The importance of high visibility [with pictures]

thebullkf

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

i get the impression that you think i think Hi Vis is the be all and end all... its not, but in addition to the above you mentioned makes it safer, particularly at night.

ignorant comment was not directed at you personally but rather that viewpoint, if that makes sense

pelevin

I'm not trying to weigh in for or against anyone but if someone's back lights fail whilst cycling, how likely are they to even know they've failed? - whatever about what they'll do if they do find out. Some extra element of high-vis does make sense if riding in outright darkness.

thebullkf

pelevin wrote: »

I'm not trying to weigh in for or against anyone but if someone's back lights fail whilst cycling, how likely are they to even know they've failed? - whatever about what they'll do if they do find out. Some extra element of high-vis does make sense if riding in outright darkness.

my point exactly... give yourself every chance.

MB Lacey

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

If you look at the OP's photos, the first thing you see in the first photo is the hi viz jacket of the cyclist who is furthest away.
You can't see the crap back light of the middle cyclist and you can't see the nearest cyclist at all.

Good lights are a must, and are are enough on their own, but I don't think it's factual to say that hi viz is useless.

Jawgap

mamax wrote: »

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

......decent lights (not the crappy ones the RSA give out) will trump hi-viz every time.

Running and walking may be more suited to the wearing of hi-viz because you can't carry the same luminosity of lights as you can on a bike.

Plus, lights are an investment - I rather not trust my safety to an item given out for free and supplied to a public body at lowest cost possible during a time of austerity.

thebullkf

mcgratheoin wrote: »

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.

felt comfortable with..??? its a simple question, not extreme... simple.

your analagy is inappropriate and outlandish.

Jawgap

pelevin wrote: »

I'm not trying to weigh in for or against anyone but if someone's back lights fail whilst cycling, how likely are they to even know they've failed? - whatever about what they'll do if they do find out. Some extra element of high-vis does make sense if riding in outright darkness.

That's why you put two on.

eringobragh

mamax wrote: »

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

I agree with this 100% - I've 2 lights on the rear of my bike (and one on the helmet) and 2 up front along with some hi viz bands cable tied to the bike but also wear hi-viz as well - the easier it is for someone to see reduces the likelihood of me getting a smack of a car.

buffalo

thebullkf wrote: »

my point exactly... give yourself every chance.

So you've painted your entire car/bike with hi-visibility chartreuse paint? And you wear elbow and knee pads at all times, and a helmet for going up and down the stairs?

Sure why wouldn't you - give yourself every chance.

Jawgap

MB Lacey wrote: »

If you look at the OP's photos, the first thing you see in the first photo is the hi viz jacket of the cyclist who is furthest away.
You can't see the crap back light of the middle cyclist and you can't see the nearest cyclist at all.

Good lights are a must, and are are enough on their own, but I don't think it's factual to say that hi viz is useless.

....because that's the only thing to see!

If there was someone along side with decent lights you'd see them way before you'd see the hi-viz.

wear it / don't wear it, but don't pretend it's a significant safety aid

eringobragh

buffalo wrote: »

So you've painted your entire car/bike with hi-visibility chartreuse paint? And you wear elbow and knee pads at all times, and a helmet for going up and down the stairs?

Sure why wouldn't you - give yourself every chance.

so falling down the stairs is equivalant to getting hit by a car or lorry?

Chips Lovell

MB Lacey wrote: »

Good lights are a must, and are are enough on their own, but I don't think it's factual to say that hi viz is useless.

In fairness, I don't think anyone's arguing that it's useless. To be precise, the argument is that good lights are far superior.

sebastianlieken

As a driver who is sympathetic towards cyclists ( I spent 3 years straight on a bike for commuting purposes ) I have a great appreciation for cyclists who use the flashy led lights on front and rear. The flashing white led on the front is impossible to miss and the fact that it is flashing is very attention grabbing.

Forgot to say: I do however find the red lights on the rear (flashy or otherwise) difficult to see in traffic where there are alot of red lights in front of you from other traffic - this is where I find hi-viz jackets do their part. the silver reflective line of the hi-viz jacket is usually the first thing I see when behind a cyclist.

thebullkf

buffalo wrote: »

So you've painted your entire car/bike with hi-visibility chartreuse paint? And you wear elbow and knee pads at all times, and a helmet for going up and down the stairs?

Sure why wouldn't you - give yourself every chance.

yawn. risk assessment before i undertake every task.

When mitigating risk whilst on a bike- hi vis helps.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

ford2600

Phoenix wrote: »

What lights would you recommend?

Moon shield 60 on rear is excellent.

Edit: Actually purchased on @Seweryn's recommendation

Diarmuid

Phoenix wrote: »

What lights would you recommend?

thats a whole other thread!

mamax

eringobragh wrote: »

the easier it is for someone to see reduces the likelihood of me getting a smack of a car.

That is my point exactly but you nailed it in one sentance.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

the argument is that good lights are far superior.

see above

thebullkf

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think anyone's arguing that it's useless. To be precise, the argument is that good lights are far superior.

eh... you did

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's unnecessary if you have good lights.

my question was

thebullkf wrote: »

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

your answer was

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.

Seweryn

Phoenix wrote: »

What lights would you recommend?

Moon Shield 60 for the rear (I have two, i.e. carry one fully charged as spare and would highly recommend it). For the front - I have the XP300 Moon (that would be the lowest spec. light I would go for), but there are a good few new models to chose from.
I use my set for about two years 10h per week and the lights are totally reliable.

Tenzor07

From what I have seen the RSA lights are cheapo's and not very bright..

I spent €130 on a bar mounted light and €85 on the rear light for road cycling, which while expensive are a great investment...

I took these paragraph's from an article I read on the whole debate:

First we have what you might call the cycling culture argument: the more non-cyclists see people on bikes dressed as if they were on a building site or directing airliners towards a runway, the more they implicitly absorb the message that cycling is inherently unsafe. It's not, and as cannot be pointed out too often long-term inactivity carries its own perils, less immediately obvious but statistically far more significant.

Aside from the much-reported correlation of more cyclists making cycling safer overall, the connotations of a high-vis culture arguably also make cycling less accessible. Riding a bike is, if not actual combat then certainly some kind of specialist pursuit, goes the unspoken message. Don't try it unless you're young, fit and fearless.

lennymc

Some interesting research on the use of hi viz by cyclists

Jawgap

From Perception of safety of cyclists in Dublin City. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2012)

The analysis has shown that the use of safety accessories (helmets,
high visibility/bright colored clothing and lights/reflective accessories) is not associated with an improvement in perception of safety among cyclists’ compared to driving in Dublin, but instead is shown to be associated with a decreased safety experience.

The presence of situations perceived by cyclists as potentially unsafe has led the cyclists to make use of such safety accessories, but has not helped them to overcome their fear of such situations. Therefore, making their use mandatory among cyclists may be of little or no benefit to the improvement of the perceived safety of cyclists which is required to promote cycling as a viable mode of transportation in Dublin.

In other words the RSA constantly bleating on about hi-viz makes cycling seem less safe than it actually is......

Chips Lovell

Phoenix wrote: »

What lights would you recommend?

I use a Moon X-Power 850 on the front and a Moon Shield 60 on the rear. There's a rake of other good lights on the market there, so check other threads on the forum.

jgreene83

The problem with Hi-Vis jackets are that they are static, so technically seeing a hi-vis jacket could be anything really i.e. pedestrian on the side of the road, hanging off construction materials sticking out the back of a trailer / van and so on.

What you're really referring to are Retro-Reflective strips which are actually build into a lot of cycling apparel. There's a couple of studies done in the UK and Australia that show that hi-vis has no impact on a cyclists probability of being involved in an accident. So really in terms of visibility there are two issues:

1) Cyclists not using appropriate lighting, as seen in the OPs original post, and
2) Cyclists not wearing suitable clothing with Retro-Reflective strips when cycling at night.

So the solution is to have two lights on the bike (as I do), wear appropriate clothing that is designed to maximise visibility (also do!) and keep a spare set of batteries handy!!

I never understand the push for cyclists to wear hi-vis, we're not cycling around building sites are we :rolleyes:

thebullkf

Jawgap wrote: »

....because that's the only thing to see!

If there was someone along side with decent lights you'd see them way before you'd see the hi-viz.

wear it / don't wear it, but don't pretend it's a significant safety aid

dont pretend its useless. or doesnt help. fook me - pedantic much :rolleyes:

Jawgap

lennymc wrote: »

Some interesting research on the use of hi viz by cyclists

Blonde wigs are better

Lights......

Hope District on the back along with a Smart LED, an Exposure RedEye and a Fiber Flare

Exposure SixPack on the front and a Diablo on the helmet.......

anybody seriously think a bit of hi-viz is going to make me more noticeable:D

thebullkf

Jawgap wrote: »

From Perception of safety of cyclists in Dublin City. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2012)



In other words the RSA constantly bleating on about hi-viz makes cycling seem less safe than it actually is......

eh ... not really- but has not helped them to overcome their fear of such situations

what about the perceptions of drivers..???? or pedestrians..?

As both (and a cyclist) my perception is that to be seen and to see is paramount to safety in addition to cycling properly etc etc

Jawgap

thebullkf wrote: »

dont pretend its useless. or doesnt help. fook me - pedantic much :rolleyes:

Saying it's not useful is not the same as saying it's useless.

I think I've conceded it is negligibly, marginally useful.

droidus

lennymc wrote: »

Some interesting research on the use of hi viz by cyclists

From that article:

"Dr Ian Walker said: “Many people have theories to say that cyclists can make themselves safer if they wear this or that. Our study suggests that, no matter what you wear, it will do nothing to prevent a small minority of people from getting dangerously close when they overtake you.

“This means the solution to stopping cyclists being hurt by overtaking vehicles has to lie outside the cyclist. We can’t make cycling safer by telling cyclists what they should wear. Rather, we should be creating safer spaces for cycling – perhaps by building high-quality separate cycle paths, by encouraging gentler roads with less stop-start traffic, or by making drivers more aware of how it feels to cycle on our roads and the consequences of impatient overtaking.”