Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

I didnt say pedestrians walking through a city should all wear hivis.

Also, Im afraid it is your logic that is flawed.
I'm not, in any sense "implying" what you say I am.
There are many sections of people who have various different levels of exposure. At *some* point it makes sense, to the person in question, to start doing something about reducing that risk.

For some reason you have decided that means all pedestrians, but I didn't say that, your faulty logic "derived" it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

And there is the crux of it. People don't seem to grasp that if you are visible from the moment you enter a field of view, until you leave it, you are 100% visible in that scenario.
There is no data in most of the scenarios given that makes someone in hi Vis more visible. If you were trying to make the point that Hi Vis is useful, they were the worst examples you could have given.
There are times and places, and studies have shown this, where what you wear will make you less than 100% visible. In some of these cases, that clothing is Hi Vis, sometimes it's grey, sometimes it's orange. So people who believe they are are visible wearing Hi Vis need to understand that while they are in some scenarios, they are not in all, and I'm some cases, less visible.
All of this aside though, all I really want to get across is, wear what you want, but realise the limitations of what you wear. It's the reason Hi Vis for the general public will never be mandatory, it's because it simply is not enough use in most of the situations that the general public find themselves In day to day life.

conkennedy

GreeBo wrote: »

So what you are saying is that lights are useless and cyclists shouldnt wear them?

No, that's what you're saying. Stop making assumptions.

GreeBo wrote: »

I think the lads who thanked your post are having a bad day, logic wise.

There you go again, making asumptions

conkennedy

GreeBo wrote: »

Still waiting for a reply on this. how do you feel about proving lights are no better than hivis?

There I've answered it.


In other news: I have a life outside Boards.ie and I'm not hanging on for every post every minute of the day. Put down the keyboard and go out side! It's a wonderful world out there!

GreeBo

CramCycle wrote: »

And there is the crux of it. People don't seem to grasp that if you are visible from the moment you enter a field of view, until you leave it, you are 100% visible in that scenario.

You don't see to grasp that being visible is not the same thing as being seen.

It's the difference between reality and a lab.

GreeBo

conkennedy wrote: »

No, that's what you're saying. Stop making assumptions.





There you go again, making asumptions

So what was your point then.
the argument has been that wearing hiviz doesnt stop accidents, you are living proof that lights dont stop accidents, so why are lights good and hiviz bad?

rubadub

Kevin Irving wrote: »

And the "hi-vis for cars" line ad nauseam doesn't come across as witty or clever.

It is not supposed to be witty, clever, facetious or whatever. Neither is the idea of all vehicle passengers wearing helmets.

If anybody thinks either idea is being a smartarse then it is really just showing up themselves as being irrational and illogical, they obviously have stumped themselves. It's a pathetic copout to just dismiss it. Reminds me of arguments of drug legalisation and gobshites sticking their fingers in their ears if it is pointed out that alcohol is a drug.

If you have no reasonable argument just say so.

It is strange how some who think high viz for cyclists is quite beneficial are refusing to see any potential benefit of cars being more visible.

https://www.carbuyersguide.net/motoring-news-ireland/details/which-is-the-safest-colour-car-to-have

White coloured cars of been consistently found to be the least likely to be involved in a collision due to its high visibility.

When compared to White vehicles, Black, Brown and Dark Green cars were found to be up to 12% more likely to be involved in a crash during daylight hours. There was a staggering 47% increase in the risk of a crash during the twilight and night-time hours for cars of these colours. Brown coloured cars involved in collisions were also found to be the most likely to result in serious injury, according to the study.

I know several people who buy higher visibility painted cars for safety. I know people who have put additional high viz labels on their vans.

conkennedy

GreeBo wrote: »

It's the difference between reality and a lab.

The 'lab', as you put it, is usually reality. This type of research is always counducted in the envrionment and not in a 'lab'

conkennedy

GreeBo wrote: »

... so why are lights good and hiviz bad?

Again with the assumptions!

AndrewJRenko

Kevin Irving wrote: »

At no stage have I suggested that clothing choice is a panacea to every incident - it's not, but as far as I see it, it's a very worthwhile effort.

This is then this has somehow been construed to claim that I'm advocating for everyone outside their front door to be in reflective clothing - which I'm not.

"As far as you can see" isnt really a great measure for the rest of the world. Your inability to see the big picture and the true source of danger on the road is your own problem. There are bigger fish to fry here.

GreeBo wrote: »

I didnt say pedestrians walking through a city should all wear hivis.

Also, Im afraid it is your logic that is flawed.
I'm not, in any sense "implying" what you say I am.
There are many sections of people who have various different levels of exposure. At *some* point it makes sense, to the person in question, to start doing something about reducing that risk.

