GreeBo wrote: » The RSA are never going to hand out €17 lights to people, would you prefer they did nothing?
greenspurs wrote: » Can ANYONE on here actually admit that wearing hi viz jacket/vest/clothing at dusk or at night, actually does make you more visible? When i go for a walk in the evenings, i wear a viz vest, to increase my visibility .When i cycled in low light i wear a hiviz gilet. Why cant people on here admit that, instead of digging their heels in, just to create/fight an arguement!
greenspurs wrote: » I did expect those responses. So Hiviz/reflective clothing is good BUT ...... "why should we........ Drivers should.. " etc etc .... Im sorry, but i will wear Reflective/hiviz when on the roads in the evenings. Its better than wearing none ?
blackbox wrote: » I can't understand why people think they look stupid in hi-viz vests. Do all builders and engineers look stupid? I think that cyclists dressed in dark clothes, whether it is an old duffle coat or slick Lycra look more stupid than those wearing hi-viz. On rural roads especially, hi-viz vests make pedestrians and cyclists much more visible in ALL light conditions. Lights are not mandatory (unfortunately) during daylight hours.
CramCycle wrote: » You were being dismissive. I have driven and cycled for over 25years, in some pretty ****ty weather, raindrops on your rear view mirror are annoying but they do not get mistake for cyclists lights.
CramCycle wrote: » You adapt your driving to the conditions, slow down, caution, analysis of the road. If lets say you did see a raindrop that looked like a cyclists light. you know what you should do, you treat it as if it is a cyclist and act accordingly.
CramCycle wrote: » You mention physics but when I mentioned reference points earlier, you claimed I was being sarcastic, hence the picture to explain the difference of how many people add up all the clues in a 3D world to get a better overall picture.
CramCycle wrote: » I was referring to the RSA nad their hunt to convince Hi Vis vests are a solution to all our visibility problems. I don't care about looking stupid, I ride a bike with various outfits, none of whihc match or exude style. Sitting at my desk this mornign I realise my laces are different colours. I really do not care what I look like, so long as I am visible to others.
CramCycle wrote: » To be fair, a large percentage of cars drive round in the middle of the night with DRLs and no proper lights on. Modern retro reflective materials are great but only work if they are reflecting back at the appropriate other road user.
CramCycle wrote: » If you only notice a cyclist when they are at your brake lights, then you did not see them in time. I prefer lights where I can be seen around bends, from a few 100m away.
CramCycle wrote: » I have no issue with hi vis or retro reflective clothing, but they alone are not enough, even with poor lights, they are not enough. cyclists need good lights until other road users behaviour improves immensely, that is my only point.
CramCycle wrote: » Find me a situation where my 400 lumen front and 300 lumen rear is worse than any wearable retroreflective material. i don't think my statement is outlandish, I think that i have not seen anything that disproves it yet, but am open to hearing about them.
CramCycle wrote: » And here is my problem, your fixing an issue with a plaster rather than sowing kit. If the lights are not good enough, they need better lights, not a coulourful t shirt. I am not saying it is not an improvement on the ****ty lights, I am saying that it doesn't fix the problem.
CramCycle wrote: » Nowadays, decent lights cost less than decent clothing. A 300Lumen front and 50 Lumen rear, USB rechargable, are 17euro from Aldi. Last for over5 hours after a single charge. But yet no, lets encourage jackets that most commuters won't but as they are too bloody expensive (Pro vis is well over 50quid) or follow the RSA and hand out sub standard vests.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » If you asked the general public anything about cyclists, you would get the usual oul guff about red lights, road tax and menace on the road nonsense. It's not a great standard to hold up.
GreeBo wrote: » Well the thread is entitled "Hi Vis discussion thread" I'd suggest you add something specific about the RSA in there if points are only allowed to deal with the RSA and their free hi-vis clothing. BTW its a bit of a stretch to suggest that the RSA are being 'devious', Conspiracy thread is -->
Actually I was explaining the other posters complete misunderstanding of my point.
Kevin Irving wrote: » What is strawmanning since you brought it up, is talking about "Hi Vis Jacket/vest" four times, and "Hi Vis" (implying a builder jacket) another 5 times. I didn't mention jackets, or "hi-vis" at all. I specifically said retro-reflective, and bright colours. I fully understand people's issue with being dictated by the media and government to wear a vest - and also their limitations in terms of coverage and location.
But these days, you can dress sensibly and not look stupid, or have to wear yellow at all.
To be fair, all cars have lights, and modern retro-reflective materials are excellent. In very many situations, they will return a strong reflection.
What I find best about them is the surface area. Most light are just a few square cm in area, and even if set up properly, can be easily obscured by cyclists or traffic in front and behind. Large surface areas of retro-reflective material are very visible even when illuminated by brake lights and seen in a side mirror.
