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

Chips Lovell

High-viz discussion has been moved to the High-viz megathread

07Lapierre

Brian wrote: »

Buy some black jeans.

Black jeans? nobody wears black jeans anymore!

Grassey

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If you don't want to ware hi viz clothing why not tie it to the Cross bar, handle bar or back of bike.

How does a piece of fabric tied in a knot around a a bar increase visibility? Won't the cyclists body obscure the double fist sized lump?

Think I'll stick with my DLR on the bike for commuting all the same

brianomc

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There was a lie down protest yesterday by cyclists. They wanted safer roads. It seems that cyclists safety is always someone else's responsibility. If you don't want to ware hi viz clothing why not tie it to the Cross bar, handle bar or back of bike.

What about those of us who have had front and rear lights on, wearing hi-vis top (fluorescent yellow gabba), fluorescent yellow gloves, helmet and still been hit by a van who turned left without indicating when I was going straight on?

His first excuse was that I came up his inside, I did, but the lack of an indicator told me he was going straight on. It was also an on-road cycle lane I was in, same as I was in when I passed everyone else on the inside. When I told him he wasn't even indicating his next excuse was that he didn't see me. SMIDSY

All the hi-viz and lights did SFA at the end of the day when he didn't look in his mirror. Clearly my fault though for being in the cycle lane. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Macy0161

My most recent near miss was on Saturday, when I got the "sorry I didn't see you" apology. Apart from it being a lovely bright day, I was wearing my retro Once Tour De France Pink Jersey. Not sure I could've been more hi viz - even my legs and arms were bright pink as I was sunburnt by that stage too!

[Deleted User]

My partner got a lovely new bright red jersey last week and I commented how she'd really stand out wearing it to which she laughed "not if the drivers aren't watching the road"

It's true though no amount of high vis clothing is going to counter the danger of inattention

[Deleted User]

brianomc wrote:

What about those of us who have had front and rear lights on, wearing hi-vis top (fluorescent yellow gabba), fluorescent yellow gloves, helmet and still been hit by a van who turned left without indicating when I was going straight on?

Maybe if you didn't dress brightly you would have been hit more often? Bright clothing might already have saved your life

brianomc

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Maybe if you didn't dress brightly you would have been hit more often? Bright clothing might already have saved your life

What I was wearing was irrelevant that day. The driver "didn't see me". I was dressed as most motorists want cyclists to dress, it made no difference. So hi-viz is not the be-all and end-all you want it to be.

07Lapierre

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Maybe if you didn't dress brightly you would have been hit more often? Bright clothing might already have saved your life

Of the 17 cyclists killed last year, only ONE was during the hours of darkness.

Visibility is not the problem, its Observation.

[Deleted User]

brianomc wrote:

What I was wearing was irrelevant that day. The driver "didn't see me". I was dressed as most motorists want cyclists to dress, it made no difference. So hi-viz is not the be-all and end-all you want it to be.

What you were wearing might have saved your life a different time.

The logic that someone wasn't looking so hi vis = useless is flawed. It's not the answer to all the problems but if I have a better chance of seeing you then I have a better chance of not hitting you.

Hi vis are very successful for road maintenance workers.

Fighting Tao

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What you were wearing might have saved your life a different time.

The logic that someone wasn't looking so hi vis = useless is flawed. It's not the answer to all the problems but if I have a better chance of seeing you then I have a better chance of not hitting you.

Hi vis are very successful for road maintenance workers.

What do you notice here? I presume it's the lights first.

Black jumps out more here:
WindowsLiveWriterHighVisibilityClothingRequirements_78FB3061436090_00dee33ca1_b_2.jpg

And when every other Tom, Dick and Harry is wearing it on the streets, it is ineffective.

As for the road maintenance workers, it is bits of hi-vis, not the plaster in a bright colour that people want cyclists to wear because they are too bloody lazy and self absorbed to drive with care.

brianomc

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What you were wearing might have saved your life a different time.

The logic that someone wasn't looking so hi vis = useless is flawed. It's not the answer to all the problems but if I have a better chance of seeing you then I have a better chance of not hitting you.