Yep, we can agree on that. The real question is what is the 'something' to be done. Are we going to accept that the only measure or the priority measure is a victim blaming tactic with no evidence to support it? Or are we going to fix the problem at source?

GreeBo wrote: »

I'll try again.
Dangerousness = Risk X Exposure

You have limited exposure crossing the road, its what, 10M wide?
Going for a run you have more exposure unless you are practicing for your 10M sprint finals.



If you would like to read my post you would see what I actually said was
"You mean like cyclists, pedestrians and joggers?"

I didnt pick one group of people, I'm talking about all people who are vulnerable and have enough exposure to warrant them doing something about it.

A quick look at the road death statistics would suggest that your calculation of danger is very faulty and way off the mark. It completely ignores the major factors that result in 75% of road deaths being motorists, not cyclists - such as speed, weight and momentum. Maybe you'd like to revise your calculation and see where the real danger lies on the road. That will give you a big hint about where to start with your safety measures.

GreeBo wrote: »

The same arguments apply only if you ignore what it is you are trying to address, i.e. reduce incidents.

It's all about the dangerousness of the situation, which is Risk x Exposure.
Its more dangerous to do something for 23 hours a day that has a small risk than do something once that has a large risk.

That's why skydiving is, on paper, "safer" than playing golf.

There comes a point when yes, it would make sense to stick a hiviz vest on if you were walking 2 miles on a country road to get your lunch, but if you are crossing O'Connell street, then probably not.

'Reducing incidents' is a fairly academic objective. I'd have thought that we're trying to save lives and reduce injuries - a very practical objective.

Again, your flawed calculation of 'danger' doesn't identify the real sources of danger on the road. But it's good to hear that you work on the basis of 'there comes a point'. How specifically did you work out that 'hi-vis for cyclists' is past that point, where as hi-vis for motorists and pedestrians (who both die in much bigger numbers on the road) is not past that point?

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Absolutely not.

You seem to be so insulted by even the suggestion that they may help (for some road users), that you're intentionally conflating the opposing argument to include everybody, everywhere, at all times. Which noone has remotely suggested. It's called the slippery slope fallacy.

Why would they help for some road users but not for others? Why would they help for cyclists, but not for pedestrians or motorists?

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Why are you talking about deaths in cars? This is a cycling forum, where cyclists, are discussing cycling safety. And the "hi-vis for cars" line ad nauseam doesn't come across as witty or clever.

We have only one Minister/Department of Transport. We have only one RSA. We have only one AGS. Each of those have limited resources available.

Any focus on mandatory hi-vis/helmets nonsense for cyclists by these bodies and organisations is a distraction from the real source of danger on the roads - the motorists who kill 3 or 4 people each week and maim many more.

The hi-vis for cars line isn't meant to be witty or clever. It's meant to demonstrate the idiocy of pushing public policies with no evidence base and no sensible prioritisation. Is it working?

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Are we talking about the merits of reflective clothing, or the countries wider heath problems? If everyone cycled everywhere, Ireland's hospitals will be clogged with knee surgeries.

You're making a lot of assumptions to square this circle...
- No requirement for hi-vis
- Encourages more cyclists
- Better population health
- Fewer people in hospital
- Same number of doctors employed
- More docotrs moved to A&E
- More availability of doctors when I'm knocked down

If everyone cycled everywhere, our cancer rates would be dramatically reduced, probably halved. Our stroke/diabetes/hypertension rates would be dramatically reduced. Some mental health issues would be reduced.

How could these factors NOT result in more medical resources being available for other issues?

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Back light are more important when traffic is approaching from the rear with a larger speed differential. It has been deemed preferential by some manufacturers to leave rear lights off in certain circumstances in order to make brake lights more visible when they illuminate.

But hi-vis stripes would definitely improve visibility in some circumstances, surely? When the car is parked with no lights operating? Or when the idiot driver has no lights because he hasn't worked out how DRLs work? Or when one or more bulbs are blown? Or when the car is side on to other traffic?

How can this visibility improvement not be significant, but the evidenced improvement for cyclists apparently is?

Kevin Irving wrote: »

What have cars got to do with this discussion? It's whataboutery.

It is prioritising measures that address the real sources of danger on the road. Why would you want to ignore these priority issues and focus on issues of negligible significance?

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Since I'm not a truck driver, I don't own a trucking company, and I'm not involved in drafting EU legislation to mandate cameras on trucks, I'll do what I can to eliminate the danger from my perspective.

Eliminating a blindspot still requires that the driver looks - which I'm not about to bet my life on - so I'll stay well out of the way.

