The importance of high visibility [with pictures]

eringobragh

got a shock this morning when a cyclist came out of no where onto the malahide road. I was a good few metres away , but had indicated to move from the buslane as I spotted the other cyclists further down than this guy, only spotted him by a thin strip on this helmet - dressed entirely in black - a different day, a different moment and there could be an empty seat at the table this christmas.

This is a pet peeve of mine and something I've npoticed more and more since the cheap bike to work scheme - for whats its worth you can order high vis running bibs, armbands, bag covers, bags etc from RSA, all completely free here:

http://rsa.pmms.ie/ProductDetails.aspx?Option=Group&OptionParameter=HIVIS

anyway rant over - if this post gets throught to one person then it was worth the time I took to write it. :cool:

Heres the stills below - there are 3 cyclists in each photo - take what you will from that!

It actually took me about 3 minutes to spot who you were talking about! Point proven really.

Idleater

I stopped at a set of lights directly heading west at sunset (it being perfect daylight, but the sun very low on the horizon) a month or two ago and a van pulled up beside me.
He wound down the window and said "fair play to you having your lights on, I could see you from the bottom of the road".

Anan1

I've had a few frights from unlit cyclists recently, almost always on well-lit roads close to the city centre.

biko

Tbh, this should probably go in the Cycling forum rather than the Driver forum.

eringobragh

biko wrote: »

Tbh, this should probably go in the Cycling forum rather than the Driver forum.

Fair point - I'll throw it up there.

biko

No need, I've moved this over (it's not usually ok to have the same thread in 2 forums).

eringobragh

biko wrote: »

No need, I've moved this over (it's not usually ok to have the same thread in 2 forums).

Ok cheers can you remove the other one I set up.

Chips Lovell

None of those cyclists appear to have any lights.

Oryx

Wow. That certainly makes the point. I went back to the first two pictures after seeing the cyclist in later ones, I still cant spot him. And he has no idea he is that invisible.

RobFowl

Was taking a series of photos while driving not at least as bad?

eringobragh

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

None of those cyclists appear to have any lights.

another point - but having some hiviz at the very least is half the battle.

droidus

Yep, none of them have lights. Forget high vis and get a air (or two pairs) of lights instead, and please, for the love of god, the white light goes at the front, the red at the back.

droidus

eringobragh wrote: »

another point - but having some hiviz at the very least is half the battle.

Lights are legally required, high vis is not. Cycling with high vis and no lights is like climbing a mountain naked with a helmet on in case you fall.

Oafley Jones

RobFowl wrote: »

Was taking a series of photos while driving not at least as bad?

It's obviously a dash cam.

Tenzor07

You were doing 50kph in the bus lane?

eringobragh

RobFowl wrote: »

Was taking a series of photos while driving not at least as bad?

:rolleyes: good effort

Junior

Oafley Jones wrote: »

It's obviously a dash cam.

And that makes it better how ?

Oafley Jones

Junior wrote: »

And that makes it better how ?

Seriously?

Seweryn

Good lights would make all the difference. I can't understand lads cycling with no lights, passed one of those Ninjas early this morning...

detones

See this all time unfortunately cycling home from work. First impression are some people are just morons but I believe there are certain cyclists who have no comprehension of needing to use lights and high viz. Its just not on their radar. They may in their eyes just be using the bike for a 5 minute ride to work and think they'll be fine.

Those headlights look familiar MR2?

eringobragh

droidus wrote: »

Lights are legally required, high vis is not. Cycling with high vis and no lights is like climbing a mountain naked with a helmet on in case you fall.

I couldn't care less what the law states as long as the person is easily seen, that'll do for me - but lights are so cheap now theres no reason not to use them.

Junior wrote: »

And that makes it better how ?

I assume the last lad was going on the notion that I was using a device while driving - for what its worth I downloaded these stills later

ragazzo

droidus wrote: »

Yep, none of them have lights. Forget high vis and get a air (or two pairs) of lights instead, and please, for the love of god, the white light goes at the front, the red at the back.

The first two cyclists have rear lights of the required colour, ie red.
Maybe you should take a closer look.

The third guy should fit one asap.

eringobragh

detones wrote: »

Those headlights look familiar MR2?

top of the class

Stollaire

Tenzor07 wrote: »

You were doing 50kph in the bus lane?

