cyclist prosecuted for drunk-cycling

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.
 
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:
 
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?
 

Just curious - what law makes this EN mandatory?
 
RainyDay said:
Just curious - what law makes this EN mandatory?
Click to expand...


As Ajapale states, the requirement is for construction worker.


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.
 
Latrade said:
As Ajapale states, the requirement is for construction worker.
Click to expand...
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
 
RainyDay said:
My question stands - under what law is this a requirement for construction workers?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
That link does not work for me
Click to expand...
Try again now.



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.
 
Gerry Canning said:
I have never heard of cyclist killing a driver.
..................................................
Click to expand...

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).
 

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.
Click to expand...
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.


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?


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.


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.
 
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.
 
LS400 said:
I find that amusing, that you need the government to educate you on common sence.
Click to expand...
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,
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register