You can't say that they're better in "all" circumstances - that is assuming that you've seen every cyclist, ever, from every point of view, in all conditions possible. It's just an outlandish statement to make.
I can understand this to an extent, but wearing dark grey in the city, or brown in the countryside is no better.
Given that environments may differ over even fairly small changes in time or location, there is not likely to be a one-size-fits-all solution, meaning that motorcyclists need to be aware of the limitations of whichever interventions they use.
You might have great lights, but very many others do not. For them, and as I stated, retro-reflective material and bright colours are a good supplement to lights.
CramCycle wrote: » Its one of the key points of the thread, the debate on whether the RSa is being devious or even negligent in their pushing of Hi Vis vests over more suitable visibility aids. It is not moving the goalposts, it is clarifying where they are and should be.
CramCycle wrote: » Very helpful and engaging, much like this comment I suppose.
CramCycle wrote: »
GreeBo wrote: » Indeed, I'm not sure what any of that has to do about the usefulness of reflective gear though...or are you just shifting the goalposts now and moving on to moaning about the government not spending money on something people can easily buy for themselves?
tomasrojo wrote: » The point was that they give away inconvenient and outlandish-looking clothing, because it's cheap. They don't give away Sam Brownes, which fold up nice and small, and can be worn in hot weather without any discomfort, because they're expensive.
tomasrojo wrote: » You're "motorists mistake powerful lights for drops of rain" isn't very convincing at all.
Grassey wrote: » The RSA would be far better off advocating for a minimum lighting standard and promoting lights during lighting up period to both cars and cyclists over saying here's a magic yellow jacket you'll be fine now.
magicbastarder wrote: » random observation - on alfie byrne road this morning at about 7am, coming from clontarf, there was a cyclist in front of me - i saw him from maybe 100m or 200m away, he had a reasonable light on the back of the bike. it was only when i got to about 10m away that i realised he had a fully reflective proviz jacket on. granted, he was in the cycle lane and i was on the road, but a couple of cars passed (running dipped lights) before i got to him and i didn't cop the reflective jacket until i was nearly on top of him.
GreeBo wrote: » Reflective gear doesn't have to be expensive, it just had to be reflective.
GreeBo wrote: » I strongly disagree that refractive great doesn't do much when you have lights on, fit the reasons I started in my previous post.
Grassey wrote: » But it doesn't detract from the point that most Commuter cyclists aren't well lit. During lighting up hours this morning bar myself, only 1 other Commuter had a (single rear) light. Another handful had builder jackets only, 2 had high vis cycle jackets only , 4 were in normal clothes only. That's fairly reflective of most of my commutes, that the majority aren't lit up during the required times at a minimum. The RSA would be far better off advocating for a minimum lighting standard and promoting lights during lighting up period to both cars and cyclists over saying here's a magic yellow jacket you'll be fine now.
Kevin Irving wrote: » It's not strawmanning - if you asked the general public (and not a cycling forum), I believe the majority of people would say most cyclists are poorly lit up.
GreeBo wrote: » Imo small lights are worse than nothing, people with them on think they are visible web really they are not at all. Those faint little blinkers are pointless .
CramCycle wrote: » But most project. Using examples of where people use them incorrectly is just strawmanning.
CramCycle wrote: » It also relies on other light sources, so unless the right situations are in play, it is effectively no different than wearing a random t shirt.
CramCycle wrote: » A properly fitted, decent light, in all circumstances will be better than a hi Vis jacket.I think someone here even put pictures up of themselves with and without their bike lights and then also used cars with no lights, dims and high beams to illustrate the point.
CramCycle wrote: » In Ireland we have a high level of roadside greenery, which, during daylight hours, blends in with Hi vis.
CramCycle wrote: » People make mistakes and lose concentration, thats why I have great lights.
