Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

AndrewJRenko

Carawaystick wrote: »

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?

"Is there anything to be said for more hi-vis - on the wands? " says Mr RSA.

Fighting Tao

Carawaystick wrote: »

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?

There was a fancy steel bollard on the footpath on the corner of Castleforbes Road and Sherriff St Upper in Dublin 1. Even though it was about 2 foot in i the path it kept getting hit by motor vehicles and had to be replaced many times. A number of months ago it was replaced with a solid steel ugly looking bollard. It hasn’t moved yet it has been hit a number of times.

Lesson is that unless motor vehicles sustain substantial damages from the wands, cyclists will not be safe.

tomasrojo

A world without beige Volvos in fog:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/01/29/self-driving-cars-paint-detroit-auto-show/1032397001/

Pinch Flat

I’m really puzzled by the whole blame culture against pedestrians and cyclists - not suggesting cyclists should travel in the dark without lights.

I had reason to drive the back roads from west Dublin to join the m4 at maynooth in Friday night last. Not a great night weather wise. But one thing that struck me was that with even my dipped lights I had decent visibility - beams on no issue. Would have spotted a pedestrian or cyclist for that matter without too much difficulty.

At the other end of my journey, I was driving through rural Galway, so similarly at the other end - plenty of country roads, using dipped and high beams. Again I was happy enough with visibility - even managed to stop to avoid a hare on the road around Loughrea.

Driving at or just below the speed limit might have had something to do with it.

CramCycle

Coming home this evening stopped at a junction when out of the dark, like Jack Nicholson coming out of the shadows as Joker in Batman, comes into view only a metre or two from me. He had no lights and the junction he was at was at an incline so all the cars light were higher than normal. His hi vis was one of those, its not actually hi vis from the RSA. For the first time in a long time, he was invisible.

On a counter note, there was a runner on the N11 cycle path whom I seen almost a km away (between junctions at Cabinteely) as he had an anklet thing on with red LEDs, same for another guy who had a hi vis and a sh*tty red light attached, I seen both when I was 100m away but I seen the really bright red LED under his saddle at least 700m away. Now neither caused an issue or would have, as Pinch Flat said, you'd see them long before you got to them if you were driving for the conditions and paying attention.

07Lapierre

Came across these two cyclists this morning.. (Yes there are two in the video) Both are wearing Hi-Viz, but only one has lights.

First one is @ 1:27

Hint: The other one is coming towards me on the right.

https://youtu.be/Kamklf8doLc?t=1m12s

CramCycle

buffalo wrote: »

If it could save even one life...

07Lapierre wrote: »

Came across these two cyclists this morning.. (Yes there are two in the video) Both are wearing Hi-Viz, but only one has lights.

First one is @ 1:27

Hint: The other one is coming towards me on the right.

https://youtu.be/Kamklf8doLc?t=1m12s

I seen the first one at 1.17. Was the second one at around 1.40 or so. I got a glimpse of what I thought were pedal reflectors. Was the cyclist wearing hi vis? Don't get me wrong, the settings on your camera are very dark but it clearly shows the benefit of a half decent light over hi vis.

You can just about see him at 1:44

07Lapierre

Well Spotted! yep that's him @ 1:40. He was wearing one of those builders hi-viz waistcoats. it was flapping in the wind as he didnt have it secured at the front. (so its useless). Yes the camera is a bit dark and he was a bit (a tiny bit) more noticeable to the naked eye. The video is dark because this morning the sun was rising right into the camera, which makes anything in the shadows look even darker.

I just think its a good example of how necessary lights are when compared to Hi-Viz! If the cyclist coming towards me had lights, I'd have seen him a lot sooner. Hi-viz is useless for oncoming traffic.

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/cosaingalway/status/968258204324057088

I think Robert Troy threw this in with the minimum passing distance legislation heading off to the Oireachtas Select Committee on Wednesday. Doesn't appear to be about cyclists, just pedestrians on unlit roads. Definition of high visibility seems to be weird, as it's impossible for a material to be easily discernible from all backgrounds (chartreuse isn't that easily discernible from vegetation, for example), and it doesn't allow for a pedestrian to use a flashlight instead. And it's bound to have unforeseen consequences.

