Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Chuchote

Heh, maybe! The blue ones are going to be bigger, but not any scarier, more to nudge people with the notion "someone's looking!" and make them more alert to my presence.

magicbastarder

Carawaystick wrote: »

I bet any light provides much better illumination than any sam browne belt...

from the couple of examples i've seen recently, i'd take a sam browne belt over a token LED any day.

CatFromHue

yeah some peoples choice of light, and battery power, leaves a lot to the imagination.

Chuchote

Young entrepreneur's laser lights beaming an image of a bike 5m ahead are being tested on some of London's bikeshare bikes

http://thelongandshort.org/enterprise/emily-brooke-blaze-bike-light

12-week evaluation by the Transport Research Laboratory, looking at the lights on different road surfaces and in different conditions… showed that visibility around a bus improved from 72.4 per cent using the existing LED lights to 96.2 per cent with the Blaze Laserlight. Around a car it was up from 56 to 66 per cent; around a tipper lorry from 78 to 83 per cent; and around a van from 65 to 97 per cent.
A rollout to the other 11,500 bikes in the scheme is due to be announced by the end of the year; New York and other US cities are now making inquiries. There are more than 500 bike hire schemes around the world.

Kind of a silly article with sexist nonsense, but the science sounds good.

tomasrojo

http://road.cc/content/news/210041-police-stop-100s-law-abiding-cyclists-safety-drive-after-saying-they-dont-have

The article itself is interesting anyway, but this quote from the end by the West Midlands Police Road Traffic unit might be apt here:

On the subject of high-visibility clothing, they said: “Don’t think hi viz clothing will keep you seen, although hi viz has a place in some circumstances such as low light conditions, it is contrast that catches the attention of the driver who might pull out on you, that, and movements the human eye and brain are wired to detect.”

magicbastarder

granted, the road conditions probably suited this conclusion - but i was on the old N2 a couple of times last night, out as far as the coolquay lodge, and it was blatantly obvious that lights ruled the roost on that road (though there may be a selection bias here, as people cycling on that road may be more likely to have good quality lights); however the hi-vis seems to really only come into use up close and under urban lighting conditions.

rollingscone

The human eye can't see colour in low light conditions.

Your garishly coloured fabric is only useful in conditions where there is adequate light for colour vision and low contrast è.g. overcast, heavy rain and fog.

It doesn't help that manufacturers are seeing drinking the #hivis KoolAid as a marketing goldmine.

tomasrojo

rollingscone wrote: »

The human eye can't see colour in low light conditions.

Your garishly coloured fabric is only useful in conditions where there is adequate light for colour vision and low contrast è.g. overcast, heavy rain and fog.

Yeah, I presumed the West Midlands police were referring to the latter conditions you mention, and dusky conditions, where there is some fluorescence (there is! I've seen it.)

rollingscone wrote: »

It doesn't help that manufacturers are seeing drinking the #hivis KoolAid as a marketing goldmine.

It's the Irish version of wearing a poppy, except the bullying goes on all year round.

tomasrojo

Maybe I mean pre-dusk. The bit of the day where you can see where you're walking without moon or street lights, but things are indistinct.

Civil twilight?

tomasrojo

Ian Walker mentioned this on Twitter:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457510003921

About motorcyclists, but assume it's more generally applicable; black clothing made the rider conspicuous on interurban roads (it contrasts well with the sky), while white outfits and reflective outfits did better on urban roads.

Don't think they went for the magic combo of yellow and reflective though.

magicbastarder

there was a piece on the radio yesterday about the RSA's campaign (may have been a competition) to get schoolkids educated about the importance of safe behaviour and the importance of hi-vis.
whatever about the debate about cyclists wearing hi-vis, unless you're actually walking on the road, it's kinda moot?

tomasrojo

I guess the idea is that when they're crossing the road they can be "seen".

They aren't going to do anything meaningful about distracted/fast/reckless/dangerous driving, so they do this instead.

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

Ian Walker mentioned this on Twitter:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457510003921

About motorcyclists, but assume it's more generally applicable; black clothing made the rider conspicuous on interurban roads (it contrasts well with the sky), while white outfits and reflective outfits did better on urban roads.

Don't think they went for the magic combo of yellow and reflective though.

So the sensible thing to do is to dress entirely in huge black-and-white houndstooth.

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

So the sensible thing to do is to dress entirely in huge black-and-white houndstooth.

Make some of the white 3M Scotchlite and you're talking!

Parchment

magicbastarder wrote: »

there was a piece on the radio yesterday about the RSA's campaign (may have been a competition) to get schoolkids educated about the importance of safe behaviour and the importance of hi-vis.
whatever about the debate about cyclists wearing hi-vis, unless you're actually walking on the road, it's kinda moot?

Well for kids its handy as you can spot them - my mom works with special needs kids and if they go on an outing the kids all wear a high viz bib incase one wanders off etc. Makes perfect sense.

magicbastarder

that's not a road safety issue though, that's an identification issue.

ThisRegard

Parchment wrote: »

Well for kids its handy as you can spot them - my mom works with special needs kids and if they go on an outing the kids all wear a high viz bib incase one wanders off etc. Makes perfect sense.

I've pointed out this before, but when you're in a public place with many kids groups all wearing the same vests it makes no sense. I've also come across separate groups within premises, all wearing similar vests.

dub_skav

ThisRegard wrote: »

I've pointed out this before, but when you're in a public place with many kids groups all wearing the same vests it makes no sense. I've also come across separate groups within premises, all wearing similar vests.

I used to think that too. But I suppose if anybody sees a child in a vest wandering off on their own, the supervisor of any of the groups could ask them where they're going etc.
Essentially the vests are an obvious sign that the kids are in a group that are meant to stay together.

Of some use at least, but not a road safety issue as pointed out above.

ThisRegard

I dunno. I sat in the zoo having lunch one afternoon and watched several of these groups merge in the picnic area. It's easy for 2 kids chatting in a world of their own fall into the wrong group. Plus you will always see a family with 2 or 3 kids wearing them for some reason. I think it has the opposite effect to making it easier to spot kids in your group.

CramCycle

My daughters school used pink baseball hats, I have seen other schools with awful t-shirts.

Parchment

ThisRegard wrote: »

I've pointed out this before, but when you're in a public place with many kids groups all wearing the same vests it makes no sense. I've also come across separate groups within premises, all wearing similar vests.

Well im referring to when the kids go to the park or whatever. Not when they are in some large area with lots of other children. Makes perfect sense to me.

Parchment

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's not a road safety issue though, that's an identification issue.

The post i replied to said it was a"moot point" to discuss high-vis unless on the road. I pointed out an instance in where high-viz is used in a non-road context.

tomasrojo

Parchment wrote: »

The post i replied to said it was a"moot point" to discuss high-vis unless on the road. I pointed out an instance in where high-viz is used in a non-road context.

Yeah, it's a reasonable point. I don't like their use for this, as it bleeds into an attitude of "even going to the park is dangerous", due to the halo of danger/safety that surrounds hi-viz, but in and of itself it's reasonable (provided, as said, that everyone else isn't doing it simultaneously).

Jimoslimos

rollingscone wrote: »

The human eye can't see colour in low light conditions.

Your garishly coloured fabric is only useful in conditions where there is adequate light for colour vision and low contrast è.g. overcast, heavy rain and fog.

It doesn't help that manufacturers are seeing drinking the #hivis KoolAid as a marketing goldmine.

I cycle on a mix of rural and urban roads. Hi-vis would only make a small (and probably insignificant) difference a fraction of the time on a fraction of the roads.

Now into spring I'd say that the contrast between green hedges and grass and yellow hi-vis jackets would be quite low. Not to mention rapeseed flowering over the next few months (pass the triamcinolone there Brad!).

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

there was a piece on the radio yesterday about the RSA's campaign (may have been a competition) to get schoolkids educated about the importance of safe behaviour and the importance of hi-vis.
whatever about the debate about cyclists wearing hi-vis, unless you're actually walking on the road, it's kinda moot?

One of the primary schools in Harolds Cross has a rule that all kids have to wear hi-vis apparently. I've seen kids stepping out the parents' car and putting on the hi-vis to walk 2m across the path.

Chuchote

It's part of the general preciousisation of children. I'm hoping for a backswing when cycling becomes the norm. The current generation are growing up horribly passive, everything done for them, handed to them, every adorable word out of their rosebud lips hung on by their adoring parents. (Admittedly, it's a swing away from an even more horrid society that thought it was right and proper to hit children - tis well I remember the echoing sound of slaps across the legs wherever children were.)

Parchment

Chuchote wrote: »

It's part of the general preciousisation of children. I'm hoping for a backswing when cycling becomes the norm. The current generation are growing up horribly passive, everything done for them, handed to them, every adorable word out of their rosebud lips hung on by their adoring parents. (Admittedly, it's a swing away from an even more horrid society that thought it was right and proper to hit children - tis well I remember the echoing sound of slaps across the legs wherever children were.)

I actually saw three kids cycling to school this morning - on their own. All boys aged from maybe 10-12. Nice to see. They were on the foothpath but thats fine, i would prefer to see them there than battling with the traffic on some of the roads on my route.

magicbastarder

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Now into spring I'd say that the contrast between green hedges and grass and yellow hi-vis jackets would be quite low. Not to mention rapeseed flowering over the next few months (pass the triamcinolone there Brad!).

don't cycle in rapeseed fields when wearing hi-vis so.

it was a similar argument i once heard from a chap who insisted that as wearing a seatbelt can be more injurious in 5% of collisions (his stats, not verified), he chose not to wear one.

Jawgap

This could go in the helmet thread or here, so I decided here......

Reporting on the AGSI's conference the Irish Times states......

Separately, the call for new legislation to make compulsory hi-vis clothing for pedestrians and cyclists has been tabled by sergeants and inspectors from the Sligo-Leitrim division.

And their colleagues in DMR South Central say that while they do not want the hi-vis clothing for pedestrians, they are seeking it and helmets to be made compulsory for cyclists.

Here's a thought lads and ladies of the AGSI, why not have a vigorous programme of road traffic enforcement, instead of one focused on being social media friendly, to address the root cause of the issue?

Chuchote

Yes, let's imagine another, better world in which gardaí get lots and lots of juicy convictions, impossible to wriggle out of, by the simple process of taking photos before arresting people using their phones in their cars.

And if they want something compulsory, what about compulsory confiscation of cars in which drivers are using mobile phones? They can get them back after a week. Using a phone in a car is, after all, far more dangerous than cycling without helmet or hi-viz.