# cyclist prosecuted for drunk-cycling



## Brendan Burgess (16 Nov 2013)

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...lty-to-new-drunkcycling-offence-29759579.html




> Ghanaian national Sylvanus Akpaku yesterday pleaded guilty at Ennis  District Court to the new offence of 'drunk-cycling' under the 2010 Road  Traffic Act.
> 
> 
> Mr Akpaku, of Church View, Barefield, Ennis, Co  Clare, pleaded guilty to driving a pedal cycle under the influence to  such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the  bicycle at Barefield, Ennis, on September 13 last.
> ...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Nov 2013)

Road Traffic Act 2010 

_I have deleted the bits relating to horse drawn vehicles 

_6.—
(1) A person shall not, in a public place—
(a) ...
(b) drive or attempt to drive a pedal cycle, while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle or cycle.
...
2 (b) if the offence relates to a pedal cycle, he or she is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €2,000.

(4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána is of opinion that a person is committing or has committed an offence under this section, he or she may arrest the person without warrant.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Nov 2013)

I had always wondered about this. 

If a cyclist is stopped, the only sanction is a fine? 

They can't be banned from driving or cycling?

I missed the discussion at the time on boards.ie 

*Road Traffic Act 2010 - Impact on cyclists*


----------



## Bonaparte (17 Nov 2013)

Well I suppose that in all fairness if we are looking for equality on the roads that this should apply to everything. The €2,000 fine is substantial and should act as a deterrent.

I am surprised that there is no outpouring of objection from some rural quarters. I know of a number of rural people who have taken to the bike to go for a couple of pints since the enforcement of lowered drink driving limits.

Given that cycling speeds are lower and the potential harm that can be done by a cyclist would it be reasonable to suggest a higher blood alcohol limit could apply to cyclists?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Nov 2013)

Bonaparte said:


> Given that cycling speeds are lower and the potential harm that can be done by a cyclist would it be reasonable to suggest a higher blood alcohol limit could apply to cyclists?



Does the blood alochol limit apply to cyclists? 




> drive or attempt to drive a pedal cycle, while he or she is under the  influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of  having proper control of the vehicle or cycle.



I don't think that they have random breath tests for cyclists. 

I think that the guy in Ennis got charged because he was weaving all over the place and because he had no lights. 

I would personally be much more worried  about my own safety cycling without lights than cycling under the influence of a few pints.

Brendan


----------



## MrEarl (17 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Does the blood alochol limit apply to cyclists?
> 
> I would personally be much more worried  about my own safety cycling without lights than cycling under the influence of a few pints.
> 
> Brendan



Hello Brendan,

Should you not be worried about your safety, in either case ? ... or dare I suggest, in the case of a drunken cyclist in a cycle lane crashing into you or forcing you into the way of a car perhaps ?

The blood alochol limit you reference below is a very good question, I don't know the answer but believe it should apply.

I know I have previously been quite vocal about bad cyclists, but this is ultimately down to peoples safety and whether we are talking about cyclists not obeying the rules of the road (breaking red lights, going on footpaths or the wrong way down a one way street) or talking about cyclists not being permitted to use their bikes when drinking, the same rules as for motorists should apply.

It's time that people (including, I suspect ... many of the Gardai) woke up to the importance of being safe, whether on a bike or in a car and thats not just for their own benefit, but also for those around them.


----------



## JohnJay (17 Nov 2013)

I can see a Healy-Rae backlash to this...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Nov 2013)

JohnJay said:


> I can see a Healy-Rae backlash to this...



Hi John

Why not argue the merits of the issue rather than make what looks like a personal criticism unrelated to the argument? 

Brendan


----------



## ajapale (17 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I think that the guy in Ennis got charged because he was weaving all over the place and because he had no lights.
> 
> I would personally be much more worried  about my own safety cycling without lights than cycling under the influence of a few pints.
> 
> Brendan



The court reports do not mention lights, merely:

 "Around 11pm on September 13 Akpaku was cycling in an erratic manner and was wearing no  reflective gear. When he was stopped by Gardai he was slurring his words  and there was a smell of alcohol from him."

What exaclty does the leglisation say about reflective gear?


----------



## Jim2007 (17 Nov 2013)

Bonaparte said:


> Well I suppose that in all fairness if we are looking for equality on the roads that this should apply to everything. The €2,000 fine is substantial and should act as a deterrent.



