Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,484 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    endagibson wrote: »
    No.
    This was published in this country back in 2013.
    Does anyone recall seeing a response? It's been almost 3 years and all I've seen is more poxy high-vis.
    i'd question the value of that research to the topic at hand, though.
    that research shows (assuming i'm reading it correctly) that wearing hi-vis does not increase the overtaking distance motorists use; which is a very narrow parameter to measure. it also seems to assume the motorist sees you in the first place in each situation (hi-vis/lack of hi-vis). the purported benefit of wearing hi-vis is not to ensure motorists give you a wider berth, but that they see you.


  • Options
    #153
    endagibson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 382 ✭✭endagibson


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i'd question the value of that research to the topic at hand, though.
    that research shows (assuming i'm reading it correctly) that wearing hi-vis does not increase the overtaking distance motorists use; which is a very narrow parameter to measure. it also seems to assume the motorist sees you in the first place in each situation (hi-vis/lack of hi-vis). the purported benefit of wearing hi-vis is not to ensure motorists give you a wider berth, but that they see you.
    Good point. It wasn't the study that I was looking for, but I wanted something more local that Australia as I generally discount the views of angry racists.
    I think the problem is that people aren't looking in the first place and that even when they do spot the bike, decide to do very little about it.

    There was a study that found that the best item to wear on a bike for safety was a long blonde wig.


  • Options
    #154
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    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?
    Does a bright yellow jacket achieve this goal on a bright sunny day? Or would a red jacket, or a blue jacket be better?
    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    The point of a high-vis is to give yourself as a cyclist the very best chance of being seen.
    We need some evidence, some research. For example, the research that shows that the best way to get more passing space from cars is to wear a blond wig. This is non-intuitive, NOT common sense - but a reflection of what happens in the real world.


  • Options
    #155
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    When driver says they didn't see something that often means they never looked properly. Not that that object they can't see isn't highly visible.


  • Options
    #156
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    I saw a post (maybe by Chris Boardman?) manye somewhere else. It was with a RAF pilot, who discussed the fact human eyes/brains filter out things they do not expect to see. So pilots are trained to look all around them for another aircraft.
    The pilots upshot was that people don't always see what they are looking at and when they say I didn;t see you they didn't. So the solution isn't making the cyclist/car/pedestrian more visible, it's training the driver/ increasing the expectation there will be something to see if you look


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,289 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    beauf wrote: »
    When driver says they didn't see something that often means they never looked properly. Not that that object they can't see isn't highly visible.
    Yes, but the problem is lack of a builders vest is seemingly becoming an acceptable defence!
    07Lapierre wrote: »
    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
    All I can see is the helmet! Now there's an RSA campaign I could get behind - if you're going to wear a helmet, at least put it on right!


  • Options
    #158
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Yes, but the problem is lack of a builders vest is seemingly becoming an acceptable defence!


    All I can see is the helmet! Now there's an RSA campaign I could get behind - if you're going to wear a helmet, at least put it on right!

    Much as I hate to admit it...i agree with you. Victim blaming is rife and will only get worse with the like of An Post promoting it!


  • Options
    #159
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Macy0161 wrote: »


    All I can see is the helmet! Now there's an RSA campaign I could get behind - if you're going to wear a helmet, at least put it on right!

    Ha...well spotted! I hadn't noticed the helmet! :o Maybe I need glasses!! :)


  • Options
    #160
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Here's an interesting article:

    "At night the Hi-viz jackets and rucksack covers are next to useless unless you have rolling hills"


    http://www.croydoncyclist.co.uk/the-truth-behind-hi-viz/


  • Options
    #161
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    I saw a post (maybe by Chris Boardman?) manye somewhere else. It was with a RAF pilot, who discussed the fact human eyes/brains filter out things they do not expect to see. So pilots are trained to look all around them for another aircraft.
    The pilots upshot was that people don't always see what they are looking at and when they say I didn;t see you they didn't. So the solution isn't making the cyclist/car/pedestrian more visible, it's training the driver/ increasing the expectation there will be something to see if you look

    Its the basis of cockpit design. They realised in high stress situations, like combat, pilots were missing things, they should have seen. Like an audio warning, or a light, another aircraft etc. They were sensory overloaded.

    Which is why people doing other things while driving or cycling, are less aware of their surroundings. Hence you have to train them out of doing those things.

    Also why procedures, and learning actions by rote, Mirror Signal Manoeuvre Routine etc. Pilots do the same with cockpit procedures.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    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.

    re "very best chance of being seen" -- High-vis does no such thing -- strong lights are far more effective all around.

    Decent lights are active (high-vis is part passive, part reactive to headlights), decent lights should have side visibility, decent lights have a better change than high-via of being seen when there's other active light sources around (ie a sun glare or headlight), and decent lights can be seen from around corners.


  • Options
    #163
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    And Another one...

    "The point of this post? To point out that hi-viz is not the be all and end all of being seen. Like helmets, we should be not disillusioned to the safety that they provide!"

    http://www.croydoncyclist.co.uk/how-reflective-clothing-works/


  • Options
    #164
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    So the solution isn't making the cyclist/car/pedestrian more visible, it's training the driver/ increasing the expectation there will be something to see if you look

    And maybe we'd have less of the instances like the one below
    SeanW wrote: »
    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 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. .............Even if such a motorist, like myself, would not expect to see a pedestrian there in a million years,


  • Options
    #165
    radia
    Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭radia


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    I saw a post (maybe by Chris Boardman?) manye somewhere else. It was with a RAF pilot, who discussed the fact human eyes/brains filter out things they do not expect to see. So pilots are trained to look all around them for another aircraft.
    The pilots upshot was that people don't always see what they are looking at and when they say I didn;t see you they didn't. So the solution isn't making the cyclist/car/pedestrian more visible, it's training the driver/ increasing the expectation there will be something to see if you look

    = the exact reason why normalising high-vis is dangerous.
    If normalised, drivers only look for cyclists in high vis, and neither look for nor see those in ordinary clothes.


  • Options
    #166
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    radia wrote: »
    = the exact reason why normalising high-vis is dangerous.
    If normalised, drivers only look for cyclists in high vis, and neither look for nor see those in ordinary clothes.

    What being normalised is not driving with due car and attention.

    Even as a driver you can see this all over.


  • Options
    #167
    kirving
    Registered Users Posts: 5,911 ✭✭✭kirving


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    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

    You can be as facetious as you like, but look at the screen again and purposely blur your eyes. Similar to maybe fog on the road, rain, condensation on the window, whatever it may be.

    What stands out? The big yellow truck. And the cyclist would too if he was wearing brighter colours.


  • Options
    #168
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    If you can't see a cyclist from 10m away, in daylight its probably too bad to be driving.


  • Options
    #169
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,289 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Kevin Irving wrote:
    What stands out? The big yellow truck. And the cyclist would too if he was wearing brighter colours.


    If conditions were that bad, blending in with the bus by wearing yellow doesn't seem like the best idea to me tbh!


  • Options
    #170
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,484 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    also, if conditions were that bad, i suspect he wouldn't be wearing the same clothes anyway.


  • Options
    #171
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    If conditions were that bad, blending in with the bus by wearing yellow doesn't seem like the best idea to me tbh!

    If conditions were that bad ALL road users should have LIGHTS!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,484 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    is there any research on proportion of cyclists wearing hi-vis, compared to the proportion of cyclists injured in collisions with motor vehicles, who were wearing (or not wearing) hi-vis?


  • Options
    #173
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    You can be as facetious as you like, but look at the screen again and purposely blur your eyes. Similar to maybe fog on the road, rain, condensation on the window, whatever it may be.

    What stands out? The big yellow truck. And the cyclist would too if he was wearing brighter colours.


    I'm not convinced..

    I still think Lights are the better option in Bad weather and at night:

    Bad Weather:
    https://www.lawyertime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bad-weather-driving-tips.jpg


    At Night: (What colour is the truck?)
    http://www.driversedguru.com/wp-content/gallery/jamie-gallery/Night%20Traffic.jpg


  • Options
    #174
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    I'm not convinced..

    I still think Lights are the better option in Bad weather and at night:

    Bad Weather:
    https://www.lawyertime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bad-weather-driving-tips.jpg


    At Night: (What colour is the truck?)
    http://www.driversedguru.com/wp-content/gallery/jamie-gallery/Night%20Traffic.jpg


    Would still be a difference to all road users to have a hi vis.

    https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0183/7587/files/Hi_Vis_Cyclists.jpg


  • Options
    #175
    RobertFoster
    Registered Users Posts: 9,136 ✭✭✭RobertFoster


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Would still be a difference to all road users to have a hi vis.

    https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0183/7587/files/Hi_Vis_Cyclists.jpg
    Take the same picture again without the camera flash and what would you see?


  • Options
    #176
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,774 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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.
    No. It is perfectly possible to be paying attention and not see something. First if it is night time, darkness may make something very difficult to see, especially if you are driving with dipped beams for whatever reason. Another problem is that all people (including drivers) have "mental blind spots. "

    All people miss things due to mental blind spots. Every person. Every day. No exceptions. There is no use in expecting every motorist to percieve absolutely everything, all the time, because that would literally require motorists to be super-human.
    07Lapierre wrote: »
    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?

    Cyclists should cycle, wherever they want, whenever they want. But with two caveats:
    1. They should obey the law. No cycling on footpaths, no breaking red lights, no cycling the wrong way on one way streets etc.
    2. They should cycle defensively, the same way as motorists are expected to drive defensively. If a cyclist is going to do something like cycle a remote rural road in the dark, they should consider that motorists may not necessarily be expecting to see them, and take appropriate precautions like strong lights, hi-vis etc.
    beauf wrote: »
    Cyclists have a requirement to have lights.
    I see cyclists lights quite frequently, e.g. when I'm crossing pedestrian footbridges in dark hours. Cyclists lights are not that strong. On the road, the only thing that makes them noticable is that they sometimes flash.
    ThisRegard wrote: »
    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.
    Actually come to think of it, the person in question may have been using a flashlight as a beacon instead of a hi-vis.

    My point is that this individual was acting responsibly. Road users are expected to be clearly visible even in the worst case scenario, hence the ever increasing rules for automobile illumination (daytime running lights etc). In that case, this was a road I drive on as a matter of routine and never see non-motorised users, but the waving flashlight made it clear that something was up and I paid attention.


  • Options
    #177
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    SeanW wrote: »
    If a cyclist is going to do something like cycle a remote rural road in the dark, they should consider that motorists may not necessarily be expecting to see them, and take appropriate precautions like strong lights, hi-vis etc.
    ....
    In that case, this was a road I drive on as a matter of routine and never see non-motorised users

    Perhaps you'd like cyclists to send you a personal email with their intended routes in advance, so that you can know what to 'expect' on the road.

    You share the roads. You need to expect cyclists, horses, pedestrians, broken down cars, fallen trees and all the other crap. You should be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear.

    If you can't manage that, sell the car and buy a bike.


  • Options
    #178
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    SeanW wrote: »

    Cyclists should cycle, wherever they want, whenever they want. But with two caveats:
    1. They should obey the law. No cycling on footpaths, no breaking red lights, no cycling the wrong way on one way streets etc.
    2. They should cycle defensively, the same way as motorists are expected to drive defensively. If a cyclist is going to do something like cycle a remote rural road in the dark, they should consider that motorists may not necessarily be expecting to see them, and take appropriate precautions like strong lights, hi-vis etc.

    .

    I agree with these points, but I think you should replace hi-vis with "appropriate cycling specific clothing that includes reflective elements" most cycling clothing has reflective elements anyway.


  • Options
    #179
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Would still be a difference to all road users to have a hi vis.

    https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0183/7587/files/Hi_Vis_Cyclists.jpg

    Here's a better image.

    I agree that The bright jacket does compliment the bike light.

    My point is that a hi viz jacket is no substitute for a good set of lights. That's why I think anything that promotes the use of hi viz alone is flawed.

    http://www.itravelyork.info/images/content-images/Cycling/_featured_size/Bike_or_bike.png


  • Options
    #180
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,774 ✭✭✭SeanW


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Perhaps you'd like cyclists to send you a personal email with their intended routes in advance, so that you can know what to 'expect' on the road.
    No. If you had read my post above you would know that I expect cyclists to only:
    1. Obey the law.
    2. Cycle defensively.
    3. Make sure you're properly visible, taking into account the time of day, your intended route etc.
    If you can't manage that, sell the bike and get a bus pass because you are going to cause an accident.

    You share the roads. You need to expect cyclists, horses, pedestrians, broken down cars, fallen trees and all the other crap. You should be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear.
    Agree with all this but as I explained above, there are two factors which may sometimes make this a little simplistic. All road users should use care, and all road users should take into account any hazards they can predict.

    For motorists, this means at least trying to "expect the unexpected" etc.

    For cyclists, pedestrians, this means obeying the laws of the road, and in some cases realising that you may be "the unexpected" and planning accordingly. Like a pedestrian who takes a flashlight when walking on a rural road in darkness of night. It's really not any more complicated than that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,484 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i think we're arguing in circles here. the issue is not whether hi-vis is more visible than say a ninja costume, because it clearly is, it's a bit more of a nuanced argument about the issues with normalisation of hi-vis as something cyclists should wear all the time, and a burgeoning blame the victim mentality if the victim has not taken all possible steps to protect themselves.

    can someone confirm for me if there is a specific offence for driving without headlights on in the dark?
    there seems to be one for faulty headlights, but i can't see one for lack of use.
    the law relating to cycling is that your light must actually be on during lighting-up hours.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement