Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

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?

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.

Very helpful and engaging, much like this comment I suppose.

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.

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 -->

CramCycle wrote: »

Very helpful and engaging, much like this comment I suppose.

Actually I was explaining the other posters complete misunderstanding of my point.

Cant imagine where I got the idea of using an image from....

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

I was referring to the RSA nad their hunt to convince Hi Vis vests are a solution to all our visibility problems.

But these days, you can dress sensibly and not look stupid, or have to wear yellow at all.

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.

To be fair, all cars have lights, and modern retro-reflective materials are excellent. In very many situations, they will return a strong reflection.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I can understand this to an extent, but wearing dark grey in the city, or brown in the countryside is no better.

During daylight hours I imagine Brown would be better than yellow or green in the countryside for most of the year. Taken from the Guardian, in relation to motorcyclists but it applies to cyclists who think wearing certain coloured garments is sufficient:

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.

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.

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.

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 -->

I never said it was intentional, but it is there, they are being negligent. You are also willfully misreading my posts. I said a key point, not what the whole thread was about, just a key discussion point.

Actually I was explaining the other posters complete misunderstanding of my point.

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. 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.

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.

kirving

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.

It's not a great standard, but remember too that this forum is a subset of those who by definition of talking about it online, are more interested and take it more seriously than most. There's absolutely more than just a shred of truth in the general public's opinion of cyclists. And I say that as a cyclist myself.

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.

Great, reflective gear makes you more visible so I guess you have no issue with wearing it or with the RSA encouraging people to wear it then.

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.

Whataboutery.

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.

Why are you deciding they are only at your lights? The clothes are reflective, the lights are shining, they dont only shine 2 feet behind your vehicle!

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.

Is anyone saying that they are enough on their own?
It seems that you and others are repeatedly saying that lights on their own are enough, many of us disagree with that.

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.

When its hidden by the lights from many other road vehicles.
I may see the light but I can't easily & quickly determine the source of the light its not that useful.
Whereas a reflective jacket like above, in my experience, makes it much easier to spot and more importantly distinguish.

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.

Only if you think that lights are the be all and end all.

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.

The RSA are never going to hand out €17 lights to people, would you prefer they did nothing?

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.

If you cant accept the simple physics involved with raindrops focusing light from multple sources onto your mirror then I'm not sure there is any point in trying to continue a logical conversation with you.

Every drop of rain on your mirror will look like a light source, if you have never experienced this then I question the validity of your driving experience.

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.

Thats all great in theory, but the reality of the situation is that there is only one loser if a mistake is made.

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.

I countered your graphic with a real world example of what Im talking about.
I'm sorry if the reality of the situation annoys you and I wish it were not so, but it is, so complaining about the RSA and trying to make it everyone elses problem to solve is going to get you dead.

Duckjob

GreeBo wrote: »

The RSA are never going to hand out €17 lights to people, would you prefer they did nothing?

Can't speak for others here, but I'd be happy if they simply spent less effort on pushing hi-viz as the main driver of road safety, and spent more effort lobbying the gardai to buck up their enforcement of all EXISTING legislation on ALL road users - which would include penalising cyclists caught out in the dark without lights.

blackbox

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.

Mc Love

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.

Hi viz dont work in dark light unless you shine a light on the reflective parts.

Jem72

As somebody who both cycles and drives, I find that pink/magenta high vis clothing to be far more visible in daylight hours than the standard yellow. Neither are much use when driving into low sun.

What seems to work during daylight hours is a relatively decent set of lights set to flash. I can see how flashing can be confusing for motorists at night especially on rural roads where they are not expecting to see a cyclist. When I used to cycle at night, I tended to use both a solid and a weaker flashing light on the back and the front but to be honest, no matter what you do, you are taking your life in your hands cycling on rural roads at all during darkness.

This isn't right or fair but it is the way it is - cyclists have effectively been driven off rural roads at night.

Chips Lovell

I train on unlit rural roads at night. With decent lights, you're as well lit up as a car or motorbike. Have never had any issue.

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!