Appears so!

RobFowl

Oafley Jones wrote: »

It's obviously a dash cam.

Yep and the point still applies.....

Oryx

RobFowl wrote: »

Yep and the point still applies.....

How? A dash cam usually records on a loop doesnt it?

Jawgap

i think it only illustrates the value of a decent set of lights and idiocy of some people on bikes.

The hi-viz is a bit of red herring - it wouldn't stop him pulling silly turns on to main roads.

Oafley Jones

Oryx wrote: »

How? A dash cam usually records on a loop doesnt it?

You'd swear he thinks it's like a gun camera. Still, fascinating reactions from some people.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Dash cams are not the point of this thread, AFAIK, they generally require no interaction form the driver, and those that do only require you to hit a button within a set time after the incident to save the last bit of data. Any issues please PM me, do not discuss in thread.

Diarmuid

RobFowl wrote: »

Yep and the point still applies.....

EDIT: CramCycle beat me to it

Tenzor07

On the general subject, bicycle lights should of course be mandatory, like in Europe with on the spot fines handed out.. The Dutch have a €45 fine, though its been law since 1905 when they used candles!

Though in this case OP you didn't really help yourself either, I presume you started off from the lights at the junction in the left lane, perhaps to get around another car stopped in the non-bus lane side? Accelerated in a v short distance in the bus lane right up to 40kph, and continue in the bus lane, one second you are at 49kph, spot the bike ninja, slow to 40kph for split second before you accelerate back up to the 50kph speed limit(and over it?)

That's my reading of the situation?

Pinch Flat

Hi-vis alone is useless in the dark - the reflective strips (and the quality of them)are what can be seen when lights are reflected on them. Hi-vis is not legally required and if anything acts as a secondary means of visibility.

The only thing that works is a fully functioning set of (quality) lights. Not €3.99 ones from Halfords with the batteries half dead.

For me, at a minimum, 2 x 70 Lumen flashing at the rear, supplemented by a 1/2 Watt LED on the rear of my helmet.

CramCycle

Tenzor07 wrote: »

.... That's my reading of the situation?

MOD VOICE: The drivers driving in this situation is irrelevant to the thread, while I don't know the junction or the situation before the photos, he may have had a reason, he may not have for what does not look like good driving. Either way, the OP has nothing to do with this and bringing his driving up is just derailing the thread, the issue is the visibility of the cyclist in this thread, nothing else.

droidus

ragazzo wrote: »

The first two cyclists have rear lights of the required colour, ie red.
Maybe you should take a closer look.

Yeah, Im referring to the amount of people I see who have their lights on the wrong way around.

Chips Lovell

eringobragh wrote: »

another point - but having some hiviz at the very least is half the battle.

It isn't, and there are far too many cyclists who seem to think so.

Lights are legally mandatory. A decent set of lights will make a cyclist visible, whereas high-viz has only a limited utility.

MB Lacey

Those strips on hi viz jackets in most cases are way more visible than crap running out of battery lights.
I'd love a jacket made completely out of the hi viz strips

eringobragh

Tenzor07 wrote: »

On the general subject, bicycle lights should of course be mandatory, like in Europe with on the spot fines handed out.. The Dutch have a €45 fine, though its been law since 1905 when they used candles!

Though in this case OP you didn't really help yourself, I presume you started off from the lights at the junction in the left lane, perhaps to get around another car stopped in the non-bus lane side? Accelerated in a v short distance in the bus lane right up to 40kph, and continue in the bus lane, one second you are at 49kph, spot the bike ninja, slow to 40kph for split second before you accelerate back up to the speed limit(and over it?)

That's my reading of the situation?

Steady up there on your high horse Columbo

as its before 7am I'm entitled to use the bus lane in question regardless - infact only reason I left the bus lane was to give the cyclists there 1.5 metres of space before reentering it once past them

Also start the speedo isn't realtime its GPS based so its rough indication of what I was travelling - if I brake from 100k to 0k it may take a second or 2 to register.

Hunterbiker

That is scary. Took ages to see number 3. The other 2 need better lights too. Cycling in that time they really should know better

aujopimur

I asked one of the club types all dressed in black how much the bike and all the gear cost, he replied €3000, he looked at me sheepishly when I asked him why he didn't spend another €20 on some lights and a high vis vest.
PS I cycle as well.

thebullkf

Jawgap wrote: »

i think it only illustrates the value of a decent set of lights and idiocy of some people on bikes.

