Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Iwannahurl

MOD VOICE: So as not to take up room on the helmet thread I have taken out the last few pages of hi vis related material and put it together here. All material or threads relating specifically to hi vis will be moved in here or locked if it repeats what is already said in here. There are a few off topic posts but from now on if we could keep the discussion to Hi Vis, and related topics.

Cram

Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar was interviewed by Sean O'Rourke on RTE Radio 1 this morning.

Questions were submitted by listeners, and someone asked whether hi-viz and helmets were to be made mandatory for cyclists.

The Minister's response (paraphrased) was "hi-viz possibly, but the evidence is not great that helmets have a big impact on road safety."

I have mixed views on that response. The situation with helmets has been well rehearsed in this thread -- evidence of modest benefit versus anti-cycling effect of mandatory laws -- but it's odd that the Minister might consider making hi-viz mandatory given that there is no evidence (to date) that it reduces casualties.

Lumen

I think 'possibly' is politician-speak for 'no'.

CramCycle

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The Minister's response (paraphrased) was "hi-viz possibly, but the evidence is not great that helmets have a big impact on road safety."

I am pretty sure Leos views on this came up before on either Newstalk or The Last Word. He kept pointing out that there was no evidence and that to force such legislation would be pointless. The presenters started lambasting him about it but fair play he stuck to his guns on it and its rare I would give a modern politician kudos. I think it ended with the presenter calling him wreckless and having a pro helmet speaker on the next day.

Chips Lovell

If they ever were to seriously entertain the notion of making high-viz mandatory, aside from the issue of its efficacy, you'd have to question the wisdom of imposing new regulations on visibility when the existing ones are so poorly enforced. There's a massive amount of people riding at night with no lights. And an even bigger number with lights that are so poor they're essentially useless.

The whole hysteria about high viz has a generation of well meaning but gormless individuals riding around decked out greens and yellows but with lights that would barely illuminate a broom cupboard.

CramCycle

CramCycle wrote: »

I am pretty sure Leos views on this came up before on either Newstalk or The Last Word. He kept pointing out that there was no evidence and that to force such legislation would be pointless. The presenters started lambasting him about it but fair play he stuck to his guns on it and its rare I would give a modern politician kudos. I think it ended with the presenter calling him wreckless and having a pro helmet speaker on the next day.

I'm always touched by how many non-cyclists care so passionately about our safety!

That is what's going on - right?

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm always touched by how many non-cyclists care so passionately about our safety!

That is what's going on - right?

Memory is hazy but one did cycle, one made comment to the fact that he sees cyclists on his commute by car/taxi and I remember nothing of the other.

RayCun

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If they ever were to seriously entertain the notion of making high-viz mandatory, aside from the issue of its efficacy, you'd have to question the wisdom of imposing new regulations on visibility when the existing ones are so poorly enforced. There's a massive amount of people riding at night with no lights. And an even bigger number with lights that are so poor they're essentially useless.

and the amount of cars driving around with one working headlight...:rolleyes:

(not whataboutery, just agreeing - enforce the existing laws first)

Jawgap

"hi-viz possibly"

A very brave decision, Minister - very courageous.........

In fairness to Leo, he's a known triathlete. I'm sure that'd entail a fair bit of cycling experience.

CramCycle

RayCun wrote: »

and the amount of cars driving around with one working headlight...:rolleyes:

(not whataboutery, just agreeing - enforce the existing laws first)

My brother got done for this, he passed the NCT the day before so obviously just happened. He is the only person I know to be done and accepts that it was deserved. That said I see cars getting waved through (rare as they are) checkpoints on the N11 after their tax/insurance is OK with parking lights only on, or missing one headlamp. It is infuriating, or the old lady with no lights on as she pulled out to both block a cycle lane/yellow box and therefore blocking all traffic all at once this morning.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

I am pretty sure Leos views on this came up before on either Newstalk or The Last Word. He kept pointing out that there was no evidence and that to force such legislation would be pointless. The presenters started lambasting him about it but fair play he stuck to his guns on it and its rare I would give a modern politician kudos. I think it ended with the presenter calling him wreckless and having a pro helmet speaker on the next day.

