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

thebullkf

Spook_ie wrote: »

I haven't mentioned that the cyclist was in any way responsible for the hit and run, however I am tended to agree with the courts expression that poor visibility of the cyclist may well have been a contributory factor in the first instance, Given that the thread is Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ? then it is even more relevant.

As to the rant at the end of your post, the information is from the cycling forum on boards, I don't believe any of the quotes in there are attributed to "The Herald", perhaps (as I can only read the forum when I'm logged out, you'd like to go over there and verify this and report back afterwards

You're wasting your breath spook, the usual folks from the cycling forum baulk at any suggestion of hi vis reflective material, one of them even said they would prefers no hi vis or reflective material even without lights :rolleyes:
Says it all really, also hi vis reflective gear is seen as ugly and amateurish I guess, quoting studies etc that they don't help yet refusing to use their eyes. To answer the op it is definitely of value particularly in darkness. Particularly on unlit roads. The geniuses who say they are of no value are downright dangerous, unfortunately in the case of accidents, it's the car driver who is at fault, despite the fact a fool could be cycling in all black on a dark night with a black balaclava on a dark country road, it's bonkers.

kerry4sam

AlekSmart wrote: »

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....

I have found myself in the back end of no-where after taking off on a cycle un-decided initially on distance. Weather closed in and it got real dark, real fast! I always have lights on my bike, but I find wearing some form of hi-vis gilet or jacket cycling late evening/night gives me more confidence cycling and I was real glad that day of my hi-vis clothing.

In saying that though, I was thrown off my bicycle once before eventhough I was lit up like a Christmas Tree! Driver admitted liability at scene.

It does give me more confidence cycling so I will continue, but sometimes being all lit up just makes no difference at all.

Considered of Value - I would still say Yes!
kerry4sam

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Lights are only good for approaching or departing whereas hi viz is 360 degrees

That's not fully true and the implied issue isn't an issue at all in practice.

Notable collisions happen from motorists pulling out in front of cyclists, motorists overtaking cyclists, and motorists pulling right across the path of cyclists facing them -- all of those happen where the motorist has a view of the bicycle lights.

If there are no lights on the bicycle, that's the issue which needs fixing.

And it's wrong to say hi-viz is 360 degrees. It's only effective when it's been both noticed and heeded -- the research already presented shows that wearing it makes no difference.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

The job of the lights is to help you see where you are going not just to let others know that you are there

For the majority of cases -- because the majority of cases, cyclists cycle on roads with street lighting -- bicycle lights are primarily to to let others know that you are there.

In the cases where lights are being used mainly to see where the rider is going, the better lights needed to do this effectively also helps them to get noticed more.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Glad you agree with me about the yellow jacket as the driver would have seen the jacket first and then the bike.

The driver may have well have seen the jacket first as the jacket is on the largest bulk of mass between the cyclist and bicycle.

But the research shows high-vis or not makes no difference and high-vis could be worse in some cases.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Monument, go and drive at night on country lanes behind cyclists with reflective strips and then with just the standard bike lights and then come back to me with the honest answer as which one you could see better.

A decent set of lights is what people should have on a dark country lane.

A decent set of lights is far more useful on such a road because such a light can be seen from around a corner etc and that is impossible with high-vis.

thebullkf wrote: »

...quoting studies etc that they don't help yet refusing to use their eyes.

And you're saying let's take our eyes over science?

So when you can't seen an effect it must not be true?

thebullkf wrote: »

unfortunately in the case of accidents, it's the car driver who is at fault, despite the fact a fool could be cycling in all black on a dark night with a black balaclava on a dark country road, it's bonkers.

I'm not sure why you think a balaclava would matter if the person had lights. If you're talking about cyclists with no lights.... Could you please refer to many Irish cases where the driver has gotten jail time for hitting a cyclist without lights?

Or are you just making this up?

kerry4sam wrote: »

I have found myself in the back end of no-where after taking off on a cycle un-decided initially on distance. Weather closed in and it got real dark, real fast! I always have lights on my bike, but I find wearing some form of hi-vis gilet or jacket cycling late evening/night gives me more confidence cycling and I was real glad that day of my hi-vis clothing.

In saying that though, I was thrown off my bicycle once before eventhough I was lit up like a Christmas Tree! Driver admitted liability at scene.

It does give me more confidence cycling so I will continue, but sometimes being all lit up just makes no difference at all.

