Cycling body objects to new stamp design--Is this for real?

Snickers Man

A report on The Journal.ie says that Cycling Ireland has objected to the design of a new postage stamp featuring a picture of a cyclist because -- horror of horrors--the cyclist is wearing a high viz jacket!!!

The report quotes the Department of Communications as saying that the CEO of Cycling Ireland asked for a change in the proposed design.

"Cycling Ireland has informed An Post that it is their goal for people to regard going for a cycle in daytime, whether to work, the shops or wherever, as a routine or normal activity rather than a hazardous one that requires high visibility clothing."

Apparently the picture of the cyclist wearing the hi viz was taken at dusk.

Please somebody tell me that this is a case of either the department or the journalist picking things up wrong!

I don't mean to start a debate on whether or not to COMPEL cyclists to wear helmets or hi-viz clothing. That's amply catered for elsewhere. But for the head of a cycling representative body to object to a depiction of somebody wearing safety gear as sending out the wrong message is bizarre in the extreme.

If true, it would lead one to suspect that Cycling Ireland's priorities are hopelessly disordered.

magicbastarder

it's borne of a fear that needing to wear a hi-vis while cycling is becoming legitimised/normalised.
not just while cycling either - there was a recent case where a jogger was clipped by a wing mirror of a truck, who was criticised by the judge for not wearing a hi-vis jacket (even though she was wearing a bright running top, and the incident happened in the daytime).

galwaycyclist

I would agree with the CI position.

The "Hi Viz" thing is very clearly being used by the car lobby as an excuse for justifying dangerous driving and blaming the victims of dangerous driving.

If the image was portraying dusk was the cyclist shown displaying lights are they are required by law?

Snickers Man

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's borne of a fear that needing to wear a hi-vis while cycling is becoming legitimised/normalised.

Wait. Are you saying that choosing to wear a high viz in poor light should be illicit? Or even abnormal?

magicbastarder wrote: »

not just while cycling either - there was a recent case where a jogger was clipped by a wing mirror of a truck, who was criticised by the judge for not wearing a hi-vis jacket (even though she was wearing a bright running top, and the incident happened in the daytime).

Do you mean this case?

If you do, I invite you to read it properly. The judge said no such thing. Indeed he awarded the jogger significant damages. It was the defendant who tried, unsuccessfully, to claim that the jogger was at least partially at fault. An award of €134,000 says she wasn't.

magicbastarder

The judge said Mr Tyrell Jnr accepted some liability must attach to him but had argued the accident was, in the main, caused by Ms Woods - who was jogging two abreast along the road with her friend.

Ms Woods was also criticised for not having a high-visibility jacket.

However, the clothing she was wearing at the time was bright, the judge said.

that places the criticism within the quotes from the judge, which is why i had read it as coming from the judge.

magicbastarder

Snickers Man wrote: »

Wait. Are you saying that choosing to wear a high viz in poor light should be illicit? Or even abnormal?

no; to clarify, it's a fear that cyclists will be seen as negligent for not wearing a hi-vis at all times, in any lighting conditions.

galwaycyclist

magicbastarder wrote: »

no; to clarify, it's a fear that cyclists will be seen as negligent for not wearing a hi-vis at all times, in any lighting conditions.

And to point it out in case its not clear there would be a view that an element within the Garda Siochana are using "Hi viz" as a smokescreen for their own failure (or negligence) to enforce the vehicle lighting regulations for cyclists.

Snickers Man

magicbastarder wrote: »

no; to clarify, it's a fear that cyclists will be seen as negligent for not wearing a hi-vis at all times, in any lighting conditions.

With respect, I think that interpretation is paranoid in the extreme. My personal view is that there is plenty Cycling Ireland could be asking the Cabinet to consider before wasting its time pandering to the notion that those who choose to wear Hi-Viz jackets in poor light are encouraging dangerous driving.

galwaycyclist

Snickers Man wrote: »

With respect, I think that interpretation is paranoid in the extreme. My personal view is that there is plenty Cycling Ireland could be asking the Cabinet to consider before wasting its time pandering to the notion that those who choose to wear Hi-Viz jackets in poor light are encouraging dangerous driving.

