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

Grassey

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

Wasn't that slogan directed at using those new fangled light things on cars, back when they thought they'd never catch on?

Chips Lovell

I see even Minister Ross isn't immune to the safety fallacy.

“I am of the view that despite certain obstacles, this measure is worth pursuing, if it could save even one life.

Jesus wept.

07Lapierre

IMO, This article sums it up pretty well....

"The only thing Ross has achieved is to prove empty vessels make most noise"

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/the-only-thing-ross-has-achieved-is-to-prove-empty-vessels-make-most-noise-36204727.html

[Deleted User]

Grassey wrote: »

Wasn't that slogan directed at using those new fangled light things on cars, back when they thought they'd never catch on?

I've only seen it used in classic victim-blaming mode, where it attacks cyclists and pedestrians for not being visible to the speeding drivers who are updating their Facebook status.

I suppose something like 'Be safe - create an environment and culture where people can walk and cycle without being treated as 'strange people' and without having to wear specialised industrial clothing' just doesn't roll off the tongue quite so easily.

bladespin

Deleted User wrote:

To quote an old advertising slogan â€œBe safe, be seenâ€

Slogan for all - "use your effing eyes"
Would save a lot more lives.

Grassey

or "Use Common Sense...." *

*runs from can of worms

[Deleted User]

bladespin wrote: »

Slogan for all - "use your effing eyes"
Would save a lot more lives.

Indeed. But you must allow for the stupidity of other road users!

CantGetNoSleep

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Do we manufacture these in Ireland?

He'll make sure you need to buy them from a company owned by Denis O'Brien that doesn't even exist yet

Macy0161

Grassey wrote: »

or "Use Common Sense...." *

*runs from can of worms

Latest motors forum thread condoning law breaking (on many levels) --> here

But hey, the problem is a lack of hi viz as to why vulnerable road users keep getting killed on our roads....

Also another one asking is it ok to break red lights, and they're even talking about motorists when everyone knows it's only cyclists that jump lights!

I love Sean nos

Deleted User wrote: »

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

"Watch where the **** you're going" was another good one.

[Deleted User]

I love Sean nos wrote: »

"Watch where the **** you're going" was another good one.

That’s grand as long as the other ****er is watching where they’re going.

cdaly_

Deleted User wrote: »

That’s grand as long as the other ****er is watching where they’re going.

But that's grand, hi-vis will make them watch where they're going...

I love Sean nos

I don't think that high-vis will be effective if everyone has to wear it when outside of a building.

my3cents

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I don't think that high-vis will be effective if everyone has to wear it when outside of a building.

Why not?

my3cents

Weepsie wrote: »

HiViz isn't going to do anything for anyone's stupidity

The stupid ones will argue that they shouldn't need to wear Hi-vis and get run over so eventually we'll run out of stupid people - fat chance.

Grassey

Sure look at all those lads who blag their way into VIP events and so on, all wearing high vis. Made them invisible it did!

tomasrojo

my3cents wrote: »

Why not?

See how the hi-viz inexorably draws the eye.

Phoenix Wright

Does anyone know where it is possible to get an inexpensive hi-viz backpack cover? I find carrying around a vest to be a bit of a nuisance tbh, and ideally it would be a cover that doesn't have a huge RSA logo sticking out like a sore thumb

I love Sean nos

my3cents wrote: »

Why not?

Because everyone will be wearing it. It'll become ubiquitous and will no longer stand out.

[Deleted User]

Phoenix Wright wrote: »

Does anyone know where it is possible to get an inexpensive hi-viz backpack cover? I find carrying around a vest to be a bit of a nuisance tbh, and ideally it would be a cover that doesn't have a huge RSA logo sticking out like a sore thumb

Halfords do ridge branded ones for €12 , I just have a high vis vest to cover the backpack with the straps fed through the arm holes and my OH stitched some velcro straps on to it so it doesn't flap around, one use for those I guess :pac:

I just have to undo the velcro and pull it up to open up the bag

pablo128

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Because everyone will be wearing it. It'll become ubiquitous and will no longer stand out.

