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

SeanW

2RockMountain wrote: »

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.

Is Cycling Ireland going to the Anita Sarkeesian school of extrapolating outrage over imaginary nonsense? No Anita, playing Super Mario Brothers doesn't make you rape women. And a postage stamp isn't going to "creates an environment where hi-vis becomes an expectation rather than an option" because:

1. It's a postage stamp.
2. Common sense should do this.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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?

ThisRegard wrote: »

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

I can only speak of personal experience as a motorist but there are times and places where I see cyclists and pedestrians almost never. I.E. rural tertiary and local roads, especially at night time.

The requirements for visibility for motorists is comparitively extreme. All cars must have relatively strong brake lights and must have head lamps, indicator lights etc. A car, by virtue of these requirements, must have very strong visibility in order to be allowed to use the roads. The last time I saw a non-motorist road user in a place I did not expect them, was when a pedestrian on a very rural L road very late at night. In the distance I saw something flourescent waving very conspicuously. Turned out it was a pedestrian, who had been using his hi-vis vest as a flag, on the other side of the road, but with it being a two way but narrow all the same road, I appreciated being made aware of their presence. If there were a motorist coming in the opposite direction, its very clear that pedestrian was far more visible than had he not been using a hi-vis jacket. Even if such a motorist, like myself, would not expect to see a pedestrian there in a million years, very clearly the waving flourescence would have made it clear to such a motorist as it was to me that something was up.

Making yourself clearly visible when using the roads, either as a motorist, or as a pedestrian or cyclist, should be a requirement, or failing that, very strongly encouraged.

magicbastarder

you'll be happy to paint your car luminous yellow, so.

you've entered a thread talking about visibility for cyclists where the cyclists are happy to admit - and insist that the best thing for visibility is a good set of lights. hi-vis is a passive, reactionary method for visibility which has been fetishised by the RSA.

or else, i could just ask if you'd actually read the thread. your example above was a situation where a cyclist would have been legally required to use a bike light. which does not need your car headlamps to pick it out for it to work.

Jawgap

It's kind of interesting, no, that motorcyclists and motorists are encouraged to have lights on in the day time? And indeed many manufacturers now incorporate always-on daytime running lights into their vehicles.

However, the ignorance around cycling as propagated by varous 'motorist-centric' bodies suggests that hi-viz is sufficient for cyclists and pedestrians, both of which are more vulnerable categories of road user.

Which begs a number of questions.....

....are people so ill-informed about the apparent risks that they think this differentiation is justified?

....are motor vehicles with day time running lights engaged in a bit of 'over kill' - after all they tend to be large so why the need to use an active measure to make them more visible?

....is hi-viz 'under kill' when it comes to visibility - not much use, but at least the RSA etc can say their doing something?

Personally, I think if you're genuinely concerned about being visible (either on a bike or as a pedestrian) then forget the hi-viz and get yourself a decent strobe or strobes.

animaal

animaal wrote: »

I think a lot do. A colleague's car has been christened "The Big Bowl of Custard".

Is the concern more that a cyclist being portrayed as dorky, as opposed to the creation of expectations? Because most sporting clothing is pretty dorky. I don't think it detracts from those sports, nor should it. It's a question of function over form.

Tiny bit of pedantry for a Monday morning...

Cycling to the shops, to work or to school is NOT a sport, no more than walking or driving to the same places is.

I know there are 'real' cyclists out training in the country and I know some people like to go hard on their commute, but in general a lot of this confusion around helmets, lycra, hi vis and the rest comes from a confusion between cycling the SPORT and cycling the normal natural way to get around town.

The comparison with driving and helmets is instructive. I think eyebrows would be raised if Lewis Hamilton decided to not bother with his helmet in the Monaco Grand Prix, but everyone understands that when he gets in his normal car and drives home he won't wear one. Two different things.

Similarly I am not that bothered about safety gear when cycling to work at an average speed not much faster than walking, but if I was in the Tour De France I'd take anything you've got.

