Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

AndrewJRenko

chuck eastwood wrote: »

It's a grey golf. Bright colours have nothing to do with the conversation unless you have missed the point. High vis refers to the reflective/fluorescent material Normally. It's pointless talking about the background colours if you are of the mindset that fluorescent high vis plays no part in road safety.

Grey? No fluorescent stripes or panels to make sure it is visible from all sides at all times? Surely you know that grey blends in with concrete roads and bridges?

You know what they say - Lack of awareness is down to the individual be they in a car or on a bike.

magicbastarder

chuck eastwood wrote: »

Bright colours have nothing to do with the conversation unless you have missed the point. High vis refers to the ... fluorescent material

i might be missing something here, but (reflective strips aside) what is a fluorescent jacket if not a bright colour?

Macy0161

chuck eastwood wrote: »

As a driver and cyclist of 20 years this has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard yet "high vis doesn't add to visibility" then throws in anecdotal statement abouts blending into hedge rows, the exact opposite of what high vis is designed for.

I know you've moved on to trying to confuse reflective and fluorescent, but the lack of visibility of orange "hi viz" on a green backgrounds is one of the reasons why someone who is Red-Green colour blind isn't allowed to be a train driver. There's no colour vision requirements for a driving licence.

07Lapierre

chuck eastwood wrote: »

It's pointless talking about the background colours if you are of the mindset that fluorescent high vis plays no part in road safety.

Agreed. The example i gave was to illustrate that point. Hi-viz is pointless on a bright Sunny day if your surrounded by bright colours.

If you go out at dusk/dawn in Autumn/winter, then Hi-viz has a part to play, as long as its used in conjunction with a descent set of lights. (which are a legal requirement anyway)

In my view, reflective elements stitched into shoe covers are just as/if not more effective than a Hi-viz jacket, as they are lower and the movement also attract's attention

On that last point I vaguely recall a video or an article were they took people out in the car and asked them to watch out for the cyclist along the route or some such, and that what stood out the most to the drivers were the reflective bits on the shoes, pedals and pants due to movement.

Paddigol

Given the constant parroting in the media around 'Hi-Viz' (and cyclists should be in the cycle lane), its a bit harsh to have a go at dubbrin. If you're not a cyclist, and don't frequent (cycling) forums where these issues are discussed, it would be easy to assume that they are commonly accepted standards/ requirements. That's the real problem here, not a poster who pops in to share a genuine experience.

Every day on my commute, as well as obnoxious driving (and some very courteous driving) I come across idiotic cycling - no lights or token lights where the batteries are virtually dead. Those same cyclists also tend to demonstrate almost zero road craft/ sense - no situational awareness, disregard for traffic lights, hop onto the footpath etc. But one of the things that gets me almost every time is that in at least half the cases they are also 'Hi-Viz' cyclists. So you have this double-edged notion that if a cyclist isn't wearing 'Hi Viz' he/ she's a law breaking lunatic with no regard for their safety or the welfare of other road users. But if a cyclist does wear 'Hi-Viz', they're somehow exempted from signalling, using front/ rear lights, stopping at traffic lights etc and are magically going to be protected from harm. Some of the worst cycling I see are from Just Eat/ Deliveroo type cyclists who are head to toe in 'Hi Viz' jackets and bags.

The whole Hi Viz thing is a massive red herring which makes discussion about the real issues almost impossible - how to educate cyclists as to the importance of proper road craft/ bike handling on the one hand, and how to educate drivers as to sharing the road with cyclists.

That said, lecturing people in a patronising manner, or making the same 'observation' that has already been addressed to death ad nauseum is a pretty sure way to raising people's heckles. Should hardly be a surprise there - pop into in any other Boards forum as a visitor and try that approach... you'll probably get the exact same response.

MojoMaker

Spot on Paddigol.

chuck eastwood

Paddigol wrote: »

Given the constant parroting in the media around 'Hi-Viz' (and cyclists should be in the cycle lane), its a bit harsh to have a go at dubbrin. If you're not a cyclist, and don't frequent (cycling) forums where these issues are discussed, it would be easy to assume that they are commonly accepted standards/ requirements. That's the real problem here, not a poster who pops in to share a genuine experience.

Every day on my commute, as well as obnoxious driving (and some very courteous driving) I come across idiotic cycling - no lights or token lights where the batteries are virtually dead. Those same cyclists also tend to demonstrate almost zero road craft/ sense - no situational awareness, disregard for traffic lights, hop onto the footpath etc. But one of the things that gets me almost every time is that in at least half the cases they are also 'Hi-Viz' cyclists. So you have this double-edged notion that if a cyclist isn't wearing 'Hi Viz' he/ she's a law breaking lunatic with no regard for their safety or the welfare of other road users. But if a cyclist does wear 'Hi-Viz', they're somehow exempted from signalling, using front/ rear lights, stopping at traffic lights etc and are magically going to be protected from harm. Some of the worst cycling I see are from Just Eat/ Deliveroo type cyclists who are head to toe in 'Hi Viz' jackets and bags.

The whole Hi Viz thing is a massive red herring which makes discussion about the real issues almost impossible - how to educate cyclists as to the importance of proper road craft/ bike handling on the one hand, and how to educate drivers as to sharing the road with cyclists.

That said, lecturing people in a patronising manner, or making the same 'observation' that has already been addressed to death ad nauseum is a pretty sure way to raising people's heckles. Should hardly be a surprise there - pop into in any other Boards forum as a visitor and try that approach... you'll probably get the exact same response.

You're veering massively off point by bringing in the behaviour of delivery cyclists etc, high Viz or not has no bearing on their cycling. if you're a dick on a bike you're a dick on a bike . Also I've rarely been out on an evening cycle when the sun is low and blinding only for it to stay in that position until I get home, 20 mins later it's getting dark and I'm fairy sure the fluorescent stripes make me easier to see.
I don't think I'm being pedantic here but there is no logic to saying once you've got reflective markings on your shoes it's enough.

"That said, lecturing people in a patronising manner, or making the same 'observation' that has already been addressed to death ad nauseum is a pretty sure way to raising people's heckles" .
you're on a public forum making statement's that go against road safety and you expect not to get challenged ?.

breezy1985

chuck eastwood wrote: »

You're veering massively off point by bringing in the behaviour of delivery cyclists etc, high Viz or not has no bearing on their cycling. if you're a dick on a bike you're a dick on a bike . Also I've rarely been out on an evening cycle when the sun is low and blinding only for it to stay in that position until I get home, 20 mins later it's getting dark and I'm fairy sure the fluorescent stripes make me easier to see.
I don't think I'm being pedantic here but there is no logic to saying once you've got reflective markings on your shoes it's enough.

"That said, lecturing people in a patronising manner, or making the same 'observation' that has already been addressed to death ad nauseum is a pretty sure way to raising people's heckles" .
you're on a public forum making statement's that go against road safety and you expect not to get challenged ?.

If you know it's gonna be dark by the time you get home turn on your lights at the start of your journey or pull in half way through and do it and you won't need to worry bout the sun's reflective power

chuck eastwood

breezy1985 wrote: »

If you know it's gonna be dark by the time you get home turn on your lights at the start of your journey or pull in half way through and do it and you won't need to worry bout the sun's reflective power

The lights are on all the time but that doesn't having any bearing on the benifits of fluorescent gear. You don't need to look like a sign post

breezy1985

chuck eastwood wrote: »

The lights are on all the time but that doesn't having any bearing on the benifits of fluorescent gear. You don't need to look like a sign post

"You don't need to look like a sign post"

I don't understand what that means. I thought you were pro hi-vis

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

On that last point I vaguely recall a video or an article were they took people out in the car and asked them to watch out for the cyclist along the route or some such, and that what stood out the most to the drivers were the reflective bits on the shoes, pedals and pants due to movement.

Yeah, there was an Australian study carried out on a closed track, and observers were told to look out for cyclists on it, and fluorescent jackets or bibs didn't do any better than black clothing (I think it was at night, rather than dusk, so no ambient UV light to feed the fluorescence process), but reflective material on the heels and knees were effective.

One thing they noted was the observers were quite good at spotting all cyclists, since they'd been told by a sort of authority figure to do it.

07Lapierre

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agreed. The example i gave was to illustrate that point. Hi-viz is pointless on a bright Sunny day if your surrounded by bright colours.

If you go out at dusk/dawn in Autumn/winter, then Hi-viz has a part to play, as long as its used in conjunction with a descent set of lights. (which are a legal requirement anyway)

In my view, reflective elements stitched into shoe covers are just as/if not more effective than a Hi-viz jacket, as they are lower and the movement also attract's attention

Don't most high viz have reflective strips on them too?
Any I have here do

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't most high viz have reflective strips on them too?
Any I have here do

Quite a lot of cycling jackets are fluoro but with minimal reflective detail, and even then they're suboptimally placed for reflection in urban situations, as they're too high to be in the main beam of dipped car headlights.

buffalo

chuck eastwood wrote: »

high Viz or not has no bearing on their cycling

I think that's one of the main points a lot of posters are trying to make.

Macy0161

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't most high viz have reflective strips on them too?
Any I have here do

Torso isn't that effective when it's dipped lights - you'd see a decent light at a far greater distance, and then next would be lower leg detail. This isn't new - hence the old school pedals with the reflectors on them, and the positioning of a reflector on the bottom of old school mudguards. Actually, you can also see it in road markings - cats eyes, and the reflectors along a road side aren't at cyclists or pedestrian torso height.

The focus on builders vests is what really irritates me - I'd be less bothered if people were arguing for a browne belt. Fluorescent material adds nothing in the dark.

07Lapierre

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't most high viz have reflective strips on them too?
Any I have here do

I think they do yes. Most of my cycling kit have reflective bits built in. I have black overshoes, black bib tights, a blue winter jacket and a red winter jacket...all have some bit of reflective material.

But just like the example in the video below.... most motorists would be aware that a cyclist was ahead of them on the road because of my rear light. Lights trump Hi-viz every time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57IOduT8hg8&feature=youtu.be

tomasrojo

Yes, fluorescent materials are pretty good at dusk, but do nothing much at night.

My personal strategy if I felt my lights were inadequate would be to add another light rather than hi-vis, but each to their own. The bike itself is a good place to put reflectors too, though road bikes don't provide you with many points to attach them to.

tomasrojo

07Lapierre wrote: »

I think they do yes. Most of my cycling kit have reflective bits built in. I have black overshoes, black bib tights, a blue winter jacket and a red winter jacket...all have some bit of reflective material.

But just like the example in the video below.... most motorists would be aware that a cyclist was ahead of them on the road because of my rear light. Lights trump Hi-viz every time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57IOduT8hg8&feature=youtu.be

If that's the video I'm thinking of, I was impressed by how conspicuous the pedal reflectors were, between the biomotion and the brightness, but not by how late they became apparent.

07Lapierre

tomasrojo wrote: »

If that's the video I'm thinking of, I was impressed by how conspicuous the pedal reflectors were, between the biomotion and the brightness, but not by how late they became apparent.

I think that's because reflectors are only as good as the lights they reflect off?

Macy0161

I use lights in day time on my bike, particularly this time of year. The only reason to wear "hi viz", imo, is because we can't trust our judiciary to sentence based upon what the law actually says, and accept the lack of hi-viz (and helmets) as a mitigating factor even when it would have zero impact.

tomasrojo

07Lapierre wrote: »

I think that's because reflectors are only as good as the lights they reflect off?

