Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

tomasrojo

Yeah, that's a fair point. But people often remember the times that reflective strips were dazzlingly bright, and that's usually when they had the headlights on high beam, or maybe were going uphill, lifting the beams a little. So that's a misleading impression of how effective reflective strips are. Plus people seem to think that the fluorescent part of the jacket is contributing to conspicuity at night, which it isn't. (I've had trouble convincing people that the green bit doesn't glow at night.)

So you're still left with Sam Brownes being as effective at night, and nowhere near as crappy-looking or inconvenient to carry, and flashlights still being way more effective, with the bonus of helping you to see your way, as well as be conspicuous.

tomasrojo

The RSA used to use Sam Brownes a lot more in their PR stuff, but I think the fact that they don't give them away has led them to fall out of favour. They are a lot more expensive than hi-viz waistcoats.

Which is a recurring theme in this thread: hi-viz jackets (single piece of fabric, no joins, no arms, simple arm-holes, closed with velcro) get promoted out of all proportion to how effective they are, because they cost about 50c each and can be stockpiled, distributed widely and give the impression that the real problem is how hard cyclists and pedestrians are to see, and that that problem has been addressed.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Plus people seem to think that the fluorescent part of the jacket is contributing to conspicuity at night, which it isn't. (I've had trouble convincing people that the green bit doesn't glow at night.)

yep, as mentioned, the fluorescent part of the jackets above had little effect compared to the retroreflective sections; worth noting that they were proper jackets too, not builders vests. possibly the case that the reflectors were of a higher quality.

CramCycle

In my many years of travelling on Irish and foreign roads there are only two scenarios (for me) where hi vis was discernibly noticeably different to just good eyesight and nothing else.

First was France where 800 other cyclists were wearing really high quality gilets with really good reflective strips. All the badly aligned lights made a see of silver bobbing across the French countryside.

The other are the reflective strips on the lower legs of council workers at night in south Dublin. Their legs were visible before anything else. At a reasonable speed it was more than enough to see them. If I were speeding or not paying attention it wasn't much use. I would have seen them anyway but the taxis speeding back into town probably wouldn't

My point is, I do not have anything against high vis except for the belief that it instills in a large proportion of the society that it is a substitute for good lights and that it makes you more visible in all situations.

That is a lie. This is not opinion, this is fact, those beliefs are more dangerous then not wearing hi vis.

If you have good lights you are more visible at night than someone wearing hi vis. Wearing hi vis may compliment this but in no way does it make you more noticeable than good lights.

There is no scenario where hi vis is better than good lights, there is no scenario where hi vis makes you more visible when you have good lights.

And all of this is being used as some excuse for people driving boxes, hundreds of kilos, for not driving with due care and attention (which is a far higher standard than expected by the Irish court system).

cython

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.

I'm one of the people who highlighted the reduced efficacy of high-viz with dipped headlights rather than fulls, and while I have no doubt that on a dark country road the reflective material will stand out due to a near complete absence of anything else producing or reflecting light, in an urban area the amount reflected is still negligible compared to the "background" light already present there, so I'll reiterate, lights ahead of high-viz every day of the week and twice on Sundays, but all the better if you can do both.

And while I generally hate anecdotal evidence, this was borne out by my own experiences only this morning when I was in a car and while cyclists were visible, the reflective strips were no more so than any other part of their gear in such an environment.

Macy0161

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.

When two cars were meeting I think was the caveat I said. However, still wasn't the bloody "hiviz" - it was the reflective strips! Again, the reflective material doesn't have to be attached to a hiviz builders jacket to be effective. You would've seen a Browne Belt as quick.

magicbastarder

cython wrote: »

I'm one of the people who highlighted the reduced efficacy of high-viz with dipped headlights rather than fulls, and while I have no doubt that on a dark country road the reflective material will stand out due to a near complete absence of anything else producing or reflecting light, in an urban area the amount reflected is still negligible compared to the "background" light already present there

but the problem here is (within the context of shane ross's pronouncements regarding wearing them outside lit areas) you're fighting the wrong battle. they're not talking about making it mandatory in the places you say it's ineffective, they're talking about making it mandatory in places where you agree it's helpful.

don't get me wrong, i'm absolutely implacably opposed to mandatory hi-vis. and my opposition not based on visibility (or lack thereof).

tomasrojo

Does anyone know what the rationale behind the appearance of firefighters' outfits is? It's usually a dark or drab colour with reflective bands on the wrists, ankles and waist (maybe mid-torso too).

I get that the ankle and wrist strips are to accentuate biomotion, but it's quite different from the standard out-in-the-street garda outfit, which is typically a fairly unattractive fluorescent affair with reflective parts.

Anyway, it looks quite a bit nicer. I do find that black with 5- or 6-cm-diameter yellow reflective stripes is pretty effective, in as far as reflective clothing can be effective vis-à-vis lights (again, use of a Sam Browne is pretty close to this).

magicbastarder

i've wondered about that too. you'd think firefighters would be using jackets covered in foil to reflect as much IR radiation as possible.

tomasrojo

The high visibility patterns present in NFPA 1971 turnout gear are notably
effective because they distribute material widely across the torso and limbs, to
capture both the motion and shape of the wearer. Material at the very end of the
limbs and major joints has been shown to optimize pedestrian conspicuity, possi-
bly by providing strong sympathetic visual motion clues to an observer that the
wearer is human [11,12]. This type of pattern is often described as ‘‘biomotion’’
and has been found to be highly efficient at creating conspicuity for its wearer, as
compared to patterns which confine high visibility materials to the torso only.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226197814_Firefighter_Turnout_Gear_Durability_Study-Evaluation_of_Visibility_Trim

That's the biomotion bit anyway.

(EDIT: I should be clear: I'm not suggesting that people going for a walk require equipment equivalent to that mandated for high-risk occupations!)

Middle Man

Middle Man wrote: »

FFS, what is so complicated about putting on a high visibility vest??? It's just like putting on a gilet or waistcoat - seriously.

What is complicated is having it available at all times.

It's a summer's day and a friend asks me if I want to go for a bite to eat after work, by the time we've had dinner and a couple of drinks it is 10pm.

I leave the pub or restaurant and I am breaking the law because that morning I didn't think to bring a hi-vis vest to work with me.

Really?

The whole idea is completely laughable.

tomasrojo

The whole idea of spontaneous journeys by foot or bike is alien to quite a few of our public representatives.

magicbastarder

the gardai won't like it either.
what are they supposed to do if they find a local farmer walking at night - charge him? and destroy their relationship with the local community?
or are they going to have to carry a stock of builders vests in each car for such a scenario - or else have to give him a lift home?

it'd be making a mockery of the law if they sent him on his way as-is, given the roads are populated with so many dangerous cars.

Tenzor07

Well not only that, but does it mean that at every Dublin bike stand should the council have to install a high-vis vest dispensing machine so everyone who just wants to use the bike to get from the office to the train station can "be seen"

07Lapierre

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well not only that, but does it mean that at every Dublin bike stand should the council have to install a high-vis vest dispensing machine so everyone who just wants to use the bike to get from the office to the train station can "be seen"

Won't work...unless the stand itself is painted in a Bright/Hi-viz coloured paint with a big flashing light on top, no one will know it's there!

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

the gardai won't like it either.
what are they supposed to do if they find a local farmer walking at night - charge him? and destroy their relationship with the local community?
or are they going to have to carry a stock of builders vests in each car for such a scenario - or else have to give him a lift home?

it'd be making a mockery of the law if they sent him on his way as-is, given the roads are populated with so many dangerous cars.

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/rural-life/death-on-a-rural-irish-road-i-knew-id-hit-someone-but-there-was-no-body-on-the-road-36062834.html

This was in the news recently.

magicbastarder

that was discussed at length here, and there are so many smelly aspects to that story it's difficult to read much into it.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

the gardai won't like it either.
what are they supposed to do if they find a local farmer walking at night - charge him? and destroy their relationship with the local community?
or are they going to have to carry a stock of builders vests in each car for such a scenario - or else have to give him a lift home?

