Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Options
1…1516182021…96

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    From the Emergency Services forum:
    rocky911 wrote: »
    The RSU High Vis as sucj as armed gardai at checkpoints are meant to red bibs so I say the powers that issued these for checkpoints as the last thing they probably want is a claim from some fella who may have got knocked down who may argue the point that they weren't issued the appropriate PPE..

    at the end of the day tis all about arse covering.


  • Options
    #513
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    COMPULSORY HI-VIS VESTS for pedestrians and cyclists would save lives, a Fine Gael senator says.
    http://www.thejournal.ie/hi-vis-vests-mandatory-2254618-Aug2015/

    A classic "reductio ad seatbeltum" in there too (all road safety initiatives have to be compared to seatbelts).


  • Options
    #514
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    And we had the chance to get rid of them a while ago.


  • Options
    #515
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,492 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    so if i pop to the shops - 130m away, according to google maps - i'd have to put a high vis jacket on?


  • Options
    #516
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    In light of the recent thread which boiled down to a simple question about whether hi-viz is compulsory or not from someone who couldn't find the answer quickly enough in this thread I think it would be a good idea to spell out the most basic points (even if that is just to say that using it is not compulsory) in the mod note in the first post of this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    tigerboon
    Registered Users Posts: 721 ✭✭✭tigerboon


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    http://www.thejournal.ie/hi-vis-vests-mandatory-2254618-Aug2015/

    A classic "reductio ad seatbeltum" in there too (all road safety initiatives have to be compared to seatbelts).

    Is it just me or is the only cyclist that stands out in that journal.ie picture the lad in the black t-shirt in the sea of yellow. What is a high visibility colour in daytime?


  • Options
    #518
    PaulieC
    Registered Users Posts: 6,190 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    tom.sheahan@oir.ie in case you want to contact him and advise him of the fallacy of his arguments.


  • Options
    #519
    rp
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭rp


    To make cyclists visible to motorist, the hi-viz vest needs to include a 45MHz white-noise source, amplifier and antenna. The color of the vest is however, optional.


  • Options
    #520
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    http://www.thejournal.ie/hi-vis-vests-mandatory-2254618-Aug2015/

    A classic "reductio ad seatbeltum" in there too (all road safety initiatives have to be compared to seatbelts).

    This fellow: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/wife-would-have-made-me-pay-fine-fine-gael-senator-tells-court-305594.html

    He's a serial illegal parker, and apparently believes motorists should be allowed to park outside banks in order to "run in and lodge money".


  • Options
    #521
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Bit Bertie-esque, all this running around lodging cash. Does he clean windows in his spare time or something?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    This fellow: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/wife-would-have-made-me-pay-fine-fine-gael-senator-tells-court-305594.html

    He's a serial illegal parker, and apparently believes motorists should be allowed to park outside banks in order to "run in and lodge money".

    Hold on a minute here! This Sheahan fellow is complaining of being "hammered" with parking fines outside the bank in April 2014 in the Seanad, and yet in court in Jan 2015 he never received the fine, or the reminder, or the other reminder, but he did get the summons to court.

    Hmm..., seems legit?


  • Options
    #523
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Hi-vis for ALL - from the RSA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF6nHp2r4gA


  • Options
    #524
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    So the issue is with parents driving and parking stupidly at the gates and the solution is hi-vis. So don't fix the problem at all. WTF RSA????


  • Options
    #525
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Saw this ages ago. At least the emphasis is pretty much in the right place:
    ADAC warns of incidents [ADAC=German equivalent of RAC] The ADAC also warns of “incalculable safety risks from Parent-taxis“, which present a double danger. Firstly in front of schools, and secondly, in other accidents- which according to ADAC involves more children in parents cars (10,363 in 2013) than when they are on foot. An ADAC survey of 750 primary schools in the region concludes: “The fewer the Parent-Taxis waiting outside Primary Schools, the safer the way to school.”‘
    http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/08/31/the-primary-school-fights-back-against-parent-jam/


  • Options
    #526
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    traprunner wrote: »
    So the issue is with parents driving and parking stupidly at the gates and the solution is hi-vis. So don't fix the problem at all. WTF RSA????

    It's quite strange. If you watched it without the sound on, you'd swear the initiative was to wear hi-viz. If you listen to it, it's mostly about encouraging parents to keep off the double yellow lines outside the school, and accompanying children away from the school gates.

    Of course, they should be working towards the older children being able to walk away unaccompanied. Then again, the RSA's update of the Safe Cross Code doesn't actually show children crossing the road, so they don't really believe in independent mobility for children.


  • Options
    #527
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    It's quite strange. If you watched it without the sound on, you'd swear the initiative was to wear hi-viz. If you listen to it, it's mostly about encouraging parents to keep off the double yellow lines outside the school, and accompanying children away from the school gates.

    Of course, they should be working towards the older children being able to walk away unaccompanied. Then again, the RSA's update of the Safe Cross Code doesn't actually show children crossing the road, so they don't really believe in independent mobility for children.

    If people are parking on the double yellows then the schools should ask the cops to drop down every now and again to prevent it.

    When I was a child I lived both in towns and the country side and I walked to school. It did me no harm. IMO people who live within 2km of schools should not be allowed to drive their children to school.


  • Options
    #528
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Since I heard "walkable distance" defined on the radio as 200m, I have despaired of any attempts to get people to walk anywhere.

    I suspect the Gardaí apply the same "balance" in policing illegal parking around schools at arrival and homes times as they do in policing motorists parking on cycle facilities.


  • Options
    #529
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Since I heard "walkable distance" defined on the radio as 200m, I have despaired of any attempts to get people to walk anywhere.