That's your personal decision, and one that I'd generally concur with myself. But you do see that it doesn't solve the problem for people like Rose Hoey mentioned above? You do see that victim-blaming doesn't solve the root cause of the problem?

GreeBo wrote: »

You mean like cyclists, pedestrians and joggers?

And please don't forget motorists too.

GreeBo wrote: »

You don't see to grasp that being visible is not the same thing as being seen.

Fully agree - it doesn't really matter what the cyclist is wearing when the motorist is looking at their phone. So let's focus on the real issues here.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: This thread isn't going anywhere again. Can I suggest anyone who hasnt, but thinks they have something novel to add, read the entire thread to see if your points have been made before. Also remember this is a discussion forum, not one for arguing or pointless point scoring. Someone not agreeing with you does not make them wrong Let's be civil and try and either progress the discussion or just leave it as is.

07Lapierre

Came across this lady while cycling home yesterday. Hi-Viz Jacket, reflective elements on her bib tights and pedals...

0:18 seconds.... you can just see her up ahead.
1:55...i'm about 100 meters behind
2:04...finally catch her..

https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8

Conclusion? Lights 1, Hi-viz 0. (0 is probably a bit harsh, but pink is not my colour! )

Fighting Tao

07Lapierre wrote: »

Came across this lady while cycling home yesterday. Hi-Viz Jacket, reflective elements on her bib tights and pedals...

0:18 seconds.... you can just see her up ahead.
1:55...i'm about 100 meters behind
2:04...finally catch her..

https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8

Conclusion? Lights 1, Hi-viz 0. (0 is probably a bit harsh, but pink is not my colour! )

The rear reflectors on the cars and vans are also crap compared to their lights.

what_traffic

Weepsie wrote: »

I find reflectors on pedals to be better than most on cars. The fact they move as they catch the light is good. A stationary reflector is not great until you're close up and by which point it may be too late

Does anybody in the RSA know this? Perhaps they just understand it.

Reflectors on pedals especially in Urban Environments are more useful than a cheap RSA vest. Especially in Urban Environments where "most"* cars have dipped headlights on. The reflective pedals are the first thing that is reflected from a moving bike.

* I count at least 2-3 Ninja cars every evening these days with no lights at all on, this is on a 30/35 min commute cycle across Galway City.
Just last Wednesday evening at 20h00 I counted 3 Ninja Cars v's 2 Ninja Cyclists.

AndrewJRenko

Hope the man is doing OK

https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/news/pedestrian-hit-moments-after-receiving-safety-reflector-from-police/

buffalo

Horrible story: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/11/03/four-dead-after-truck-hits-girl-scouts-picking-up-trash-along-wisconsin-highway

Four people, including three Girl Scouts, died Saturday after a pickup truck left a western Wisconsin highway and hit a group that had been picking up trash in a ditch.
...

The group of about 16 girls had split into two smaller groups to pick up trash along the highway, part of a service project they conducted each fall and spring. They were wearing brightly colored safety vests, the Leader-Telegram reported.

Conclusion: hi-viz doesn't protect you from bad driving or distracted drivers.

GreeBo

buffalo wrote: »

Horrible story: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/11/03/four-dead-after-truck-hits-girl-scouts-picking-up-trash-along-wisconsin-highway



Conclusion: hi-viz doesn't protect you from bad driving or distracted drivers.

Do you think lights would have prevented the truck from leaving the road and hitting them, or what's your point?

Grassey

The point seems succinct to me: nothing will protect you against bad driving or distracted drivers.

So it doesn't matter if you've high vis, enough lights to look like a Christmas tree, whether it's broad daylight or nightime, or you are someone who has the sun shines out your arse. Someone not paying attention, on the road will be what kills you.

Ergo, that's where resources should be allocated to address the problem.

GreeBo

Grassey wrote: »

The point seems succinct to me: nothing will protect you against bad driving or distracted drivers.

So it doesn't matter if you've high vis, enough lights to look like a Christmas tree, whether it's broad daylight or nightime, or you are someone who has the sun shines out your arse. Someone not paying attention, on the road will be what kills you.

Ergo, that's where resources should be allocated to address the problem.

No argument from me, so why all the fuss about hiviz and reflective clothing in favour of lights i wonder?

Beasty

07Lapierre wrote: »

Came across this lady while cycling home yesterday. Hi-Viz Jacket, reflective elements on her bib tights and pedals...

