Rear Vis Mirror for cycling/ running

thebullkf

Hi Folks,

What do we make of this ? http://www.rearviz.com/rearviz-units-c-5.html

Personally think they are a great idea, havent seen them mentioned here ( or have they )

IMO anything that helps improve observation is a good thing.

Thoughts?

* awaits "peds should wear this * arguments :P*

Lusk_Doyle

thebullkf wrote: »

Hi Folks,

What do we make of this ? http://www.rearviz.com/rearviz-units-c-5.html

Personally think they are a great idea, havent seen them mentioned here ( or have they )

IMO anything that helps improve observation is a good thing.

Thoughts?

* awaits "peds should wear this * arguments :P*

My neck works fine so it's a no from me.

thebullkf

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

My neck works fine so it's a no from me.

thanks for the critical analysis.

Lusk_Doyle

thebullkf wrote: »

thanks for the critical analysis.

No problem. I don't see how this product would make me any more aware of my surroundings than I already am without it.

Beasty

OK, just a bit from my own experience a long time ago. As a kid I mounted a mirror on the bars. The problem was any field of vision moved with every movement of the bars and was quite limited.

Theoretically you have more scope to move something mounted on your arm, but in doing so you may actually reduce your control of the bike. I must say I personally much prefer the old fashined way of looking over your shoulders - having said that I do hardly any city cycling (where sounds may be a little more distorted/confused with everything that's going on, as I find hearing is generally more important than vision when referring to stuff going on behind you)

No Pants

Don't think it would work very well. I change position often enough and the bike moves around even more. Easier to just turn my head.

mattser

thebullkf wrote: »

thanks for the critical analysis.

Most peoples analysis by the looks of things. Mine too.

thebullkf

mattser wrote: »

Most peoples analysis by the looks of things. Mine too.

so your critical analysis is based on how something looks

Pinch Flat

Personally I prefer the good old neck to spot hazards coming behind. I used to use handlebar mirrors a kid and as some have pointed out they have their limitations and you could rely on them to much.

The arm mounted ones would drive me cracked. If I absolutely had to use one, what about a helmet mounted one (don't laugh!). It might be easier to spot behind with this. I could see this working if I was doing cycle touring with a loaded bike.

wicklowwonder

thebullkf wrote: »

Hi Folks,

What do we make of this ? http://www.rearviz.com/rearviz-units-c-5.html

Personally think they are a great idea, havent seen them mentioned here ( or have they )

IMO anything that helps improve observation is a good thing.

Thoughts?

* awaits "peds should wear this * arguments :P*

Wouldn't be a fan, just turn your head.

What happens when you fall off? Will the mirror shatter or just break and then there are chances a big splinter could pierce your clothing and skin. Sore enough hitting the tarmac.

shamrock55

I can turn my head, so unfortunatly im out!!

thebullkf

Beasty wrote: »

OK, just a bit from my own experience a long time ago. As a kid I mounted a mirror on the bars. The problem was any field of vision moved with every movement of the bars and was quite limited.

Theoretically you have more scope to move something mounted on your arm, but in doing so you may actually reduce your control of the bike. I must say I personally much prefer the old fashined way of looking over your shoulders - having said that I do hardly any city cycling (where sounds may be a little more distorted/confused with everything that's going on, as I find hearing is generally more important than vision when referring to stuff going on behind you)

i agree there is no substitution for turning the head, but as a cyclist/motorcyclist/cage driver i find in the case of the latter two, the use of mirrors a great help. i would've thought of an arm mounted mirror may be useful, if not blinding in some conditions to other road users.

Obviously a life saver is of greater benefit

thebullkf

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Personally I prefer the good old neck to spot hazards coming behind. I used to use handlebar mirrors a kid and as some have pointed out they have their limitations and you could rely on them to much.

The arm mounted ones would drive me cracked. If I absolutely had to use one, what about a helmet mounted one (don't laugh!). It might be easier to spot behind with this. I could see this working if I was doing cycle touring with a loaded bike.

was thinking helmet mounted cam, but was wondering about the point raised above - i.e. if glass/mirror cracked broke during an off it could pierce your eye.

I can turn my head, so unfortunatly im out!!

My neck works fine so it's a no from me.

