RSA and high viz vests

DePurpereWolf

I know that I might look like an old man shaking his fist at the clouds, but anyway.

I found a flyer from the RSA in the Irish Times today with tips for safe cycling. It mentions to 'always wear luminous clothing such as a high-viz vest'.

Something similair here: http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Pedestrians-and-Cyclists/Cycling-safety/

As a cyclist and engineer I have the followign problems with this.
1. Luminous clothing is clothing that lights up by itself. What is meant is reflective coating, that's what high-viz vests are, brightly coloured rags with cheap and badly working retroreflector strips.
2. Retroreflective strips only 'work' when you direct light at them the same way you are looking. When drivers don't have there lights on they don't work any better than brightly coloured clothing.
3. I don't like high-viz vests

Why make it more complicated for cyclists, these high-viz vests add nothing extra in the day light. Why not say wear bright colours.

The cycle store has loads of good cycling jackets, with retroreflectors, in bright colours. You don't need an extra special high-viz vests.
It's common sense that you shouldn't wear a black jacket while cycling in the dark.
Your bike might already have retroreflective strips and they work a whole lot better than the ones on clothing.

seamus

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

It's common sense that you shouldn't wear a black jacket while cycling in the dark.

Just use good lights and you can wear whatever the hell you like in the dark.

I hate the idea that you need special clothing to get on a bike. You don't need special clothing to drive a car or motorbike or go for a walk at night, so why is cycling special?

Lights, lights and lights. Get people to stick lights on their bikes and maintain them and any visibility problems go away.

Or to put it more succintly - it's not safe to ride at night with hi-viz equipment and without lights. Therefore you have to ask whether hi-hiz is needed at all once you have lights.

kuro_man

I agree with general thrust of you tread - RSA only pick low hanging fruit, they'd never do anything useful like enforce/educate motorists and examine cycle lane network.

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

Why make it more complicated for cyclists, these high-viz vests add nothing extra in the day light. Why not say wear bright colours.

I thought the dag-lo hi-viz was deigned for daylight as these colours don't appear in nature

DePurpereWolf

We live in Ireland, bright colours don't appear in nature.

Don't wear anything green or concrete coloured.

Lumen

The RSA are morons. This is of little consequence to anyone.

ednwireland

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

.
3. I don't like high-viz vests

+1

Bluefoam

Whats really annoying about this type of disinformation is that the general public (car drivers) think that it is the norm to expect cyclists to wear special illuminous/high vis clothing and magic polystyrene hats & feel that they can blame or bully cyclists for not doing so.

These kind of leaflets are very damaging to the avarge cyclists rights as a road user.

clonmahon

Lumen wrote: »

The RSA are morons. This is of little consequence to anyone.

They would be better off running a campaign explaining to motorists that bicycles are vehicles. There are lots of motorists out there who don't know the rules of the road as they apply to bikes. In particular I'm thinking of dangerous overtaking, I always wear an RSA high viz vest when cycling but that does not stop some motorists passing too close.

Thud

RSA should send out some warnings to the idiot pedestrians who decide to wear camoflage dark clothing and run across badly lit roads in front of traffic assuming cars will see them. I seem to encounter two or three of them every evening

sconhome

The flourescent day-glo colours are there to provide contrast from the background so that you are visible to other road users. It is the addition of the retroreflective strips and patches that aid with marking you out in low light levels when other road user lights pick up your outline.

I think that all walkers, cyclists, runners should for their own safety, wear day-glo colours in low light (dull winter days etc) and use retroreflective outer wear and lights combined before dawn or after dusk.

A lot of people seem to think that a hi-viz vest works miracles. It doesn't. But it does have a function combined with the application of common sense.

loyatemu

a good reflective vest is very effective at night - I've been surprised at how visible some of them are when out driving. Its the reflective strips that do the work though not the yellow fabric. You still need lights too...

check_six

I find visibility in cars is restricted by all the door posts, reflections on windows, and cabin lights distracting you. Visibility when on the bike at night doesn't get interfered with in the same way.

Therefore I propose from here on that all cars should be open top, and the front windscreen should be removed as well. To protect the drivers, I suggest a suitable hat, or helmet, perhaps in some kind of polystyrene. Goggles might be nice too. As drivers and passengers will be slightly more exposed to the elements it might be a good idea to encourage them to wear jackets. Hi-viz is very popular nowadays...

I don't think that approach is any more wrongheaded than the RSA line.

coolbeans

I don't like hi-vis not because I'm vain, well I am but that's not the point, but because I don't want to look life a freak for no good reason. Lights. What's wrong with lights? Honestly, the RSA are so moronic on this subject that we're moving so far away from cycle chic that we may never recover and cyclists will forever be expected to adorn themselves in the ugliest garb ever produced just to be accepted onto the road. For **** sakes! Finally, I'm being serious when I say that cyclists adorned in frankly often ridiculous clothing is not good for cycling or cycling safety. It marks us out as the "other", different, odd in a negative way.

