Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Roadhawk

Chuchote wrote: »

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? )

Or they can do as cyclists do and just presume that everyone is an idiot on the roads and proceed with caution.

Pinch Flat

Chuchote wrote: »

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? )

There's a few motorists that post on these threads that make a point of noting the amount of cyclists without lights and hi-vis they pass on a journey.

Roadhawk

ThisRegard wrote: »

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

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.34165...7i13312!8i6656

Check out the cyclist that blends in beside the taxi...he could be missed at a glance.

ThisRegard

Roadhawk wrote: »

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

Roadhawk wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.34165...7i13312!8i6656

Check out the cyclist that blends in beside the taxi...he could be missed at a glance.

You're missing the point completely(maybe I should have changed the font colour to bright yellow?), and it's nothing to do with the point at the time.

What good is high vis when used to identify a group if every other group is wearing it, or if you're indoors.

Chuchote

Roadhawk wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.34165...7i13312!8i6656

Check out the cyclist that blends in beside the taxi...he could be missed at a glance.

Certainly could, since it's the map you've quoted, not the Streetview!

Carawaystick

Roadhawk wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.34165...7i13312!8i6656

Check out the cyclist that blends in beside the taxi...he could be missed at a glance.

Because he's on the other side of the road, going away from the camera.
If you were in the taxi he'd be as clear as day.

Roadhawk

Chuchote wrote: »

Certainly could, since it's the map you've quoted, not the Streetview!

Oops haha

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3416589,-6.2522176,3a,75y,73.39h,79.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTM2F3Exn4I46p4VBantrwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Chuchote

Roadhawk wrote: »

Oops haha

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3416589,-6.2522176,3a,75y,73.39h,79.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTM2F3Exn4I46p4VBantrwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Yes, you're quite right, that cyclist (visible above the 'Taxi' sign) would be safer with hi-viz on.

MB Lacey

Cycling along the bike lane on Ranelagh rd into town, lights flashing, wearing my hiviz waterproof jkt (was raining this morning), a people carrier on my right starts to indicate left.
I can see her eyes in her wing mirror, does she bother her hole to check my eyes in her wing mirror? Nope. So begins her left turn straight across my path despite my hiviz jkt and flashing lights.
It's happened a few times before where I've had my flashing lights and hiviz. Some drivers just do not check their left wing mirror when making a left turn, distracted, dumb, tired, whatever, it does happen quite a lot.
So whilst I do agree that hiviz can make a cyclist more noticeable in some situations, it shouldn't be an automatic assumption that because a cyclist doesn't wear hiviz that's where the problem lies.
I often just wear a black cycling jacket, if I had been in an accident this evening the fault would have been with the dozy behind the wheel, not with my lack of hiviz, but the way the media conversation is going, the headline would read 'Cyclist who crashed into car was not wearing Hiviz'.

Chuchote

MB Lacey wrote: »

Cycling along the bike lane on Ranelagh rd into town, lights flashing, wearing my hiviz waterproof jkt (was raining this morning), a people carrier on my right starts to indicate left.
I can see her eyes in her wing mirror, does she bother her hole to check my eyes in her wing mirror? Nope. So begins her left turn straight across my path despite my hiviz jkt and flashing lights.
It's happened a few times before where I've had my flashing lights and hiviz. Some drivers just do not check their left wing mirror when making a left turn, distracted, dumb, tired, whatever, it does happen quite a lot.
So whilst I do agree that hiviz can make a cyclist more noticeable in some situations, it shouldn't be an automatic assumption that because a cyclist doesn't wear hiviz that's where the problem lies.
I often just wear a black cycling jacket, if I had been in an accident this evening the fault would have been with the dozy behind the wheel, not with my lack of hiviz, but the way the media conversation is going, the headline would read 'Cyclist who crashed into car was not wearing Hiviz'.

This ^^^ is exactly why I'm saying drivers need education to notice cyclists. Drivers reflexively think that because there is no car beside them, there is no vehicle beside them. Deadly dangerous.

Chuchote

http://road.cc/content/news/139527-high-vis-works-says-danish-study

Researchers from Aalborg University in Denmark have conducted a study into the safety impact of high visibility clothing (link is external) for cyclists. Their conclusions were that a brightly-coloured jacket significantly reduces your accident risk while cycling.

The 12-month project involved 6,800 amateur cyclists. After random selection, half the group were given a high-visibility bike jacket and promised to wear it each time they cycled while the other half cycled in their normal clothes. Participants were then asked to report any personal injury incidents they suffered over the course of the year.

The group who were asked to wear the jacket reported 38 per cent fewer incidents with other road users and 48 per cent fewer incidents involving vehicles. In addition to this, 37 per cent of those who were injured in the jacket-wearing group reported that they weren’t wearing the garment when the incident took place.

Note on the piece says that there was a certain amount of unreliability in the sense that some of the test group didn't wear the hi-viz at some times.

