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

minikin wrote:

... reflective clothing tends not to stop functioning and is also useful during daylight hours.

Reflective jackets don't really work in urban environments under streetlights at night, that's non-functioning to me

07Lapierre

minikin wrote: »

That's great IF they have BRIGHT lights. Lights stop working, batteries die... reflective clothing tends not to stop functioning and is also useful during daylight hours.

Back up lights and/or Batteries.

Chips Lovell

If your lights fail, continuing to cycle, even with a high viz vest, is dangerous. You stop and walk. If you're doing any kind of mileage, having backup lights is always a good idea.

minikin

tomasrojo wrote: »

The person wearing black clothes is on top of a bike with bright lights, and you can see the lights. Slightly more complex physics: lights work better than reflective surfaces.

That's great IF they have BRIGHT lights. Lights stop working, batteries die... reflective clothing tends not to stop functioning and is also useful during daylight hours.

Nowhere have I suggested cyclists should wear reflective hi-vis instead of having lights. They should (and motor cyclists too) be lit up like christmas trees just the same as car/truck/bus drivers should drive with their lights on.

We should look after each other but also make it easy for others to help us.

I'd tend not to take safety advice from someone that cycles around with a brain spike attached.

tomasrojo

Grassey wrote: »

Whatever about that, they should be strung up for handing out those tiny little free lights that provide f all illumination, and are next to useless!

Yeah, unfortunately adequate lights cost more than €2. And adding 50c of hi-viz isn't the solution either. I suppose they could stipulate that the lights they're giving out aren't suitable to be used as a primary light, but on the whole they'd be better subsidising proper lights, even if that is more difficult to do (and I'm sure it's much more difficult than buying a grand's worth of button-battery lights and handing them out in the street).

magicbastarder

speaking of lights, i'm seeing a lot of people with those strings of leds that go around the inside of the rim - while not fantastically visible from behind, they're certainly visible from the side.

Lumen

pablo128 wrote: »

No one is stating that hi vis is a replacement for good lights. But there's no doubt both used together is better than either alone.

No, since any definition of "good lights" includes "providing high visibility to other road users". This is easy to achieve with modern led lights.

Once you have high visibility, more is not better. It's not even a question of diminishing returns, there are no returns. You can be seen. Problem solved.

But that's not the only argument. From a behavioural point of view, people who use hi vis tend to use poorer lights, and that hi vis doesn't work at all angles or in all conditions.

Besides which, I don't want to wear stupid unnecessary clothing whilst doing things that are already safe enough. I don't wear a hard hat in the shower, even though it would make the shower safer. I don't wear a helmet or HANS device whilst driving, even though it would improve my chances in a crash. Etc.

Grassey

Whatever about that, they should be strung up for handing out those tiny little free lights that provide f all illumination, and are next to useless!

Fighting Tao

I often wondered why the RSA put the blame on cyclists with the slogan “Be Safe, Be Seen.” On their backpack covers and other items.

“Be Safe. See!” Would be much better and directed at motorists as they are the ones that kill so many others on the roads.

pablo128

Deleted User wrote: »

Also good lights can be seen from much further away and don't require light cast on them to work or be affective. I'd wear reflective clothing at night but only as an addition, not a substitute for good lights.

I think someone post a few pages back an image or link to a t junction on a dark road, showing the difference between hi vis and lights in those situations. Worth a look.

No one is stating that hi vis is a replacement for good lights. But there's no doubt both used together is better than either alone.

[Deleted User]

Also good lights can be seen from much further away and don't require light cast on them to work or be affective. I'd wear reflective clothing at night but only as an addition, not a substitute for good lights.

I think someone post a few pages back an image or link to a t junction on a dark road, showing the difference between hi vis and lights in those situations. Worth a look.

tomasrojo

The person wearing black clothes is on top of a bike with bright lights, and you can see the lights. Slightly more complex physics: lights work better than reflective surfaces.

minikin

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mentioned clothing - lighting is a completely different story.

We see objects by the light reflected off them... the more reflective the clothing the more visible the object is. Black material absorbs light. Simple physics.

magicbastarder

minikin wrote: »

Let’s remove all illumination from all vehicles so 😀

you mentioned clothing - lighting is a completely different story.

minikin

magicbastarder wrote: »

you'd think, wouldn't you? but research does not seem to back your assertion.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=105610114

Let’s remove all illumination from all vehicles so 😀

magicbastarder

minikin wrote: »

When it comes to hivis, I haven’t seen that thread but surely people aren’t arguing that greater visibility is a bad thing??? That would be nuts.

you'd think, wouldn't you? but research does not seem to back your assertion.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=105610114

Lumen

minikin wrote: »

When it comes to hivis, I haven’t seen that thread but surely people aren’t arguing that greater visibility is a bad thing??? That would be nuts.