Jawgap

kuro_man wrote: »

I agree with general thrust of you tread - RSA only pick low hanging fruit, they'd never do anything useful like enforce/educate motorists and examine cycle lane network.



I thought the dag-lo hi-viz was deigned for daylight as these colours don't appear in nature

There idea of increased use of h-vis isn't low hanging fruit - it isn't even fruit.

It would be better to promote the use of better lights and to remind motor vehicle drivers to look out for cyclists.

jamesd

Id prefer wear a his-vis vest than end up on the bonnet of a car at night because he couldnt see me well enough.

nak

coolbeans wrote: »

I don't like hi-vis not because I'm vain, well I am but that's not the point, but because I don't want to look life a freak for no good reason. Lights. What's wrong with lights? Honestly, the RSA are so moronic on this subject that we're moving so far away from cycle chic that we may never recover and cyclists will forever be expected to adorn themselves in the ugliest garb ever produced just to be accepted onto the road. For **** sakes! Finally, I'm being serious when I say that cyclists adorned in frankly often ridiculous clothing is not good for cycling or cycling safety. It marks us out as the "other", different, odd in a negative way.

Couldn't agree more. Ireland and the UK seem to be the only countries pushing the hi-vis victim look. I think some people get the impression that you don't need lights if you wear hi-vis and the RSA encourages helmet use without showing the correct way to wear one. How do so many people manage to put their helmet on back to front?

XL hi-vis vests get given out every year at my work and people go crazy for them, no idea what they use them for as none of the cyclists take them and most people drive everywhere.

doozerie

Each morning the AA Roadwatch report on RTE Radio 1 includes various calls to motorists to:

"Text us [with info on problem areas, congestion, etc.] ...but not while driving"
"Turn on your fog lights in the fog ...but remember to turn them off when you no longer need them"
"It's windy today ...so watch out for cyclists"

The AA's perception seems to be that motorists can't really think for themselves. The RSA seem to think likewise. Given this mindset it's no surprise that they ask everyone else to relieve motorists of the responsibility of basic precautions like driving with their eyes open. If you buy into the AA/RSA world view you are left with the impression that motorists need all the help us cyclists can give them, bless 'em. I'd like to help them too so I shall go straight out and offer to cut the crusts off the lunch of any motorist whose authorised adult has not already done so for them.

Alkers

Motorbike riders have been up in arms at this as of late regarding an rsa proposal to make long sleeve hi vis mandatory for all riders. The main issue being this will shift the blame for an accident away from the car driver. Bearing in mind your average motorcycle would have vastly superior lights than your average bike, it shows how little thought goes into these proposals. Have sympathy for your motorized two wheel brothers, you will be next!

Jawgap

jamesd wrote: »

Id prefer wear a his-vis vest than end up on the bonnet of a car at night because he couldnt see me well enough.

...and how will wearing a hi-vis anything prevent this?

Most over the bonnet type incidents seem to involve drivers pulling out into a road and the unfortunate cyclist ploughing into the side of the car as a prelude to hitting the bonnet.

In these situations, the car is side-on and therefore its lights won't illuminate you or the hi-vis. Decent lights mean you are as visible as possible, so as long as you combine that with a bit of common sense and defensive cycling (for example assuming that anyone waiting to pull on to "your" road hasn't seen you), you should be as grand as you can be in the circumstances.

coolbeans

jamesd wrote: »

Id prefer wear a his-vis vest than end up on the bonnet of a car at night because he couldnt see me well enough.

I'd prefer lights. The amount of helmet wearing, hi-vis clad tools I see cycling about without mandatory lights is laughable.

QueensGael

Love these jackets - normally looking, drizzle proof and a wee bit of viz. Not a flash of neon yellow in sight. Works best with lights, natch

http://www.wateroffaducksback.co.uk/ladies-cycle-macintosh-2-p.asp

The cyclists that amaze me most are the hi-viz, helmeted wans (and it's usually women - sorry sisters) cycling along the footpath. Good things those dangerous pedestrians can see them hurtling towards them in plenty of time.

Mycroft H

I don't see the problem.

Even during the dull days I can pick out cyclists in Hi-vis vests, on the bicycle and in the car far quicker then the standard ninja cyclist.

