Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

arybvtcw0eolkf

CramCycle wrote: »

They probably only have yellow ones on with dull grey striping as opposed to hi vis but here it is:
http://rsa.pmms.ie/ProductMoreInfo.aspx?ProductID=RUCKCVR

Cheers.

I know I should drop into a bike shop for one but its always the case I'm reminded I want one when I'm home and read something about hi-viz.

brianomc

Frances Ugly Shopkeeper wrote: »

Anyone know where I can pick up a hi-viz backpack cover?.

I was told they're on the RSA website but I'm damned if I can find any.

http://rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Orders-online/Orders-online/

Then hi-vis goods on the left when you register. I got 2 of the drawstring bags last year off them, they're handy for lunch/clothes on a commute.

Edit: or what was said above with no need to register first

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1/status/659770514467090432

HivemindXX

brianomc wrote: »

And when everyone is wearing their hi-vis and motorists are still knocking down pedestrians what will be the next excuse for not accepting responsibility*

*assuming pedestrian didnt just walk out in front of the car/that the cyclists lights were working

Obviously "not enough high viz".

I can see various muppets wringing their hands about people actually outside their cars wearing only a high viz vest. With their arms and legs and heads and such TOTALLY INVISIBLE!!! What if they were sideways on to you, their arm would be almost completely covering their vest rendering them nearly impossible to see.

After everyone has to wear a high-viz hazmat suit I'm not sure where it will go Maybe extreme risk takers such as pedestrians should be required to have an escort car alongside them at all times so that it is possible to avoid hitting them.

This pdf on the DCC web site shows lots of roads in Dublin city with 60 or 80kph limits. Be interesting to see everyone walking from Heuston to Inchicore having to don their magical vests. Not that this effort is going to actually do anything other than identify a few dumbasses in government.

Qualitymark

I was nearly run down yesterday by a van on High Street. Damn thing was tarmac-coloured and totally invisible.

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1/status/659808791664402432

Industrious fellow/lady.

Leroy42

Is that the next 'big thing'?

Lights coated in HiVis, and possibly a whole industry for retro fitting current lights with little HiVis covers

monument

So, which one of you set up the alternative RSA Twitter ac?

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

So, which one of you set up the alternative RSA Twitter ac?

Because there's a warrant out. Who knows how many people you've killed with your satire.

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

So, which one of you set up the alternative RSA Twitter ac?

The first to ask is always the prime suspect.

"My dear Watson, it is an elementary distraction tactic."

CramCycle

galwaycyclist wrote: »

"My dear Watson, it is an elementary distraction tactic."

Another suspect is added to the list

monument

There's my top three suspects ^

tomasrojo

Advice from Federal Highway Administration. Mentioned here, referring to here.

tomasrojo

This is rather alarming, if you live in the USA:

traprunner

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is rather alarming, if you live in the USA:

Not really if you think about it. Very few children walk in most places of the US. It's worse than here for driving kids around. At halloween they do walk from house to house so there is more chance of them getting knocked down.

galwaycyclist

traprunner wrote: »

Not really if you think about it. Very few children walk in most places of the US. It's worse than here for driving kids around. At halloween they do walk from house to house so there is more chance of them getting knocked down.

It seems to me that you could also observe that there is no way that adult motorists could be unaware of the likely presence of children on Halloween night.

Unless they have beamed down from some other planet for the evening.

traprunner

I'd like to know the percentage of them that are killed in driveways or crossing driveways. I bet it's high.

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is rather alarming, if you live in the USA:

What's the downwards blip in mid-February? Valentine's day?

"If I order you an extra large pizza and let you go on the internet unsupervised, do you promise that you'll stay in your room until the morning?"

Hugo_Whoriskey

Doctor Bob wrote:

What's the downwards blip in mid-February? Valentine's day?

February 29th I'd assume

tomasrojo

Hugo_Whoriskey wrote: »

February 29th I'd assume

Yeah, ~25% of neighbouring values.

Qualitymark

Also, drivers who aren't used to keeping an eye out for kids.

buffalo

Hugo_Whoriskey wrote: »

February 29th I'd assume

So statistically, by raw numbers, Feb 29th is the safest day of the year?


...I feel bad joking about child pedestrian fatalities.

rollingscone

Witnessed many people with pathetically inadequate lighting apparently believing themselves safe by virtue of jackets and jumpers in a particularly ugly and unreflective shade of yellow tonight.

ffs

Pinch Flat

rollingscone wrote: »

Witnessed many people with pathetically inadequate lighting apparently believing themselves safe by virtue of jackets and jumpers in a particularly ugly and unreflective shade of yellow tonight.

ffs

Same in the fog. Plenty of hi vis on display but very few decent lights. My own view is that hi vis is being over promoted and over relied on as a means of being seen.

Qualitymark

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Same in the fog. Plenty of hi vis on display but very few decent lights. My own view is that hi vis is being over promoted and over relied on as a means of being seen.

Very true. I also, however, looked out my window and saw a passing cyclist with a very bright light, but dressed in black, with a black helmet, black gloves and a black rucksack, on a black bike. He wasn't very visible.

tigerboon

rollingscone wrote: »

Witnessed many people with pathetically inadequate lighting apparently believing themselves safe by virtue of jackets and jumpers in a particularly ugly and unreflective shade of yellow tonight.

ffs

Another thing I've seen a few times, at night on dark country roads, is lads with great front lights but crap rear lights. But they have the magic yellow jacket (without reflective strips). With the foggy conditions over the last week, lads need to be thinking of visibility at night

rollingscone

Qualitymark wrote: »

Very true. I also, however, looked out my window and saw a passing cyclist with a very bright light, but dressed in black, with a black helmet, black gloves and a black rucksack, on a black bike. He wasn't very visible.

But were they adequate lights? It doesn't matter if the cyclist's hands or head aren't visible, just that someone will know there is a cyclist there.

Carawaystick

Qualitymark wrote: »

Very true. I also, however, looked out my window and saw a passing cyclist with a very bright light, but dressed in black, with a black helmet, black gloves and a black rucksack, on a black bike. He wasn't very visible.

What wasn't very visible about that very bright light you saw?

tomasrojo

I've said it before, but when it's not foggy or raining I can see dark-clad cyclists at night in the city centre. No problem at all.

Not saying that people shouldn't use lights or whatever, and some people with very dodgy eyesight are permitted to drive out of misplaced compassion, but the great abundance of street lighting in urban centres does make most people in moderate conditions quite easy to see for people with average vision or better.

Conspicuity being the determining factor in collisions is, I suspect, mostly a myth, strengthened by motorists who have killed cyclists and pedestrians lying about what they were doing just before the collision, or by an auto-centric society which is determined to absolve "people like us".

Leroy42

^ I would add to the above that surely drivers should be 'expecting' cyclists and pedestrians on the roads (well peds on the path!).

The excuse of 'I didn't see them' should not hold any weight in a court of law. Whilst the individual holds responsibility to make themselves visible, hitting a cyclist in a car and then claiming it was simply because one didn't see them would call into question the ability of that person to continue to drive.

It seems in some cases that it is accepted and the driver is let carry on.