Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Mc Love

Not necessarily cycling but last night I arrived home and 10 minutes later, my MIL calls in having walked to our house. She says did you see me walking? I was like no, I dont even recall seeing a Hi-Viz (she wears one of the free pink Centra gilets). The road wasnt particularly well lit in parts. Maybe I took no notice or maybe if she had a light I might have taken more notice.

I'm coming to the conclusion that if you're not concentrating fully on the road/footpaths then you wont see someone with a hi-viz on.

Fighting Tao

plodder wrote: »

The day-glo yellow or orange helps in the kind of low light conditions that are all too common here, in my experience.

Low sun level like the last few mornings make it impossible to spot day-glo. On my route to work. Anyone wearing it was lost in the sun. Cyclists wearing black stood out. I’d be certain it was the same for other times of the day.

plodder

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Low sun level like the last few mornings make it impossible to spot day-glo yellow. On my route to work. Anyone wearing it was lost in the sun. Cyclists wearing black stood out. I’d be certain it was the same for other times of the day.

I've heard that argument before ...

I don't think much of it

cdaly_

Mc Love wrote: »

Not necessarily cycling but last night I arrived home and 10 minutes later, my MIL calls in having walked to our house. She says did you see me walking? I was like no, I dont even recall seeing a Hi-Viz (she wears one of the free pink Centra gilets). The road wasnt particularly well lit in parts. Maybe I took no notice or maybe if she had a light I might have taken more notice.

I'm coming to the conclusion that if you're not concentrating fully on the road/footpaths then you wont see someone with a hi-viz on.

I've long been of the view that road users (of all type) fall into a 'tunnel vision' mode. If something is not in my path, it's not going to affect me so it becomes invisible. For a car driver, the off-road cycle path is outside of their affected zone and so the cyclists are invisible and it's only when they move onto the road itself that they 'appear from nowhere'. Similarly, pedestrians on the footpath are invisible regardless of what they're wearing.

Road positioning will do far more for you to 'be seen' than any amount of hi-vis (and possibly even lights)...

Fighting Tao

plodder wrote: »

I've heard that argument before ...

I don't think much of it

Try going down Merrion road, rock road etc. tomorrow morning into the sun. I’ll be the guy standing out in black with lights that can be seen up to 2km away in daylight (not that the lights make much difference to many drivers).

CramCycle

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

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?

I remember hearing years ago this is how they used to catch German spies at the Canadian border trying to cross during the war. They would refuse to wear American/Canadian style underwear as it was not warm enough. So to speed things up, Guards would make lines of men line up and drop their trousers to pick out the Germans quicker.

This could be completely fictitious but I always thought humourous.

GreeBo

Hurrache wrote: »

If someone is out running on footpaths, why should they wear high vis or have lights?

Most footpaths intersect with roads just like bike lanes/paths/cycle areas do.
90% of my journey (in either car or bicycle) has no interaction between the two modes, where the interaction and hence possible conflict occurs is when one crosses the other, typically by a car turning left or a bike turning right.

Macy0161 wrote: »

Again, reflective is the important bit.

I think both bits are important.
Reflective on its own does little during the day.
HiVis on its own does little during the night if there are no other light sources.

Some feel that this means lights are perfect for all scenarios, but hivis is easier to spot during the day and reflective material *can be* easier to spot at night.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

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?

If there was a good reason behind it then no, as it wouldnt be silly and pointless (for example declining population due to impaired sperm levels in males due to overheating testes, just as an example, not because I happen to like the feel of a nice thong :eek:)

rubadub

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Eh, all cars DO have reflectors to aid being seen at night. Nevermind daytime running lights.

Bikes are also legally required to have reflectors. I guess many who want high viz compulsory do not think the requirement is good enough. Much larger high viz strips could be put on cars. It is very common to see cars going about with no lights on, in which case I do reckon a large strip would be better than the reflectors they might have.

Hurrache wrote: »

If someone is out running on footpaths, why should they wear high vis or have lights?

The majority of joggers I come across are on those jogging paths you see, aka cycletracks. Most going in the direction the are advised not to. Some probably in their cars the next day wondering why that bloody cyclist is not using the perfectly good cycletrack.

blackbox

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

lighting is mandatory already and once you have that hi vis become totally irrelevant so why make it mandatory?

