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; } } }

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

flatface

Taken from cool gifs thread - Definitive proof that high vis will not stop a close pass

tomasrojo

Consistent with earlier research, estimates of response distance were, on the average, over three times greater than actual recognition distance. The extent to which participants overestimated conspicuity was greater when the pedestrian wore a retroreflective vest, and participants incorrectly judged that headlight glare would not degrade drivers' ability to see a pedestrian wearing a retroreflective vest.

These results confirm that road users' understanding of issues involving drivers' night vision is limited. These misunderstandings may result in road users behaving in ways that increase the risk of nighttime collisions with pedestrians.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25933995

conkennedy

gctest50 wrote: »

surely if he kept braking he'd stop a bit quicker ?

Clearly, gctest50 you haven’t a clue about the rules of the road and how you use a roundabout.

To clarify, I didn’t need to break; I have the right of way, if you disagree, that further shows our ignorance. The courts ruled in my favour.

gctest50 wrote: »

You'd want to off your game to employ him if he lets go of brakes like that.

Indeed, I am gainfully employed.

buffalo wrote: »

Perhaps you rushed off too quickly to actually pay attention to the video, as he points out he was wearing this:

Yes, the short sleeve version.

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Are you seriously questioning his employability because he's been the victim of a hit and run?

Looks like, gctest50 is indeed!

The real issue is not about hi-vis, the real issue is shifting the onus of blame in an accident. If Minister Ross managed to get his proposal into legislation, it would mean no matter the cause of an accident or death; the liability would then be on the cyclist if they were not wearing hi-vis… regardless of the motorist’s action. His proposals were shot down by the RSA. I'm told Ross is an ardent anti-cyclist.

It’s not about hi-vis, it's about paying attention to the road - both those videos show inattention form motorists.

Macy0161

CramCycle wrote: »

Anecdotally, most people give me a far higher wider berth and are more considered in their overtake.

I find motorists see me and give me much more space, whilst I'm wearing exactly the same gear as if I'm solo, when I'm out with my children. I'm more visible with them - children are obviously hi-viz!

I haven't noticed any difference in how I'm treated or how much space I'm given when I'm on my own for what I am wearing. The club gillet is "hiviz" yellow - I've had as many close and punishment passes in that as I've had in standard kit, both solo and when in a group when 6 out of 8 were in the gillet! Actually sometimes feels like they line you up better in the hi viz rather than give any more room or respect.

Grassey

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Wearing a hiz viz item is sensible in urban areas-

That's your opinion. On my cycle home in the evenings I see plenty of cyclists with a builder vest on, and no lights.. They are not very visible from a distance. Conversely I see cyclists with decent lights and no high vis and they are visible from hundreds of meters away. Egro highvis is pointless in an urban environment at night.

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

I find motorists see me and give me much more space, whilst I'm wearing exactly the same gear as if I'm solo, when I'm out with my children. I'm more visible with them - children are obviously hi-viz!

100%, child seat on the back gets me much more distance and waiting behind on blind corners or coming upto the top of a hill.

I love Sean nos

CramCycle wrote: »

100%, child seat on the back gets me much more distance and waiting behind on blind corners or coming upto the top of a hill.

Are you using the child as some form of periscope?

CramCycle

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Are you using the child as some form of periscope?

A good idea, he could stand on my shoulders. But no, I meant to say that other traffic gives a wider berth when overtaking and appears less likely to overtake in situations, that they shouldn't anyway but typically they would and I would have to brace to pull in or slowdown just in case.

tomasrojo

I find I get plenty of room with the child trailer, even though it's obvious there are no kids in it.

Mind you ...

[Deleted User]

I always was of the opinion that high-vis essentially costs nothing so you might as well wear one but now that I'm cycling home in the dark and I see other cyclists close up on the roads... they really aren't that effective. Vests and jackets and stuff are actually much more effective during the day I find. I still have some high-vis stuff on, an ankle strap and I put a vest over my pannier bag but lights are the way to go, without a doubt. My bike has in-built front and rear lights but I'm going to buy another one for the back that flashes.