In answer to turning the neck answers above- turning head is really for blind spot checking, surely benefit of mirror is ex blind spot checking- no ?

desertcircus

This looks a lot like a solution in search of a problem. There are a fistful of reasons why I'd be disinclined to pick up something like this. Rearviews on cars and motorbikes are insulated by suspension systems from road vibration, but if a cyclist is going at a decent clip on a typical Irish road surface, the image would probably be a blurred mess - and a sight system that's worthless even a small amount of the time is actively dangerous if people end up relying on it and instinctively check it in an emergency. Rearviews on cars and motorbikes are also in place because of the relatively stationary position imposed on the driver or rider, while a cyclist is completely free to turn his or her head to check behind. They're also constrained in terms of size, which massively limits the amount of sight a rider will get from one, and since they're mounted on the arm, the portion of the road you'll see will change completely depending on whether you're leaning on the hoods, in the drops, or in any other position on the handlebars. On a more abstract level, they reinforce the idea that cycling is a risky activity and make it that little bit less likely that someone will feel safe jumping on a bike.

Last but not least: $45 for such a simple product is a ludicrous price. If you wanted to do it, you could put together a moderately functional version with a wristband and a makeup compact from Penneys.

thebullkf

desertcircus wrote: »

This looks a lot like a solution in search of a problem. There are a fistful of reasons why I'd be disinclined to pick up something like this. Rearviews on cars and motorbikes are insulated by suspension systems from road vibration, but if a cyclist is going at a decent clip on a typical Irish road surface, the image would probably be a blurred mess - and a sight system that's worthless even a small amount of the time is actively dangerous if people end up relying on it and instinctively check it in an emergency

.

they claim that it doesnt vibrate as your arm takes impact minimising vibration.

Rearviews on cars and motorbikes are also in place because of the relatively stationary position imposed on the driver or rider, while a cyclist is completely free to turn his or her head to check behind.

eh.. so is a car driver motorcyclist- even easier to do it in car/ motorbike.

They're also constrained in terms of size, which massively limits the amount of sight a rider will get from one,

convex mirror.

and since they're mounted on the arm, the portion of the road you'll see will change completely depending on whether you're leaning on the hoods, in the drops, or in any other position on the handlebars.

Placement on the upper part of llower arm, or lower part of upper arm would negate this argument- plus i'm sure its easily manouvered whilst cycling

On a more abstract level, they reinforce the idea that cycling is a risky activity and make it that little bit less likely that someone will feel safe jumping on a bike.

cycling is risky- especially on routes with heavy traffic- what makes you think its not risky0 your ability to turn your head

Last but not least: $45 for such a simple product is a ludicrous price. If you wanted to do it, you could put together a moderately functional version with a wristband and a makeup compact from Penneys.

this i believe is one of the main reasons why it wont succeed, that and the fact most folks would say they dont "need2 one of these.

desertcircus

thebullkf wrote: »

.

they claim that it doesnt vibrate as your arm takes impact minimising vibration.


eh.. so is a car driver motorcyclist- even easier to do it in car/ motorbike.




convex mirror.




Placement on the upper part of llower arm, or lower part of upper arm would negate this argument- plus i'm sure its easily manouvered whilst cycling




cycling is risky- especially on routes with heavy traffic- what makes you think its not risky0 your ability to turn your head




this i believe is one of the main reasons why it wont succeed, that and the fact most folks would say they dont "need2 one of these.

Drivers and motorcyclists simply don't have the same freedom to turn their heads while moving that cyclists do. Drivers are strapped into a seat with a headrest, while motorcyclists are placed in a forward position and have a full-head helmet on top. And I don't buy that sticking a strap on your arm kills vibration - it may reduce it, but I can't see it negating it completely. I still can't think of any situation in which this would be needed or preferable to simply turning your head, which is far easier than learning to check your armband and gives you a far better idea of what's behind.

Lastly - cycling isn't a particularly risky choice, and in most cases it doesn't need specialised safety equipment. Something like this would reinforce the idea in a lot of non-cyclists' heads that cycling is significantly risky, and would make those people less likely to take it up - which makes the roads less safe for cyclists as a group.

Ole Rodrigo

There is no substitute for turning your head and making eye contact with a motorist. A mirror would discourage this.

It also looks silly. What next - a coffee cup holder ? A handlebar mounted umbrella ?

cython

I'd share the general consensus here of a turn of the head being no less effective than this type of mirror, and I would go so far as to say that if someone wants to use a mirror on the bike then the likes of a helmet mounted one, or the type below would be a better idea for the most part:

The reason I say this is that these at least provide a reasonably fixed perspective, i.e. if your head/handlebars are pointing straight ahead (which they should be in most cases if you are observing ahead of a manoeuvre) then a similar field of vision should be available each time you check it, and so you also come to know well what your blind spots are, and the limitations of the mirror. This is most true in the case of bike-mounted mirrors, of course. Anything that you strap to your arm each time has the potential to change blind spots each time, and potentially also slip and slide around while cycling. The latter scenario could also lead to dangerous contortionist efforts to correct it while on the bike!

