Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

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.

Weepsie

Kevin Irving wrote: »

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.

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

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.

Weepsie

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.

Because telling people what they should wear can have a negative impact on participation. Cycling is wonderful precisely because it can be done by the lycra clad folk, or the bowler hat, tweed jacket wearing folk. Whatever makes them comfortable.

Lights are just more effective.
People still get hit as you say, but the problem isn't because of people not wearing hiviz, or because of lights. It's driver attentiveness.

It's again going around in circles, so I'm out and believe what you want to believe.

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?

Markcheese

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.

Hi viz is not a magical item,
It works by contrast, on a grey day when visibility is poorest it contrasts with the background, if someone in a hi-viz jacket is standing in front of the back of a motorway maintenance van they'll blend in nicely, (rare enough though),
In very poor light they'll be as invisible as their surroundings too, and reflective panels on the jackets is pretty poor if there is very little light to reflect..
So yes a good light is best, but anything else (like a Hi viz vest) that allows the busy brain of a motorist to subconsciously notice and understand the shape and direction of an item near it helps... Because a "motorist should see me" won't make much difference to an already overloaded brain, in the dark, rainy conditions wipers on, heavy traffic, radio on, kids yelling (or worse just on the phone), our brain prioritises.. And if you blend in you're not counted as there..

07Lapierre

If a driver is distracted, lights may get their attention quicker than anyHi-viz. in the video I posted earlier I knew there was a cyclist ahead of me two minutes before I caught up with her. IMO her pink hi-viz was irrelevant as I already knew she was there before I saw the jacket.

CramCycle

07Lapierre wrote: »

If a driver is distracted, lights may get their attention quicker than anyHi-viz. in the video I posted earlier I knew there was a cyclist ahead of me two minutes before I caught up with her. IMO her pink hi-viz was irrelevant as I already knew she was there before I saw the jacket.

That was the point i was trying to make earlier, she was 100% visible. Having the Hi Vis did not improve this, although the reflectors on her legs were far more effective than her torso, the distance at which they became useful was far too late considering the love of driving faster than they should many drivers have.

Coming through Rathdrum the other night, two young lads on bikes with no lights. I copped them in plenty of time, even though they were in Black. I seen them at 100m+, could have been walkers but at 80m it was clear they were cyclists. At 75m I caught the reflection of their pedals. They were visible because of the contrast of their entire black get up against the soft sodium lights on everything, HI vis would not have helped, although would not have made it worse either.

If they had decent lights, they would have been clear from 200m and nothing else would have mattered, and where the road gets winding further on, they would have been noticeable before they even came into a line of sight.

This said, in 100% agreement with GreeBo, this is not where the RSA should be focusing efforts. Enough people accept the importance of being seen that it is socially accepted to be visible, even if we don't agree on the level. The RSA really need to focus there efforts on where they can save the most lives.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

If a driver is distracted, lights may get their attention quicker than anyHi-viz. in the video I posted earlier I knew there was a cyclist ahead of me two minutes before I caught up with her. IMO her pink hi-viz was irrelevant as I already knew she was there before I saw the jacket.

I'm my experience reflective gear & HiVis means you stand out as "not a car" much easier than you do with lights.

A driver doesnt really care about other vehicles on the road, as you are very rarely intersecting with each other.
Its the more vulnerable road users (non-vehicular traffic) that drivers really need to be aware so these need to stand out from the noise.

As an example, if you are travelling in slow moving traffic you really dont need to be aware of all the cars behind you, but you do need to be aware of the bike or jogger who is going to pass you on the inside.

Weepsie

GreeBo wrote: »

As an example, if you are travelling in slow moving traffic you really dont need to be aware of all the cars behind you, but you do need to be aware of the bike or jogger who is going to pass you on the inside.

Rear lights are not going to be reflected an awful lot now though are they? The white light that is going to be reflected, is going to be coming from behind any cyclists you'd think.

It's kind of making up a solution that doesn't work really.

GreeBo

Weepsie wrote: »

Rear lights are not going to be reflected an awful lot now though are they?

Rear lights reflect a lot, you only have to look at the street signs behind when you brake to see them light up.

Weepsie wrote: »

The white light that is going to be reflected, is going to be coming from behind any cyclists you'd think.

Typically there are cars coming against you with headlights on & streetlights nearby.

Grassey

GreeBo wrote: »

Rear lights reflect a lot, you only have to look at the street signs behind when you brake to see them light up.


Typically there are cars coming against you with headlights on & streetlights nearby.

So the high vis will work when you've the brake pressed.. and while you are travelling forward...what? The majority of street lights don't reflect at all on day-glo jackets.

And your car is between those lights and the cyclist.

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm my experience reflective gear & HiVis means you stand out as "not a car" much easier than you do with lights.

A driver doesnt really care about other vehicles on the road, as you are very rarely intersecting with each other.
Its the more vulnerable road users (non-vehicular traffic) that drivers really need to be aware so these need to stand out from the noise.

As an example, if you are travelling in slow moving traffic you really dont need to be aware of all the cars behind you, but you do need to be aware of the bike or jogger who is going to pass you on the inside.

It must be the cyclist in me, but when i'm driving and i see a single, really bright red light ahead of me, i always remind myself that it could be a car with only one light working, or a motorbike or a cyclist. either way it prompts me to slow down and wait until I've confirmed whats ahead of me before considering overtaking.

kirving

Weepsie wrote: »

Because telling people what they should wear can have a negative impact on participation. Cycling is wonderful precisely because it can be done by the lycra clad folk, or the bowler hat, tweed jacket wearing folk. Whatever makes them comfortable.

Lights are just more effective.
People still get hit as you say, but the problem isn't because of people not wearing hiviz, or because of lights. It's driver attentiveness.

It's again going around in circles, so I'm out and believe what you want to believe.

I don't think it's a good idea to put participation (in the hope of safety-in-numbers), ahead of wearing the appropriate (bright, reflective) clothing for the situation.

Life jackets have lights, but are also yellow. Why? Machinery safety stop buttons are illuminated, but are also yellow/red. Why?

Lights are great if they're pointing at you and are obscured - which is by no means 100% of the time.

A driver has a limited amount of attention they can give to cyclists, making that job as easily as possible means that they dedicate more of their time to cyclists.

buffalo wrote: »

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).

I have contended from the start that clothing matters much more than a tiny percentage of the time - even with good lights.

Grassey wrote: »

So the high vis will work when you've the brake pressed.. and while you are travelling forward...what? The majority of street lights don't reflect at all on day-glo jackets.

And your car is between those lights and the cyclist.

His point is that reflective clothing can be so good, that it can even reflect diffuse brake light back to the driver.

I'm sitting in traffic waiting to turn left, with my brake lights and indicator on, there is a stream of cyclists going past on my left (common in the city), the guy dressed in all black is obscuring the light of the guy behind.

My brake lights illuminate the second cyclists reflective jacket and arms, and I can plainly see that he is there - despite his light being obscured.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

It must be the cyclist in me, but when i'm driving and i see a single, really bright red light ahead of me, i always remind myself that it could be a car with only one light working, or a motorbike or a cyclist. either way it prompts me to slow down and wait until I've confirmed whats ahead of me before considering overtaking.

It must be the driver in me that was specifically talking about slow moving traffic and cyclists overtaking...

GreeBo

Grassey wrote: »

So the high vis will work when you've the brake pressed.. and while you are travelling forward...what? The majority of street lights don't reflect at all on day-glo jackets.

Reflective strips work in lots of light, not just brake lights.
Reflective clothing works with lights, hiviz works in daylight.

And your car is between those lights and the cyclist.

My car is between streetlights and the cyclist?
Also, unless you are driving too close to the car in front, there is plenty of room for oncoming lights to shine on the cyclist.

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

It must be the driver in me that was specifically talking about slow moving traffic and cyclists overtaking...

If the cyclist is overtaking, the onus is on the cyclist to ensure its safe to do so. In slow moving traffic, I set my front light to flash mode. I find it gets noticed by drivers.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

If the cyclist is overtaking, the onus is on the cyclist to ensure its safe to do so. In slow moving traffic, I set my front light to flash mode. I find it gets noticed by drivers.

Sure the onus is on the cyclist, but when cars are turning left and bikes are going straight on, on a dark wet night, then I want the bag of mostly water to stand out as much as possible.

AndrewJRenko

I came up behind a cyclist with no lights, a reflective helmet cover, and a reflective armband tied under his saddle last night. He was really hard to see, compared to the other cyclists with lights around him.

https://streamable.com/p0lr0

Unfortunately, I didn't catch up to have a chat with him.

07Lapierre

There’s RSA cheap Hi-viz, and there’s hi end Rapha hi viz!

https://youtu.be/rxzcDVIh2Xw

AndrewJRenko

Great to see our Minister focusing on the important issue of our time - wrapping every child, man and woman in the country up in hi-vis

https://twitter.com/Shane_RossTD/status/1060963078920196101

Grassey

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Great to see our Minister focusing on the important issue of our time - wrapping every child, man and woman in the country up in hi-vis

Can't be too safe in the classroom. If it saves even 1 child from missing homework etc