I've worn noticeboxish hi-viz since reading this, by an RAF pilot:

http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-guide.pdf

It's a long piece. Three quotes - but it's worth reading it all.

who can say that, at some point in their own driving history, they have not been about to manoeuvre - pull out from a T-junction, etc - when a car or bike seemed to come out of nowhere? Hopefully, it was just a close shave, and no doubt quite frightening. You may have wondered how you failed to see it, and probably concluded that they must have been driving ‘far too fast’ or you would have seen them. Perhaps, on such an occasion, you were the recipient of that loud and urgent query, ‘Are you blind?!!’
Well, here’s the bad news - yes, you are. For small but significant periods of time you are completely incapable of seeing anything at all…
Only a small part of the retina, in the centre and called the fovea, can generate a high-resolution image…

Motorcyclists and cyclists
Recognise that you are especially at risk - not only are you more vulnerable but the narrow profile of a motorbike or cycle makes it far more likely that you can fall into a saccade. So tip the odds in your favour - always wear high-contrast clothing and use lights. Flashing LEDs (front and rear) are especially effective for cyclists as they create contrast and the on-off flashing attracts the peripheral vision in the same manner that movement does…
This is risk management.
So is wearing a helmet - every fighter pilot wears a helmet, even though it won’t make much difference if they hit the ground at 700 miles an hour! It’s about reducing the chances of less dramatic incidents causing fatal cranial injuries, unnecessarily. Go figure.

Aviation research shows that contrast is the single most important factor in determining the likelihood of acquiring an object visually - this is why military aircraft camouflage is designed to tone down their contrast. On the ground, dark coloured vehicles or clothing will result in reduced contrast against most usual backgrounds, and this is why high- visibility clothing (for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists) and/or bright lights are so important, in the daytime as well as at night.

irishrover99

If it slightly increases your chances of being seen them why not wear it if you have one. I've only got a high viz for my winter commutes the last year and I certainly feel safer wearing it.It's the same with the helmet debate. Slightly is better than nothing.

secman

I wore a florescent yellow and black winter jacket, similar shoes yesterday and as going past a garage forecourt , a car coming in opposite direction went to pull across the road to go into the garage. I swerved left, but he saw me and pulled back. He was very apologetic, but seriously,how did he miss me in the first place ?He had obviously switched off ...

Lumen

There's a thread for this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057136508/65?

Eamonnator

Deedsie wrote: »

That is more of a thread for bashing anyone who chooses to wear hi vis when they cycle.

So, is this thread for people to post in favour of wearing hi-vis?

Eamonnator

Deedsie wrote: »

I think it's a thread about a Danish study that found Hi-vis works. But ya it probably all should go in the megaghread where it will be ignored.

I walked into that.
Still on my first coffee.

Chuchote

secman wrote: »

I wore a florescent yellow and black winter jacket, similar shoes yesterday and as going past a garage forecourt , a car coming in opposite direction went to pull across the road to go into the garage. I swerved left, but he saw me and pulled back. He was very apologetic, but seriously,how did he miss me in the first place ?He had obviously switched off ...

The piece by the RAF pilot I link above explains how, with interesting diagrams - though your fluorescence probably saved you in the end - he saw you earlier than he would've if you'd been wearing all-black (though later than he should've).

A central reason to make yourself as visible as possible is, to quote Lumen from another thread, that not wearing something loud and shouty 'crosses my personal "don't be a dick" threshold'. If a driver mows you down because he doesn't see you, it doesn't just ruin or end your life, it also ruins the driver's life; he will never forget the sight of you screaming, bloody and crushed on the road, or forgive himself. Making myself as luridly visible as possible is my contribution to this being less likely.

Wishbone Ash

In the Motors Forum, threads relating to fog lights are not permitted. I think we need a similar rule here re hi viz threads.

Chuchote

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

In the Motors Forum, threads relating to fog lights are not permitted. I think we need a similar rule here re hi viz threads.

If mods want to add this to any other thread to corral it off from other ones…?

Lumen

Deedsie wrote: »

That is more of a thread for bashing anyone who chooses to wear hi vis when they cycle.

We can do that on this thread too :pac:

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

If a driver mows you down because he doesn't see you, it doesn't just ruin or end your life, it also ruins the driver's life; he will never forget the sight of you screaming, bloody and crushed on the road, or forgive himself.

A friend of mine was a driver in a car, and killed a pedestrian. He was held blameless by all parties, including the victims parents who asked for prayers to be said for him at her funeral. Anyway, I mention this because regardless of blame or responsibility, the human mind has a possibly innate ability to shut out things like this to help you get along with your life. As my friend did, albeit after a few painful months of soul searching.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

A friend of mine was a driver in a car, and killed a pedestrian. He was held blameless by all parties, including the victims parents who asked for prayers to be said for him at her funeral. Anyway, I mention this because regardless of blame or responsibility, the human mind has a possibly innate ability to shut out things like this to help you get along with your life. As my friend did, albeit after a few painful months of soul searching.