Some time ago over here they changed the law and made all most all serious fines dependent on your income as it was felt that it would act a better deterrent.  It seems to have had the desired effect on certain elements of society who treated fines as just a small cost...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Nov 2013)

Hi AJ

I had assumed that this meant he had no lights, but a strict reading could mean that he had lights and a reflector on the bike but just wasn't wearing reflective clothes. 

I have a dynamo light on my bike back and front and I wear a reflective jacket.  I have occasionally been out without my reflective jacket and come home in the dark. I certainly did not think it was an offence of any sort.


----------



## T McGibney (17 Nov 2013)

Bonaparte said:


> I know of a number of rural people who have taken to the bike to go for a couple of pints since the enforcement of lowered drink driving limits.



Regardless of the law, anyone who does this on country roads needs their head examined.


----------



## MrEarl (17 Nov 2013)

Jim2007 said:


> Some time ago over here they changed the law and made all most all serious fines dependent on your income as it was felt that it would act a better deterrent.  It seems to have had the desired effect on certain elements of society who treated fines as just a small cost...




Hello,

I am not sure where you are based, but as far as Ireland is concerned I would have a concern that while this type of system might have a positive impact on those with more money, it would have a negative impact on those either with less or declaring less.  Unless there was a mandatory minimum fine which was appropriate to the crime and only replaced by a mandatory jail term perhaps.


----------



## RichInSpirit (17 Nov 2013)

I think this is draconian. 
Ireland must be the worst Nanny state in the World.


----------



## MrEarl (17 Nov 2013)

RichInSpirit said:


> I think this is draconian......



Why ?


----------



## Luternau (17 Nov 2013)

RichInSpirit said:


> I think this is draconian.
> Ireland must be the worst Nanny state in the World.



Why? 
Its borderline suicide to cycle on a rural, poorly or unlit road without a light, in dark clothes, without refectors and while under the influence of alcohol.


----------



## Purple (18 Nov 2013)

I frequently cycle to and from the pub, well frequently as a proportion of the number of times I go to the pub so maybe once a fortnight.
I have a maximum of 3 pints and then cycle home. The route is brightly lit and there’s cycle paths the whole way.
It would be illegal for me to drive home but I assume I’m still ok cycling. 

I stay off the footpath and don't break red lights


----------



## Boyd (18 Nov 2013)

Ditto for me Purple, except in Dublin. I regularly cycling home after 3 pints, as long as I have all my gear with me (helmet, lights etc.)


----------



## Leo (18 Nov 2013)

There was a case in 2012 (can't find a link to it now) where a drunk cyclist almost killed himself by cycling in front of traffic on Dame Street. On top of the fine, he was banned from driving for a number of years even though he didn't hold a licence at the time, so there is precedent. The guy was interviewed by RTE coming out of court, and despite the conviction, was still wondering who was going to compensate him for his injuries and loss of earnings!!! 


Recent article on cyclist convictions in the Summer 2013 edition of the Cycling in Dublin newspaper, linked here,:



> More than 2,600 cyclists were brought to court for road traffic offences committed between 2003 and 2011


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Nov 2013)

Hi Leo

Not sure if this is the case, but it's a similar one where a guy got banned for a year from driving. 

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html



> But Robert Pierse, the author of Road Traffic Law in  [broken link removed],  which is now in its fourth edition and a required source for lawyers  involved in road traffic cases, said the judge was perfectly entitled to  impose a driving ban for a cycling offence.
> 
> Mr Pierse added: "It is highly unusual but legal.


----------



## RainyDay (19 Nov 2013)

ajapale said:


> What exaclty does the leglisation say about reflective gear?



Nothing. There is no legal requirement to wear hi-vis clothing or a helmet when cycling in Ireland, or in the UK.

That didn't stop the UK police responding to the recent spate of cyclists killed by other vehicles with a bout of 'victim blaming' - stopping and 'advising' cyclists to wear helmets and hi-vis.

http://road.cc/content/news/99098-l...sts-without-helmets-advice-education-exercise

They wouldn't get away with victim blaming with other types of crime. I'm not sure why it is acceptable in the case of cyclist deaths.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> They wouldn't get away with victim blaming with other types of crime.



Really? Injured drivers are breathalysed at the scene of road crashes. Unaccompanied walkers are often advised to steer clear of areas where they have been attacks on others. Knife fight fatalities have been met with clampdowns on knife possession.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Nov 2013)

ajapale said:


> What exaclty does the leglisation say about reflective gear?



Citizens Information comes up trumps again 

All bicycles used on public roads in Ireland must at all times display a rear reflector. A rear reflector means a red reflector that can be plainly seen for a distance of 99 meters (325 feet) to the rear when the headlights of a vehicle shine directly on it. The only exception to this rule is on a child's bicycle where that bicycle is used during the daytime. 
  During "lighting-up time", that is, the period beginning half an hour after sunset and ending half an hour before sunrise on the following morning, all cyclists are required to have fitted (and make use of) the following lighting on their bicycles: 


One front lamp
One rear lamp
A front lamp means a lamp that is fitted to a non-mechanically propelled vehicle showing to the front a white or yellow light that is visible for a reasonable distance. 
  A rear lamp is a lamp that is fitted to the rear of your bicycle and when it is lit, showing a red light that is visible for a reasonable distance.
  Under SI 487 of 2009, since 14 December 2009 it is legal to use flashing front and rear lamps. 
  Lamps do not need to be lit when stopped in traffic or when a person wheels the bicycle on foot as near as is possible to the left-hand edge of the road.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Nov 2013)

> Lamps do not need to be lit when stopped in traffic



That is a very interesting exemption which allows for the old fashioned dynamos. 

I have a Kelly's bike where the dynamo keeps the back light lit  for some minutes after stopping.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2013)

I have LED lights that give 1000 hours from one set of batteries. They fit in my pocket so they don't get stolen when I'm in getting tanked up and womanising


----------



## RainyDay (19 Nov 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Really? Injured drivers are breathalysed at the scene of road crashes. Unaccompanied walkers are often advised to steer clear of areas where they have been attacks on others. Knife fight fatalities have been met with clampdowns on knife possession.



Injured drivers are breathalysed if a Garda has reason to suspect that they were drinking, which is illegal. Knife possession is illegal.

I've never heard of Gardai stopping walkers and advising them to steer clear of areas. 

So what is happening in London is victim blaming. Boris and the Met are distracting attention from the cause of the deaths and getting people talking about hi-vis, helmets and headphones instead. A great PR technique, but it won't save lives.


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2013)

Wearing headphones while cycling is madness. 
If that's what they are targeting then well done to them!


----------



## Crugers (20 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> Wearing headphones while cycling is madness.



Why?


----------



## Seagull (20 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> Wearing headphones while cycling is madness.
> If that's what they are targeting then well done to them!


 
It depends entirely on the volume in the headphones. If I'm wearing my headphones while walking, the volume is at a level where I can still hear ambient noise. I don't cycle with headphones, but that's more because I don't cycle very far, and the cords annoy me on the bike.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Nov 2013)

I find it very annoying when I am cycling on the footpath that pedestrians with earphones on don't hear me coming from behind, even if I ring my bell to alert them.

In my view, they are being totally irresponsible. 

Brendan


----------



## Seagull (21 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I find it very annoying when I am cycling on the *footpath* that pedestrians with earphones on don't hear me coming from behind, even if I ring my bell to alert them.
> 
> In my view, they are being totally irresponsible.
> 
> Brendan


 
Is that just a poor choice of words? I would have said you were the irresponsible and annoying one if you're cycling on the footpath. 

If you mean that you're cycling along a cycle track on the pavement, then I'd agree with you. If you want to listen to your music while you're walking or cycling, keep the volume low enough so that you can still hear what's going on around you.


----------



## Bonaparte (21 Nov 2013)

Looking at the general position regarding the prosecution of cyclists for "dangerous cycling" I checked myself on the way home last night which is a 20km journey and I think I'd have ended up in prison with the amount of breaches I had. Basically I think there needs to be a common sense approach taken. For example, a cyclist coming to O'Connell Bridge travelling West on the South Quays and stopped at a red light. The safest approach for the cyclist is to move westwards slowly once the pedestrian lights at the D'Ollier Street change to green. This allows the cyclist to be clear of the bridge and at the narrow entrance to Aston Quay ahead of the traffic which is much safer and more effective for all concerned. This is just one example of the many instances on my journey where I take a safe approach to a junction which exposes me to a potential €2,000 fine


----------



## RainyDay (25 Nov 2013)

One wonders why the UK and Irish police put so much emphasis on hi-vis clothing;

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...er-passing-distances.html#7oe6xLcyvsI0XSvj.99​ Study finds hi-viz clothing has no effect on driver passing distances -Cycling Weekly.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2013)

A very interesting finding, but I am not sure that is the only point of wearing hi viz clothing. 

Drivers cycle too close to cyclists whether they see them or not. 

The purpose of wearing hi viz is that they do actually see you and don't drive into you.  

It's not clear if this survey was done during the day or at night. 

