Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)
Options
Comments
-
Interestingly, France which is known for its cycling (the motorist is always to blame in any collision)
Does France have a strict liability law for bike-car collisions? The Netherlands, despite a widespread belief in cycling circles in Anglophone countries, doesn't really have one, and I've never heard of France having one.
Also, is France particulary well known for its cycling, compared to the Netherlands or Denmark? I mean apart from Vélib and the Tour de France?0 -
Well, it's hard to know what to say. There is a detailed, extensive study that found hiviz didn't reduce the likelihood of collisions compared to an absence of hiviz. Then you say, well, maybe lights would do poorly in an analogous study. Theoretically, yes, that's possible. But it's not an argument that brings "everyone should wear hiviz because it strongly reduces the likelihood of collisions" roaring back.
You cant really dismiss it with a "theoretically, yes thats possible" though, is there any evidence that lights on a bike reduce incidents?
I'm confused now, so are you saying that in your opinion everyone *shoudn't* wear hiviz/reflective gear?
Is it though?On rural roads. It's an important distinction. Rural roads tend to have faster moving traffic, and are somewhat closer to the railway-worker scenario that hiviz was initially designed for, though they're far from perfectly analogous.
There are posters on here who believe that lights are the be all and end all, that reflective gear has no place as lights are *always* better.
Does it really matter what you are doing btw? Whether walking, riding a bike or working on a railway, the goal is the same, be seen so you dont get hit.Does France have a strict liability law for bike-car collisions? The Netherlands, despite a widespread belief in cycling circles in Anglophone countries, doesn't really have one, and I've never heard of France having one.
Also, is France particulary well known for its cycling, compared to the Netherlands or Denmark? I mean apart from Vélib and the Tour de France?
"In French RTA cases, under the ‘Badinter law,’ the non-driver victim, save for a few exceptions, is compensated in full for their injuries regardless of fault, unless it was "inexcusable and constituted the sole cause of the damage." However, the driver remains liable for their own faults and so depending on the extent of their fault compensation can be reduced by a certain percentage or even withheld.
In the Netherlands, where 27% of journeys are made by bike, there is strong legal protection for cyclists. Article 185 of the Wegenverkeerswet introduced the concept of presumed liability in circumstances involving a collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist/pedestrian on a public road.
The exception to presumed liability only occurs where the motorist is at no fault whatsoever, in which case there is no liability"
I would say yes that France would be pretty well known for its Cycling...the TdF isn't there for the craic, why else would it be there?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,133 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 48571
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,133 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 48571
or, less sarcastically:
https://www.france24.com/en/20180914-france-tour-de-triple-cycling-journey-philippe-bike-lanes-transport-commutethe share of cycling in public transport is just three percent in France, less than half the European average and way below northern Europe0 -
-
Advertisement
-
You cant really dismiss it with a "theoretically, yes thats possible" though, is there any evidence that lights on a bike reduce incidents?
What's really going on here is you're dismissing Miller's study, while accusing me of dismissing a damning study of the efficacy of lights that exists in a parallel universe.I'm confused now, so are you saying that in your opinion everyone *shoudn't* wear hiviz/reflective gear?
It's not necessary. But if you want to, it's up to you. If you want to wear wrist lights, it's up to you. If you want to wear spinal protection when cycling, it's up to you.Is it though?
There are posters on here who believe that lights are the be all and end all, that reflective gear has no place as lights are *always* better.
Does it really matter what you are doing btw? Whether walking, riding a bike or working on a railway, the goal is the same, be seen so you dont get hit.
Railways are a specific case, at least, as discussed by the RDRF."In French RTA cases, under the ‘Badinter law,’ the non-driver victim, save for a few exceptions, is compensated in full for their injuries regardless of fault, unless it was "inexcusable and constituted the sole cause of the damage." However, the driver remains liable for their own faults and so depending on the extent of their fault compensation can be reduced by a certain percentage or even withheld.
Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. It doesn't seem to be strict liability though. It looks rather like the Dutch liability law, which also doesn't actually mean the driver is always wrong, just that the burden is on the driver to show it wasn't their fault.0 -
What's really going on here is you're dismissing Miller's study, while accusing me of dismissing a damning study of the efficacy of lights that exists in a parallel universe.
Sorry but I'm not dismissing it at all!
All I'm saying is that unless you have something to compare to its a little disingenuous to say that reflective gear is not as good as lights. Prove the efficacy of lights and then you have an argument.
Whats not necessary, reflective gear?It's not necessary. But if you want to, it's up to you. If you want to wear wrist lights, it's up to you. If you want to wear spinal protection when cycling, it's up to you.
Of course its all up to the person...everything is...I'm not sure what point you are trying to make/answer here tbh?
I dont see that the train use case is that different.
Do you not agree that the earlier a car sees a cyclist the better?
Sure you can use example of short straights an lots of bends on rural roads, but thats not where most people are cycling. In any case, it doesnt need to be hundreds of metres away, if I see a cyclist 20M away then its better than me seeing them 10M away.
The article is also pretty biased in a few areas.
"As the fashion for hi-viz has spread, is it far-fetched to suggest that this will have adverse effects on those who don’t use it? It is surely a reasonable hypothesis that drivers become used to seeing cyclists and pedestrians as people who are going to be wearing bright clothing and/or hi-viz will become less likely to watch out for and therefore see those who don’t. The big losers here will be pedestrians, as smaller proportions of walkers will volunteer to wear hi-viz for what is still seen (so far) as a normal, non-hazardous activity."
So because some road users are more visible it makes others less visible and thus puts them in more danger?
Should we get cars to turn their lights off..maybe turn off all street lighting so....just to even the playing field?Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. It doesn't seem to be strict liability though. It looks rather like the Dutch liability law, which also doesn't actually mean the driver is always wrong, just that the burden is on the driver to show it wasn't their fault.
The driver of the vehicle is liable except under exceptional circumstances.
"inexcusable and constituted the sole cause of the damage." is the only time the driver isn't 100% liable. I would say that it constitutes more than just the burden of proof.0 -
Sorry but I'm not dismissing it at all!
All I'm saying is that unless you have something to compare to its a little disingenuous to say that reflective gear is not as good as lights. Prove the efficacy of lights and then you have an argument.
I'm getting a little tired of repeating this, so this is the last time.
You are arguing that people should wear hiviz for safety reasons. Hiviz, at least based on the studies available, either doesn't reduce the chances of a collision, or has an effect that is beneath detection. So what exactly is the compelling safety reason?
You asked me whether I thought people shouldn't wear hiviz.Of course its all up to the person...everything is...I'm not sure what point you are trying to make/answer here tbh?I dont see that the train use case is that different.
Do you not agree that the earlier a car sees a cyclist the better?
Given that the collision rate doesn't change with the use of hiviz (pending further quality research), I don't really care. I don't care if they see me 2km away, when 1km away is enough. And, besies, one thing that is known, because those studies exist, is cyclists can be seen from a great distance away with modern lights. Manufacturers often claim 2km, and I certainly can see some lights from very substantial distances away.
I only quoted if because it saved me explaining the difference between a railway and a country road. Robert Davis favours the shifting of the burden of responsibility onto those imposing the risk. If that's a bias, well, it's a feature of his work, not a bug.The article is also pretty biased in a few areas.
Hmm, yes, but it doesn't mean the driver is always wrong. Fair enough, though, it's a stronger law than generally exists elsewhere. It's not specifically for cyclists though. It's for non-drivers in general, including car passengers? I'm not reading into it in that much detail, because it's rather off-topic.The driver of the vehicle is liable except under exceptional circumstances.
"inexcusable and constituted the sole cause of the damage." is the only time the driver isn't 100% liable. I would say that it constitutes more than just the burden of proof.0 -
Of course a light is going to be visible in an otherwise dark road, my point has always been that that is not where most cycling takes place. Indeed its not where most accidents between cars and cyclists take place, so it doesnt really have much relevance.Given that the collision rate doesn't change with the use of hiviz (pending further quality research), I don't really care. I don't care if they see me 2km away, when 1km away is enough. And, besies, one thing that is known, because those studies exist, is cyclists can be seen from a great distance away with modern lights. Manufacturers often claim 2km, and I certainly can see some lights from very substantial distances away.
A sustained bias is a bias nonetheless.I only quoted if because it saved me explaining the difference between a railway and a country road. Robert Davis favours the shifting of the burden of responsibility onto those imposing the risk. If that's a bias, well, it's a feature of his work, not a bug.Hmm, yes, but it doesn't mean the driver is always wrong. Fair enough, though, it's a stronger law than generally exists elsewhere. It's not specifically for cyclists though. It's for non-drivers in general, including car passengers? I'm not reading into it in that much detail, because it's rather off-topic.
