Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

tomasrojo

I don't know about in Ireland, but in the UK drivers have admitted in court they were looking at their phone ("just for a second") before a collision, and the courts have put this down to a moment's inattention that anyone might have. (IIRC, recent one was a truck driver, who was trying to find a sermon recorded on his phone. The man's religious devotion was regarded favourably by the judge.)

Qualitymark

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't know about in Ireland, but in the UK drivers have admitted in court they were looking at their phone ("just for a second") before a collision, and the courts have put this down to a moment's inattention that anyone might have. (IIRC, recent one was a truck driver, who was trying to find a sermon recorded on his phone. The man's religious devotion was regarded favourably by the judge.)

Jesus (as it were)

tomasrojo

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20151020-careless-driving-reckless-sentencing

That's the sermon-seeking truck driver.

The cyclist's mother clarified that the cyclist had been wearing a hi-viz jacket and white helmet that day. Of course, it was broad daylight and the truck driver wasn't looking at the road, but I guess you have to get these details out there to head the victim blamers off at the pass.

check_six

tomasrojo wrote: »

...but I guess you have to get these details out there to head the victim blamers off at the pass.

I'd like to think that if I get run over someone on here will make a point of stating that I was definitely wearing a hi-vis jacket, or I was reading an RSA leaflet, or at least thinking of your favourite deity (I'm not fussy which one).

CramCycle

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.

As said before though, you seen the light, the cyclist was therefore more than adequately visible.

I have told the story before about a co worker getting an earful from a motorist who "couldn't see him" without hi vis, but he did see his bright lights, which is how he knew there was someone there to pull over and give out to about being invisible.

I have no issue with hi vis but its over promotion and constant reinforcement that it is adequate is insane, particularly by government agencies, by Gardai (not all) who will stop people without hi vis (but have lights) but not the ones with hi vis and no lights, by people who see the lights but give out that the person they have clearly identified is invisible due to the colour of their clothing.

The mind boggles

jon1981

Tragic event, not sure reflective gear would have made a difference, The driver is quite high up. If the driver is not checking their mirrors sufficiently or you as a cyclist is in the blind spot, no amount of reflective material is going to help.

The coroner nor driver could say that this was the case, however it's surprising that the driver could not see the man if he had got lights on front and rear as I assume he would have had to have passed the cyclist on the road....again who knows.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/truck-driver-unaware-he-had-run-over-cyclist-inquest-told-1.2417064

Dublin Fire Brigade paramedic Brian Lamon said Mr Rynne was unconscious and in cardiac arrest when the ambulance arrived. He was wearing a helmet and was lit up with front and rear lights along with a light on his backpack.

The jury returned a verdict of death by misadventure and recommended increased night lighting at the Citywest roundabout and asked for a review of the legal minimum requirement for lighting and reflective wear for cyclists.

NiallBoo

I think it's a little illogical that the coroner can essentially say "I don't really know what happened" (fair enough) but then (the Jury) go on to make recommendations about how hi-vis etc might prevent such incidents?

True or not, they really don't have a basis for saying it.

hesker

NiallBoo wrote: »

I think it's a little illogical that the coroner can essentially say "I don't really know what happened" (fair enough) but then go on to make recommendations about how hi-vis etc might prevent such incidents?

True or not, he doesn't have a basis for saying it.

Don't see where he said that in the article. The jury made recommendations but not the coroner.

arybvtcw0eolkf

NiallBoo wrote: »

I think it's a little illogical that the coroner can essentially say "I don't really know what happened" (fair enough) but then go on to make recommendations about how hi-vis etc might prevent such incidents?

True or not, he doesn't have a basis for saying it.

It probably wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference.

I'm drive trucks, and as a cyclist I'm very aware of the dangers of (in particular) left turns. As a result I'm probably overly cautious in checking for cyclists in my blind spots and still sometimes I'm surprised when a cyclist is suddenly in my view.

I think more should be done to make cyclists aware of just how big a truck drivers blind spots can be (despite all sorts of mirrors which might be fitted to the truck).

My worse nightmare is to do exactly what happened in this accident, hit someone and drive off totally unaware I'd been in an accident.

On a bright note (no pun).. A forum user gave me a really nice Hi-Viz backpack cover today ~ Thank you RT

NiallBoo

hesker wrote: »

Don't see where he said that in the article. The jury made recommendations but not the coroner.

You're quite right, I took that up the wrong way.

The same logic still applies though, the recommendations (good or bad) are baseless and shouldn't be attached to the case like that.

rollingscone

Frances Ugly Shopkeeper wrote: »

It probably wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference.

I'm drive trucks, and as a cyclist I'm very aware of the dangers of (in particular) left turns. As a result I'm probably overly cautious in checking for cyclists in my blind spots and still sometimes I'm surprised when a cyclist is suddenly in my view.