Sounds like Matt Cooper. He's evangelical on the subject, and in the past has responded to an interview with someone infused with insufficient zeal by having a pro-helmet person on the next day, unchallenged.

tomasrojo

Just on the subject of hi-viz, I thought this was quite interesting, even though the safety film under discussion is just a student exercise:
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/think/

The left-hand side shows Unsafe Reality, and the right-hand side shows Safe Reality


There isn't much difference, but the hi-viz wearer on the right is supposed to be more visible.

Interestingly, the film-makers chose the worst scenario in which to place hi-viz. A dark rural road with the cyclist approaching the motorist from the right means that reflectors have no chance to shine, since they have no incident light, and fluorescent materials don't fluoresce at night.

Let’s return to that issue of the front light. Curiously, one of the students who made the video commented below it that “filming the bike head on with a front light obscured the bike and rider, distracting from the other messages of having a rear light, helmet and reflective clothing“. Astonishingly, the front light was omitted precisely because of its visibility: as if a bright light moving along the road is somehow completely unrelated to the likelihood that there is a person somewhere close behind it.

This is quite a prevalent attitude, to the extent that I've noticed people be more put out by a night-time cyclist with lights than a night-time cyclist without lights simply because the latter had hi-viz and helmet and the former did not. It's tokenism in place of thought.

Iwannahurl

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If they ever were to seriously entertain the notion of making high-viz mandatory, aside from the issue of its efficacy, you'd have to question the wisdom of imposing new regulations on visibility when the existing ones are so poorly enforced. There's a massive amount of people riding at night with no lights. And an even bigger number with lights that are so poor they're essentially useless.

The whole hysteria about high viz has a generation of well meaning but gormless individuals riding around decked out greens and yellows but with lights that would barely illuminate a broom cupboard.

While in Melbourne for a few months in 2012 I was struck by the very high compliance with mandatory helmet laws. On the other hand, since I had preconceived notions about Australian roads policing, I was amazed by the number of cyclists at night time who were dutifully helmeted but had no lights front or back. It seemed to be very common.

There's nowt as queer as folk...

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

Sounds like Matt Cooper. He's evangelical on the subject, and in the past has responded to an interview with someone infused with insufficient zeal by having a pro-helmet person on the next day, unchallenged.

Did that happen after Andrew Montague and me were on?

I recall him being stunned by the two of us questioning the effectiveness of helmets but did not hear the show the day after (busy with the paper and bike week).

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

Did that happen after Andrew Montague and me were on?

I recall him being stunned by the two of us questioning the effectiveness of helmets but did not hear the show the day after (busy with the paper and bike week).

No, before that: 2009.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055699243

(He might well have done the same after you and Andrew though!)

No Pants

Just reading about this potential mandatory high-vis this morning and I'm wondering if it's going to be enforced on kids with bikes.

Maybe if we painted everything in high-vis colours there'd be no more accidents ever.

Beasty

It's extremely unlikely to be enforced on anyone - read the last few posts - the chances of this being introduced are remote, to say the least

No Pants

Beasty wrote: »

It's extremely unlikely to be enforced on anyone - read the last few posts - the chances of this being introduced are remote, to say the least

Thankfully Varadkar appears to be quite practical about the whole thing. I was worried for a moment because hi-vis would simply not go with any of my existing gear.

loyatemu

half the cars on the road are metallic grey, not particularly visible in our generally grey misty weather. Mandatory luminous yellow paint for all cars would undoubtedly improve road safety and should be seriously considered in the light of last years increase in road deaths.

Similarly there is a high incidence of accidents involving poorly lit pedestrians on country roads. If all pedestrians (i.e. any human being on or near a public road) wore hi-viz jackets at all times, they would be a lot safer.

RainyDay

loyatemu wrote: »

half the cars on the road are metallic grey, not particularly visible in our generally grey misty weather. Mandatory luminous yellow paint for all cars would undoubtedly improve road safety and should be seriously considered in the light of last years increase in road deaths.