I have said it here before that the yellow high viz jacket I used to wear made me much more visible in the drab grey depressing background that is the Irish city in Autumn/Winter months. However, the yellow jacket, along with my 2 rear bike lights, the rear light on my helmet, 2 front lights, RSA issue high viz bag cover and reflective gloves/bib/shoe covers, is absolutely no match for the average ignorant twat in a vehicle. Do you realize the amount of times I have encountered a driver who almost hit me or cut me off and then said "Oh, i'm sorry, I didn't see you" then proceed to drive exactly the same way, like a complete cnut.

This one driver really comes to mind, she overtook me on a small roundabout, we know how people are incapable of using them, she cut me off and almost hit me. She was looking at facebook while driving on the effing roundabout. Then came to a halt 100 meters up the road due to traffic. When I knocked on her window she was still checking her likes on a photo of last nights dinner, it was that or a selfie. To this day I regret not reaching in a taking that phone from her and smashing it on the ground.

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 ?

Sure, campaign for the high viz crap to be worn by everybody. Then what? Ankle lights? 2 meter high viz flags/lights to be added to all bikes? Indicators? Reg plates? Bike Insurance? Where does it end? At what point do we say, you know what? The responsibility doesn't lie with cyclists anymore, lets shift that responsibility to where it really belongs, and where it belongs in most civilized countries in Europe, the motorist. It's just used as a scapegoat excuse to push the anti cycling agenda. The RSA can die a horrible death as far as I am concerned.

Macy0161

GreeBo wrote: »

The RSA are never going to hand out €17 lights to people, would you prefer they did nothing?

As has been said, I'd rather they focused on enforcement....

Pursue ANPR (tax, insurance, nct/ doe, unqualified drivers, bus and cycle lanes, yellow boxes etc) which would provide cost effective enforcement freeing up gardai.
Pursue more speed cameras, and especially red light cameras and the resulting enforcement.

Things that would actually change road behaviours meaningfully, rather than their main focus regarding vulnerable road users being dressing up them up in clothes that are more about the RSA being seen to do something, rather than the vulnerable road user actually being seen.

If they wanted to do something for cyclist visibility, they should be addressing/ updating the 1963 Act to reflect modern technology and the metric system, and establishing a clear standard of lighting like they have in Germany*.

* for the motorist lobby/ fanboys, this would actually make enforcement on cyclists easier - you're light will either meet the standard or it won't.

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.

A dress code for cycling is bottom of the barrell dumb. There's no connection between high viz and safety in cycling. There's no high viz in Denmark or Germany, no they don't focus on pigeonholing cyclists.

An equally stupid idea would be to enforce drivers to wear a neck brace, fire retardant clothing, helmet and spinal protection. Idiotic, right? Imagine having to dress up in that garb in order to pop to the shop for a pint of milk.

07Lapierre

Jem72 wrote: »

As somebody who both cycles and drives, I find that pink/magenta high vis clothing to be far more visible in daylight hours than the standard yellow. Neither are much use when driving into low sun.

What seems to work during daylight hours is a relatively decent set of lights set to flash. I can see how flashing can be confusing for motorists at night especially on rural roads where they are not expecting to see a cyclist. When I used to cycle at night, I tended to use both a solid and a weaker flashing light on the back and the front but to be honest, no matter what you do, you are taking your life in your hands cycling on rural roads at all during darkness.

This isn't right or fair but it is the way it is - cyclists have effectively been driven off rural roads at night.

I cycle on Rural roads at night and my experience is the exact opposite. I find I get less close passes at night. I suspect this is due to me cycling in the middle of the left lane and having a really, really Bright rear light!

kirving

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.

But it is an argument that is consistently trotted out about how wearing "builders vests" discourages people from cycling.

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.

I haven't said that it is, I said it was helpful in addition to good lights.

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.

The following image was on the first page when I searched for "cyclist london night"
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/images/j-ennis-blaze-laserlight.jpg

You're making an all-encompasing statment about lights always being better in all circumstances, which almost certainly cannot be true. I have said that lights are best in the majority of circumstances, but reflective or bright clothing is a great supplement for those corner cases where a light is obscured due to its size.

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.

Agreed, it doesn't fix the problem of visibility - but it's a great start as far as I'm concerned. Lights or not, wearing black clothing while cycling at night is not helpful.

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.

