Moving flashing lights and reflective clothing

[Punkawallah]

The findings of a (localish to me) fatal single vehicle RTA which cost a young couple their lives a while back was published during the week. They both died from head injuries according to the medical findings.

If it had been two cyclists who died from head injuries, there would be calls to make helmets mandatory. Yet it is never even mentioned when two car occupants die from head injury. You have to wonder why?

Although I wouldn't want to wear a helmet when driving either!

Please. When driving the appropriate safety measures should be a four point harness, neck brace and helmet. If it’s good enough for the professionals . ..

 

[tyred]

"Driving a bus is difficult enough".

Irish bus drivers call for mandatory hiviz for cyclists.

https://road.cc/news/bus-drivers-union-calls-for-mandatory-hi-vis-for-cyclists

Sad to say, I think I can see it becoming mandatory here. There seems to be a lot of push for it from various lobby groups like the bus drivers and the road haulage people.

It seems to be all the so-called Road Safety Authority can suggest in regards to improving pedestrian and cyclist safety.

I was an occasional hi Vis wearer. I happened to wearing a bright yellow windproof top when I got t-boned by a Citroen in broad daylight at a crossroads where I had priority. It was lucky I was as I was constantly asked about by the driver's insurance company if I was wearing hi vis as they tried to say I was negligent. I also pointed out my German legislation approved dynohub lighting.

Nowadays, I always wear hi vis, not because I think it makes the slightest bit of difference, but should someone drive into me again, I've removed their excuse for doing so.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

The findings of a (localish to me) fatal single vehicle RTA which cost a young couple their lives a while back was published during the week. They both died from head injuries according to the medical findings.

If it had been two cyclists who died from head injuries, there would be calls to make helmets mandatory. Yet it is never even mentioned when two car occupants die from head injury. You have to wonder why?

Although I wouldn't want to wear a helmet when driving either!

To be fair - I do not like wearing a helmet on a bike

I generally don;t like hats anyway
but bike helmets are worse than normal caps etc

but I still wear one even though I do not need to

 

[tyred]

Devils advocate but if it comes down to mandatory hi-vis, perhaps even enshrined in law rather than just perhaps highway code guidance, would we judge other people on bikes to at fault if they have an accident and are not wearing it? Is it really just a fashion choice that people don't want to wear it or are they being deliberately obtuse? (not aimed directly at you BTW)

My own experience is the same - when in a none fault RTC on my bike I was consistantanly asked if I was wearing hi viz. I now wear it all the time as I can't be bothered with the agro if I am in another RTC.

I would imagine that they'd have to introduce a minimum standard for the hi vis to meet if it was made a legal requirement.

Something I note is that I often see people cycling or walking wearing the sort of hi vis jackets and tabards that are aimed at building sites, but they are often so worn or dirty that the reflectives probably aren't very effective anyway.

It seems to me that a car driver is never in the wrong in Ireland and it's always someone else's fault.

There was a case a few years ago where a driver came around a blind corner too fast and rear-ended a tractor in the dark and killed the tractor driver. It was confirmed that the tractor had two working tail lamps. The driver admitted driving over the speed limit. The tractor was a late 1960s Massey-Ferguson 135. When it was built, the only lighting requirement would have been two red lights to the rear. Several other drivers confirmed seeing the tractor taillamps and overtaking safely. The driver of the car that hit it claimed he didn't see it until he heard the bang during the impact (I don't buy this as you ought to be able to see it even without lights if you have working headlamps. You might see it too late, but you should still see it).

The court ruled that the tractor driver was 75% responsible for not having a flashing beacon. I think this was an utterly ridiculous decision and worrying, because if it can be applied to a tractor, the same logic would be applied to a speeding driver that went around a blind corner too fast and wiped out a cyclist.

 

[classic33]

Sad to say, I think I can see it becoming mandatory here. There seems to be a lot of push for it from various lobby groups like the bus drivers and the road haulage people.

It seems to be all the so-called Road Safety Authority can suggest in regards to improving pedestrian and cyclist safety.

I was an occasional hi Vis wearer. I happened to wearing a bright yellow windproof top when I got t-boned by a Citroen in broad daylight at a crossroads where I had priority. It was lucky I was as I was constantly asked about by the driver's insurance company if I was wearing hi vis as they tried to say I was negligent. I also pointed out my German legislation approved dynohub lighting.

Nowadays, I always wear hi vis, not because I think it makes the slightest bit of difference, but should someone drive into me again, I've removed their excuse for doing so.

