Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

NiallBoo

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's the difference between culpability and responsibility.
let's say you're driving through the city centre and someone runs out in front of your car. there's not enough time for you to react, and they are killed. no-one would say you're to blame.

I would say you're to blame, and AFAIK the letter of the law would agree with me.

Again this falls under "not driving appropriately to the conditions".

People popping out is exactly the kind of thing you should expect on a city street.

At the end of the day, if you're driving then you're the one providing the means for injury. I think people allow themselves to drive in a risky fashion because they fail to appreciate the inherent risks of driving - ie. That there's a decent level of risk in everything you do in a car, not just the "odd time when you're speeding/on the phone etc."

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

I'd think that a city road with lots of competing lights is also confusing for drivers, and makes it hard to see the black man all in black on a black bike - that's my own experience anyway.

What's also very necessary is education of drivers on the 'saccade' effect when they're watching where other road users are (the term comes from the French for 'jerky', as in the line of vision hopping along, skipping some things). Here's an interesting piece about it - sorry about the gaps, can't post URLs as a 'newbie'.

http:// www .londoncyclist. co. uk /raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

magicbastarder

NiallBoo wrote: »

I would say you're to blame, and AFAIK the letter of the law would agree with me.

something very similar happened a friend. no legal ramifications for him whatsoever. and thankfully the family of the victim were quite clear that there was no ill-will on their part either.

HivemindXX

If someone chooses to check their phone while they are driving, or decides to run a red light because it only just changed, or decides that to go 45 in a 30 zone they are just as culpable as someone who drinks a couple of pints or does a line of coke before they get behind the wheel. It is not a momentary lapse it's a decision.

The problem is that far too many people empathise with the former. They assume because they look at their phone while driving 100s of times a year it is safe and someone who kills a person while doing it was just unlucky. Since they often exceed the speed limit they decide that the driver couldn't have done anything when someone walked out in front of them even though if they had been going 15kph slower they might have had enough time to react and even if they had still hit the victim their chances of survival would have been much higher.

Since people don't want to blame the person who is actually guilty they blame the victim instead. If only the pedestrian or cyclist had been wearing high-viz the driver might have noticed them even though they decided to devote their attention to something else.

Chuchote

If I were dictator, I'd make it compulsory for all phones - not just the driver's - to be locked in the glove compartment during even the shortest journey.

As for the driver who can't stop in time - two minds. A friend's three-year-old managed to dart out between cars on the quiet cul-de-sac where they were living, and a woman driving slowly while preparing to park simply hadn't got the time and space for the jamming-on of brakes to work fast enough. She wasn't going fast, but she hit him and his head went *whap* against the road. Damn lucky he wasn't killed or severely injured, just terrified nearly into fits, as was she. There was no way on earth she could have avoided hitting him.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Cab redesign:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/revamped-lorry-designs-could-avoid-hundreds-of-cycling-deaths-study-claims

Image there also shows how completely the RSA misrepresents the nature of blind spots in their campaign upthread.

More a visibility issue than a "lime-green with reflective stripes" issue, but since we discussed it here:

The European Commission is drafting new vehicle safety rules and has indicated it will introduce direct vision requirements for new trucks, but only from 2028.

https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/study-finds-huge-difference-best-and-worst-trucks-blind-spots-which-cause-hundreds-road-deaths

Quite a bit away.

William Todts, freight director at T&E, said: “It’s shocking that are there are such large differences between perfectly similar trucks. It shows that some truck makers aren’t factoring in cyclist or pedestrian safety when designing new vehicles. The solution is obvious: we need direct vision standards for trucks. With so many people dying, we can’t afford to wait until 2028. This needs to happen much quicker."

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

If I were dictator, I'd make it compulsory for all phones - not just the driver's - to be locked in the glove compartment during even the shortest journey.

