The importance of high visibility [with pictures]

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.

CramCycle

eringobragh wrote: »

Steady up there on your high horse Columbo

MOD VOICE: I have already posted about this, the next person to bring it up can take a break from the forum

thebullkf

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

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.

so instead of answering my question you gave me an alternative answer :rolleyes: not surprised really.

Chips Lovell

The answer to your question was no, I didn't think it was safer. I would never cycle at night with just high-viz.

thebullkf

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

sure arent we all depending on other people not hitting us, whilst actively avoiding them??

To say Hi Vis is neglible at best is just plain ignorant POV.

thebullkf

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The answer to your question was no, I didn't think it was safer. I would never cycle at night with just high-viz.

i didnt ask you if you would, and to say cycling in dark is not safer witth no hi vis than with high vis is just mind boggling.

Chips Lovell

I give up.

thebullkf

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I give up.

i would too if i tohught cycling in the dark was safer than cycling in the dark with a hi vis. :eek:

Jawgap

thebullkf wrote: »

sure arent we all depending on other people not hitting us, whilst actively avoiding them??

To say Hi Vis is neglible at best is just plain ignorant POV.

Thanks for that.

You can cycle defensively and reduce your chances of being hit considerably.

My attitudes to hi-viz have developed over a long number of years and many tens of thousands of kilometres of cycling. I just realised that hi-viz is a distraction in the whole safety discussion - good lights, common sense and defensive cycling are the key factors, imo, to safe and enjoyable cycling. Anything beyond that is just puffery.

The main function of hi-viz is to make the RSA and Guards feel that they are doing something about cyclist safety by handing it out.

mcgratheoin

thebullkf wrote: »

so instead of answering my question you gave me an alternative answer :rolleyes: not surprised really.

In fairness, you gave him question with prescribed answers, neither of which he felt comfortable with ( extreme example being - do you think it's better to hit your wife or to kick her?).

Think about the question if you substitute a car for a bike - picture one of those motorway maintenance vans with hi-vis rear doors. If you asked somebody about driving at night with no rear lights in one of those vans, would you complain if they said that they wouldn't, regardless of hi-vis or not. There's no reason to treat a bike any differently to a car or van in this case - if you don't have lights then don't cycle in the dark.

mamax

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

I have to disagree....
When Im driving hi-vis helps me see pedestrians and cyclists from a greater distance away in both day and night, I fail to see the logic when people say hi-vis is not worth wearing or does not work for the purpose it was intended, because it does, it's not a substitute for lights in those situations but it certainly makes people in public more visable day and night.
btw I run, cycle and drive, have been knocked off my bike too so been there and done all that, hi-vis gets my vote for both day and night use so thanks to the op for the pics