Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

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.

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

Chikken's too!

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

iguana wrote: »

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.

Eh, no it's not!

You're ignoring the fact that someone in charge of a 1600kg box needs to drive within the speed limits and exercise particular awareness of their surroundings... Irish drivers are simply not used to watching for vulnerable road users.And also seem to spend too much time on mobile phones.

So.. This should mean that driving lessons for learners should have to a number of hours which includes city and night driving at peak hours with particular attention paid to cyclists and pedestrians.

Do you see any hi-vis in this picture of cyclists at night in a European city where over 50% commute by bicycle?

bike-cycle-traffic-in-the-city-at-night-snowfall-bike-path-copenhagen-D21283.jpg

bike-cycle-traffic-in-the-city-at-night-snowfall-bike-path-copenhagen-D21283.jpg

[Deleted User]

I would include banning walkers and cyclists using headphones while walking or cycling. As a country dwellers, it scares the bejazus out of me to come across a pedestrian on a narrow country road totally oblivious to their surroundings and approaching vehicles.

gctest50

NBar wrote: »

And what use is a high vis jacket going to be obscured by a back pack etc.....

Hi-viz backpack cover

http://www.halfords.ie/cycling/bike-accessories/bike-bags-baskets/halfords-hi-vis-rucksack-cover

NBar wrote: »

......

and who's going to enforce this ..........

Do it "through insurance" - get hit by a car without hi-viz on = no compensation for you at all

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Eh, no it's not!

You're ignoring the fact that someone in charge of a 1600kg box needs to drive within the speed limits and exercise particular awareness of their surroundings... Irish drivers are simply not used to watching for vulnerable road users.And also seem to spend too much time on mobile phones.

So.. This should mean that driving lessons for learners should have to a number of hours which includes city and night driving at peak hours with particular attention paid to cyclists and pedestrians.

Do you see any hi-vis in this picture of cyclists at night in a European city where over 50% commute by bicycle?

I see lovely cycle lanes and cyclists all patiently in a line waiting to turn left and all possibly stopped at a traffic light.

Donal55 wrote: »

I see lovely cycle lanes and cyclists all patiently in a line waiting to turn left and all possibly stopped at a traffic light.

It's called proper cycling infrastructure...

Tenzor07 wrote: »

It's called proper cycling infrastructure...

And obeying the rules of the road.

Donal55 wrote: »

And obeying the rules of the road.

Your point?

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Your point?

Just observing on the photo you put up.

TheRiverman

I don't see what the problem is making it mandatory to wear high viz clothing,particularly a high viz vest.It is probably the lightest and least expensive item of clothing to buy,and also they can be got for free every year at various events around the country.
I wear one every day all year round when I go walking/jogging,and I also always have a spare one in the boot of my car.
Some many people out there must think the glow in the dark and daylight.
Anyone who cannot be seen clearly out cycling and walking particularly at night are irresponsible,putting their own safety and the safety of others at risk.

my3cents

Can we have a poll? I'm in favour of a hi viz law.

gctest50

Weepsie wrote: »

Plenty of Pepe get hit with HiViz on. It's a nonsense argument.
..........

It's not a nonsense argument

How many people escape getting hit because they they have HiViz on

even trucks must have HiViz

http://bit.ly/2g27i8K

TheRiverman wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is making it mandatory to wear high viz clothing,particularly a high viz vest.It is probably the lightest and least expensive item of clothing to buy,and also they can be got for free every year at various events around the country.
I wear one every day all year round when I go walking/jogging,and I also always have a spare one in the boot of my car.
Some many people out there must think the glow in the dark and daylight.
Anyone who cannot be seen clearly out cycling and walking particularly at night are irresponsible,putting their own safety and the safety of others at risk.

back into "George Hook" territory again...