Cycling safety: Gardaí should focus on what’s illegal and show a bit more care around implying perfectly legal things are not

— RSA is being disbanded, but it will take a lot more to dilute their influence on public bodies.
— Deeply unhelpful for Gardaí to push idea that people are not using cycle lanes for no reason.

Comment & Analysis: 121kph in a 50kph zone, 124kph in a 60kph, 184kph in an 80kph zone, 165kph in a 100kph zone, and 186kph in a 120kph were just some of the recent speeds motorists were caught travelling at according to a Garda press release today. The vast majority of deaths on the roads have been in collisions involving motorists.

Meanwhile, motorists are not being told to turn off their radios or not make hands-free calls. So, why are people who cycle continuously told not to do things which are not illegal? I know this question will annoy some readers, but please think about it a bit more.

First, why am I raising the issue at all? The latest cycling-focused public service video from authorities, this time from the Gardaí, raises too many issues to ignore.

The video is so full of different messages that it’s a poor start. But the video also has serious issues in that it implies perfectly legal things are not so.

On Facebook, where it was posted, Navan Cycling Initiative replied: “Helmets and hi-viz are not mandatory. Using cycle tracks is not mandatory. Filtering between traffic is perfectly legal…. the group added: “There is so much wrong with this video. Please correct this messaging.”

It’s worth exploring these issues and more of what’s covered in the video.

Prioritisation is important

Notwithstanding that the main priority should be focusing on the greater danger (motoring), some safety messaging needs to be aimed at people who cycle. A video that is just over one and a half minutes should not be trying to cover everything. It’s just too much for most people to take in effectively and too many things will be simplified (as is clearly done in the video posted yesterday).

The focus should be on things like using lights when it is dark, obeying traffic lights (especially at pedestrian crossings), and not recklessly cycling on footpaths. But the video takes the scattergun approach…

“Before you head out, always make sure your bicycle is road-worthy.”

This line is well-meaning, but who exactly is it aimed at? People cycling just every so often or sporting cyclists? More practical advice might be something along the lines of regularly testing your brakes while on a quiet road or telling people to get their bicycles serviced regularly.

Almost nobody will check their car tyres every time they go out, and that’s the same for people using bicycles.

More focus on high-vis than lights is irresponsible

The debate around high-vis has been well rehearsed on this website and others. But mentioning high-vis so prominently ahead of lights, which are a legal requirement for good reason, is irresponsible.

I’m fairly vigilant about using lights both night and day, but there’s little evidence that the visibility of cyclists is the issue it’s made out to be. If a motorist is distracted or otherwise not looking, people can be dressed up like Christmas trees and still won’t be seen.

Helmets

The debate around helmets could go on forever. But helmets are not legally required, and it’s not something a police force should be concerning themself with.

Thorny issue of headphones

“….Leave the distractions behind: No headphones, no phones. Just focus on the road ahead. These simple steps can save your life,” says the Garda video.

The road safety messaging around using phones when cycling should be that you should stop somewhere safe if you need to use it. Headphones, on the other hand, are more like car radios…. again, keep and open mind and let’s take a side step here for a minute:

When the original debate about phones was being discussed, the motor industry played a blinder in getting their claim across that hands-free calls were a safety solution. Not only was there very strong and repeated evidence that hands-free calls are just around or just as distracting as holding a phone and making a call, but this was also shown in research at the time of the original debates.

Since then, the research has become stronger, but it is rarely mentioned in media or political debates.

However, when measures that are not evidence-based are put forward for walking and cycling, way too many people accept these as being supported by evidence when that’s not the case. Some readers, at this point, might be foaming at the mouth about “common sense” about hearing all you can, but you might as well be talking about an idea you plucked out of your head with nothing to back it up.

This difference in approaches is expected in a car-focused society, but it needs to be called out as being wrong, especially when such danger is caused by motoring.

The message of “never using headphones” is as unrealistic as telling motorists never to use their car radios. It’s pointless except for the people who are already convinced that a person cycling cannot listen to music or a podcast and hear things around them.