Lumen

First they came for the pedestrians....

Chips Lovell

Another Trojan horse

CramCycle

Lumen wrote: »

First they came for the pedestrians....

Then they came for me, and there was no one left, which to be honest, made my commute alot more pleasant.

Lumen

"Walking on an unlit public road...shall be guilty of an offence".

Not even restricted to "at night time". 24 hour mandatory hi vis.

I'm rarely outraged, but this has definitely triggered me.

What the actual fck.

ford2600

Lumen wrote: »

"Walking on an unlit public road...shall be guilty of an offence".

Not even restricted to "at night time". 24 hour mandatory hi vis.

I'm rarely outraged, but this has definitely triggered me.

What the actual fck.

I work very frequently on road; always in daylight with hi vis, cones on road, flashing lights. It doesn't matter a ****e. The majority of driver's treat pedestrians on road with contempt, worse than my treatment as a cyclist.

On seeing me, braking is never the first input but a steering one which might leave them in a position where there are only bad outcomes; oncoming car, ditch or me.

The only time there is braking is when camera is pointed towards them and I'm confused for a Garda. So whether a conscious thought or not on some level drivers think "fcuk you" when they see a pedestrian.

Expecting elected representative to lead rather than pander to the majority will usually end in disappointment.

It is a stepping stone for it being illegal to walk on regional roads and above. Build a few greenways, fcuk off and use them as we won't be slowing down is the message

Macy0161

tomasrojo wrote: »

Definition of high visibility seems to be weird, as it's impossible for a material to be easily discernible from all backgrounds

Yes, and the orange "hi vis" don't work for anyone red/green colour blind either. No mention of even reflective material, which is the important bit (if we have to go down this road, why a builders vest and not a browne belt?

eeeee

This is absolutely disgusting.

Forgive my ignorance, as I haven't really been following this (I just assumed it wouldn't make it in) but is this the law now? And if so can it be taken back with enough public pressure? If td's are pressured enough can it be rescinded like mandatory cycle lane use?
I was wondering who the pedestrian lobby groups are, which is a fcuking outrageous thing to have to think about.
This is absolutely indefensible. So in an accident the victim can be culpable because they weren't wearing high viz? Or at least considered a contributory factor? It's fcuking walking down the road. "The victim wasn't wearing hi viz" I'm boiling over this :mad:

Chips Lovell

The legislation in question is the Road Traffic Amendment Bill 2017, which was introduced by the Minister for Transport Shane Ross. The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Road Traffic Act to toughen drink driving penalities by providing for "for automatic disqualification from driving in the case of a person paying a fixed charge in respect of a drink driving offence".

Fianna Fail Transport spokesman Robert Troy [URL="http out against this proposal[/URL]

However, Fianna F’s spokesman on transport, Robert Troy, said his party would not support such measures.

Mr Troy said the Minister had not produced any evidence to support the proposals.

Speaking to The Irish Times, he said: “Minister Ross is being lazy in my opinion. There is nothing to suggest such a road safety measure will be effective or will save lives.

You have to commend Deputy Troy for his public spiritedness and dedication to road safety though. Despite his objection to the main purpose of the bill, he keeps attempting to tack on well meaning additional road safety measures as amendments. No doubt this will make the bill trickier to pass, since all may not agree with them. But if the additional challenge can save one more life, surely it'll all be worth it?

For example, he is keen to add an amendment mandating a minimum passing distance for cyclists:

“We need to see an increase in the minimum required distance between a motorist and cyclist when overtaking. Accordingly, I will shortly bring forward an amendment to the Road Traffic Bill to bring about such a change,” Mr Troy said.

And now he's trying to make it mandatory that pedestrians wear high viz. I'm sure we can all raise a glass to Robert and toast his commitment to keeping us all safe on the road.

Annie get your Run

I don't think it's law yet, it's only being brought the houses of the Oireachtas now as far as I know? I'm not sure what we can do at this stage to make sure it's not passed. I'd be willing to bet it will get huge support while the MPDL probably won't get enough votes. It seems they are two different amendments..

Edit: I see Barons' post above - so it sounds like it's the whole bill or nothing?