If the Cabinet chooses to involve itself in stamp design then that is hardly Cycling Irelands fault.

https://www.anpost.ie/AnPost/IrishStamps/Collectors+Corner/Stamp+programme/

If it gets a difficult issue put under certain peoples noses then it will have been a good use of a chance opportunity.

magicbastarder

Snickers Man wrote: »

With respect, I think that interpretation is paranoid in the extreme. My personal view is that there is plenty Cycling Ireland could be asking the Cabinet to consider before wasting its time pandering to the notion that those who choose to wear Hi-Viz jackets in poor light are encouraging dangerous driving.

oh, i'd agree that there are bigger issues. but that does not mean that CI are not also addressing the other issues too.
there's a thread with much more discussion of the issue here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88491882

Cookie_Monster

Snickers Man wrote: »

With respect, I think that interpretation is paranoid in the extreme. My personal view is that there is plenty Cycling Ireland could be asking the Cabinet to consider before wasting its time pandering to the notion that those who choose to wear Hi-Viz jackets in poor light are encouraging dangerous driving.

But this IS a major issue cyclists are starting to face. The attitude from all non cyclists is shifting to a "how dare you cycle without a helmet / high vis etc" even though neither are required, or arguably even useful on the macro scale. It also takes away from the focus on proper lighting which is far far more important.

2RockMountain

Snickers Man wrote: »

With respect, I think that interpretation is paranoid in the extreme. My personal view is that there is plenty Cycling Ireland could be asking the Cabinet to consider before wasting its time pandering to the notion that those who choose to wear Hi-Viz jackets in poor light are encouraging dangerous driving.

With respect, you're twisting their position. They didn't say that "those who choose to wear Hi-Viz jackets in poor light are encouraging dangerous driving".

What they did say was that using imagery containing hi-vis in a high profile medium like this creates an environment where hi-vis becomes an expectation rather than an option - and that is wrong.

Jawgap

galwaycyclist wrote: »

And to point it out in case its not clear there would be a view that an element within the Garda Siochana are using "Hi viz" as a smokescreen for their own failure (or negligence) to enforce the vehicle lighting regulations for cyclists.

I'm reminded of the time a Guard advised me I should be wearing hi-viz......

......the 3000 lumen Exposure SixPack on the handlebars and the 1300 lumen strobing Diablo didn't seem to make be visible enough in the early morning light

Roadhawk

In my own opinion cyclists should wear hi vis clothing during the day and night. Every little bit toward safety helps. There is no way that a hi vis could possible condone dangerous driving.

On the other hand, if there is doubt about portraying a hi vis in such a medium (a postage stamp) perhaps the RSA should calm down with the hi vis images on billboards, flyers/leaflets and TV? A postage stamp is not really hitting a particular target audience to warrant an object to design. Its pathetic.

galwaycyclist

Roadhawk wrote: »

In my own opinion cyclists should wear hi vis clothing during the day and night. Every little bit toward safety helps. There is no way that a hi vis could possible condone dangerous driving.

This is a bit like the argument that girls who wear dresses that show their ankles, knees, etc are contributors to their own misfortune if they are subject to sexual assaults.

It is an attempt to move the blame for injury from the perpetrator to the victim. If a motorist cannot see a pedestrian or cyclist on a city street in daylight then they should not be driving.

ArmaniJeanss

Roadhawk wrote: »

In my own opinion cyclists should wear hi vis clothing during the day and night. Every little bit toward safety helps.

I'd be happy with this as well, so long as cars also have to have luminous tarpaulins 24 a day also. It can do no harm and who can argue with a little bit more safety.

magicbastarder

making helmets mandatory for car drivers would have a greater effect on RTA fatalities than making them compulsory for cyclists.

the way forward is clear, we cannot let anything stand in the way of safety.

but it does raise an interesting, less silly question - if cyclists should be legally required to be fluorescent during the day, why are black cars legal? why is it not a legal requirement for daytime running lights?

Jawgap

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'd be happy with this as well, so long as cars also have to have luminous tarpaulins 24 a day also. It can do no harm and who can argue with a little bit more safety.

OK, I think we're being a bit facetious here, aren't we?

Luminous tarpaulins?

Surely, if hi-viz makes such sense as a visibility / road safety measure it would make more sense to mandate that all cars and road vehicles be painted with luminous paint.....close the loophole in the law that allows people to buy sexy black Beamers!!!

2RockMountain

Roadhawk wrote: »

In my own opinion cyclists should wear hi vis clothing during the day and night. Every little bit toward safety helps. There is no way that a hi vis could possible condone dangerous driving.