ThisRegard

SeanW wrote: »

The requirements for visibility for motorists is comparitively extreme. All cars must have relatively strong brake lights and must have head lamps, indicator lights etc. A car, by virtue of these requirements, must have very strong visibility in order to be allowed to use the roads. The last time I saw a non-motorist road user in a place I did not expect them, was when a pedestrian on a very rural L road very late at night. In the distance I saw something flourescent waving very conspicuously. Turned out it was a pedestrian, who had been using his hi-vis vest as a flag, on the other side of the road, but with it being a two way but narrow all the same road, I appreciated being made aware of their presence. If there were a motorist coming in the opposite direction, its very clear that pedestrian was far more visible than had he not been using a hi-vis jacket. Even if such a motorist, like myself, would not expect to see a pedestrian there in a million years, very clearly the waving flourescence would have made it clear to such a motorist as it was to me that something was up.

Making yourself clearly visible when using the roads, either as a motorist, or as a pedestrian or cyclist, should be a requirement, or failing that, very strongly encouraged.

Post is a bit confusing, but I think I get your gist.

If the pedestrian had been wearing lights, like you would on a bike, you would have seen them a lot easier with the high vis negated.

magicbastarder

maybe worth mentioning that in the TdF, helmets are mandatory - until you get to the bottom of a climb, where the stage finish is at the top.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe worth mentioning that in the TdF, helmets are mandatory - until you get to the bottom of a climb, where the stage finish is at the top.

Really? I didn't know there was any exemption to the wearing of Helmets in any Pro Races

endagibson

plodder wrote: »

I've gotten some of the RSA free hiviz gear and I think it's great they are offering it.

Absolutely, it's good that they're acknowledging their failure in their core mission. The Gardai are also admitting failure, but at least they don't have the word "Road" in their title.

Macy0161

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe worth mentioning that in the TdF, helmets are mandatory - until you get to the bottom of a climb, where the stage finish is at the top.

That was just an interim measure when they first made them compulsory. It only lasted a couple of years. The pro's would never go back now - too much sponsorship money for the big riders and teams.

magicbastarder

aha, i think i misunderstood the discussion at 2:00 in - it's presented as an unwritten rule, but is prefaced with 'back in the day...'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsTz0SEvFV4

beauf

SeanW wrote: »

...... its very clear that pedestrian was far more visible than had he not been using a hi-vis jacket. ..

Making yourself clearly visible when using the roads, either as a motorist, or as a pedestrian or cyclist, should be a requirement, or failing that, very strongly encouraged.

Cyclists have a requirement to have lights.

2RockMountain

SeanW wrote: »

Is Cycling Ireland going to the Anita Sarkeesian school of extrapolating outrage over imaginary nonsense? No Anita, playing Super Mario Brothers doesn't make you rape women. And a postage stamp isn't going to "creates an environment where hi-vis becomes an expectation rather than an option" because:

1. It's a postage stamp.
2. Common sense should do this.

I can only speak of personal experience as a motorist but there are times and places where I see cyclists and pedestrians almost never. I.E. rural tertiary and local roads, especially at night time.

The requirements for visibility for motorists is comparitively extreme. All cars must have relatively strong brake lights and must have head lamps, indicator lights etc. A car, by virtue of these requirements, must have very strong visibility in order to be allowed to use the roads. The last time I saw a non-motorist road user in a place I did not expect them, was when a pedestrian on a very rural L road very late at night. In the distance I saw something flourescent waving very conspicuously. Turned out it was a pedestrian, who had been using his hi-vis vest as a flag, on the other side of the road, but with it being a two way but narrow all the same road, I appreciated being made aware of their presence. If there were a motorist coming in the opposite direction, its very clear that pedestrian was far more visible than had he not been using a hi-vis jacket. Even if such a motorist, like myself, would not expect to see a pedestrian there in a million years, very clearly the waving flourescence would have made it clear to such a motorist as it was to me that something was up.

Making yourself clearly visible when using the roads, either as a motorist, or as a pedestrian or cyclist, should be a requirement, or failing that, very strongly encouraged.

Is there any particular evidence or rationale to support your own 'No.2 Common Sense' point, beyond your own personal anecdotal story?

Macy0161

beauf wrote: »

Cyclists have a requirement to have lights.

This keeps getting missed in the all the unnecessary noise the RSA and Gardai keep making about hi-viz. Even when they do give out lights, they don't meet the legal requirement and are only any good as secondary lights!

beauf

These stories about seeing people because they have HI Viz. Are stories of people not having the regulation lights.