Steoller

Annie get your Run wrote: »

I don't think it's law yet, it's only being brought the houses of the Oireachtas now as far as I know? I'm not sure what we can do at this stage to make sure it's not passed. I'd be willing to bet it will get huge support while the MPDL probably won't get enough votes. It seems they are two different amendments..

Edit: I see Barons' post above - so it sounds like it's the whole bill or nothing?

I think the amendments are going to committee on Wednesday, to see if they are included, before the whole bill is voted on.

gmacww

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSANTRnEBgg

tomasrojo

Macy0161 wrote: »

Yes, and the orange "hi vis" don't work for anyone red/green colour blind either. No mention of even reflective material, which is the important bit (if we have to go down this road, why a builders vest and not a browne belt?

It does mention "reflective properties" though. But, as you say, why not allow a Sam Browne, or even a flashlight of a certain output? At least you could put them easily in your pocket or bag.

It's pretty badly written so Troy might not have considered that his amendment makes the hi-viz mandatory during daylight as well. Maybe it doesn't. Does "unlit road" generally mean a road that has neither daylight nor artificial light at the time of use?

tomasrojo

This amendment business (as the YouTube clip suggests) is making our law-making very like the US system of earmarks.

Hurrache

What's the legal definition of a pedestrian as covered by the RTA?

tomasrojo

(5) A reference to a vehicle in these Regulations shall, unless otherwise specified, mean a mechanically propelled
vehicle (other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair) and a pedal cycle.

(6) For the purpose of these Regulations, a pedestrian shall include a person in charge of a vehicle which is not
mechanically propelled.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print


I don't think they can bundle cyclists in as "pedestrians", but a bicycle is not mechanically propelled.

CramCycle

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

And now he's trying to make it mandatory that pedestrians wear high viz. I'm sure we can all raise a glass to Robert and toast his commitment to keeping us all safe on the road.

To be fair, someone else here pointed out, possibly in Motoring or C&T that it was just a smoke screen, trying to seem proactive but get the bill shot down. Looks like they are correct.

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's pretty badly written so Troy might not have considered that his amendment makes the hi-viz mandatory during daylight as well. Maybe it doesn't. Does "unlit road" generally mean a road that has either daylight or artificial light at the time of use?

It doesn't really matter though, it is simply blame shifting for motorists not driving for the conditions. I see a few people around Shankhill running with decent LEDs on their arms and ankles. BY this legislation, they are committing an offence because they are not using a largely either ineffective or inferior Hi Vis builders vest.

Hurrache

That's looks an odd definition. What if you don't have a vehicle that is not mechanically propelled with you, i.e. walking or running, can you legitimately (not necessarily sccessfully) argue that you're not a pedestrian as defined in section 4.6?

tomasrojo

Hurrache wrote: »

That's looks an odd definition. What if you don't have a vehicle that is not mechanically propelled with you, i.e. walking or running, can you legitimately (not necessarily sccessfully) argue that you're not a pedestrian as defined in section 4.6?

I'm not sure what they're getting at. I think maybe the important bit, which is elsewhere on that page is that traffic doesn't include pedestrians. So I guess humans not in mechanically propelled vehicles or on pedal cycles are pedestrians. So wheelchair users are pedestrians, for example.

tomasrojo

http://irishcycle.com/2018/02/27/irish-parliament-to-debate-mandatory-high-vis-for-pedestrians-and-cycling-passing-distance-law/

High-vis law would apply to motorists and cyclists who have exited their cars or dismounted their bicycles.

Hurrache

Mentions unlit roads and streets. Unlit streets imply to me streets with footpaths but no street lighting. So basically kids walking to school, people walking to local shops or just walking their dogs in such places, during daylight hours, are required to wear highvis. Idiotic.

Edit, the actual amendments don't mention street despite the story and tweets doing so.

Their definition of highvis is

“ ‘high-visibility jacket’ means a jacket made from high visibility
material, i.e. clothing material that is easily discernible from any
background and has reflective properties;
‘high-visibility vest’ means a vest made from high visibility material,
i.e. clothing material that is easily discernible from any background
and has reflective properties;”,

From any background? Standard high vis can blend into the background of most roads covered by the act, and there's no mention of day or night.