I still think it's sensible to have some sort of high-vis elements on you when cycling. Even if it makes you 1% more visible.

OleRodrigo

Grassey wrote: »

That's your opinion. On my cycle home in the evenings I see plenty of cyclists with a builder vest on, and no lights.. They are not very visible from a distance. Conversely I see cyclists with decent lights and no high vis and they are visible from hundreds of meters away. Egro highvis is pointless in an urban environment at night.

Not going to disappear down a rabbit hole of pointless debate. Ive already had my post deleted for making my thoughts known.

Do what you like. I'll trust my instinct and experience.

[Deleted User]

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Do what you like. I'll trust my instinct and experience.

Do you expect others to trust your instinct and experience too?

uck51js9zml2yt

ImðŸ˜‚ driving a lot more than cycling these days.
Interesting the amount of people who have hi Viz and either no lights of weak ones. Not to mention those who have bright lights turned on but half hidden by something else.
Hi viz is useful but lights are essential.
I cycle with a hi Viz cycle jacket and lights.
It's a case of anything to make the cyclist more visible.

Of course there are the idiots who wear black, have no hi Viz and no lights and expect to be seen!

pablo128

Grassey wrote: »

That's your opinion. On my cycle home in the evenings I see plenty of cyclists with a builder vest on, and no lights.. They are not very visible from a distance. Conversely I see cyclists with decent lights and no high vis and they are visible from hundreds of meters away. Egro highvis is pointless in an urban environment at night.

I haven't seen one person on this thread suggesting hi vis is to be used instead of lights.

Yet I see a number of posters bringing it up as an argument. Its getting old at this stage.

Grassey

pablo128 wrote:

Yet I see a number of posters bringing it up as an argument. Its getting old at this stage.

About as old as 'it's common sense to wear high vis therfore it should be made mandatory by legislation immediately... If it saves just one life' argument.

pablo128

Grassey wrote: »

About as old as 'it's common sense to wear high vis therfore it should be made mandatory by legislation immediately... If it saves just one life' argument.

There you go again. I haven't seen one person on this thread suggest that.

tomasrojo

There are definitely people who use hiviz instead of lights. It's cheaper (often free), and requires no maintenance or charging. And, in particular, if you wear it, the Gardaí are unlikely to bother you for not having lights.

In fact:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=105066582#post105066582

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

There are definitely people who use hiviz instead of lights. It's cheaper (often free), and requires no maintenance or charging. And, in particular, if you wear it, the Gardare unlikely to bother you for not having lights.

In fact:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=105066582#post105066582

And hence it becomes "unofficial" law, the AGS are running a PR campaign with the RSA and their Mayo friends, and before long, if it has not already happened, gardai will ignore cyclists with no lights if they have Hi Vis and courts will let cyclists with Hi vis and no lights off the hook, versus a cyclists with better than decent lights will get put against the wall and shot.

12 element

Can't stand seeing this stuff: http://www.mayonews.ie/news/31112-mulroy-calls-for-fines-for-pedestrians-not-wearing-hi-vis

The worst is all the people on his Facebook page telling him what a great idea it is!

Pinch Flat

12 element wrote: »

Can't stand seeing this stuff: http://www.mayonews.ie/news/31112-mulroy-calls-for-fines-for-pedestrians-not-wearing-hi-vis

The worst is all the people on his Facebook page telling him what a great idea it is!

We've followed the UK's lead in the infiltration of hi-vis to every walk of life, to the extent it's becoming more and more ridiculous. I have to wear a hi-vis vest as a GAA coach to make me stand out - despite my team consisting of 11 year old boys, me wearing the club colours and being over 6 foot in height. But hey, it's the rule so i just go with the flow.:rolleyes:

Ireland (and the UK) are car dominated and car centric countries. We facilitate the private car over almost all other forms of transport.

It's all about deflecting any possible blame from the motorist, a defense of "sure he had no hi-vis, I just ran into him" will soon become acceptable. Takes all responsibility for driving according to the conditions, weather, vehicle condition etc away form the motorist and places it squarely back with the pedestrian.

