Cyclists

[SoundMan]

Lolwut

That guy doesn't look like he'd be in proper control of his bike. Is that pipe some kind of brake actuator? :crazy:

 

[Tictac]

That guy doesn't look like he'd be in proper control of his bike. Is that pipe some kind of brake actuator? :crazy:

Sad to say that it looks very dangerous.

A modified car for a disabled person would meet high standardsand be inspected and cerfified as it is going out on a public road with other motorists.

Im guessing that there is no regilation and control of disabled cyclists.

Maybe he goes cycling exclusively on private roads and tracks?

 

[Smaug]

No, that's not what thy're saying at all. But don't leave those pesky facts get in the way of your anti-cyclist circle jerk. Well known in H&S circles that PPE is the very last thing you introduce. There's even a pretty picture to illustrate that for all the brain dead motorists on here.

 

[c'mere timmy]

With the exception of the morbibly obese cyclists the majority of cyclists are practically invisible as they have a relatively small profile. Exactly the same argument for motorcyclists.
Anything to increase their visible profile can only be good.
Even if one or two lifes were saved from enforcment of high vis vests then it is worth it.

Moderate compliant cyclists wear high vis vests as a matter of course.

Missing the point entirely, and entirely on purpose too, I'd hazzard a guess.

PPE is the last and least effective step in preventing harm in any situtation. This has been proved numerous times, in numerous situations. Seeing as your so concerned about cyclist's safety, I assume you have no issue with the proposed minium passing distance legislation (MPDL) then? Seeing as that has been proved to both change attitudes amoungst road users and to improve safety for cyclists.

The report is here if you're interested. 35% reduction in fatalities in the 12 months following implementation (from an addmitedly small pool of fatal incidents). This seems to easily surpass your previous criteria for saving 'one or two lives' and thus being 'worth it'.

Interesting report to read in general as it addresses many of the concerns expressed around MPDL in Ireland.

Also, could you address what is meant by 'hi viz'?

 

[Smaug]

Seeing as your so concerned about cyclist's safety, I assume you have no issue with the proposed minium passing distance legislation (MPDL) then? Seeing as that has been proved to both change attitudes amoungst road users and to improve safety for cyclists.

I've a major problem with that, I've seen drivers, especially learner drivers, taking 3 meters to overtake a cyclist. Many roads/streets are hardly 3 meters wide and cyclists tend to cycle in the middle of the road.

A cyclist cull is what we need M8.

 

[Tictac]

Missing the point entirely, and entirely on purpose too, I'd hazzard a guess.

PPE is the last and least effective step in preventing harm in any situtation. This has been proved numerous times, in numerous situations. Seeing as your so concerned about cyclist's safety, I assume you have no issue with the proposed minium passing distance legislation (MPDL) then? Seeing as that has been proved to both change attitudes amoungst road users and to improve safety for cyclists.

The report is here if you're interested. 35% reduction in fatalities in the 12 months following implementation (from an addmitedly small pool of fatal incidents). This seems to easily surpass your previous criteria for saving 'one or two lives' and thus being 'worth it'.

Interesting report to read in general as it addresses many of the concerns expressed around MPDL in Ireland.

Also, could you address what is meant by 'hi viz'?

I believe that the vast majority of motorists overtake cyclists in a safe manner and that the so called "punishment pass" is a total and utter myth. Only a psychopath would risk passing that close to someone and seriously injuring one or killing them. Tjis is a thing made up by nervous cyclists.

Min distance passing law is un-enforceable.

How many cyclists obey this when they are passing (er i mean rubbing up against) slow moving ques of traffic.

Orange or green high visability vests are a simple, cheap and easily enforceable measure that could help lives. These will help in daylight, nighttime, mist or fog etc.

It is a fairly open and shut case if the cyclist is wearing one or not when they are getting their 50 or 100 euro fine.

 

[Drucker]

Again, hysterical much?

'hi viz' must be some magical cloak of invicibility is it? Repels all truck and asshole drivers by it's mere presence?

Look, muppet:

You're posting a diagram produced by The National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health within the US Center For Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, in an effort to justify why personal protective equipment should not be used by road users.

A more relevant US government funded safety agency would be the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which, in relation to cyclist safety recommends the following:

BE PREPARED BEFORE HEADING OUT

Ride a bike that fits you—if it’s too big, it’s harder to control the bike.
Ride a bike that works—it really doesn’t matter how well you ride if the brakes don’t work.
Wear equipment to protect you and make you more visible to others, like a bike helmet, bright clothing (during the day), reflective gear, and a white front light and red rear light and reflectors on your bike (at night, or when visibility is poor).
Ride one per seat, with both hands on the handlebars, unless signaling a turn.
Carry all items in a backpack or strapped to the back of the bike.
Tuck and tie your shoe laces and pant legs so they don’t get caught in your bike chain.
Plan your route—if driving as a vehicle on the road, choose routes with less traffic and slower speeds. Your safest route may be away from traffic altogether, in a bike lane or on a bike path.

***

So in summary, enough of your hysterics, and less muppitry please. Post relevant information please.

 

[SoundMan]

If only cyclists behaved the Rules of The Road - they'd be so much safer on it. It would be in cyclists' own interests for EVERYBODY to obey the ROTR. Maybe if Cyclists (who have THE most vested interest) were to lead such a campaign the roads would be so much better for us all.

 

[c'mere timmy]

Look, muppet:

You're posting a diagram produced by The National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health within the US Center For Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, in an effort to justify why personal protective equipment should not be used by road users.

A more relevant US government funded safety agency would be the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which, in relation to cyclist safety recommends the following:

BE PREPARED BEFORE HEADING OUT

Ride a bike that fits you—if it’s too big, it’s harder to control the bike.
Ride a bike that works—it really doesn’t matter how well you ride if the brakes don’t work.
Wear equipment to protect you and make you more visible to others, like a bike helmet, bright clothing (during the day), reflective gear, and a white front light and red rear light and reflectors on your bike (at night, or when visibility is poor).
Ride one per seat, with both hands on the handlebars, unless signaling a turn.
Carry all items in a backpack or strapped to the back of the bike.
Tuck and tie your shoe laces and pant legs so they don’t get caught in your bike chain.
Plan your route—if driving as a vehicle on the road, choose routes with less traffic and slower speeds. Your safest route may be away from traffic altogether, in a bike lane or on a bike path.

***

So in summary, enough of your hysterics, and less muppitry please. Post relevant information please.

No, I'm not posting a diagram for that reason, you hysterical parody of a man. (But continue to play the man if that's all you've got.)

That was to show accepted best practice as concerns PPE. You can find numerous studies on this topic if you care to look. You can even find that diagram, or variations thereof, on the HSA website. That one was clearer.

The fact remains, PPE should never be used as a primary means of protection. This is a well-accepted fact in primary legislation in all countries that bother to have any input into the manner. The fact that it takes place in a public place instead of a workplace only reinforces the fact.

I'll ask again, what do you mean by hi viz? There is no requirement in Irish or EU law for something called hi viz. Or even high visibility clothing, to be pedantic. I assume you're all for painting every vehicle bright yellow then so if that's the case?

You mention some US law. I'll stick with Irish law that requires me to have a front and rear light visible during lighting up hours, thanks. Seems a bit safer to me, TBPHWY.

Other, proven methods should be introduced if people were concerned about cyclist safety, such as the proposed MPDL. Which would have a far greater impact on cyclist safety?

All these facts are relevant, the fact you can't see that is your problem, champ.

 

[Smaug]

Look, muppet:

You're posting a diagram produced by The National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health within the US Center For Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, in an effort to justify why personal protective equipment should not be used by road users.