning after the government’s statement was published, Harris, Ireland’s deputy prime minister, insisted that there are “no plans” to change the law to make helmets mandatory for cyclists riding non-motorised bikes.
Instead, the Fine Gael politician said any change in the law would only apply to e-scooters and e-bikes – noting the “letter e is a bit of a giveaway” – and argued that mandating helmet use for all cyclists “would be a really bad use of Garda time”.
And hours after Harris’s speech in the Dáil, the Department of Transport completed its own U-turn on the measures by clarifying that users of bicycles of the non-electrically assisted variety would not, in fact, be part of any new legislation.

46 thoughts on ““Driving a bus is difficult enough”: Bus drivers’ union says mandatory hi-vis jackets for cyclists would “make roads a safer place” and hits out at “poor visibility” of people on bikes”
Since he believes that many of his members are unable to drive their vehicles safely perhaps he could point them out so that their licences can be taken away, otherwise he is complicit in their actions. In the mean time he could also campaign for a reduction in the size of buses since he is so keen to improve road safety.
Crashes, incidents or collisions, not accidents.
Can’t really see how wearing a hi vis jacket is going to make it easier for cyclists to spot buses.
I think he means that the incompetent bus drivers should wear hi vis, so we have some chance of knowing when they will left hook us. It won’t help though – look at taxi drivers, who persist in a below median standard of driving despite their two sets of markings.
“New battery-powered bikes which are very fast….” These come equipped with lights over in the U.S. Do they sell such bikes without lights in Ireland? Only asking because it’s hard to imagine anything being much more high-vis than lights, especially given that many the fast bikes are have lights that are WTFB.
15mph is not fast when motor vehicles are doing 20, 30, 40…
If anything, it’s too slow for smooth traffic flow, IMHO, because it requires safe overtaking..
When will people understand that e-bikes are not about speed, they are about assistance.
if you want to go faster than 15.5 mph, pedal faster – or get a moped (preferably electric)
This obsession with speed is bordering on car brain
I can only conclude that you haven’t been into a city in the last few years. Food delivery riders in particular are riding overpowered “eBikes” that are basically mopeds … powered only via the throttle without pedalling at significantly more than 15mph.
Problem is they look like normal bikes/ebikes and not like mopeds so that is what people describe them as.
My reading of the article is that it is those vehicles that are being talked about here.
Jetmans Dad
“Food delivery riders in particular are riding overpowered ‘eBikes’ that are basically mopeds … powered only via the throttle without pedalling at significantly more than 15mph.
Problem is they look like normal bikes/ebikes and not like mopeds so that is what people describe them as.”
Indeed, mistaken identification of e-motorcycles as bicycles is a significant problem because different regulations and training apply, so different enforcement.
Even worse are the illegaly modified e-motorcycles that are not operated as such, without training, insurance and compliance generally.
Zero hour employment contracts and employers taking no practical responsibility make it worse yet. Then there’s the health impacts on customers that fall on taxpayers through the NHS.
People who want to travel safely in a 20 mph area, so that no motor vehicle tries to overtake them, need to be capable of 20 mph so get no assistance at all from a legal e-bike that provides 15.5 mph.
So the e-bike regulations are broken because they encourage unsafe overtaking by impatient drivers (5 mph). In 30 mph roads, the 10 mph difference would still allow safe overtaking to be completed in short distances. So the low speed 15.5 is less safe in practice not safer.
Passengers hurt as tram derailed in Chilwell bus crash – BBC News https://share.google/qpyBg3ckPb71GVIMs
How are bus drivers supposed to spot a tiny little cyclist when they can’t even see a tram? (Or the red light that he presumably ran to hit it.)
Need to paint the trams in hi-vis colours obviously.
A colleague lives very close to this. Apparently the bus drivers are known for speeding and running reds. Not too long ago a driver fell asleep and crashed the bus into his neighbours car. If you see how far the tram had been derailed the bus must have been driven at some speed. The low casualty numbers is because this section of the tram journey is a loop in which most people get off before.
I’ve been commuting by bike for the last 16 years and I would never cycle without bright clothing. It doesn’t matter who’s fault it is if there is a collision – it will always by the cyclist who comes off worst. Personally I’d ban the sale of black cycling tops.
Agreed. I’m not sure I’d vote for compulsory hi-vis but I really don’t see why any cyclist would deliberately wear black or any other colour that effectively acts as camouflage on the road. It’s embarrassing to admit that bike riders are slaves to fashion.
The thing that occurred to me recently after hearing multiple motorists complaining about being unable to identify a cyclist who had damaged their vehicle is that it gives the rider anonymity, he is just another cyclist in all black (assuming he escapes). Whether the motorist deserved to have his car damaged is an entirely different question.
