Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Chips Lovell

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

You're inadvertently arguing against your own position here. If you walk into a car in broad daylight, is it because a.) the car wasn't visible enough or b.) you weren't paying attention.

NIMAN

Hurrache wrote: »

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

I live in a rural area.

I see road runners too (mep mep)

Macy0161

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

I could see both. On first glance, the hi viz guy could be on the pavement. But as others have said, I could see both, so how is Hi Viz helping?

You're also ignoring the fact that in both examples, they were presumably moving, so even if you brought the hypothesis that they're invisible against the tree (and continued to ignore that their legs still contrasted readily with the road), they wouldn't be solely with the tree as a background. Back up the video a few seconds - how was the cloak of invisibility working?

Mickiemcfist

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

First off, thank you - not many would feel Angelina Jolie is missing out :pac:

Look I do think the RSA put a little too much investment into ads telling us to wear hi-vis, money could be better spent by building segregated cycle lanes etc.
But I don't really get why there's this much resistance to hi-vis

Chips Lovell

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

But I don't really get why there's this much resistance to hi-vis

Because it's pointless, ineffective, and an a convenient distraction from the real issues, which are far more complex and expensive to tackle.

It's like saying "I understand we should be investing more in finding a cure for cancer, but I don't get why there's so much resistance to homeopathic remedies.

hesker

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

But I don't really get why there's this much resistance to hi-vis

In the fairly recent past a guy on his bike was run over and killed in broad daylight in the middle of the summer not far from where I live.

At the time it happened I expressed my sadness and disappointment at yet another needless loss of life.

Without a moments hesitation a member of my extended family blurted out.....

“Well if they continue to cycle around without wearing hi vis what can they expect.”

Can you begin to understand how infuriating this kind of thinking comes across.

07Lapierre

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

But I don't really get why there's this much resistance to hi-vis

I wear this kind of jacket....

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


It fits better, it looks better and it works better than a hi-viz "waistcoat". I also have LIGHTS, which are brighter, work in Daylight, low light and complete darkness.

rubadub

hesker wrote: »

Without a moments hesitation a member of my extended family blurted out.....

“Well if they continue to cycle around without wearing hi vis what can they expect.”

answer should be "did you expect to die or at very high risk of dying when you used to cycle around with no high viz or helmet?" since if they are over a certain age it is extremely likely that they did.

GreeBo

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

You're inadvertently arguing against your own position here. If you walk into a car in broad daylight, is it because a.) the car wasn't visible enough or b.) you weren't paying attention.

Not at all.
If I'm in a tank then I can have full cammo gear on and I dont really care who sees me or doesnt, its not me who is going to get hurt in a collision.

You are expecting drivers to drive like cyclists cycle, but they dont, because they are both dealing with totally different circumstances on the road.
You might not like the fact that a motorist isnt as careful about having a tip as a cyclist needs to be, but thats the reality of the situation.

Go into any car park and count the number of cars that have dings on their sides and their bumpers. The majority of them will be from hitting inanimate objects.

Thats what you are up against and thats why you should be making yourself as noticeable as possible.
Arguing that "both are perfectly visible" is pointless. Cars are all visible and yet they drive into each other all the time. But you choose to ignore that and just want "all drivers to be better".

Well best of luck with that approach.
The Dutch are often thrown out here as the paragon of cycling and why cant Irish drivers be like Dutch drivers?

Cycling in the Netherlands can be fun, but in 2017, for the first time ever, more cyclists were involved in fatal accidents than motorists. According to Statistics Netherlands (CBS), 613 people were killed in traffic accidents in 2017, 206 of these were cyclists, whilst 201 were motorists in passenger cars.

Dutch e-bike deaths
In 2017, there were 16 fewer traffic accident related deaths than in 2016. However, the number of cyclists suffering fatal injuries was at its highest in ten years time, and more than quarter of these victims met their end on an e-bike.

Looks like they are not all that great at avoiding cyclist related injuries either despite all their cycling infrastructure, segregation and all growing up being bike friendly.
So how on earth you think you are going to make a change to Irish motorists that will result in safer cycling is beyond me, but when you expend all your efforts to push back at the RSA just because they hand out free hiviz clothing ALONG with their general cycling/motorists videos, then I dont expect you to make much headway.

Macy0161 wrote: »

I could see both. On first glance, the hi viz guy could be on the pavement. But as others have said, I could see both, so how is Hi Viz helping?

Everyone can see both but one is FAR more noticeable than the other.
If this is not the case then why arent advertising hordings brown on brown like this cyclist is? Or lets be kind and say brown on 50% dark grey.

