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

pablo128

I would get a warning or even sacked for walking around a brightly lit warehouse without a hi viz vest on.

There's lads on here, mods included, who see nothing wrong with walking or cycling along a pitch black country road without one.

The mind boggles.

NBar

pablo128 wrote: »

I would get a warning or even sacked for walking around a brightly lit warehouse without a hi viz vest on.

There's lads on here, mods included, who see nothing wrong with walking or cycling along a pitch black country road without one.

The mind boggles.

I wear functional cycle clothing with hi-viz pieces sewn in by the manufacturer and have more lights than a Dublin airport runway and still doesn't stop motorists and pedestrians trying to take me out.

How many motorists carry a hi-viz jacket in their car for when they break down or stop at a collision.

This is a never ending discussion/debate

magicbastarder

pablo128 wrote: »

There's lads on here, mods included, who see nothing wrong with walking or cycling along a pitch black country road without one.

can you quote the posts which support that?

pablo128

magicbastarder wrote: »

can you quote the posts which support that?

I could, but I would be walking myself into a ban.

So I'll decline.

Lumen

pablo128 wrote: »

I would get a warning or even sacked for walking around a brightly lit warehouse without a hi viz vest on.

That policy is not for your benefit. It's to protect your employer against expensive legal action. If you don't like the policy you can quit.

That issue has nothing to do with what you are legally allowed to do on your own time in public.

magicbastarder

pablo128 wrote: »

I could, but I would be walking myself into a ban.

So I'll decline.

well, i'm guessing you're conflating 'not a good idea to make them mandatory' with 'not a good idea to wear them'.
and i wouldn't ask someone a question in order to give myself an excuse to ban them. that'd just be entrapment.

Kaisr Sose

pablo128 wrote: »

I would get a warning or even sacked for walking around a brightly lit warehouse without a hi viz vest on.

There's lads on here, mods included, who see nothing wrong with walking or cycling along a pitch black country road without one.

The mind boggles.

Don't mix up Employer liability and Insurance. If you are hit in a warehouse the employer is more interested in preventing an insurance claim.

Nobody is advocating that it's ok not to be visible (search Ninja cyclists) but there is existing legislation on lighting on cycles. This is not adhered to by many and some that do, have lights that are a useful as a wet paper bag. As this is a cycling thread, I only speak as a cyclist. However, having seen pedestrians walking on dark, unlit roads in dark clothing, with no illumination or hi-vis clothing, I can only think how that's really stupid and ultimately for some, fatal. Is that enough to legislate for mandatory hi-vis? In my opinion, no.

Adults have to make choices for themselves...it's not up to the state to protect them from their own stupidity all the time. If it was to do so, should it put a limit on the number of cigarettes you can buy or units of alcohol you can purchase? Both kill more people every year than are killed on our roads. If it's about saving one life, why not invest more in road safety infastructure and give AGS more resources to enforce the existing laws?

magicbastarder

i know i keep labouring the point, but comparing safety equipment for cyclists and pedestrians, with safety equipment in cars, has one distinct problem - the safety equipment in cars is built into them. there's no extra burden, once the car is purchased, on the driver to avail of the benefits; the only equipment the driver needs to carry around is a set of keys.

but a law on hi-viz for pedestrians would essentially result in people having to carry an extra item of clothing with them all the time, lest they be caught out. and they would occasionally forget, or be caught short because they'd given theirs to a visitor, etc.
what this law would be doing is criminalising those people for simply leaving their house at night. that's not even orwellian; it's too idiotic to deserve the phrase.

if cars really are that dangerous that pedestrians cannot leave the house without PPE, we as a society really, really, badly need to examine our relationship with the car.

Charles Babbage

What is needed is new regulation on lighting regulation for cyclists which reflects the capability of modern LED lights with rechargeable batteries. Then absolute no nonsense enforcement of this. "Hi viz isn't needed during the day and is inferior to proper light in the dark.

Middle Man

jon1981 wrote: »

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/

I'm not a fan of Ross, but it is perfectly reasonable for cyclists to be required to exercise a little cop on and make themselves visible. I'm a pedestrian and if I was walking out at night, I'd consider if I could be seen - it's called having consideration for others. The same concept of visibility should apply to cyclists coming up on the blind side of vehicles turning left - it shouldn't be allowed.

magicbastarder

btw, i know i keep using the phrase 'criminal' - this is the quote from Ross:

To create a statutory obligation on the wearing of reflective clothing would entail making it a criminal offence under Road Traffic legislation for any person guilty of not wearing high visibility clothing

maybe he means civil offence. but for a minister to get something that basic, wrong in a prepared answer is a little perplexing.

bladespin

Typical 'blame the victim' approach again, the rsa has been at this with motorcyclists too, simple fact is that if you're obeying the rules of the road you're very unlikely to ever be in a situation where hi viz would make a difference.

magicbastarder

Middle Man wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Ross, but it is perfectly reasonable for cyclists to be required to exercise a little cop on and make themselves visible. I'm a pedestrian and if I was walking out at night, I'd consider if I could be seen - it's called having consideration for others.

we already have a law for that:

During "lighting-up time", that is, the period beginning half an hour after sunset and ending half an hour before sunrise on the following morning, all cyclists are required to have fitted (and make use of) the following lighting on their bicycles:

One front lamp
One rear lamp
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/vehicle_standards/lighting_of_bicycles_in_ireland.html

[Deleted User]

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Does it also scare the bejaysus out of you when you come across a car and the driver can't hear you because of their radio?

Not at all. I’ll be wearing my hi vis jacket and listening out for other road users.

Middle Man

bladespin wrote: »

Typical 'blame the victim' approach again, the rsa has been at this with motorcyclists too, simple fact is that if you're obeying the rules of the road you're very unlikely to ever be in a situation where hi viz would make a difference.

FFS, what is so complicated about putting on a high visibility vest??? It's just like putting on a gilet or waistcoat - seriously.

bladespin

Deleted User wrote:

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.

Are you honestly suggesting it should be an offence for a deaf person to walk or cycle on our roads???

Middle Man

magicbastarder wrote: »

we already have a law for that:

During "lighting-up time", that is, the period beginning half an hour after sunset and ending half an hour before sunrise on the following morning, all cyclists are required to have fitted (and make use of) the following lighting on their bicycles:

One front lamp
One rear lamp
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/vehicle_standards/lighting_of_bicycles_in_ireland.html

As the Tesco ad used to go:

Every Little Helps!

bladespin

Middle Man wrote:

FFS, what is so complicated about putting on a high visibility vest??? It's just like putting on a gilet or waistcoat - seriously.

Nothing at all but it's shifting the onus from motorists to others unecessarily.
If you're driving to the conditions and using proper observation then it shouldn't matter. Problem is so many are driving while practicing poor observation, almost like tunnel vision, if it's not directly in front and the size of a car they struggle to see.

HivemindXX

Deleted User wrote: »

Not at all. I’ll be wearing my hi vis jacket and listening out for other road users.

If you are frequently scared by encountering pedestrians and cyclists I suggest you try driving more slowly and paying more attention too.

Sure. why not ban driving cars at night. That would save far more than one life. I don't work in a warehouse but I imagine if I did my boss would fire me instantly if I drove through it at 100kph.

eeeee

Mod Voice: This is the Hi Viz Megathread. I suggest new visitors from the Shane Ross acquaint themselves with the multiple and varied points already made. Charter rules apply, I'd ask people to particularly pay attention to Rule 8. Enjoy.

P_1

nee wrote: »

Mod Voice: This is the Hi Viz Megathread. I suggest new visitors from the Shane Ross acquaint themselves with the multiple and varied points already made. Charter rules apply, I'd ask people to particularly pay attention to Rule 9. Enjoy.

Is there a new Hi Vis sportive that has sold out? :P

magicbastarder

Middle Man wrote: »

As the Tesco ad used to go:

Every Little Helps!

mandatory helmets for pedestrians so.

magicbastarder

(please note - i don't want a discussion about mandatory helmets for pedestrians, that was just a little reductio ad absurdum).

eeeee

P_1 wrote: »

Is there a new Hi Vis sportive that has sold out? :P

LOL make that 8!

[Deleted User]

flutered wrote: »

i drive a white coloured car

White? How irresponsible are you? Why isn't it covered with ugly yellow hi-vis stripes to make it visible from the side, where it doesn't have any lights. If it saves one life, right?

Middle Man wrote: »

FFS, what is so complicated about putting on a high visibility vest??? It's just like putting on a gilet or waistcoat - seriously.

The issue isn't the degree of complication - the issue is the blame-shifting. It would be like making long, tweed skirts mandatory for young ladies going on nights out as a solution to rape. It's not complicated to do, but it is an absolutely daft idea.

Middle Man wrote: »

The same concept of visibility should apply to cyclists coming up on the blind side of vehicles turning left - it shouldn't be allowed.

Why do you blame the victim for the truck's blind spot? If somebody is irresponsible enough to bring dangerous equipment with blind spots out on the street, surely it is their problem to solve? Surely they need to solve the problem, with extra mirrors, or with cameras, or with how ever many additional crew are required to allow it to operate safely?

NBar wrote: »

I heard a rumor that Ross is getting a device fitted to the Dublin City bikes that applies the brakes when traffic signals turn red or the bikes are cycled on footpaths or up one way streets

That's great news, will it be applied to cars too, to stop the 88% of vehicles that broke the red lights at the Luas camera that were motorists?

Donal55 wrote: »

Same here. I wonder is that why the gardai and emergency services wear hi viz when working on the roads.

Yeah, I wonder too given the lack of any evidence or research showing that hi-vis actually works as a road safety measure. But regardless, the needs of a cyclist cycling on the road is fairly different to the needs of Gardai or other emergency services.

flaneur wrote: »

It's aimed at car makers. Unless someone physically disabled the running lights, they're there.

Really? Why do I see 1 or 2 newish cars, generally flashy cars each winters' day running on DRLs with absolutely no back lights?

Tenzor07

Having a white car just isn't sufficient:

tomasrojo

cython wrote: »

Except that retroreflective materials as are used in high-viz are designed to reflect light strongly back at the source, and not in other directions - test it yourself if you doubt me, put a high-fiz on a fence post, point a light at it, and walk around it in a circle. By the time you move even 45 degrees away, the amount of light reflected becomes very small. In an urban environment your headlights should be dipped, meaning little to none of the light from them will strike a high-viz until you are practically on top of the wearer already. Similarly, they will not reflect much from the orange sodium streetlights, so in practice so called high-viz gear is actually not as highly visible as people think, unless they are driving with the wrong lights for the conditions, or poorly adjusted lights.

Similarly, a cyclist on a roundabout is not all that visible to a motorist waiting to enter the roundabout if the cyclist has only a hiviz jacket and no lights. The car headlights throw to the left, and the cyclist would be approaching the headlights from the right.

Lights are visible from a greater range of directions, and are more effective in fog. And you can get really powerful lights now.

I see that Ross says a law might be required "in the long term". I suspect that Ross will not be required as Minister for Transport in the medium term, let alone the long term.

CramCycle

Rex Rich Crane wrote: »

Walking out in front of a car , getting knocked down and the driver gets blamed.
Those days have to end.

Does this happen alot, if ever?

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

You must be terrigfied by the number of people doing north of 80kmph in north of 400kg of metal while looking at their phone on winding roads.

flaneur wrote: »

It's a fairly common occurrence in cities and I've yet to see anyone enforcing the law.

But a new law will solve this somehow. Surely the best aim would be to enforce the laws we have before thinking up new ones.

flaneur wrote: »

No, but I think that reflective surfaces are MUCH more eye catching than a small, dull, red light or a little flickery led which is what a lot of people seem to think is adequate.

Interestingly only the RSA and a few dullards think they are adequate. The lights the RSA hand out are below any modicum of a safe standard but they reinforce in people who do not know better, that they are enough.

When you're driving around a suburban area these days you're looking at a pretty oddly lit scene with either pools of LED lighting or an orange toned sodium lamp. You've also lots of other distractions like lit signage and nowadays VERY bright LED traffic lights. In fact, I find some of those actually are now so bright you can't see past them in certain conditions, which makes it hard to see a dully lit pedestrian crossing for example. The system used in Dublin in particular is often totally blinding, particularly if you're on a dull street.

I'd consider getting an eyetest before driving again if you cannot see past a traffic light in Dublin for pedestrians.

You will generally pick out a bright reflective surface.

Sweet christmas, if you can't see past a traffic light, you certainly won't see reflected material that comes on a typical high vis.

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's no risk that a motorist can be caught short without the bright colour of their car, such as having forgotten to bring it with them when they leave the house in daylight, and being delayed and not being able to go home till night has fallen.

And yet somehow, several are on every trip I make a night. Cars with one light, no lights, just parking lights, sh1tty DRLs. Had a car drive against me the other night without lights at about 10pm. No lights on. I would have seen my bike lights 250m before I seen this car (that I still copped ages away) butI only seen because it kind of made an optical illusion that you expect from the predator in camouflage. My eyes knew it wasn't right and filled in the blanks, the same way I see pedestrians long before I rech them while driving (at appropriate speeds for the conditions).

flaneur wrote: »

Dealt with by a 2008 EU directive that came into force in 2011, mandating running lights on cars.

All cars made from 2011 onwards are legally required to have day time running lights and all busses and trucks since 2012.

And what a cluster *** that has been, no rear light requirement and a crowd of idiots driving with basically front parking lights,24 hours a day in urban environments (and motorways). It was so poorly thought out.

flaneur wrote: »

It's aimed at car makers. Unless someone physically disabled the running lights, they're there.

The directive isn't a farce, the drivers who go around with no headlights on after dusk are the farce. The directive aimed to increase visibility in all conditions by having DAY TIME running lights. They did not intend people to drive around with their headlights off in dark conditions (which is illegal).

And yet hear we are. Why in the name of all that makes a minimum of sense would rear lights not have been included and why would car manufacturers just not included them anyway.

pablo128 wrote: »

I would get a warning or even sacked for walking around a brightly lit warehouse without a hi viz vest on.

Hi Vis works best in situations like this, in bright light, that is what it is made for. People seem to forget that Hi Vis jackets were not designed for night time at all, or dark conditions, but bright daytime conditions.

If you were ever to make Hi Vis mandatory, the only one, in relation to road safety, that might stretch to a little bit of sense, is ankle reflective material. Let me assure you though, good bike lights, are far more visible, from a far greater distance.

tomasrojo

Incidentally, the real danger is probably from Fianna Fáil, rather than Ross. FF will eventually run the Ministry again, and they're the ones who keep asking about mandatory hi-viz. No party will allow Ross within an ass's bray of the levers of power again, if they can help it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

No amount of high viz will change the attitude of some drivers. Cyclists are the devil. The end.