I must say I feel much safer wearing my hi viz jacket at night.


----------



## Firefly (25 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> I have LED lights that give 1000 hours from one set of batteries. They fit in my pocket so they don't get stolen when I'm in getting tanked up and womanising



"Fancy a ride love?"


----------



## Latrade (26 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> A very interesting finding, but I am not sure that is the only point of wearing hi viz clothing.
> 
> Drivers cycle too close to cyclists whether they see them or not.
> 
> ...


 
It depends on the Hi Viz as to how effective it is. At night it's the reflective strips that are important, the general material doesn't glow in the dark and is more visible during the day. If the strips are covered (say by a bag) then it's as useless as any clothing really. Good lights are far more important than Hi Viz.

But it just means cars see you from a distance (if combined with good lights) it doesn't change the perception of a driver that they can pass you by inches from your handle bar. It doesn't matter what time of day or time of the year, I'm always visible and drivers always pass too close and too fast at the same time.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I must say I feel much safer wearing my hi viz jacket at night.



Same here. I just about saw a cyclist this morning with no lights in dark clothing. He was cycling towards me as I pulled out. The lights of the bus coming along behind him, along with the glare from the wet road, made him very had to see. 
Why do people put themselves in danger like that?


----------



## Seagull (26 Nov 2013)

Darwin award candidates.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2013)

Firefly said:


> "Fancy a ride love?"



Something like that, it's all a bit fuzzy...


----------



## Firefly (26 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I must say I feel much safer wearing my hi viz jacket at night.



I think as part of its "Be Safe, Be Seen" campaign the NRA are giving away free hi viz vests. The only details I could find on their website was for the free hi viz vests for kids but I was getting the tyres on my car changed yesterday and they had a box of free hi viz jackets from the NRA in the office. They were for all sizes. We are quite the coordinated hi viz family now!


----------



## Gerry Canning (26 Nov 2013)

All comes to (un-) common sense.
I have never heard of  cyclist killing a driver.
I have often heard of  driver killing a cyclist.
..................................................
Do not drunk cycle.
Do wear Hi-viz clothes.
Do have proper lamps , particularly rear ones.
Do assume the driver does not see you. 
Do have a long happy cycling life.


----------



## ajapale (26 Nov 2013)

Cyclists are not the only road users encouraged to use hi viz.  Road workers are required by law to wear high viz gear with retroreflective strips as part of their PPE. Road workers are typically behind barriers and signs but never the less there are several fatal/ serious accidents each year involving collisions with traffic.

Most road workers are on the the road during daylight hours.

from wikipedia:


> *EN 471:2003 Class 3*
> The class 3 defines the highest level of visibility. Example jacket  with long sleeves, jacket and trouser suit. Two 5 cm bands of reflective  tape around the body, arms and braces over both shoulders. Class 3  should be worn when working within 1.2 metres of a Highway with traffic  moving in excess of 50 km/h.


----------



## RainyDay (26 Nov 2013)

There is a broader, more strategic issue about the emphasis on hi-vis and helmets that is being missed here.

What makes cycling safe is having more cyclists on the road. This 'pushing' to have all cyclists in helmets and hi-vis is a deterrent to cycling for some people. Hi-vis is not an attractive look. Helmets aren't great for those of us who care about our luxuriant coiffed hairstyles. For the record, I don't care about either of these. I wear a helmet almost all the time, and my winter jacket is hi-vis. However, the expectation and culture that all cyclists have to look like escaped builders deters many younger people and many females  from cycling. 

Look at those countries that have built the most successful cycling environments - Netherlands and Denmark. You won't see a helmet or a hi-vis in sight in those countries. They provide good infrastructure, and a good legal environment - with 'strict liability' in Netherlands, where any damage or illness caused by a car to a bike or cyclist is deemed to be the motorists fault, unless proven otherwise.

They get lots of people to cycle, and that makes cycling safe. I'm not aware of any evidence showing that hi-vis actually works to make cycling safer.

We risk getting into victim-blaming here. If cyclists need helmets, then by the same logic, so do all car drivers (who frequently get head injuries), and all pub drinkers (who frequently get head injuries). Will the Gardai or Boris be recommending drinking helmets next?


----------



## RainyDay (26 Nov 2013)

ajapale said:


> Cyclists are not the only road users encouraged to use hi viz.  Road workers are required by law to wear high viz gear with retroreflective strips as part of their PPE. Road workers are typically behind barriers and signs but never the less there are several fatal/ serious accidents each year involving collisions with traffic.
> 
> Most road workers are on the the road during daylight hours.
> 
> from wikipedia:



Just curious - what law makes this EN mandatory?