Being more visible is a good thing. I ride with a high vis vest on during these winter days and with a super flash light on the rear, I dont want to end up in a grille of a car. Same reason I drive with dipped headlights on the whole time.

worded

I'm a cyclist, biker and car driver. I wear high viz when on two wheels. I think they increase the chances of ppl been seen through a wet foggy windscreen. Anything that increases the chances of been seen is good. I was thinking o getting some and putting them in the boot for some cyclist dressed in black with no lights. Have stopped and given two gig viz to two ppl walking home drunk on a country road. Really dont see the problem with hi viz. essential to staying alive IMO

check_six

The way I see it is that everything outside my door that is set up to allow people to get from one place to another has been set up to accommodate motor vehicles to the exclusion of everything else. Their design and use is unquestioned. Drivers have problems seeing out of their vehicles and spotting other people on or near the road. Why can't the issue be fixed here first?

It appears to be "I can't see or even look for anything else outside my car unless it is painted bright yellow". It's a bit like if I had a hole in my boat and then decided to drain the lake to solve the problem.

We are looking at this the wrong way around!

My (crazy) solutions are as follows:
- saw the roof off all motor vehicles for increased visibility (bus drivers can sit on the roof)
- reduce speed limit after sundown to, say, 30kph EVERYWHERE for motor vehicles!
- nightvision goggles for all!
- encourage drivers to look around for all other creatures near or on the road, and let them know it is at least half of their responsibility to spot them as much as it is their responsibility to stand out.

Surveyor11

I've tried the whole hi-vis thing and it didn't make a jot of a difference - even with a 140 lumen front light and a flashing Cateye OptiCube, cars still pulled out in front of me. The thing is, regardless of what you're wearing, there are drivers who will quiet happily do this - "ah sure it's only some fella on a bike, he'll stop", or worse, "I didn't see you".

Agree though that reflective strips will increase your chance of been seen, especially on poorly lit / rural roads. I throw on a "Chums" running reflective vest in the evenings - does the job, and its not too cumbersome. Also, lights, lights, lights - no point in wearing this if you're not visible on your own steam.

HivemindXX

QueensGael wrote: »

Love these jackets - normally looking, drizzle proof and a wee bit of viz. Not a flash of neon yellow in sight. Works best with lights, natch

http://www.wateroffaducksback.co.uk/ladies-cycle-macintosh-2-p.asp

I quite fancy one of those scarves actually.

check_six wrote: »

Therefore I propose from here on that all cars should be open top, and the front windscreen should be removed as well.

In addition to this cars are often dull colours, even black is frequently to be seen! Bright orange and yellow with reflective stripes should be encouraged. Why make it harder for people to see your car. Surely motorists don't value fashion over safety!

Personally I choose to wear hi-viz and reflective (an Altura Night Vision Evo jacket) and I don't think it makes me look like a freak. In my opinion there is a definite hierarchy of safety.

During the day it basically doesn't matter although if it's dusk/dawn, heavily overcast or raining a bit of hi-viz or putting on your lights can't hurt. Lot's of drivers won't have their lights on so reflective bits are no good.

At night lights are the most important thing. They help everyone see you. Reflective bits are a close second, they don't help with people who aren't shining a light at you (like side on cars or pedestrians) but they are very visible (moreso than lights in my opinion) to drivers whose headlights are shining on you. Hi-viz colours are a very distant third.

To be fair to the RSA, bad terminology aside, you'd be hard pressed to find a high-viz vest that didn't also have reflective patches on it. However I don't see why they don't prioritise lights. They'd have the additional benefit that having lights is actually a legal requirement unlike high-viz.

coolbeans

worded wrote: »

essential to staying alive IMO

No it's not, at best hi-vis is ancillary to lights, which are essential to avoid an incident in the dark evenings. You can have lights without hi-vis but it doesn't work so well the other way around.

BostonB

I was thinking the other day as my bike lights light up the cyclist in front, that a light on your bike aimed at your back (if you've a hi viz jacket) would make you much more visible.

doozerie

worded wrote:

Really dont see the problem with hi viz.

There is no problem with hi viz, as such.

worded wrote:

essential to staying alive IMO

This is the problem, not hi viz clothing but the nonsense idea that it is essential to your safety if you cycle. If anything is essential to your safety (in darkness) it's lights, and even then that assumes that the road users around you actually take the time to see you, register you as something vulnerable, and make the decision not to squish you. There is no single magic wand to keep you safe.

check_six

BostonB wrote: »

I was thinking the other day as my bike lights light up the cyclist in front, that a light on your bike aimed at your back (if you've a hi viz jacket) would make you much more visible.

Woah there! That hi-viz paint fumes has got you thinking peculiar!

Howzabout just hanging the light from your jacket/hat?

BostonB

I didn't think the location mattered.

check_six

BostonB wrote: »

I didn't think the location mattered.

What I mean is, you want to change a passive reflector into an active one by shining a light on it. Why not just use a light and forget the reflector?