Is there any evidence that hi-vis clothing improves safety for cyclists? Have you seen the cases in the UK in recent years where hi-vis clothing was cited as a possible contributory factor when cyclists where killed in bright sunny conditions?

ThisRegard

Roadhawk wrote: »

In my own opinion cyclists should wear hi vis clothing during the day and night. Every little bit toward safety helps.

I've posted this example a few times, hi vis does not always contribute towards safety. Drive down a country road surrounded by trees and hedges, with a low sun behind you, and have someone walk/run/cycle towards you wearing the standard yellow high vis and watch how they blend into the background, becoming less visible.

It was pointed out that this is the reason the likes of railway workers wear the orange vests.

edit: I was typing my post as 2RockMountain posted the same point. I've seen this first hand, driving down such a road one morning and wasn't until I was fairly close that I realised there was a runner running towards me on the road wearing high vis. With the sun and breeze blowing about the shrubbery it was perfect camouflage.

Roadhawk

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'd be happy with this as well, so long as cars also have to have luminous tarpaulins 24 a day also. It can do no harm and who can argue with a little bit more safety.

Well its a requirement in France to have a hi vis in the vehicle at all time. Also HGV drivers in Ireland are supposed to have one. Id agree that all motorists should at least have one in the vehicle

ThisRegard

Not in the vehicle, on the vehicle.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

making helmets mandatory for car drivers would have a greater effect on RTA fatalities than making them compulsory for cyclists.

the way forward is clear, we cannot let anything stand in the way of safety.

but it does raise an interesting, less silly question - if cyclists should be legally required to be fluorescent during the day, why are black cars legal? why is it not a legal requirement for daytime running lights?

Well the vast majority of cars have airbags...i guess this was a safety device that would allow a driver not to hear a helmet?

A lot of the newer vehicles have day time driving lights as standard now so this seems to be becoming the norm. Not many cars go unseen on the road unless under very particular circumstances. Cyclists on the other hand seem to go unseen all the time.

Just thinking...its a legal requirement for HGVs to have reflector strips at the back and sides of the vehicles, the same type (in principle) as a reflector strip on a hi vis

Captain Chaos

ThisRegard wrote: »

It was pointed out that this is the reason the likes of railway workers wear the orange vests.

.

From exercises I have done with DFB and Irish Rail, the reason they ware orange rather than yellow vis vests is to avoid signal confusion at long distances with drivers.

A yellow vis vest worker at a few hundred metres away can be mistaken for a low level shunting signal giving the all clear, orange is closer to red removing that error probability.

Yellow is used for visibility on trains themselves, that's why all trains in Ireland have a legal requirement to have a yellow front panel at a minimum for visibility purposes. It used to be orange dayglow panels in the 80 and 90s but studies have shown yellow as more effective.

murphaph

Snickers Man wrote: »

Wait. Are you saying that choosing to wear a high viz in poor light should be illicit? Or even abnormal?

It is abnormal over here in Germany anyway. Can't remember the last time I saw a cyclist wearing hi-viz. They have lights on their bikes and that's all.

I can sort of understand the CI position on this. Motor vehicle drivers should be able to not hit a cyclist during the daytime, regardless of what the cyclist is wearing. At night, the bicycle should display lights and again, these should be enough for an alert driver (as all drivers should be all the time) not to collide with the cyclist.

A judge apportioning partial blame to a cyclist who is otherwise obeying the rules of the road but who didn't don a hi-viz vest is outrageous. It removes the responsibility from the drive of the motor vehicle, which is a deadly weapon in careless hands.

Btw, I don't have a bike. I'm a motorist.

ThisRegard

Cheers, I knew there was a reason.

I found this article before when looking at this issue and it mentions a couple of studies which found that high vis don't always make you more visible, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/10/cycling-high-visibility-safe-fluorescent

Roadhawk

2RockMountain wrote: »

Is there any evidence that hi-vis clothing improves safety for cyclists? Have you seen the cases in the UK in recent years where hi-vis clothing was cited as a possible contributory factor when cyclists where killed in bright sunny conditions?

ThisRegard wrote: »

I've posted this example a few times, hi vis does not always contribute towards safety. Drive down a country road surrounded by trees and hedges, with a low sun behind you, and have someone walk/run/cycle towards you wearing the standard yellow high vis and watch how they blend into the background, becoming less visible.

