Irish police lobby for compulsory high-vis for all cyclists

I don't claim any inside knowledge but there must be times as a middle ranking police officer of boredom and frustration in the job.  Another report of a car radio/laptop/sat nav (according to the decade) stolen from the big multi-storey - why can't people learn not to put these things on view?  That became standard crime prevention advice many years ago as it's not a perfect world. .  But let's not knock the police - they are our friends if we can just enlighten them a bit.  

Then you have the Green Cross Man, Cresta Bear, Charlie the Cat, and the other public service adverts, warning you of things like taking care while crossing the road (fair enough, right?) don't mess with the electricity sub-station (who remembers the boy with the sparks coming out of his trouser legs - scary) and stay off the train tracks. 

I'm recounting all this to make two points: (1) one thing leads to another (2) things get conflated in the process. Plus we've slowly become so very accepting of the car.  

"Take care crossing the road, Jimmy" has pretty much translated into "cars have priority at all times."  At what point did we decide that's how we wanted to lead our lives?  

And there's a difference with the the electric sub-station or the approaching train in that if you transgress, any harm to you is inevitable and mechanical.  Whether it's men behaving badly on a night out or car drivers in relation to cyclists and pedestrians, there is scope and a requirement for responsibility and control.  Women can go out into town on a Saturday night, cyclists can cycle with or without high viz, but with an expectation of safety and good conduct from those around them. 

 I admire the mountain rescue teams retrieving people in January in the Brecon Beacons because their Garmin battery and Mars bar had run out, and their £12.95 cagoule wasn't water-proof. There will be those who will judge in these situations and they do not see themselves as victim blamers. The crime prevention advice, the safety advice of many, many years morphed and conflated guides them this way. 

If you're a middle-ranking police officer, you've seen it all so many times - the idiot careering on his bike around the pedestrianised area, the bike with no lights, the one in "stealth" black, the madman hogging the one-way street.  What we need is more rules, and those pesky laptop owners to take more care. 

So all the clothing manufacturers will have to bring out hi vis skinsuits then.....?

As someone that is directly affected by this fn fiasco....it makes absolutely no difference what attire you use.

Coppers being a bit thick shocker. 

Bikelikebike out on the court earlier today

"If you are cycling around the city centre . . . you see people daily stepping out and trucks taking corners short and so on. So you need to protect yourself – and fluorescent jackets and helmets are the way to go."

So presumably if people were wandering around randomly firing guns, the advice would be for everyone to wear body armour! How about tackling the disease, not the symptoms?

Cyclists lobby for compulsory IQ tests for police.

You wouldn’t send your child out on their bike without a helmet so why not have the same protection yourself?"

Well Sgt Healy, you are wrong, very wrong. Show me a high vis jacket and a helmet that protects me and my kids from a left turning truck and maybe I will for my kids to wear your obligatory clothing.  In fact show me some proper evidence that it helps rather than hinders and I might just start to consider it.  In the meantime, stop concentrating on punishing a subset of the victims and go after those actually causing the carnage.

I wonder if they'll also advocate restrictions on available colours for bicycles and for motor vehicles? Get rid of all those road coloured vehicles: all motor vehicles and bicycles henceforth to be retina burning fluorescent yellow. It's in the cause of safety, dontcha know, so we don't have to deal with all those corner cutting HGVs.

I do wish organisations and individuals that come up with these ideas would be honest and just say "We want to ban cycling but we can't get away with saying it out loud".

Maybe if the police enforced speed limits, mobile phone use and close passes. Drivers would be going slow enough and paying enough attention to see other road users early enough to take the correct action. 

What is required is a change in mindset of some drivers from "I'll drive where I, how I like and it's everyone else's responsibility to ensure my journey is not inhibited."

bikelikebike, what about compulsory helmets and hi vis. for children on scooters?....maybe skateboards?.....maybe for any kids that are playing in a street area where cars may be driven....what about compulsory helmet and hi vis. for kids crossing the road on foot?....after all they are not 'our' property and we cannot take unneccessary risks with them or social services will rightly intervene and do a better job.

So if you don't where hi-vis on a bike how are the dumb ass police going to see you to make you wear it?

This is part of a scheme, both in the UK and the RoI, to make cyclists look increasingly daft. The (intended) effect will be that people are put off cycling.

If the problem is '..trucks taking corners short..' then enforcing the existing driving laws just might be a better option than going to the Dail for more legislation.

Hi-viz might be promoted as a safety measure. However....

 CTC (old name) quote studies demonstrating that hi-viz gets the attention of 1/3 of motorists who may take more care. Another 1/3 notice and either don't take care anyway or become slightly more aggresive (the hi-viz is seen as a criticism of their driving). Another 1/3 aren't looking at the road so don't notice any hi-viz.

Personally I tend to wear something hi-viz (e.g. fluo-yellow cap and./or overshoes) for that first 1/3, hoping the second 1/3 don't take offense. I also have bright pulsing lights fore & aft. I don't assume this makes me safer and take more risks, mind. (Helmet-thunk).

Should I need these things? Of course not. Drivers ought to drive properly. Ah, but there's the rub - the rascally Toads don't do "ought to".

Why is the rozzer not busy apprehending these Toads to mete out draconian punishments? The buggers are infected themselves with Toadism! Moreover, when Toad gets out or pays the paltry fine, he is in a bad temper and drives even worserer!

Reality and the sub-standard humans infesting it are a bluddy nuisance, eh?

The police's role is to enforce the law, not to decide what should or shouldn't be law.