BostonB

Lights are often very directional, that if you are at the wrong angle, relative to them, you can't see them. A Jacket is a bit more omni directional, so you could be seen from more angles. Also your wearing it anyway, why not illuminate it. I was thinking this in the Phoenix Park which can be pitch black, with no secondary light sources. Less of an issue in the city.

I think some bike lights have a rear facing window, so that light can be reflected back on the riders clothes. Some have a window on the side, etc.

DePurpereWolf

I often wonder about getting some side-lights too.
I've got front and back covered, but nothing on the side. There should be something you could clip on your frame that shines (not too bright) to the sides.
Yet to find it.

BostonB

http://cycleworldmiami.com/product/fiber-flare-side-lights-2684.htm
http://www.bikebrightz.com/

You see some that clip to the spokes.

http://www.mec.ca/AST/ShopMEC/Cycling/Lights/PRD~5019-682/nite-ize-spokelit-led-wheel-light.jsp#tab3

Del2005

You can buy high viz vests with flashing LEDs if you really want to.

At least it's still only advised for you. Stick an engine into the equation and by law you need to wear high viz when learning. Next they want full arm high viz for fully licensed bikers.

As said already, it doesn't matter if they don't bother looking.

rp

coolbeans wrote: »

It marks us out as the "other", different, odd in a negative way.

How about a hi-viz six pointed star armband, anyone?

Alkers

The effectiveness of HiVis (Motorcycle)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ODGEN-vG-g

HivemindXX

BostonB wrote: »

http://cycleworldmiami.com/product/fiber-flare-side-lights-2684.htm

These things are great. I was behind someone with one for a while and I ordered one online the next day. They are not as easy to get on and off the bike as the sort of clips Cateye and the like use though so I only tend to use it when I know I will be going long distances after dark.

As for adding a light to illuminate your own reflective patches, while a brilliant bit of lateral thinking, it won't work very well I think. The light is reflected back in the direction it came from not diffused in all directions. This is mostly why they are so effective when lit by car headlights, a portion of the cars own lights are reflected back directly at the car.

Try this out at home if you want, use your bike light and see how far off angle you can move before the reflective stuff stops being so visible. There's a certain amount of diffusion so the idea might work a bit and it certainly can't hurt if you want to set it up.

check_six

Isn't there some kind of high tech/super nerdy spoke light thing that spells words as it spins? I want that one. (Also, a hover bike!)

Malari

I don't wear a high-vis vest. You see so many people riding bikes with a rucksack completely covering the reflective part anyway. I have one of these:

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/respro-waterproof-hump-rucksack-cover/

to cover my rucksack, but it's grey, only shows up reflective.

And I have reflective armbands on my wrists for indicating, which I got at a rally. They even have little flashy lights on them.

Stark

Have said it here before but will say it again. If they really care about making other road users more visible, they'd insist on eye tests when renewing driving licenses. Not like it would cost that much.

BostonB

Del2005 wrote: »

...As said already, it doesn't matter if they don't bother looking.

let aim for those that do then?

Bluefoam

What am I supposed to be seeing here? I see no distinguishable differnce...

BostonB

HivemindXX wrote: »

...As for adding a light to illuminate your own reflective patches, while a brilliant bit of lateral thinking, it won't work very well I think. The light is reflected back in the direction it came from not diffused in all directions. ...

Ah, makes sense.

BostonB

One of these for the head?

http://preparedness.com/noname131.html

monument

Simona1986 wrote: »

The effectiveness of HiVis (Motorcycle)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ODGEN-vG-g

I mostly see the light.

Anyway, not much good if the driver of the car isn't looking and then you have other questions like will they chance it anyway or will they think it's ok to pull out because they have misjudged the speed of the bike or motorbike...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4

Rovi

check_six wrote: »

Isn't there some kind of high tech/super nerdy spoke light thing that spells words as it spins? I want that one. (Also, a hover bike!)

Yours for $2000: the Monkey Lectric Video Pro 7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT13ZcpwYtA

Alkers

monument wrote: »

I mostly see the light.

That is the point.

hardCopy

Serious visibility from all angles with these things: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/revolights/revolights-join-the-revolution

Or for cheaper side on lighting, get knock off knog frogs on dealextreme.

user1842

Its funny, I cycle to and from work and the majority of the 40 or so cyclists that I pass/pass me each day wear helmets and hi-vis vests. I dont wear a helmet or hi-vis vest but have very good lights on my bike.

All (and I mean all) of my fellow cyclists with all their protective gear break every red light. I am the only one on my route to actually obey the rules of the road.

I find it incredible that a person puts on a helmet and hi-vis clothing and does probably the most dangerous thing you can do on a road, breaking traffic lights.

How the hell is a helmet or vest going to protect you from a bus mangling you when you break a red light.

The guards need to urgently address this.