And if Hi-vis is compulsory then they’d be just another cyclist in yellow…
Hi Viz has an element of victim blaming, while a requirement for high contrast clothing would avoid the stealth clothing phenomenon.
Even white shoes with reflective strips are sufficient to be very noticeable because of pedalling movement and being in the default field of view (not requiring viewer effort).
Obviously there’s a minority who don’t notice blues and twos due to deficient vision or cognition, so there’s never a 100% solution..
Would you also ban the sale of black cars and indeed any black clothing, given that pedestrians will be wearing it? Reflectives at night are a no brainer but there’s plenty of evidence that demonstrates that in bright daylight everything depends on background colour and indeed in some situations a rider in black is easier to identify than one wearing bright colours. You only have to look at the reports on this website of cyclists being killed or seriously injured whilst wearing bright colours and often daylight running lights as well to see that the overwhelming cause of cyclists being hit by drivers is not drivers not seeing them because of the absence of hiviz but because the drivers didn’t look properly, or at all.
I use a day running rear light all the time. It doesn’t prevent Surrey motorists from close passing and generally driving dangerously (whether or not I’m wearing hi-viz).
Typical MAMIL/commuter-brain comments in this thread. Have you tried *actual* utility cycling rather than just bombing it to and from your office job with a shower at either end? Some of us use bikes as primary transportation – I ride to the shops, to a mates house, to pubs and hobby clubs, to visit the seaside, and for all manner of other day-to-day tasks and the notion I should have to dress up like a bloody Ambulance for the ~15% of the riding time that I’m forced to use the road(because the infrastructure for cycling is insufficient or nonexistent) and carry a whole additional set of gear with me would be a joke in any country that’s serious about cycling as transportation.
Also the “camouflage” argument is ludicrous. It isn’t true, for a start – if you’re paying attention then a cyclist in dark clothing is no harder to spot than anything else; would a driver who plows into a parked black car at night have you lot in the comments making excuses for them? But beyond the simple falsehood of it, follow your own logic – if it’s true for cycles, surely it’s true for everything and everyone? Mandatory hivis clothing to step out of your front door. Mandatory hivis wraps on all vehicles. Mandatory walking and driving helmets with reflectors. Afterall, there *might* be an inattentive driver about, and in a world ruled by your dimwitted “reasoning” it’s up to the victim of their selfishness to performatively decorate themselves so that when the scumbag loopy on nitrous or starting gormlessly at their phone instead of the road hits them anyway they have one fewer excuse?
“~15% of the riding time that I’m forced to use the road(because the infrastructure for cycling is insufficient or nonexistent) ”
Amsterdam?
I’ve a memory the poster may be Edinburgh-adjacent (is that right?) – in which case it *may* be possible as the shared use paths (former railways) (plus a bit of more recent infra) can allow you to do this.
Highly dependent on your journey though. That’s not the case most places in NL. There you may be using motor-traffic-reduced and slowed *streets* there but most roads have alternatives.
But here in the north-west I can cycle for several miles in a couple of directions using them.
Of course if I needed to eg. go east-west in the south of the city it’s back to more usual UK conditions…
I regularly use a fairly long 20mph section of road which is for buses, access, and bikes only. I definitely would not jump to the defence of many of the people on bikes down there, whose behaviour is very poor.
However, the buses are often driven very badly even though there is limited other traffic down there. They regularly exceed 20mph in between the lights. They regularly stop in the bike boxes or creep into them in anticipation of the change. Once in the box next to you, when the lights change they give not even a quarter of a second for you to get going before they accelerate. At the points without segregated lanes, they will move further and further left, seemingly oblivious to their near crushing of you. If you use the road rather than the cycle lane, you will often experience the simultaneous right indication and right movement when they pull away from stops. On several occasions, though obviously rarer, I’ve even been beeped at when waiting in the right turning lane for oncoming traffic to clear before the turn is possible.
If they do all this on a wide and slow section of road where there is very little other traffic, does their behaviour improve when they’re further out in the wild?
Oh, no, a job is difficult? Maybe they should move to something easier than bus driving. Can I suggest Neurosurgery?
Me wearing hi-viz didn’t help when this driver didn’t look and simply moved out and used the cycle lane as a give way…
But he wasn’t driving a bus 😉
FUN FACT (from a bus driver)
At our company, the majority of blameworthy collisions involve our drivers hitting stationary objects/vehicles.
If only cars and street furniture were wearing high-vis…
Indeed. Those large, painted, signed, bridges marked on maps which keep jumping out at bus drivers need more situational awareness…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7vr2j6rev3o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9rnn5274jo
(The last at least resulted in disciplinary measures)
Better drape homes in it too then, just to be sure.