Its for cyclists and pedestrians if I remember correctly.0 -
If you're going to restrict discussion to urban cycling, then the argument for always wearing hiviz gets weaker, because Miller's study was in an urban context. Also, we know all the urban bikeshare schemes have very low rates of collision, and they're done predominantly without hiviz. So urban cycling isn't a compelling scenario for having a go at people who don't wear hiviz.0
-
Advertisement
-
If you're going to restrict discussion to urban cycling, then the argument for always wearing hiviz gets weaker, because Miller's study was in an urban context. Also, we know all the urban bikeshare schemes have very low rates of collision, and they're done predominantly without hiviz. So urban cycling isn't a compelling scenario for having a go at people who don't wear hiviz.
I see your Miller and I raise you one Lahrmann.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528
Also please not the difference in participants between the two reports.
~350 Vs ~6800
Also, interesting information here (albeit from a manufacturer)
https://www.tredz.co.uk/clothing-buyers-guides/hi-vis-clothing-guide
Scroll to "Hi Viz Comparison" section0 -
I see your Miller and I raise you one Lahrmann.
Yeah, I mentioned that earlier. It's earlier in the thread. It's not a very good design, mostly because it's got substantial report bias, which they acknowledge, but they try to correct it with a really simplistic correction factor.
I'll save myself repeating by linking:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101436251&postcount=931
In fact, really, there's not a lot more to be said. It's all come up in this thread multiple times. So I'll leave it at that. It really is just a snake eating its tail at this stage.0 -
Even they way you say "it would be very convenient"...its like you still wouldn't wear it even if it was a silver bullet, just to spite someone.
No one cares what you wear (unlike as already mentioned, they do in France)
You appear very determined to fixate on this idea that people are not wearing hi his out of some strange sense of spite, when myself and other posters have already explained that that is not the case.
There's a big difference between resisting wearing hi vis and resisting being compelled to wear it at the expense of attention being directed on other measures that could make a real impact on road safety.0 -
What you say here seems to contradict with what you say below tbh.You appear very determined to fixate on this idea that people are not wearing hi his out of some strange sense of spite, when myself and other posters have already explained that that is not the case.
"resisting being compelled to wear it" reads a lot like a child refusing to wear their uniform to me.
I'm sure you will come back with something like "taken out of context" but the point is the same, you are not wearing it because you feel someone else is making you wear it.There's a big difference between resisting wearing hi vis and resisting being compelled to wear it at the expense of attention being directed on other measures that could make a real impact on road safety.
Is there though? Do you think motorists are changing their behaviour because they somehow know you are only wearing reflective/hiviz because you are compelled to, or worse still, you aren't wearing it at all and they are somehow able to distinguish you not wearing it because of a greater cause versus the person who is not wearing it because they just couldnt give a ****e?
Based on the stats, I believe you are giving too much benefit to motorists.
It's far easier and far more effective (at the moment) to encourage the vulnerable road user to do all they can rather than try to change the motorised population. The change you (and I btw) are looking for is a mindset change that is likely going to require generations to pass.0 -
Yeah, I mentioned that earlier. It's earlier in the thread. It's not a very good design, mostly because it's got substantial report bias, which they acknowledge, but they try to correct it with a really simplistic correction factor.
I'll save myself repeating by linking:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101436251&postcount=931
In fact, really, there's not a lot more to be said. It's all come up in this thread multiple times. So I'll leave it at that. It really is just a snake eating its tail at this stage.
I'll still take more from a high volume Danish study than a tiny volume UK one.
I wouldnt use a study of 350 people to try and sell someone milk let alone try to determine the effectiveness of a 'safety garment'.0 -
Not sure if you're deliberately obtuse or not paying attention to what I've said -before. Just for the record;
I have a sort of a hi vis jacket (not a yellow one - a provis which is vastly more reflective). I wear it on the bike sometimes but not always, because I wear it more based on the weather conditions. I don't resist wearing it, however I will argue to the ends of the earth against the movement to only talk about compelling people to wear it, because, on the balance of studies done on the subject indicate that safety effect of wearing hi vis is neutral to slightly negative.
a) there is NO statistical body of evidence that indicates that people wearing hi vis are involved in less collisions with vehicles.
b) There IS some statistical evidence that indicates that in fact the opposite is true.
As I mentioned, I spend time on the bike both with and without a reflective jacket on. My own perception, which admittedly is non-scientific is that I get more close passes and general dickish behaviour from motorists when I have the jacket on. I think you will find that perception is shared by others having the same experience.
