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

magicbastarder

Seweryn wrote: »

No, EV cars do not help reducing emissions. The emissions come from manufacturing, mining, end of life recycling (and generating electricity required to power the vehicles)...

to quote ben goldacre, 'it's complicated'.
obviously petrol/diesel is a lot easier to calculate the figures on as they're a more standard fuel than electricity - driving a petrol car here, and driving one in norway will result in similar tailpipe and lifespan CO2.
but comparing EVs in ireland and norway is completely different because the vast majority of their electricity is hydro, and the majority of ours is from fossil fuels.

then you have the complicating factor of the mining and manufacture, and add into that, that with cars, it's usually easiest to distil the emissions issue to CO2, whereas an EV will have much lower particulate/NOX/etc. emissions, which are the ones which play more into the effects of cars on urban air quality.
and you still have tyre dust from EVs (possibly brake dust, i guess, if they're using traditional brakes).

some interesting reading here, you can see the different numbers the different car types and different energy sources produce:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2017/dec/25/how-green-are-electric-cars

Grassey

average_runner wrote:

We should walk around naked instead with no shoes

But not until the excess fat has been burned off please.

Seweryn

average_runner wrote: »

You can say the same for the bike frames, tyres, puncture repair kids, the gear people wear, it all adds to the emissions.

The same for the heating in our offices and buildings etc.

We should walk around naked instead with no shoes:D

No, the core of the problem (the elephant...) is very obvious, but very few people are able to see it.

And we are derailing from the subject a little

tomasrojo

average_runner wrote: »

You can say the same for the bike frames, tyres, puncture repair kids, the gear people wear, it all adds to the emissions.

The same for the heating in our offices and buildings etc.

We should walk around naked instead with no shoes:D

No, they were washing bikes.

http://irishcycle.com/2018/06/13/dublin-bicycle-shop-hit-with-e150-fine-after-children-stuck-up-poster-advertising-bike-wash/

tomasrojo

(This isn't the Electric Vehicle thread, I probably should add!)

average_runner

Seweryn wrote: »

No, EV cars do not help reducing emissions. The emissions come from manufacturing, mining, end of life recycling (and generating electricity required to power the vehicles)...

You can say the same for the bike frames, tyres, puncture repair kids, the gear people wear, it all adds to the emissions.

The same for the heating in our offices and buildings etc.

We should walk around naked instead with no shoes:D

tomasrojo

Electric vehicles do have lower emissions of NOx, and if you look at just their immediate environment, this is a big advantage. So in cities, where NOx levels are often high enough to be a health risk, they make sense, if they're replacing vehicles that use fossil fuels and can't be replaced by active travel or public transport. Public transport should also switch to electric where possible.

If you can substantially decarbonise electricity supply, and that does appear to be on its way in a few countries, electric vehicles would lead to lower CO2 emissions as well.

EVs still take up an insane amount of room, kill people by colliding with them, make people fat, stop children from playing outdoors, and give off plenty of particulate matter from braking and tyre wear that adversely affects health, so the best thing to do is still discourage the use of private motor vehicles, regardless of whether they're electric, especially in cities.

07Lapierre

Seweryn wrote: »

No, EV cars do not help reducing emissions. The emissions come from manufacturing, mining, end of life recycling (and generating electricity required to power the vehicles)...

Clarkson is right...the most eco friendly car on the planet is a 20+ year old land rover defender! .. Why? because they don't make them anymore and most of the ones still on the road are still one owners who never drove anything else!

Seweryn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It may help the emissions problem, but it certainly doesn't solve it if all the EVs are being powered by oil/coal/turf generated power stations.

No, EV cars do not help reducing emissions. The emissions come from manufacturing, mining, end of life recycling (and generating electricity required to power the vehicles)...

average_runner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It may help the emissions problem, but it certainly doesn't solve it if all the EVs are being powered by oil/coal/turf generated power stations.

Nope it won't but then we again we aren't going to solve such a big issue easily when certain powers (Countries) control it and it drives the world economy.

While the tv show Occupied is based on a fiction, you could easily see it happening

Fitness is something that needs promotion more and more these days, facilities need to match, making things easier for people to do it!

[Deleted User]

average_runner wrote: »

The electric cars will reduce the emissions problem but it will also bring a different problem, their noise output will be alot lower so more care will be needed!!