Lighting is only mandatory after "lighting up time".

There are lots of conditions when lights are not mandatory but when day-glo hi-viz will make you much more visible.

Hurrache

GreeBo wrote: »

Most footpaths intersect with roads just like bike lanes/paths/cycle areas do.
90% of my journey (in either car or bicycle) has no interaction between the two modes, where the interaction and hence possible conflict occurs is when one crosses the other, typically by a car turning left or a bike turning right.

And that leads on to why don't you make all pedestrians wear them as you're going to cross a road at some stage. Going into Dublin City for dinner and beers, don't forget your mandatory highvis.

rubadub wrote: »

The majority of joggers I come across are on those jogging paths you see, aka cycletracks. Most going in the direction the are advised not to. Some probably in their cars the next day wondering why that bloody cyclist is not using the perfectly good cycletrack.

What's are the jogging paths?

Macy0161

GreeBo wrote: »

I think both bits are important.
Reflective on its own does little during the day.
HiVis on its own does little during the night if there are no other light sources.

Why wouldn't a car driver be able to see someone in daylight?

Mc Love

Dont they say that there's a reduction in accidents when cars have their lights on during the day, hence the rise of DRL's. Same should be said for bikes.

plodder

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Try going down Merrion road, rock road etc. tomorrow morning into the sun. I’ll be the guy standing out in black with lights that can be seen up to 2km away in daylight (not that the lights make much difference to many drivers).

Well I'm sceptical that hi-viz makes much difference in that situation. Bright lights might help all right. But, it's the more common dull, low light conditions where I think the benefit is significant. And I'm not saying that hiviz should be mandatory. So, whether people want to wear them in bright sunlight should be their choice imo.

GreeBo

rubadub wrote: »

Bikes are also legally required to have reflectors. I guess many who want high viz compulsory do not think the requirement is good enough. Much larger high viz strips could be put on cars. It is very common to see cars going about with no lights on, in which case I do reckon a large strip would be better than the reflectors they might have.

Cars are not vulnerable road users though.

If you don't see a car and you walk into it, the guy inside is probably ok, even if he isn't wearing a safety vest and a hard had as some here would like to mention.

Its *much* safer to be in the car.

GreeBo

Macy0161 wrote: »

Why wouldn't a car driver be able to see someone in daylight?

Despite the moderator on this forum telling me I must have an eyesight problem, during the day it can easily he hard to spot someone in daylight.

You dont think this guy is hard to spot?


Which cyclist do you see first?

Fighting Tao

GreeBo wrote: »

Despite the moderator on this forum telling me I must have an eyesight problem, during the day it can easily he hard to spot someone in daylight.

You dont think this guy is hard to spot?


Which cyclist do you see first?

Funny. First thing I noticed from the pics before even reading your text was the cyclist. Why? Because I was looking out for cyclists. People won’t register what they choose not to look out for.

ETA: I’ll be honest and say I didn’t even notice the cyclist in day-glo until I read your text. Although he is around a bend. The guy in black jumped out at me.

Macy0161

GreeBo wrote: »

You dont think this guy is hard to spot?

No, actually.

GreeBo wrote: »

Which cyclist do you see first?

The one with the light that's nearest to the camera, not the one already around the corner.

GreeBo wrote: »

Despite the moderator on this forum telling me I must have an eyesight problem, during the day it can easily he hard to spot someone in daylight.

I think you have more an issue with a blury camera, and if that matches your eyes you should have glasses (or schedule a retest).

I really have no issue seeing either.

AndrewJRenko

blackbox wrote: »

There are lots of conditions when lights are not mandatory but when day-glo hi-viz will make you much more visible.

And there are conditions where day-glo hi-viz will make you much less visible - bright sunlight conditions especially

GreeBo

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Funny. First thing I noticed from the pics before even reading your text was the cyclist. Why? Because I was looking out for cyclists. People won’t register what they choose not to look out for.

ETA: I’ll be honest and say I didn’t even notice the cyclist in day-glo until I read your text. Although he is around a bend. The guy in black jumped out at me.

Your first paragraph contradicts your second one.
I didn't notice the cyclist because I was busy noticing the other cyclist.
What that tells me is that you had to focus all your energy on spotting the guy who was harder to spot, and actually missed the unmissable bright yellow object in the photo.

