Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

tomasrojo

"Slogans Simplify!

"I ♥ NUANCE!"

Macy0161

tomasrojo wrote: »

You can even wave a flashlight if you're walking and you think the driver hasn't seen you. If that doesn't work, they're not looking at the road ahead, and at least you won't die dressed like a binman.

I actually make sure the torch is moving when I'm walking and cars are coming. It's part of the reason ankle bands (and pedal reflectors) are more effective than torso as well - something moving vertically is more likely to be noticed than something static.

tomasrojo

Yeah, there was some Australian study where they found that knee and ankle reflectors were much more effective than jackets.

Grassey

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Slogans are great for simplifying debate and ignoring actual facts, aren't they?

Wasn't that slogan directed at using those new fangled light things on cars, back when they thought they'd never catch on?

Chips Lovell

I see even Minister Ross isn't immune to the safety fallacy.

“I am of the view that despite certain obstacles, this measure is worth pursuing, if it could save even one life.

Jesus wept.

07Lapierre

IMO, This article sums it up pretty well....

"The only thing Ross has achieved is to prove empty vessels make most noise"

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/the-only-thing-ross-has-achieved-is-to-prove-empty-vessels-make-most-noise-36204727.html

AndrewJRenko

Grassey wrote: »

Wasn't that slogan directed at using those new fangled light things on cars, back when they thought they'd never catch on?

I've only seen it used in classic victim-blaming mode, where it attacks cyclists and pedestrians for not being visible to the speeding drivers who are updating their Facebook status.

I suppose something like 'Be safe - create an environment and culture where people can walk and cycle without being treated as 'strange people' and without having to wear specialised industrial clothing' just doesn't roll off the tongue quite so easily.

bladespin

Deleted User wrote:

To quote an old advertising slogan “Be safe, be seenâ€

Slogan for all - "use your effing eyes"
Would save a lot more lives.

Grassey

or "Use Common Sense...." *






*runs from can of worms

bladespin

bladespin wrote: »

Slogan for all - "use your effing eyes"
Would save a lot more lives.

Indeed. But you must allow for the stupidity of other road users!

CantGetNoSleep

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Do we manufacture these in Ireland?

He'll make sure you need to buy them from a company owned by Denis O'Brien that doesn't even exist yet

Macy0161

Grassey wrote: »

or "Use Common Sense...." *






*runs from can of worms

Latest motors forum thread condoning law breaking (on many levels) --> here

But hey, the problem is a lack of hi viz as to why vulnerable road users keep getting killed on our roads....

Also another one asking is it ok to break red lights, and they're even talking about motorists when everyone knows it's only cyclists that jump lights!

I love Sean nos

Deleted User wrote: »

To quote an old advertising slogan “Be safe, be seen”

"Watch where the **** you're going" was another good one.

I love Sean nos

I love Sean nos wrote: »

"Watch where the **** you're going" was another good one.

That’s grand as long as the other ****er is watching where they’re going.

cdaly_

Deleted User wrote: »

That’s grand as long as the other ****er is watching where they’re going.

But that's grand, hi-vis will make them watch where they're going...

I love Sean nos

I don't think that high-vis will be effective if everyone has to wear it when outside of a building.

Weepsie

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed. But you must allow for the stupidity of other road users!

HiViz isn't going to do anything for anyone's stupidity

my3cents

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I don't think that high-vis will be effective if everyone has to wear it when outside of a building.

Why not?

my3cents

Weepsie wrote: »

HiViz isn't going to do anything for anyone's stupidity

The stupid ones will argue that they shouldn't need to wear Hi-vis and get run over so eventually we'll run out of stupid people - fat chance.

Grassey

Sure look at all those lads who blag their way into VIP events and so on, all wearing high vis. Made them invisible it did!

tomasrojo

my3cents wrote: »

Why not?

See how the hi-viz inexorably draws the eye.

Phoenix Wright

Does anyone know where it is possible to get an inexpensive hi-viz backpack cover? I find carrying around a vest to be a bit of a nuisance tbh, and ideally it would be a cover that doesn't have a huge RSA logo sticking out like a sore thumb

I love Sean nos

my3cents wrote: »

Why not?

Because everyone will be wearing it. It'll become ubiquitous and will no longer stand out.

Phoenix Wright

Phoenix Wright wrote: »

Does anyone know where it is possible to get an inexpensive hi-viz backpack cover? I find carrying around a vest to be a bit of a nuisance tbh, and ideally it would be a cover that doesn't have a huge RSA logo sticking out like a sore thumb

Halfords do ridge branded ones for €12 , I just have a high vis vest to cover the backpack with the straps fed through the arm holes and my OH stitched some velcro straps on to it so it doesn't flap around, one use for those I guess :pac:

I just have to undo the velcro and pull it up to open up the bag

pablo128

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Because everyone will be wearing it. It'll become ubiquitous and will no longer stand out.

Oh right. No need for lights so, sure they become useless when every one uses them according to you.:rolleyes:

I love Sean nos

pablo128 wrote: »

Oh right. No need for lights so, sure they become useless when every one uses them according to you.:rolleyes:

Yes. Because high-vis and lights are the same thing. :rolleyes:

I love Sean nos

pablo128 wrote: »

Oh right. No need for lights so, sure they become useless when every one uses them according to you.:rolleyes:

Actually, you have a point. Whatever about everyone having to wear high-vis when outside, everyone having to carry lights and shining them all around the place whenever outside will be a pain in the hoop.

bladespin

Deleted User wrote:

Indeed. But you must allow for the stupidity of other road users!

True but tgey're not the ones guiding 2 tonnes of metal, if the drivet's not looking properly then dressing like doink wont make a difference.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

And what a cluster *** that has been, no rear light requirement and a crowd of idiots driving with basically front parking lights,24 hours a day in urban environments (and motorways). It was so poorly thought out.

stopped on the roundabout crossing the M50 tonight, behind what i think was a hire car; there were no rear lights visible on the car (i think he was on DRLs and assumed his light was on).
i went up to his window and knocked to let him know, and in his confusion, rather than roll down the window to see what i was up to, he got out of the car - and i reckon he must have been sitting in first gear with the clutch fully pressed, because as soon as he started getting out, the car started to pull forward with him half out - one foot on the ground. it got about ten foot before he managed to get back in and stop it. luckily he was pulled up well before the lights to didn't hit anyone or roll through. that would have been an interesting one to explain.

magicbastarder

also, i was also just driving down a dark country road - with dipped beams - and could quite clearly see the reflective belts on the hi vis jackets the two pedestrians on the footpath a couple of hundred metres up ahead. i saw them much earlier than i otherwise would have, even with the lights dipped (the bright yellow colouring on the rest of the jacket only became visible much closer to them).
i bloody well loathe this argument that dipped beams will not illuminate a hi-vis jacket; of course it will. if your car does not cast any light outside the 'primary' area of your dips, that implies oncoming motorists would not see your lights, which is obviously not the case.