The hi-viz is a bit of red herring - it wouldn't stop him pulling silly turns on to main roads.

sure isnt that the point of the thread....

don't think red herring means what you think it means either. tbh.

what do you mean the hi vis is a red herring?

thebullkf

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It isn't, and there are far too many cyclists who seem to think so.

Lights are legally mandatory. A decent set of lights will make a cyclist visible, whereas high-viz has only a limited utility.

but both together is surely better than neither!!! dont understand the opposition to Hi Vis..

Chips Lovell

thebullkf wrote: »

but both together is surely better than neither!!! dont understand the opposition to Hi Vis..

It's unnecessary if you have good lights.

thebullkf

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's unnecessary if you have good lights.

total BS. both are better than neither simple fact. particularly outside urban areas.

and if your back light fails ..... on your way home...

Dinging

I cycle every week day from Kilmainham to Stillorgan and most days I will see a cyclist or two with no lights. Usually depending on how bg they are I will cycle up beside them and say "Do you know what you need?" in a friendly way as possible "You need some lights". I did this to a guy twice in one week on the Clonskeagh road and it worked saw him again with 2 lights on his bike flashing away and I felt very proud of myself. I have been told to "f**k off a couple of times but you can't let that bother you:). Most cyclists will look at you sheepishly and say yes I'm going to get them or some other excuse. It would be great for us well lit up cyclists to remind our fellow cyclists of the importance of getting some lights.

Chips Lovell

thebullkf wrote: »

total BS. both are better than neither simple fact. particularly outside urban areas.

You're falling victim to the assumption that if a safety measure exists, then it is logical to take it. Follow that logic and everyone would be a fool not to cycle around in body armour.

Or why not paint your car in high viz then? Surely lights + high-viz is better than just lights.

thebullkf

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You're falling victim to the assumption that if a safety measure exists, then it is logical to take it. Follow that logic and everyone would be a fool not to cycle around in body armour.

Or why not paint your car in high viz then? Surely lights + high-viz is better than just lights.

look i'm not here to argue with you. simple fact remains most reasonable peole would do their best to be identifiable whilst out in the dark . Hi Vis enables this from a distance. your analogy doesnt make sense.

it seems if its not a legal requirement you dont need it, in your eyes. ?

Hi Vis + Lights > just lights. simple really.

thebullkf

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You're falling victim to the assumption that if a safety measure exists, then it is logical to take it. Follow that logic and everyone would be a fool not to cycle around in body armour.

Or why not paint your car in high viz then? Surely lights + high-viz is better than just lights.

you didn't answer my question... if your back light fails, do you think its safer to have hi vis , or not ?

ford2600

Lights are legally required. I use two each front and back in case of failure.

Hi vis is not legally required and it's benefit is overstated.

All traffic is required to be able to stop within the sight distance available to it. That is another legal requirement. You hit an unlit, dark clothed cyclist/pedestrian/car you are to some degree liable.

Jawgap

thebullkf wrote: »

sure isnt that the point of the thread....

don't think red herring means what you think it means either. tbh.

what do you mean the hi vis is a red herring?

thebullkf wrote: »

but both together is surely better than neither!!! dont understand the opposition to Hi Vis..

Hi-viz is completely passive - you are relying on the 'other' person having good lights and spotting you.

Lights are active - you can set them up any way you want to draw attention to yourself - in other words they give you more control (and responsibility) over your own safety.

Hi-viz is a negligible improvement at best, but the point is this thread started with declaration about the importance of hi-viz, then posted up several pics of a cyclist with no lights!!

The 'problem' I have with hi-viz is the way it is pushed by the RSA and the Guards, as if wearing it will render you somehow immune to being hit.

Personally I'd prefer if the RSA didn't 'stock' hi-viz for cyclists but bought a load of really good lights and sold them to cyclists at cost - although the bike shops might have an issue with that.

Chips Lovell

I'm not sure if you're getting the logic of your argument.

Anyhow, if my lights failed I wouldn't be relying on high viz to get me home. I'd be calling for a lift.

I have back-up front and rear lights for such an eventuality.