Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

RainyDay · 19-05-2015 3:39pm

Vote Yes for mandatory hi-vis for everyone;

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153804226989688.1073741854.164027949687&type=1

Pinch Flat · 19-05-2015 3:51pm

RainyDay wrote: »

Vote Yes for mandatory hi-vis for everyone;

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153804226989688.1073741854.164027949687&type=1

Some with no helmets on :eek: and on the footpath :eek::eek:

Iwannahurl · 20-05-2015 12:11pm

RainyDay wrote: »

Vote Yes for mandatory hi-vis for everyone;

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153804226989688.1073741854.164027949687&type=1

Weddings and all...

dashcamdanny · 21-05-2015 12:19am

Iwannahurl · 26-05-2015 12:51am

Gardaí from Pearse St were at the Stephens Green Luas stop yesterday "handing out safety info and jackets".

Pinch Flat · 26-05-2015 7:00am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Gardaí from Pearse St were at the Stephens Green Luas stop yesterday "handing out safety info and jackets".

There's a new mandatory cycle lane just up from that - it's frequented by cars and motorbikes and I've seen a few near misses over the past weeks. It continues around the green opposite a school where it's jammed with cars sometimes 3 deep depending on whether the school is starting or finishing. They'd be better implementing their safety initiative there Imo

check_six · 12-06-2015 12:33pm

Spotted a load of people on Stephen's Green gearing up for a Bloomsday bike spin. I'm guessing they were Bloomsday people as they were all wearing straw boater type hats.

I'm not sure that the hi-vis jackets that were all over them is strictly Joycean canon though.

CramCycle · 12-06-2015 12:37pm

check_six wrote: »

Spotted a load of people on Stephen's Green gearing up for a Bloomsday bike spin. I'm guessing they were Bloomsday people as they were all wearing straw boater type hats.

I'm not sure that the hi-vis jackets that were all over them is strictly Joycean canon though.

If you don't notice a large group of cyclists in town wearing straw hats, then your not going to notice a large group of cyclists wearing Hi Vis.

Kav0777 · 12-06-2015 1:09pm

CramCycle wrote: »

If you don't notice a large group of cyclists in town wearing straw hats, then your not going to notice a large group of cyclists wearing Hi Vis.

"Did you see all those cyclists with the hi-vis vests at lunch earlier?"

"No, what ones?"

"ah ye did, sure weren't they wearin' straw hats?"

"Oh them, .... the eejits"

tigerboon · 12-06-2015 11:46pm

I remember when hi viz was being made mandatory on construction sites...made sense, big machines working close to other workers. Since then everyone begging for money, handing out leaflets, selling papers etc is wearing a hi viz vest. Went for a spin the other evening and passed 2 people mowing lawns with hi viz
They now have absolutely no impact because they're everywhere. Then VMS signs were required to notify people of roadworks. Now they are used to advertise furniture sales, plant hire, garden centres etc.

Iwannahurl · 05-07-2015 12:01pm

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.

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 10:03pm

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).

ThisRegard · 05-08-2015 10:57pm

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

magicbastarder · 05-08-2015 10:57pm

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

HivemindXX · 06-08-2015 12:00am

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.

tigerboon · 06-08-2015 8:27am

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?

PaulieC · 06-08-2015 9:19am

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

rp · 06-08-2015 12:28pm

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.

Iwannahurl · 07-08-2015 9:45am

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".

tomasrojo · 07-08-2015 9:57am

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

check_six · 07-08-2015 6:02pm

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?

RainyDay · 25-08-2015 11:34pm

Hi-vis for ALL - from the RSA

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

traprunner · 26-08-2015 9:01am

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????

tomasrojo · 26-08-2015 11:13am

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/

tomasrojo · 26-08-2015 11:22am

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.

traprunner · 26-08-2015 11:33am

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.

tomasrojo · 26-08-2015 11:52am

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.

traprunner · 26-08-2015 11:57am

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.

Iwannahurl · 30-08-2015 8:28am

CatFromHue · 30-08-2015 2:25pm

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

RobertFoster · 30-08-2015 2:45pm

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!

tomasrojo · 01-09-2015 3:23pm

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.)

Redderneck · 01-09-2015 3:32pm

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.

RainyDay · 01-09-2015 11:17pm

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...

traprunner · 01-09-2015 11:51pm

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

rollingscone · 02-09-2015 1:12am

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.

tomasrojo · 02-09-2015 10:58am

rollingscone wrote: »

What's their definition of experience?

I'll have to wait for a free version of the study to find out!

Jawgap · 02-09-2015 12:19pm

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)

rp · 02-09-2015 1:05pm

Jawgap wrote: »

The finding is based on other studies:

Having experience is one thing, learning from experience is a whole other thing.

mcgratheoin · 02-09-2015 3:53pm

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

Bicycle commuter injury prevention: It is time to focus on the environment. Hoffman et al., 2010
Cycling to work in Brazil: Users profile, risk behaviors, and traffic accident occurrence. Bacchieri et al., 2010

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.

Qualitymark · 09-09-2015 11:26am

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

John Sullivan is a Royal Air Force pilot with over 4,000 flight hours in his career, and a keen cyclist. He is a crash investigator and has contributed to multiple reports. Fighter pilots have to cope with speeds of over 1000 mph. Any crashes are closely analysed to extract lessons that can be of use.