It may help the emissions problem, but it certainly doesn't solve it if all the EVs are being powered by oil/coal/turf generated power stations.

average_runner

realitykeeper wrote: »

I will vote against any political party that tries to force me to wear a high vis vest or a helmet. They can encourage common sense and do an awareness campaign by all means but such a law would be an imposition on cyclists. Cycling needs to be encouraged, not have impositions placed upon it. If there were no motorists, there would hardly be any need for high visibility so motorists are the problem. This country needs to reduce its carbon emissions so encouraging motorists to cycle would be a better idea.

The electric cars will reduce the emissions problem but it will also bring a different problem, their noise output will be alot lower so more care will be needed!!

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

One glaring flaw with the paper is the assumptions at the beginning:

In several cases involving collisions between cars and cyclists, car drivers failed to detect the latter in time to avoid collision because of their low visibility or sensory conspicuity. We studied the effect of a yellow cyclist jacket on the detection of cyclists by motorists in an urban environment during daylight hours.

I have seen another paper showing that when there is various light heights used against oncoming traffic, a hi vis has a slight improvement on visibility distance. Not sure if it was enough to warrant usage as I cannot recall and the scenario where it was useful was when cars had their full beams on (against each other). Interestingly (and again from memory) while full beams were annoying, when asked to mention the distance they seen something at, it had very little affect.

Yeah, I think they just took the conventional road-safety wisdom about collisions occurring because drivers "just couldn't see" the cyclist or pedestrian (without considering the Mandy Rice-Davies counterview: Well, they would say that, wouldn't they).Also "in several cases" is more than a little vague.

However, I don't think "cyclists are so hard to see" is a working assumption baked into the study design. It seems to be about how much sooner you can see hi-viz cyclists, and in what context, so any bias on the part of the researchers shouldn't really matter, provided the respondents aren't given leading questions.

Interestingly, on the second paper, I've heard it said (might have been in Cyclecraft that wearing reflective clothing probably increases the chance of drivers keeping the lights on high beam on rural roads, maybe because they like the reflective effect, or feel it's the right thing to do, making the cyclist "more conspicuous", even though they've already seen them. Dazzling the cyclist is an obvious problem, but even following the cyclist, delays in dipping the lights could dazzle oncoming drivers.

I guess the second study would be more relevant for rural roads, as high-beam is not that common in the urban environment, which the first study is about.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Interesting bit of work: testing how well people in a driving simulator see cyclists wearing yellow jackets and just wearing grey.

Basically, people could see hi-viz cyclists further away, but only in scenarios where they didn't have much trouble seeing the grey-wearing cyclists (I think)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753518309871?platform=hootsuite

One glaring flaw with the paper is the assumptions at the beginning:

In several cases involving collisions between cars and cyclists, car drivers failed to detect the latter in time to avoid collision because of their low visibility or sensory conspicuity. We studied the effect of a yellow cyclist jacket on the detection of cyclists by motorists in an urban environment during daylight hours.

I have seen another paper showing that when there is various light heights used against oncoming traffic, a hi vis has a slight improvement on visibility distance. Not sure if it was enough to warrant usage as I cannot recall and the scenario where it was useful was when cars had their full beams on (against each other). Interestingly (and again from memory) while full beams were annoying, when asked to mention the distance they seen something at, it had very little affect.

tomasrojo

Interesting bit of work: testing how well people in a driving simulator see cyclists wearing yellow jackets and just wearing grey.

Basically, people could see hi-viz cyclists further away, but only in scenarios where they didn't have much trouble seeing the grey-wearing cyclists (I think)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753518309871?platform=hootsuite

CramCycle

realitykeeper wrote: »

This country needs to reduce its carbon emissions so encouraging motorists to cycle would be a better idea.

I can't find it now but a paper recently quoted data showing banning diesel cars in a city centre cut lung cancer incidence by 22% inside of 2 years as well as a range of other issues being lowered. Now there may be confounding factors such as increases in PT and cycling but I thought it was incredible.

tomasrojo

This posted already?
https://limerickcycledesign.com/2018/04/03/the-road-safety-authority-the-anti-bicycle-state-agency/

realitykeeper

I will vote against any political party that tries to force me to wear a high vis vest or a helmet. They can encourage common sense and do an awareness campaign by all means but such a law would be an imposition on cyclists. Cycling needs to be encouraged, not have impositions placed upon it. If there were no motorists, there would hardly be any need for high visibility so motorists are the problem. This country needs to reduce its carbon emissions so encouraging motorists to cycle would be a better idea.

