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

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.

2RockMountain

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.

You need to distinguish between 'objection to wearing hi-vis' and 'objection to creating expectation that all cyclists should wear hi-vis'. Two very different issues.

LoLth wrote: »

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?

Same for driving helmets, right? Still better than never, will work sometimes, why not wear it as a common sense measure?

Roadhawk wrote: »

No thanks...i have an airbag instead.

So do most people who die from head injuries in their cars. It could be a 1 in a million chance, so why not wear a helmet when driving

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.

But not while driving - why the difference in logic? Does this demonstrate how effective the creation of societal expectations around cycling helmets has worked for you?

Macy0161

LoLth wrote: »

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).

How does hi viz on the cyclist help you see them in the dark? You'd see them coming better if they had lights. The reflective stripes on a builders vest would only help if you were carrying a torch* (which I go with over hi viz when walking/ running on unlit roads), and pointing it torso high.

Edit *I see you do. For pedestrians, a torch is what the RSA should be pushing over the builders vests too. Much more effective, can be used directionally and more visible.

ThisRegard

LoLth wrote: »

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.

A cyclist or runner can be wearing black or dark clothing and be more visible than you are at night.

Roadhawk

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Its clearly better than black or dark clothing that a lot of cyclists seem to favour. I deliberately order bright clothing online to counter this.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

The truth is that cycling is dangerous a risky. Sure the 2015 cyclist fatality rate came down into single figure which is great but still does not take away the fact the it is risky. Anyone would be a fool to think otherwise. Unfortunately Dublin is not Copenhagen.Safety gear does not look "dorky"...it looks responsible.

Safety is the responsibility of the cyclists or pedestrian. Although blame could be apportioned to a motorist if there was an incident doesnt really take away from the reality that a hi vis on the injured party COULD have made all the difference.

magicbastarder

LoLth wrote: »

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.

in your first example, if the car was bright yellow, by the assumptions of the argument, the cyclist would be much more likely to see the car. but the assumption of responsibility in terms of brightness of clothing/paintwork is *not* being placed on the party most likely to cause injury to the other.

can you see the issue here? if you're arguing that cyclists should wear bright clothing, do you by association support the idea that cars should not be allowed be sold in black, or other dark colours?

ted1

It's not safety gear, if he didn't complain who would ?

Crocked

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 far more motorists are killed or seriously injured every year by head injuries than cyclists. So for the same reason as a cyclist should wear a helmet so should all motorists

LoLth

2RockMountain wrote: »

You need to distinguish between 'objection to wearing hi-vis' and 'objection to creating expectation that all cyclists should wear hi-vis'. Two very different issues.

if cyclists wear hi-vis (with or without other safety measures such as reflective strips, lights, helmets etc) as a measure of self preservation then who really cares if it becomes an expectation or not? Motorists expect pedestrians not to walk in the centre of the road, I dont walk in the centre of the road because there is an expectation but because I want to exercise some degree of self preservation and not attract unnecessary risk.

Same for driving helmets, right? Still better than never, will work sometimes, why not wear it as a common sense measure?

despite your being facetious, why not think of the metal shell built over the metal frame encompassing the entire body of the motorist as sort of helmet for the body . Think of it as probabilities. If you cannot differentiate based on that criteria then you should be arguing for all people to stay completely still, at home, while wrapped in lagging jackets with a fire extinguisher close to hand. In which case, any form of discussion is pointless as any relevant point can be defeated with the counter cry of "but Unicorns!"....

LoLth

ThisRegard wrote: »

A cyclist or runner can be wearing black or dark clothing and be more visible than you are at night.

in general or in a particular set of conditions?

ted1

We need to look abroad where cycling is the main form of transport in the urban environment.
No one in Copenhagen or Amsterdam wear helmets or hi vis, and the are less likely to be I am accident .