Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I've never been hit from behind, but always worry about it. At the moment I have 2 bright rear lights to prevent this. And 2 up front also.

Thankfully it was at low speed - cars pulling off from lights.

On the hi vis, my 7 year old son showed up to his first Beavers hike around St Catherine's park near Lucan last summer - yep you guessed it - all the kids decked out in hi vis for a walk in the park that takes them no where near cars / bikes / construction sites / aeroplanes or what ever other risks they were expecting.....

Jawgap wrote: »

just makes them easier to spot and count.....

Do they not wear neckerchiefs any more? Or come back when you blow a whistle, and then they fall in and number off?

Zero need for hi-vis in the park.

buffalo wrote: »

Do they not wear neckerchiefs any more? Or come back when you blow a whistle, and then they fall in and number off?

Zero need for hi-vis in the park.

Yeah our local troop wears a blue and green neckerchief. I suppose you're relying on everyone to show up with them on the kids - hi vis vests can be thrown in a bag and dished out easily. Jayney when I think of my younger days - not a hi vis in sight and we all survived

I don't want to sound like an old man pining for his youth here, but back in my day, the kids all had a necko. If they didn't, they didn't come on the activity. Spare neckos can be brought as easily as spare hi-viz. Don't succumb to The Fear.

And kids are well capable of returning on a whistle once they're trained.

I think when it comes to HigViz and Children's outings its as much an identifier as a locator, ie "all the kids in the yellow High Viz are in our group" Similarly we had Neckers, which had to be worn for insurance purposes but the High Viz is no doubt easier.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Just wondering, seeing as there's a thread on rear lights at the moment, what brand lights do you use?

I Don't want to go OT but I use Cateye, In fairness there are better and brighter available. I do also have other non brand lights that I picked up cheap as spares. Further OT but My experience as a motorist is that I frequently see the reflective strips of a HiViz before I see a cyclist's lights. a Car's head lights will be stronger than most bike lights even after they have been reflected by the HiViz.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Would that not indicate a deficiency in a cyclists lights rather than the excellence of hi vis? I would much rather rely on my rear lights being seen than two reflective strips on an RSA backpack cover that may not sit in the light beam of the following car, or may be less visible due to my position on the bike (e.g. in the drops).

I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive, Car lights are very powerful while some Bike lights are so weak and/or small that whilst they may make the bike road legal they are of no effect when it comes to making the bike visible at night.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

On a general point, when we're talking about hi-vis in a night time situation what we're talking about is reflectors - the hi-vis part of the jacket/bag cover is for daytime visibility, not night time.

Technically you are correct but I think the distinction is unnecessary. Most people understand a HIViz vest or jacket as being a dayglo coloured garment with reflective strips or elements for low-light situations. I would imagine that most everyday people would expect both elements to be part of anything described as "HiViz".

Anyway, back to helmets

mcgratheoin wrote: »

**edit**

To get back on topic, what sometimes irks me about the varying safety debates (including helmets) is how people frequently get their priorities completely wrong - I know lots of people who will always wear a helmet and hi-vis but think that anything over a tenner is a ridiculous price for a bicycle light. The issue that most people here have about helmets is that they're used as a distraction from the actual hazards that exist when cycling - the discussion around any accident or incident concentrates on whether a helmet was worn, completely overshadowing the fact that helmets or lack thereof have no contributory effect on the causes of accidents (cue risk compensation & overtaking space debate ). What is scary for me is that at some point, a judge may decide that a cyclist not wearing a helmet is in some way partly culpable for being knocked down.

I think that is somewhat unlikely but what could be likely is that a Judge could decide that cyclist is guilty of contributory negligence for head injuries sustained when knocked down while not wearing a helmet.

As you say it all distracts from the real issues of cycle safety, I was dismayed last autumn when I heard a spokesman for the RTA (I think it was) say that they required large amounts of funding for the infrastructure needed to improve the safety of cyclists on the roads so instead they were handing out free HiViz vests, the implication being that it would be just as effective.

Jawgap wrote: »

Yep - same in my day........and many a woggle was fashioned from a boot lace or bit of twine!

I still have my Woggle. 5th Wicklow FTW.

To stay (vaguely on Topic) interesting how much hi-viz gear I'm seeing on Dublin Bike riders recently. The lights on those things are pretty good.

I have actually been doing some experimenting over the last few weeks. I have tried to see when and where I see cyclists and take note of their clothes, lights, hi-vis etc.

On a normal urban setting (which is where I am based) I really can't see any instance where a car cannot see a cyclist until such time as they hit them. That is not to say that they can see them as much as they should. A few caveats.

This is not a scientific study, am I not a scientist and my view is just that.
I am taking about normal traffic situations, Cyclists cycling on the road, the correct direction, largely within the rules.

There are of course times when it is difficult to see a cyclist, especially when there is low street lighting, its wet, dark (obv!) but to me all that means it the car driver needs to be aware of the possibility of the cyclist being there and they need to pay more attention. Many drivers seem to offer up the explanation that 'he just appeared out of nowhere' as if that shifts the blame.

No cyclist appear out of nowhere (again I am taking about normal traffic conditions, if you just out from behind a parked bus then nothing is going to save you). What is really meant is that the driver never noticed the cyclist or even took into account the likelyhood that a cyclist would be in that space. Many driver seems to believe that unless they see a pair of headlights then there is nothing there and can proceed.

One example. A single, but wide lane. 1st car signal that they what to turn right which necessitates waiting for the traffic on the opposite lane. In amny instances the car behind will move to the left to try to get round the car. A quick glance in the mirror shows nothing so they move left and then are surprised when bike comes banging on the window. The bike didn't just appear, he was always there and drivers should take the view that they are adjusting their course and so make double sure there is nothing there. If they make the move and the cyclist is there then no amount of hi-vis, helmet etc should be allowed to be invoked in the arguement as the driver should have taken the view that their is a strong likelyhood of a cyclist being there.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Nail on the head - IMO the energy spent via the current focus on hi-viz would be much better spent on ensuring that cyclists were aware of the importance of lights and which lights were the most effective. It should be made abundantly clear that a €3 aldi/lidl/tesco value special is insufficient for purpose. Perhaps the RSA could issue a set of recommendations for bicycle lights? Bearing in mind the recent threads on FPNs for cyclists, I would really like to see the legal requirement to carry lights enforced 100% - drives me mental to see unlit cyclists in the dark.

The RSA are actually the worst offenders for giving away the disposable Lights with a single LED, makes a bike road legal but completely ineffective at making a bike visible.