Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Roger the cabin boy

Spook_ie wrote: »

Absolutely correct, however the derisory comments and posts that certain board members ( seemingly exclusive to the cycling forum members ) would seem to be that they aren't interested in facts.

The effectiveness of HI Viz is dependent on the observer and their reactions, but if an observer fails to react to HI Viz then they are won't react any better to no Hi Viz, so the question is ( fill your own figures in as these figures are just for the post )

If 80% of observers react positively earlier when they see Hi Viz ( because they actually see it ) is that not better than the 100% who react later when there is no Hi Viz?

After many bizzarre arguments about the merits or evils of Hivis/Helmets, etc, i don't bother now. Its almost a religious opinion these days.

For myself, i wear Hivis and a helmet regardless. If its dark/dusk , i will also use my lights.

I have to hold my tongue when i see ninja cyclists, eps. so at night.

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

( seemingly exclusive to the cycling forum members )

not just members of the cycling forum, you can add the roads policing unit of the surrey police force:

https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1266129897078087681

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

not just members of the cycling forum, you can add the roads policing unit of the surrey police force:

https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1266129897078087681

But again the people who don't react to HI Viz won't react to no Hi Viz, isn't it better that the 80% or whatever are reacting earlier to the HI Viz than a 100% reacting later to no Hi Viz

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

No it's part and parcel of approved HI Viz clothing.

Good to know thanks.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

But again the people who don't react to HI Viz won't react to no Hi Viz, isn't it better that the 80% or whatever are reacting earlier to the HI Viz than a 100% reacting later to no Hi Viz

Do these people only see Hi-Viz? do they not have vision like the rest of us? When i look around, i see people with Hi-viz, people without Hi-viz, people with Long hair, people with short hair, i see cars, trucks, buses, I see buildings, trees etc. I hear music (because i'm wearing headphones), I hear the wind, I hear engines etc. Road safety is not just a question of being able to see, its about being aware of your surroundings, its about expecting the unexpected, its about driving with due care and attention.

Hurrache

I was watching some TV show the other day, there was a guy doing a bit of DIY within his own house, wearing high vis, while his wife stood alongside him drinking a cuppa tae without one chatting away.

She'll be sorry when the truck drives over her while her safely adorned husband watches in horror at the amount of mopping he's going to have to do.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Do these people only see Hi-Viz? do they not have vision like the rest of us? When i look around, i see people with Hi-viz, people without Hi-viz, people with Long hair, people with short hair, i see cars, trucks, buses, I see buildings, trees etc. I hear music (because i'm wearing headphones), I hear the wind, I hear engines etc. Road safety is not just a question of being able to see, its about being aware of your surroundings, its about expecting the unexpected, its about driving with due care and attention.

Simply put, I know you like simple!

The human brain reacts to stimuli, the earlier a stimuli is noticed by the brain the earlier a decision process can be made, Hi Viz is designed to provide an earlier stimulus.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

But again the people who don't react to HI Viz won't react to no Hi Viz, isn't it better that the 80% or whatever are reacting earlier to the HI Viz than a 100% reacting later to no Hi Viz

So you've fitted hi-vis stripes on all sides of your car presumably?

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Simply put, I know you like simple!

The human brain reacts to stimuli, the earlier a stimuli is noticed by the brain the earlier a decision process can be made, Hi Viz is designed to provide an earlier stimulus.

Yep that's me, i like simple. People Look they see, People don't look, they don't see. If you want to be seen, don't blend into the background, Move and use Lights when its dark.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you've fitted hi-vis stripes on all sides of your car presumably?

No it has DLRs, I have updated the vehicle software so that the rear lights are on at the sametime as the front DLRs

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

No it has DLRs, I have updated the vehicle software so that the rear lights are on at the sametime as the front DLRs

Well done! Thats legal right? (Don't get me wrong, i think your right to do that and all cars should have rear DRL's)

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Yep that's me, i like simple. People Look they see, People don't look, they don't see. If you want to be seen, don't blend into the background, Move and use Lights when its dark.