Mmmyes. Long years ago I was friends with a woman my own age - late 20s - and when I mentioned her name my mother's brow wrinkled and asked what her father's name was. When I told her, she said he'd got drunk behind the wheel of a car and killed his best friend.

He was still a drunk, a loving but harsh father, and basically a useless creature on the earth.

Years later, he was in hospital suffering the extreme effects of old age, and his daughter began to talk more deeply to him than she had or he had when he was young and angry. He was still angry… One day he came out with the story, told her all the details. As far as she had known, he had not thought about it in years. But it had been there, bursting up against its locks, for 50 years, smashing everything he thought of doing.

Unknown Soldier

Chuchote wrote: »

But it had been there, bursting up against its locks, for 50 years, smashing everything he thought of doing.

That is an excellent description, Chuchote.

Chips Lovell

Threads merged

WindomEarle

irishrover99 wrote: »

If it slightly increases your chances of being seen them why not wear it if you have one. I've only got a high viz for my winter commutes the last year and I certainly feel safer wearing it.It's the same with the helmet debate. Slightly is better than nothing.

There is an issue about creating a unjustified dangerous image for cycling. As I understand it, cycling is no more dangerous than walking - so why do we need special clothing for cycling that we don't need for walking.

The more dangerous cycling appears to the wider community, the fewer people that cycle. The fewer people that cycle, the more dangerous cycling gets - it's a vicious circle.

Having said that, my winter jacket is a hi-vis.

magicbastarder

irishrover99 wrote: »

If it slightly increases your chances of being seen them why not wear it if you have one. I've only got a high viz for my winter commutes the last year and I certainly feel safer wearing it.It's the same with the helmet debate. Slightly is better than nothing.

the problem with these debates is not so much about whether helmets or hi vis are safer on balance, it's when people start insisting on making them mandatory that things get ugly.

HivemindXX

magicbastarder wrote: »

the problem with these debates is not so much about whether helmets or hi vis are safer on balance, it's when people start insisting on making them mandatory that things get ugly.

Exactly. It is safer to stay inside after dark but we don't have mandatory curfews.

Eamonnator

http://www.thebikecomesfirst.com/trek-segafredo-launch-new-high-visibility-team-kit-to-increase-detectability/

Trek-Segafredo seem to think Hi-Viz is a good idea.

CrowdedHouse

Joanna Donnelly of Met Eireann is not convinced.....

https://twitter.com/JoannaDonnellyL/status/786890877255950336

tomasrojo

I had a look at that Danish study ages ago, and I made a few notes. I though at the time that it was a weak study, mostly because it's based on self-selected participants and self-reporting. One fault of self-selected studies is very apparent in this one: the eagerness of the participants to tell the researchers what they want to hear, and it can be seen in the lower reported incidents of solo falls among the hi-viz wearers (which, the researchers assume, is not a scenario where hi-viz should make a difference), and the researchers, to be fair, try to correct for this. Not very succesfully though, I think.


These notes may be based on an old version of the study, but anyone who can be bothered reading the study should be able to match up the tables I'm talking about.

I personally don't like the questions in the "risk willingness" table on page 12, which they use to assess the participants: earphones and no helmet = willing to take risks (in Denmark, no less). They don't seem to find a "risk-taking personality type" effect anyway.

The correction factor for participants telling the researchers what they want to hear:
They use the data on solo accidents to alter the data on multi-party accidents. Essentially, the jacket-wearers had fewer solo accidents (in addition to fewer multi-party accidents) than the non-jacket-wearers, despite conspicuity having no obvious bearing on solo accidents. So the researchers assume that the participants are telling them what they want to hear and downplaying solo accidents (jacket-wearers) or talking then up (non-jacket-wearers). So they apply a correction factor to the multi-party accident data of the non-jacket-wearers accordingly, to reduce the number of accidents. Essentially the correction factor is a factor sufficient to make solo falls among hi-viz and non-hi-viz identical.

The real problem I can see is by doing this they implicitly assume that the non-jacket-wearers are about equally likely to over-report in the case of both solo accidents and multi-party accidents, and jacket-wearers to under-report. But it does seem quite plausible that this misreporting effect would be stronger in the multi-party case, since that would be the case for which the jacket would be much more relevant in the mind of the participants. If the misreporting effect is stronger, their correction factor doesn't correct enough, and the real incidence ratio would be somewhat closer to 1.0 (identical outcomes among hi-viz and non-hi-viz wearers). Since the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the incident report ratio for car/van collisions is 0.95, it wouldn't take that much to tip it into insignificance (>=1.0).


More generally, Table 5 (mislabelled as Table 1) has incident-rate ratios with confidence intervals that include 1.0 (i.e. not significant) all over the place, which they describe as "some" scenarios -- in fact, it's two-thirds of the rows in the table. However, the row concerning collisions with cars and vans does not include 1.0 in the confidence interval, so this is the headline point from the study.

Also, where did they find so many yellow-jacket-loving Danes anyway?

(Apologies for my repeated use of the term "accident" too.)