Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

magicbastarder

minikin wrote: »

Let’s remove all illumination from all vehicles so 😀

you mentioned clothing - lighting is a completely different story.

minikin

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mentioned clothing - lighting is a completely different story.

We see objects by the light reflected off them... the more reflective the clothing the more visible the object is. Black material absorbs light. Simple physics.

tomasrojo

The person wearing black clothes is on top of a bike with bright lights, and you can see the lights. Slightly more complex physics: lights work better than reflective surfaces.

Also good lights can be seen from much further away and don't require light cast on them to work or be affective. I'd wear reflective clothing at night but only as an addition, not a substitute for good lights.

I think someone post a few pages back an image or link to a t junction on a dark road, showing the difference between hi vis and lights in those situations. Worth a look.

pablo128

Deleted User wrote: »

Also good lights can be seen from much further away and don't require light cast on them to work or be affective. I'd wear reflective clothing at night but only as an addition, not a substitute for good lights.

I think someone post a few pages back an image or link to a t junction on a dark road, showing the difference between hi vis and lights in those situations. Worth a look.

No one is stating that hi vis is a replacement for good lights. But there's no doubt both used together is better than either alone.

Fighting Tao

I often wondered why the RSA put the blame on cyclists with the slogan “Be Safe, Be Seen.” On their backpack covers and other items.

“Be Safe. See!” Would be much better and directed at motorists as they are the ones that kill so many others on the roads.

Grassey

Whatever about that, they should be strung up for handing out those tiny little free lights that provide f all illumination, and are next to useless!

Lumen

pablo128 wrote: »

No one is stating that hi vis is a replacement for good lights. But there's no doubt both used together is better than either alone.

No, since any definition of "good lights" includes "providing high visibility to other road users". This is easy to achieve with modern led lights.

Once you have high visibility, more is not better. It's not even a question of diminishing returns, there are no returns. You can be seen. Problem solved.

But that's not the only argument. From a behavioural point of view, people who use hi vis tend to use poorer lights, and that hi vis doesn't work at all angles or in all conditions.

Besides which, I don't want to wear stupid unnecessary clothing whilst doing things that are already safe enough. I don't wear a hard hat in the shower, even though it would make the shower safer. I don't wear a helmet or HANS device whilst driving, even though it would improve my chances in a crash. Etc.

magicbastarder

speaking of lights, i'm seeing a lot of people with those strings of leds that go around the inside of the rim - while not fantastically visible from behind, they're certainly visible from the side.

tomasrojo

Grassey wrote: »

Whatever about that, they should be strung up for handing out those tiny little free lights that provide f all illumination, and are next to useless!

Yeah, unfortunately adequate lights cost more than €2. And adding 50c of hi-viz isn't the solution either. I suppose they could stipulate that the lights they're giving out aren't suitable to be used as a primary light, but on the whole they'd be better subsidising proper lights, even if that is more difficult to do (and I'm sure it's much more difficult than buying a grand's worth of button-battery lights and handing them out in the street).

minikin

tomasrojo wrote: »

The person wearing black clothes is on top of a bike with bright lights, and you can see the lights. Slightly more complex physics: lights work better than reflective surfaces.

That's great IF they have BRIGHT lights. Lights stop working, batteries die... reflective clothing tends not to stop functioning and is also useful during daylight hours.

Nowhere have I suggested cyclists should wear reflective hi-vis instead of having lights. They should (and motor cyclists too) be lit up like christmas trees just the same as car/truck/bus drivers should drive with their lights on.

We should look after each other but also make it easy for others to help us.

I'd tend not to take safety advice from someone that cycles around with a brain spike attached.

Chips Lovell

If your lights fail, continuing to cycle, even with a high viz vest, is dangerous. You stop and walk. If you're doing any kind of mileage, having backup lights is always a good idea.

07Lapierre

minikin wrote: »

That's great IF they have BRIGHT lights. Lights stop working, batteries die... reflective clothing tends not to stop functioning and is also useful during daylight hours.

Back up lights and/or Batteries.

Grassey

minikin wrote:

... reflective clothing tends not to stop functioning and is also useful during daylight hours.

Reflective jackets don't really work in urban environments under streetlights at night, that's non-functioning to me

magicbastarder

minikin wrote: »

We see objects by the light reflected off them... the more reflective the clothing the more visible the object is. Black material absorbs light. Simple physics.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25933995
not so simple physics.

there was another study mentioned here where they found the salient difference is where cyclists wear reflectors on their legs, that wearing a vest made little difference to visibility, will try to dig that out.

magicbastarder

Grassey wrote: »

Reflective jackets don't really work in urban environments under streetlights at night, that's non-functioning to me

issue in urban environments also is that apart from the competing light sources, drivers will be driving with dipped beams.

