nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Iwannahurl

MOD VOICE: So as not to take up room on the helmet thread I have taken out the last few pages of hi vis related material and put it together here. All material or threads relating specifically to hi vis will be moved in here or locked if it repeats what is already said in here. There are a few off topic posts but from now on if we could keep the discussion to Hi Vis, and related topics.

Cram

Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar was interviewed by Sean O'Rourke on RTE Radio 1 this morning.

Questions were submitted by listeners, and someone asked whether hi-viz and helmets were to be made mandatory for cyclists.

The Minister's response (paraphrased) was "hi-viz possibly, but the evidence is not great that helmets have a big impact on road safety."

I have mixed views on that response. The situation with helmets has been well rehearsed in this thread -- evidence of modest benefit versus anti-cycling effect of mandatory laws -- but it's odd that the Minister might consider making hi-viz mandatory given that there is no evidence (to date) that it reduces casualties.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

uck51js9zml2yt

magicbastarder wrote: »

joking aside, the idea that we criminalise the very act of walking along a road without safety gear is absurd. it's also shifting the burden of responsibility - and legal culpability - onto the victim. and the 'if it saves just one life' hand-wringing is patronising. if we applied that logic to all laws, we'd have banned driving decades ago.

This brings us back to the George Hook debacle. Should the potential victim not bear some responsibility for their own safety?
Walking out in front of a car , getting knocked down and the driver gets blamed.
Those days have to end.

magicbastarder

joking aside, the idea that we criminalise the very act of walking along a road without safety gear is absurd. it's also shifting the burden of responsibility - and legal culpability - onto the victim. and the 'if it saves just one life' hand-wringing is patronising. if we applied that logic to all laws, we'd have banned driving decades ago.

magicbastarder

iguana wrote: »

Sure, but that still leaves cars travelling at 50-70kph, which is still makes it hard to react to a pedestrian that you see later than you could have. And still leaves a huge chance of fatality or life-changing injury.

good point. we need to reduce it by 50km/h, not 30.

NBar

And what use is a high vis jacket going to be obscured by a back pack etc, how about making it an offence to jay walk as well.. totally useless ideas he has and who's going to enforce this, best laugh i've had today

iguana

I learned to driver fairly late in life and it's been shocking to realise how hard it is for drivers to see pedestrians and cyclists at night, even in suburbs with comprehensive streetlights. The lights on bikes aren't usually very good and can be easily obscured. The varying standards of lights make it hard to gauge how far away the cyclist is if all you can see is a dot of light. Considering the speed cars and cyclists travel at, it can often be at the very last second that a driver realises how near they are to a cyclist. It's extremely dangerous for a cyclist to not wear hi-viz if they will be cycling on a road or even across driveways. It's a good idea for pedestrians, even in cities, to wear it too.

magicbastarder wrote: »

it should be mandatory on rural roads that the legal speed limit falls by 30km/h given the extra danger driving at night implies.

Sure, but that still leaves cars travelling at 50-70kph, which is still makes it hard to react to a pedestrian that you see later than you could have. And still leaves a huge chance of fatality or life-changing injury.

magicbastarder

Donal55 wrote: »

It should be mandatory on rural roads for pedestrians to wear hi viz between dusk and dawn.

it should be mandatory on rural roads that the legal speed limit falls by 30km/h given the extra danger driving at night implies.

Tenzor07

Chikken's too!

Donal55

It should be mandatory on rural roads for pedestrians to wear hi viz between dusk and dawn.

magicbastarder

i for one, welcome this new law. if cars and bikes must both legally carry lights at night, and cyclists must now change to a minimum standard colour, it's clear minister ross is also considering minimum standard colours for cars.
after all, the only research done into the colour of cars and chance of being involved in a collision shows a correlation, in subdued light.

Hrududu

Pedestrians too? Ffs

papu

If it saves one life it was worth pursuing, he said.
....

Is he for real? Minimum passing laws are surely on the cards then...

jon1981

Seriously! I'm fed up with this guy and his pandering to populist outcry!

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/shane-ross-mandatory-hi-vis/

Minister for Transport Shane Ross has raised the prospect of cyclists and pedestrians being forced by law to wear hi-vis clothing.

He said he was inclined to let road safety awareness campaigns run their course for now. But he believed in the longer term making it an offence not to wear hi-vis clothing was something he favoured.

tomasrojo

Apparently Mayor Alfie Byrne, back in the day, had to cut a ribbon on a new bridge, and he flamboyantly cycled at it with the scissors, followed by a retinue of other cyclists, sliced the ribbon open without stopping and they all streamed over.

RobertFoster

It's all that bling he's wearing, totally gangsta. I bet he ran with those scissors.

buffalo

buffalo wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/offbeat/liberties-in-dublin-gets-its-first-new-park-in-100-years-1.3241119

I also noticed earlier that the Lord Mayor cuts the ribbon, and then waves the scissors around haphazardly in front of a group of kids. Then it hit me - he can't see them because they're not wearing hi-viz!

tomasrojo

Well, that's some progress, I suppose.

[Deleted User]

Macy0161 wrote: »

I really don't get the whole everyone in hi viz in a park thing though. It's just conditioning at this stage. The likes of the Operation Transformation Walks and Runs, and the RSA free builders vest for every child has just normalised. Hence all the "they weren't even wearing hi viz" bull. It's expected off every other road user - except for when a motorist parks up and gets out of the car to go somewhere...

I don't Operation Transformation, but from the bits I saw this year, the hi-viz-for-all attitude wasn't quite as ubiquitous as in previous years.

check_six

Macy0161 wrote: »

Hence all the "they weren't even wearing hi viz" bull. It's expected off every other road user - except for when a motorist parks up and gets out of the car to go somewhere...

"Was the car that hit you wearing a hi-vis vest?"

"No. And therefore it was completely invisible to my puny human eyes barely adapted for survival after millions of years of evolution on this planet."

"Have the car taken away and hanged!"

Macy0161

tomasrojo wrote: »

When schools bring children to playgrounds during school hours, they seem to dress the kids up like that. I suppose they might actually believe it's addressing a genuine safety issue, but I'm pretty sure that they also feel that they're less likely to get in legal trouble if a child is hit by a car, or goes missing.

It can also be to keep track/ easily identify children from the group - I've seen Beaver troops do that in the likes of Glendalough. It works to a degree, until two or more troops have the same plan...

I really don't get the whole everyone in hi viz in a park thing though. It's just conditioning at this stage. The likes of the Operation Transformation Walks and Runs, and the RSA free builders vest for every child has just normalised. Hence all the "they weren't even wearing hi viz" bull. It's expected off every other road user - except for when a motorist parks up and gets out of the car to go somewhere...

tomasrojo

When schools bring children to playgrounds during school hours, they seem to dress the kids up like that. I suppose they might actually believe it's addressing a genuine safety issue, but I'm pretty sure that they also feel that they're less likely to get in legal trouble if a child is hit by a car, or goes missing.

Of course, a decade or two or three of hi-viz promotion has left many people with the impression that most of the visible spectrum is very hard to discern in broad daylight. So there's that.

07Lapierre

buffalo wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/offbeat/liberties-in-dublin-gets-its-first-new-park-in-100-years-1.3241119

They're in a park... they're in a playground, in a park. WHY DO THEY NEED HI-VIZ!?

Maybe they had to get to the park by walking across a road? ( at a pedestrian crossing while accompanied by adults!) in broad daylight too!

buffalo

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/offbeat/liberties-in-dublin-gets-its-first-new-park-in-100-years-1.3241119

They're in a park... they're in a playground, in a park. WHY DO THEY NEED HI-VIZ!?

I love Sean nos

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Don't forget to hi-vis your horse - no point in thinking about hi-vis after the horse has bolted, you know.

https://twitter.com/GlowMeansSlow

Amazingly, a company that makes a product has found a problem that their product solves!

http://www.teamtunnaheventing.co.uk/2017/06/glow-means-slow.html?m=1

Chuchote

lizzylad84 wrote: »

Anyone know where one can get a solid hi viz gilet? Dunnes stores has a hi viz gonna go to a 90s rave type jacket in lady winter but I'd prefer a gilet fir winter commute

Not cheap but super-reflective https://www.provizsports.com/en-gb/cycling/cycling-gilets-vests

lizzylad84

Anyone know where one can get a solid hi viz gilet? Dunnes stores has a hi viz gonna go to a 90s rave type jacket in lady winter but I'd prefer a gilet fir winter commute

[Deleted User]

Don't forget to hi-vis your horse - no point in thinking about hi-vis after the horse has bolted, you know.

https://twitter.com/GlowMeansSlow

Chuchote

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I think that is somewhat unlikely but what could be likely is that a Judge could decide that cyclist is guilty of contributory negligence for head injuries sustained when knocked down while not wearing a helmet.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/cyclist-loses-damages-claim-over-injuries-in-collision-with-car-1.3103092

Dismissing the case, Mr Justice Anthony Barr said he was satisfied Mr Lyons had had no chance to avoid hitting Mr Duffy.
As a grown man, Mr Duffy was “highly negligent” to cycle from the city centre to Drimnagh without lights on his bike, the judge said. He was also negligent in failing to wear a helmet, he added.

I love Sean nos

That surrender happened some time ago.

papu

Copenhagenize design company react to the independent article of the RSA handing out 80,000 high Viz vests.

Ireland surrenders to Motordom!

https://www.facebook.com/Copenhagenize/posts/10155547817196897

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

you run the risk of causing a driver to have an epileptic fit and crashing into you if you wore those.

Not at all. They'd be so dazzled they couldn't aim the car properly.

cats pyjamas wrote: »

Rain trousers with full length or half length leg zips have been around for years. Designed to go over hillwalking/mountaineering boots. Also very handy for ventilation especially compared to the cheap plastic ones.

Lowe Alpine, North Face, Berghaus etc all make these but can be pricey. Trespass and Regatta do also. Shop around and you can pick up a pair fairly cheap.

That's what I use, but honestly, taking them off when cold and wet and just wanting to flop down on the couch is really difficult - the ankle-to-calf zip always manages to catch on the gusset inside it. I usually end up undoing my boots and taking the trousers off when I'm in stocking feet.