    I suspect the Gardaí apply the same "balance" in policing illegal parking around schools at arrival and homes times as they do in policing motorists parking on cycle facilities.

    200m? That's shocking. No wonder there are so many obese people (I'm borderling :P) I better get a taxi from my office to the local shop for my lunch then. It's about 210m.


  • Options
    #530
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    B7dikoBCYAAWx88.jpg


  • Options
    #531
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,145 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Deers don't pay road or any tax, they're a menace!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    RobertFoster
    Registered Users Posts: 9,137 ✭✭✭RobertFoster


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    Deers don't pay road or any tax, they're a menace!!
    You rarely see them using the purpose built deer crossings either, instead choosing to cross the road where ever they like! A lot of taxpayers' money was spent putting up those signs, they should be forced to use them!


  • Options
    #533
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Exposure measurement in bicycle safety analysis: A review of the literature
    Wearing visible clothing or a helmet, or having more cycling experience did not reduce the risk of being involved in an accident.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457515300403

    Interesting. (The helmet bit not too surprising, since even advocates see it as ameliorating outcomes rather than reducing likelihood, but quite counter-intuitive to see experience not having a detectable benefit.)


  • Options
    #534
    Redderneck
    Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭Redderneck


    I reckon the best thing you could wear if you're cycling in an urban environment is a fat suit. It could be a fat suit finished in matte black rather than hi-viz; no matter. Drivers will clock you a mile off and subconsciously respond to the little voice muttering "I'm not risking that lump ending up on my bonnet..."

    And I say this as proud lump in no need of resorting to fakery.


  • Options
    #535
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Redderneck wrote: »
    I reckon the best thing you could wear if you're cycling in an urban environment is a fat suit. It could be a fat suit finished in matte black rather than hi-viz; no matter. Drivers will clock you a mile off and subconsciously respond to the little voice muttering "I'm not risking that lump ending up on my bonnet..."

    And I say this as proud lump in no need of resorting to fakery.

    Previous research from University of Bath (or Bristol?) suggests that your best option is to wear a blonde wig, as drivers give more room to blondes. Far more effective than wearing a helmet...


  • Options
    #536
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Exposure measurement in bicycle safety analysis: A review of the literature

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457515300403

    Interesting. (The helmet bit not too surprising, since even advocates see it as ameliorating outcomes rather than reducing likelihood, but quite counter-intuitive to see experience not having a detectable benefit.)

    I must remember to wear my invisible clothes tomorrow since it makes no difference :D


  • Options
    #537
    rollingscone
    Registered Users Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭rollingscone


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Exposure measurement in bicycle safety analysis: A review of the literature

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457515300403

    Interesting. (The helmet bit not too surprising, since even advocates see it as ameliorating outcomes rather than reducing likelihood, but quite counter-intuitive to see experience not having a detectable benefit.)

    What's their definition of experience?

    Many people continue to behave like idiots for years on end.


  • Options
    #538
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    rollingscone wrote: »
    What's their definition of experience?
    I'll have to wait for a free version of the study to find out!


  • Options
    #539
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    rollingscone wrote: »
    What's their definition of experience?

    Many people continue to behave like idiots for years on end.

    The finding is based on other studies:
    Wearing visible clothing, having more bicycling experience, or wearing a helmet were not shown to reduce the RR of being involved in an accident(Bacchieri et al., 2010; Hoffman et al., 2010).

    However, several studies showed that wearing protective clothing reduces accident severity, presumably in collision situations (Persaud et al., 2012; Wood et al., 2012; Amoros et al., 2012; Berg and Westerling, 2007)


  • Options
    #540
    rp
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭rp


    Jawgap wrote: »
    The finding is based on other studies:
    Having experience is one thing, learning from experience is a whole other thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    mcgratheoin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭mcgratheoin


    rollingscone wrote: »
    What's their definition of experience?

    They have no definition of experience as it was a literature review rather than a new piece of primary research. Two papers are cited as showing that experience has no bearing on incident rate
    Hoffman et al. studied a group of commuters in Portland, Oregon (>900 people) over a one year period, with the commuters self assessing as beginner, intermediate or advanced. They found no correlation between experience level and probability of a "traumatic event". I think that the link above should be a free to access copy of that paper.

    Bacchieri et al. classified their participants according to years of bicycle use. Up to 5 years, 5-10, 11-15, 16-20 and >20 years. Their group was >1000 participants and they studied their risk behaviour and attitudes towards traffic rules. Their results found that
    Bicycle commuters who used a bicycle 7 days per week were almost two times more likely to have suffered an accident when compared to those who cycled 5 or 6 days. Riding side-by-side with another cyclist was found to have a protective effect against accidents, with subjects who reported this behavior showing 18% lower risk of having suffered an accident. Cyclists who reported following the set of risk behaviors included in “Group 2” (zigzagging through traffic, riding after ingestion of alcohol, and riding rapidly) were more than 50% more likely to have suffered a traffic accident when compared to those who did not.
    It should be noted though that the sampling strategy utilized in the survey was designed for an intervention study, and thus did not attempt to ensure populational representativeness. In other words, it was part of an educational intervention aimed at reducing accidents among cyclists.

    The other major take-aways from it are:
    Our results indicated that occurrence of traffic accidents involving bicycle commuters bore little relationship with the manner in which they rode their bicycles or with presence of safety equipment.
    and
    Our findings suggest that in the context where the study was done (poor road signaling, limited policing, aggressive driving) changing cyclist behavior may not have substantial impact in terms of accident reduction before other road traffic interventions are implemented.


Advertisement