----------



## Latrade (27 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> Just curious - what law makes this EN mandatory?


 

As Ajapale states, the requirement is for construction worker. 



RainyDay said:


> There is a broader, more strategic issue about the emphasis on hi-vis and helmets that is being missed here.
> 
> We risk getting into victim-blaming here. If cyclists need helmets, then by the same logic, so do all car drivers (who frequently get head injuries), and all pub drinkers (who frequently get head injuries). Will the Gardai or Boris be recommending drinking helmets next?


 
We need to take a step back from use of the term victim blaming, it's too emotive and usually attached to genuine case of victimisation where criminal cases are not taken or result in small fines because the victim is held mostly responsible. 

If cyclists really were being blamed, then the motorist would be let off or receive small punishment for the accident. Do we see that? Is there evidence that the Gardai or Police in the UK fail to take sufficient legal action against those involved in the death of a cyclist?

Last, the effectiveness of hi-vis and helmets are limited to specific circumstances. As I said, the hi-vis may make me visible, but it doesn't alter the behaviour of all drivers or their perception of how it is safe to overtake me. However, I've no doubt that for those responsible drivers it makes me visible enough for them to have time to overtake safely. 

Similarly, if you were to have a full on collision with a vehicle, no helmet (even a motorcycle one) is going to be of much help. But, for the handful of fatalities we have with cyclists, most accidents are at low speed and don't involve a significant fall. It is in those circumstances that a helmet is or could be useful.

When I drive a car I'm required to wear a seatbelt. The vast majority of car accidents are minor tips where a seatbelt wouldn't be that effective and may even add to an injury. However, the serious accident with a greater impact, the seatbelt might save my life. Is requiring drivers to wear a seatbelt also victim blaming? 

UK Police or Gardai advising that you wear them and even stopping people isn't victim blaming, it's just advice and based upon basic safety (i.e. the majority of accidents and the most common forms of an accident), they can be effective. Absolutely right, hi-vis doesn't stop poor or careless driver behaviour, a helmet isn't going to help me if I'm knocked off while cycling at speed. But they are effective for in the majority of circumstances.

You're right, we do need to work on driver behaviour. It'd also be great if i didn't need a house alarm, car alarm, or insurance because no one will ever steal my car or break into my house. They never have and statistically, probably never will, but I still take the precuation even though I'd be the victim. For the sake of a few euro on good lights, hi-vis and a helmet, why not just give yourself a bit of protection. I don't understand the tone against advice being offered by the state on this.


----------



## RainyDay (27 Nov 2013)

Latrade said:


> As Ajapale states, the requirement is for construction worker.


My question stands - under what law is this a requirement for construction workers?

I'll revert on the broader issues when I have time, but in the meantime, I see that our good friends in Waterford Whispers have seen me on the road recently (not safe for work);

BloodyCyclists


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Nov 2013)

That link does not work for me


----------



## Latrade (27 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> My question stands - under what law is this a requirement for construction workers?


 
Schedule 2, Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations, 2007. Provides a list of personal protective equipment and the industries/activities it should be used in. This is then further emphasised in HSA guidance, codes of practice and safe systems of work where, for working on or along side a road Hi-Visibility clothing must be worn. The HSA use the term "must" rather than should, which is a direct instruction.

Additionally, all Personal Protective Equipment that is provided at work must be to the current European Standard, which is where the EN quoted comes in.


----------



## RainyDay (27 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> That link does not work for me


Try again now.




Latrade said:


> Schedule 2, Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations, 2007. Provides a list of personal protective equipment and the industries/activities it should be used in. This is then further emphasised in HSA guidance, codes of practice and safe systems of work where, for working on or along side a road Hi-Visibility clothing must be worn. The HSA use the term "must" rather than should, which is a direct instruction.
> 
> Additionally, all Personal Protective Equipment that is provided at work must be to the current European Standard, which is where the EN quoted comes in.



So schedule 2 states "8. Reflective Clothing -Work where the employees must be clearly visible" under the heading of "Guide list of activities and sectors of activity which *may* require provision of personal protective equipment"  (my emphasis) - is this the extent of the legal requirement?

Is the requirement for the current European Standard in law?


----------



## Latrade (27 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> So schedule 2 states "8. Reflective Clothing -Work where the employees must be clearly visible" under the heading of "Guide list of activities and sectors of activity which *may* require provision of personal protective equipment" (my emphasis) - is this the extent of the legal requirement?
> 
> Is the requirement for the current European Standard in law?


 
In combination with the requirements for Personal Protective Equipment (which reflective clothing is considered), where the employer cannot eliminate the hazard (i.e. it is not possible to eliminate the hazard of visibility on a road, only mitigate in certain circumstances), then PPE must be supplied and that PPE, when used for work, must be to the European Standard. 

The "may" in the schedule is on the basis of a risk assessment, however, the follow up and legal status is emphasised through guidance and codes of practice.


----------



## Seagull (27 Nov 2013)

Gerry Canning said:


> I have never heard of cyclist killing a driver.
> ..................................................


 
There have been case of cyclists killing and seriously injuring pedestrians. A drunk cyclist is even more likely to do that. A drunk cyclist is also more likely to cause an accident by swerving or falling into the path of a car. I'm not suggesting there should be a zero limit for cyclists, but if someone has drunk enough to be unsteady on their feet, or slurring their words, they should not be on a bike.


----------



## Purple (27 Nov 2013)

Seagull said:


> There have been case of cyclists killing and seriously injuring pedestrians. A drunk cyclist is even more likely to do that. A drunk cyclist is also more likely to cause an accident by swerving or falling into the path of a car. I'm not suggesting there should be a zero limit for cyclists, but if someone has drunk enough to be unsteady on their feet, or slurring their words, they should not be on a bike.



I can't remember ever doing that (I've a bad memory when I'm drunk).


----------



## RainyDay (27 Nov 2013)

Seagull said:


> There have been case of cyclists killing and seriously injuring pedestrians. A drunk cyclist is even more likely to do that. A drunk cyclist is also more likely to cause an accident by swerving or falling into the path of a car. I'm not suggesting there should be a zero limit for cyclists, but if someone has drunk enough to be unsteady on their feet, or slurring their words, they should not be on a bike.



The number of cases of pedestrians being killed by cyclists is tiny. I can recall 1 on living memory in Ireland, involving an elderly man on Baggot St. I heard afterwards that, for reasons I can't recall, there was little the cyclist could do to avoid the incident. There are a handful of cases in the UK each year. 



Latrade said:


> The "may" in the schedule is on the basis of a risk assessment, however, the follow up and legal status is emphasised through guidance and codes of practice.


But guidance and codes of practice are not legally binding. Only what's in the legislation is legally binding. I haven't see any explicit legal requirement for road workers to wear hi-vis in what's been posted here.



Latrade said:


> We need to take a step back from use of the term victim blaming, it's too emotive and usually attached to genuine case of victimisation where criminal cases are not taken or result in small fines because the victim is held mostly responsible.
> 
> If cyclists really were being blamed, then the motorist would be let off or receive small punishment for the accident. Do we see that? Is there evidence that the Gardai or Police in the UK fail to take sufficient legal action against those involved in the death of a cyclist?


6 cyclists were killed in the London in a 2 week period. Boris went off on a rant about headphones. The Met Police went off 'advising' cyclists to use helmets and hi-vis, despite a total lack of evidence to support this policy initiative. 

There has been a series of cases in the UK of motorists killing cyclists, and getting off with no or a very small amount of jail time <12 months in all these cases:
http://road.cc/content/news/38525-driving-ban-and-work-order-hit-and-run-killer-lancs-cyclist
http://road.cc/content/news/17195-driver-who-killed-woman-cyclist-sentenced-community-service
http://road.cc/content/news/56145-motorist-found-guilty-killing-pat-kenny-receives-community-order
http://road.cc/content/news/65722-e...nce-motorist-who-hid-bushes-cyclist-lay-dying
http://road.cc/content/news/94647-a...duly-lenient-sentence-driver-audrey-fyfe-case
http://road.cc/content/news/92749-nine-months-jail-sat-nav-driver-who-killed-cyclist

I don't recall any action in Ireland against a motorist arising from the death of a cyclist, though I could be wrong on this.

So yes, there is very real evidence that cyclist deaths are not being taken seriously by the police and Courts in Ireland and UK.



Latrade said:


> Last, the effectiveness of hi-vis and helmets are limited to specific circumstances. As I said, the hi-vis may make me visible, but it doesn't alter the behaviour of all drivers or their perception of how it is safe to overtake me. However, I've no doubt that for those responsible drivers it makes me visible enough for them to have time to overtake safely.


But you're still ignoring the strategic issue. What makes cycling safe is having more people cycling. Creating a culture that helmet and hi-vis are expected reduces the number of people who will cycle. This makes cyclist more dangerous for the remaining cyclists.