It was pointed out that this is the reason the likes of railway workers wear the orange vests.

edit: I was typing my post as 2RockMountain posted the same point. I've seen this first hand, driving down such a road one morning and wasn't until I was fairly close that I realised there was a runner running towards me on the road wearing high vis. With the sun and breeze blowing about the shrubbery it was perfect camouflage.

Point taken...so instead of wearing the typical yellow version it can be changed for another colour? trade it for the orange version?

2RockMountain

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well the vast majority of cars have airbags...i guess this was a safety device that would allow a driver not to hear a helmet?

And yet, far more head injuries occur in cars (with airbags and seatbelts) than on bikes. So driving helmets would be an obvious improvement. Every little bit toward safety helps, right?

Roadhawk wrote: »

A lot of the newer vehicles have day time driving lights as standard now so this seems to be becoming the norm. Not many cars go unseen on the road unless under very particular circumstances.

The problem with the daytime running lights is that they often end up driving with the DRLs on at the rear, and no lights at all at the front - because the drivers don't understand how they work. I've a small but growing trend of this in newer cars over the years.

So hi-vis paint for cars would be a far more effective measure, no reliance on the driver to flick the right button. Every little bit toward safety helps, right?

Roadhawk wrote: »

Cyclists on the other hand seem to go unseen all the time.

Really? Is this personal experience, or anecdote, or evidence?

ThisRegard

Roadhawk wrote: »

Point taken...so instead of wearing the typical yellow version it can be changed for another colour? trade it for the orange version?

As the article points out, it can vary so many times in a short journey. That guy I came across would have been more visible wearing all black.

LoLth

ragardless of legality I dont get the objection to wearing some sort of hi-vis , even if its a jacket wrapped around a backpack.

cyclist = squishy , motorist = surrounded by metal and propelled by a lot more horsepower than a bicycle. should cyclists welcome anything that helps a motorist see them and not decide that "sure, if I get hit by a car it's the drivers fault for not paying enough attention"...is it worth the injury just to not wear hi vis of some description?

there was a "lights on daytime" campaign a few years ago for cars and as stated its becoming more common for cars to have daytime lights automatically.

In any case, the objection to a stamp is just silliness. Have they nothing better to do?

Roadhawk

2RockMountain wrote: »

And yet, far more head injuries occur in cars (with airbags and seatbelts) than on bikes. So driving helmets would be an obvious improvement. Every little bit toward safety helps, right?
My understanding would be the fact that there are more cars than cyclists on the road that they are inevitably involved in more accidents then cyclists. Cyclists are among the most vulnerable road users with zero protective items. I dont think that a helmet should be mandatory for a cyclist but it would be common sense.

2RockMountain wrote: »

The problem with the daytime running lights is that they often end up driving with the DRLs on at the rear, and no lights at all at the front - because the drivers don't understand how they work. I've a small but growing trend of this in newer cars over the years.

A trend none the less. Give it about 5 years and all should be good with day time driving lights. User competence will hopefully improve

2RockMountain wrote: »

So hi-vis paint for cars would be a far more effective measure, no reliance on the driver to flick the right button. Every little bit toward safety helps, right?

???

2RockMountain wrote: »

Really? Is this personal experience, or anecdote, or evidence?

Just going by a general message from the RSA and the likes "be safe, be seen", etc. directed at cyclists.

Roadhawk

ThisRegard wrote: »

As the article points out, it can vary so many times in a short journey. That guy I came across would have been more visible wearing all black.

I think we are on to something...One black strip, one yellow strip, one orange strip and a reflector strip on each side? might look a little crazy but sounds like it would work

ThisRegard

LoLth wrote: »

ragardless of legality I dont get the objection to wearing some sort of hi-vis , even if its a jacket wrapped around a backpack.

cyclist = squishy , motorist = surrounded by metal and propelled by a lot more horsepower than a bicycle. should cyclists welcome anything that helps a motorist see them

Did you not read any of the last few posts?

Macy0161

Roadhawk wrote: »

Point taken...so instead of wearing the typical yellow version it can be changed for another colour? trade it for the orange version?

No, as orange doesn't stand out from green for people who are colour blind - it's one of the reasons for a colour vision test for Train Drivers!

Cycling Ireland is 100% right - cycling is a normal activity, it doesn't need to be dangerised. The hi-viz obsession is just victim blaming. The RSA are obsessed with pushing helmets and hi-viz above the legal requirement of lights and reflectors. The RSA and the cops give out hi-viz, and lights that don't even meet the legal requirements when they do their autumn "cycle safety" pushes in Dublin ffs.