Can we not encourage both? I'm not putting down lights, but what I am say is that they have their own limitations, and so a secondary method of standing out is invaluable.

Duckjob wrote: »

Can't speak for others here, but I'd be happy if they simply spent less effort on pushing hi-viz as the main driver of road safety, and spent more effort lobbying the gardai to buck up their enforcement of all EXISTING legislation on ALL road users - which would include penalising cyclists caught out in the dark without lights.

Tbf, I dont think the remit of the RSA is "get the gardai to do their jobs".

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I train on unlit rural roads at night. With decent lights, you're as well lit up as a car or motorbike. Have never had any issue.

This is by far the best use case for lights, but I'd wager that the majority of 'night' cycling is done in areas with lots of other light sources.

Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »

Sure, campaign for the high viz crap to be worn by everybody. Then what? Ankle lights? 2 meter high viz flags/lights to be added to all bikes? Indicators? Reg plates? Bike Insurance? Where does it end? At what point do we say, you know what? The responsibility doesn't lie with cyclists anymore, lets shift that responsibility to where it really belongs, and where it belongs in most civilized countries in Europe, the motorist. It's just used as a scapegoat excuse to push the anti cycling agenda. The RSA can die a horrible death as far as I am concerned.

Hopefully it ends before you get run over by a car that 'didn't see you'.

I'll repeat my earlier analogy, you are cycling without wetgear to make the weathermen better.

Ask yourself who gets wet in this scenario?

Do you lock your bike or are you expecting the gardai to stamp out all crime instead?

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

This is by far the best use case for lights, but I'd wager that the majority of 'night' cycling is done in areas with lots of other light sources.

No. Lots of people cycle at night... even us who live “in the country” where there are no street lights.

GreeBo wrote: »

Great, reflective gear makes you more visible so I guess you have no issue with wearing it or with the RSA encouraging people to wear it then.

I have a problem with the RSA encouraging people to use it and not making a far larger issue out of decent lights. Campaign for Hi Vis after the campaign for decent lighting has achieved something. So yes, I have an issue, but it is again you misinterpreting my posts, I think now intentionally. I have no issue with Hi Vis (talking about the vets the RSA promote). In a narrow set of circumstances it may be beneficial but in any of those circumstances, decent lights will have you seen long before. As the TRL study states, you have to be aware of the limitations of what you are endorsing. Hi Vis (vests in case anyone accuses me of misleading or some other thing), are suitable in a narrow range of circumstances. It is not visible around bends, it is not visible if the driver is using DRLs in the dark, it blends in several sodium lights into the surround from dusk till dawn in urban settings.

Whataboutery.

It is not whataboutery. Hi Vis requires an external light source to reflect back. If drivers are using dips or DRLs, in a dark setting, it provides no added visibility. It is a clear demonstration why Hi Vis is a dangerous placebo promoted by the RSA and believed to be acceptabel as a minimum standard. Someone else posted about askign the general public about cyclist visibility. Worringly, I imagine many would respond with that cyclists should wear Hi Vis without any understanding of Physics.

Why are you deciding they are only at your lights? The clothes are reflective, the lights are shining, they dont only shine 2 feet behind your vehicle!

Because that is what the post said, rear brake lights.

Is anyone saying that they are enough on their own?
It seems that you and others are repeatedly saying that lights on their own are enough, many of us disagree with that.

And you are entitled to that opinion. Several people believe Hi Vis vests on their own are sufficient. What I am saying is that decent lights are the desirable minimum standard for road users. You may believe that you need Hi Vis and decent Lights, a standard that is fine by me as it gets over the minimum. For the last time, i am just saying, Hi Vis on its own is not enough, you appear to agree with me on that. You disagree that decent lights on their own are enough, you may be right, I don't agree but at least we both agree that you need decent lights something the RSA are steadfastedly ignoring.

When its hidden by the lights from many other road vehicles.
I may see the light but I can't easily & quickly determine the source of the light its not that useful.
Whereas a reflective jacket like above, in my experience, makes it much easier to spot and more importantly distinguish.

And my experience has not been this, I have noticed Hi Vis, I have noticed regular dark jumpers. The truth is though if you cannot determine where one decent light source comes from, how do you determine where the reflected light from the Hi Vis is in relation to your road position. It is the exact same problem.