0:18 seconds.... you can just see her up ahead.
1:55...i'm about 100 meters behind
2:04...finally catch her..

https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8

Conclusion? Lights 1, Hi-viz 0. (0 is probably a bit harsh, but pink is not my colour! )

You cycled past me on your way home as I was approaching a junction in the car. You were not wearing hi viz, (or indeed club gear:eek:), but I could see you as a cyclist, and indeed recognise who you are. That's how good my eyesight is!!! (either that or you were actually quite visible without anything resembling "hi-vis")

07Lapierre

Beasty wrote: »

You cycled past me on your way home as I was approaching a junction in the car. You were not wearing hi viz, (or indeed club gear:eek:), but I could see you as a cyclist, and indeed recognise who you are. That's how good my eyesight is!!! (either that or you were actually quite visible without anything resembling "hi-vis")

I was probably listening to music at time also.

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

No argument from me, so why all the fuss about hiviz and reflective clothing in favour of lights i wonder?

That's a really good point, the fact that the RSA bother promoting Hi Vis at all is a wonder and goes against the very basics of risk reduction.

Every penny they have should be targeted at the major killers on our roads, when they bring these numbers down significantly, then look at other issues.

Let the Gardai handle cyclist visibility until then, there are already sufficient laws in place, although some tweaking on standards would not go a miss.

Can't recall the last time I saw the RSA mention anything re: cycling and the law which is reflectors and lights. Might serve them better to educated people there and add the hi vis as a supplemental.

buffalo

GreeBo wrote: »

No argument from me, so why all the fuss about hiviz and reflective clothing in favour of lights i wonder?

Why all the fuss about hi-viz, full stop?

Thinkingaboutit

There was at one time a particular Garda pre-occupation with ensuring cyclists at night had lights. Could that not happen again? Too many cyclists on a ninja secret mission, dark clothes, no lights or reflectors. Anyhow, I probably wear hi-vis quite often, although I've never really seen how it's useful, but I always have lights.

Macy0161

Well this mornings commute highlighted (?) to me how it's all about lights. The number of motorists not bothering with lights was actually a bit shocking tbh - reflective really worth feck all with no available light source!

Grassey

I was cycling behind a lad in casual clothes on Friday who only had a front light turned around and blinking into his chest/chin. I'm still trying to work out the perceived benefit to that set up given that his arms enclosed a lot of the 'light'...

kirving

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Almost all new vehicles are fitted with lights that you can't turn off. My car has front, side and rear reflectors. And yet, my insurance company still ask what colour my car is, as this makes a difference to its risk category.

https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/articles/car-crash-by-colour/


Yes they do. My last few cars have had them, side marker lamps, daytime running lights, and emergency brake lights. Newer vehicle lighting packages have saved thousands of lives, and yet they still come with reflectors.

See here:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A42007X0530%2801%29#ntr6-L_2007137EN.01000101-E0006

rubadub wrote: »

It is not supposed to be witty, clever, facetious or whatever. Neither is the idea of all vehicle passengers wearing helmets.

If anybody thinks either idea is being a smartarse then it is really just showing up themselves as being irrational and illogical, they obviously have stumped themselves. It's a pathetic copout to just dismiss it.

If you have no reasonable argument just say so.

It is strange how some who think high viz for cyclists is quite beneficial are refusing to see any potential benefit of cars being more visible.

Cars are legally required to have lights and reflectors. How many times can I say it? They already exist, are fitted on nigh on every single road going vehicle, and must conform to EU legislation for that vehicle to be type approved.

You say its pathethic for me to dismiss it? I'm dismissing it because it already exists, and is mandated because it is beneficial.

rubadub wrote: »

https://www.carbuyersguide.net/motoring-news-ireland/details/which-is-the-safest-colour-car-to-have

I know several people who buy higher visibility painted cars for safety. I know people who have put additional high viz labels on their vans.

I see you missed my post above. So what you're saying is, despite cars being legally required to have lights (may of which you can't turn off) and retro-reflectors, that colour STILL makes a difference.

Which is my argument summed up in a single line. Thanks

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would they help for some road users but not for others? Why would they help for cyclists, but not for pedestrians or motorists?

They do, and as above, reflectors are legally required on cars, in addition to lights.

CramCycle wrote: »

They are in the lights, and a few spot ones. They don't look great hence manufacturers have made a point of making them as small and as ineffectual as possible.

This isn't the case, many are extremely visible and again, must meet a minium legal standard. The 2017 Octavia comes to mind.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/2018_Skoda_Octavia_VRS_TSi_2.0_Rear.jpg

Let's call a spade a spade too, most light which cyclists use are absolutely useless - which is where I see reflective clothing as a beneficial aid.

Now yee can qualify any statement about "lights" by saying you mean "good lights" - but this is not what the majority have.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Any focus on mandatory hi-vis/helmets nonsense for cyclists by these bodies and organisations is a distraction from the real source of danger on the roads - the motorists who kill 3 or 4 people each week and maim many more.