You should read the thread. It's great!

conkennedy

RobertFoster wrote: »

I bet he's annoyed she's wearing the same dress as him.

I hate when that happens. Usually happens to me on club spins!

RobertFoster

I bet he's annoyed she's wearing the same dress as him.

ThisRegard

conkennedy wrote: »

Looks like he's been friend zoned..... soooo depressed looking!

Yeah, my first thought too was that they're not on friendly terms.

conkennedy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Gotta love the young guy / gal proving that green/yellow hi-vis against green grass does not give good colour contrast.

Looks like he's been friend zoned..... soooo depressed looking!

[Deleted User]

ThisRegard wrote: »

Impressive display by the horse. I want to see cows next. Can't quite promise I'll use bike lights when out walking though, and they might be a but pointless on a motorcycle.

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/950744996847734784

Gotta love the young guy / gal proving that green/yellow hi-vis against green grass does not give good colour contrast.

conkennedy

ThisRegard wrote: »

Impressive display by the horse. I want to see cows next. Can't quite promise I'll use bike lights when out walking though, and they might be a but pointless on a motorcycle.

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/950744996847734784

Hmm... I'd be more concerned about the safety of the bloke on the bike with the kid. I had the same bell helmet when they came out in 1989!

ThisRegard

Impressive display by the horse. I want to see cows next. Can't quite promise I'll use bike lights when out walking though, and they might be a but pointless on a motorcycle.

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/950744996847734784

Oh look what Mayo CoCo also tweeted, word for word. You'd think they were written by the same person and that there was some manufacturer of such items located in the county or something.

https://twitter.com/MayoCoCo/status/950781579667951617

(I've no idea why both these have shown up on my feed this afternooon edit: (I do now, the Office of Emergency Planning is retweeting them.)

kirving

conkennedy wrote: »

This is the only thing you've said that makes sense. It's just your opinion. And only that, an opinion. It's not based on fact or evidence.

Evidence of which, first and foremost (which has been pointed out to you by other posters and moderators) that the motorist failed to yield which caused the accident.

A fact and evidence of which have been corroborated by the Gardaí - which they also pointed out the motorist failed to stop at the scene of an accident. Essentially, a hit and run and leaving me (unconscious) vulnerable to being run over by oncoming traffic.

You are way off topic on this. The discussion is on Hi-Vis. The argument is hi-vis doesn't make a difference as motorists are not bike-aware.

It's based on video evidence that was posted online and then in the thread -
I didn't bring it up. You haven't tackled the points I made on the video either, because I'm way too close to the truth. My assessment is that while the motorist initiated the event, you didn't make any reasonable effort to avoid it in the lead up to to it, or after you realised it was happening.

While the motorist was not bike-aware, you've got to remember to be car-aware.

buffalo wrote: »

I don't remember seeing anything about right of way over parked cars. Citation needed there. However, it does say you should "always be able to stop within a distance you can see to be clear" according to the RotR. You haven't followed the RotR, you are to blame.

And in the video posted, the cyclist could not stop in the distance he could see to be clear. I think it is absolutely reasonable to expect that the car may not see the cyclist due to the position of the sun and his speed.

Now the car SHOULD see him (day or night, all weather, whatever he's wearing), which is also a reasonable expectation - and the theme of this thread. The problem arises when the car doesn't see him, and the cyclist has put themselves in a difficult position because they expect the car to see them, and have left themselves with no escape route.

buffalo wrote: »

Again though, you've made it subjective - "I do the very best I can to avoid the collision". Who's the judge of what the best reaction is?

IN my view, removing your hand from the brake lever cannot possibly be construed as the best reaction. I think most people would agree.

tomasrojo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

You are, intentionally or otherwise, misrepresenting what I said.

My point here is this, and it relates to visibility and hi-vis in general.

We are sharing the road. If we as cyclists live by the letter of the law and refuse to make allowances for poor driving, people not looking out for or seeing us, and continue to take an us-and-them approaching to sharing the road, then cyclists will continue to die. As I said before, although most deaths are the drivers fault, cyclist continue to put themselves in positions where their life is in the drivers hands.

I'm not 100% sure what point you are making. The bolded bit seems to be the main point (apart from maybe an unintended innuendo that a lot of cyclists are insurance scammers).

I rather favour discretion over valour, and like to dress up deference as courtesy. But you can classify almost any manoeuvre as "putting your life in drivers' hands". For example, a simple right turn at a junction. Why don't you simply wait at the side of the road until all traffic has gone past? Why don't you use the pedestrian crossing? Oh sure, you have the *right* to make a simple right turn after signalling and carefully manoeuvring, but that's no good to you when you're dead.

conkennedy

Kevin Irving wrote: »

....but in my opinion....