As for the driver who can't stop in time - two minds. A friend's three-year-old managed to dart out between cars on the quiet cul-de-sac where they were living, and a woman driving slowly while preparing to park simply hadn't got the time and space for the jamming-on of brakes to work fast enough. She wasn't going fast, but she hit him and his head went *whap* against the road. Damn lucky he wasn't killed or severely injured, just terrified nearly into fits, as was she. There was no way on earth she could have avoided hitting him.

Sh1t does happen, sometimes there is no solution that is operational but the two highlighted parts may indicate the benefits of a low speed limit in estates. It might not, could have been a flip of a coin and the speed made no difference.

Heard plenty of arguments over in motors for and against the 30kmph speed limit.

A few facts though. It willl not ruin your clutch. It is not difficult to achieve. It is highly probable that in the case of an unlikely accident that going at a lower speed will be better for everyone involved. No matter how good a parent you are, you will lose your kids for a split second now and again, it does not make you a bad parent and nor does it place the blame in an accident on you rather than the driver going through an estate with narrow roads, over parking, at 60+kmph.

Way OT for the hi vis thread though.

2RockMountain

Interesting summary of the (lack of) evidence for hi-vis;

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bike-safety-the-great-fluoro-fallacy-20160802-gqiwce.html

Cee-Jay-Cee

I have very little hi-viz kit, I basically have one yellow wind-proof jacket that I only ever wear in deepest winter however I am starting to think I should get a few more pieces of hi-viz items for regular use.

Yesterday (reasonably clear bright day) I was driving in a line of traffic in the main road at around 100kmph. A car ahead was turning right and the cars behind it filed into the left to undertake it, however as I was approaching the car that was turning (it was stopped waiting for traffic coming the opposite way to pass before turning) I spotted a fluoro yellow/green helmet just above the roofline of the car in front of me and immediately slowed down. The car in front got back into lane with inches to spare and had I proceeded I would have possibly hit the cyclist who was on the hard shoulder. It really made me question the need for something hi-viz and a helmet might be the best option as it can be worn all year regardless of weather type.

magicbastarder

i was driving through an industrial estate yesterday and a small girl in a flourescent pink dress ran out into the road in front of me - plenty far enough away that it was far from an emergency, but she probably was more visible as a result of the dress.

i suppose people should dress their kids in such clothes all the time.

tomasrojo

2RockMountain wrote: »

Interesting summary of the (lack of) evidence for hi-vis;

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bike-safety-the-great-fluoro-fallacy-20160802-gqiwce.html

"Risk in Scarcity" is, I guess, a corollary of "Safety in Numbers". Not sure which is more helpful.

"Crash evidence often indicates the cyclist was not observed by the driver and the conclusion is that the cyclist was difficult to see. We challenge that conclusion and that it can be solved by dressing the cyclist up in bright clothing," says Brennan.

The thing to remember about a lot of those data is the cyclist is dead, so we only have the driver's version of what happened. Since "I just couldn't see him" is not going to be challenged (societal attitudes) and incurs no penalty (unlike, say, "I was going too fast around a blind corner" or "I was looking for something in the glove compartment" or "I turned round to argue with someone"), you can bet most people will say it, whether it's true or not.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i was driving through an industrial estate yesterday and a small girl in a flourescent pink dress ran out into the road in front of me - plenty far enough away that it was far from an emergency, but she probably was more visible as a result of the dress.

i suppose people should dress their kids in such clothes all the time.

Was it "fluorescent" in the colloquial sense of "bright", or actually turning UV into visible light?

magicbastarder

colloquial sense.

tomasrojo

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Yesterday (reasonably clear bright day) I was driving in a line of traffic in the main road at around 100kmph. A car ahead was turning right and the cars behind it filed into the left to undertake it, however as I was approaching the car that was turning (it was stopped waiting for traffic coming the opposite way to pass before turning) I spotted a fluoro yellow/green helmet just above the roofline of the car in front of me and immediately slowed down. The car in front got back into lane with inches to spare and had I proceeded I would have possibly hit the cyclist who was on the hard shoulder.

