The importance of high visibility [with pictures]

droidus

buffalo wrote: »

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

Although it would make for some memorable advertising if they did, and Gaybo modelled it himself.

Chips Lovell

buffalo wrote: »

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

Would be a better use of public money if they did.

buffalo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Would be a better use of public money if they did.

My impression of most of their cycling-related adverts are:

Always wear a helmet and hi-vis and lights if it's dark we guess. oh and motorists, watch out for cyclists in hi-vis.

mp31

Pinch Flat wrote: »

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.

What make/model is the 70 lumen flashing light that you use?

Lumen

Lengthy discussion about whether good lights + hi vis is significantly better than only good lights is utterly irrelevant in the context of the ninja army who don't or won't use good lights, as evidenced by the photos in the OP.

The RSA are trying to effect behaviour change. For whatever reason they don't think it's realistic to get the ninjas to fork out €50 or whatever in lights (+ ongoing battery costs, probably) so they hand out hi vis because it's cheap.

What really grinds my gears is when this half-arsed bureaucratic pragmatism becomes so deeply embedded in the public consciousness and "common sense" that gardai and judges are making findings against cyclists because they're not wearing hi vis, with no mention of the legal requirements for lights.

We therefore live in world where we have to consider cycling around looking like lollipop ladies despite having excellent lights in order to be protected by the justice system, which is an utterly f'd up situation.

CramCycle

eringobragh wrote: »

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

It is, both are dangerous, stupid and illegal, some people seem to think that hi-vis in some way negates the fact that not using lights is dangerous, stupid and illegal. It doesn't, it won't and nothing will change that. If you don't have lights, don't cycle at night, to do so, much like driving without lights at night, is dangerous, stupid and illegal.

I have nothing against hi vis personally, I have an issue with the belief that it is either a reasonable substitute or a substitute in an unexpected situation. I have a hi vis gilet that I wear when it is cold, it is functional as a piece of clothing, not as a replacement for lights. It may complement the lights in certain scenarios but it cannot and will not be a suitable substitute, if my lights fail, I have back ups, if they fail, I am legally and duty bound to GTFO my bike.

07Lapierre

thebullkf wrote: »

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

If your rear bicycle light fails, wearing a Hi-viz jacket would help yes. But continuing to cycle without a rear light and relying on a hi-viz jacket is crazy and IMO irresponsible (its also illegal but unfortunately not very well enforced). As a cyclist it is MY responsibility to ensure my own safety and not leave it up to other road users to look out for me. To go out at night and not carrying a spare rear light ( and batteries) is down right stupid.

07Lapierre

Can someone point out the third cyclist in this photo? I can't see him/her at all :eek:

seamus

"High-viz is better than nothing"

Seriously I want to scream every time I hear this.

High vis is worse than nothing, because at least if you have no lighting you may make the assumption that nobody can see you and cycle accordingly.

If you wear high-viz without lights, you will either consciously or subconsciously assume that you are partly visible and fail to take due care. High-viz doesn't illuminate you. Lights illuminate you. In the absence of a direct beam of light shining on you, a high-viz vest is no more visible than any other.

Can someone point out the third cyclist in this photo? I can't see him/her at all

I think he's hidden by the lens flare from the traffic light on the right.

ROK ON

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Would be a better use of public money if they did.

Certainly if more cyclists had similar attire to yourself this morning - easily the most visible cyclist I have witnessed in a long while - and not a jot of hi-viz.

What beggars belief about this debate is that a road user when worried about lack of visibility of another road user immediately thought hi-viz as opposed to a sensible set of lights.

When driving where I live there are often walkers/runners in the road.
Many of them have high viz - but as a driver I can only see this when I am nearly on top of them. I find this to be especially the case when another car is driving toward me.

Lights - I can see lights.

A few years ago my missus and I were driving to Killarney from Kenmare in the evening. We spotted the red flicking light of a cyclist cycling over Molls Gap when we were only half way up that road. He must have been 3 or 4 km away from us. I accept that this is an exception due to elevation and no blockages but it brought home a very important message as to the power of a small red bike light.

Pinch Flat

mp31 wrote: »

What make/model is the 70 lumen flashing light that you use?

I have two of these rear lights:
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/ie/en/lezyne-micro-drive-led-light-set-2014/rp-prod111710

And one of these helmet mounted:
http://www.wiggle.com/smart-12-watt-rear-light/

RayCun

High-vis (with reflective strips) is no substitute for a light, and isn't going to show you the road in front of you.
If you're on an unlit road, a flashing red light is going to be seen from miles away.
If there are other light sources around - maybe other red lights from the back of cars - the reflections from a high-vis can distinguish a cyclist from their surroundings. The cyclist in front is clearly visible in all four photos above

CheGuedara

seamus wrote: »

In the absence of a direct beam of light shining on you, a high-viz vest is no more visible than any other.

And furthermore, in the absence of UV light (i.e. daylight) high-vis loses is luridness and is no more visible than any other form of yellow.

Decent F&R lights complemented with largely retro-reflective garments (such as the Provis Flexi-vis) FTW when night cycling.

Darkglasses

07Lapierre wrote: »

Can someone point out the third cyclist in this photo? I can't see him/her at all :eek:

Just here I think

irlgw

There are so many people wearing high vis and lights these days that they just seem to blend into the background. Hi Vis in itself is nothing unless fitted with good reflective strips. I have recently noticed that even a well-lit bike can be hard to spot when silhouetted against oncoming traffic. Static lights do nothing, but flashing is much more effective and in fact I am going to fit strobes now. I would rather be alive than worry about offending the odd motorist. Also to note the bike lanes seem to have a created an imaginary force-field for unlit road users!

thebullkf

07Lapierre wrote: »

;88060825]so instead of answering my question you gave me an alternative answer :rolleyes: not surprised really.[/QUOte/]

If your rear bicycle light fails, wearing a Hi-viz jacket would help yes. But continuing to cycle without a rear light and relying on a hi-viz jacket is crazy and IMO irresponsible (its also illegal but unfortunately not very well enforced). As a cyclist it is MY responsibility to ensure my own safety and not leave it up to other road users to look out for me. To go out at night and not carrying a spare rear light ( and batteries) is down right stupid.

i am, unsure why you quoted my post

my point is that hi vis in additon to lights is better than lights alone, also if a rear light failed- at least you would have some form of visibility ( if you werent aware the rear light was out.

for people to say wearing hi vis is worse than no hi vis is dangerous and stupid and misinformed.

i am a cyclist, motorcyclist and motorist in addition to being a pedestrian.

Standard of driving in this country is deplorable, standard of cycling is similar, education , information is key. we had 2 motorcyclists killed recently in one day- doesnt matter what gear you have on sometimes.

This is not a car vs bike thread but rather one where safety is paramount, and for anybody, to say that wearing some sort of high visibility/scotchlite material in addition to safe driving habits is worse than not wearing said gear is fooking bonkers

have a safe and merry xmas

Chips Lovell

irlgw wrote: »

...in fact I am going to fit strobes now. I would rather be alive than worry about offending the odd motorist.

Please don't. It's not offending other road users, it's blinding them.

Lumen

Hi-vis makes everything safer.

For example, this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88059314&postcount=1025

"When I cycle on icy roads whilst giving my dog a piggy back, I always make her wear hi-vis. The standard of driving in this country is terrible, and anything I can do to keep my bitch safe is a good idea."

seamus

thebullkf wrote: »

my point is that hi vis in additon to lights is better than lights alone

[Citation Needed]

for people to say wearing hi vis is worse than no hi vis is dangerous and stupid and misinformed.

You appear to be the one incapable of providing any evidence whatsoever that high-vis works. There are numerous studies showing that at best high-vis makes no difference, and at worse places the cyclist in a riskier position.

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/10/31/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-sensible-precaution-or-victim-blaming/

In a 2012 paper, (Miller, P (2012) The use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and the risk of crashes involving other road users: a population based case-control study. Miller tried to analyse the actual effect on cyclist casualties of wearing or not wearing hi-vis. To the surprise of many, he found that there was no statistically significant benefit – in fact he measured a non-significant disbenefit, after controlling for all the factors he could. The study was a case-control study, and therefore very susceptible to confounding factors, especially as riders who choose to wear hi-viz are likely to be more risk-averse than those who don’t. This would tend to reduce the apparent risk of cycling wearing hi-viz as against not wearing it, but this wasn’t found.

Fully aware that there are more factors at play, I've yet to see one study which shows an improvement in safety when high-vis is worn.

ROK ON

In many threads on road safety the ability of the Irish motorist/road user is bandied about.
"Standard of driving in this country is deplorable" etc.

Just to point out that Ireland has among the lowest number of road fatalities per capital relative to the EU average.
Belgium, Italy, France, Germany and Spain have a considerably poorer level of road death.

Denmark, Holland, Sweden and the UK are marginally netter than Ireland in terms of road deaths per capita.

Source: EU Road Safety press Release. 19March 2013.

According to wikipedia (I know) Ireland is one of the safest counties to travel by road per vehicle compared to other countries.
Again the UK and Denmark are better.

07Lapierre

thebullkf wrote: »

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

They can be....

I wear this in Winter. It has "Reflex inserts for visibility".

I don't like these:(even if they are only €2!

eringobragh

07Lapierre wrote: »

Can someone point out the third cyclist in this photo? I can't see him/her at all :eek:

seamus wrote: »

I think he's hidden by the lens flare from the traffic light on the right.