Even in some of the most unfriendly cycling areas of the US, their laws block only covering both ears with headphones. If a message around this is really needed, a far better message would be to leave it so you can still hear what’s around you.

However, from how some people act about headphones and hearing when cycling, some people clearly overestimate the importance of being able to hear everything in a world where hearing the car that is about to hit you will more often than not be of no benefit.

Hand signals

I cannot argue with the idea that some people really could do with learning to use handsignals more.

IMAGE: The vent on the Deathstar was larger this this cycle lane.

“Wherever there’s a cycle track available, please use it.”

The cycle track depicted in the video, while this is being said, is surreal. It’s one of the narrowest cycle tracks in Dublin — it can hardly fit the handlebars of a DublinBikes bicycle within it (see below). At the moment, it’s full of leaves because no street cleaner machine can fit it.

Even in better weather conditions, it shouldn’t exist but it’s really a bad idea to be using it while windy or icy.

Mandatory use of cycle tracks was revoked for very good reasons- there are many cycle tracks that are not fit for purpose to the extent that it’s safer not to use them.

There’s little safety benefit to blankly talking about cyclists using cycle lanes. It’s the stuff of cranks on the internet complaining about people cycling not using “perfectly good” that are never good when you find out what cycle lane they are talking about.

And there are many reasons why people might have to leave a cycle lane, such as turning right when there’s no way to do so from the cycle track or that the cycle track is blocked or full of debris such as glass. It is deeply unhelpful for Gardaí to be pushing the idea that cyclists are not using cycle lanes for no reason.

IMAGE: Cycle lanes where handlebars hardly fit it shouldn’t exist,

“Keep an eye out, thinking ahead and staying observant will help you avoid collisions.”

This is excellent advice and too many people don’t do it. It’s something some people need to be told but will be lost in this crammed video.

“Cycling through red lights such as those at pedestrian crossings puts everybody at risk.”

Again: Priority is needed in messaging. While pedestrian crossings are rightly highlighted the idea that a person on a bicycle running a red light puts everybody at risk is a bit too far-fetched.

The notional idea of a red light-running cyclist making a motorist swerve is seductive in a car-brained society, but the reality is that they are mainly putting themselves, pedestrians and sometimes other cyclists at risk.

Although the people who are recklessly running red lights likely need to be caught for anything to have any effect on them, a bit more focus on key issues like not running red lights might be helpful rather than the scattergun approach of mentioning around 12 items and an intro and roundup in just over 1.5 minutes.

“Don’t ride in a reckless manner, for example, don’t weave in between traffic…”

As this website covered all the way back in 2018, “weaving” between traffic is how motorists complained to about cyclists carrying out the mundane task of filtering. Filtering past slow or stopped traffic requires care but it is generally very much so legal. In fact, the law was changed to make clear it was legal for people cycling to overtake on the left, which is part of filtering.

Including simplistic statements in a 1.5-minute video is not helpful, and statements like this could cause confusion.

“…or mount a footpath to avoid a junction… it is never permitted to cycle on a footpath”

This is problematic. Of course, people should not cycle on footpaths to avoid traffic at a red light. But that’s the problematic issue here, and it should be clearly stated.

It is not strictly true that it is “never permitted to cycle on a footpath” — what is or is not a footpath legally has been really changed by councils making so many sections of footpaths into shared paths (most of which very much so look like footpaths), and first, there are exceptions to the rule of cycling on footpaths (ie for access to another road, cycle track etc and that applies without any shared path sign)

“Trucks and buses have blind spots, so, always keep your distance.”

While this message can be helpful, it was shown in London that in many cases where it was used after collisions that the truck or bus drivers drove towards the people cycling involved and not the other way around (the motorists were overtaking the cyclists when or drove up to the bicycle at a junction before the collisions happened).

It’s yet another example of too much in the one video, so everything is simplified.

To round up: Yes, people cycling should obey the law. Yes, they should be responsible. But authorities should be much clearer and factual around their messaging and, even if everything was ok factually, taxpayer money shouldn’t be used in ineffective ways such as creating videos with too much in them.