Each to their own, but I won't be buying it even if I am in the market for visibility-enhancing mirrors for the bike!

Lusk_Doyle

If they are so advantageous surely they would be incorporated as part of the design likes motor vehicles?

thebullkf

desertcircus wrote: »

Drivers and motorcyclists simply don't have the same freedom to turn their heads while moving that cyclists do. Drivers are strapped into a seat with a headrest, while motorcyclists are placed in a forward position and have a full-head helmet on top.

I disagree-do you own a motorcycle ? i do meself

And I don't buy that sticking a strap on your arm kills vibration - it may reduce it, but I can't see it negating it completely. I still can't think of any situation in which this would be needed or preferable to simply turning your head, which is far easier than learning to check your armband and gives you a far better idea of what's behind.

but how would you know if you've never used one?

Lastly - cycling isn't a particularly risky choice, and in most cases it doesn't need specialised safety equipment. Something like this would reinforce the idea in a lot of non-cyclists' heads that cycling is significantly risky, and would make those people less likely to take it up - which makes the roads less safe for cyclists as a group.

I disagree that cycling isnt risky- all users on a road take risk, this is marketed i suppose as a risk mitigation tool. Depends on your definition of Significant to be fair.

thebullkf

ror_74 wrote: »

There is no substitute for turning your head and making eye contact with a motorist. A mirror would discourage this.

It also looks silly. What next - a coffee cup holder ? A handlebar mounted umbrella ?

methinks this coupled with the cost is the main reason this and hi vis/reflective clothing is scorned.

thebullkf

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

If they are so advantageous surely they would be incorporated as part of the design likes motor vehicles?

they are brand new product ( although i take the point )


i am assuming they are to be used in addition to all other safe riding measures, not as a substitute

Ole Rodrigo

thebullkf wrote: »

methinks this coupled with the cost is the main reason this and hi vis/reflective clothing is scorned.

Its scorned because it makes cycling a chore rather than a pleasure.

Pinch Flat

ror_74 wrote: »

Its scorned because it makes cycling a chore rather than a pleasure.

And also puts an over reliance on hi-vis. The amount of fellow cyclists I pass at night with a high vis but no lights, thinking everything will be grand.

desertcircus

I still can't think of a single realistic situation in which this item would prevent an accident that turning your head wouldn't. It really doesn't seem like something that would actually make anyone safer - and the first review I can find on Google describes it as the worst bike rearview they've ever used.

Keep_Her_Lit

OP, the rearviz product you mention is quite pricey. I already use a handlebar mounted mirror which works very well for me (previous post), so I wouldn't be inclined to shell out $45 + postage for something which I wouldn't expect to work any better.

Just thought I'd reply, mainly to let you know that there is indeed someone out there who uses a mirror on their bicycle and finds that it works well.

Eamonnator

Rule no. 66 applies here.

http://www.velominati.com/the-rules/

Lumen

Whatever about cycling, a pedestrian mirror? Seriously?

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

Whatever about cycling, a pedestrian mirror? Seriously?

Since I started cycling, I keep finding myself doing shoulder checks before changing line on a busy footpath whilst walking.

Ole Rodrigo

Raam wrote: »

Since I started cycling, I keep finding myself doing shoulder checks before changing line on a busy footpath whilst walking.

I've drafted a bunch of tourists walking down Capel street.

johnk123

They are possibly the stupidest thing I have ever seen. I also disagree with your comment about high viz being expensive. RSA give it out for free and to be fair to them, you do see a lot of the RSA vests being worn so it's a good system. (Around Dublin anyway)

Being able to turn your head adds to your spacial awareness. I bet you all my bikes, that if i turn my head for exactly 1 second, vs try and look at this mirror for one second, I will take in way more information than I will by looking at your mirror. Turning my head, i take my eyes off the road, looking at your mirror i take my eyes off the road... Why do something that gives me less information? I think it would be less safe to cycle around town relying solely on this mirror than it would be to cycle allowing me to use my neck.


This serves no purpose in my opinion and just makes you look like a dork.

Beasty

johnk123 wrote: »

This serves no purpose in my opinion and just makes you look like a dork.