Only if you think that lights are the be all and end all.

I think decent lights are the minimum standard we need to meet. All I have had from you is your point on raindrops on a rear view mirror making it appear that lights are all coming from one source or that you have a hundered cyclists in your left mirror. Either way, you should drive as if there is someone there and if you cannot tell the distance, you stop and wait until that it is clear to proceed. A shoulder check will also help, which I presume you do at every turn anyway.

The RSA are never going to hand out €17 lights to people, would you prefer they did nothing?

Actually yes. They are encouraging a safety device that both you and I agree is not enough. Gardai and RSa officials handing out Hi Vis vests on a dark day on the N11 when they don't have lights indicates to that person that this is sufficient, rather than either fining the cyclist for no lights or holding the bike at a local station until the cyclist turns up and fits lights. Cambridgeshire police used to do this and it was quite successful AFAIR

GreeBo wrote: »

If you cant accept the simple physics involved with raindrops focusing light from multple sources onto your mirror then I'm not sure there is any point in trying to continue a logical conversation with you.

Whether multiple or one, if it worked exactly as you say (and I have never found it to be the case), then you do a shoulder check, proceed slowly, and with extreme caution, with your indicator on well in advance. The problem here is, I suspect, some motorists don't even do one of these things, let alone all of them in these scenarios.

Every drop of rain on your mirror will look like a light source, if you have never experienced this then I question the validity of your driving experience.

The mind is a wonderful thing in that it can usually decipher a huge amount of the noise and interpret it. There are some people who can't but I would not believe this to be the morm.

Thats all great in theory, but the reality of the situation is that there is only one loser if a mistake is made.

100%, hence why I don't trust other road users when out, I make informed and educated decisions as well as in the back of my brain, a risk analysis of the situation, same as most road users. The thing is, when encased in metal, your risj analysis is very different. There is another study from 2011 assessing motorcyclists driving cars vs general motorists driving cars. They found that motor cyclists are significantly more observant and risk adverse, most likely due to their learned risk analysis of road use. It is not to far of a leap to say this will apply to some cyclists as well, although not all, there are muppets in all groups.

I countered your graphic with a real world example of what Im talking about.
I'm sorry if the reality of the situation annoys you and I wish it were not so, but it is, so complaining about the RSA and trying to make it everyone elses problem to solve is going to get you dead.

Here is the pic you gave:

It is far from the worst rain I have driven in, it certainly isn't making the rain drops into light sources or whatever else you were trying to insinuate.

blackbox wrote: »

I can't understand why people think they look stupid in hi-viz vests. Do all builders and engineers look stupid?

has anyone said this?

2 meter high viz flags/lights to be added to all bikes? Indicators? Reg plates? Bike Insurance? Where does it end? At what point do we say, you know what? The responsibility doesn't lie with cyclists anymore, lets shift that responsibility to where it really belongs, and where it belongs in most civilized countries in Europe, the motorist. It's just used as a scapegoat excuse to push the anti cycling agenda. The RSA can die a horrible death as far as I am concerned.

And as shown in courts across the country, where even when the victim should have been clearly visible, often in broad daylight, the question of Hi Vis comes up consistently even though it is often in scenarios where it would not have aided the visibility of the cyclist or pedestrian.

Neo2020

Just reading and thinking about some posts.

And yes, the debate about Hi-vis has transcended into farce. The media does tend to portray cyclists as being reckless, irresponsible, selfish idiots who generally are at fault regardless when anything happens to them.

There is a spectrum of cyclists, from reckless to exemplary. Likewise for vehicle drivers.

I was recently struck side on by a motorist who went through a stop sign straight onto the cycle lane. I had helmet, high visibility cycling jacket and bright front and rear lights. It was early morning, but twilight so you could clearly see everything in natural light.

Does every accident now involving a cyclist boil down to whether or not he was wearing high vis. If the outcome had been different from me, is that where the focus would be, what was I wearing rather than how did it happen I was hit by a car.

Of course cyclists should be well lit up, and there are too many times at night, dawn and dusk when I see see cyclists in dark clothing with no bike lights.

But it’s missing the real issue, a cyclist is so vulnerable and the outcome of a collision is really down to chance.

The RSA, the Gardai, and politicians need to re-enforce driver responsibility to counteract the mantra that a high vis jacket is a magical cloak that protects you from everything bad.

Duckjob

GreeBo wrote: »

Tbf, I dont think the remit of the RSA is "get the gardai to do their jobs".

RSA or somebody else, it needs to be somebody's remit, because currently the Gardai suck big round hairy balls when it comes to enforcement and road users across the board are taking the p**s with it.

07Lapierre wrote: »

No. Lots of people cycle at night... even us who live “in the country” where there are no street lights.

You really think more people cycle at night outside of sub/urban areas than in them?

CramCycle wrote: »

I have a problem with the RSA encouraging people to use it and not making a far larger issue out of decent lights. Campaign for Hi Vis after the campaign for decent lighting has achieved something. So yes, I have an issue, but it is again you misinterpreting my posts, I think now intentionally. I have no issue with Hi Vis (talking about the vets the RSA promote). In a narrow set of circumstances it may be beneficial but in any of those circumstances, decent lights will have you seen long before. As the TRL study states, you have to be aware of the limitations of what you are endorsing. Hi Vis (vests in case anyone accuses me of misleading or some other thing), are suitable in a narrow range of circumstances. It is not visible around bends, it is not visible if the driver is using DRLs in the dark, it blends in several sodium lights into the surround from dusk till dawn in urban settings.

Do you have any facts to backup your assertion that "in any of those circumstances, decent lights will have you seen long before"?

CramCycle wrote: »

It is not whataboutery. Hi Vis requires an external light source to reflect back. If drivers are using dips or DRLs, in a dark setting, it provides no added visibility. It is a clear demonstration why Hi Vis is a dangerous placebo promoted by the RSA and believed to be acceptabel as a minimum standard. Someone else posted about askign the general public about cyclist visibility. Worringly, I imagine many would respond with that cyclists should wear Hi Vis without any understanding of Physics.

Indeed it does, but as has been pointed out, there are lots of light sources, hence why bicycle lights can get lost in the noise.

No one on here is saying its safe or logical to go cycling on a dark road with a yellow t-shirt on, yet you seem to keep arguing that point.

CramCycle wrote: »

Because that is what the post said, rear brake lights.

[
Yeah it said rear brake lights, but you for some reason decided that that means the cyclist was right against these lights.
I have seen my rear brake lights and indicators reflected in street signs that are at least 100M behind me.

CramCycle wrote: »

And you are entitled to that opinion. Several people believe Hi Vis vests on their own are sufficient. What I am saying is that decent lights are the desirable minimum standard for road users. You may believe that you need Hi Vis and decent Lights, a standard that is fine by me as it gets over the minimum. For the last time, i am just saying, Hi Vis on its own is not enough, you appear to agree with me on that. You disagree that decent lights on their own are enough, you may be right, I don't agree but at least we both agree that you need decent lights something the RSA are steadfastedly ignoring.

Who are these "several people"?
Are they arguing on this thread?

CramCycle wrote: »

And my experience has not been this, I have noticed Hi Vis, I have noticed regular dark jumpers. The truth is though if you cannot determine where one decent light source comes from, how do you determine where the reflected light from the Hi Vis is in relation to your road position. It is the exact same problem.

Every light source probably isn't a cyclist or pedestrian, every moving reflected body probably is.

CramCycle wrote: »

I think decent lights are the minimum standard we need to meet. All I have had from you is your point on raindrops on a rear view mirror making it appear that lights are all coming from one source or that you have a hundered cyclists in your left mirror. Either way, you should drive as if there is someone there and if you cannot tell the distance, you stop and wait until that it is clear to proceed. A shoulder check will also help, which I presume you do at every turn anyway.

Indeed I do.
The problem is that *I'm* not the guy who is knocking down and killing cyclists.

CramCycle wrote: »

Actually yes. They are encouraging a safety device that both you and I agree is not enough. Gardai and RSa officials handing out Hi Vis vests on a dark day on the N11 when they don't have lights indicates to that person that this is sufficient, rather than either fining the cyclist for no lights or holding the bike at a local station until the cyclist turns up and fits lights. Cambridgeshire police used to do this and it was quite successful AFAIR

I would have no problem with them confiscating bikes without lights and more than I would them fining cars without lights, but again you, as a cyclist can do squat about that.