This is the only thing you've said that makes sense. It's just your opinion. And only that, an opinion. It's not based on fact or evidence.

Evidence of which, first and foremost (which has been pointed out to you by other posters and moderators) that the motorist failed to yield which caused the accident.

A fact and evidence of which have been corroborated by the Gardaí - which they also pointed out the motorist failed to stop at the scene of an accident. Essentially, a hit and run and leaving me (unconscious) vulnerable to being run over by oncoming traffic.

You are way off topic on this. The discussion is on Hi-Vis. The argument is hi-vis doesn't make a difference as motorists are not bike-aware.

buffalo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

"Victim blaming" is an overused buzzword at this stage. Anyway, it's not the case here. If I'm driving along the road, come around a corner and see a car parked on a double yellow, I don't say "I don't need to brake, I have the right of way" and hit it. I do the very best I can to avoid the collision - whether I am legally required to or not. If I make a half-assed attempt to brake and hit the illegally parked car, then I would be partially to blame.

I don't remember seeing anything about right of way over parked cars. Citation needed there. However, it does say you should "always be able to stop within a distance you can see to be clear" according to the RotR. You haven't followed the RotR, you are to blame.

Again though, you've made it subjective - "I do the very best I can to avoid the collision". Who's the judge of what the best reaction is? I had a crash once where I avoided a car that pulled out in front of me by swerving around it. It was a split second reaction, and I then hit something else instead. I did my very best at the time, but in hindsight braking might've resulted in a lesser impact. Does my best fail the Kevin Irving test for fault?

kirving

CramCycle wrote: »

It is relevant but I think the point was we are getting into circular discussion. You appear that nothing will change your mind that the cyclist in the video is partially to blame, others disagree

The driver was partially to blame too, I didn't say otherwise, but in my opinion the cyclist made very little effort to stop once. Removing his hand from the brake lever demonstrates this. If it's like most bikes I've set up, the right side lever is the front brake and so provides the greatest braking power as the weight shifts forward. I can't fathom a reason why this wasn't used to it's full potential except for the fact the cyclist has a history of making Youtube videos of close passes and had the camera running at that point.

Dashcam drivers (I have one too) on Youtube consistently get closer than they need to to a collision in the hope of proving the other person wrong. Call my cynical if you like, but that's my observation.

buffalo wrote: »

I guess there's a sliding scale of 'effort' to be made in avoiding collisions - and everyone has their own place at drawing the line......

......You do c), and are hit by a car breaking the red light at speed from the side road. By your logic, the cyclist didn't do a or b, and therefore it was "a collision that was totally avoidable had the cyclist made an effort to do so."

Of course you do C), I'm not a complete lunatic, just looking at things objectivity rather than an anti-motorist viewpoint at all times. I am a cyclist too.

buffalo wrote: »

It's complete victim blaming, when the correct statement is that it was "a collision that was totally avoidable had the person driving the car followed the rules of the road."

"Victim blaming" is an overused buzzword at this stage. Anyway, it's not the case here. If I'm driving along the road, come around a corner and see a car parked on a double yellow, I don't say "I don't need to brake, I have the right of way" and hit it. I do the very best I can to avoid the collision - whether I am legally required to or not. If I make a half-assed attempt to brake and hit the illegally parked car, then I would be partially to blame.

buffalo wrote: »

Granted, we can all take measures to avoid idiots - but where do you draw the line? Why are you putting the fault on the cyclist for not having quick enough reactions, and not blaming the driver who failed to yield?

Agreed, but I draw the line long long before the following scenario.....

Not having any awareness that the sun to the right hand side of the car may affect visibility out the right side window. This is a key point.
Spotting a car approaching a roundabout, not slowing down to any great extent (look at the brake levers)
Leaning into the turn rather rather than assessing the situation and considering that the car may continue
Removing your hand from the brake lever
Making a gesture in annoyance
Putting it back
Finally braking
Then crashing.

The next time, it may be a truck's wheels. If you want to argue with a truck, you might not get a chance to debate the outcome in court is the sad reality.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Time for Cyclists Dismount signs at every junction. Can't be too careful.

You are, intentionally or otherwise, misrepresenting what I said.

My point here is this, and it relates to visibility and hi-vis in general.

We are sharing the road. If we as cyclists live by the letter of the law and refuse to make allowances for poor driving, people not looking out for or seeing us, and continue to take an us-and-them approaching to sharing the road, then cyclists will continue to die. As I said before, although most deaths are the drivers fault, cyclist continue to put themselves in positions where their life is in the drivers hands.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Time for Cyclists Dismount signs at every junction. Can't be too careful.

If it could save even one life...