I suppose the usual advice about being conscious of right-turning cars "forcing" traffic into the bike lane or hard shoulder is relevant, and the cyclist should take up a central position so that cars can't pass them and have to follow them through the gap.

100km/h roads might be different; I don't frequent them. Certainly, motorists should drive very slowly if passing a car on the inside on the hard shoulder, regardless of the speed limit on the actual road.

ThisRegard

On the subject of victim blaming, I see I wasn't the only person to roll their eyes at these tweets from Dublin fire brigade.

https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/762001910798946308?s=09
https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/762002195143360512?s=09

The wearing of a helmet seems to be the focus here, nevermind asking motorists to keep an eye out for cyclists or share the road.

Edit I realise it's covered in the off topic thread.

Seweryn

ThisRegard wrote: »

The wearing of a helmet seems to be the focus here, nevermind asking motorists to keep an eye out for cyclists or share the road.

How to wear a helmet on your leg?

CramCycle

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Yesterday (reasonably clear bright day) I was driving in a line of traffic in the main road at around 100kmph. A car ahead was turning right and the cars behind it filed into the left to undertake it, however as I was approaching the car that was turning (it was stopped waiting for traffic coming the opposite way to pass before turning) I spotted a fluoro yellow/green helmet just above the roofline of the car in front of me and immediately slowed down. The car in front got back into lane with inches to spare and had I proceeded I would have possibly hit the cyclist who was on the hard shoulder. It really made me question the need for something hi-viz and a helmet might be the best option as it can be worn all year regardless of weather type.

Surely though the fault lies with the car in front of you as they should have seen the cyclist long before, or which ever car was at the head of the current line of traffic? It may have made a difference, although being a cyclist you may have noticed and aassociated the helmet shape regardless during daylight, but the main issue here is the leading car, and all the cars to close to it's rear not to make out the traffic to their right.

ThisRegard wrote: »

On the subject of victim blaming, I see I wasn't the only person to roll their eyes at these tweets from Dublin fire brigade.

I stupidly read the responses, personally I think it would have been better if everyone rolled thier eyes and ignored the idiotic trolls that followed.

Cee-Jay-Cee

tomasrojo wrote: »

I suppose the usual advice about being conscious of right-turning cars "forcing" traffic into the bike lane or hard shoulder is relevant, and the cyclist should take up a central position so that cars can't pass them and have to follow them through the gap.

100km/h roads might be different; I don't frequent them. Certainly, motorists should drive very slowly if passing a car on the inside on the hard shoulder, regardless of the speed limit on the actual road.

I take your point but the road in question is as wide as a dualcarriageway and there was no real necessity to slow down as there was plenty of room. The problem was cars behind had no view of the cyclist at all until the car in front moved back out into lane after passing the turning car and all of a sudden there's a cyclist in front of you that you hadn't seen previously. The cyclist taking up a central position would have put the cyclist (unbeknownst to himself) in a more dangerous position. In the case the cyclist was in near the grass verge.

Anyway I've picked out a hi-viz helmet. I now just need to think of a reason to explain to my wife why I need a 4th helmet.

CramCycle

Is it one of the POC ones?

tomasrojo

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I take your point but the road in question is as wide as a dualcarriageway and there was no real necessity to slow down as there was plenty of room.

Were the cars not veering off in the the hard shoulder to pass on the inside? If you are literally driving on the hard shoulder there is a very pressing necessity so slow right down, as anything could be on the hard shoulder, including pedestrians or parked cars. (I might have got this totally wrong, as I'm extrapolating from your initial description.)

It's outside my range of experience really, as I don't spend much time on 100km/h roads, but if the cyclist makes the first car slow down, the other cars have to slow down too. However, if you're in a situation where all the drivers feel comfortable with shooting down the hard shoulder at 100km/h, I guess all bets are off.