Oh right. No need for lights so, sure they become useless when every one uses them according to you.:rolleyes:

I love Sean nos

pablo128 wrote: »

Oh right. No need for lights so, sure they become useless when every one uses them according to you.:rolleyes:

Yes. Because high-vis and lights are the same thing. :rolleyes:

I love Sean nos

pablo128 wrote: »

Oh right. No need for lights so, sure they become useless when every one uses them according to you.:rolleyes:

Actually, you have a point. Whatever about everyone having to wear high-vis when outside, everyone having to carry lights and shining them all around the place whenever outside will be a pain in the hoop.

bladespin

Deleted User wrote:

Indeed. But you must allow for the stupidity of other road users!

True but tgey're not the ones guiding 2 tonnes of metal, if the drivet's not looking properly then dressing like doink wont make a difference.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

stopped on the roundabout crossing the M50 tonight, behind what i think was a hire car; there were no rear lights visible on the car (i think he was on DRLs and assumed his light was on).
i went up to his window and knocked to let him know, and in his confusion, rather than roll down the window to see what i was up to, he got out of the car - and i reckon he must have been sitting in first gear with the clutch fully pressed, because as soon as he started getting out, the car started to pull forward with him half out - one foot on the ground. it got about ten foot before he managed to get back in and stop it. luckily he was pulled up well before the lights to didn't hit anyone or roll through. that would have been an interesting one to explain.

magicbastarder

also, i was also just driving down a dark country road - with dipped beams - and could quite clearly see the reflective belts on the hi vis jackets the two pedestrians on the footpath a couple of hundred metres up ahead. i saw them much earlier than i otherwise would have, even with the lights dipped (the bright yellow colouring on the rest of the jacket only became visible much closer to them).
i bloody well loathe this argument that dipped beams will not illuminate a hi-vis jacket; of course it will. if your car does not cast any light outside the 'primary' area of your dips, that implies oncoming motorists would not see your lights, which is obviously not the case.

tomasrojo

Yeah, that's a fair point. But people often remember the times that reflective strips were dazzlingly bright, and that's usually when they had the headlights on high beam, or maybe were going uphill, lifting the beams a little. So that's a misleading impression of how effective reflective strips are. Plus people seem to think that the fluorescent part of the jacket is contributing to conspicuity at night, which it isn't. (I've had trouble convincing people that the green bit doesn't glow at night.)

So you're still left with Sam Brownes being as effective at night, and nowhere near as crappy-looking or inconvenient to carry, and flashlights still being way more effective, with the bonus of helping you to see your way, as well as be conspicuous.

tomasrojo

The RSA used to use Sam Brownes a lot more in their PR stuff, but I think the fact that they don't give them away has led them to fall out of favour. They are a lot more expensive than hi-viz waistcoats.

Which is a recurring theme in this thread: hi-viz jackets (single piece of fabric, no joins, no arms, simple arm-holes, closed with velcro) get promoted out of all proportion to how effective they are, because they cost about 50c each and can be stockpiled, distributed widely and give the impression that the real problem is how hard cyclists and pedestrians are to see, and that that problem has been addressed.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Plus people seem to think that the fluorescent part of the jacket is contributing to conspicuity at night, which it isn't. (I've had trouble convincing people that the green bit doesn't glow at night.)

yep, as mentioned, the fluorescent part of the jackets above had little effect compared to the retroreflective sections; worth noting that they were proper jackets too, not builders vests. possibly the case that the reflectors were of a higher quality.

CramCycle

In my many years of travelling on Irish and foreign roads there are only two scenarios (for me) where hi vis was discernibly noticeably different to just good eyesight and nothing else.

First was France where 800 other cyclists were wearing really high quality gilets with really good reflective strips. All the badly aligned lights made a see of silver bobbing across the French countryside.

The other are the reflective strips on the lower legs of council workers at night in south Dublin. Their legs were visible before anything else. At a reasonable speed it was more than enough to see them. If I were speeding or not paying attention it wasn't much use. I would have seen them anyway but the taxis speeding back into town probably wouldn't

My point is, I do not have anything against high vis except for the belief that it instills in a large proportion of the society that it is a substitute for good lights and that it makes you more visible in all situations.

That is a lie. This is not opinion, this is fact, those beliefs are more dangerous then not wearing hi vis.

If you have good lights you are more visible at night than someone wearing hi vis. Wearing hi vis may compliment this but in no way does it make you more noticeable than good lights.

There is no scenario where hi vis is better than good lights, there is no scenario where hi vis makes you more visible when you have good lights.

And all of this is being used as some excuse for people driving boxes, hundreds of kilos, for not driving with due care and attention (which is a far higher standard than expected by the Irish court system).