There you have it folks, we have the answer to why "hi-vis causes more accidents", observers are still too busy trying to spot the hard to spot idiots who blend in.

GreeBo

Macy0161 wrote: »

No, actually.



The one with the light that's nearest to the camera, not the one already around the corner.


I think you have more an issue with a blury camera, and if that matches your eyes you should have glasses (or schedule a retest).

I really have no issue seeing either.

Of course you can see both, but if you are seriously trying to tell me that the dark cyclist who is perfectly lined up with the dark tree behind him is easier to spot that than totally unnatural, bright yellow cyclist, I'm going to have to say you are being disingenuous.

It would be *much* harder to detect that dark cyclist using all manner of object/collision devices, the guy in yellow would be picked up a lot easier. Even just from edge detection its a no brainer.

Fighting Tao

GreeBo wrote: »

Your first paragraph contradicts your second one.
I didn't notice the cyclist because I was busy noticing the other cyclist.
What that tells me is that you had to focus all your energy on spotting the guy who was harder to spot, and actually missed the unmissable bright yellow object in the photo.

There you have it folks, we have the answer to why "hi-vis causes more accidents", observers are still too busy trying to spot the hard to spot idiots who blend in.

No contradiction. Crap camera and watching out for potentials that are nowhere near the point of view heading the same way...they wouldn’t be acknowledged as they will never be any interaction as they are long gone. Someone around the corner that looks like an item on a footpath due to the crap camera wouldn’t register as someone else highlighted earlier. Come back with some decent high resolution photos please that I can actually see on my phone.

Btw, is it ground hog day?

GreeBo

Fighting Tao wrote: »

No contradiction. Crap camera and watching out for potentials that are nowhere near the point of view heading the same way...they wouldn’t be acknowledged as they will never be any interaction as they are long gone. Someone around the corner that looks like an item on a footpath due to the crap camera wouldn’t register as someone else highlighted earlier. Come back with some decent high resolution photos please that I can actually see on my phone.

How about the same image in one of your mirrors?

Fighting Tao

GreeBo wrote: »

How about the same image in one of your mirrors?

How often are you going to twist and change things to suit your agenda?

Unless the mirror is from the 19th century the image won’t be such crap quality.

GreeBo

Fighting Tao wrote: »

How often are you going to twist and change things to suit your agenda?

Unless the mirror is from the 19th century the image won’t be such crap quality.

Twist and change things?
You think its some made up scenario that there would be cyclist in your mirrors?
The image would be even smaller and so harder for you to see.
You could be in slow moving traffic waiting to turn left and these 2 are coming up behind you. The distance in the image was 30M, which is a couple of seconds for them to be alongside you.

But to you thats some crazy contrived example?

Mickiemcfist

I can't believe this argument is going on for 126 pages. I wear hi-vis + lights as I'm the squishy thing on the road, it's human nature that car drivers will instinctively prioritise looking for things on the road that are dangerous to themselves first - Trucks, cars, walls. Anything practical I can do to make it easier for them to spot me, I'll do. I'm putting on a top anyway, why not make it easier to spot.

The image above is a perfect illustration to highlight the difference, anyone who's telling the truth will spot the hi-vis before the other cyclist. While there are a few situations where that may be reversed (i.e. facing into a low setting sun) they are the exceptions.

People shouldn't be forced to wear hi-vis, but for me the potential risk reward profile is pretty much: Risk(Angelina Jolie won't find me attractive should she see me) Reward(I'm marginally more visible to all road users 99% of the time)

Fighting Tao

GreeBo wrote: »

Twist and change things?
You think its some made up scenario that there would be cyclist in your mirrors?
The image would be even smaller and so harder for you to see.
You could be in slow moving traffic waiting to turn left and these 2 are coming up behind you. The distance in the image was 30M, which is a couple of seconds for them to be alongside you.

But to you thats some crazy contrived example?

Obviously if I’m in slow moving traffic I’d pay attention to those who’s path I may cross. I don’t pay attention to those who are long gone.

CramCycle

All strawmanning. GreeBo said "most visible". I saw them all too, but the guy in black was least visible.

They are all 100% visible, there is no increased visibility, if you can see them 100% of the time they are in your field of view, then they are 100% visible, this is a simple but undeniable fact, they cannot be more visible in this scenario.

