Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

And if they want something compulsory, what about compulsory confiscation of cars in which drivers are using mobile phones?

even just to confiscate the phones would scare the bejesus out of enough motorists to make a difference, i guess.

Jimoslimos

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.

Pretty difficult to avoid cycling alongside them though. Nevertheless the point was that there is no one single item of clothing that provides perfect contrast in all conditions. Your example doesn't apply - I wasn't arguing that hi-vis is inherently more dangerous or that I'd refuse to wear it on that basis, just that the benefits are minimal.

Visibility is rarely the issue anyway (in daylight hours) regardless of what you wear, getting drivers to notice is the problem. That's something cyclists have little control over.

magicbastarder

my issue was that quoting extremely marginal cases does nothing except to undermine your argument, as it makes it look weak.

the problem is that there are two parts to this argument (that can be countered by cyclists), the 'hi-vis makes you more visible' one, followed by the 'because hi-vis makes you more visible, it should be mandatory' one.
cyclists arguing against the first point - or using marginal cases to try to undermine it - only come across as cranks to the general public. because hi-vis *does* make you generally more visible.

the real argument is in the second point, because that ties into the more insidious and more nuanced issues facing cyclists, such as the dangerisation of the activity, the shifting of responsibility away from those creating the danger, and worst of all, the use of such measures to divert attention away from meaningful changes which would make cycling safer.
i think the best response to the 'hi-vis makes you more visible' argument should not be 'well, no', but 'so what?'

CramCycle

In much the same way that they reanimated Peppa Pig for seatbelts and helmets, I wonder how long it will be before Wally, from Where's Wally fame, will have to don Hi Vis for safety reasons.

Jimoslimos

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think the best response to the 'hi-vis makes you more visible' argument should not be 'well, no', but 'so what?'

I assume you meant "yes".

My argument would be "well yes (generally), but is it statistically significant (in terms of reducing accidents)?"

AndrewJRenko

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I assume you meant "yes".

My argument would be "well yes (generally), but is it statistically significant (in terms of reducing accidents)?"

My argument would be:





or perhaps




or possibly

godtabh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My argument would be:





or perhaps




or possibly

What have three crashed police cars got to do with this?

tomasrojo

The RDRF had a good bit about hiviz a few years back.

At town driving speeds, drivers can stop within 10 metres. Are there any circumstances under which you would be visible in hi-viz and invisible without, when that close? Does it help (bends permitting) to be seen 50 or 100 metres away in this situation? By definition the motor vehicle that collides with you is rather close

Night time and times of poor visibility require good lights. At other times, you should be adequately visible whatever you're wearing. There might be a case for wearing bright colours on interurban routes during the day, as being seen from further away might be helpful at higher stopping distances, but I'm not even sure about that.

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My argument would be:





or perhaps




or possibly

this is the sort of response that makes cyclists look like cranks.

tomasrojo

Jimoslimos wrote: »

My argument would be "well yes (generally), but is it statistically significant (in terms of reducing accidents)?"

There's a link in that RDRF link to the results of a Ph.D. study in Nottingham that failed to show any statistically significant benefit for hiviz wearing. There aren't a lot of studies into collision frequencies and wearing.

I love Sean nos

godtabh wrote: »

What have three crashed police cars got to do with this?

I suggest opening your eyes and thinking about whether anything was deliberately added to the cars in question to make them "more visible". :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I suggest opening your eyes and thinking about whether anything was deliberately added to the cars in question to make them "more visible". :rolleyes:

good god. there's not enough palm to fit my face into. or face to fit my palm into. whatever.

I love Sean nos

Looks like someone's house needs a new paint job to make it more visible.

randomname2005

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I suggest opening your eyes and thinking about whether anything was deliberately added to the cars in question to make them "more visible". :rolleyes:

In all fairness, we have no idea how those police cars were damaged. Did they skid (possible cause of damage to the middle car)? Were they rammed on purpose or involved in a car chase? Were they in an accident which was not the result of them not being seen (mechanical fault for example)?

Maybe photos of high vis decorated police cars being hit by cars coming out of a side road where they weren't seen might be more relevant to the visibility of high vis discussion?

magicbastarder

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Looks like someone's house needs a new paint job to make it more visible.

isn't there a name for the effect when satire is indistinguishable from that which it is satirisng?

magicbastarder

randomname2005 wrote: »

In all fairness, we have no idea how those police cars were damaged. Did they skid (possible cause of damage to the middle car)? Were they rammed on purpose or involved in a car chase? Were they in an accident which was not the result of them not being seen (mechanical fault for example)?

no, i think you'll find that three photos of crashed police cars is enough to definitively refute that cyclists wearing hi-vis has no effect.

just as the fact that i had a lovely slap up christmas dinner proved there was no such thing as world hunger.

I love Sean nos

randomname2005 wrote: »

In all fairness, we have no idea how those police cars were damaged. Did they skid (possible cause of damage to the middle car)? Were they rammed on purpose or involved in a car chase? Were they in an accident which was not the result of them not being seen (mechanical fault for example)?

Maybe photos of high vis decorated police cars being hit by cars coming out of a side road where they weren't seen might be more relevant to the visibility of high vis discussion?