Similarly there is a high incidence of accidents involving poorly lit pedestrians on country roads. If all pedestrians (i.e. any human being on or near a public road) wore hi-viz jackets at all times, they would be a lot safer.

Is there any evidence to support either of these contentions, or is it just your personal opinion?

Lumen

RainyDay wrote: »

Is there any evidence to support either of these contentions, or is it just your personal opinion?

I once crashed into the side of a beige Volvo in foggy conditions.

Is that evidence?

Iwannahurl

I don't think much evidence is needed to confirm that hi-viz is highly visible, relatively speaking. Mind you, I'm open to correction on that point.

The key question, however, is whether the wearing of hi-viz alters human behaviour in a manner that reduces death and injury on our roads.

As far as I know there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.

CramCycle

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As far as I know there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.

I don't know about that, every time I wear Hi Vis I feel like I have died a little inside.

Dermot Illogical

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I don't think much evidence is needed to confirm that hi-viz is highly visible, relatively speaking. Mind you, I'm open to correction on that point.

I was driving on a poorly lit road with steady traffic flow last month. It was dark, and wet. About 400-500m ahead I could see a cyclist in among the oncoming traffic. He had an excellent front light, set to flash. Even among the sea of oncoming headlights I could easily make him out. As I passed I noticed he was wearing a "hi-viz" placebo. I only noticed it at the last minute. He had a very bright rear light as well. In my mirrors I could see the rear light, but not the jacket.
Relatively speaking his "hi-viz" was not highly visible.

No Pants

RainyDay wrote: »

Is there any evidence to support either of these contentions, or is it just your personal opinion?

There are a lot of cars that are black, brown, dark grey, light grey and silver. Some of them aren't easy to see in certain situations. This can easily be overcome if they use lights. Similar to cyclists, which is a point that was made earlier.

The rest of the post I suspect is, similar to my own post about painting everything in high-vis, tongue-in-cheek.

not yet

No Pants wrote: »

Thankfully Varadkar appears to be quite practical about the whole thing. I was worried for a moment because hi-vis would simply not go with any of my existing gear.

Ha Ha..

Iwannahurl

Overheard today.

Pensioner has just told a Community Garda that he is still cycling but that he gets a bit nervous at times because of intimidating traffic conditions.

Garda: "just wear your hi-viz at all times. If anything happens then you're not at fault."

tomasrojo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Overheard today.

Pensioner has just told a Community Garda that he is still cycling but that he gets a bit nervous at times because of intimidating traffic conditions.

Garda: "just wear your hi-viz at all times. If anything happens then you're not at fault."

Seems to be stock Garda response now.

BSNYC featured this:
http://vimeo.com/84694389

based on this:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/11/13/nypd-pedestrian-safety-tips-use-a-flashlight-if-you-walk-at-night/


To be fair, the NYPD advice to pedestrians didn't mention helmets. Or flashing lights. But, parody.

Or perhaps not even much parody:

(Image courtesy of the Campaign for Global Road Safety)

No Pants

Heard something on the radio the other morning about the RSA handing out high-vis vests to schoolkids. It'll be like a mandatory uniform for everyone who isn't in a car soon.

AstraMonti

They should give out bubblewrap as well, in case they fall down while walking :rolleyes:

buffalo

No Pants wrote: »

Heard something on the radio the other morning about the RSA handing out high-vis vests to schoolkids. It'll be like a mandatory uniform for everyone who isn't in a car soon.

Can't embed vimeo, ugh.

http://vimeo.com/84694389

edit: oh, never mind. I see tomasrojo linked to it above.

Iwannahurl

It's unrelenting.

There's another campaign under way in the West advising pedestrians to "make themselves safer". Hi-viz is inevitably part of the mix. No mention of traffic law enforcement, or chronic lack of same.

AGS apparently believes that cyclists and pedestrians have a "social responsibility" to ensure their own safety by making themselves "visible to traffic".