ThisRegard

12 element wrote: »

Can't stand seeing this stuff: http://www.mayonews.ie/news/31112-mulroy-calls-for-fines-for-pedestrians-not-wearing-hi-vis

The worst is all the people on his Facebook page telling him what a great idea it is!

On a country lane during the week near dusk, wearing a high vis (proper running one) as I was out for a run, and I still got buzzed by a dick in a golf on a country lane. Every other driver slowed and gave me space, this asshole gave the impression he wasn't looking out his windscreen or didn't care, as I realised he wasn't slowing or moving over despite me waving to do so as he got closer.

I'm happy in the knowledge that I know where he lives if it happens again, had he paid attention he'd know I'm a regular on the road outside his house.

07Lapierre

ThisRegard wrote: »

On a country lane during the week near dusk, wearing a high vis (proper running one) as I was out for a run, and I still got buzzed by a dick in a golf on a country lane. Every other driver slowed and gave me space, this asshole gave the impression he wasn't looking out his windscreen or didn't care, as I realised he wasn't slowing or moving over despite me waving to do so as he got closer.

I'm happy in the knowledge that I know where he lives if it happens again, had he paid attention he'd know I'm a regular on the road outside his house.

I suspect he's the type that assumes that as long as he doesn't actually hit you, he doesn't have to move over (or even slow down)!

IMO, these are the most dangerous drivers on our roads.

CramCycle

12 element wrote: »

Can't stand seeing this stuff: http://www.mayonews.ie/news/31112-mulroy-calls-for-fines-for-pedestrians-not-wearing-hi-vis

The worst is all the people on his Facebook page telling him what a great idea it is!

but if does save a life

Shock horror as MAYO Councillor, pushes for Hi Vis. I can't imagine who would benefit most out of this. Odd they never call for torches, or enforcement of the RTA, or maybe mandatory black boxes in cars etc. Stuff that may actually change behaviour.

All this will do, efficacy aside, is encourage drivers to go faster than conditions allow as they presume they will see everyone in good time (on a windy road) and that if they don't, well then it must be faulty Hi Vis or the person deserved it because they did not wear Hi Vis.

tomasrojo

but if does save a life

The "J1L" defence is a handy indicator of someone about to perform evidence-free blame shifting.

tigerboon

Pinch Flat wrote: »

We've followed the UK's lead in the infiltration of hi-vis to every walk of life, to the extent it's becoming more and more ridiculous. I have to wear a hi-vis vest as a GAA coach to make me stand out - despite my team consisting of 11 year old boys, me wearing the club colours and being over 6 foot in height. But hey, it's the rule so i just go with the flow.:rolleyes:

In fairness I think it's so the ref knows which voice from the rabid screaming mob of parents to listen to

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/qikipedia/status/942544941250514944

RobertFoster

Meeting Rudolph coming towards you on a dark night would be very confusing.

Melodeon

RobertFoster wrote: »

Meeting Rudolph coming towards you on a dark night would be very confusing.

Doubly so because he has his red light on the front!

kirving

conkennedy wrote: »

Clearly, gctest50 you haven’t a clue about the rules of the road and how you use a roundabout.

To clarify, I didn’t need to break; I have the right of way, if you disagree, that further shows our ignorance. The courts ruled in my favour.

This is exactly the type of attitude that leads to dead cyclists.

"I didn't need to yield for the truck turning left, I have right of way and he should see me".

If you want to exploit your own vulnerability to prove a point and get some cash out of an insurance company, go ahead, but the next time it might mean you aren't coming home to you family. I'm a cyclist who has been injured by the way, and the vast majority of dangerous incidents that I see may legally lay the blame on the driver, but the cyclist has put themselves in a legally allowable, but othewise stupid position.

buffalo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

This is exactly the type of attitude that leads to dead cyclists.

"I didn't need to yield for the truck turning left, I have right of way and he should see me".

What truck turning left?