The importance of high visibility [with pictures]

thebullkf

jgreene83 wrote: »

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:

i actually think thats part of the problem.... they're not attractive apparel.

mcgratheoin

thebullkf wrote: »

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

your analagy is inappropriate and outlandish.

You're asking him to say that something which he clearly feels is unsafe is safer than something else which he clearly feels is also unsafe - can you not understand why he would not want to misrepresent his position by answering your false dichotomy?

CramCycle

Cycling at night, my opinions on why hi-vis is not good enough and why you need lights.

In the country side, if you do not have lights, you cannot see the road or obstacles as you come accross them, a car might see you with its high beams on. If it has its dips on due to oncoming traffic, it is no more likely to see you than if the cyclist was wearing anything else. The issue here is not wether the car can see you, it is that without decent lights you will not see anything and it is incredibly dangerous, also the only time your visibilty is greatly increased is with a car with hi beams on. If you had decent front and rear lights, you will have defeated the limited benefit of the hi vis (which is, judging by the quality on the average Dublin cyclist eg Matt silver not reflective strips, dirt covered reflective material, a yellow bib that is not actually hi vis at all, limited).

In the city, depends on the lighting in the area, generally dims are the only lights on, so it is relying on ambient light reflecting towards you, which may or may not happen, if the lights in the area are even bright enough. A decent rear light and front light again are the only suitable solution.

Hi vis is fine as an additive to decent lights but if you have decent lights, hi vis is unnecessary. if you do not have lights, then you shouldn't be on the road at night, anyone who disagrees is entitled too but ultimately wrong.

Jawgap

thebullkf wrote: »

i actually think thats part of the problem.... they're not attractive apparel.

not at all - one of my favourite cycling jackets is hi-viz.

but to come back to a point made another poster - if hi-viz is so useful, how come I can buy a black car?

Pinch Flat

thebullkf wrote: »

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

Simple solution - carry a spare. Most serious cyclists / commuters would.

buffalo

eringobragh wrote: »

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

They can both severely injure or kill you, yes.

thebullkf

Jawgap wrote: »

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

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

i dont think you know the meaning of those words. They are not the same thing. stop backtracking and admit you were wrojng- theres a good lad/lady


negligibly - so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant.

marginally - minor; not central.

pelevin

Jawgap wrote: »

That's why you put two on.

Implying if someone only puts one back light on they should have high-vis presumably.

On the other point of high-vis being ugly - I got a set of Lidl reflective . . . whatever u call them . . . arm & leg bands which include lights which are very minor affairs to use. Also have a slip-on vest thing which is also no small matter.

eringobragh

Jawgap wrote: »

n
but to come back to a point made another poster - if hi-viz is so useful, how come I can buy a black car?

the lights on your car are reflective even when they are off.

Jawgap wrote: »

not at all - one of my favourite cycling jackets is hi-viz.

OP here - it is useful in the fact that the cyclist that pulled across the malahide - I identified him instantly by the small reflective strip on this helmet - obviously lights are a must and a million times more effective.




a less observant driver and the non light/high-viz clad cyclist has to be unlucky only once

Jawgap

thebullkf wrote: »

i dont think you know the meaning of those words. They are not the same thing. stop backtracking and admit you were wrojng- theres a good lad/lady


negligibly - so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant.

marginally - minor; not central.

To be honest I was think more 'marginal' as in at the margin. I was using it in the risk management context.

The safety factor conferred by lights is 'x'

The safety factor conferred by lights and hi-viz is "x+m"

There is a marginal gain to be had from combining the two - the marginal gain is, to my mind negligible, in other words m is approximately equal to but not less than '0.'

....but you should feel free to apply whatever definition suits your own worldview.

thebullkf

mcgratheoin wrote: »

You're asking him to say that something which he clearly feels is unsafe is safer than something else which he clearly feels is also unsafe - can you not understand why he would not want to misrepresent his position by answering your false dichotomy?

really. wow.

Jawgap

pelevin wrote: »

Implying if someone only puts one back light on they should have high-vis presumably.

On the other point of high-vis being ugly - I got a set of Lidl reflective . . . whatever u call them . . . arm & leg bands which include lights which are very minor affairs to use. Also have a slip-on vest thing which is also no small matter.

Not really - plus it's unlikely that in my case I'd lose a light - one is clamped (as in held on using a secure bracket) on to the seat post.....this one



a second is integrated to the light on the helmet - so if it fell I'd no immediately.

three and four and clipped to the backpack and probably at the greatest risk of being lost without me knowing.

pelevin

I don't know Jawgap how much darkness you've experienced but where I am there's no way I could imagine high-vis being reasonably described as negligibly useful. Argument is weakened by that kind of bizarre extreme.

pelevin

Jawgap wrote: »

Not really - plus it's unlikely that in my case I'd lose a light - one is clamped (as in held on using a secure bracket) on to the seat post.....this one



a second is integrated to the light on the helmet - so if it fell I'd no immediately.

three and four and clipped to the backpack and probably at the greatest risk of being lost without me knowing.

In your case you seem very well lit. However my rseponse was to you you saying you have more than one light in case one failed. What you have described here again does still has the same implication - if someone only has in total one rear light it would make sense to have high vis as well.

Jawgap

pelevin wrote: »

I don't know Jawgap how much darkness you've experienced but where I am there's no way I could imagine high-vis being reasonably described as negligibly useful. Argument is weakened by that kind of bizarre extreme.

I cycle a mix of roads starting with rural country lane to busy country road, both of which are unlit to suburban and urban roads.

Out in the 'schtix' you want to make yourself as noticeable as possible from as far away as possible - hence the use of fairly powerful lights.

Jawgap

pelevin wrote: »

In your case you seem very well lit. However my rseponse was to you you saying you have more than one light in case one failed. What you have described here again does still has the same implication - if someone only has in total one rear light it would make sense to have high vis as well.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have hi-viz. I'm saying don't rely on it - don't trust that it makes you anything is except a tiny bit safer than you would be with out it.

If someone has only one light - I'd suggest getting a second one, regardless of whether they wear hi-viz or not.

Chips Lovell

pelevin wrote: »

...if someone only has in total one rear light it would make sense to have high vis as well.

I don't think riding with high-viz alone is advisable. Either bring a back-up light or have an option to get home by other means.

RayCun

Tenzor07 wrote: »

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.

You could make the same argument about lycra.
The more non-cyclists see people on bikes dressed like TdF-wannabes, the more they implicitly absorb the message that cycling is for fit sporty types (or the self-deluding;) )
Therefore, the more people wear lycra, the fewer people will take up cycling.
The fewer people there are cycling, the more dangerous it is for everyone.
Boards jerseys kill! :eek: :mad:

pelevin

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Simple solution - carry a spare. Most serious cyclists / commuters would.

Going round in circles now but in most cases they won't know their rear light has failed.

Anyway everyone is agreed however you do make sure you're well lit in poor light. And now class get out your Irish reader.

Pinch Flat

pelevin wrote: »

Going round in circles now but in most cases they won't know their rear light has failed.

Anyway everyone is agreed however you do make sure you're well lit in poor light. And now class get out your Irish reader.

Maybe it's just me, but I'll take a periodic check of my main light - it gives off such a red glow it's easy to work out. As I said, I also have a head-mounted 1/2 Watt LED. The chances of both failing are remote.

CramCycle

eringobragh wrote: »

the lights on your car are reflective even when they are off.

Would you drive home if your front lights failed in the middle of the night on the basis that they are reflective adn therefore "safer than nothing"? I certainly would not. Plenty in Dublin do, not sure about the rest of the country but the number of unlit cyclists and cars is staggering.

Tenzor07

RayCun wrote: »

You could make the same argument about lycra.
The more non-cyclists see people on bikes dressed like TdF-wannabes, the more they implicitly absorb the message that cycling is for fit sporty types (or the self-deluding;) )
Therefore, the more people wear lycra, the fewer people will take up cycling.
The fewer people there are cycling, the more dangerous it is for everyone.
Boards jerseys kill! :eek: :mad:

Funny! :rolleyes: But..You wouldn't no..