Considered of Value - I would still say Yes!
kerry4sam

It gives you more confidence, yet you were hit when you were "lit up like a Christmas Tree". It looks like the only that high-vis is doing is giving you more confidence -- it only helps your mind, it does not affect drivers' behaviour.

How many times have you had near misses or close passes in the last few years with high-vis on?

Spook_ie

Somewhere somebodies research or interpretation of the reasearch is wrong, tell me how the research studies can so blindingly miss something as obvious as this



If the driver passes too close that's not a product of the visibility or not of a hazard that's the drivers perception of how much space they need to give a hazard when it's spotted, a TOTALLY different thing.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

That's not fully true and the implied issue isn't an issue at all in practice.

Notable collisions happen from motorists pulling out in front of cyclists, motorists overtaking cyclists, and motorists pulling right across the path of cyclists facing them -- all of those happen where the motorist has a view of the bicycle lights.

If there are no lights on the bicycle, that's the issue which needs fixing.

And it's wrong to say hi-viz is 360 degrees. It's only effective when it's been both noticed and heeded -- the research already presented shows that wearing it makes no difference.

<snipped>

Take a cyclist pulling out onto a main road from a side junction, when he is at the junction there will be a small amount of light overspill visible to the side of the cycle ( emphasis on SMALL! ) now if a motorist is driving along a road and the cyclist joins the stream of traffic the liklihood without HiViz of him being spotted is not going to be until he is parrallel to the direction of travel and his rear light being visible, thereby reducing the safety margin from where the driver may be aware of the cyclist joining the stream of traffic.

At the end of the day the only external safety margin that cyclists can improve is either to get off the road completely ( not going to happen ) or make themselves more visible at all times

And it's wrong to say hi-viz is 360 degrees. It's only effective when it's been both noticed and heeded -- the research already presented shows that wearing it makes no difference.

Take a look at the picture in the above post and honestly tell me if HiViz isn't likely to make a difference

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

No idea at all but are any of those actually relevant to the argument, could the accident have been avoided if the cyclist was more visible? I don't know and neither do you but there is the distinct possibility it could have

I think this is an incredibly bad example for the argument. That driver is an absolute **** and should have been dealt with permanently long before he racked up all those conditions. High-vis in this case is a red herring.

The Bishop Basher

What is it about the cycle nazi's that they go against any form of logic when debating against the virtues of high viz and helmets.

A cyclist wearing high viz clothing will be more visible to drivers then a cyclist wearing dark clothing. Therefore they are safer. This is a logical fact and all the nonsense arguments in the world won't negate it.

It beats me as to why grown men are happy enough to put on lycra shorts yet they won't wear a couple of items of clothing that may help prevent and accident or protect them if they do have one.

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

I think this is an incredibly bad example for the argument. That driver is an absolute **** and should have been dealt with permanently long before he racked up all those conditions. High-vis in this case is a red herring.

How the courts deal with the driver is not the issue, please stay on topic and try to disregard the emotional arguments that you and Thisregard are bringing to the topic.

Could there be a possibility that if the cyclist were more visible that the incident would have had a lesser outcome yes or no? If there is the slightest possibilty that it could have had an effect then the case for HIViz is proven.

As to how drivers react to a percieved hazard, as mentioned earlier that is a different subject, first you have to get the driver to see the hazard and THEN react in a manner more appropriate to the circumstances.

If you can increase a drivers awareness by 1s of a hazard then you allow a further safety factor just in the distance travelled of
8.33 meters at 30KpH
11.11 meters at 40KpH
13.89 meters at 50KpH
16.66 meters at 60 KpH
20.22 meters at 80KpH
27.78 meters at 100KpH

Spook_ie

Further reading

http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/userfiles/ccoch/file/Safety_on_the_road/CD003438.pdf