It without doubt serves a purpose, and the discussion here is whether that purpose is useful/beneficial. The general consensus may be no, but to attempt to dismiss it in that way actually serves even less purpose within this thread

Raam

Beasty wrote: »

It without doubt serves a purpose, and the discussion here is whether that purpose is useful/beneficial. The general consensus may be no, but to attempt to dismiss it in that way actually serves even less purpose within this thread

Except it's mostly true.

Lusk_Doyle

Raam wrote: »

Since I started cycling, I keep finding myself doing shoulder checks before changing line on a busy footpath whilst walking.

You've said this exact thing on here before I'm sure.

Raam

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

You've said this exact thing on here before I'm sure.

Most of the posts on here have been said before.

Raam

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

You've said this exact thing on here before I'm sure.

I said, most of the posts on here have been said before.

Lusk_Doyle

What?

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

It without doubt serves a purpose, and the discussion here is whether that purpose is useful/beneficial. The general consensus may be no, but to attempt to dismiss it in that way actually serves even less purpose within this thread

Few things are solely judged on along a useless-useful axis.

What about art and poetry and irony and love and horizontal top tubes?

Dismissing things as dorky is entirely within the range of possible responses invited by the OP, which included:

"What do we make of this ?...Thoughts?"

Having said that, on a purely functional basis I don't want accessories sticking out from my body when cycling, since they slightly increase my chances of hitting other road users. I know this without owning a mirror because I've cycled around Dublin with a wheel attached to my back, and it made my bum clenchy.

petethedrummer

Great idea. I can touch up my make up for finish line photos.

johnk123

Beasty wrote: »

It without doubt serves a purpose, and the discussion here is whether that purpose is useful/beneficial. The general consensus may be no, but to attempt to dismiss it in that way actually serves even less purpose within this thread

Sorry...

Of course it serves a purpose. Everything in the world has potential to serve a purpose. I didn't mean to dismiss it by saying it makes you look like a dork.

What I meant was, weighing up the points I made before stating I think it makes you look like a dork, I personally feel it would be a waste of money and no real benefit to my safety while on the bike.


As a standalone statement, I would like to state that I think this product is dorky and I don't think anyone would buy it. I think the placement is all wrong. I've seen a few people cycling around town with the helmet mounted mirrors. If a rear view is really a massive concern to you, get one of them. Less conspicuous and closer to your field of vision.

Raam

On the dork thing...

Whether you like it or not, your attire projects an image to others, even if you don't care about it. Certain items project an image of non-dorkiness. A bicycle-arm-mirror thing is not one of those items.

Lusk_Doyle

johnk123 wrote: »

Sorry...

Of course it serves a purpose. Everything in the world has potential to serve a purpose. I didn't mean to dismiss it by saying it makes you look like a dork.

What I meant was, weighing up the points I made before stating I think it makes you look like a dork, I personally feel it would be a waste of money and no real benefit to my safety while on the bike.

Beasty, he said you look like a dork. Twice.

Lusk_Doyle

Raam wrote: »

On the dork thing...

Whether you like it or not, your attire projects an image to others, even if you don't care about it. Certain items project an image of non-dorkiness. A bicycle-arm-mirror thing is not one of those items.

Pink cycle attire?

Raam

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Beasty, he said you look like a dork. Twice.

Told you most posts around here have already been posted.

snailsong

I was skeptical at first but since I got one of those mirrors I haven't looked back.

johnk123

http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/681-i-see-what-you-did-there

Max_Charger

Raam wrote: »

On the dork thing...

Whether you like it or not, your attire projects an image to others, even if you don't care about it. Certain items project an image of non-dorkiness. A bicycle-arm-mirror thing is not one of those items.

I'm just remembering my girlfriends reaction the first time she saw me in full lycra. I'd imagine if I did have a bike mirror it would of been fairly low down the list of things she was laughing at, hysterically.

mattser

The CHOPPER......The only bike in history to look well with mirrors.

RV

Here's the one I used have. I fell a few times but it never damaged the mirror. After a little while using I grew to like it. takes a moment or so for my sight to adjust to it, I think because I am short-sighted. I found, for example, on a long descent that it was a great help. I would not be confident enough to look behind on a fast descent and like to take the centre of the road for cornering - so knowing no car is behind is comforting. Rear viz are compulsory apparently on some US events though I personally rebel against the 'nanny state' a regulation like that implies. I sensed that some cyclists who didn't use them resented my having it - like aerobars on my roadbike. By the way, my g/f may have laughed at me first in lycra but it was different matter when I was out of it!