Latrade said:


> Similarly, if you were to have a full on collision with a vehicle, no helmet (even a motorcycle one) is going to be of much help. But, for the handful of fatalities we have with cyclists, most accidents are at low speed and don't involve a significant fall. It is in those circumstances that a helmet is or could be useful.


Indeed, in such circumstances, helmets are indeed useful. Just as they are useful for drivers who suffer head injuries, or drinkers who fall down, or gung-ho young lads who scrap on a Friday night. Are we recommending helmets for all these activities, or just for cyclists?



Latrade said:


> When I drive a car I'm required to wear a seatbelt. The vast majority of car accidents are minor tips where a seatbelt wouldn't be that effective and may even add to an injury. However, the serious accident with a greater impact, the seatbelt might save my life. Is requiring drivers to wear a seatbelt also victim blaming?
> 
> UK Police or Gardai advising that you wear them and even stopping people isn't victim blaming, it's just advice and based upon basic safety (i.e. the majority of accidents and the most common forms of an accident), they can be effective. Absolutely right, hi-vis doesn't stop poor or careless driver behaviour, a helmet isn't going to help me if I'm knocked off while cycling at speed. But they are effective for in the majority of circumstances.


Wearing a seatbelt is a matter of law. Wearing a cycle helmet or hi-vis is NOT required by law. There is no clear evidence that either of these measures work as public health/safety policy.  If police/Gardai would focus on getting ALL road users to comply with the law, that will save lives. Creating a culture where cyclists are expected to wear helmets and hi-vis is a deterrent to cycling. The less people cycle, the more dangerious cycling gets.



Latrade said:


> You're right, we do need to work on driver behaviour. It'd also be great if i didn't need a house alarm, car alarm, or insurance because no one will ever steal my car or break into my house. They never have and statistically, probably never will, but I still take the precuation even though I'd be the victim. For the sake of a few euro on good lights, hi-vis and a helmet, why not just give yourself a bit of protection. I don't understand the tone against advice being offered by the state on this.



The burglary thing is not a good analogy. If there is obvious evidence of a burglary, the burglar will get prosecuted. There is obvious evidence on every street corner of drivers breaking traffic law, and only a tiny number get prosecuted. That's why the police/Garda approach of 'advising cyclists' is so galling. We don't need advice. We need enforcement of existing law.


----------



## Purple (27 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> That's why the police/Garda approach of 'advising cyclists' is so galling. We don't need advice. We need enforcement of existing law.


On what basis do you speak for all cyclists?
I cycle and if it wasn't for government adverts etc I wouldn't wear a helmet or hi-vis and, despite what you say, I know I am safer using both.

I agree that modifying driver behavour is the best option but why should it be one or the other, why not both?


----------



## Latrade (27 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> But guidance and codes of practice are not legally binding. Only what's in the legislation is legally binding. I haven't see any explicit legal requirement for road workers to wear hi-vis in what's been posted here.



Codes of Practice, while not themselves law can be used in evidence against an employer unless the employer can demonstrate why their system of work afforded the same protection. Similarly, while not having the same legal status, judges have referred to guidance as part of their determination against employers. This has the effect that policy is established through these documents. Additionally, for road work and where mobile plant is in operation, the wording of the guidance is must wear hi visibility clothing. Which leaves little choice. It is as explicit as you can get in the context of OHS legislation.



RainyDay said:


> 6 cyclists were killed in the London in a 2 week period. Boris went off on a rant about headphones. The Met Police went off 'advising' cyclists to use helmets and hi-vis, despite a total lack of evidence to support this policy initiative.
> 
> There has been a series of cases in the UK of motorists killing cyclists, and getting off with no or a very small amount of jail time <12 months in all these cases:
> http://road.cc/content/news/38525-driving-ban-and-work-order-hit-and-run-killer-lancs-cyclist
> ...



Boris also said that the 1% rich are an oppressed people. The point being, he's an idiot and shouldn't be used to prove a point other than old Etonians in political positions are largely idiots.

Good cases, but you need context to prove your point. How does that sentencing compare to motorists killing other road users? Pedestrians, motorists, etc? If they are within the same part of the bell curve, then there is no evidence of leniency or victim blaming. 

What evidence is there that the police did anything other than advise cyclists to wear the equipment? Did they take them off the streets? Did they do anything other than offer advice? What is so wrong with some basic safety advice?