He goes on to say (technical stuff - read the whole article, very educational)

At a traffic junction all but the worst of drivers will look in both directions to check for oncoming traffic. However, it is entirely possible for our eyes to “jump over” an oncoming bicycle or motorbike.

The smaller the vehicle, the greater the chance it will fall within a saccade.

He advises flashing red rear light and a high-viz unusual enough that drivers will be unconsciously motivated to glance at it. After reading it, I bought this.

CramCycle · 09-09-2015 11:35am

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.

Probably the most important comment, and probably the one that most people with no cycling experience or association (eg friends or family) can comprehend in my experience.

Leroy42 · 09-09-2015 11:37am

^^ TBH, I would struggle to keep the carpet on during the cycle. But good idea

Qualitymark · 09-09-2015 11:37am

Leroy42 wrote: »

^^ TBH, I would struggle to keep the carpet on during the cycle. But good idea

Admittedly the carpet is a bit of a problem.

CramCycle · 09-09-2015 11:50am

Qualitymark wrote: »

Admittedly the carpet is a bit of a problem.

The fashion police have FPNs for that kind of thing

OleRodrigo · 09-09-2015 11:57am

Qualitymark wrote: »

Rug

78b628ed1816c54017e73266790c743ff9163d70d9326761280a84a2a604b9c9.jpg

tomasrojo · 09-09-2015 11:59am

I quite like the Mondrian design; better than the binman look. But my use of conspicuity aids* is now limited to a reflective belt around the satchel on my lower back. Probably some use, doesn't look outlandish and not very inconvenient.

(*apart from reflectors on the bike and lights)

tigerboon · 28-09-2015 11:33pm

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If they ever were to seriously entertain the notion of making high-viz mandatory, aside from the issue of its efficacy, you'd have to question the wisdom of imposing new regulations on visibility when the existing ones are so poorly enforced. There's a massive amount of people riding at night with no lights. And an even bigger number with lights that are so poor they're essentially useless.

The whole hysteria about high viz has a generation of well meaning but gormless individuals riding around decked out greens and yellows but with lights that would barely illuminate a broom cupboard.

Witnessed a close one this evening. Driving with a low setting sun. The car in front of me overtakes the car in front of him on the outside of a long sweeping bend. There's no hedges so you can see a long way and sure enough there's no other cars coming. There was a cyclists about half way round the bend. Lucky for him there is a small junction just where he was and was able to swing down it. Of course the driver was in the wrong but I have to say that I didn't see the cyclist until last minute either. I wasn't overtaking by the way. The cyclist was wearing a black and grey jersey and I didn't think much of his lights. I passed a cyclist last winter at night on the same bend and he was lit up like a Christmas tree and was getting plenty of space and respect from motorists

tomasrojo · 29-09-2015 8:53am

tigerboon wrote: »

Witnessed a close one this evening. Driving with a low setting sun. The car in front of me overtakes the car in front of him on the outside of a long sweeping bend. There's no hedges so you can see a long way and sure enough there's no other cars coming. There was a cyclists about half way round the bend. Lucky for him there is a small junction just where he was and was able to swing down it. Of course the driver was in the wrong but I have to say that I didn't see the cyclist until last minute either. I wasn't overtaking by the way. The cyclist was wearing a black and grey jersey and I didn't think much of his lights. I passed a cyclist last winter at night on the same bend and he was lit up like a Christmas tree and was getting plenty of space and respect from motorists

Bolded relevant bits. It's easier to see a cyclist however they're dressed when you're not driving towards a low sun (assuming you were). Hi-viz doesn't help with a low sun. In fact, in the case of a lollipop man who was killed in England, the investigators opined that the hi-viz blended with the low setting sun.

As for respect, since I toned down the hi-viz, I've had far fewer incidents of car passengers throwing stuff out of car windows at me. Looking outlandish doesn't make people "respect" you. It can sometimes do the opposite. (It probably can help them see you, but there surely is a point of adequate conspicuity that falls short of looking like a Christmas tree.)

tigerboon · 29-09-2015 11:51am

tomasrojo wrote: »

Bolded relevant bits. It's easier to see a cyclist however they're dressed when you're not driving towards a low sun (assuming you were). Hi-viz doesn't help with a low sun. In fact, in the case of a lollipop man who was killed in England, the investigators opined that the hi-viz blended with the low setting sun.

As for respect, since I toned down the hi-viz, I've had far fewer incidents of car passengers throwing stuff out of car windows at me. Looking outlandish doesn't make people "respect" you. It can sometimes do the opposite. (It probably can help them see you, but there surely is a point of adequate conspicuity that falls short of looking like a Christmas tree.)

Hi-viz is next to useless in that scenario. After witnessing that close one yesterday evening I just wanted to highlight a significant hazard for this time of year. The sun is setting at about 7pm and yesterday been a nice day lads come home from work and head out for a spin and maybe are not aware of this particular hazard. Drivers, in fairness, can be completely blinded by the sun at times (same in the morning heading east) especially when the sun is coming through trees etc. When driving home in the evenings, I get a good feel for this and would not normally head out on the bike with a low sun as visibility can be down to 50m at times. Dull evenings are safer at this time of year.

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments