Going for walks in hi vis jackets

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

gctest50 wrote: »

850,000 accidents over 20 years -

Compared to white vehicles, a number of colours were associated with higher crash risk. These colours are generally those lower on the visibility index and include black, blue, grey, green, red and silver


https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1045297/muarc263.pdf

Would not then exactly the same color visibility apply for people walking and cyclists. With the added fact that the lights they are using (if they are using them) are smaller.

Do you have any of those studies that you mentioned earlier to support this?

AndrewJRenko

freshpopcorn wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They sure would. There is no suggestion that emergency services should remove their hi-vis stripes.

Thanks for clearing that up.
It's the same reason why cars/trucks don't remove there rear reflectors because it would be dangerous.
It's similar to pedestrians and cyclists who don't wear reflectors when it's dark. They are dangerous

No, emergency services parked at emergency incidents is really not the same as cyclists cycling or pedestrians walking.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you have any of those studies that you mentioned earlier to support this?

No I don't have studies to prove that darker clothing makes less visible in the dark. At least not without searching which I'm not going to do.

Btw what the obsession with helmets? I didn't know they are part of hi vis uniform.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you have any of those studies that you mentioned earlier to support this?

No I don't have studies to prove that darker clothing makes less visible in the dark. At least not without searching which I'm not going to do.

I could say exactly the same thing about the question of the benefits of helmets for motorists, the issue that you asked me for studies on.

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you have any of those studies that you mentioned earlier to support this?

Btw what the obsession with helmets? I didn't know they are part of hi vis uniform.

Good question - helmets and hi-vis are often thrown in together in these discussions

ImARebel

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So by "fully support", you meant that you fully support other people doing things to be seen, but not you doing things to be seen. Gotcha.

not true I drive with my lights on in the daytime...

as i said I fully support it whether I'm a pedestrian or a driver

you're just being argumentative for the sake of it!

Hurrache

ImARebel wrote: »

as i said I fully support it whether I'm a pedestrian or a driver

You're not very rebellious really are you.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I co say exactly the same thing about the question of the benefits of helmets for motorists, the issue that you asked me for studies on.

You can believe that there is no proof that darker clothing doesn't make less visible if you want to and that that claim is on par with your outlandish claims. I'm not going to try to provide research for that.

Amirani

If car drivers were to wear helmets, then their risk of head trauma would be reduced. Car crashes are the most common cause of head trauma among teens in the US: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/04/02/forget-football-car-crashes-are-the-leading-cause-of-fatal-head-trauma-among-teens/#53581ed670bd

If we're looking at advising everyone to go maximum safety, then car drivers wearing helmets and having reflective strips can only help. It's not going to hurt anyone to use them.

I have to admit, I use neither when I'm driving. But that's because I think it's reasonable to take a sensible risk-based approach to safety measures. On the same basis, I choose not to wear high viz while walking or cycling around well-let urban streets.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I co say exactly the same thing about the question of the benefits of helmets for motorists, the issue that you asked me for studies on.

You can believe that there is no proof that darker clothing doesn't make less visible if you want to and that that claim is on par with your outlandish claims. I'm not going to try to provide research for that.

Again, that's not what I said. I'm simply shining a light on the double standards on the degree of evidence expected to justify things that cyclists and pedestrians must do, and the degree of evidence expected to justify things that motorists must do.

meeeeh

Amirani wrote: »

If car drivers were to wear helmets, then their risk of head trauma would be reduced. Car crashes are the most common cause of head trauma among teens in the US: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/04/02/forget-football-car-crashes-are-the-leading-cause-of-fatal-head-trauma-among-teens/#53581ed670bd

If we're looking at advising everyone to go maximum safety, then car drivers wearing helmets and having reflective strips can only help. It's not going to hurt anyone to use them.

I have to admit, I use neither when I'm driving. But that's because I think it's reasonable to take a sensible risk-based approach to safety measures. On the same basis, I choose not to wear high viz while walking or cycling around well-let urban streets.

What about dark country lanes?

I don't have time to continue with this but your helmet thing will help in accidents but it might reduce visibility and endanger others.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

Amirani wrote: »

If car drivers were to wear helmets, then their risk of head trauma would be reduced. Car crashes are the most common cause of head trauma among teens in the US: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/04/02/forget-football-car-crashes-are-the-leading-cause-of-fatal-head-trauma-among-teens/#53581ed670bd

If we're looking at advising everyone to go maximum safety, then car drivers wearing helmets and having reflective strips can only help. It's not going to hurt anyone to use them.

I have to admit, I use neither when I'm driving. But that's because I think it's reasonable to take a sensible risk-based approach to safety measures. On the same basis, I choose not to wear high viz while walking or cycling around well-let urban streets.

What about dark country lanes?

I don't have time to continue with this but your helmet thing will help in accidents but it might reduce visibility and endanger others.

Cyclists and motorcyclists seem to manage the visibility issue.

gctest50

meeeeh wrote: »

...........

I don't have time to continue with this but your helmet thing will help in accidents but it might reduce visibility and endanger others.

An open-face wouldn't reduce much ? :

https://www.demon-tweeks.com/eu/motorsport/racewear-helmets/helmets-accessories/helmets/race-rally-helmets/shop-by/helmet_type/open_face/page/1/

AndrewJRenko

ImARebel wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So by "fully support", you meant that you fully support other people doing things to be seen, but not you doing things to be seen. Gotcha.

not true I drive with my lights on in the daytime...

as i said I fully support it whether I'm a pedestrian or a driver

you're just being argumentative for the sake of it!

No, I'm being argumentative for the sake of highlighting the double standard applied to things that cyclists or pedestrians must do compared to the things that motorists must do.

Why would you think that you get to dictate what clothes other people must wear when you won't bother doing what it takes to make your car visible. Do you believe in the importance of visibility or not?

Amirani

meeeeh wrote: »

What about dark country lanes?.

Dark country lanes I agree completely. If I'm walking on unlit country roads then I'll always wear high viz clothing and carry a torch if I can.

In well-lit towns and cities, I don't think they're necessary.

AndrewJRenko

ImARebel wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What about him? He should have lights and he shouldn't be cycling on the footpad, but if you're looking out for pedestrians crossing, you'll have no problem seeing him.

And if you do kill him, don't worry about it - there's probably no sanction for you. Don't worry about your legal obligation to drive in a manner that allows you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. Victim blaming is alive and well.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/driver-who-killed-hero-father-wont-face-court-37224880.html
TW, what colour is your car? At least if it was yellow or white with hi-vis stripes all round, he'd have seen you and stopped.

i was looking out for pedestrians and as I said before the lighting is very bad at the entrance to our estate so I do go very carefully (hence the reason I managed to avoid hitting him) but he was flying along dressed in black

Just in case you're wondering about how I drive this is how it went:

I looked to my right saw no one so registered "safe to move"
looked to my left "still safe to move"
looked back again to my right and there he was inches from by bonnet, he was zipping down the road.

So how you can compare him to a pedestrian or even a jogger is beyond me. It's a big long straight road, had he been wearing high viz or even a light I'd have seen him at first glance to my right

and you're the one victim blaming as I'd have been the victim in this case, not the pleb on the bike...

I still don't get people's aversions to someone wearing a high viz, as a driver I very much appreciate it especially on a rainy winter's night

Hi-vis is only as good as the light shining on it to cause a reflection. In the situation you describe, it is no better than, for example, a blue hoody or a green raincoat. Why would you expect someone to wear special industrial clothing just for you?

The cyclist should have lights. If he went in front of you, there's a good chance that he didn't see you until the last minute, so you might want to think about your own visibility.

Have you been chasing the Council or the management company about the poor lighting at the dangerous junction.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Amirani wrote: »

If car drivers were to wear helmets, then their risk of head trauma would be reduced. Car crashes are the most common cause of head trauma among teens in the US: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/04/02/forget-football-car-crashes-are-the-leading-cause-of-fatal-head-trauma-among-teens/#53581ed670bd

If we're looking at advising everyone to go maximum safety, then car drivers wearing helmets and having reflective strips can only help. It's not going to hurt anyone to use them.

I have to admit, I use neither when I'm driving. But that's because I think it's reasonable to take a sensible risk-based approach to safety measures. On the same basis, I choose not to wear high viz while walking or cycling around well-let urban streets.

If you see someone walking on a well-lit footpath in high viz gear (or cycling beside same), I’d be amazed if part of their walking/cycling route didn’t include some stretch of poorly-lit or no footpath road. Nobody’s going to bother removing that stuff for well-lit stretches, are they? And if them not removing the high viz stuff in well-lit places bothers some people - man, I wish I had so little to grouse about.

MY BAD

I can't believe people refuse to wear a high viz on the principle that motorists should be more careful and aware of their surroundings. Obviously they should but is it worth been cribbed for life or dying for?

07Lapierre

Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote: »

I can't believe people refuse to wear a high viz on the principle that motorists should be more careful and aware of their surroundings. Obviously they should but is it worth been cribbed for life or dying for?

I refuse to wear a hi-viz builders jacket/waistcoat while walking or cycling!

If a motorists doesn't see my very,very, VERY, bright lights, if the cars lights don't illuminate the reflective elements built into my bike, my shoe covers, my jacket AND my helmet, a crappy RSA jacket will make feck all difference!

MY BAD

07Lapierre wrote: »

I refuse to wear a hi-viz builders jacket/waistcoat while walking or cycling!

If a motorists doesn't see my very,very, VERY, bright lights, if the cars lights don't illuminate the reflective elements built into my bike, my shoe covers, my jacket AND my helmet, a crappy RSA jacket will make feck all difference!

So you're wearing reflective items. Good for you!

07Lapierre

Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote: »

So you're wearing reflective items. Good for you!

What do you see first? The cyclists light? Or the hi viz?

https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8

monkeysnapper

This reflective stuff defo works in my opinion in cars, I bought a Hyundai i40 estate last October and I always leave a reflective vest on parcel shelf .

I also cycle to work and unlike my car I find the exact opposite, I have lights and reflective jacket and it makes no difference to car drivers and pedestrians. People move around in a bloody dream world.

07Lapierre

Visibility is not the problem.

Lack of awareness, lack of observation, combined with inexperienced drivers are IMO far more important issues on our roads.

AndrewJRenko

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

If you see someone walking on a well-lit footpath in high viz gear (or cycling beside same), I’d be amazed if part of their walking/cycling route didn’t include some stretch of poorly-lit or no footpath road. Nobody’s going to bother removing that stuff for well-lit stretches, are they? And if them not removing the high viz stuff in well-lit places bothers some people - man, I wish I had so little to grouse about.

I see people wearing them all the time in urban areas where there is no 'no footpath' road or poorly lit areas within walking distance. The RSA and others have successfully scared people off participating in a normal healthy activity without wearing special industrial clothing.

ImARebel

Hurrache wrote: »

You're not very rebellious really are you.

You don't know me very well :P

I'm rebel through and through

whisky_galore

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The RSA and others have successfully scared people off participating in a normal healthy activity without wearing special industrial clothing.

Any proof of this or are you just talking out of your rear end?

Mena Mitty

In the words of the old tv safety ad and still rings true today....

Be safe, be seen.

bobbyss

oLoonatic wrote:

You can get them for free on the RSA website delivered to your house, there is no excuse. It particularly irks me when cyclists dont have any hi vis on at night. ( I cycle to and from work myself)

Are you sure of this? Even x large?

homerjay2005

cars have to have lights and be visible-> why should it be an different for pedestrians and cyclists?

should be compulsory to have hi vis if you are walking in the dark.

AndrewJRenko

whisky_galore wrote: »

Any proof of this or are you just talking out of your rear end?

Have a look at the statistics for secondary school girls cycling. We have more girls driving THEMSELVES to school now than cycling to school. And the former category is restricted to those 17 or over, which says a lot about the latter category - huge reductions over a decade or two.

Why? Because we've scared them off the road, and scared their parents into thinking that if the cyclists don't wear helmets and hi-vis, they are negligent parents. And what teenage girl aspires to look like a builder with helmet hair?

Is it any wonder we have a growing obesity crisis? All thanks to 'safety'.

CalamariFritti

homerjay2005 wrote: »

cars have to have lights and be visible-> why should it be an different for pedestrians and cyclists?

should be compulsory to have hi vis if you are walking in the dark.

Here we go...