In poor light conditions, it's lights cyclists should be using, not a builders vest and that's the message that should be pushed. At night, reflective detailing/ strips is what is effective, and that doesn't need to be attached to a builders vest (actually the torso is probably the least effective place for them to be!).

Roadhawk wrote: »

I dont think that a helmet should be mandatory for a cyclist but it would be common sense.

Cycling helmets aren't designed for vehicle/ cyclist collisions, especially at any impact force. They're designed to protect from falling off, not the multiple impacts that a cyclist being hit by a car faces (the impact of the car, and then the impact of hitting the road (at least once))

ThisRegard

Macy0161 wrote: »

They're designed to protect from falling off, not the multiple impacts that a cyclist being hit by a car faces (the impact of the car, and then the impact of hitting the road (at least once))

Only read last week a letter from a coroner in the US that it's usually the impact with the road after being hit by a car that causes the devasting injuries. The car will break a few bones, possibly head injury with the windscreen, but been flipped and smacking the ground afterwards is the real problem.

LoLth

ThisRegard wrote: »

Did you not read any of the last few posts?

Yes I did. but there is nothing to say that hi-vis *never* works. so it works sometimes (some, more often than not, a bit , its still better than never). so why not wear it as a common sense measure?

cyclist doesnt see car , car doesnt see cyclist: accident happens, cyclist squished

cyclist does see car , car doesnt see cyclist: accident happens, cyclist squished

cyclist sees car, car sees cyclist: accident never an issue

cyclist doesnt see car, car sees cyclist: accident can be avoided.

arguments of cars needing driving helmets have no place in this. point is in any collision between a car and a cyclist the cyclist is far more likely to be injured than the driver of a car so surely helping a driver to see a cyclist is much better than deciding who is to blame after the fact?

ThisRegard

LoLth wrote: »

so why not wear it as a common sense measure?

Because the guy I mention in my example was harder to see with it than without, therefore negating any perceived benefits and in fact putting him in more danger by wearing it.

LoLth

ThisRegard wrote: »

Because the guy I mention in my example was harder to see with it than without, therefore negating any perceived benefits and in fact putting him in more danger by wearing it.

so because of one specific example that you have mentioned cyclists should not exercise a degree of self preservation by helping motorists see them in what percentage of other scenarios?

I'm not arguing against lights / reflective strips which would still be of major benefit, but, apart from a few minor exceptions, some degree of reflective / hi-vis material would make cyclists more visible which cannot be a bad thing.... unless they are some sort of getaway cyclist or in cyclist-ninja training....

Roadhawk

Macy0161 wrote: »

Cycling helmets aren't designed for vehicle/ cyclist collisions, especially at any impact force. They're designed to protect from falling off, not the multiple impacts that a cyclist being hit by a car faces (the impact of the car, and then the impact of hitting the road (at least once))

Thats great to know but i wasn't just referring to a collision with a vehicle in particular. Just safety in general. I mean, there could be a slight chance that in the event of a collision with a vehicle that a helmet could reduce an injury. It could be a 1 in a million chance but im sure its a chance. For that reason, I wear a helmet when cycling.

plodder

I commute by bike from a rural area, and would never do it without some kind of hi-vis. I'd sooner go without a helmet.

Snickers Man

murphaph wrote: »

A judge apportioning partial blame to a cyclist who is otherwise obeying the rules of the road but who didn't don a hi-viz vest is outrageous.

It would have been if the judge had said such a thing but HE DIDN'T. As has already been acknowledged. You may check the link to the story yourself. Granted it might have been phrased a little better to remove ambiguities but there is nothing ambiguous about the headline in large point which says

"JOGGER HIT BY WING MIRROR IS AWARDED €134,000"

I didn't mean to start an argument on the rights and wrongs of wearing hi-viz and helmets. I said so in my OP and there are other threads catering for those debates anyway.

But as you brought Germany into it, my memory of time spent there (30 years ago) was that its cities were admirably well equipped to encourage cycling, mainly because they had so many cycle lanes on footpaths. So cars and cyclists were almost universally kept apart. You don't need a hi-viz if the only thing likely to crash into you is a pedestrian.

Ours and Germany's situations are fairly dissimilar, in my experience. Though maybe that's just Munich.

magicbastarder

you'll find most cyclists wear helmets, but argue against mandatory helmet laws. the evidence is equivocal on whether it reduces injury rates, and it seems to be a complex issue involving multiple factors including psychology as well as physics and biology.