Macy0161

magicbastarder wrote: »

drivers will be driving with dipped beams.

Or the amount of motorists driving cars that have at least one light out, driving around with just fog lights, or the increasingly common drl only in the dark! With the amount of light issues motorists seem to have had this winter, time for hi-viz cars only!

07Lapierre

It's also worth noting that most cycling specific clothing have reflective elements incorporated into them.

Jackets, Gloves, Overshoes, Bib tights etc. they all include have it.

Example: this is the jacket i wear in winter:

https://www.bicycle-line.com/eng/giubbino-nordica.html

p.s. I have lights...very bright lights.

tomasrojo

minikin wrote: »

We should look after each other but also make it easy for others to help us.

I use lights, and other road users can see me from at least a kilometre away. On an urban road, that gives them over a minute to make a plan about what to do when they catch up with me. I've helped them enough.

CramCycle

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I often wondered why the RSA put the blame on cyclists with the slogan “Be Safe, Be Seen.” On their backpack covers and other items.

“Be Safe. See!” Would be much better and directed at motorists as they are the ones that kill so many others on the roads.

I'd prefer something more to the point like, "Pay attention you stupid F***hole" The problem being, the people I want to see it are the only people likely not to notice it.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, unfortunately adequate lights cost more than €2. And adding 50c of hi-viz isn't the solution either. I suppose they could stipulate that the lights they're giving out aren't suitable to be used as a primary light, but on the whole they'd be better subsidising proper lights, even if that is more difficult to do (and I'm sure it's much more difficult than buying a grand's worth of button-battery lights and handing them out in the street).

Not much more than 2 euro though, I have seen USB rechargable lights with decent output going for a fiver in ALDI. They don't sell below cost AFAIK.

This said, Cambridge police, used to, have a great idea. They would sieze your bike and fine you. That fine would go to buying you a decent set of lights. So you either lost the bike or you were forced to buy decent lights.

I can think of a few issues with this especially for folk like us who have lights but making it a stipulation of the BTW scheme that you have to get lights on your first bike? Not a catch all but would catch some.

Carawaystick

minikin wrote: »

I'd tend not to take safety advice from someone that cycles around with a brain spike attached.

I'd take Sheldon's advice over almost anobody else on this board, and I know lots of knowledgeble people on this board in real life.

Carawaystick

Kevin Irving wrote: »

And in the video posted, the cyclist could not stop in the distance he could see to be clear. I think it is absolutely reasonable to expect that the car may not see the cyclist due to the position of the sun and his speed.

Now the car SHOULD see him

In my experience very few cars can see, but luckily they have an adult driving so they don't need to be able to see.

Lumen

minikin wrote: »

I'd tend not to take safety advice from someone that cycles around with a brain spike attached.

Taking the piss out of Dead Sheldon Brown isn't likely to win any debating points in a cycling forum.

tomasrojo

Yeah, Sheldon Brown was one of the good guys. Very clear advice, very knowledgeable, and a great knowledge of old-timey cycling tech. too.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

Not much more than 2 euro though, I have seen USB rechargable lights with decent output going for a fiver in ALDI. They don't sell below cost AFAIK.

They should definitely give out fewer lights (if the budget remains unchanged) and give those out instead.

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

I can think of a few issues with this especially for folk like us who have lights but making it a stipulation of the BTW scheme that you have to get lights on your first bike? Not a catch all but would catch some.

A race to the bottom in regards light standards, and bike shops would be foolish to attempt to sell anything they might believe to be sub standard. The scheme works well, the more regulations you add in, the less it will work. A requirement of the shop to make a statement to the purchaser, much like the pharmacists need to stipulate about the addictive-ness of Codeine, saying that cycling between dusk and dawn without lights is illegal and dangerous, might be easier, for every bike purchased.

tomasrojo wrote: »

They should definitely give out fewer lights (if the budget remains unchanged) and give those out instead.

100% imagine if they stopped paying a few million to a crowd in Mayo for hi Vis (some of which turns out not even to be Hi VIs, hmmm, I wonder did they ever refund the RSA/Gardai for that blunder?!?) and just got as large a batch of USB chargeable lights like the ones Aldi sell. The buying power alone would make a huge dent in the price.

ballyharpat

the lights are next to useless, they are not even waterproof. Along with that, I got some from the RSA when they were mailing them out free, the envelope probably cost as much as the lights, but worse, the postage was nearly €4!!!! that is an awful waste of money by the RSA.

Carawaystick

Have the RSA anything to say about the flourescent/reflective wands that used to seperate lanes but motorists drove over and destroyed, in Sandyford, Lincoln Place etc?

ED E

Tell me again about how your hivis will save you....

The Police wrote:

If drivers can miss Emergency vehicles with lights and markings what chance have you got to be seen?