Let me google the first image...

Here's the headline:

Police officer cut from car after motorist ploughs into patrol vehicle on hard shoulder

Hmm.

I love Sean nos

randomname2005 wrote: »

In all fairness, we have no idea how those police cars were damaged. Did they skid (possible cause of damage to the middle car)? Were they rammed on purpose or involved in a car chase? Were they in an accident which was not the result of them not being seen (mechanical fault for example)?

Maybe photos of high vis decorated police cars being hit by cars coming out of a side road where they weren't seen might be more relevant to the visibility of high vis discussion?

The second image...

If you're going to prang a car ... it's not a good idea to crash into a police vehicle!

Flashing blue lights on a police car did not prevent a motorist from crashing into it from behind.

Hmm.

I love Sean nos

randomname2005 wrote: »

In all fairness, we have no idea how those police cars were damaged. Did they skid (possible cause of damage to the middle car)? Were they rammed on purpose or involved in a car chase? Were they in an accident which was not the result of them not being seen (mechanical fault for example)?

Maybe photos of high vis decorated police cars being hit by cars coming out of a side road where they weren't seen might be more relevant to the visibility of high vis discussion?

And finally, the third image...

'Drink-drive' crash in Dudley leaves officer in hospital

A police officer remains in hospital after suffering injuries when a man crashed into the side of a squad car.

At least this chap had the possible excuse of being drunk.

HivemindXX

Even the hand wringing high-viz compulsionists do not claim, as far as I know, that it will ensure you will never be hit by a car. They tend to play the weak "if it saves even one life" card.

I find pictures of high-viz emergency services cars (uncrashed ones) useful as part of the counter argument where you question why the "if it saves even one life" people aren't insisting on high viz cars. After all the emergency services seem to think it does some good. To give you a head start the initial response involves how there is a specific size at which objects are easily visible regardless of colour and cars are above this and bicycles aren't. The second response, after the emergency services point, involves how high-viz is important for those vehicles, despite their blue flashing lights and enormous size in the case of fire engines, because they are often left in the road. Unlike regular cars which are never in the road. Apparently.

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My argument would be:

btw, the funny thing about this 'argument' is that the counter argument would be a photo of every police car in the UK which has not been crashed into. it would be just as logical as the argument it was countering.

I love Sean nos

magicbastarder wrote: »

the counter argument would be a photo of every police car in the UK which has not been crashed into.

Even the ones that weren't on the road?

Capt'n Midnight

magicbastarder wrote: »

isn't there a name for the effect when satire is indistinguishable from that which it is satirisng?

Poe's Law.


RSA free speed surveys clearly show that the vast majority of motorists on interurban roads are speeding. But Hi Vis.


Retroreflective surfaces would make things easier for driverless cars.
But that function could be totally separate to visibility for humans. As robot cars could use Infra Red , thermal imaging , encoded pulses, or even radar.

magicbastarder

it came up in conversation the other day, that case from about fifteen years ago when there was heavy fog, and a crash (i think) on the N7. dublin fire brigade attended, and when they were at the scene, a car crashed into one of their tenders. it was determined that the driver had been travelling sufficiently fast that when the fire tender would have been actually visible to her in the conditions, it was too late for her to even react fast enough to hit the brakes. this was a DFB fire tender with whatever reflective surfaces would have been applied, *plus* all blue lights flashing.
having seen how drivers react to torrential downpours, and the subsequent drop in visibility, not just from the rain but from the roosters, that incident came as no surprise.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

having seen how drivers react to torrential downpours, and the subsequent drop in visibility, not just from the rain but from the roosters, that incident came as no surprise.

Roosters?

ThisRegard

Presumably the spray from cars that go into the air like rooster tails?

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is the sort of response that makes cyclists look like cranks.

Crank? Yeah, I'm a bit cranky all right. When the group who are legally obliged to protect cyclists by enforcing the law have a publicly stated policy of not enforcing the law because of 'balance' then come out with victim-blaming ****e like this, yeah, I'm a bit cranky - mea culpa.

magicbastarder

ThisRegard wrote: »

Presumably the spray from cars that go into the air like rooster tails?

Indeed.

randomname2005

I love Sean nos wrote: »

And finally, the third image...

At least this chap had the possible excuse of being drunk.

Wahey. We have context for the damage. A much better counter argument to the "All cyclists must wear high vis so they can be seen" line thrown about.

tomasrojo

Interesting blog post from 2012. In particular, what's been mentioned here before: dipped car headlights don't illuminate reflective surfaces that are up high all that much.

Also the headlight patterns on new vehicles tend to display a low and very marked light cut-off height. Subsequently the authors recommended that road workers affix retro-reflective material below their knee-height or preferably around ankle level on work trousers. Using flourescent yellow trousers or over-pants during daytime increases the surface area of the safety colour thus increasing conspicuity.

https://ambulancevisibilityblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppe-report.jpg?w=123&h=150

(HT @cosaingalway on Twitter)

(I am not recommending mandatory fluorescent over-pants. But then I'm not under scrutiny for falsifying hundreds of thousands of Breathalyzer tests.)