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

Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »

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

The proposal included walkers. It is an attempt, regardless of how it will be implemented or not, at reducing road deaths of the more vulnerable of our road users.

For the record, I think they should be used in conjunction with front and rear lights, not in place of lights.

Do I think they should be mandatory? I don't think it's enforceable, but people using dimly lit unsafe roads should have the common sense to use them.

Pinch Flat

Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »

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

Plenty of close and fast passes today when I was on my spin - with an extremely bright see sense on the bike. A lot on clear open roads. Some drivers just don’t give a sh!t.

tomasrojo

pablo128 wrote: »

The proposal included walkers. It is an attempt, regardless of how it will be implemented or not, at reducing road deaths of the more vulnerable of our road users.

It's really not. It's just easy to do. If you see "If it saves just one life" in the justification of any policy, it means that the proponents of the policy have no strong evidence that it does any good.

The most rigorous study done on hi-viz and safety outcomes was done by a Ph.D. student in Nottingham. He didn't find a statistically significant association between use of high-visibility clothing and serious injury/death. Think that was a predominantly urban population that took part though.

Why can't walkers use a bright flashlight instead anyway? Why do you have to dress up like a binman?

CramCycle

pablo128 wrote: »

Do I think they should be mandatory? I don't think it's enforceable, but people using dimly lit unsafe roads should have the common sense to use them.

For cyclists, why not make an attempt at just enforcing the current laws. No RSA hi vis handouts, simple advertising, no mention of hi vis, stating that between sun down and sun up, if you are cycling without lights, you are getting fined, end of.

pablo128

tomasrojo wrote: »

Why can't walkers use a bright flashlight instead anyway? Why do you have to dress up like a binman?

All the better if they want to use a flashlight. Good idea.

pablo128

CramCycle wrote: »

For cyclists, why not make an attempt at just enforcing the current laws. No RSA hi vis handouts, simple advertising, no mention of hi vis, stating that between sun down and sun up, if you are cycling without lights, you are getting fined, end of.

I agree.

And in regard to walkers? Don't you think it's a good idea to wear hi viz walking along dark roads?

[Deleted User]

pablo128 wrote: »

The proposal included walkers. It is an attempt, regardless of how it will be implemented or not, at reducing road deaths of the more vulnerable of our road users.

No, it's not. If they wanted to reduce road deaths, they would:
1) enforce existing laws, such as the speed limits broken by up to 82% of motorists, and mobile phone abuse
2) focus on evidence-based improvements for any new laws.

It is an attempt to shift blame, and to denormalise walking and cycling as being specialist activities that require specialist clothing.

pablo128 wrote: »

but people using dimly lit unsafe roads should have the common sense to use them.

It's not the roads that are unsafe. It is the drivers on the roads that are unsafe.

tomasrojo

I don't think it adds much at all if the walker has a flashlight. If you're talking about night, all the jacket adds is a few reflective strips, as the fluorescent part does nothing once the sun is gone (no UV component in artificial light to make the material fluoresce).

I've walked on country roads at nights with just a flashlight. It's absolutely fine. I wouldn't be bothered bringing extra clothing with me, except to keep dry or warm.

Cookie_Monster

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.

One can only hope that EU law will supersede Irish law on the topic before it ever comes up. Laws designed by countries who have a rational grown up attitude to all road users, not just motorists

CramCycle

pablo128 wrote: »

I agree.

And in regard to walkers? Don't you think it's a good idea to wear hi viz walking along dark roads?

Not really, it adds very little and if a driver is using their lights correctly, and dimming when they see the other road user, they disappear. A flashlight makes far more sense but then when I drive in the country I don't fly around at 80kmph. I drive at a speed that allows me to stop in the road I see to be clear. I often see pedestrians with no lights or hi vis before I reach them.

Donal55

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't think it adds much at all if the walker has a flashlight. If you're talking about night, all the jacket adds is a few reflective strips, as the fluorescent part does nothing once the sun is gone (no UV component in artificial light to make the material fluoresce).

I've walked on country roads at nights with just a flashlight. It's absolutely fine. I wouldn't be bothered bringing extra clothing with me, except to keep dry or warm.

Probably the same reason why Audax Ireland have the reflective sam browne belt plus lights as requirements on their overnight rides.

The belt does the same job.

tomasrojo

Yeah, Sam Brownes do much the same job at night really. And fold up and fit in a pocket neatly.

I have a repurposed Sam Browne that I use to keep my mini messenger bag closed and to add a small bit of "top" to the bike image generated by reflectors and lights. I keep it in the messenger bag, so I'd almost certainly use it if I was walking rural roads at night these days, in addition to a flashlight.

But if I didn't have it, I'd still be happy to walk with just the flashlight.

tomasrojo

Yeah, as we were discussing here very recently, the minimum legal specification for lights has gone without an update since the 60s (apart from making flashing lights legal). Adopting the German standards probably would be a good idea.

CramCycle

Donal55 wrote: »

Probably the same reason why Audax Ireland have the reflective sam browne belt plus lights as requirements on their overnight rides.

The belt does the same job.

Off topic but since when? I rode plenty of overnights and all that was required was that we follow the law. Good lights and working brakes were the only things that were checked. A few organisers insist on mudguards as a courtesy.

Donal55

CramCycle wrote: »

Off topic but since when? I rode plenty of overnights and all that was required was that we follow the law. Good lights and working brakes were the only things that were checked. A few organisers insist on mudguards as a courtesy.

Its in the rules now.

I love Sean nos

Shane Ross may be the most useless Minister for Transport ever, but he'll be a real boon to the high-vis manufacturing industry if he makes it mandatory for every motorist, bus passenger and train passenger to wear one.