People react to stimuli, if a stimulus is better then the reaction will be greater.
It's the same as having moving reflectors at night on bicycle wheels or on pedals. the reflector works exactly the same but the stimulus is greater because the reflectors are moving.
The same argument is used regarding blinking lights compared to static lights, blinking gives a greater stimulus, also the reason why people worry about flashing lights causing things like epilepsy where the belief is over stimulation may be causing some epilepsies

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Well done! Thats legal right? (Don't get me wrong, i think your right to do that and all cars should have rear DRL's)

It completely legal AFAIK, it's just like driving with sidelights on at all times except for the lights actually being DLRs at the front. One of the main reasons I updated the software was the number of times you see just front DLRs on at night time and no rear lights, especially in the city. so made sense to me that lights front and rear work whenever key is in ignition just in case I forget for a moment or if the auto lights setting hasn't kicked in.

Hurrache

Spook_ie wrote: »

No it has DLRs, I have updated the vehicle software so that the rear lights are on at the sametime as the front DLRs

So bikes with lights don't need high vis so.

And the problem with anything stimulating the brain, if it becomes the norm, it's no longer a stimulant and just becomes background noise that fades into normality.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

It completely legal AFAIK, it's just like driving with sidelights on at all times except for the lights actually being DLRs at the front. One of the main reasons I updated the software was the number of times you see just front DLRs on at night time and no rear lights, especially in the city. so made sense to me that lights front and rear work whenever key is in ignition just in case I forget for a moment or if the auto lights setting hasn't kicked in.

My understanding is that having rear DRL's on a car during daylight hours could be interpreted as brake lights. It could also be that manufacturers only fit DRL's because they are legally required and came up with this as reason not to fit rear DRL's to save money!

Seth Brundle

07Lapierre wrote: »

My understanding is that having rear DRL's on a car during daylight hours could be interpreted as brake lights. It could also be that manufacturers only fit DRL's because they are legally required and came up with this as reason not to fit rear DRL's to save money!

If someone is driving behind me when I'm driving and they suddenly hit the anchors because they've just noticed my rear lights then my opinion is that thjey should not be driving in the first place.
Driving should be a privilege (for those who have proven themselves within the last five years to be capable of doing it (i.e. through frequent re-testing)) and not an entitlment as is currently the case.

07Lapierre

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If someone is driving behind me when I'm driving and they suddenly hit the anchors because they've just noticed my rear lights then my opinion is that they should not be driving in the first place.
Driving should be a privilege (for those who have proven themselves within the last five years to be capable of doing it (i.e. through frequent re-testing)) and not an entitlement as is currently the case.

Agreed! 100%

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

My understanding is that having rear DRL's on a car during daylight hours could be interpreted as brake lights. It could also be that manufacturers only fit DRL's because they are legally required and came up with this as reason not to fit rear DRL's to save money!

Unlikely seeing as they are the rear side lights software enabled to work with the front DRLs

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

No it has DLRs, I have updated the vehicle software so that the rear lights are on at the sametime as the front DLRs

You don't have DRLs when it's parked. You don't have DRLs on the side panels.
Isn't it better that the 80% or whatever are reacting earlier to the HI Viz than a 100% reacting later to no Hi Viz?

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

So bikes with lights don't need high vis so.

And the problem with anything stimulating the brain, if it becomes the norm, it's no longer a stimulant and just becomes background noise that fades into normality.

Neural adaption you mean? If there's a moving image it's very difficult for the brain to tune it out, we just aren't built that way.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You don't have DRLs when it's parked. You don't have DRLs on the side panels.
Isn't it better that the 80% or whatever are reacting earlier to the HI Viz than a 100% reacting later to no Hi Viz?