P L A I N L A N G U A G E S U M M A R Y
Increasing pedestrian and cyclist visibility to prevent deaths and injuries Pedestrians and cyclists are often killed or seriously injured in traffic crashes, especially in developing countries where walking and bicycling are essential modes of transportation. In the UK, one in three road traffic fatalities is a pedestrian or cyclist. Usually, in these crashes drivers fail to see the pedestrian or cyclist until it is too late. In recent years reflective garments, flashing lights, and other visibility aids have been used to try to prevent crashes.
The authors of this Cochrane review looked for studies which showed how effective visibility aids are for protecting pedestrians and cyclists. They focused their search on a type of study called a randomised controlled trial, which compares two similar groups of people who only differ on the issue being studied, for instance, the rate of crashes in communities with and without introduction of visibility aids. The authors found no studies that compared number of crashes but to date they have found 42 studies which compare driver detection of people with or without visibility aids. These studies showed that fluorescent materials in yellow, red and orange improved driver detection during the day; while lamps, flashing lights and retroreflective materials in red and yellow, particularly those with a’biomotion’ configuration (taking advantage of the motion from a pedestrian’s limbs), improved pedestrian recognition at night.
Although these visibility measures help drivers see pedestrians and cyclists, more research should be done to determine whether the increased visibility actually does prevent deaths and serious injuries.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Somewhere somebodies research or interpretation of the reasearch is wrong, tell me how the research studies can so blindingly miss something as obvious as this

We're talking about horses now are we?

Spook_ie wrote: »

If the driver passes too close that's not a product of the visibility or not of a hazard that's the drivers perception of how much space they need to give a hazard when it's spotted, a TOTALLY different thing.

But the problem for you is that the research shows that high-vis or not drivers pass equally as close.

High-vis makes no difference.

If visibility isn't the main issue, solutions focused on visibility should not be the main focus.

The cyclists lit up like "Christmas trees" getting hit or passed closely often shows visibility does not seem to be the main issue and the all too comon "sorry mate I didn't see you" type response backs that up

Spook_ie wrote: »

Take a cyclist pulling out onto a main road from a side junction, when he is at the junction there will be a small amount of light overspill visible to the side of the cycle ( emphasis on SMALL! ) now if a motorist is driving along a road and the cyclist joins the stream of traffic the liklihood without HiViz of him being spotted is not going to be until he is parrallel to the direction of travel and his rear light being visible, thereby reducing the safety margin from where the driver may be aware of the cyclist joining the stream of traffic.

At the end of the day the only external safety margin that cyclists can improve is either to get off the road completely ( not going to happen ) or make themselves more visible at all times

You're talking about a cyclist pulling out in front of a motorist?

That (a) does not register as notable issue in the collision stats and (b) is not an "external safety" issue -- cyclists can act accordingly.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Take a look at the picture in the above post and honestly tell me if HiViz isn't likely to make a difference

Why are you quoting something I have said when you're not dealing with it?

Swanner wrote: »

A cyclist wearing high viz clothing will be more visible to drivers then a cyclist wearing dark clothing. Therefore they are safer. This is a logical fact and all the nonsense arguments in the world won't negate it.

I'm sorry but evidence and, more so, the results of research using the very logical scientific method does not support your conclusions or your so-called "logic".

You're mixing up your view with facts and you're your mixing up common sense with logic which needs science not guess work.

This deals with the differences:
http://www.studymode.com/essays/The-Difference-Between-Common-Sense-And-1083925.html

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Further reading

http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/userfiles/ccoch/file/Safety_on_the_road/CD003438.pdf

Drivers being able to see something is useless unless they act on that correctly.

The more resent research actually looks at outcomes and find that drivers act no differently around cyclists with and without high-vis.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

We're talking about horses now are we?




But the problem for you is that the research shows that high-vis or not drivers pass equally as close.

High-vis makes no difference.

If visibility isn't the main issue, solutions focused on visibility should not be the main focus.

The cyclists lit up like "Christmas trees" getting hit or passed closely often shows visibility does not seem to be the main issue and the all too comon "sorry mate I didn't see you" type response backs that up




You're talking about a cyclist pulling out in front of a motorist?

That (a) does not register as notable issue in the collision stats and (b) is not an "external safety" issue -- cyclists can act accordingly.




Why are you quoting something I have said when you're not dealing with it?




I'm sorry but evidence and, more so, the results of research using the very logical scientific method does not support your conclusions or your so-called "logic".

You're mixing up your view with facts and you're your mixing up common sense with logic which needs science not guess work.

This deals with the differences:
http://www.studymode.com/essays/The-Difference-Between-Common-Sense-And-1083925.html

No we have an image that shows hi viz versus no hi viz, only a pedant would allude to

We're talking about horses now are we?

rather than dealing with the fact hi viz gives a better chance of a driver seeing a hazard at an earlier opportunity

The passing of "some" drivers at a close distance is going to happen at times, but as the majority of drivers do give sufficent space ( there would be many more deaths and injuries if they didn't ) do you actually think that giving those drivers an extra second of perception time to a hazard is NOT going to improve road safety?