NiallBoo

MediaMan wrote: »

Love it!

(Shame about all the hi-viz in the later photos, but that's another story.)

Must be dead handy for teachers trying to keep track of their kids though.

ThisRegard

NiallBoo wrote: »

Must be dead handy for teachers trying to keep track of their kids though.

Nope. I posted earlier this year that I was at the zoo during one of the school holidays.

Groups of kids everywhere on organised trips, and the one thing they had in common was that they were all wearing high vis vests.

So it you were a teacher you wouldn't know which group was which at a quick glance, and if you were a child who fell behind you could end up running after the wrong group.

Even more bizarrely I encountered a group last year in Imaginosity. They were all told to leave their vests on by the group leaders. Not quite sure what the safety issue was in that particular indoor children's venue.

Roadhawk

ThisRegard wrote: »

So it you were a teacher you wouldn't know which group was which at a quick glance...

Here is a good example of a quick glance...

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3416589,-6.2522176,3a,75y,69.67h,79.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTM2F3Exn4I46p4VBantrwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

at first you see, then you really see.

Pinch Flat

Roadhawk wrote: »

Here is a good example of a quick glance...

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3416589,-6.2522176,3a,75y,69.67h,79.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTM2F3Exn4I46p4VBantrwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

at first you see, then you really see.

You would think so.

I've been knocked off my bike twice in similar clothing - in addition, I had a half watt rear helmet strobe and an 80 lumen rear flashing light. Both of these are visible from hundreds of metered. Both times, drivers overtook me and cut left, knocking me over. Both times, drivers claimed to have not seen me. You've got to wonder some times.

ThisRegard

Roadhawk wrote: »

Here is a good example of a quick glance...

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3416589,-6.2522176,3a,75y,69.67h,79.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTM2F3Exn4I46p4VBantrwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

at first you see, then you really see.

I don't know how that's related to my post you replied to?

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

Here is a good example of a quick glance...

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3416589,-6.2522176,3a,75y,69.67h,79.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTM2F3Exn4I46p4VBantrwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

at first you see, then you really see.

Thats a good example. I'm cycling home this evening. I'm wearing a Black Jersey, Black Shorts, Black Leg Warmers and Black shoe covers.
(Jersey, shorts and Shoe covers have reflective panels)

I'm not worried because I'll have this rear light on Flash Mode:
http://road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/images/Products/Hope%20District%20LED%20rear%20light.jpg?itok=PceC165D


And this front light on Flash Mode:

http://www.bike-treks.co.uk/images/hope%20R4.jpg?maxheight=1600

At this time of year...cycling at dawn or dusk with out lights is silly!

boardbeer

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You would think so.

I've been knocked off my bike twice in similar clothing ... Both times, drivers claimed to have not seen me. You've got to wonder some times.

This goes a long way to explaining it: A Fighter Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads...

Pinch Flat

boardbeer wrote: »

This goes a long way to explaining it: A Fighter Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads...

One way I prevented this happening again was defensive cycling - middle of lane, prevents reckless overtaking and cutting left. Tne Road Survival Guide copies above states:

"When you change lanes, especially into a slower lane, you should, of course, check your mirrors, and will have undoubtedly been watching the road ahead of you,
naturally. Your last check must be to look directly at the spot into which you are going to manoeuvre, otherwise you could easily have missed a slower motorbike or cyclist in that lane, one that was only in your peripheral vision as you looked ahead, and over which you ‘jumped’ as you looked over your shoulder or checked your wing mirror"

Roadhawk

ThisRegard wrote: »

I don't know how that's related to my post you replied to?

Just relating to how effective a hi-vis is at a glance.

Chuchote

It would be a very good idea for drivers to consciously note each cyclist they pass. There are times I think (as a car passenger, for instance) that the only ones they see are those who arouse their indignation. (Perhaps, therefore, it may be safer not to wear hi-viz? )