That's asking a lot of my Sam Browne. Still, it could be worse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAy4Bxo6FTg

Postscript: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/pedpolicy_pedcrossingflags.htm


.

Iwannahurl

No Pants wrote: »

Heard something on the radio the other morning about the RSA handing out high-vis vests to schoolkids. It'll be like a mandatory uniform for everyone who isn't in a car soon.

It's also turning children into high-visibility mobile PR installations: http://www.electricireland.ie/ei/residential-gas/supporting-the-community/RSA.jsp

Seweryn

Iwannahurl wrote: »

AGS apparently believes that cyclists and pedestrians have a "social responsibility" to ensure their own safety by making themselves "visible to traffic".

Visible to what traffic? What are cyclists, are they not traffic? Are they street furniture or something?

I don't get this

"cyclists



and traffic".

buffalo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Still, it could be worse:

Holy ****. That video is ****ing insane.

the.red.baron

It's weird how we don't see hoards of dead or injured ninja cyclists lining the roads of ireland. Or just people wearing high viz with no lights.

mirrormatrix

the.red.baron wrote: »

Or just people wearing high viz with no lights.

i've actually seen a lot of cyclists adopt this approach

tomasrojo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's unrelenting.

There's another campaign under way in the West advising pedestrians to "make themselves safer". Hi-viz is inevitably part of the mix. No mention of traffic law enforcement, or chronic lack of same.

To be fair, I can't see a mention of hi-viz there. The advice to walk towards oncoming traffic is probably wrong as you approach a blind bend though.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

AGS apparently believes that cyclists and pedestrians have a "social responsibility" to ensure their own safety by making themselves "visible to traffic".

That's farcical. Let's be world-leaders in shifting the burden of responsibility to the vulnerable party. Go us.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Still, it could be worse:

Came across the Kirkland business before.

Here are their FAQs. Fascinating!

http://www.kirklandwa.gov/depart/Public_Works/Transportation___Streets/Pedestrian_Flags_-_FAQs.htm

No Pants

bedirect wrote: »

I think most drivers see cyclists

Yay, that's good news.

the.red.baron

mirrormatrix wrote: »

i've actually seen a lot of cyclists adopt this approach

Yes tonnes of people in non high viz, in high viz, in lycra, in casual clothing all with no lights.

Seems dangerous, right, but I don't see anyone being knocked down.

Chips Lovell

the.red.baron wrote: »

I don't see anyone being knocked down.

That's nice.

the.red.baron

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's nice.

it is nice

Kav0777

the.red.baron wrote: »

Yes tonnes of people in non high viz, in high viz, in lycra, in casual clothing all with no lights.

Seems dangerous, right, but I don't see anyone being knocked down.

Maybe you'd see them if they had lights....

Iwannahurl

tomasrojo wrote: »

To be fair, I can't see a mention of hi-viz there. The advice to walk towards oncoming traffic is probably wrong as you approach a blind bend though.

It was mentioned in the local radio report, but not on their website. I can't find anything on the Garda website.

buffalo wrote: »

Holy ****. That video is ****ing insane.

Nuts, isn't it? The evaluation showed they were wasting everyone's time (except for motorists'), which should have been no surprise imo. I'm inclined to trot out the old "only in America" cliche, but I'm afraid that when it comes to hivisteria and helmetophilia this country can hold its own.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

the.red.baron wrote: »

Yes tonnes of people in non high viz, in high viz, in lycra, in casual clothing all with no lights.

Seems dangerous, right, but I don't see anyone being knocked down.

What are you talking about? You don't witness an accident so it must not have happened? How illogical is that?

This morning on my way to work I was hit by a car, as she overtook me with oncoming traffic while I was overtaking a stationary bike (man putting his daughter on the child seat). She didn't have room for the maneuver but continued on anyway. The lady continued driving because she was in shock, I caught up with her and asked her WTF was she doing. Her response said it all "I didn't think ...bla bla bla". She didn't even know what to do in an accident. The traffic started moving again and she moved off.

Every day there are incidents on the trip to work. Some of the stuff you witness is mental.