Do we manufacture these in Ireland?

tomasrojo

Donal55 wrote: »

Its in the rules now.

3. For night riding front and back lights are mandatory. Riders must also wear a reflective vest, Sam Browne, sash or similar. This applies to ALL events of 300kms or more, at any time of year.

http://www.audaxireland.org/audax/rules/

I remember reading a forum thread somewhere else (USA) about night cycling in Audax, and the group wanted people to wear Sam Brownes. I got the impression it was fairly standard there for Audax.

High visibility manufacturers are headquartered in Ireland, but not sure they actually make them here.

E.g.:

Headquartered in Westport town, Portwest manufactures high-visibility clothing, flame resistant garments, footwear and other protective gear at its facilities in Bangladesh.

http://www.mayo.ie/news/the-new-owners-of-westport-house-have-bought-an-australian-workwear-brand-for-e7-5m/

CramCycle

Donal55 wrote: »

Its in the rules now.

That looks like they just copied the ACP rules for riding in France, rather than have rules for here. It is the law over there to wear hi vis at night time and you will get in trouble for not doing so. I have never seen or heard of it being enforced over here but I haven't been out for a year or two so maybe things have changed. Good to know if I start back.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

That looks like they just copied the ACP rules for riding in France, rather than have rules for here. It is the law over there to wear hi vis at night time and you will get in trouble for not doing so. I have never seen or heard of it being enforced over here but I haven't been out for a year or two so maybe things have changed. Good to know if I start back.

Yeah, but outside towns only, I think (obviously, that's the relevant bit for audax, I guess!):

Obligation pour tout cycliste circulant hors agglomération, de nuit ou de jour si visibilité mauvaise , de porter un gilet rétro-réfléchissant à partir du 1 septembre 2008.

The bit in bold means when you pass the sign for the town with the red line through it, I think.
I'd heard it was not enforced, but I could be misinformed.

(There's no requirement to have a fluorescent garment, just retroreflective, so a Sam Browne seems to be fine.)

Macy0161

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Do we manufacture these in Ireland?

Might be a rhetorical question, but I think there's a place in Mayo. I think the RSA also have buildings in Mayo...

tomasrojo wrote:

Yeah, Sam Brownes do much the same job at night really. And fold up and fit in a pocket neatly.

I'd actually have marginally less of an issue if the proposal was about reflective detail/ Browne belts, or reflective ankle and/or arm bands. I'd still disagree with making them mandatory, but the fecking obsession with builders vests is nonsence for night time - flourescent doesn't bloody work at night!

pablo128 wrote:

And in regard to walkers? Don't you think it's a good idea to wear hi viz walking along dark roads?.

I'd definitely put a decent torch above a builders vest, or really anything on the torso.

The focus on "hi viz" is essentially around mandatory builders vests. I could kind of see the point if it was a discussion about reflective material, such as Sam Browne or arm/ leg bands (4 for under a fiver regularly in lidl and aldi!).

Rural night time cycling, in addition to lights, I usually use reflective ankle bands. If I'm running, I usually go ankle and a head torch.

When I'm just walking, I've never had an issue with just a torch tbh - cars dip and/or indicate, so pretty sure they can see me. With just a builders vests, vehicles coming from both directions so everyone on dipped, even those with two working headlights would make me less visible in my experience as a driver.

The focus should be on lights and torches, and not the crap ones the RSA give out!

07Lapierre

Dont think ive ever seen so many Hi-Viz jackets in one place!

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21ALRSzuMdly4pRgk&v=photos&id=F631BF528DB18121%215436&cid=F631BF528DB18121

[Deleted User]

To quote an old advertising slogan “Be safe, be seen”

CramCycle

Again though, as described here, Hi Vis gives a false sense of security. On a country road, two cars approaching from different directions late at night dim their lights for each other. Anyone in hi Vis is no more visible than someone in Camo gear now. Whereas if they had lights, the change in illumination from the car lights would have no bearing, possibly making them even more visible once the approaching car dimmed its lights.

07Lapierre

Deleted User wrote: »

To quote an old advertising slogan “Be safe, be seen”

Which does work....as long as others are looking!

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/scarponi-driver-distracted-video-playing-smartphone-354403?utm_content=manual&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_term=cyclingweekly

crossmolinalad

For myself I always wear one on the bike
If you have to buy one always take a orange one never a yellow/green one
Couple of years ago the Dutch TNO did research on then and the orange ones came out as the best visible to wear in winter , fog ,dark and rainy conditions

tomasrojo

Orange is a poor colour choice if the driver approaching is colour-blind.

Just use very good lights. They work on everyone who can legally drive. You can even wave a flashlight if you're walking and you think the driver hasn't seen you. If that doesn't work, they're not looking at the road ahead, and at least you won't die dressed like a binman.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

To quote an old advertising slogan “Be safe, be seen”

Slogans are great for simplifying debate and ignoring actual facts, aren't they?

tomasrojo

"Slogans Simplify!

"I ♥ NUANCE!"

Macy0161

tomasrojo wrote: »

You can even wave a flashlight if you're walking and you think the driver hasn't seen you. If that doesn't work, they're not looking at the road ahead, and at least you won't die dressed like a binman.

I actually make sure the torch is moving when I'm walking and cars are coming. It's part of the reason ankle bands (and pedal reflectors) are more effective than torso as well - something moving vertically is more likely to be noticed than something static.

tomasrojo

Yeah, there was some Australian study where they found that knee and ankle reflectors were much more effective than jackets.