Gardai have now begun checking that cyclists in Dublin are wearing hi-vis even though cyclists don't need to wear them.
Dublin Cycling Campaign has moved to clarify the legal position around cyclists wearing hi-vis clothing after gardai said they were now “checking” if cyclists were wearing it.
“To be clear, lights are a legal requirement when cycling at night,” Dublin Cycling Campaign said.
“Hi-vis is not a legal requirement, at any time of day or night,” it added in response to the Garda’s position.
“A garda cannot stop you or admonish you for not wearing hi-vis. And they certainly can't force you to wear it.”
The campaign took to social media after the Garda issued unusual, though well-meaning, advice on its Twitter account.
Garda Traffic tweeted to its 422,000 followers that: “Gardaí in Dublin North Central checking cyclists for lights and hi vis jackets - handing out RSA (hi-vis) vests to cyclists who had none.”
Advertisement
The message concluded with a ‘be safe-be seen’ hashtag. And four photos of gardai giving hi-vis vests to cyclists were also shared with the tweet.
The Garda message was clearly aimed at increasing cyclists’ visibility to motorists during the current dark winter period.
And without doubt it was intended to increase safety for cyclists on the road.
However, while many Twitter users welcomed the Garda’s efforts others reacted with a mixture of bemusement and annoyance.
They pointed out that hi-vis vests, or indeed hi-vis clothing of any kind, was not a legal requirement.
And some felt that by gardai saying they were now “checking” cyclists were wearing hi-vis they were engaging in confused messaging to the public.
In what have been a lively exchanges, some people responded to the Garda’s post by asking would gardai be checking drivers’ eyesight as in many cases motorists who hit cyclists claimed they could not see the riders.
Others asked if gardai would be checking drivers were wearing helmets because, like hi-vis on cyclists, they were also not a legal requirement but might save a life on the roads.
Gardaí in Dublin North Central checking cyclists for lights and hi vis jackets - handing out RSA vests to cyclists who had none. #BeSafeBeSeen pic.twitter.com/y3afGo1gHt
— An Garda Síochána (@GardaTraffic) December 19, 2018
Can we stop with the hi-vis nonsense. Cyclists are required to have lights - if they have lights and a driver still can see them without them needing to be wearing a puke yellow jacket then maybe gardai should be checking driver's eyesight!
— Richie Oakley #andacyclist (@roakleyIRL) December 19, 2018
Helmets and high viz are not the law. That was the point I was making. And if they are made law they will reduce the numbers cycling rather than promote it as a normal everyday activity. Cyclists shouldn't have to dress like construction workers to cycle in and out of work
— Richie Oakley #andacyclist (@roakleyIRL) December 19, 2018
Related News
While all true, the real message should be 'while not a legal requirement, hi vis is strongly reccomended at all times'. Ill-judged.
— Brian (@abrianmc) December 19, 2018
There is no legal requirement to wear a high viz jacket. Please don't perpetuate this myth. @dublincycling @IBIKEDublin
— Robert Lawson (@BikerRobert) December 19, 2018
Only useful & visible if you are behind a light source shining on towards it. Useless in other circumstances. Unfortunately pushing them as PPE gives everyone wrong impression. Those wearing them instead of lighting up and those who use absence to victim blame. ^AN
— I BIKE Dublin (@IBIKEDublin) December 19, 2018
How? Hi-viz is useless! Light are absolutely a necessity and legal requirement, so I presume and hope you were talking about that.
— Aidan Somerville (@somerville73) December 19, 2018
.@GardaTraffic @darraghdoyle Hello.
What is the legal basis for "checking hi vis jackets"?
Only lights and bell are required by law.
— Joan (@clicky_here) December 19, 2018
Would be better if @RSAIreland focused their time and resources and challenging the behaviour of other toad users that puts cyclists at risk on a daily basis.
— Philip Mudge (@PhilipMudge) December 19, 2018
No need to check me, I don't have/want one. Maybe when I get that job loading cars onto a ferry.
— Ciarán (@CiaranMFP) December 19, 2018
Appreciate the effort but you have it the wrong way round. You should be handing out lights (and fines) to those who have none. Unlike hi-viz, lights are the legal requirement and proven to increase safety. @dublincycling @IBIKEDublin
— Ruairi Purtill (@ruairipurtill) December 19, 2018
And that was my aim, there's a lot of 'gut instinct' used in the debate about cycling and safety. But, a lot of it is actually mistaken, often dangerous. So cycle whatever way you think is safest, but beware of the myths, they're often used to victim blame when drivers err
— Shane ᚛ᚄᚕᚅ᚜ (@Shane_Conneely) December 19, 2018
Point is to quit the victimblaming that is attributed to any one instance where the driver is immediately give escape from culpability once the checklist of excuses is provided... And when wearing above, it's low sun that is the excuse
— Andy_2000x (@Andy_2000x) December 19, 2018
You realise it's stupid not to wear one!
— Andrew McCabe (@andrew87mccabe) December 19, 2018
I have no problem with people wearing them, and sometimes wear one myself. But the constant pushing of them by AGS and RSA is actually doing more harm than good. They should focus resources elsewhere.
— Micko (@inkling_micko) December 19, 2018
Darwin deals with that, prefer Gardai dealt with speeding, mobile phone wielding, red light jumping motorists that are actually killing and injuring people
— Andy_2000x (@Andy_2000x) December 19, 2018
Topics
