Why a helmet, lights and hi-vis clothing don't necessarily make you a safe cyclist...

I would argue that people who are compelled to get insurance will be more cognizant of RTA as they are likely to be penalized financially (all things being equal) as insurers seek to compel good behaviour and deter the bad, and reflect this in premiums charged. We see T&C's on house insurance (5 lever locks etc) and NCT's for cars. It is likely already that most insurers of bikes have a stipulation that it be in good order. and obey the RTA. These are certainly in my policy with Axa.

I'm certainly with Buddy boy or the two different types of cyclists. There certainly seems to be empirical evidence of this where drivers who are cyclists seem to have a greater appreciation for their own vulnerability AND responsibility to other road users. In a sense, wearing hi-viz, decking yer bike out like a Christmas tree in winter and at night, and wearing a helmet are both common sense and courteous to other road users.

It isn't about whataboutery for me, however I would doubt if, in a collision between a bike and person, the pedestrian didn't come off worse. In any event, when accidents occur (like my scenario with a cyclist ran into me going the wrong way, and at considerable speed sufficient to knock me over), it seems to me telling that the attitude of the cyclist was to blame it on me - I should have been looking where I was going. What frightening tho re: cyclists vs pedestrians, is the growing number of very fancy high speed bikes that some cyclists are traveling on, going at break-neck speed (you know the type- decked out in lycra) who seem to view the city streets as a lap on the tour de France rather than a shared space where they must proceed defensively.

I would also add that cyclists blithely cycling at night dressed like Ninja's without lights or helmets is a particular bugbear appears to me to shift the onus for their safety and well-bring onto other road users. Anyhow, that's my take on it. We are all responsible for better use of the roads, and I honestly think some small number of cyclists have abused that brazenly and dangerously. I don't think it is appropriate to compare a driver speeding or using the bus lanes and equate that with someone cycling the wrong way up or down a street. In the first instance a cautious road user might at least anticipate a driver in the BL or going to fast, but someone breaking red lights and/ocycling on paths and/or going the wrong way down a street is of a different order of magnitude in my opinion.
 
There are already laws that cover all of this and just aren't enforced. We don't need more laws that won't be enforced. we need enforcement.

Drivers are insured and they have an very low adherence to the rules. In one study something like 70-80% of drivers were driving habitually over the speed limit.

The only county that had mandatory insurance for cyclists abandoned it. Repeating the same thing here is illogical.
 
DeclanDublin said:
I.....In a sense, wearing hi-viz, decking yer bike out like a Christmas tree in winter and at night, and wearing a helmet are both common sense and courteous to other road users.
....
Click to expand...

Courteous...?

It's not common sense. It's guesswork based on doing no research into the subject.

A lot of accidents (car vs cyclist) are caused not from the lack of of hi viz or lights but poor driving, where the driver just isn't looking, or lack of situational awareness. It's the same in car vs car accidents.

If there was a junction with a lot of car accidents we would modify the road or junction. Not tell the other driver to dress like a Xmas tree.
 
Courteous because you are helping other road users and making driving easier. As for hi-viz making cyclists more visible, personally, I think this is a no-brainer. Cyclists are small an relatively easy to miss, particularly in darkness and poor weather, and especially if they have no lights. I know this from my own experience of driving, and I would imagine most drivers would concur. A cyclist, clearly visible from a vehicle, means the driver can factor them into a spatial map of the road and act appropriately. I, for example, move out more in case the cyclist needs to avoid drains etc. I would suggest this is no more guesswork than cars driving with lights on are more visible.
 
It is guesswork.

Hi Viz is actually intended to make you visible during the day. Workmen on the railway.
The bit that makes you visible at night is the luminous strips. This is often on clothes of all colors.

Of course lights are a legal requirement and are vastly superior to reflective strips.

It interesting why there is so much attention on hi viz, helmets and insurance, not to mention tax.
Instead of lights or infrastructure or changing driver behavior.

Would it be because one has no impact on drivers, or enforcement, and the other does.
 
AlbacoreA said:
It interesting why there is so much attention on hi viz, helmets and insurance, not to mention tax.
Click to expand...