Well the same drivers aren't exactly proving their point when they do things like this.

https://road.cc/content/news/bus-company-investigates-cycle-lane-and-pavement-driver-297281

 

[classic33]

Devils advocate but if it comes down to mandatory hi-vis, perhaps even enshrined in law rather than just perhaps highway code guidance, would we judge other people on bikes to at fault if they have an accident and are not wearing it? Is it really just a fashion choice that people don't want to wear it or are they being deliberately obtuse? (not aimed directly at you BTW)

My own experience is the same - when in a none fault RTC on my bike I was consistantanly asked if I was wearing hi viz. I now wear it all the time as I can't be bothered with the agro if I am in another RTC.

T-boned the end of March 2005, and that was one question I was asked, along with why. I simply pointed out it's not a legal requirement, and it wouldn't have helped in this case as the driver involved Insisted I was a bus.

@tyred, there is a legal standard in place already for Hi-Vis, and one of those is the number of washes that the garment can be put through before they have to have to be replaced. Along with the two plus two for reflective material, if it's to be worn whilst mainly on the roads.
If you look at most of what is being worn now, there's a fair bit that doesn't meet the legal minimum standard in use. And this is often supplied by the company.

 

[nogoodnamesleft]

Sad to say, I think I can see it becoming mandatory here. There seems to be a lot of push for it from various lobby groups like the bus drivers and the road haulage people.

For me at some times of year Hi viz is the perfect camouflage, merges in against a common background far better than anything else. We have a lot of oil seed rape fields and hi-viz a perfect match. Far safer wearing a black t-shirt.

Environment needs consideration.

 

[Oldhippy]

Why is no one asking is it a small number of drivers who need to pay full and absolute attention whilst in charge of a vehicle? Why should the people who decide to cycle as transport have to dress up in day glo? Providing they have lights when needed all should be well. A surefire way of sleep walking in to compulsion of helmets, day glo and putting future cyclists off! Cycling is not a dangerous sport in normal circumstances as generations of past cyclists are able to testify. If cycle advocacy groups were more voracious in their point of removing the onus on cycling to meekly subjugate to the car is king mentality.

 

[Punkawallah]

Apparently cycling is about as dangerous as travelling by bus - and busses have more safety requirements than bicycles. Is there a case to be made for removing safety requirements for motor vehicles in the interests of safer road use?
https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/uk-road-safety

 

[Oldhippy]

A must read is Bike Nation by Peter Walker. He concisely explains how so many other countries have gone a long way to solving many issues in this realm. Political will from a few politicians doing their job and facing up to car lobbies.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

SMIDSY

Which is short for “Sorry Mate I Didn’t Look”.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Which is short for “Sorry Mate I Didn’t Look”.

Sometimes I think they do actually look

but not properly
so their brain is on autopilot and just looking for cars and bigger

and bikes just do not register

 

[oldandslow]

Devils advocate but if it comes down to mandatory hi-vis, perhaps even enshrined in law rather than just perhaps highway code guidance, would we judge other people on bikes to at fault if they have an accident and are not wearing it?

I think history says that that is exactly what happens. It reminds me of what I've read about the CTC resistance to compulsory rear lights during WWII. Headlights were dimmed to avoid enemy pilots using the road network for navigation, so cyclist casualties increased and rear lights (being red and less visible from above) were proposed. Before then, cyclists had only used headlights. The CTC was concerned that what would happen in practice was an increase not so much in visibility as in the minimum requirements to be regarded as "visible". They were right in that of course, because everyone here is going to respond that anyone who rides without a rear (and front) light is an idiot. Well I always have one too, and I wear hi vis, but cyclists with lights are still being hit and are still being told that they need more visibility aids.

I suppose you could say that the test of whether something is providing "extra" visibility is that the consequences of hitting a cyclist who is "extra" visible are an "extra" penalty in court, because you have failed not just to see a visible cyclist, but to see an "extra" visible one.

The basic issue of course is that the talk of visibility tends to lose track of the fact that I'm not trying to be visible; I am trying to be seen. Visibility helps with that but, if you only attack the problem from one end, you don't tend to solve it. In the same way, it's a good thing if I can be employable, but that's not really my goal; I want to be employed. And that takes someone else to act as well.

 

[All uphill]

Sometimes I think they do actually look

but not properly
so their brain is on autopilot and just looking for cars and bigger

and bikes just do not register

Agreed.

This is imo likely to be worse in towns with few cyclists. No mildly sentient car driver in central London would be unaware of cyclists, for example.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I know s**t happens but two failed lights and brackets on one ride is very bad luck.

My point exactly
That's why two is better than one. Redundancy.