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

A clearly defined standard would be my preference, as some of the cree lights are a bit too much. But the Cree lights are very much a consequence, imo, of the victim blaming "be safe be seen" message.

The problem here is, and it is the reason that they now allow flashing lights, is because it is easier to as many have some lights rather than getting a few on the right lights. One of the biggest issues with lights uptake, in my opinion though, is that the RSA and An Garda promote Hi Vis, therefore, to a person who has not read into it, it would appear this is both the legal minimum and the only requirement.

Imagine you have just come to Dublin as a student to UCD, you have only cycled in either rural settings during daylight hours etc. You haven't gotten round to getting anything for your bike yet as its still bright in the evenings. You get stopped by RSA and AGS and they give you a speech about responsibility and being seen, hand you a hi vis, and send you on your way. You will, rightly or wrongly, come away thinking that this is all you need and it makes you super visible in the city.

conkennedy

daragh_ wrote: »

It's not cool. But it's cooler than you pretending to be Larry Warbasse.

I also pretend to be Frank Schleck or PDM Sean Kelly on occasion

Tomorrow "I'll be Red 5, Standing By". But never hi-viz. Except for the shoulder on my POC jersey

Macy0161

nee wrote: »

I'd like to see minimum output light legislation.

A clearly defined standard would be my preference, as some of the cree lights are a bit too much. But the Cree lights are very much a consequence, imo, of the victim blaming "be safe be seen" message.

daragh_

Macy0161 wrote: »

Which is really the main issue on the roads, not what cyclists (or pedestrians) are or aren't wearing.

Pretty much all my gear has reflective detail on it anyway, and if it's dark enough to matter, I'll have my lights on.

+1. Lights are the thing when it matters.

eeeee

CramCycle wrote: »

Nothing could get me used to that and I have seen some pretty horrendous things in my day.

Longford cycling club also willingly choose the same gear.
My eyes.

The only thing that stops you being seen I thy light of day as a cyclist on the road by other traffic is if that other traffic isn't looking. No amount of high viz can combat inattention and carelessness.
Night time lights are the best answer. By the time you see reflective strips it's too late.
I'd like to see minimum output light legislation.

daragh_

conkennedy wrote: »

Yup! And it's bloody awful looking kit!

It's not cool. But it's cooler than you pretending to be Larry Warbasse.

Macy0161

thesimpsons wrote: »

I agree though that u can be head to toe in flouro yellow, pink and orange and still where people arent looking out they will not see you.

Which is really the main issue on the roads, not what cyclists (or pedestrians) are or aren't wearing.

Pretty much all my gear has reflective detail on it anyway, and if it's dark enough to matter, I'll have my lights on.

CramCycle

Eamonnator wrote: »

Yes, and people have gotten so used to it, that they don't notice it any more.

Nothing could get me used to that and I have seen some pretty horrendous things in my day.

CramCycle

thesimpsons wrote: »

Loads of clubs have this for a long time now. What addles me is the cyclists who head out top to toe in black or similar dark colours. Are they just blind to their own need to be seen ?

I agree though that u can be head to toe in flouro yellow, pink and orange and still where people arent looking out they will not see you.

It really does depend on the scenario though. In daylight without obstruction, there should be very little you can wear that would make you harder to see. At night time in the country, Hi Vis will make you more visible if you have no other visibility aid (such as a decent set of lights), in the city, where you should be driving with dims, hi vis has little effect and many times it would be one of the last things noticed under sodium yellow lights.`

The two biggest things that will make a cyclist visible to a driver are 1) the driver paying attention 2) decent lights. The second only works if the first one is adhered too although on occasion it can wake them up enough to start.

Eamonnator

CramCycle wrote: »

First in Ireland to do it?!? Absolute rubbish, Lucan have been wearing hi vis for as long as I can remember.

Yes, and people have gotten so used to it, that they don't notice it any more.

thesimpsons

CramCycle wrote: »

First in Ireland to do it?!? Absolute rubbish, Lucan have been wearing hi vis for as long as I can remember.

Loads of clubs have this for a long time now. What addles me is the cyclists who head out top to toe in black or similar dark colours. Are they just blind to their own need to be seen ?

I agree though that u can be head to toe in flouro yellow, pink and orange and still where people arent looking out they will not see you.

conkennedy

CramCycle wrote: »

First in Ireland to do it?!? Absolute rubbish, Lucan have been wearing hi vis for as long as I can remember.

Yup! And it's bloody awful looking kit!