The Kop wrote: » Who the **** are you to be telling anyone what they should and shouldn't be explaining. You're like a broken ****ing record.. blah blah blah motorists this and motorists that.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Shame on them indeed, but from their POV, it has been remarkably successful. They have normalised dressing like a builder. You see it now for kids being brought on an outing, for many cyclists on the road during daylight/summer hours, for Operation Transformation groups doing walks within public parks - hi-vis madness.
dense wrote: » The stuff is called Hi Viz for a reason, its not low viz or medium viz.
Podge_irl wrote: » That reason being marketing mostly Hi viz during the daytime is firstly pointless but it goes beyond that. Because if you think you are more visible wearing it then you are generally incorrect. You should not take on a false sense of security by wearing it.
Podge_irl wrote: » Hi viz during the daytime is firstly pointless but it goes beyond that. Because if you think you are more visible wearing it then you are generally incorrect. You should not take on a false sense of security by wearing it.
dense wrote: » This is so genuinely true. I live on a rural narrow bendy road. If I cycle I wear Hi Viz. If I bring the kids for a walk we all bloody well wear Hi Viz. We look like idiots. But I encourage them to wear it because if we were to be in an accident and we weren't wearing Hi Viz I'd be feeling guilty that it could have been prevented had we been wearing Hi Viz. Looking silly I can just about handle. The stuff is called Hi Viz for a reason, its not low viz or medium viz. And I do think the more you see of it the less it registers, but I personally think it stands out well, so well that drivers are now almost spoiled to expect to see pedestrians and cyclist in Hi Viz, and have become, or will become lazy spotting people not wearing it.
07Lapierre wrote: » Be wary of hi-viz in daylight hours in rural areas. When the sun is setting it is YELLOW and at the moment, and if it shines through trees, it makes everything very YELLOW and bright. Also, a lot of the hedge roads are YELLOW due to lack of rain. If you want to stand out, (as opposed to blending in with your surroundings) wear black and white stripes!
dense wrote: » So now we're going to have to look like fookin jockeys instead of builders?? It gets worse!!
07Lapierre wrote: » Mad isn't it? The things we have to do to help the poor motorists continue to drive at 100+ kph on narrow rural roads! I'm just home form my cycle. I was on my black bike, wearing black shorts, a black jersey and black socks! Made it home without incident!
Jennehy wrote: » They do be checking out each other tools too in the tight shorts. This is why they want to cycle beside each other.
07Lapierre wrote: » I was on my black bike, wearing black shorts, a black jersey and black socks! Made it home without incident!
gmacww wrote: » Were they priest socks because if they weren't I'd say if you looked close you'd notice they aren't black just very very very very very very VERY very dark navy.
Boom_Bap wrote: » Nothing wrong with admiring another mans bulge.
Baron de Charlus wrote: » Nobody is arguing with you about that though.
_Dara_ wrote: » Former avid cyclist here. Not using lights on a bike in the appropriate weather or lighting conditions is indefensible and needs to be punished. I live in Dublin now but grew up rurally and cyclists without lights were absolutely a hazard. In twilight and at night, you could barely see them until the last minute and I have a father who is an incredibly careful driver. Even he nearly got caught out a few times. I would never have dreamt of using my bike in twilight, dusk or at night without working lights. Hell, even on dull winter’s days, I’d use them. Cars with broken lights are pretty rare to see but cyclists without lights are quite common. I don’t know if high vis garments are necessary but lights absolutely are. You are doing yourself no favours here.
dense wrote: » But I encourage them to wear it because if we were to be in an accident and we weren't wearing Hi Viz I'd be feeling guilty that it could have been prevented had we been wearing Hi Viz.
P_1 wrote: » Dayglo yellow is a very bad choice of colour to be so ubiquitous. It just doesnt stand out. Contrasting colours with a reflective strip or a reflective pattern are much more effective.
Jennehy wrote: » If that is the jazz that excites you.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You knew that I was referring to Ireland, given the previous context. So I'm happy to clarify that the 'no-one killed by a cyclist in the last 15 years' claim refers to Ireland, if that helps. But if you do want to look at the UK figures, maybe you'd like to reflect on the 1700 odd people killed by motorists each year in UK. That's 4 or 5 people killed each day by motorists (usually including 1 or 2 pedestrians) , compared to 2 or 3 each year by cyclists. That's more people killed on any day by motorists than in the entire year by cyclists. So tell me again what's the priority issue that needs to be fixed?
Balanadan wrote: » So you're saying you want them to invest in roads to make them safer?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I don’t think you’re really done your homework here. Did you check out the RSA analyses of road death reports? Check out this one, from the Gardai, which specifically refers to ‘collisions’:http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Provisional_Reviews_of_Fatal_Collisions/Provisional%20Review%20of%20Fatal%20Collisions%20Jan%20to%2030%20June%202018.pdf or this one, from the RSA:http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Provisional_Reviews_of_Fatal_Collisions/RSA%20Provisional%20Review%20of%20Fatalities%2031%20December%202017.pdf The vast majority of road deaths are motorists killing motorists – no cyclist and no pedestrian involved in about 75% of road deaths, so one or other motorist is at fault, or indeed both. There are a tiny number of road deaths that don’t involve motorists – I know of two or three such cases where cyclists have died without any motorist involved. There was also the case of the cyclist killed in the Phoenix Park last year when a pedestrian stepped into his path. But those are very much the exception to the rule. The fast majority of road deaths involve motorists. I remember one sad case from the Sandyford overpass involving a young lady. You can still see flowers left out there from time to time. I’d be very surprised if the RSA included these as road deaths – do you have a source for this please?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The evidence suggests otherwise. It certainly doesn't stand out against foliage in much of the country, something the Drivers Defence League seem to have failed to notice when they published this picture. I generally go for red jerseys if I can find them when I'm stocking up from the Aldi or Lidl specials bin .
prinzeugen wrote: » The RSA & Garda included it in the road death figures as it was a death on the road.
meeeeh wrote: » People kill with knives so chefs kill people. Let's ban restaurants. That's approximately how logic works in this thread.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » As I asked earlier, what's your source for this? .
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