I think more should be done to make cyclists aware of just how big a truck drivers blind spots can be (despite all sorts of mirrors which might be fitted to the truck).

My worse nightmare is to do exactly what happened in this accident, hit someone and drive off totally unaware I'd been in an accident.

On a bright note (no pun).. A forum user gave me a really nice Hi-Viz backpack cover today ~ Thank you RT

This.

If the cyclist side of things is to be addressed it's through education and road consciousness not more fetishistic "Ah sure ye're babbies, Wear this death blankie and hope for the best"

Maximum sympathy for HGV drivers btw, based on my professional experience of them. Very few "Aircoach" about the place.

RainyDay

NiallBoo wrote: »

I think it's a little illogical that the coroner can essentially say "I don't really know what happened" (fair enough) but then (the Jury) go on to make recommendations about how hi-vis etc might prevent such incidents?

True or not, they really don't have a basis for saying it.

I'm not sure he had the basis for "“Unfortunately I cannot tell you precisely what happened save that the cyclist came into contact with the truck and was run over,” the coroner said. "

Isn't it more likely that the truck came into contact with the cyclist? More victim-blaming I fear.

hesker

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm not sure he had the basis for "“Unfortunately I cannot tell you precisely what happened save that the cyclist came into contact with the truck and was run over,” the coroner said. "

Isn't it more likely that the truck came into contact with the cyclist? More victim-blaming I fear.

Ah come on now. Do you really think the coroner was making that distinction.

No one knows what really happened. You could speculate that maybe the cyclist passed the stationary truck on the inside as he seems to have done so with a car.

The message surely should be don't pass trucks or indeed any vehicles on the inside rather than mandatory hi-vis.

RainyDay

hesker wrote: »

Ah come on now. Do you really think the coroner was making that distinction.

No one knows what really happened. You could speculate that maybe the cyclist passed the stationary truck on the inside as he seems to have done so with a car.

The message surely should be don't pass trucks or indeed any vehicles on the inside rather than mandatory hi-vis.

Exactly, no-one knows what happened. So why did the coroner assume one version of events?

And why is the key message once again about blaming the victims? Is it possible that there should be a message to truck drivers to stop killing cyclists?

tomasrojo

RainyDay wrote: »

And why is the key message once again about blaming the victims?

I think this is the answer:
https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1/status/661969499005038593

hesker

RainyDay wrote: »

Exactly, no-one knows what happened. So why did the coroner assume one version of events?

And why is the key message once again about blaming the victims? Is it possible that there should be a message to truck drivers to stop killing cyclists?

I think you're reading too much into that quote from him.

arybvtcw0eolkf

hesker wrote: »

I think you're reading too much into that quote from him.

Its RainyDay, only the very brave disagree with him :pac:

Carawaystick

its peculiar that the hsa take action against a sole trader for having a Pirelli calender in his office, but take no actions against people who kill other road users.

If a hgv is stopped, it shouldn't move unless it cannot harm any other road users.

Pinch Flat

Carawaystick wrote: »

its peculiar that the hsa take action against a sole trader for having a Pirelli calender in his office, but take no actions against people who kill other road users.

If a hgv is stopped, it shouldn't move unless it cannot harm any other road users.

As well as cyclops mirrors, why can't proximity detectors or cctv be made mandatory to cover blind spots? I used to work with a fella who had one of them big feck off touregs - a commercial version. It had sensors on the left and right that would beep when a cyclist approached from the blind spot, it was primarily for Parking but seemed to serve a dual purpose.

roverrules

For all those people who almost always launch into a victim blaming argument

If you sneak up on a lion and it kills and eats you, do you blame the lion? Like wise if you a sneak up the inside of an hgv is it always the hgvs fault?

Just use some uncommon common sense and don't do it

Qualitymark

roverrules wrote: »

For all those people who almost always launch into a victim blaming argument

If you sneak up on a lion and it kills and eats you, do you blame the lion? Like wise if you a sneak up the inside of an hgv is it always the hgvs fault?

Just use some uncommon common sense and don't do it

This is certainly true. If there's a huge truck waiting at lights, the sensible thing to do is to wait behind it.

But my own observation with these trucks is that the problem is not cyclists coming up beside a paused HGV but HGVs driving up to the lights and not realising that there are cyclists already there.

Excellent point by Pinch Flat - these trucks should all have proximity sensors that beep when cyclists are near. If the sensors are anything like the ones for cars, they're not even expensive; I got a set for my ex-car for parking, and they only cost a few quid.

randomname2005

Qualitymark wrote: »

This is certainly true. If there's a huge truck waiting at lights, the sensible thing to do is to wait behind it.

100% agree.

Qualitymark wrote: »

But my own observation with these trucks is that the problem is not cyclists coming up beside a paused HGV but HGVs driving up to the lights and not realising that there are cyclists already there.

