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

tomasrojo

Dublin Cycling Campaign on the streets giving out ...

LIGHTS!

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/924594516681805825

EDIT: more here:
http://dublincycling.com/cycling/light-your-bike

It’s also important to note that so-called hi-vis clothing is not a valid substitute for lights on your bike, nor is there any legal requirement to wear hi-vis. If you think you can get away without lights by wearing hi-vis clothing, you are mistaken.

I love Sean nos

CramCycle wrote: »

In regards this conversation, does it matter. The media rarely come put and clarify after and the damage is already done. Parents don't let their kids cycle, people choose not too cycle due to being misled. Once people make the decision not too, I imagine its rare they change their mind after a certain age.

As part of the greater thread subject? No. But I'd still like to know whether it forms part of the Garda technical investigation, as claimed.

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m sure that it would come out in the technical examination that takes place after a serious or fatal accident.

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Anyone able to confirm that? There must be a guard or two on this forum.

In regards this conversation, does it matter. The media rarely come put and clarify after and the damage is already done. Parents don't let their kids cycle, people choose not too cycle due to being misled. Once people make the decision not too, I imagine its rare they change their mind after a certain age.

I love Sean nos

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m sure that it would come out in the technical examination that takes place after a serious or fatal accident.

Anyone able to confirm that? There must be a guard or two on this forum.

[Deleted User]

I love Sean nos wrote: »

True. My point is that the question isn't even asked. There's a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. We're told that the driver is unhurt and that the cyclist/pedestrian is injured/dead. We're then told whether high-vis or helmet was in use by the pedestrian without fail. The implication being that the person hit by the vehicle somehow contributed to it. No mention of whether the vehicle had properly functioning lights or whether the driver could see properly.

I always find that strange.

I don't know why it's not part of the collision investigation process. There's a crash. The driver is tested for alcohol and also drug use. Why not a check that the driver could see where he/she was going? Why is it still okay to use an honour system that allows a driver to submit an eyesight report at 17 and then not have to do it again until 70?

I don't think we're great at checking out whether the driver's mobile phone was in use at the time of the crash. This comes up fairly frequently in the UK.

[Deleted User]

I love Sean nos wrote: »

True. My point is that the question isn't even asked. There's a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. We're told that the driver is unhurt and that the cyclist/pedestrian is injured/dead. We're then told whether high-vis or helmet was in use by the pedestrian without fail. The implication being that the person hit by the vehicle somehow contributed to it. No mention of whether the vehicle had properly functioning lights or whether the driver could see properly.

I always find that strange.

I don't know why it's not part of the collision investigation process. There's a crash. The driver is tested for alcohol and also drug use. Why not a check that the driver could see where he/she was going? Why is it still okay to use an honour system that allows a driver to submit an eyesight report at 17 and then not have to do it again until 70?

I’m sure that it would come out in the technical examination that takes place after a serious or fatal accident.

I love Sean nos

HivemindXX wrote: »

I don't think faulty lights or bad eyesight is the main issue, but inattention and speed.

True. My point is that the question isn't even asked. There's a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. We're told that the driver is unhurt and that the cyclist/pedestrian is injured/dead. We're then told whether high-vis or helmet was in use by the pedestrian without fail. The implication being that the person hit by the vehicle somehow contributed to it. No mention of whether the vehicle had properly functioning lights or whether the driver could see properly.

I always find that strange.

I don't know why it's not part of the collision investigation process. There's a crash. The driver is tested for alcohol and also drug use. Why not a check that the driver could see where he/she was going? Why is it still okay to use an honour system that allows a driver to submit an eyesight report at 17 and then not have to do it again until 70?

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose it’s a bit like the old saying “Look after the pennies and the pounds will mind themselves “. In other words, small things do make a difference. So, be safe. Be seen.

"Be Safe, Be Seen" is one of the more pernicious frames we allow in public discourse. In just four words it gets across the largely wrong message that the main problem with cyclists and pedestrians is that they're practically invisible, and on top of that, it's their responsibility to do something about it.

It's a remarkably hard-working four-word combination.