Lycra is normally worn by people out on training spins or leisure rides where it's a comfort/practicality thing. No need to go full lycra for a spin to the shops!

Jabel

Dinging wrote: »

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.

F**k off:D

Seriously though fair play!

bambergbike

Neither lights nor hi-viz are much good when sightlines are so restricted that drivers may suddenly encounter a cyclist at what is close to point-blank range. What matters then is that the driver is not distracted, is not travelling too fast and is generally cyclist-aware. As a cyclist, I like to think that I can protect myself with my gear and my road positioning - so far it worked out - but it is ultimately the people who benefit from travelling around in large vehicles putting (mainly!) the lives of others at risk (moral hazard) who bear responsibilities that can't be offloaded onto potential victims.

This is old and has been quoted here before, but I still think it's insightful and cogently argued, and there may be people who haven't come across it:

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/03/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-the-evidence-and-context/#more-1131

Hi-viz basically makes perfect sense on long, straight roads with good sightlines. Roads that are like railways, the context in which hi-viz was originally popularized. It makes sense for railway workers to try and be visible from far away, because train tracks have the sightlines that mean that it will actually work. It's less obvious that there is a safety benefit to cyclists or pedestrians being decked out in hi-viz or being lit up like Christmas trees in urban streets or on twisty rural laneways: where motorists don't have train-driver sightlines, they have to be able to handle encounters with cyclists more or less at point-blank range.

On lights:
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/17/do-bicycle-lights-make-any-difference-to-cyclist-safety/

I wouldn't dispute that lights are basically a good idea, and that hi-viz may also be a good idea. But I'd like to see the resources that have been ploughed into promoting hi-viz in recent years spent on tackling dangerous overtaking instead next year.

yammagamma

Pinch Flat wrote: »

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.

Flashing lights on a cycle are totally illegal if they dont flash at least 60 times per minute only place in road traffic law a slow flashing red light is allowed is a Automatic level crossing which is a question often asked on cpc courses and a driving test. ..
also these new white LED lights can be stronger then a dip beam on a car"which must be focussed" so please make sure they are focussed properly and not blinding oncomming vehicles as most do. the light should be pointing down and towards the left.

eringobragh

CramCycle wrote: »

Would you drive home if your front lights failed in the middle of the night on the basis that they are reflective adn therefore "safer than nothing"? I certainly would not. Plenty in Dublin do, not sure about the rest of the country but the number of unlit cyclists and cars is staggering.

I wouldn't and I also wouldn't cycle a bike with no lights either, its not a like for like arguement though.

Pinch Flat

yammagamma wrote: »

Flashing lights on a cycle are totally illegal. only place in road traffic law a flashing red light is allowed is a Automatic level crossing which is a question often asked on cpc courses and a driving test. flashing white lights are not allowed at all anywhere..
also these new white LED lights can be stronger then a dip beam on a car"which must be focussed" so please make sure they are focussed properly and not blinding oncomming vehicles as most do. the light should be pointing down and towards the left.

You need to brush up on your traffic law.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/vehicle_standards/lighting_of_bicycles_in_ireland.html

Flashing lights are legal since 2009 - there is a debate about which ones are more effective with getting drivers attention. I've had drivers pull out in front of me with a 250 lumen flashing / constant, so I'm of the opinion that the drivers who do this planely do not give a sh!t about my safety.

Chips Lovell

yammagamma wrote: »

Flashing lights on a cycle are totally illegal.

Law was changed in 2009 to make them legal.

Legal or not, I still don't like them. Especially high powered flashing front lights.

buffalo

RayCun wrote: »

You could make the same argument about lycra.

You could, but the RSA isn't spending time and public money telling everyone to wear lycra.

Pinch Flat

buffalo wrote: »

You could, but the RSA isn't spending time and public money telling everyone to wear lycra.

Oi, leave the lycra out of this.:pac: