Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

GreeBo

Grassey wrote: »

If it saves even 1

Yawn.

Grassey

GreeBo wrote:

Yawn.

I thought that was the bar at which all measures shall be measured?

buffalo

There's some posts on this thread that I can see on mobile, but not on desktop. Weird.

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

Anyway, throwing some more anecdotal evidence into the ring. I didn't have a head-on collision with on oncoming cyclist in the Phoenix Park last night, but it wasn't for want of his trying.

With no lights on his bike, I was nearly on top of him before my brain had recognised the white bits as another cyclist. When I did realise, I couldn't tell which side of the path he was on, because I had no context - depth perception was difficult, and he didn't have a lamp shining on the ground indicating position.

This is what happens when the RSA and commentators bang on about hi-viz - cycling in the pitch black with just hi-viz is socially acceptable.

Chips Lovell

buffalo wrote: »

Anyway, throwing some more anecdotal evidence into the ring. I didn't have a head-on collision with on oncoming cyclist in the Phoenix Park last night, but it wasn't for want of his trying.

I think I saw your friend last night. Coming around the Aras an Uachtarain roundabout, wrong side of the road, no visible lights.

GreeBo

Grassey wrote: »

I thought that was the bar at which all measures shall be measured?

Oh, well in that case you should definitely wear hiviz clothing....in case it saves 1 life. :rolleyes:

buffalo wrote: »

This is what happens when the RSA and commentators bang on about hi-viz - cycling in the pitch black with just hi-viz is socially acceptable.

Except NO ONE is saying this!
Can you show my where anyone on this thread or otherwise is saying cycling without lights is ok?

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think I saw your friend last night. Coming around the Aras an Uachtarain roundabout, wrong side of the road, no visible lights.

So you think you saw the guy who couldn't be seen?;)

buffalo

GreeBo wrote: »

Except NO ONE is saying this!

I'm saying that. Every cycling-related photoshoot for the RSA features hi-viz predominantly, rarely lights. The message that is absorbed is that hi-viz is important. The more emphasis that we - as a society - put on hi-viz for cyclists, the less we put on lights (and driver behaviour, but let's leave that alone for now).

GreeBo

buffalo wrote: »

I'm saying that. Every cycling-related photoshoot for the RSA features hi-viz predominantly, rarely lights. The message that is absorbed is that hi-viz is important. The more emphasis that we - as a society - put on hi-viz for cyclists, the less we put on lights (and driver behaviour, but let's leave that alone for now).

Well then maybe you should stop saying that, as the RSA demonstrably aren't.
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Cycle-Smart-Cycle-Safe/


Ok, they aren't the lights I would use, but they are at least using strong batteries and showing lights with equal footing as hiviz/reflective gear.

I dont see *any* evidence of the RSA promoting cycling in the dark without lights.

Grassey

GreeBo wrote: »

Oh, well in that case you should definitely wear hiviz clothing....in case it saves 1 life. :rolleyes:

On occasion I do, if it's dawn/dusk when I'm starting or due to end my commute in addition to about €400 worth of good lights.

I fail to see the point in high-vis for all occasions though when it is broad day light and visibility is already good, or at night in an urban environment where it is ineffective and blends into everything else under washed out visibility of orange street lights.

buffalo

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok, they aren't the lights I would use, but they are at least using strong batteries and showing lights with equal footing as hiviz/reflective gear.

So lights are equal to hi-viz when cycling in the dark?

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont see *any* evidence of the RSA promoting cycling in the dark without lights.

Scroll through the RSA's Twitter. First tweet relating to cycling, no mention of lights. Shows a pedestrian with a torch, but no mention of lights in the text, and no indication of lights for cyclists at all:

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1060585240685699072

Grassey

GreeBo wrote: »

Well then maybe you should stop saying that, as the RSA demonstrably aren't.
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Cycle-Smart-Cycle-Safe/


Ok, they aren't the lights I would use, but they are at least using strong batteries and showing lights with equal footing as hiviz/reflective gear.

I dont see *any* evidence of the RSA promoting cycling in the dark without lights.

Did you see the ****e button lights they were previously handing out as part of a campaign to cyclists, that had a tiny LED that wasn't visible past about a foot?

If that's not trying to promote cycling in the dark I don't know what is.

GreeBo

buffalo wrote: »

So lights are equal to hi-viz when cycling in the dark?
[/ quote]
They are complementary.

Scroll through the RSA's Twitter. First tweet relating to cycling, no mention of lights. Shows a pedestrian with a torch, but no mention of lights in the text, and no indication of lights for cyclists at all:

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1060585240685699072

Ah come on, the pedestrian had a bloody light in their hand!
Are you telling me more people will read the text then view the picture?

buffalo

GreeBo wrote: »

Are you telling me more people will read the text then view the picture?

Fair enough. If we're only dealing with pictures and not text - first result when searching for "RSA cycling":



Plenty of hi-viz, no lights, despite the fact it's dim enough and the photoshoot is clearly emphasising visibility.

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

Except NO ONE is saying this!

But they are implying this and not realising this is just willful ignorance on the matter. They are saying it by not saying anything else. never a statement after solicitors use it as a reasonable defence for being hit. they are a disgrace as a body for road safety.

GreeBo wrote: »

Well then maybe you should stop saying that, as the RSA demonstrably aren't.
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Cycle-Smart-Cycle-Safe/


Ok, they aren't the lights I would use, but they are at least using strong batteries and showing lights with equal footing as hiviz/reflective gear.

I dont see *any* evidence of the RSA promoting cycling in the dark without lights.

They are only promoting Hi Vis as a necessity in every TV ad involving pedestrians and cyclists with rarely a mention of lights. They do it in the daytime, and in their poster campaigns, as well as hand out thousands of the inadequate yellow waistcoats in conjunction with the Gardai who I have seen let people continue on, in the hours of darkness, with nary a word about lights.

They mention lights once, a brief mention, with inadequate lights demonstrated, and treated as, well you have to legally, rather than the important feature that they are. Bothe pretty weak see me lights, they will not illuminate the road ahead or behind, and one is fitted slightly obscured by the pannier rack. I mean, WTF, useless as f*ck.

Here is what the RSA have in that link regarding lights and high vis, people can judge for them selves where the emphasis is.

Equipment Check: This covers the correct set-up of a bicycle and the necessary safety equipment. Is the saddle the correct height? Are the tyres nice and firm, and the bell, lights and brakes all working properly? The film also gives advice on the choosing and wearing of a properly approved helmet and the importance of high visibility clothing

Chips Lovell

Grassey wrote: »

Did you see the ****e button lights they were previously handing out as part of a campaign to cyclists, that had a tiny LED that wasn't visible past about a foot?

If that's not trying to promote cycling in the dark I don't know what is.

This to me is one of the points where the RSA crossed the line from being ineffective to being downright dangerous.

If you're handing out crappy lights, inexperienced cyclists could be excused for believing that if the RSA are endorsing them, then they are adequate, either on their own or in combination with high viz.

The reality is that neither are any substitution for proper lights.

CramCycle

Funnily enough, I got great examples of the issues with DRLs and Hi Vis last night, when a security van overtook me in Shankill. So no rear lights (DRLs :rolleyes:) but lots of bright yellow and red reflective stripes. I can see the car perfectly fine, it is only a few metres away from me. I though if I got caught in traffic I might point it out to him, as I am of the opinion, that if rear ended they may be accused of contributory negligence. Anyway, as they drive away, I realise there is not enough traffic, so it will be Bray town before I see them again. Interestingly, about 150m up the road, I realise I can see the car in front of them but I actually cannot see them. They haven't turned off, I eventually make them out when they tap their brakes but, while not impossible to see, their visibility was greatly reduced due to the lack of lights, the hi vis wrap made no difference as the peripheral light obviously didn't directly shine back at me or interference hid it.

I noticed the same earlier on the N11 with cyclists, in all scenarios, anyone with lights was visible from a few 100m away, anyone without, while not invisible, was only truly recognisable as a person/cyclist once they were between 100 and 50m away. Most you could not tell what colour they were wearing until that close either.

None of them were in danger from me but a car breaking the speed limit and not paying attention may not see them in time. Undoubtedly, thanks to the RSA, the fault would lie at their feet entirely as they didn't have Hi Vis on, or if they did, something else would be blamed. Not excusing their behaviour, they are wrong, but it somehow might excuse the behaviour of others which to me is shocking.

what_traffic

Grassey wrote: »

Did you see the ****e button lights they were previously handing out as part of a campaign to cyclists, that had a tiny LED that wasn't visible past about a foot?
If that's not trying to promote cycling in the dark I don't know what is.

+1 on this.
Surprised they are still throwing these out. I suppose they are very very cheap.
Returned a batch of these LED's to RSA asking for legal clarification on them aboug two years ago.
Told they were supplementary to bicycle lights - then asked for the RSA standards/guidelines on bicycle lights, they had nothing on this.

buffalo

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1114/1010923-be-safe-be-seen-midlands/

...circulate 40,0000 stickers and high-viz vests to primary school children in Laois, Offaly and Westmeath.

The campaign is in response to the fact that 35% of all childhood deaths in Ireland are due to road traffic accidents and half of these are pedestrians.

How do we fix this issue of drivers killing people... Speed cameras? Traffic calming measures? Random checkpoints to catch mobile phone users? No, we'll use stickers!

No amount of hi-vis is going to improve the **** show that is out side my girls school at 2 o clock each day. All it would take is will on the part of the school and the co-operation of the Gardai issue warnings day one then tickets day 2 then problem solved. Not a sticker and a vest.

I remember being asked on multiple occasions when waiting did I not think it dangerous cycling on the road with her on the back , yeah as soon as I get to the school :rolleyes:

EDIT: She arrived home with one the other day and I was in the middle of a long angry email when I thought better of it. I'll put a calm and coherent one together later.

CramCycle

Incredible from either the Journalist or the Gardai themselves. The way it is phrased for half of that 35%, makes it sound like they were at fault. As in 17.5% of young pedestrians and cyclists involved in RTAs are the sole contributors to the accident.

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1063015050225635328

CramCycle

A load of school kids, maybe 6th class, a group of around 30 in my local town out jogging, in the evening time. You know its a school thing as they are all wearing Hi Vis, even though the sodium lighting meant it made no difference. But for all the attempts at safety from the organisers, at a light controlled junction, they herded them between moving cars. Now don't get me wrong, it is a terribly designed and controlled junction but the lack of realisation that they were causing the danger rather than preventing it was mind blowing. I kept my mouth shut as I would have been met with ridicule to point out the stupidity of their actions.

Weepsie

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1063015050225635328

Those lights are suitable only to be worn on dogs' collars when walking them in the winter.

Macy0161

Weepsie wrote: »

Those lights are suitable only to be worn on dogs' collars when walking them in the winter.

Whilst I would class them as secondary lights in the dark, if they're the same I picked up a couple of years ago, they're miles better than the ones the RSA/ Gardai gave out last time I got any.

Weepsie

Macy0161 wrote: »

Whilst I would class them as secondary lights in the dark, if they're the same I picked up a couple of years ago, they're miles better than the ones the RSA/ Gardai gave out last time I got any.

Fair enough. And a scroll through that twitter account is heartening. They have started a convoy of adults and kids to get them to school by bike.

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

Whilst I would class them as secondary lights in the dark, if they're the same I picked up a couple of years ago, they're miles better than the ones the RSA/ Gardai gave out last time I got any.

I had similar ones a few years ago. Miles better than the RSA ones, you can definitely see them from a distance and there is at least some light projected as well. At least they meet the visibility requirement and are good enough that not seeing them is an excuse.

Macy0161

Weepsie wrote: »

Fair enough. And a scroll through that twitter account is heartening. They have started a convoy of adults and kids to get them to school by bike.

Yeah, I've seen that. For the times they'll be using them, they'll probably be ok. And really, if it implants the importance of lights to the children is really the main thing.

Hurrache

Weepsie wrote: »

Fair enough. And a scroll through that twitter account is heartening. They have started a convoy of adults and kids to get them to school by bike.

Yeah, they've been at it a while. First one or two times they've had gardai on bikes with them, but it all seems to be going well ever since. I think they've only missed one day and that was due to weather.

Chips Lovell

Deleted User wrote: »

I remember being asked on multiple occasions when waiting did I not think it dangerous cycling on the road with her on the back , yeah as soon as I get to the school :rolleyes:

My standard response to this kind of hand-wringing is: "I wouldn't be doing it if I thought it was dangerous".

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

Yeah, they've been at it a while. First one or two times they've had gardai on bikes with them, but it all seems to be going well ever since. I think they've only missed one day and that was due to weather.

It's a fantastic initiative, fair play to those involved. Hopefully it'll inspire others.

Something like that has the potential for "nag factor" in a positive way where kids see this and feel they are missing out and want to be involved and maybe dragging along more parents who might also need some physical activity. I'd say people who drive that route everyday would be well aware of them by now and give them the space they need baring the odd numpty.