Yeah, and they're very dependent on the angle of incidence and the placement of the observer. For example, a car waiting to enter a roundabout on a dark road won't see a reflector approaching from the right, as the headlights will be pointing off to the left.

07Lapierre

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, and they're very dependent on the angle of incidence and the placement of the observer. For example, a car waiting to enter a roundabout on a dark road won't see a reflector approaching from the right, as the headlights will be pointing off to the left.

I have the Hope R4 front light. It is BRIGHT, but i'm still very cautious negotiating my way around roundabouts/junctions etc. Visibility is not the issue really, its observation. And i'm referring to all roadusers. i see lots of cyclists who turn right without looking and who cycle "around" a roundabout cutting across two lanes of traffic....crazy stuff!

tomasrojo

Just looking up that light. 2000 lumens. That is bright, for sure!

Enduro

Anecdote alert!

Last night I was out for my standard nightly run on the unlit backroads of south Dublin, but with a new much brighter red LED armband light (I always run with one at night, but this one was a noticable step up in luminosity). The much brighter light seemed to have a significant affect on how much more room cars were passing by, and how much earlier they were pulling out to pass. Very very noticably so.

In many many years of running on roads only two things seem to have this positive affect... a very bright red armband, or a very bright headtorch. Clothing colour or reflectiveness seems to no noticable affect whatsover. So pretty much exactly the same as my experiences cycling.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Quite a lot of cycling jackets are fluoro but with minimal reflective detail, and even then they're suboptimally placed for reflection in urban situations, as they're too high to be in the main beam of dipped car headlights.

OK cheers. All my jackets have reflecting down arms and across lower back. I've not cycled in a while so not sure what newer gear would have.
All my running gear has reflective strips too.

But (running or cycling) I would always treat them as a supplement to lights both front and back.

A generated light always trumps reflected.

07Lapierre

tomasrojo wrote: »

Just looking up that light. 2000 lumens. That is bright, for sure!

Well i use it on the 1000 setting and its angled down to illuminate the road ( the video above was recorded using this setting).

Paddigol

chuck eastwood wrote: »

"That said, lecturing people in a patronising manner, or making the same 'observation' that has already been addressed to death ad nauseum is a pretty sure way to raising people's heckles" .
you're on a public forum making statement's that go against road safety and you expect not to get challenged ?.

Not at all. Just don't go banging the 'cyclists get all defensive when you criticise them' drum when you start making up stuff about "going against road safety". Which brings me back to my point (which rather than veering off topic is actually bang on topic) - Hi Viz is a far less significant part of ensuring road safety than road sense and lights, yet you want to ignore those issues and yet contend that your argument is about road safety. That's called trying to have your cake and eat it and is why you get the sort of responses you see above.

Paddigol

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't most high viz have reflective strips on them too?
Any I have here do

Most do, but as pointed out, its the reflective strips that people consider to be the 'high visibility' element of the clothes.

Yet when I get stopped at a random Garda checkpoint and politely advised to wear 'Hi Viz', when I point out that if my two lights front - two lights rear weren't enough, my black cycling top and bib tights both have reflective strips incorporated, I'm advised "that's not enough".

Bottom line, people with absolutely NO clue are completely confused as to what constitutes 'Hi Viz', yet at the same time insist that it should be compulsory. It's bolloxology and is called out as such time and time again.

07Lapierre

Paddigol wrote: »

Bottom line, people with absolutely NO clue are completely confused as to what constitutes 'Hi Viz', yet at the same time insist that it should be compulsory. It's bolloxology and is called out as such time and time again.

Agree 100%! I'd love to know how many cyclists who were injured or killed on our roads this year were wearing Hi-viz (and Helmets). I suspect every one of them were fully fitted out! IMO the vast majority of incidents on our roads are down to lack of observation, combined with speed and inexperience. (and i'm referring to all modes of transport)