Darkglasses wrote: »

Just here I think

Nope - he's actually where i've put the red arrow - only identificable by his wheel reflector and strip on this helmet.

cdaly_

MB Lacey wrote: »

I'd love a jacket made completely out of the hi viz strips

I saw somebody the other night out running wearing a jacket that seemed to be made of re-reflective material. Whole jacket glowed...

thebullkf

Seamus,

Citation needed..what's this, a courtroom??

What happens if for some reason you have an off, touch wood you never do, but assume you come off, bike in a ditch, unlit road.. cyclist unconcious. Are you honestly telling me its worse to be lying. in the middle of the road wearing black instead of a hivis, reflective
Clothing? Seriously?

seamus wrote: »

[Citation Needed]
You appear to be the one incapable of providing any evidence whatsoever that high-vis works. There are numerous studies showing that at best high-vis makes no difference, and at worse places the cyclist in a riskier position.

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/10/31/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-sensible-precaution-or-victim-blaming/


Fully aware that there are more factors at play, I've yet to see one study which shows an improvement in safety when high-vis is worn.

Dermot Illogical

The idea that hi viz material is an acceptable substitute for lights is ridiculous and ubiquitous. The opening post is a prime example of how it is now common for people to complain of cyclists not wearing hi viz material (which they aren't legally obliged to), while completely ignoring them not using lights (which they are legally obliged to). It's mad Ted.

I have 2 lights front, 2 on the back. One of the front lights is 250 lumens, one of the rear is 70 lumens. A quick glance down is enough to know they're still working. I have 2 spare lights in my rucksack.
If all three front or back fail me at one time I'll be quick to decide it's not my day and call for a lift or a taxi.
If anyone driving near me cannot see me when I'm lit up like a christmas tree then surely they're the problem? Am I invisible despite my lights until I don a yellow bib?
Can someone tell me what added benefit such a garment would bring when I have lights which can be seen from 1km away?

eringobragh

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

The idea that hi viz material is an acceptable substitute for lights is ridiculous and ubiquitous. The opening post is a prime example of how it is now common for people to complain of cyclists not wearing hi viz material (which they aren't legally obliged to), while completely ignoring them not using lights (which they are legally obliged to). It's mad Ted.

I have 2 lights front, 2 on the back. One of the front lights is 250 lumens, one of the rear is 70 lumens. A quick glance down is enough to know they're still working. I have 2 spare lights in my rucksack.
If all three front or back fail me at one time I'll be quick to decide it's not my day and call for a lift or a taxi.
If anyone driving near me cannot see me when I'm lit up like a christmas tree then surely they're the problem? Am I invisible despite my lights until I don a yellow bib?
Can someone tell me what added benefit such a garment would bring when I have lights which can be seen from 1km away?

Nobodies disputing hiviz as an alternative to lights, I'd prefer to look like a lollipop lady and arrive safely home to my family, but thats just me.

I think your reading too much into my original post - the fact of the matter was the bloke cycling dressed entirely in black with no visibility aids whatsoever is nothing short of a suicide mission.

as I said I run 5 lights and hi-viz to booth - the true issue is enforcement, what use is a law if its not to be enforced

Pinch Flat

With all that's gone before, there's some really sh!tty weather closing in country wide. Those on bikes - make sure you're visible, lit and cycle safety....going to be a rough one by the looks of it tonight.

Seweryn

Pinch Flat wrote: »

With all that's gone before, there's some really sh!tty weather closing in country wide. Those on bikes - make sure you're visible, lit and cycle safety....going to be a rough one by the looks of it tonight.

It's rough as hell out there. Will take me more than an hour to get home in that wind and rain.
Lights charged up, spare one in the bag, spare battery for the front. Be grand.

diomed

Many thanks to the OP for this thread. Pictures show the real situation.

I would like if Gardai stopped cyclists, held them at the scene until they had gathered a few dozen offenders, then brought them to the local Garda station in convoy, charged them, and sent them on their way minus their bicycles. The bicycles could be collected the following week after lights were fitted, and fines paid.
That sounds a bit extreme, but something similar happened to me abroad many years ago. My car was stopped. My motor tax was two weeks out of date. It was a very effective tactic.

Dermot Illogical

eringobragh wrote: »

Nobodies disputing hiviz as an alternative to lights, I'd prefer to look like a lollipop lady and arrive safely home to my family, but thats just me.

I think your reading too much into my original post - the fact of the matter was the bloke cycling dressed entirely in black with no visibility aids whatsoever is nothing short of a suicide mission.

as I said I run 5 lights and hi-viz to booth - the true issue is enforcement, what use is a law if its not to be enforced

Is it necessary to look like a lollipop lady though? Don't you have decent lights? That's the bit I have trouble with. What does the lollipop lady apparel bring to the party? Does it make you visible to drivers who are, for some reason, blind to lights? Does it transform someone who can clearly be seen into someone who can be seen even more? As in "I couldn't see his lights but thank the good lord he was wearing an RSA bib!"?

I fully agree with you on ninjas and lack of enforcement. A walk home with a Fine On The Spot in pocket is what's needed.