Principally because it seems many of those who support the argument for mandatory helmets, high-viz, insurance, etc. are more interested in punishing cyclists than they are genuinely concerned about road safety. None of these ideas are new, yet by and large those calling for them to be introduced here fail to do even the most basic research into their effectiveness elsewhere.
 

One of the people killed whilst cycling in 2016 was killed by a pedestrian walking in the cycle lane in the Phoenix Park.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...ision-with-pedestrian-inquest-hears-1.3317745
 

While I understand where you are coming from Leo, I do not agree.

If we take road tax as an example. Cyclists use the roads, or specific cycle lanes. There's a genuine cost that comes with providing and maintaining that space for them. In addition, there's signage, lighting, there's legislation etc. Someone has to pay for this and while I don't think cyclists could cover it entirely from a small annual cycle tax, I do think it important that they contribute towards these costs given they are for their benefit. It might also make some of those who currently break many of the rules have a little more appreciation for them.

Insurance would protect both the cyclist and also those who they might encounter during an accident. If an accident is clearly the fault of the cyclist, why shouldn't the counter party be able to submit a claim against their insurance, just like someone can claim against a car or motorcycle user ? I know some might argue that bikes are self propelled, but that doesn't mean that a cyclist can't do some serious damage to a pedestrian if they hit them, or damage to the wing mirror of a car (which could cost several hundred euro to replace and fit) etc. Again, I also think that compulsory insurance might assist with having cyclists respect and obey the appropriate rules and legislation, in addition to giving everyone some financial comfort in the event of an accident.

You were kind enough to answer a quick question for me recently on electric power bikes. Notwithstanding the restriction on power that you mentioned, I think all electric bikes offer an increased risk for both user and those they may encounter.

Both tax and insurance would only create an equitable situation, it wouldn't give preference or discriminate against cyclists in any way.

The likes of high-viz, lights, reflectors etc. should be compulsory simply because they help keep cyclists safe in the dark. The last thing a motorist wants to do is to hit a cyclist, so why not help prevent such an accident occurring and save both parties from a horrible experience ?


.
 
MrEarl said:
If we take road tax as an example.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as road tax. There is however an emissions linked motor tax which is paid into the Local Government Fund. This funds housing, and local authority services, along with road and public infrastructure, it also covers the subvention to Irish water. Many cyclists also have cars and pay motor tax, they pay property and other taxes that feed the Local Government Fund, to say they don't contribute to infrastructure is a fallacy. In fact cycling makes such a positive contribution in terms of helping meet emissions targets, reduced infrastructure spending per user and reduced health costs that cities like Paris are paying people to commute by bike.


Again, this is an old argument that has been looked at and ruled out in multiple jurisdictions. Cyclists are already personally liable, the majority will have personal liability cover in place via their household policies. Many cyclists on our roads also have additional public liability insurance already via Cycling Ireland membership. The route to claim is still the same as similar minor RTAs, you take a civil action for your losses. How would introducing some new insurance won't change that in any meaningful way?

MrEarl said:
Again, I also think that compulsory insurance might assist with having cyclists respect and obey the appropriate rules and legislation, in addition to giving everyone some financial comfort in the event of an accident.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you would expect cyclists would somehow start to obey the law simply through the act of having insurance. Motorists for the most part have insurance, the majority of them are breaking the law on a regular basis. The only measure with a track record of impact on compliance is enforcement.

MrEarl said:
You were kind enough to answer a quick question for me recently on electric power bikes. Notwithstanding the restriction on power that you mentioned, I think all electric bikes offer an increased risk for both user and those they may encounter.
Click to expand...

There will be slightly more energy involved in and collision, as the bikes themselves are ~6kg heavier, but only marginally so when you take rider weight into account. I don't follow there there is an increased risk for the rider, topping out at 25kmph and the additional weight will mean lower top speeds. I'm not aware of any evidence of increased injuries or incidents involving electric bikes. They're usually quite expensive, so there's an incentive there not to take chances.