No Pants

Swanner wrote: »

cycle nazi's

Sorry, you lost me here.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

...only a pedant would allude to rather than dealing with the fact hi viz gives a better chance of a driver seeing a hazard at an earlier opportunity

That's issue is tackled in the rest of my post -- there's no difference in reactions from drivers regardless if there's high-vis present or not.

Spook_ie wrote: »

but as the majority of drivers do give sufficent space ( there would be many more deaths and injuries if they didn't ) do you actually think that giving those drivers an extra second of perception time to a hazard is NOT going to improve road safety?

It's about what can be demonstrated to be true, and the real-world based research shows little reason think high-vis affects outcomes positively while some research points towards how high-vis promotion can hinder the promotion of cycling.

Hindering the promotion of cycling in its self can be damaging to safety because successful promotion of cycling leads to one of the most proven safety effects -- the highly effective safety in numbers effect.

The poor performing nature of high-vis and the very effective performing nature the safety in numbers effect are interlinked -- both high-vis and safety in numbers are perceived to be visual issues but the failure of the former and success of the latter are more so sociological.

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

How the courts deal with the driver is not the issue, please stay on topic and try to disregard the emotional arguments that you and Thisregard are bringing to the topic.

By all means, let us ignore the driver's proven bad behaviour and the studies mentioned and keep the focus on anecdotal evidence.

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

By all means, let us ignore the driver's proven bad behaviour and the studies mentioned and keep the focus on anecdotal evidence.

No lets just deal with HiViz and if or not it is "Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?" if you feel that the punishment ( or not ) meted out to errant drivers and cyclists doesn't fit the bill then feel free to start another thread

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

No lets just deal with HiViz and if or not it is "Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?" if you feel that the punishment ( or not ) meted out to errant drivers and cyclists doesn't fit the bill then feel free to start another thread

Okay, let me focus on the original question. Speaking as a motorist:

No.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

That's issue is tackled in the rest of my post -- there's no difference in reactions from drivers regardless if there's high-vis present or not.

Spook_ie wrote: »

The passing of "some" drivers at a close distance is going to happen at times,




It's about what can be demonstrated to be true, and the real-world based research shows little reason think high-vis affects outcomes positively while some research points towards how high-vis promotion can hinder the promotion of cycling.

Hindering the promotion of cycling in its self can be damaging to safety because successful promotion of cycling leads to one of the most proven safety effects -- the highly effective safety in numbers effect.

The poor performing nature of high-vis and the very effective performing nature the safety in numbers effect are interlinked -- both high-vis and safety in numbers are perceived to be visual issues but the failure of the former and success of the latter are more so sociological.

Ah so rather than protect cyclists in conditions of hindered visibility you'd rather have more of them there to be hurt, interesting concept, would seem to allude to fish shoals where a few at the edges are sacrificed for the good of the rest

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

Okay, let me focus on the original question. Speaking as a motorist:

No.

Fine that's your opinion, just seems odd that you've never noticed cyclists in Hi Viz more than those without Hi Viz.

Perhaps we should alert the Emergency Services, AA patrols etc. to the lack of visibility given by Hi Viz

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

Fine that's your opinion, just seems odd that you've never noticed cyclists in Hi Viz more than those without Hi Viz.

Perhaps we should alert the Emergency Services, AA patrols etc. to the lack of visibility given by Hi Viz

Since we are now to ignore research, opinion is all that remains.

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

Since we are now to ignore research, opinion is all that remains.

You show your research, I show opposite research, the only thing that does validate or not an idea is personal experience.

My personal experience is that I appreciate extra visibility even if it only improves the time taken to recognise a pedestrian/cyclist hazard by 1s.

Maybe as you grow older you'll realise that there are times when that 1s might mean the difference between someones life or life changing event

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Ah so rather than protect cyclists in conditions of hindered visibility you'd rather have more of them there to be hurt, interesting concept, would seem to allude to fish shoals where a few at the edges are sacrificed for the good of the rest

You're ranting again, putting words in my mouth and making no attempt to deal with what you have quoted.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

You're ranting again, putting words in my mouth and making no attempt to deal with what you have quoted.