HivemindXX

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Not surprising. Whenever there's a report of something getting hit by a car at night, there's always mention of whether the pedestrian or cyclist had high-vis. Not a word on whether the vehicle's lights were functioning or the state of the driver's eyesight.

I don't think faulty lights or bad eyesight is the main issue, but inattention and speed.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose it’s a bit like the old saying “Look after the pennies and the pounds will mind themselves “.

In this context, it would be a bit like saying "Look after the pennies, while pi$$ing away the pounds over there" - not quite a recipe for a good outcome.

[Deleted User]

07Lapierre wrote: »

That slogan is too short. It should be: “be safe, be seen and watch out for and respect other road users”

Indeed.

07Lapierre

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose it’s a bit like the old saying “Look after the pennies and the pounds will mind themselves “. In other words, small things do make a difference. So, be safe. Be seen.

That slogan is too short. It should be: “be safe, be seen and watch out for and respect other road users”

[Deleted User]

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you take an average over recent years instead of just one year, you'll get close enough to that figure. But you got my point generally - you refer to this scenario as a 'disaster', but in terms of death statistics, it is a very minor issue. Every week, motorists kill other motorists due to speeding, texting, drinking - yet people get very obsessed about what cyclists/walkers need to do to behave.

Why do people get so obsessed with the minor issue while ignoring the causes of the vast majority of road deaths?

I suppose it’s a bit like the old saying “Look after the pennies and the pounds will mind themselves “. In other words, small things do make a difference. So, be safe. Be seen.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? These figures say differently. http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

If you take an average over recent years instead of just one year, you'll get close enough to that figure. But you got my point generally - you refer to this scenario as a 'disaster', but in terms of death statistics, it is a very minor issue. Every week, motorists kill other motorists due to speeding, texting, drinking - yet people get very obsessed about what cyclists/walkers need to do to behave.

Why do people get so obsessed with the minor issue while ignoring the causes of the vast majority of road deaths?

[Deleted User]

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And yet, the 'disaster' contributes one or two road deaths each year, as far as I can work out. Whereas motorists crashing into other motorists contributes about 150 road deaths each year. Where is the real disaster, Mary Anne?

Really? These figures say differently. http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Walking or cycling along unlit country roads, wearing dark clothes and listening to headphones is a recipe for disaster.

And yet, the 'disaster' contributes one or two road deaths each year, as far as I can work out. Whereas motorists crashing into other motorists contributes about 150 road deaths each year. Where is the real disaster, Mary Anne?

[Deleted User]

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Not surprising. Whenever there's a report of something getting hit by a car at night, there's always mention of whether the pedestrian or cyclist had high-vis. Not a word on whether the vehicle's lights were functioning or the state of the driver's eyesight.

That is a very good point. I drove from Clonmel to Kilkenny one evening (7pm) last week and was surprised at the number of vehicles with one faulty headlight.

Every road user should take measures to ensure their own safety. One of the main ones is that they can be seen by other road users and are aware of their surroundings. Walking or cycling along unlit country roads, wearing dark clothes and listening to headphones is a recipe for disaster. Likewise, driving with faulty lights.

what_traffic

what_traffic wrote: »

Surprised no mention of the EY Entreprenur of the Year 2017 in this thread.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1027/915597-entrepreneur-of-the-year-award/

RSA is one of the top Irish Customers that they have. Helps I guess that they are both located in Mayo.

So the question we should ask - what global Bike Light Manufacturer can we get to relocate their European Headquarters into Ballina?

I love Sean nos

ThisRegard wrote: »

Typical. Not that motorists should be more aware of their surroundings and drive to meet the conditions, nope, cyclists and pedestrians, the onus is on you.

Not surprising. Whenever there's a report of something getting hit by a car at night, there's always mention of whether the pedestrian or cyclist had high-vis. Not a word on whether the vehicle's lights were functioning or the state of the driver's eyesight.

what_traffic

Surprised no mention of the EY Entreprenur of the Year 2017 in this thread.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1027/915597-entrepreneur-of-the-year-award/

RSA is one of the top Irish Customers that they have. Helps I guess that they are both located in Mayo.

