Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?

AlekSmart

Although deemed OT in this thread...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057179220

It is touched upon in this one,albeit for commercial reasons....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057179120

....Anybody else believe the issue is of enough relevance to merit an oul trawl for further expressions of interest...?

It never ceases to amaze me just how many Pedestrians and Cyclists will don Black Coats,Trousers,Hats,Boots and Gloves then stroll or wobble off on a BLACK bicycle,fully expecting to arrive-alive at some exotic destination.....Incredible thoroughness is often displayed to ensure that not a sniff of any bright colour is dispayed to other road-users....

No Pants

Is this during daytime or night time?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

No Pants wrote: »

Is this during daytime or night time?

Doesn't matter what time of day night it is, brighter clothes are better clothes.

No Pants

Miller Poor Slob wrote: »

Doesn't matter what time of day night it is, brighter clothes are better clothes.

Really? Please explain.

Dravokivich

No Pants wrote: »

Really? Please explain.

Something dull or dark just tends to get lost in the background.

patrickbrophy18

I don't see the need for highly visible clothing in broad daylight as any road user is generally hard to miss in these conditions. Provided that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are observant, everyone should be fine. Conversely, at night, it is highly advisable that cyclists wear high visibility jackets. I'm not sure why pedestrians would need high visibility clothing at night as they generally travel on the footpath. On the other hand, cyclist use the same tarmac as motorists. So, a lack of visibility at night is highly dangerous for them, pedestrians, motorists and of course, other cyclists. Pedestrians don't really need to worry about being visible. However, extra attention is needed when crossing the road. This holds true particularly in poorly lit areas. Nevertheless, where lighting is almost non-existent, I would encourage pedestrians to where high visibility clothing.

Del2005

If there's no footpath, usually no street lights either, then pedestrians should wear high viz and maybe carry a torch. Cyclists as road users should be showing lights front and rear, high viz would be optional.

During daylight it makes sod all difference. Motorbikes have been using DRLs for years and still don't get noticed, even HGVs are resorting to DRLs, as other road users either aren't paying enough attention or can't see*. No matter what a pedestrian or cyclist does during the day won't be of any benefit to them as the average motorist won't see them.



*Only ever having your eyes tested in your late teens to get your licence isn't good enough.

No Pants

Dravokivich wrote: »

Something dull or dark just tends to get lost in the background.

Ah, okay. So we're not talking about maybe the clothing keeping the owner warmer or drier, we're talking about benefits to others.

Cookie_Monster

... And what about all those people driving black cars...

I've lights on my bike for when they're needed, aside from that I've no interest in any kind of ugly reflective clothing, nor do I care what anyone thinks about what I'm wearing, it's none of their business.

AlekSmart in the linked thread wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me just how many Cyclists will don Black Coats,Trousers,Hats,Boots and Gloves then wobble off on a BLACK bicycle,fully expecting to arrive-alive at some exotic destination.....Incredible thoroughness is often displayed to ensure that not a sniff on any bright colour is dispayed to other road-users....

so? either it's dark enough to require lights in which case it doesn't matter or it's bright enough not to need lights, in which case it doesn't matter.

....Anybody else believe the issue is of enough relevance to merit an oul trawl for further expressions of interest...?

Nope, seems like just another cheap shot at non motorists using the roads.

Dravokivich

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

... And what about all those people driving black cars...

This gripe should be with motorists that have a head light or rear light out.

No Pants

How do motorists manage not to drive into trees and houses? They're not painted in high-vis. Could it be that caution is exercised?

Right now I'm a motorist first, pedestrian second, runner third and cyclist fourth. As the days get longer and the weather (hopefully) better, I expect that order to change.

thebullkf

To answer op yes, though just as well you didn't post this in the cycling forum !! It's a fashion faux pas for 'real' cyclists. *rolls eyes.* tons of threads on it. I am pro high vis. For the obvious reason.

Seaswimmer

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I don't see the need for highly visible clothing in broad daylight as any road user is generally hard to miss in these conditions. Provided that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are observant, everyone should be fine. Conversely, at night, it is highly advisable that cyclists wear high visibility jackets. I'm not sure why pedestrians would need high visibility clothing at night as they generally travel on the footpath. On the other hand, cyclist use the same tarmac as motorists. So, a lack of visibility at night is highly dangerous for them, pedestrians, motorists and of course, other cyclists. Pedestrians don't really need to worry about being visible. However, extra attention is needed when crossing the road. This holds true particularly in poorly lit areas. Nevertheless, where lighting is almost non-existent, I would encourage pedestrians to where high visibility clothing.

High visibility clothing is useless at night. Maybe you mean high visibility
clothing that may also have reflective material built in.

But again no substitute for good lighting..

SeanW

No Pants wrote: »

How do motorists manage not to drive into trees and houses? They're not painted in high-vis. Could it be that caution is exercised?

Could it possibly be that houses and trees are not on the road?

ThisRegard

Miller Poor Slob wrote: »

Doesn't matter what time of day night it is, brighter clothes are better clothes.

So the same can be applied to cars ? Should it be mandatory for cars to be high vis ?

SeanW

ThisRegard wrote: »

So the same can be applied to cars ? Should it be mandatory for cars to be high vis ?

Cars already have big-azz lights.

ThisRegard

SeanW wrote: »

Cars already have big-azz lights.