GreeBo wrote: » In darkness with multiple car lights reflecting in your mirrors, a bike light just doesnt really show up. Add in rain and its almost impossible, you cant tell the difference between a bike light and a rain drop reflecting a car light. Cars are driving with dims, it still reflects in your mirrors. Bike lights can look like any other light when you are looking at it against a myriad of other lights around the same level, but a sam browne or fully reflective jacket just doesnt blend in as nothing else looks like it. And I respectfully disagree in an urban environment, on a murky evening, a hi vis is not standoutish, with the sodium lights all round the place it drains into the surround unless you are coming from behind with full beams on. A Sam Browne is more noticeable, but again unless directly reflecting, I would imagine this i a contrast rather than reflection you are noticing. I'll try and dig out the pics around here as I'd rather not go out and take pics in the rain (or dry), I'll see if I catch anything that fits on my bike cams over the coming days as it gets darker. What are the other reference points you so sarcastically point out? It wasn't sarcasm, it really was a serious comment. how do you tell how far away a single beam car is (and there are loads), how do you estimate the distance of a motorbike. Typically you will use, unknowingly a range of reference points around the person or vehicle, be it the poll they are beside, marks on the road as well as basic estimations based on typical size and observation giving you a reasonable estimation. GreeBo wrote: » No, what I'm saying is these are the issues a motorist faces, whether in their mirror or just on their window, at the best of times a bike light can get hidden, in rain they get multiplied to the point of being invisible. if your vision is that impaired, I presume you are driving alot slower, indicators on in plenty of time, keeping out from the kerb. In these scenarios, ankle, wrist and helmet auxillary lights would be great for a cyclist but to be honest, if a cyclist has decent lights, it really is one of those things where you have to hope the driver is on their game. I am more cautious on the bike in reduced visibility, stopping before corners where I see wheel twinges but no indicators, moving into traffic rather than the side of traffic. As you say yourself, you cannot solely rely on the behaviour of other road users. Speaking as a cyclist, relying on drivers instead of just using lights and reflective gear is, to me at least, akin to not bringing wetgear on my commute to force the weather man to get better at forecasting. There is only going to be one loser. hence why I am pushing for good lights and good road positioning over the stance of the RSA that Hi Vis is good enough. If my lights fail on my commute (admittedly I have back ups but if all else fails), I am walking or bussing it if it a dark miserable night because it is not worth it, I have a family and a job tomorrow, I'd like if they have me as well. If I am in a rural setting, hoping I hae enough mobile battery to use as a torch for the walk, or just ringing someone for collection. I cannot say this enough times, I have no issue with Hi Vis, I have issue with people advocating its use before the other minimum requirements are satisfied.
Cars are driving with dims, it still reflects in your mirrors. Bike lights can look like any other light when you are looking at it against a myriad of other lights around the same level, but a sam browne or fully reflective jacket just doesnt blend in as nothing else looks like it.
What are the other reference points you so sarcastically point out?
GreeBo wrote: » No, what I'm saying is these are the issues a motorist faces, whether in their mirror or just on their window, at the best of times a bike light can get hidden, in rain they get multiplied to the point of being invisible.
Speaking as a cyclist, relying on drivers instead of just using lights and reflective gear is, to me at least, akin to not bringing wetgear on my commute to force the weather man to get better at forecasting. There is only going to be one loser.
07Lapierre wrote: » Small lights on helmets (a red light at the rear) is fine. The same goes for small led type lights that are on wristbands etc. But I do think really bright white lights on helmets are too high and their benefits are quite limited. just my opinion and they are certainly better than no lights.
07Lapierre wrote: » I never said the a cyclist should not use lights or reflective clothes. What I am saying is that regardless of how bright your lights are, how reflective your clothes are, they are useless if drivers are not looking/observing what's going on around them. As a cyclist, I have no control over drivers looking in their mirrors. as a motorists I drive a car that has heated mirrors and I use them. I also look over my shoulder when turning left or right and don't rely on what I see in my mirrors. It must be the cyclist in me that makes me drive "with due care and attention".
tomasrojo wrote: » I have a reflective belt, which is a repurposed old Sam Browne that goes around my satchel. It doesn't do that much, because reflectors don't do much when you already have good lights, but it does add a little "top" to the bike image, above the rear light and the reflectors on the bike. Sam Brownes aren't as awful as hiviz jackets, and they might actually be more effective when worn on a dark top, as you get a reflective, and eye-catching shape, and sharp contrast. But they're much more expensive than the stuff the RSA does give out (no seams, velcro fasteners: very cheap; probably 50c an item at cost price, or less). The RSA's choice of "safety" give-aways is pretty clearly driven primarily by price. The lights they give away are probably less than a euro at cost price.
Macy0161 wrote: » Interestingly, the bus drivers defence quoted the limitations of the hiviz the victim was wearing in the Dublin bus driver case that finished today... "He said the headlights of the bus could not have caught Ms White and that his client could not have seen her."
Macy0161 wrote: » A bit like the whole browne belt v builders vest, the RSA could promote these options more. But then, not much room for their branding on an ankle band, so wouldn't be seen to be doing something.
Ryath wrote: » Agree there is no no substitute for proper lights on the bike. Still think it's can be good to have a small rear light on the helmet though. If you fell off and are separated from the bike I'd certainly prefer to have it. Have had club mate comment on my lack of hi viz. I usually use my bike with dynamo lights supplemented with a pair of back up lezynes. I'm not being missed on the bike even if I dressed in black with not a stitch of reflective material.
GreeBo wrote: » No, what I'm saying is these are the issues a motorist faces, whether in their mirror or just on their window, at the best of times a bike light can get hidden, in rain they get multiplied to the point of being invisible. Speaking as a cyclist, relying on drivers instead of just using lights and reflective gear is, to me at least, akin to not bringing wetgear on my commute to force the weather man to get better at forecasting. There is only going to be one loser.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