Macy0161

Macy0161 wrote: »

In poor light conditions, it's lights cyclists should be using, not a builders vest and that's the message that should be pushed. At night, reflective detailing/ strips is what is effective, and that doesn't need to be attached to a builders vest (actually the torso is probably the least effective place for them to be!).

Just on this - I am amazed more people don't notice how useless a lot of standard hi-vis is in the dark. A yellow vest on the torso doesn't catch dipped beam headlights and isn't particularly distinctive against sodium lighting in urban areas. They are borderline useless and why they are prioritised over lights is a mystery

People who argue for hi-vis don't appear to understand that it has a cost - specifically it does two things:

1. It makes cycling appear dangerous and risky, which really isn't true and discourages cycling. The obsession with safety gear that so many people (many of them non-cyclists) seem to have is out of all proportion to actual risk. It also puts people off cycling as they believe looking like a dork comes with the territory. One trip to Copenhagen confirms you CAN look awesome and cycle at the same time!
2. It creates an environment in which safety is seen as the responsibility of the person (cyclist or pedestrian) who is not in the car. This is not the case. Safety is the responsibility of the person behind the wheel. If you can't see a cyclist in daytime, hand in your license and sell your car. You are a danger to other road users. I am being entirely serious.

I know these arguments have already been made above but it appears some people can't read.

LoLth

Snickers Man wrote: »

You don't need a hi-viz if the only thing likely to crash into you is a pedestrian.

as a pedestrian who regularly walks along an unlit footpath as part of the daily commute and who has more than once been required to move quickly to avoid an oncoming bicycle (despite there being a cycle path ) I have to disagree with that sentiment (and yes, I do wear a hi-vis vest when walking specifically because of said not well lit stretch of my commute).

Roadhawk

Roadhawk wrote: »

Thats great to know but i wasn't just referring to a collision with a vehicle in particular. Just safety in general. I mean, there could be a slight chance that in the event of a collision with a vehicle that a helmet could reduce an injury. It could be a 1 in a million chance but im sure its a chance. For that reason, I wear a helmet when cycling.

And you wear a helmet while driving on the same basis? I mean, even if it's a 1 in a million chance....

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

Safety is the responsibility of the person behind the wheel. If you can't see a cyclist in daytime, hand in your license and sell your car. You are a danger to other road users. I am being entirely serious.
[/LIST]

I know these arguments have already been made above but it appears some people can't read.

to be fair to the people who are arguing in favour of hi-vis, they are not arguing 'i cannot see you so you should wear hi-vis', they are arguing 'other people will not see you, so you should wear hi-vis'.

ThisRegard

LoLth wrote: »

(and yes, I do wear a hi-vis vest when walking specifically because of said not well lit stretch of my commute).

What kind of high vis?

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

you'll find most cyclists wear helmets, but argue against mandatory helmet laws. the evidence is equivocal on whether it reduces injury rates, and it seems to be a complex issue involving multiple factors including psychology as well as physics and biology.

How would you consider that most cyclists wear helmets? I mean if you take every cyclist using a Dublin Bike, not one wears a helmet...how many journeys would that include?

Roadhawk

Deleted User wrote: »

And you wear a helmet while driving on the same basis? I mean, even if it's a 1 in a million chance....

No thanks...i have an airbag instead.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

to be fair to the people who are arguing in favour of hi-vis, they are not arguing 'i cannot see you so you should wear hi-vis', they are arguing 'other people will not see you, so you should wear hi-vis'.

Exactly, its not a case of if you dont wear a hi vis we (motorists) wont see you but instead if you do wear a hi vis we have a better chance of seeing you.

LoLth

ThisRegard wrote: »

What kind of high vis?

one of the lovely Luas be-safe-be-seen vests that were handed out with the silver reflective strip across the chest and back (I'd rather be uninjured than in a stylish vegetative state). I carry a backpack that has a reflective strip down the front of it and a smaller reflective strip on each side. In winter I carry a light so I can avoid parts where the path is in bad condition mostly.

plus, I walk on footpaths and cross at pedestrian crossings. Me + cars are not usually sharing the same route. Cyclists , unless there is a cycle path, share the road with cars and, in some circumstances, pedestrians. it makes sense to be easier to be seen. if not to avoid injury to others, just to avoid lessen the chance of injury to themselves.