As long as we are spenting our time talking about hi vis, we are not directing attention where it should go - eg. infrastructure and driver behaviours. And I fully accept that those are not overnight jobs, but change cannot happen to any degree until the road safely discussion stops being dominated by talk about something that has NO proven success record at all.What you say here seems to contradict with what you say below tbh.
"resisting being compelled to wear it" reads a lot like a child refusing to wear their uniform to me.
I'm sure you will come back with something like "taken out of context" but the point is the same, you are not wearing it because you feel someone else is making you wear it.
I'm glad you acknowledged that you took it out of context, If you take someones sentence, truncate the most salient point from it, and then quote the remainder, well, thats pretty much a textbook example.
And again, I think you're falsely conflating resistance with wearing something with resistance to a potentially dangerous campaign of misdirection.GreeBo wrote:Is there though? Do you think motorists are changing their behaviour because they somehow know you are only wearing reflective/hiviz because you are compelled to, or worse still, you aren't wearing it at all and they are somehow able to distinguish you not wearing it because of a greater cause versus the person who is not wearing it because they just couldnt give a ****e?
Based on the stats, I believe you are giving too much benefit to motorists.
It's far easier and far more effective (at the moment) to encourage the vulnerable road user to do all they can rather than try to change the motorised population. The change you (and I btw) are looking for is a mindset change that is likely going to require generations to pass.
As mentioned above, there's absolutely no evidence, none, to backup your assertion that I have bolded.
Also, the very idea that hi vis can increase chances of being in a collision is itself worrying because it indicates that a seed has somehow been planted in the collective motorist subconsience that hi vis serves as some sort of "body armour", thereby reducing the duty of care that needs to be taken around them.0 -
There are good reasons for resisting compulsion. Any extra legal requirements for cycling is a barrier to cycling. It will reduce the numbers cycling. It creates a deterrant to cycling. We have deterred teenage girls from cycling to the extant that more secondary school girls now drive themselves to school than cycle.What you say here seems to contradict with what you say below tbh.
"resisting being compelled to wear it" reads a lot like a child refusing to wear their uniform to me.
On this particular issue of hi-vis, it creates an image of cycling as a hazardous activity, with no evidence to support this. It also creates an environment of victim blaming.
Let's have compulsory hi-vis stripes for all cars before you come blaming victims.
There is good evidence of 'safety in numbers' in cycling. If we want to make cycling safer, get more people cycling.0 -
That's a good question about lights. I've looked it up before. It's never been investigated in relation to collision frequency, as far as I could see. I might have another look. However, hiviz has, and it didn't do very well.
While not cycling related (though some what along these lines) I remember reading before that since ESB set their fleet to have lights on when parked at side of road working , the collision rate of other vehicles hitting them dropped by 70%.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »n this particular issue of hi-vis, it creates an image of cycling as a hazardous activity, with no evidence to support this. It also creates an environment of victim blaming.
Cycling is a hazardous activity, relative to driving, per km travelled. Why all the talk of vulnerable road users if not? The fact that the car creates the hazard is irrelevant for this point.
If you cycle at night, with no lights for example, or do something stupid like cycle up the inside of a truck turning left, then as far as I'm concerned, victim blaming is absolutely necessary.AndrewJRenko wrote: »et's have compulsory hi-vis stripes for all cars before you come blaming victims.
Eh, all cars DO have reflectors to aid being seen at night. Nevermind daytime running lights.AndrewJRenko wrote: »here is good evidence of 'safety in numbers' in cycling. If we want to make cycling safer, get more people cycling.
I couldn't give a crap about safety in numbers when I'm lying on the tarmac. This argument is used against helmets too.
I came off my mountain bike last year, I can tell you I was glad I was wearing mine when I woke up. Last thing I was thinking was the macro public health benefits of not mandating hemet usage. You can be sure as anything wear it in the city too.0 -
Thankfully there are people who are capable of doing that thinking for you.Kevin Irving wrote: »Last thing I was thinking was the macro public health benefits of not mandating hemet usage.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its shocking to see cyclists (and joggers are equally as bad) out in this current time of year wearing all black or dark colours.
Should be illegal.
At least cyclists have lights. Joggers are in a different league.0 -
Regards hi vis ,an idiot without one cycling in a pitch dark road,no lights,6.00 2 nights ago, ballygarvan to carrigaline needs his head examined,so hi Vis and lighting needs to be mandatory, especially at night0
-
corks finest wrote: »Regards hi vis ,an idiot without one cycling in a pitch dark road,no lights,6.00 2 nights ago, ballygarvan to carrigaline needs his head examined,so hi Vis and lighting needs to be mandatory, especially at night
lighting is mandatory already and once you have that hi vis become totally irrelevant so why make it mandatory?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
What you say here seems to contradict with what you say below tbh.