You're also ignoring the fact that in both examples, they were presumably moving, so even if you brought the hypothesis that they're invisible against the tree (and continued to ignore that their legs still contrasted readily with the road), they wouldn't be solely with the tree as a background. Back up the video a few seconds - how was the cloak of invisibility working?

Most drivers wont be staring at that part of the road in case their ae bicycles passing trees. They will look and then make their move.
Again you can cry foul all you want, but as I posted above, thats the reality here and in your cycling heaven of the Netherlands.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

I wear this kind of jacket....

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


It fits better, it looks better and it works better than a hi-viz "waistcoat". I also have LIGHTS, which are brighter, work in Daylight, low light and complete darkness.

The blue doesnt blend in with the sky at all?
Argument here in the past has been that hivis is useless in low sun, but your blue jacket and lights can somehow overcome this?

Chips Lovell

GreeBo wrote: »

Go into any car park and count the number of cars that have dings on their sides and their bumpers. The majority of them will be from hitting inanimate objects..

I think you missed my point actually. Do you think motorists hit those inanimate objects because they weren't visible or because they weren't paying sufficient attention?

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats what you are up against and thats why you should be making yourself as noticeable as possible.
Arguing that "both are perfectly visible" is pointless. Cars are all visible and yet they drive into each other all the time.

You're actually contradicting yourself here.

Mickiemcfist

hesker wrote: »

In the fairly recent past a guy on his bike was run over and killed in broad daylight in the middle of the summer not far from where I live.

At the time it happened I expressed my sadness and disappointment at yet another needless loss of life.

Without a moments hesitation a member of my extended family blurted out.....

“Well if they continue to cycle around without wearing hi vis what can they expect.”

Can you begin to understand how infuriating this kind of thinking comes across.

So your issue isn't with hi-vis then, it's with your family member?
There isn't 126 pages on the motors forum giving out about DRL's being made mandatory, they won't stop all accidents, but they'll help. Cars are bigger than us so don't really need to be made any more visible, but we really really do. That's what I find funny.
So as I said above, Hi-Vis isn't the be all & end all, but I wear it as it helps.
In an ideal world, every driver would be aware enough to look out for cyclists, but drivers manage to drive into Luases/Luasi, so I'm not holding out much hope of that.

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

The blue doesnt blend in with the sky at all?
Argument here in the past has been that hivis is useless in low sun, but your blue jacket and lights can somehow overcome this?

I don't ride in the sky? Last time i checked the sky doesn't ride a bike, doesn't have reflective elements on helmet? and it doesn't have a really bright light either..actually it does have a light!...the SUN in daylight and the MOON at night.

Mickiemcfist

07Lapierre wrote: »

I wear this kind of jacket....

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


It fits better, it looks better and it works better than a hi-viz "waistcoat". I also have LIGHTS, which are brighter, work in Daylight, low light and complete darkness.

Fashion is subjective I know, (it's not something I care about when commuting) but I would not be willing to pay 90 quid to buy that when I've got plenty of warm jackets that I could wear in public & a free long sleeve yellow hi vis jacket to cycle my €200 bike 18k a day.

Additionally I said multiple times I also use lights, which I use day & night, no matter the weather.

GreeBo

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think you missed my point actually. Do you think motorists hit those inanimate objects because they weren't visible or because they weren't paying sufficient attention?

No I got your point alright.
I'm saying that motorists are selfish. They dont *need* to worry so much about hitting things are they are pretty bloody safe. The result of this is that they dont necessarily pay as much attention as the might and so things that blend in to the regular road scene can go unnoticed. Most things are travelling in straight lines and in the same direction in different lanes.

This is why you want to not blend into the background of the road scene as a cyclist, as if someone does hit you you have no protection.

You're actually contradicting yourself here.

See above.
Its not a contradiction because the results are not the same. A car gets a scratch, a cyclist gets dead.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

I don't ride in the sky? Last time i checked the sky doesn't ride a bike, doesn't have reflective elements on helmet? and it doesn't have a really bright light either..actually it does have a light!...the SUN in daylight and the MOON at night.

Last time I checked the sky went all the way down to the horizon.

rubadub

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

There isn't 126 pages on the motors forum giving out about DRL's being made mandatory.