People walking should be walking head on to traffic with a torch.

kirving

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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.

I'm a cyclist, and a motorist. I agree that a car driver should not be on the road if they can't see a cylcist in the day time, but that is not the point. The point of a high-vis is to give yourself as a cyclist the very best chance of being seen. It's the same reason that daytime running lights are mandatory on all new cars for a number of years now.

It's no use saying that the driver should have seen you when you're lying on the road.

magicbastarder

Kevin Irving wrote: »

It's the same reason that daytime running lights are mandatory on all new cars for a number of years now.

are they?
found it:

An increasing number of vehicles already on the road have dedicated DRL fitted as standard, and it has become mandatory for the manufacturers of cars and small vans to fit them to any new vehicle model that they have been producing since February 2011 and which was granted type approval in accordance with EC Directive 2008/89/EC.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Your-Vehicle/About-your-Vehicle/Example-of-non-Dup/Vehicle-Safety-Features/

endagibson

When people say that they didn't see a cyclist or a pedestrian, what they really mean is that they weren't paying attention. However, that's an explicit admission of negligence. Much better to say that they weren't/couldn't be seen. Unfortunately the justice machine has swallowed that excuse.

07Lapierre

Kevin Irving wrote: »

It's no use saying that the driver should have seen you when you're lying on the road.

OK...so where do you draw the line?

Should cyclists avoid cycling on main roads?
Should cyclists avoid cycling on rural roads?
Should cyclists avoid cycling at night altogether?

endagibson

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The point of a high-vis is to give yourself as a cyclist the very best chance of being seen.

When I'm driving, I'm often driving a bright red hatchback. When it's daytime, but dull because of cloud cover or rain, I'll drive with dipped headlights. The amount of people who still pull out in front of me is unreal.

To summarise: I'm in a 11.5 square metre bright red box with headlights on it and people are somehow still failing to take notice.

Please explain how a builders vest is going to help me on those journeys when I leave the car behind and travel on foot or on a bicycle.

07Lapierre

endagibson wrote: »

When people say that they didn't see a cyclist or a pedestrian, what they really mean is that they weren't paying attention. However, that's an explicit admission of negligence. Much better to say that they weren't/couldn't be seen. Unfortunately the justice machine has swallowed that excuse.

And to be fair, sometimes the cyclist is at fault.. e.g running red lights, passing trucks on the left etc. Cyclists can be negligent too.

Not having working lights on your bike when its dark is negligent/illegal, regardless of what clothing the cyclist is wearing.

magicbastarder

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The point of a high-vis is to give yourself as a cyclist the very best chance of being seen.

and most cyclists would have the attitude that if you want to wear a hi-vis, do it. it's the attitude that hi-vis should be required or normalised, whatever time of the day, which is what is being objected to. and a postage stamp may sound trivial, but fighting the normalisation of this is akin to fighting death by a thousand paper cuts.

if you want to give yourself *the very best chance* of avoiding being injured on a bike, you just avoid getting on the bike. and as argued above, the best thing that could happen for cyclist safety is more cyclists on the road; the ongoing subtle message that cycling is too dangerous to undertake without the sort of safety gear you get on a building site undermines this goal.

kirving

Do more or less people pull out in front of you when you have your headlights on than when you don’t? An example of some findings here: http://acrs.org.au/about-us/policies/safe-vehicles/daytime-running-lights/

Anyway, back to hi-vis. Getting over the fact that builders wear similar, or that it might not look cool, or that it may discourage cyclists in general, can you accept that in the vast majority of circumstances, a hi-vis jacket will increase your visibility versus say a grey jacket?

I’m not in favour of draconian nanny state laws that would require people to wear them, nor do I think cycling should be banned at night or in rural areas or anything like that (I do both). Why is it that when we’re talking about hi-vis, does the conversation jump to a slippery slope argument?

magicbastarder

Kevin Irving wrote: »

can you accept that in the vast majority of circumstances, a hi-vis jacket will increase your visibility versus say a grey jacket?

when i'm out in my spandex brigade gear, i do very much lean towards bright tops. not hi-vis jackets, they are not suited to that sort of cycling.

magicbastarder

it was interesting to read the article posted above (post #121) where focussing on hi-vis is seen as a downstream action, and creating infrastructure is seen as an upstream action.

you can hopefully understand cyclist's defensiveness on this. we're provided with substandard infrastructure, with not much sign of progress on that issue, and then given a message cycling is dangerous enough to warrant hi-vis clothing. at a time when we're hearing that the DoT is advising that they arsed up, and cycle paths are mandatory after all, even though a previous minister acknowledged that they're frequently unfit for purpose.

kirving

Sorry yeah, I should have called it hi-vis clothing as opposed to the loose jackets. The more reflective material the better too. It really does make an incredible difference to visibility.

Macy0161

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Sorry yeah, I should have called it hi-vis clothing as opposed to the loose jackets. The more reflective material the better too. It really does make an incredible difference to visibility.

Reflective material does make a difference. Most cycle specific clothing has reflective detail (including most of the black/ dark stuff).

However, the most effective place for reflective material for cyclists is lower down than the torso - torso is too high to catch (properly aligned) dipped heads, and doesn't have the movement that, for example, the ankles do. I don't think ankle bands are even in the wide array of RSA hi-viz kit!

I get mine in Aldi and Lidl during their autumn specials, and use them cycling and running at night in rural roads (along with decent lights for both cycling and running).

Hi-viz in most people's minds = builders vests. I would have no problem with the RSA and others advocating appropriate and effective reflective material on top of lights. Unfortunately, they seem entirely focused on the builders vest (and helmets) with much less focus on even the legal requirement of lights of a certain standard.

magicbastarder

it probably *is* common sense that hi-vis is more visible than alternative clothing, but then you'd expect a reduction in head injuries with the introduction of mandatory helmet laws.
when they did it in australia, they did see a reduction; (i'm probably remembering overly simplified figures) of 37% in head injuries, but accompanied by a fall of 40% in cyclist numbers. there is no clear case study showing the effectiveness of helmet laws resulting in any observable benefit for cyclists, relative or absolute.
so cycling campaigners are thus wary of any supposed magic bullets which aren't backed up with clear research.

Jawgap

magicbastarder wrote: »

it was interesting to read the article posted above (post #121) where focussing on hi-vis is seen as a downstream action, and creating infrastructure is seen as an upstream action.

......

Hi-viz is essentially personal protective equipment. If, for example, there was a problem on a large work site with pedestrian and cycling traffic being seen the response of immediately issuing PPE would be criticised and not acceptable to the regulatory authorities unless it's demonstrated that the other means of hazard control and risk management - Elimination, Substitution, Engineering and Administration - have been tried in that order and shown to be ineffective.

In the public realm the problem/hazard is still the same but it seems to be ok to by-pass every other step in the process and react by promoting the use of PPE?

Bonkers!

endagibson

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Anyway, back to hi-vis. Getting over the fact that builders wear similar, or that it might not look cool, or that it may discourage cyclists in general, can you accept that in the vast majority of circumstances, a hi-vis jacket will increase your visibility versus say a grey jacket?

No.

This was published in this country back in 2013.

Included was the following:

Brian Farrell, spokesman Road Safety Authority, said that the agency’s research department would need to study the research in more detail to provide a full and considered response.

Does anyone recall seeing a response? It's been almost 3 years and all I've seen is more poxy high-vis.

Edit: I forgot to respond to another question.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Do more or less people pull out in front of you when you have your headlights on than when you don’t? An example of some findings here: http://acrs.org.au/about-us/policies/safe-vehicles/daytime-running-lights/

I haven't taken any notes on whether they're pulling out in front of a 11.5 square metre bright red box in the daytime vs a 11.5 square metre bright red box with lights in the daytime. Either way, it's still a 11.5 square metre bright red box in the daytime that they're ignoring.

07Lapierre

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Sorry yeah, I should have called it hi-vis clothing as opposed to the loose jackets. The more reflective material the better too. It really does make an incredible difference to visibility.

Can you see the cyclist in this photo? Black Tee shirt, dark blue bike, dark coloured shoes.. Trust me hes there..

http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2015/08/0813_bicyclist-01.jpg