Just wait ’till someone reminds them they may encounter pedestrians in or next to the roads – clearly they need hi-vis too! Maybe they need a test, licencing, plates and insurance…?
I’d be interested to know how many “accidents” their buses have actually had with cyclists – and, indeed, what clothing those cyclists were wearing. I suspect the numbers will be very low, tending towards zero and involve any and all colours. I would not be surprised to find the vast majority involving cyclists in their blind spots when maneuvering… at which point no amount of hi-viz will make any difference.
In the meantime, perhaps someone could nudge the union to remind them that most/all the “faster” e-machines are not legal pedal bicycles. Trying to enforce a new law on people who are already flagrantly ignoring the current ones is unlikely to succeed!
Google brings up this when I searched, I wonder if that is what triggered the asinine comment by the Union. Its not actually a bus/ bike collision but a passenger/ bike collision and the bus driver was found to be at fault https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2026/01/22/judge-finds-dublin-bus-not-cyclist-responsible-for-collision-with-alighting-passenger/
Summary of 3.5 years London C2W:
No incidents with London Buses,
Two incidents with Black Cabs,
Many incidents will Private Hire,
Addison Lee were the worst, least safe.
So consistent with training standards.
Ive a lot of time for bus drivers as potentially they are taking a lot of cars of the road but this is an asinine comment!
Moaning about other road users doesn’t change the fact that numerous cyclists don’t pay enough attention to ensuring they are visible. When crossing roads in London there is much greater risk of being flattened by a cyclist who has made no real attempt to be visible (dark clothing, weak or non existent lights and head down progress) than there is in being hit by a car.
And yet strangely the statistics don’t agree with you https://content.tfl.gov.uk/pedestrian-fatalities-in-london.pdf
With the drivers of motor vehicles responsible for around 92% of pedestrian KSIs in London, you may wish to reassess what you mean by “much greater risk”.
I can see the car (larger, lights etc) more easily than I can see a bike rider in a black or dark top. Therefore, at that moment of crossing the risk is greater. Try crossing Lower Richmond Road Putney or Battersea Park or Battersea Rise Clapham at dusk and see.
If it’s dusk, i.e. post-sunset, then the cyclists should have lights on and thus the colour of their top is irrelevant. If you want to complain about cyclists not having lights when it’s mandatory then by all means do but their top has nothing to do with it.
I can see the car (larger, lights etc) more easily than I can see a bike rider in a black or dark top. Therefore, at that moment of crossing the risk is greater. Try crossing Lower Richmond Road Putney or Battersea Park or Battersea Rise Clapham at dusk and see.
You’ve managed to write total and utter b******s there. Well done.
Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
Then … it will be easy to see that in the casualty numbers, no? And (albeit this is looking a decade back) indeed you can *see* the truth!
Do you mean is “we are used to *looking for the cars*” (or even “looking with our ears” – which is real) and thus cyclists are often surprising? Or is it “cyclists are in or space, we know that motorists are only on the roads”? *
But … it is true that cyclists are a bit less visible and quieter than motorists. And it is true that some cyclists don’t make efforts to be visible. And indeed some are too relaxed about cycling in accordance with the law.
The latter points are not good … but then the damage caused by cyclists in a collision is on average much less than a with a motor vehicle.
And while people often think that motorists are more likely to be motivated to obey the law because of legal consequences (because eg. “They’ve got number plates”) that it’s debatable. Unlike cyclists motorists aren’t going to be motivated to proceed carefully because of worries about being injured or killed in a collision with a pedestrian…
* Excluding all those motorists who reach year kill more people on the footways than cyclists do altogether…
I cycle commute. I have lights, another flashing light on my rucksack, an Osprey with a bright yellow and reflective rain cover. Doesn’t prevent drivers ‘not seeing’ me. Whether people are head-to-toe in dark or hi Viz clothing probably won’t make a significant difference. Speed is one of the issues in that driver’s don’t give themselves stopping distance. I witness daily the most appalling driving.
Same here. I have a helmet with built in front and rear lights and have a red light clipped onto my bag plus lights attached to my bike front and rear but still have drivers putting me in danger.
My commute is about two miles and I normally have around four incidents a week where I have to brake hard or take other evasive action to avoid being hit by distracted drivers. A big percentage of these are drivers coming on to roundabouts when I am already on them.
If people driving large public service vehicle can’t see obstacles in the road they shouldn’t be driving large public service vehicles. Or indeed any vehicle.
I can’t stand this hi-vis bollocking, in 30+ years of cycling I’ve been hit twice both times while wearing hi-vis clothing, fact is it doesn’t help, if you don’t look you won’t see!