Yes, because they are not mandatory, if they were I expect there would indeed be plenty of complaints if they did have to go retrofitting cars. Just like if large high viz strips had to be added to all cars. Or if helmets were made mandatory for all drivers & passengers.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/VS_Information_Notes/Vehicle_Parts/FAQ%20Note%20on%20Daytime%20Running%20Lights.pdf

Are DRL’s compulsory? No


Will a vehicle fail the roadworthiness test if it doesn’t have DRLs fitted? It is not mandatory for DRLs to be fitted to
vehicles however where fitted they must work, otherwise the vehicle will fail the NCT


Can new cars be sold with Daytime Running Lights (DRLs)? Yes.

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

Last time I checked the sky went all the way down to the horizon.

Maybe the sky should wear a hi-vz jacket so.

Chips Lovell

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not a contradiction because the results are not the same. A car gets a scratch, a cyclist gets dead.

No, the contradiction lies in the fact that you said a car is "perfectly visible" yet other cars still crash into them. Inattention is the issue, not visibility.

Yet if it's a cyclist, then magically visibility does become the issue. Now can you see the contradiction?

Macy0161

GreeBo wrote: »

Most drivers wont be staring at that part of the road in case their ae bicycles passing trees. They will look and then make their move.

They shouldn't be starring, but at least you're (in a roundabout way) accepting the problem is the drivers, and their lack of observation.

GreeBo wrote: »

Again you can cry foul all you want, but as I posted above, thats the reality here and in your cycling heaven of the Netherlands.

Not sure where I expressed any opinion on the netherlands - good, bad or indifferent.

Lumen

GreeBo wrote: »

This is why you want to not blend into the background of the road scene as a cyclist, as if someone does hit you you have no protection.

This is the type of thing that seems like such obvious common sense that it shouldn't need stating, but there is no evidence at all that hi vis achieves this, and this is also why many experienced cyclists tend not to wear it. It just doesn't work.

There are much more effective strategies for managing driver attention than hi vis clothing, most significantly road positioning, bright-but-not-blinding lighting and possibly retro-reflective ankle bands (if you're in to that sort of thing).

07Lapierre

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Fashion is subjective I know, (it's not something I care about when commuting) but I would not be willing to pay 90 quid to buy that when I've got plenty of warm jackets that I could wear in public & a free long sleeve yellow hi vis jacket to cycle my €200 bike 18k a day.

Additionally I said multiple times I also use lights, which I use day & night, no matter the weather.

Each to their own...(I didn't pay €90 for mine either). You choose to wear a Hi-viz?...good for you, that's your choice. You use lights day and night? excellent, well done!

Mickiemcfist

07Lapierre wrote: »

You choose to wear a Hi-viz?...good for you, that's your choice. You use lights day and night? excellent, well done!

And you don't, what a rebel! I'm sure everyone must think you're oh so cool.:rolleyes:

07Lapierre

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

And you don't, what a rebel! I'm sure everyone must think you're oh so cool.:rolleyes:

I AM COOL!

buffalo

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not a contradiction because the results are not the same. A car gets a scratch, a cyclist gets dead.

A visible car gets a scratch, a hi-viz cyclist gets dead. Sounds about right.

Chips Lovell

07Lapierre wrote: »

I AM COOL!

I thought you were cool until I realised you couldn't cycle through the sky. Now my world feels empty.

07Lapierre

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I thought you were cool until I realised you couldn't cycle through the sky. Now my world feels empty.

Not as young as I used to be...back in the day though it was a piece of cake! ..

hesker

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

So your issue isn't with hi-vis then, it's with your family member?

I wear a reflective harness belt and have good lights. I don’t have an issue with hi vis either on the whole.

What I do have an issue with is gross insensitivity and the willingness of people to distance themselves and other motorists from blame without question if a cyclist is not wearing hi vis. It turns out in that particular case the poor guy was wearing hi vis. Fat lot of good it did him.

GreeBo

rubadub wrote: »

Yes, because they are not mandatory, if they were I expect there would indeed be plenty of complaints if they did have to go retrofitting cars. Just like if large high viz strips had to be added to all cars. Or if helmets were made mandatory for all drivers & passengers.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/VS_Information_Notes/Vehicle_Parts/FAQ%20Note%20on%20Daytime%20Running%20Lights.pdf

If car drivers were as vulnerable as all other road users it might be a conversation worth having.

I could equally ask you about the airbags, seatbelt & crumple zones on your bike, but I doubt you would take me seriously.

GreeBo

Macy0161 wrote: »

They shouldn't be starring, but at least you're (in a roundabout way) accepting the problem is the drivers, and their lack of observation.

I dont think I ever denied that was (most of the time) the issue?

Not sure where I expressed any opinion on the netherlands - good, bad or indifferent.

I meant the generic "you", wasn't aimed at you specifically, but the Netherlands has been mentioned a few times on this thread and the forum in general.