One of the RSA guys in Mayo (the one who likes getting in the news, Noel something) recommended that drivers keep a pile of hiviz waistcoats in their car and that they stop pedestrians they find without a waistcoat and bestow one on them.

Chips Lovell

tomasrojo wrote: »

One of the RSA guys in Mayo (the one who likes getting in the news, Noel something) recommended that drivers keep a pile of hiviz waistcoats in their car and that they stop pedestrians they find without a waistcoat and bestow one on them.

It's not for nothing they made him Road Safety Officer of the Year!

tomasrojo

Leave No Road Unblessed

cdaly_

tomasrojo wrote: »

Does anyone know what the rationale behind the appearance of firefighters' outfits is? It's usually a dark or drab colour with reflective bands on the wrists, ankles and waist (maybe mid-torso too).

Maybe black is 'hi-vis' when contrasted with the orange/yellow of a decent building fire?...

tomasrojo

cdaly_ wrote: »

Maybe black is 'hi-vis' when contrasted with the orange/yellow of a decent building fire?...

Yeah, actually that might be it. You contrast with a high-intensity background, and you show up by biomotion of the strips if you're illuminated by a torch of some kind.

07Lapierre

cdaly_ wrote: »

Maybe black is 'hi-vis' when contrasted with the orange/yellow of a decent building fire?...

Which IMO is why a Sam Brown belt is a better option than a hi-viz RSA type gillet.

what_traffic

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It's not for nothing they made him Road Safety Officer of the Year!

Wonder who sponsored this? The local Mayo Hi-Viz distributor that the RSA use?

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Education/Leading-Lights/2016-Leading-Lights-Winners/
So many categories in it - that just applying for one, good chance you would win one.

I love Sean nos

magicbastarder wrote: »

the gardai won't like it either.
what are they supposed to do if they find a local farmer walking at night - charge him? and destroy their relationship with the local community?
or are they going to have to carry a stock of builders vests in each car for such a scenario - or else have to give him a lift home?

it'd be making a mockery of the law if they sent him on his way as-is, given the roads are populated with so many dangerous cars.

Tow the farmer. Release him only when he's put on a high-vis vest and paid the impound fee.

gctest50

07Lapierre wrote: »

Which IMO is why a Sam Brown belt is a better option than a hi-viz RSA type gillet.

HiViz with reflective stripes :

Tenzor07

Hi-Vis doesn't work:

gctest50

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Hi-Vis doesn't work:

bit of a drama queen maybe ?

what was he wearing here ?


why did he release the brake, wave his hand around, then hit the back corner of the bumper ?

surely if he kept braking he'd stop a bit quicker ?

You'd want to off your game to employ him if he lets go of brakes like that




.

tomasrojo

Don't think this was mentioned here before:

This study found no evidence that cyclists using conspicuity aids were at reduced risk of a collision crash compared to non-users after adjustment for confounding, but there was some evidence of an increase in risk. Bias and residual confounding from differing route selection and cycling behaviours in users of conspicuity aids are possible explanations for these findings. Conspicuity aids may not be effective in reducing collision crash risk for cyclists in highly-motorised environments when used in the absence of other bicycle crash prevention measures such as increased segregation or lower motor vehicle speeds.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140516303796

EDIT: Miller is the Uni. of Nottingham Ph.D. student mentioned before. Might be a paper based on that Ph.D., so already mentioned here, sort of.

buffalo

gctest50 wrote: »

bit of a drama queen maybe ?

what was he wearing here ?

Perhaps you rushed off too quickly to actually pay attention to the video, as he points out he was wearing this:

gctest50 wrote: »

why did he release the brake, wave his hand around, then hit the back corner of the bumper ?

surely if he kept braking he'd stop a bit quicker ?

You'd want to off your game to employ him if he lets go of brakes like that

I'm confused as to how this second video has relevance to the video above? Are you saying because the cyclist has had bad reactions at another time, the driver in the first video was right to pull out in front of him, and could actually see the hi-viz but chose to ignore it because the cyclist is a drama queen?

Also, classy move relating his ability to do his job to his ability to cycle. Really nice.