I'll tell you what, try and write a computer vision algorithm to pick out the cyclists, and see which is the hardest to detect.

a light point would be far easier to catch in almost every scenario. Like most though, so long as it is moving against defined fixed points, it should be quite simple.

Whatever about contrived situations of cyclist in the park, in the real world, in murky grey urban environments, bright clothing stands out more in nearly every circumstance.

It really depends on the scenario and background. It also depends on the colour that is bright. One of the main issues against Hi Vis is the fact that it is treated as suitable for all scenarios or nearly all scenarios when in fact, it is only useful in a narrow range of scenarios.

GreeBo wrote: »

Despite the moderator on this forum telling me I must have an eyesight problem, during the day it can easily he hard to spot someone in daylight.

You dont think this guy is hard to spot?

Despite the poster pointing it out / asking, nope, the person contrasts very well against the lighter background

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Funny. First thing I noticed from the pics before even reading your text was the cyclist. Why? Because I was looking out for cyclists. People won’t register what they choose not to look out for.

ETA: I’ll be honest and say I didn’t even notice the cyclist in day-glo until I read your text. Although he is around a bend. The guy in black jumped out at me.

GreeBo wrote: »

Your first paragraph contradicts your second one.
I didn't notice the cyclist because I was busy noticing the other cyclist.
What that tells me is that you had to focus all your energy on spotting the guy who was harder to spot, and actually missed the unmissable bright yellow object in the photo.

There you have it folks, we have the answer to why "hi-vis causes more accidents", observers are still too busy trying to spot the hard to spot idiots who blend in.

That is misleading as hell, it is simply the way good drivers and road users work.

I noticed the closer cyclist first, only looking again after reading your statement. The Hi Vis cyclist is further away, around a corner and as such is not what should be first on your brains radar. Anyone who notices the Hi Vis one first, is either not looking at the pic as a driver or should not be driving. neither were hard to spot, both 100% visible, but in regards noticing, definitely the closer person. In a 2D image with no other info, a person with poor eyesight might even mistake the further away cyclist as street furniture if not paying attention but in real life there would be several other queues a mind would use without even realising.

Markcheese

True, crap photo,but it's never a crap day with limited visibility...
When i drive I'm not looking for cyclists.. I see lots, but they're just part of the mix, and I do notice high viz.. (Not as quick as I notice flashing lights but still)
Passed a guy in black lycra, (no lights) on a dual carraigway (typically where the hard shoulder disappeared) a few Saturdays ago, early morning... Now i Saw him... But what bothered me was how close I was to him when I spotted him.. He'd done nothing wrong.. But for 10 or 20 euro he'd could have a couple of flashing leds on his bike, and been "seconds " more visible...

blackbox

rubadub wrote: »

The majority of joggers I come across are on those jogging paths you see, aka cycletracks.

Plenty of them running on the road when there is a footpath available.

AndrewJRenko

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

I can't believe this argument is going on for 126 pages. I wear hi-vis + lights as I'm the squishy thing on the road, it's human nature that car drivers will instinctively prioritise looking for things on the road that are dangerous to themselves first - Trucks, cars, walls. Anything practical I can do to make it easier for them to spot me, I'll do. I'm putting on a top anyway, why not make it easier to spot.

The image above is a perfect illustration to highlight the difference, anyone who's telling the truth will spot the hi-vis before the other cyclist. While there are a few situations where that may be reversed (i.e. facing into a low setting sun) they are the exceptions.

People shouldn't be forced to wear hi-vis, but for me the potential risk reward profile is pretty much: Risk(Angelina Jolie won't find me attractive should she see me) Reward(I'm marginally more visible to all road users 99% of the time)

I'm not disagreeing with your personal decision, and indeed, my regular winter jacket is a hi-vis style


but


just because you're not worried about the Angelina Jolie scenario does not mean that other people don't have concerns about their appearance. We've largely driven teenage girls off bikes with our societal obsession with hi-vis and helmets. More teenage girls drive themselves to school than cycle to school.


This has two real impacts;

• Missed opportunity for improved 'safety in numbers' effect, which would make cycling safer for everybody
• Missed opportunity for improved population health - less obesity, less diabetes, less stroke, less cancer

It's not just Angelina Jolie that loses out.