They should really just try and force all cars to have hi-vis paint jobs and ban any dark/neutral colours so drivers have a point of reference on how ridiculous the proposal is.
Edit: love how every response so far is saying cars don’t need this because they already have things that bikes also already have.
I understand the hi-vis argument, but what is wrong with wearing a helmet while driving a bicycle?
I don’t care if you wear a helmet or not. Your skull is your responsibility.
Have lights on your bike, and wear high viz. It’s not some ideological battle with motorists, it’s a simple matter of safety. You can be seen better, particular in bad conditions.
Pedestrians should also wear hi viz (and carry a torch) when walking in unilluminated areas, even on a footpath. I do, and I put an illuminated collar on my dog too.
Cars and other vehicles are mandated to have lights and reflectors for the same reasons.
it kinda is teh solution ?
that person the other week that got injured due to having no helmets and high vis ,
i wish it was legally required to wear a helmet the same way its legally required to wear a seatbelt
A well artculated article, which explains some of the nuances of the argument. But no way will compulsory wearing of hi-viz & helmets ever work.
Let’s try get them to stop at lights first.
I just don’t think it’s ridiculous to mandate that bicycles have lights. That’s the case for every other vehicle on the road, I really don’t get why cyclists should be any different.
There used to be a gobshite on Boards who kept posing “if hi-viz is so good at making you seen, why don’t motorists have to wear them?”
Fact is that loads of motorists DO wear hi-viz – every Garda, Ambulance driver, most builders and trades people. Even I do when I’m driving out to go for a walk is a remote area. I’ll put my hi-viz jacket on leaving the house. .But it doesn’t work inside a car, because of the position of being inside a big box with reflective windows and the fact that it needs car headlights to illuminate it for the driver of that car. That’s the beauty of reflective hi-viz: it’s targeted to the person proving the illumination.
Next time you drive pass a Garda car at night, see if you can see the occupants better than in any other car.
Next time you drive past a person wearing hi-viz at night, see if you can see them better than someone not wearing it.
Case closed.
The people who push for this kind of thing are the same ones who suddenly turn into Freedom or Death libertarians if anyone suggests lowering speed limits or – heaven forbidden – inhibiting cars so that they are incapable of exceeding the country’s maximum speed limit.
9 comments
They should really just try and force all cars to have hi-vis paint jobs and ban any dark/neutral colours so drivers have a point of reference on how ridiculous the proposal is.
Edit: love how every response so far is saying cars don’t need this because they already have things that bikes also already have.
I understand the hi-vis argument, but what is wrong with wearing a helmet while driving a bicycle?
I don’t care if you wear a helmet or not. Your skull is your responsibility.
Have lights on your bike, and wear high viz. It’s not some ideological battle with motorists, it’s a simple matter of safety. You can be seen better, particular in bad conditions.
Pedestrians should also wear hi viz (and carry a torch) when walking in unilluminated areas, even on a footpath. I do, and I put an illuminated collar on my dog too.
Cars and other vehicles are mandated to have lights and reflectors for the same reasons.
it kinda is teh solution ?
that person the other week that got injured due to having no helmets and high vis ,
i wish it was legally required to wear a helmet the same way its legally required to wear a seatbelt
A well artculated article, which explains some of the nuances of the argument. But no way will compulsory wearing of hi-viz & helmets ever work.
Let’s try get them to stop at lights first.
I just don’t think it’s ridiculous to mandate that bicycles have lights. That’s the case for every other vehicle on the road, I really don’t get why cyclists should be any different.
There used to be a gobshite on Boards who kept posing “if hi-viz is so good at making you seen, why don’t motorists have to wear them?”
Fact is that loads of motorists DO wear hi-viz – every Garda, Ambulance driver, most builders and trades people. Even I do when I’m driving out to go for a walk is a remote area. I’ll put my hi-viz jacket on leaving the house. .But it doesn’t work inside a car, because of the position of being inside a big box with reflective windows and the fact that it needs car headlights to illuminate it for the driver of that car. That’s the beauty of reflective hi-viz: it’s targeted to the person proving the illumination.
Next time you drive pass a Garda car at night, see if you can see the occupants better than in any other car.
Next time you drive past a person wearing hi-viz at night, see if you can see them better than someone not wearing it.
Case closed.
The people who push for this kind of thing are the same ones who suddenly turn into Freedom or Death libertarians if anyone suggests lowering speed limits or – heaven forbidden – inhibiting cars so that they are incapable of exceeding the country’s maximum speed limit.