CramCycle wrote: »

Whether multiple or one, if it worked exactly as you say (and I have never found it to be the case), then you do a shoulder check, proceed slowly, and with extreme caution, with your indicator on well in advance. The problem here is, I suspect, some motorists don't even do one of these things, let alone all of them in these scenarios.

The mind is a wonderful thing in that it can usually decipher a huge amount of the noise and interpret it. There are some people who can't but I would not believe this to be the morm.

100%, hence why I don't trust other road users when out, I make informed and educated decisions as well as in the back of my brain, a risk analysis of the situation, same as most road users. The thing is, when encased in metal, your risj analysis is very different. There is another study from 2011 assessing motorcyclists driving cars vs general motorists driving cars. They found that motor cyclists are significantly more observant and risk adverse, most likely due to their learned risk analysis of road use. It is not to far of a leap to say this will apply to some cyclists as well, although not all, there are muppets in all groups.

so this is why I cannot understand your being against cyclists being more visible via reflective clothing.
We are all agreed that there are idiots and distracted people on both sides, so take things into your own hands and make yourself as visible as possible.
Your argument continually seems to be "I shouldn't have to do anything, motorists should be better".

Again, do you lock your bike or rely on the gardai to prevent thefts?

CramCycle wrote: »

Here is the pic you gave:

It is far from the worst rain I have driven in, it certainly isn't making the rain drops into light sources or whatever else you were trying to insinuate.

Exactly, its far from the worst rain yet already there are several light sources reflected. I count 17. Which of them are bike lights and which are cars, or street lights, or shop lights or a million other potential things?

GreeBo wrote: »

Tbf, I dont think the remit of the RSA is "get the gardai to do their jobs".

Yea, putting pressure on the Gardai to focus on enforcing the rules of the road would be within the remit of the road safety authority.

GreeBo wrote: »

I'll repeat my earlier analogy, you are cycling without wet gear to make the weathermen better.

I cannot get this analogy at all. It makes zero sense to me.

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you lock your bike or are you expecting the gardai to stamp out all crime instead?

How the hell have you made the jump there?

There's absolutely no link between your analogies and the correlation between high viz and safety. There's already laws for having lights. Good lights are all you need to be seen on the road. Nothing else. There's no scenario where a cyclist will not be seen with good lights, if a driver is driving based on the current conditions.

Your previous suggestion is a slippery slope. Here's another slippery slope.

Bike gets stole, I used 2 locks. Gardai says I should have used more.
Next bike gets stolen, I used 4 locks, Gardai says bike should be locked inside.
Another bike gets stolen, this time it's locked with 4 locks in our underground carpark. Gardai say it should be in a secure compound.
Next bike gets stolen from the compound, 4 locks still being used.
Last bike gets stolen from a secure compound, Gardai suggest I dismantle my bike, put it in a safe bolted to the wall in the secure compound in my underground carpark.
Do you think the suggestions here are ok? Especially since the Gardai haven't focused on investigating the crimes what so ever. Is it ok to place the blame on me?

You are still putting 100% responsibility on the cyclist. You haven't mentioned drivers at all in your reply to my posts. Why?

You are focused on introducing something which only appeals to the masses, it doesn't actually help anybody at all. What's should be introduced next to disperse the mob?

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

You really think more people cycle at night outside of sub/urban areas than in them?

No, that's not what i said. I said Lots of people cycle. Lots of people cycle in Urban and rural areas.

My point is, cycling is not unique to urban/city area's.

GreeBo wrote: »

Exactly, its far from the worst rain yet already there are several light sources reflected. I count 17. Which of them are bike lights and which are cars, or street lights, or shop lights or a million other potential things?

If that's what you see when you look into your mirror, sell your car, don't get behind the wheel ever.

Seriously though, that's the dept of field, nobody sees that fuzz when looking in the mirror, unless they are focusing on the water droplets.

Nobody, that's driving with due care, has difficulty in differentiating between a water droplet and a bike.

Crashed into the back of a bus once, thought it was my window wiper.