cyclist prosecuted for drunk-cycling

ajapale said:
What exaclty does the leglisation say about reflective gear?
Click to expand...

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.
 
RainyDay said:
They wouldn't get away with victim blaming with other types of crime.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ajapale said:
What exaclty does the leglisation say about reflective gear?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lamps do not need to be lit when stopped in traffic
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 

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.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I must say I feel much safer wearing my hi viz jacket at night.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I must say I feel much safer wearing my hi viz jacket at night.
Click to expand...

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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register