I have DRLs whenever I have the key in the ignition, the design of modern lights are wrap around ( you can see them from the sides as well as from front or rear )

I also don't have DRLs or reflectors on my house or on my garden wall but I don't think anyone's ran or walked into it yet, now of course there is a reason for that and it's all to do with size. If you look at an eclipse can you actually see the moon? Or is that you only know it's there because of it's physical size and the fact it's blocking out some visionary clues that your brain is seeing.



or maybe you can't recognise trees when they aren't lit



Stop digging you're only being foolish.

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

Neural adaption you mean? If there's a moving image it's very difficult for the brain to tune it out, we just aren't built that way.

When the brain is overloaded it does tune out all sorts of things, including things that are moving.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28306/why-you-dont-see-motorcycles-on-the-road/

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

I have DRLs whenever I have the key in the ignition, the design of modern lights are wrap around ( you can see them from the sides as well as from front or rear )

I also don't have DRLs or reflectors on my house or on my garden wall but I don't think anyone's ran or walked into it yet, now of course there is a reason for that and it's all to do with size. If you look at an eclipse can you actually see the moon? Or is that you only know it's there because of it's physical size and the fact it's blocking out some visionary clues that your brain is seeing.

Were these houses not big enough to be seen?

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/audis-in-houses/

You don't have your key in the ignition, so surely hi-vis stripes would help protect your car when parked. Isn't it better that the 80% or whatever are reacting earlier to the HI Viz than a 100% reacting later to no Hi Viz?

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Were these houses not big enough to be seen?

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/audis-in-houses/

You don't have your key in the ignition, so surely hi-vis stripes would help protect your car when parked. Isn't it better that the 80% or whatever are reacting earlier to the HI Viz than a 100% reacting later to no Hi Viz?

Stop digging, the car has rear reflectors, glass and mirror surfaces at the front and reflective surfaces on all sides.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Stop digging, the car has rear reflectors, glass and mirror surfaces at the front and reflective surfaces on all sides.

But hi-vis in addition to all those would be even better, right?

It's starting to look like you're not really convinced of the benefits of hi-vis yourself?

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

When the brain is overloaded it does tune out all sorts of things, including things that are moving.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28306/why-you-dont-see-motorcycles-on-the-road/

It doesn't really, how many times has something like a ball been thrown at you, you catch a glimpse of it and reactions kick in, hardly the same thing as someone starting off from stationary without looking.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But hi-vis in addition to all those would be even better, right?

It's starting to look like you're not really convinced of the benefits of hi-vis yourself?

Keep digging, its only you making a fool of yourself. If i thought that wrapping my car in hi viz would be useful I would but given the status of size, permanently available lights, reflectors and reflective surfaces, all of which make the car more visible than a cyclist or pedestrian under (pretty much) all conditions i think not.
Now if i were to be parking the car in hazerdous positions like doing road side checks (Garda), Highway repairs (Council vehicles) or Breakdowns (AA and other services ) id give the idea of Hi Viz tape etc. more merit on a vehicle.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Keep digging, its only you making a fool of yourself. If i thought that wrapping my car in hi viz would be useful I would but given the status of size, permanently available lights, reflectors and reflective surfaces, all of which make the car more visible than a cyclist or pedestrian under (pretty much) all conditions i think not.
Now if i were to be parking the car in hazerdous positions like doing road side checks (Garda), Highway repairs (Council vehicles) or Breakdowns (AA and other services ) id give the idea of Hi Viz tape etc. more merit on a vehicle.

So a black or burgandy or navy car wouldn't be significantly more visible when parked if hi-vis stripes were fitted on all sides?

07Lapierre

Apparently there is a cyclist in this photo.. I guess without a hi viz jacket, the driver can be excused for not slowing down?

https://twitter.com/gardatraffic/status/1268618214872776706?s=21

AndrewJRenko

1 sheep2 wrote: »

At this point I ignore you and your haughty, irrational posts. But I thought I would just highlight for others your stupidity. Renko wants us to believe that motorists routinely break lights other than in the seconds after they've turned red. What a fool.

I guess this is an example of the red light jumping other than in the seconds after they've turned red that never happens.


https://twitter.com/AlanDub13/status/1268603780548964354