Excellent point by Pinch Flat - these trucks should all have proximity sensors that beep when cyclists are near. If the sensors are anything like the ones for cars, they're not even expensive; I got a set for my ex-car for parking, and they only cost a few quid.

However, in my experience you also have the case where a cyclist will filter down the left of a stream of traffice because none of the vehicles have indicators on. Then it turns out that half of them are turning left and if they do indicate it is at the last second.

Macy0161

roverrules wrote: »

For all those people who almost always launch into a victim blaming argument

If you sneak up on a lion and it kills and eats you, do you blame the lion? Like wise if you a sneak up the inside of an hgv is it always the hgvs fault?

Just use some uncommon common sense and don't do it

We don't actually know in this case whether the driver didn't come up the outside of the cyclist. The assumption appears to be the unfortunate cyclist went up the inside of the truck - is there evidence for that? We'll believe the truck driver who didn't notice enough contact to do damage to the truck, right by the cab door, to even stop and check did he hit something or someone?

The bottom line is if the cyclist entered a blind spot, and that 3 lights weren't enough, he still would've been in a blind spot if he was head to toe in hi-viz. So why mention Hi-viz?

Leroy42

roverrules wrote: »

For all those people who almost always launch into a victim blaming argument

If you sneak up on a lion and it kills and eats you, do you blame the lion? Like wise if you a sneak up the inside of an hgv is it always the hgvs fault?

Just use some uncommon common sense and don't do it

Wow, this I think wins the award for the day.

If you sneak up to a lion, hell if you cycle towards a lion dressed head to toe in hi-vis with multiple high lumen lights flashing, the lion may well attack and eat you but that is out of instinct, fear and probably hunger. The lion does not think about it, and has no way of controlling its response apart from its instincts. Therefore if you did approach a lion and get eaten I would agree it's your own fault as their behaviour is entirely predicable.

How exactly do you sneak up on a HGV? Do you mean cycling up the inside of the vehicle whilst the driver is not bothering to check their mirrors. HGV drivers know that the design of their vehicles make it a higher risk of this happening and so need to take additional care when manoeuvring to avoid this.

Based on your 'arguement', any driver can basically claim that the cyclist didn't do enough to make them aware they were there and therefore its their fault.

Does an driver know of the 'possibility' that a cyclist may come up the inside? Yes of course it happens all the time.

Pinch Flat

randomname2005 wrote: »

100% agree.


However, in my experience you also have the case where a cyclist will filter down the left of a stream of traffice because none of the vehicles have indicators on. Then it turns out that half of them are turning left and if they do indicate it is at the last second.

I usually find a crystal ball mounted on my handle bars useful for these scenarios .

Cyclists are allowed to legally filter left side of stationary traffic. But as I get closer to the junction, I'll be a bit more cautious

Qualitymark

By the way, is 'traffice' the way one says 'traffic' with an awfully fur hur accent? (As in "I was combing my lovely fur hur".)

CramCycle

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I usually find a crystal ball mounted on my handle bars useful for these scenarios .

Cyclists are allowed to legally filter left side of stationary traffic. But as I get closer to the junction, I'll be a bit more cautious

I have taken to just going on the outside most of the time coming to junctions, adds a bit of time to filter out but I find it easier and safer in many areas. With my lights, many presume I am a motorbike as well which seems to get a better reaction from drivers.

Macy0161

CramCycle wrote: »

I have taken to just going on the outside most of the time coming to junctions, adds a bit of time to filter out but I find it easier and safer in many areas. With my lights, many presume I am a motorbike as well which seems to get a better reaction from drivers.

The one time I got knocked off (well so far at least) I was doing the same, and some idiot did a u turn out of the queue without indicating and took me out! (Wasn't wearing hi-viz, thought my two lights, including the Cree LED, were enough!).

RainyDay

roverrules wrote: »

Like wise if you a sneak up the inside of an hgv is it always the hgvs fault?

Why do you assume that these incidents arise from 'cyclists sneaking up the inside', given the large number of other possible scenarios involved?

Carawaystick wrote: »

its peculiar that the hsa take action against a sole trader for having a Pirelli calender in his office, but take no actions against people who kill other road users.

Interesting issue - does Health & Safety legislation have a significant impact here? Would it (for example) apply to a business who encourages or condones regular illegal parking by customers which ultimately endangers cyclists?

CramCycle wrote: »

I have taken to just going on the outside most of the time coming to junctions, adds a bit of time to filter out but I find it easier and safer in many areas. With my lights, many presume I am a motorbike as well which seems to get a better reaction from drivers.

Admit it - you do the 'vroom vroom' noise as well when you go round the outside, right?

schemingbohemia

I don't think there are any limitations to what coroner juries can recommend, they can basically say what they like, such as in this case.