Cars actually swerving for cyclists like lunatics. A go pro is a fantastic investment.

Helmets, high viz gear and lights are essential. It's idiotic to venture out without.



Expensive lights and high viz clothing (gloves, bib & coat) couldn't prevent stupid people doing stupid things.

Iwannahurl

Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »

What are you talking about? You don't witness an accident so it must not have happened? How illogical is that?

This morning on my way to work I was hit by a car, as she overtook me with oncoming traffic while I was overtaking a stationary bike (man putting his daughter on the child seat). She didn't have room for the maneuver but continued on anyway. The lady continued driving because she was in shock, I caught up with her and asked her WTF was she doing. Her response said it all "I didn't think ...bla bla bla". She didn't even know what to do in an accident. The traffic started moving again and she moved off.

Every day there are incidents on the trip to work.

...

Helmets, high viz gear and lights are essential. It's idiotic to venture out without.


Expensive lights and high viz clothing (gloves, bib & coat) couldn't prevent stupid people doing stupid things.

Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you saying hi-viz is essential or that it can't in fact "prevent stupid people doing stupid things"?

Were you wearing hi-viz when that motorist nearly hit you? Do you wear hi-viz every day on the trip to work?

If so, what difference is the hi-viz making in practical terms? Genuine question, by the way, not merely rhetorical.

buffalo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Nuts, isn't it? The evaluation showed they were wasting everyone's time (except for motorists'), which should have been no surprise imo. I'm inclined to trot out the old "only in America" cliche, but I'm afraid that when it comes to hivisteria and helmetophilia this country can hold its own.

I'm going to use it as a facetious counter-example the next time someone tells me I should always wear hi-viz so as to have every chance of being seen.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you saying hi-viz is essential or that it can't in fact "prevent stupid people doing stupid things"?

Being highly visible is a good thing, it will help other road users see you.

It won't protect you from gobshítes who don't give a damn and terrible drivers.

Were you wearing hi-viz when that motorist nearly hit you? Do you wear hi-viz every day on the trip to work?

Yup, sure was. I wear it every day. She seen me. She just hasn't a clue on how to use the road. Oh and there was no nearly in my sentence. She did hit me, just didn't knock me off the bike.

If so, what difference is the hi-viz making in practical terms? Genuine question, by the way, not merely rhetorical.

If you don't wear high viz, or use GOOD lights on your bike it makes you harder to be seen. By all means, wear what you like, but it's definitely easier to see somebody wearing lights/high viz than those who chose not to wear it.

RainyDay

bedirect wrote: »

I think most drivers see cyclists

I see dead cyclists.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just in case there is any confusion.

Bicycle helmets are only designed to protect a cyclist falling off a bike up to about 20-30Kmph.

They are not designed to offer significant protection for a collision with a motor vehicle at 50Kmph+ , for that you'd need something much stronger like a motorbike helmet.


High levels of high Viz, means motorists may be come lazy because they are conditioned to cyclists being easy to see and thus won't look as hard in future.



Ninja cyclists serve to keep motorists on their toes. But they are scary and should be arrested. High Vis at night is almost useless. lights and reflectors (not all high vis are equal) matter much more than colour.

I agree with your points apart from what I put in bold.

High vis is pretty important at night. It's definitely better than dull/dark clothing. It's doesn't take a massive lack of concentration to miss a cyclist/pedestrian who is wearing dark clothing.

There's multiple parties involved and all parties should contribute to the safety of others.

tomasrojo

It's been said here before, but it's worth repeating. The reflective stripes in hi-viz jackets are some use at night. The green/orange bit does nothing. Fluorescent materials convert UV radiation to visible radiation, which is why they "glow". Artificial light contains negligble UV, and artificial is all that's really available at night.

Fluorescent materials do increase conspicuity at dawn and dusk. But, really, there are such very good lights available now, you really should try one of them and then consider whether you need to dress like a binman.

If you want to sport reflective stripes at night, a Sam Browne at least can be folded up in your bag out of the way when you're off the bike.