I'm sorry I thought I was responding to what you posted, didn't know I was required to deal with my own quotes

Hilly Bill

:

monument wrote: »

That's not fully true and the implied issue isn't an issue at all in practice.

Notable collisions happen from motorists pulling out in front of cyclists, motorists overtaking cyclists, and motorists pulling right across the path of cyclists facing them -- all of those happen where the motorist has a view of the bicycle lights.

If there are no lights on the bicycle, that's the issue which needs fixing.

And it's wrong to say hi-viz is 360 degrees. It's only effective when it's been both noticed and heeded -- the research already presented shows that wearing it makes no difference.




For the majority of cases -- because the majority of cases, cyclists cycle on roads with street lighting -- bicycle lights are primarily to to let others know that you are there.

In the cases where lights are being used mainly to see where the rider is going, the better lights needed to do this effectively also helps them to get noticed more.




The driver may have well have seen the jacket first as the jacket is on the largest bulk of mass between the cyclist and bicycle.

But the research shows high-vis or not makes no difference and high-vis could be worse in some cases.




A decent set of lights is what people should have on a dark country lane.

A decent set of lights is far more useful on such a road because such a light can be seen from around a corner etc and that is impossible with high-vis.




And you're saying let's take our eyes over science?

So when you can't seen an effect it must not be true?




I'm not sure why you think a balaclava would matter if the person had lights. If you're talking about cyclists with no lights.... Could you please refer to many Irish cases where the driver has gotten jail time for hitting a cyclist without lights?

Or are you just making this up?




It gives you more confidence, yet you were hit when you were "lit up like a Christmas Tree". It looks like the only that high-vis is doing is giving you more confidence -- it only helps your mind, it does not affect drivers' behaviour.

How many times have you had near misses or close passes in the last few years with high-vis on?

Basically Monument, you want pushbikes to have motorbike lights that shine around corners at night is that it .?

Its like this Monument, from experience of driving at night behind cyclists and passing in opposite directions i can see those with the high-viz reflector strips a lot quicker than a piddly light on the front and a tiny blinky red light at the back as the car light shines on them first and it catches your eye better.

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

Maybe as you grow older

Oh, we're going for condescension now. Nice.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

Drivers being able to see something is useless unless they act on that correctly.

The more resent research actually looks at outcomes and find that drivers act no differently around cyclists with and without high-vis.

It makes no different if its in daylight or an area with good light but drivers would act differently in an area of little of no light . The sooner you can see the cyclists then the quicker you can react to keeping your distance until its safe to pass.

Since you like the safety in numbers theory then surely on a dark road someone covered in reflective strips would look bigger than someone with a little light.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

No lets just deal with HiViz and if or not it is "Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?" if you feel that the punishment ( or not ) meted out to errant drivers and cyclists doesn't fit the bill then feel free to start another thread

It's interlinked and please stop telling people that they are off topic.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

:

Basically Monument, you want pushbikes to have motorbike lights that shine around corners at night is that it .?

No. The next level above basic bicycle lights (which can be picked up starting from €30-€40 in most bicycle shops) are strong enough to be noticed around a corner on a dark road.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its like this Monument, from experience of driving at night behind cyclists and passing in opposite directions i can see those with the high-viz reflector strips a lot quicker than a piddly light on the front and a tiny blinky red light at the back as the car light shines on them first and it catches your eye better.

It's like this, people cycling on dark roads should have more than "piddly light on the front and a tiny blinky red light at the back".

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

It's interlinked and please stop telling people that they are off topic.





No. The next level above basic bicycle lights (which can be picked up starting from €30-€40 in most bicycle shops) are strong enough to be noticed around a corner on a dark road.




It's like this, people cycling on dark roads should have more than "piddly light on the front and a tiny blinky red light at the back".

Correct, good to see that you finally agree .

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Correct, good to see that you finally agree .

Good, we're all agreed that above average or greater bicycle lights are what's needed on dark roads, not high-vis.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'm sorry I thought I was responding to what you posted, didn't know I was required to deal with my own quotes

Now you're claiming you don't understand the quoting system, so I'll leave it at that.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

Good, we're all agreed that above average or greater bicycle lights are what's needed on dark roads, not high-vis.




Now you're claiming you don't understand the quoting system, so I'll leave it at that.

NO. Experience counts for more than just theory. Come back to me when you get that experience from the drivers view.