Pinch Flat

cdaly_ wrote: »

I'm planning to fit a high-power light to my bibshorts so that I'll know that the sun shines out of my ar....

You need one of these (or a pair, as it would seem.....) :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7Z6Y0YNQGg

Chips Lovell

magicbastarder wrote: »

i expect shane ross will now announce they are looking into the idea of making fluorescent trousers mandatory for cyclists.

Like these?

cdaly_

mp31 wrote: »

Fluorescent yellow bibs help improve your daytime visibility to drivers...?

I'm planning to fit a high-power light to my bibshorts so that I'll know that the sun shines out of my ar....

Macy0161

plodder wrote: »

It's worth reading the abstract, because it's not saying that hi-viz vests are the answer - rather that high-viz leggings are. It's the motion of the lower legs together with the hi-viz material. Makes sense to me. I'd like to see exactly what they used in the test, but I doubt it was fluourescent trousers either. I think hi-viz leg warmers (if they exist) or even just elasticated strips might do it.

Many who are anti builders vests have said this many times before that the best place for reflective material is the ankles! The torso is the least effective.

Ankle/ Arm bands are available periodically in Aldi and Lidl - 4 for a fiver, also have 4 blinking LEDs. You can pick up alternative options in most sports stores.

There was always logic in when they had the reflectors in the pedals!

magicbastarder

plodder wrote: »

I think hi-viz leg warmers (if they exist) or even just elasticated strips might do it.

i bought a pair or two in aldi about a year ago, never used them cos they're kinda uncomfortable.

ThisRegard

Pinch Flat wrote: »

It would be nice to see a statement like "can motorists make sure they have both headlights working, as functioning dipped headlights are vital in illuminating the left hand verge where pedestrians may be walking. Also be mindful of pedestrians on narrow country roads, particularly at sharp bends. Please slow down and expect the unexpected on these dark evenings".

The problem I have with the mentality of the RSA, Ross and now the gardai is that some motorists, and we've all experienced it, will have the attitude that you shouldn't be on the road without such a vest and do a punishment pass/horn blare/shout abuse, because, for want of a better word, they've been enabled to do so by those they see as authority figures on this.

plodder

mp31 wrote: »

Saw this via a tweet http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1541931213601954?platform=hootsuite&

Just waiting for this to be trotted out by Shane Ross and his minions as the high viz solution for cyclists

It's worth reading the abstract, because it's not saying that hi-viz vests are the answer - rather that high-viz leggings are. It's the motion of the lower legs together with the hi-viz material. Makes sense to me. I'd like to see exactly what they used in the test, but I doubt it was fluourescent trousers either. I think hi-viz leg warmers (if they exist) or even just elasticated strips might do it.

.. and just to add, I still don't think they should be mandatory. Test conditions don't necessarily reflect reality etc etc, but I think I'd be interested in trying something out.

Pinch Flat

ThisRegard wrote: »

Typical. Not that motorists should be more aware of their surroundings and drive to meet the conditions, nope, cyclists and pedestrians, the onus is on you.

It would be nice to see a statement like "can motorists make sure they have both headlights working, as functioning dipped headlights are vital in illuminating the left hand verge where pedestrians may be walking. Also be mindful of pedestrians on narrow country roads, particularly at sharp bends. Please slow down and expect the unexpected on these dark evenings".

ThisRegard

mamax wrote: »

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/garda-cyclists-hi-vis-clothing/

“The evenings are getting darker and particularly so as the clocks going back this weekend,” said Minister for Transport Shane Ross RD (Ind).

“So it is vital that pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are clearly visible to drivers, especially on dark unlit rural roads.

Typical. Not that motorists should be more aware of their surroundings and drive to meet the conditions, nope, cyclists and pedestrians, the onus is on you.

magicbastarder

mp31 wrote: »

Saw this via a tweet http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1541931213601954?platform=hootsuite&

Just waiting for this to be trotted out by Shane Ross and his minions as the high viz solution for cyclists

will need to bookmark that.
i expect shane ross will now announce they are looking into the idea of making fluorescent trousers mandatory for cyclists.