13 thoughts on “Cycling safety: Gardaí should focus on what’s illegal and show a bit more care around implying perfectly legal things are not”

  1. Mandatory use of cycle tracks was revoked for very good reasons- there are many cycle tracks that are not fit for purpose to the extent that it’s safer not to use them.

    Reply
  2. I found the vast majority of this article a blinkered one sided rant lacking in common sense . That claim that many cycle tracks are not fit for purpose and that it’s somehow safer not to use them is equally wrongheaded messaging – the anti car grudge has seemingly left you incapable of a common sensed balanced giver of advice – I use both my bike and car and honestly think you are being very very blinkered in your views in the safety tips and issues that Garda video touches on – it’s fine you dint have to agree but you are giving equally bad tips and suggestions in this debate in my considered opinion. have a great day .

    Reply
    • Dave, in the article, I guessed that some readers “might be foaming at the mouth about ‘common sense'”. As I outlined in the article: “You might as well be talking about an idea you plucked out of your head with nothing to back it up.”

      You repeat that throughout your comment — you don’t bother backing up anything you say.

      You said: “That claim that many cycle tracks are not fit for purpose and that it’s somehow safer not to use them is equally wrongheaded messaging” — but if something is unsafe to use, it can be safer not to use it. You don’t say why this is not the case.

      You say that you “use both [your] bike and car” as if that means your view is balanced, but you show no signs of any supporting arguments for any of your views or tired insults.

      Instead of anything of substance, you rant about an apparent “anti-car grudge” and keep mentioning “common sense” as if it means something more meaningful than groupthink. If you’re going to comment again, please try to back up what you are saying rather than just flinging muck.

      Have a fantastic day!

      Reply
  3. Every single time Garda members or its senior officers post ‘advice’ to bike users it contains factually incorrect items.
    They see road safety via a ‘windscreen-view’ of the road and traffic. This is why at countless photo-shoots their accompanying vehicles are parked up in cycle tracks/paths or on pavements. They are clueless about active travel safety issues.

    Reply
  4. Agree. I’m coming away with the confused interpretation of cycling on footpaths may not be illegal. It is !!
    It is unhelpful to mention the need to cycle ACROSS a foot path and leave the issue weakened! Deliberate ??!

    Reply
    • Hi Philip, If you want to blame anybody, you can look at councillors who complain about people cycling on footpaths but keep approving projects that include shared paths that look just like footpaths. The lines have been blurred by councils spending decades mixing walking and cycling on paths that, to most people, look like footpaths.

      That includes fully shared paths and paths where sections of the paths are shared at junctions etc.

      This has caused a situation where anti-cycling people with poor perceptions have been trying to challenge people cycling perfectly legally on shared paths which look like footpaths. 

      Reply
  5. earphones should be illegal for cyclists and motorists.helmets should be compulsory for cyclists.according to someone employed by cork city council for bike week this year wearing a helmet does not make you any safer??????the same person told me being blonde makes you more likely to be in an accident

    Reply
      • yeah, i think that’s where he was getting his information.i’d still much rather be wearing a helmet than not.we don’t only have accidents that involve motorists,t often because of a pedestrian or their dog.segregated cycle paths please!

        Reply
        • Apart from the research Damien cited, there was also the claim that conventional helmets increase the risk of “diffuse neuronal injury”, by increasing twisting or linear acceleration on the head due to the larger effective radius. I couldn’t find much to support this at least in more recent studies.
          But I did find the “risk compensation” aspect compelling (I think that’s what they called it in the first paper I read re: drivers overtaking cyclists more closely when they’re helmet, and also when wearing high-viz).

          That’s the main reason I don’t wear a helmet and don’t agree with your assertion that helmets should be compulsory for cyclists. They increase some risks and decrease others.

          Two other reasons:
          1) In countries that have introduced mandatory helmet laws, casual cycling immediately decreased by a dramatic amount.
          2) Even if there’s an overall decrease in risk, it would have to be of a huge magnitude to warrant making helmets mandatory. Otherwise we should also make helmets mandatory for walking in public, given that many people slip and suffer head injuries every year. But of course we wouldn’t do that because it’s ridiculous.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.