RainyDay said:


> But you're still ignoring the strategic issue. What makes cycling safe is having more people cycling. Creating a culture that helmet and hi-vis are expected reduces the number of people who will cycle. This makes cyclist more dangerous for the remaining cyclists.



I acknowledged it by saying you were right. Cycling has only took off the last few years and it's great...sort of...my route that used to be nice and clear is now clogged with new cyclists, but we can't win them all. It already is safer, people already are more alert, cycling related accidents and deaths are reducing. We even took HGVs out the city centre to make it easier, if we were blaming cyclist, we'd have taken the cyclists out. 

But that cultural change doesn't happen immediately. There could be more education for drivers (there were adverts from the RSA, more please), but cyclists do also need to be aware of some basic safety tips. It isn't creating a culture of blaming the cyclist.



RainyDay said:


> Indeed, in such circumstances, helmets are indeed useful. Just as they are useful for drivers who suffer head injuries, or drinkers who fall down, or gung-ho young lads who scrap on a Friday night. Are we recommending helmets for all these activities, or just for cyclists?



Such circumstances as in low impact falls etc, as in the most common form of accident a cyclist will encounter. RTAs with cyclists are rare, however, hitting pot holes, slipping, or braking to hard are not. So what we know is that for the vast most common form of cycling related accidents, helmets have a demonstrable effect. 

The Cycling.ie line is to prevent cyclists being hit. I agree, who wouldn't. The best way to stop me being killed while driving is to prevent me being hit. Great. Well the bad news is that this will never happen. If that's the terms of the policy, then it's a bad policy. Advising cyclists about being visible isn't victim blaming, it's just good policy. We wish all RTAs could be prevented, but they happen, why not limit your exposure to them with good light and hi-vis. That is the extent of the policy.

My other analogies are all along the same lines, we have plenty of other areas, crimes, etc where we provided basic advice on how to avoid being exposed to them. We all take steps to mitigate our exposure and the severity of our loss if there was such an exposure. Cycling is no different.


----------



## LS400 (27 Nov 2013)

I cycle and if it wasn't for government adverts etc I wouldn't wear a helmet or hi-vis and, despite what you say, I know I am safer using both.

I find that amusing, that you need the government to educate you on common sence.


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2013)

LS400 said:


> I find that amusing, that you need the government to educate you on common sence.


 I'm glad that I amused you. Your sentence structure and misspelling of the word "sense" amused me.

The state changes behaviour in all sorts of areas, sometimes through legislation (drink driving for example) and sometimes through taxation and public awareness (recycling & car emission reduction). Sometimes they use both. 
I always used lights and a reflective sam-brown belt but changed to a high-vis jacket with reflective strips an started using a helmet a few years back when I saw their increased usage. I'm still not  convinced that the helmet would make any difference in a crash but it does no harm and the more visible I am the better,


----------



## Firefly (28 Nov 2013)

To be fair I never really gave a thought to cyclists until about a year ago. As someone who doesn't cycle I just saw them as a nuisance on the road, particularly when I lived in Dublin as there are way too many cars, never mind cyclists, trying to occupy the same space. However, since we've had children it's bugging me. I want to be able to go out with the smallies on the bike but can't do so safely. The only option is to load up the car, attach the bikes to the back and then head to some safe, pasturised route for "fun". It's a shame and will be even worse when the kids are at the age when they should just be able to tear off on the bikes themselves without making us worried sick. Sorry, this is just a general rant, but I agree with the poster above who says that the answer is to increase the number of cyclists on the roads.


----------



## LS400 (2 Dec 2013)

Gerry Canning said:


> All comes to (un-) common sense.
> I have never heard of cyclist killing a driver.
> Do have proper lamps , particularly rear ones.
> 
> ...


----------



## RainyDay (4 Dec 2013)

LS400 said:


> This is a very important point , driving on the Strawberry Beds on a dark evening in Lucan, I met a cyclist with a seriously bright light blinding me and anyone else in his path. The only way to continue on driving was to put the full beam on dam quick or I was in the ditch. I can understand why he would want to be seen on such a road.  Some cyclists would think the brighter the lamp the better. This by the way is not a rant at cyclists and I enjoy it myself, and can see both sides. But the LED lights out now are very very strong.


I've heard of a few similar incidents, though I haven't seen any excessively strong lights myself. I have seen bike lights that cost more than my entire bike, more than some cars (over €1.5k). 

But really, putting on full beam was crazy. This mean that there were two blinded road users, not just one. Same as when you meet an oncoming driver on full beam, if you can't see, then slow down or stop. Putting your lights on beam just gives you two blinded drivers.


----------