Hi vis are very successful for road maintenance workers.

I never said hi vis = useless, I said it was irrelevant "that day" because he "didn't see me". He would have had a better chance of not hitting me had he used his mirrors before turning. Had he looked he would have seen the brightest yellow yoke he had ever seen in his life. But he wasn't paying attention.

Anyway, I'm more in favour of contrasting colours to your background. And basically, in daylight there is no colour that a moving cyclist can wear that a driver shouldn't be able to see. Even wearing black and moving against hedgerows you can be seen, otherwise basically none of us would be here posting as we would all be dead. Why were we seen? Well the driver was paying attention, driving to suit the conditions.

There's plenty of instances of bridges (with hi-vis signs) being hit, garda/police cars, traffic wands, etc being hit by cars/trucks. Why were those hi-vis items hit? Driver inattention?

[Deleted User]

Fighting Tao wrote:

What do you notice here? I presume it's the lights first.

If my lights hit you I see the hi vi's clothing better than any bike light. Hi vis is hi vis. There is a hint in the name. There is a reason that it's compulsory for road maintenance workers. There is a reason that emergency response vehicles are hi vis worldwide. Just because you say it do work doesn't make it so.

Fighting Tao

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If my lights hit you I see the hi vi's clothing better than any bike light. Hi vis is hi vis. There is a hint in the name. There is a reason that it's compulsory for road maintenance workers. There is a reason that emergency response vehicles are hi vis worldwide. Just because you say it do work doesn't make it so.

So you are now talking exclusively about night time? Right so.... More cars crash into other cars and walls, trees etc than cyclists. Shouldn’t they be plastered in hi vis too?

Now for bike lights, mine can be seen from 2km away. You can drive like so many others without lights on the car and if you don’t see me then you shouldn’t be allowed near a motor vehicle.

Firemen don’t wear anything near full dayglo/hi vis clothing. Yet again it’s only partial in specific parts that move. Mainly arms and legs because they attract the most attention.

All that is going on in your head has already been answered in this thread. Have a read.

brianomc

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If my lights hit you I see the hi vi's clothing better than any bike light. Hi vis is hi vis. There is a hint in the name. There is a reason that it's compulsory for road maintenance workers. There is a reason that emergency response vehicles are hi vis worldwide. Just because you say it do work doesn't make it so.

You will see our lights way before your car lights have a chance to hit our hi-vis.

Fighting Tao

brianomc wrote: »

You will see our lights way before your car lights have a chance to hit our hi-vis.

The key word is ‘hit’. In an area with street lights car lights should not hit hi vis as dipped lights should only be used. Therefore, hi vis jerseys are pointless.

[Deleted User]

Fighting Tao wrote:

So you are now talking exclusively about night time? Right so.... More cars crash into other cars and walls, trees etc than cyclists. Shouldnâ€™t they be plastered in hi vis too?

You are deflecting. If hi vis doesn't work why does every developed country in the world use it in safety clothing, emergency vehicles etc.

BTW hi vis works very well during the day too but at night it's ridiculous to compare your little led light with a car or motorbikes lights.

Bottom line is we all have responsibility with our own safety. I'm sick to death of the RIP threads here on boards.ie. The loss of life is shocking. If hi vis saves one life per year then it is worth it. I don't find seat belts comfortable but I wear it.

Cyclists are some of the most vulnerable on the road and the hardest to see day or night. Anything that helps make you more visible has to be a good thing.

Over 40 years ago we wore reflective armbands going to school on the dark mornings.

Fighting Tao

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You are deflecting. If hi vis doesn't work why does every developed country in the world use it in safety clothing, emergency vehicles etc.

BTW hi vis works very well during the day too but at night it's ridiculous to compare your little led light with a car or motorbikes lights.

Bottom line is we all have responsibility with our own safety. I'm sick to death of the RIP threads here on boards.ie. The loss of life is shocking. If hi vis saves one life per year then it is worth it. I don't find seat belts comfortable but I wear it.

Cyclists are some of the most vulnerable on the road and the hardest to see day or night. Anything that helps make you more visible has to be a good thing.