"resisting being compelled to wear it" reads a lot like a child refusing to wear their uniform to me.
If the government passed a law compelling men to wear women's knickers rather than men's underwear, would "resisting being compelled to wear them" read a lot like a child refusing to wear their uniform to you or would it sound like someone objecting on the grounds that it's silly and pointless?0 -
I presume you mean in the dark. Most joggers run on paths, but anyone on the road should have hi-viz/reflective gear and/or lights. Our athletics club strongly recommends both. But, I wouldn't agree with making it legally required.Its shocking to see cyclists (and joggers are equally as bad) out in this current time of year wearing all black or dark colours.
Should be illegal.
At least cyclists have lights. Joggers are in a different league.
I've noticed a couple of cyclists lately completely in black and with only a single LED not terribly bright rear light. Legal I'm sure, but not adequate imo. I think the combination of good lights and hi-viz/reflective gear is best. That's what most bike commuters in the Dublin area do as far as I can see.0 -
Probably not legal, given the 1963 act (most "decent" or even German standard lights probably aren't technically meeting the requirements that are still in operation!).Legal I'm sure, but not adequate imo. I think the combination of good lights and hi-viz/reflective gear is best.
Again, reflective is the important bit.0 -
Kevin Irving wrote: »Cycling is a hazardous activity, relative to driving, per km travelled. Why all the talk of vulnerable road users if not? The fact that the car creates the hazard is irrelevant for this point.
The KSI per km figures aren't a fair comparison. People travel further in cars by default, and do long mileage on motorways, the safest road type for drivers. Cyclists are over-represented in towns and cities, where most collisions occur.
UK stats show that cycling is safer than playing tennis, or using rowing exercise machines. The risk of inactivity is far more likely to kill you than a road crash.
Far, far more people are killed and injured in vehicles or indeed on foot than while cycling. Cyclists are about 5% of road deaths, motorists/passengers are about 75% and pedestrians are about 20%.
So if you're a big fan of mandatory hi-vis to save lives, you should be starting with vehicles or pedestrians.
Interesting to note your rush to blame the victim, rather than, for example, wondering why the motorist wasn't driving in a manner that allows them to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, as required by law. Or for example, wondering why the truck owner or driver took a truck out on the road knowing that it had 'blind spots' that could be fairly easily rectified with extra mirrors or extra cameras or extra crew on watch.Kevin Irving wrote: »If you cycle at night, with no lights for example, or do something stupid like cycle up the inside of a truck turning left, then as far as I'm concerned, victim blaming is absolutely necessary.
Cars don't have reflectors on the sides or at the front. Surely if you're really committed to hi-vis as a solution, all cars should have hi-vis on all sides as a basic safety measure. If it saves one life, right?Kevin Irving wrote: »Eh, all cars DO have reflectors to aid being seen at night. Nevermind daytime running lights.Kevin Irving wrote: »I couldn't give a crap about safety in numbers when I'm lying on the tarmac. This argument is used against helmets too.
I came off my mountain bike last year, I can tell you I was glad I was wearing mine when I woke up. Last thing I was thinking was the macro public health benefits of not mandating hemet usage. You can be sure as anything wear it in the city too.
Your personal decision to give a crap or otherwise doesn't change the body of international evidence about Safety in Numbers. Here's some good information from the UK;
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/safety-in-numbers
If you want to do some digging around Australia, you'll see how mandatory helmet laws have killed off utility cycling with no reduction in head injuries. This will have dramatic consequences for traffic problems and health/obesity/inactivity problems. Be careful what you wish for.0 -
-
Its shocking to see cyclists (and joggers are equally as bad) out in this current time of year wearing all black or dark colours.
Should be illegal.
At least cyclists have lights. Joggers are in a different league.
If someone is out running on footpaths, why should they wear high vis or have lights?0 -
Advertisement
-
The quote was from a scenario when it is dark. If light is that low, drivers should have lights on (as should the VRU), and then the reflective bit is still in play.The day-glo yellow or orange helps in the kind of low light conditions that are all too common here, in my experience.
And again, drivers should be driving to conditions, and at a speed they can stop as far as they can see. If visibility is that bad, the motorist should be slowing down to take into account the conditions!0
Advertisement