Only of use when they're switched on.

No Pants

ThisRegard wrote: »

Only of use when they're switched on.

And have working bulbs fitted.

SeanW

No Pants wrote: »

Ah, okay. So we're not talking about maybe the clothing keeping the owner warmer or drier, we're talking about benefits to others.

I would have thought visibility is a benefit to the owner?

No Pants wrote: »

How do motorists manage not to drive into trees and houses? They're not painted in high-vis. Could it be that caution is exercised?

Are you standing over this comment despite...

SeanW wrote: »

Could it possibly be that houses and trees are not on the road?

Stark

SeanW wrote: »

Are you standing over this comment despite...

SeanW wrote:

Could it possibly be that houses and trees are not on the road?

The boundary of the road generally isn't covered in hi-viz either.

Irrelevant justification anyway. Plenty of incidents of people driving into trees and houses where caution wasn't exercised. So whether they're in the middle of the road or at the side of the road isn't all that relevant.

bk

The best way to reduce accidents with cyclists is by increasing the number of cyclists. Safety in numbers. The more cyclists out there, the more careful drivers are.

High-viz just makes people think cycling is less safe then it actually is and reduces the number of people who cycle. Notice how in Dutch cycling advertisements, they never show people wearing high-viz or helmets (and you never see anyone actually wearing them on the streets). Instead you see lovely women, wearing easy to cycle city bikes, wearing there ordinary every day clothes, no helmets or high-viz.

Cycling is shown as a fun and safe activity. And partly because of that (and other reasons too), 40% of people cycle to work every day in Amsterdam. We should be learning from them.

High-viz IMO gives a false sense of security and leads to people cycling in a dangerous manner at night.

A good high quality front and rare light is all that is needed at night. And there is really no excuse, you can get superb front and rare lights from dx.com for just €12 total.

I mean really good, extremely bright lights that you will be seen from very far away.

No Pants

Stark wrote: »

The boundary of the road generally isn't covered in hi-viz either.

It is sometimes marked in braille. :pac:

Cookie_Monster

Dravokivich wrote: »

This gripe should be with motorists that have a head light or rear light out.

nope, that's not the comparison in the OP. He's trying to single out people in dark clothes regardless of lights.

dark coloured fully lit cars are no different to dark clothed fully lit cyclists yet there are always calls for cyclists to be clad in high vis and nothing ever said about car colours.

Del2005

bk wrote: »

The best way to reduce accidents with cyclists is by increasing the number of cyclists. Safety in numbers. The more cyclists out there, the more cars there are.

High-viz just makes people think cycling is less safe then it actually is and reduces the number of people who cycle. Notice how in Dutch cycling advertisements, they never show people wearing high-viz or helmets (and you never see anyone actually wearing them on the streets). Instead you see lovely women, wearing easy to cycle city bikes, wearing there ordinary every day clothes, no helmets or high-viz.

Cycling is shown as a fun and safe activity. And partly because of that (and other reasons too), 40% of people cycle to work every day in Amsterdam. We should be learning from them.

High-viz IMO gives a false sense of security and leads to people cycling in a dangerous manner at night.

A good high quality front and rare light is all that is needed at night. And there is really no excuse, you can get superb front and rare lights from dx.com for just €12 total.

I mean really good, extremely bright lights that you will be seen from very far away.

They rarely have them aimed correctly and there's no easy dip function, still better that the ninjas. Some of them are too powerful for use with traffic around.

bk

Del2005 wrote: »

They rarely have them aimed correctly and there's no easy dip function, still better that the ninjas. Some of them are too powerful for use with traffic around.

Haha, now the bike lights are too bright!!!

Mad, there is no pleasing some people.

No Pants

AlekSmart wrote: »

fully expecting to arrive-alive at some exotic destination

Imagine that, the insolence.

Del2005

bk wrote: »

Haha, now the bike lights are too bright!!!

Mad, there is no pleasing some people.

It's about consideration of other road users. The other day I was stopped at traffic lights on the Outer Ring Road, there was a cyclist across the junction cycling the wrong way up the cycle path. I couldn't look to the opposite lights due to the power of his light and this was during the day. The lights are designed for riding unlit trails at night not cycling with other road users.

Skatedude

K, lets make it simple.
Dark car vs dark cyclist pedestrian = dead cyclist /pedestrian = scratches on car paintwork.

Are you really arguing this?

No Pants

Skatedude wrote: »

K, lets make it simple.
Dark car vs dark cyclist pedestrian = dead cyclist /pedestrian = scratches on car paintwork.

Are you really arguing this?

Absolutely not. The cyclists and pedestrians should take full responsibility for being mashed under the car and, with dying breath, apologise for any blood or brain matter that got on the paintwork.

SeanW

No Pants wrote: »

Absolutely not. The cyclists and pedestrians should take full responsibility for being mashed under the car and, with dying breath, apologise for any blood or brain matter that got on the paintwork.

Entirely reasonable if the cyclist or pedestrian thinks they only need the same visibility as various OFF ROAD objects ...

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

How do motorists manage not to drive into trees and houses? They're not painted in high-vis. Could it be that caution is exercised?

Right now I'm a motorist first, pedestrian second, runner third and cyclist fourth. As the days get longer and the weather (hopefully) better, I expect that order to change.

Do many trees or houses move? maybe I'm just used to the static ones around here