Over 40 years ago we wore reflective armbands going to school on the dark mornings.

Thank you for coming here to tell me what is good for me. Drivers know best and should know their audience. I drive far more than I cycle and most cyclists drive too.

Have a look on the interwebs for See.Sense Icon+. They are the lights I’m running. If you can’t see them then you shouldn’t have a driving licence.

Dayglo is only good in the day if te conditions are right, not everyone is plastered in it (as they currently are and the situation is getting worse), and of drivers concentrate on driving. If drivers aren’t concentrating and driving to the conditions, a cyclist could look like a hi-vis Xmas tree and it won’t make an ounce of difference.

Contrasting colours are more noticeable and I say that as a driver.

On the Hi vis being used everywhere, it’s simple to shift the blame from drivers.

Anyway, what do you think about painting all walls and cars in hi vis for their safety?

Tenzor07

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Bottom line is we all have responsibility with our own safety. I'm sick to death of the RIP threads here on boards.ie. The loss of life is shocking. If hi vis saves one life per year then it is worth it. I don't find seat belts comfortable but I wear it.
Cyclists are some of the most vulnerable on the road and the hardest to see day or night. Anything that helps make you more visible has to be a good thing.

So what you're basically saying is Mandatory Hi-vis for all road users, due to the dangerous nature of our roads, which are the same as a construction site in your opinion.

Wouldn't you rather the root causes of the danger on the roads get addressed?

The lack of cycle infra, the lack of MPD laws, general lack of road traffic law enforcement by Gardai, parking in cycle lanes, dangerous overtaking, intimidation, careless and distracted driving.
Until those matters are fully resolved no amount of hi-vis clothing will prevent a truck from running you over...

07Lapierre

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You are deflecting. If hi vis doesn't work why does every developed country in the world use it in safety clothing, emergency vehicles etc.

BTW hi vis works very well during the day too but at night it's ridiculous to compare your little led light with a car or motorbikes lights.

Bottom line is we all have responsibility with our own safety. I'm sick to death of the RIP threads here on boards.ie. The loss of life is shocking. If hi vis saves one life per year then it is worth it. I don't find seat belts comfortable but I wear it.

Cyclists are some of the most vulnerable on the road and the hardest to see day or night. Anything that helps make you more visible has to be a good thing.

Over 40 years ago we wore reflective armbands going to school on the dark mornings.

How many people were killed in car crashes in Ireland last year?

I think we should introduce a law that all cars must have 5point restraints and bucket seats fitted as standard. All drivers and passengers must wear full face helmets with neck supports (same ones F1 drivers wear) .... after all..if it saves just one life it'll be worth it right?

Tenzor07

07Lapierre wrote: »

... after all..if it saves just one life it'll be worth it right?

Would rather see all motor vehicles become fitted with GPS tracked speed limiting devices, which can scan the area and it's speed limit therefore reducing the numbers of vehicles breaking the speed limits, sure if it saves one life...

07Lapierre

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Would rather see all motor vehicles become fitted with GPS tracked speed limiting devices, which can scan the area and it's speed limit therefore reducing the numbers of vehicles breaking the speed limits, sure if it saves one life...

Some cars already have this...the car will display the speed limit of the road your currently driving on. But of course, it's up to the driver to adhere to that speed limit.

Tenzor07

07Lapierre wrote: »

Some cars already have this...the car will display the speed limit of the road your currently driving on. But of course, it's up to the driver to adhere to that speed limit.

There are cars with auto braking and lane control, however to be truly effective the speed limiting devices must be compulsory for all new cars...

07Lapierre

Tenzor07 wrote: »

There are cars with auto braking and lane control, however to be truly effective the speed limiting devices must be compulsory for all new cars...

Yes, but sure that's not necessary....after all, to drive a car All drivers must pass a driving test..so they are clearly far superior to us mere cyclists (in my case I've been cycling for over 40 years and driving for over 30!)

[Deleted User]

Tenzor07 wrote:

So what you're basically saying is Mandatory Hi-vis for all road users, due to the dangerous nature of our roads, which are the same as a construction site in your opinion.

I never said mandatory anything.

Cyclists constantly moan about safety & quite rightly imo. However it's a bit rich wanting everything around you to change to make it safer yet there's plenty cyclists can do themselves.

Cyclists are the hardest to see on the road. It's in your power to make yourself more visible. Plenty of cyclists do this already.

I'm the motorist. I'll most likely be be OK if we ever have an accident. You are the vulnerable one. You need to protect yourself.

Fighting Tao

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I never said mandatory anything.

Cyclists constantly moan about safety & quite rightly imo. However it's a bit rich wanting everything around you to change to make it safer yet there's plenty cyclists can do themselves.

Cyclists are the hardest to see on the road. It's in your power to make yourself more visible. Plenty of cyclists do this already.

I'm the motorist. I'll most likely be be OK if we ever have an accident. You are the vulnerable one. You need to protect yourself.

I never thought "I never saw that cyclist". If you do not see cyclists then you are not concentrating on the task at hand.

[Deleted User]

Fighting Tao wrote:

I never thought "I never saw that cyclist". If you do not see cyclists then you are not concentrating on the task at hand.

Has to be the most ridiculous statement of the week.

I'm driving over 30 years & never hit anyone but it's hard to see cyclists at times. Some weave in & out of the traffic. Some go through red lights. I rarely see a hand signal. The best I can hope for is a half turn of your head so I as you want to change lane. I'm supposed to be a mind reader. I'm supposed to assume that the cyclist will break the red light. I'm to guess is he going straight or turning left because a hand signal is too much effort.

There used to be a road safety campaign. Think once, think twice, think bike. The gist of it was that motorbikes are much harder to see on the road. In fact invisible at times. Well bikes are twice as hard to see

All I'm saying is that cyclists have some responsibility for their own safety. You can't blame the big bad motorist for everything.

I've never gotten the whole cyclist against the motorist type of mentality or the motorist against the cyclist. We all share the same road

Tenzor07

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I never said mandatory anything.

You're basically on the cusp of calling for mandatory hi-vis

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Cyclists constantly moan about safety & quite rightly imo. However it's a bit rich wanting everything around you to change to make it safer yet there's plenty cyclists can do themselves.

"Moan" about safety, or just require that the government commit a sufficient percentage of the transport budget on cycling..

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Cyclists are the hardest to see on the road. It's in your power to make yourself more visible. Plenty of cyclists do this already.

"They" are if a distracted motorist is on the phone, looking onto the backseat, or driving too fast to be able to react to things on the road... Hi-vis won't protect your bones from a truck driver not paying attention..

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm the motorist. I'll most likely be be OK if we ever have an accident. You are the vulnerable one. You need to protect yourself.

Again, "protecting" yourself using a €20 piece of styrofoam and a €3 hi-vis vest isn't like wearing a kryptonite hat/vest when Superman is about to knock your head off, hi-vis won't stop a careless driver..!

Tenzor07

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm driving over 30 years & never hit anyone

All I'm saying is that cyclists have some responsibility for their own safety. You can't blame the big bad motorist for everything.

..doesn't mean anything...

You're still trying to shift the burden of responsibility for road safety onto the most vulnerable road users, don't you think that's wrong?

Fighting Tao

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Has to be the most ridiculous statement of the week.

I'm driving over 30 years & never hit anyone but it's hard to see cyclists at times. Some weave in & out of the traffic. Some go through red lights. I rarely see a hand signal. The best I can hope for is a half turn of your head so I as you want to change lane. I'm supposed to be a mind reader. I'm supposed to assume that the cyclist will break the red light. I'm to guess is he going straight or turning left because a hand signal is too much effort.

There used to be a road safety campaign. Think once, think twice, think bike. The gist of it was that motorbikes are much harder to see on the road. In fact invisible at times. Well bikes are twice as hard to see

All I'm saying is that cyclists have some responsibility for their own safety. You can't blame the big bad motorist for everything.

I've never gotten the whole cyclist against the motorist type of mentality or the motorist against the cyclist. We all share the same road

Thank you for not hitting anyone. Well done! From what you’re saying it sounds like you’ve been lucky and need to learn to use your mirrors better.