The hi-vis for cars line isn't meant to be witty or clever. It's meant to demonstrate the idiocy of pushing public policies with no evidence base and no sensible prioritisation. Is it working?

I haven't said mandatory, ever. Although still I maintain it's generally helpful (in addition to lights of course).

The hi-vis for cars isn't clever - because cars are already required to have retro-reflectors, and the evidence posted above also suggest that lighter colored cars are involved in less accidents.

I also think it's a good idea to but a light-coloured cars (but this is negated somewhat by the fact cars have lights fitted by the manufacturer).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If everyone cycled everywhere, our cancer rates would be dramatically reduced, probably halved. Our stroke/diabetes/hypertension rates would be dramatically reduced. Some mental health issues would be reduced.

How could these factors NOT result in more medical resources being available for other issues?

Because no matter how much you spend health, there will still be a shortage of resources in the HSE. (Similar to no matter how much you light up, drivers will still hit you)

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But hi-vis stripes would definitely improve visibility in some circumstances, surely? When the car is parked with no lights operating? Or when the idiot driver has no lights because he hasn't worked out how DRLs work? Or when one or more bulbs are blown? Or when the car is side on to other traffic?

How can this visibility improvement not be significant, but the evidenced improvement for cyclists apparently is?

Most of these are red herrings - but I'll answer anyway.

Cars have retro-reflectors. My car has additional lights in the doors and boot when they're open, and auto-lights that I can't turn off even if I wanted to.

Yes there is a minority of drivers who don't understand lights, but there is a far bigger minority of cyclists who don't.

Almost all DRL's are LED these days so are at minimum risk of blowing, and many headlights and taillights are the same.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's your personal decision, and one that I'd generally concur with myself. But you do see that it doesn't solve the problem for people like Rose Hoey mentioned above? You do see that victim-blaming doesn't solve the root cause of the problem?

I agree, it doesn't solve that particular case nor many like it. But there are dozens more where you really have to shake your head and wonder why the person put their life in the hands of some other idiot who may or may not be paying attention.

Look at the videos on the news tonight from the Luas - I'm absolutely not only putting cyclists in this category, a motorist is going to lose versus a tram, so it depends on the context.

Ray Bloody Purchase

Weepsie wrote: »

Let's call a spade a spade, most hi viz is useless, reflectors and such are really only good at close range. some is good at mid range. Decent lights are a good from a distance and that is what should be hammered home if anything is.

It's totally anecdotal, but i was cycling home yesterday evening and i saw a guy cycling along with no lights and wearing a hi-viz coat between Harolds Cross and Kimmage. It really was difficult see him. I was slightly taken aback as i thought there'd be some form of reflection off him.

There really is no substitute for a good light.

kirving

Weepsie wrote: »

Let's call a spade a spade, most hi viz is useless, reflectors and such are really only good at close range. some is good at mid range. Decent lights are a good from a distance and that is what should be hammered home if anything is.

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

It's totally anecdotal, but i was cycling home yesterday evening and i saw a guy cycling along with no lights and wearing a hi-viz coat between Harolds Cross and Kimmage. It really was difficult see him. I was slightly taken aback as i thought there'd be some form of reflection off him.

There really is no substitute for a good light.

If we're only talking about "good" lights, in that case I'm only talking about "good" reflective clothing.

If you found it difficult to see him, can you understand why a driver might too? Now you can say all day long that it's the drivers responsibility to look for ninja cyclists, and it is - but making that job as easy as possible for the motorist should be your goal, rather than relying on apportioning blame after an incident.

I have said from the start that the right clothing is a very beneficial secondary aid to good lights, and yet that is the specific point that has been continually disputed by some - saying that clothing makes no difference, because you could be hit anyway. Well you can be hit with lights on too.

Outside of this forum, most cyclists have very poor quality lights, and I don't see why mandating lights, and recommending the right clothing can't co-exist.

buffalo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Outside of this forum, most cyclists have very poor quality lights, and I don't see why mandating lights, and recommending the right clothing can't co-exist.

They can co-exist, with the right amount of emphasis - i.e. a tiny amount on hi-viz as an optional choice, and tonnes of reminders about legally required lights. This is very much not the case in just about every media outlet at present (and this ****ing thread).

Hi-viz is the first and last thing mentioned by most presenters and reporters and Joe public, with lights occasionally being thrown in as an after-thought. So as much as we can get our hive mind working together, could we try to reverse that by not mentioning hi-viz at all, and instead constantly reminding people about lights instead?