MrEarl said:
Both tax and insurance would only create an equitable situation, it wouldn't give preference or discriminate against cyclists in any way.
Click to expand...

On an equitable basis, what would you think the emissions based motor tax should be for a vehicle with no motor?

The only things licencing, tax or mandatory insurance have done anywhere else in the world is to reduce the number of people cycling. Every previous trial has been scrapped as a waste of money. With increasing obesity, our public transport creaking and our roads unable to cope as it is with the volumes of private cars, why would we want to introduce more problems? Fewer cyclists would mean my drive to work would take longer, I wouldn't be in favour of that.
 
This fallacy again.....there is no such thing as road tax, there is motor emissions tax which given that bicycles don't have emissions during use means there's no tax there. Road infrastructure is paid for from general taxation, not from motor emissions taxation. Have you any statistics for the amount of claims that would arise from injuries caused by people cycling on others? No, because there aren't any. More anecdotal "analysis". We have had decades of scofflaw motorists whilst compulsory insurance is in place, thousands of vehicles do not have insured people driving them.
Lights are already compulsory, any cyclists without lights should have their bikes confiscated and not returned until they have lights, same with car drivers who have a faulty light.
Everyone driving in our cities should want more and more cyclists, each of those cyclists is (more or less) removing a car from the road thus contributing to less congestion.
 
Leo said:
Principally because it seems many of those who support the argument for mandatory helmets, high-viz, insurance, etc. are more interested in punishing cyclists than they are genuinely concerned about road safety.
Click to expand...

Hi Leo,

I'm not in that camp and would love to see more cycling / cyclists on our roads. The only point I am trying to make is that I think wearing a helmet is better than not wearing a helmet, especially in this country where the infrastructure and conditions are far from perfect.

Firefly.
 

Yep, I agree with that. My own thoughts are that helmets should be optional and a personal choice though, as mandatory use has been shown to be a deterrent to cycling elsewhere, and so do more harm than good.

Amsterdam is often quoted as an example of cycling utopia where helmets are only worn by a small minority with negligible head injuries. My very limited experience there suggests the sheer numbers cycling mean they are by and large moving more slowly, there doesn't seem to be the same race to get everywhere we have here, from cyclists and motorists. The majority of the bikes in use are more upright, heavier city bikes. I've never been to the outskirts though where commutes are likely to be longer and so likely to involve lighter faster bikes and higher speeds.
 
I wear a helmet when cycling most of the time (i'll take a Dublin Bike without one though) but don't want it to be made compulsory - evidence from Australia saw massive reduction in cyclists when compulsory helmet use was brought in. It really would just cause a plummet in numbers cycling if brought in for very little benefit. Most cyclist deaths in recent years were crush injuries where helmet wearing would not have made one iota of difference. Some studies have shown that motorists give less space to helmet wearers than they do those without helmets, other studies have found that helmet wearers take greater risks than those without helmets.
If we're going full whataboutery we should insist on all drivers and passengers in motor vehicles wearing helmets as many injuries in car accidents are head injuries....
 

All very good points.
 
dereko1969 said:
If we're going full whataboutery we should insist on all drivers and passengers in motor vehicles wearing helmets as many injuries in car accidents are head injuries....
Click to expand...

And to take it further, twice as many pedestrians as cyclists die on our roads, they should all be wearing high-viz and helmets too!
 
Leo said:
And to take it further, twice as many pedestrians as cyclists die on our roads, they should all be wearing high-viz and helmets too!
Click to expand...

Whatever about helmets, I agree that they should be wearing high-viz. A pedestrian going out in the dark without taking precautions, is just as dumb as a cyclist doing it. I find it amazing at night time when driving on rural roads, how many pedestrians there are walking on the edge of the road with no high-viz, lights etc.

There's been a bit of pi$$ taking throughout this thread, but hopefully somewhere along the way the different categories of commuters will have taken the important messages from all that has been posted to date.

Always put safety before stupidity !



.
 
Last edited:
Purple said:
You should always use your lights when driving on rural roads
Click to expand...

Good to see that one of us was paying attention

... afraid I was editing the post and forgot to remove the part in brackets. Now corrected
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register