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

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

If you're going to restrict discussion to urban cycling, then the argument for always wearing hiviz gets weaker, because Miller's study was in an urban context. Also, we know all the urban bikeshare schemes have very low rates of collision, and they're done predominantly without hiviz. So urban cycling isn't a compelling scenario for having a go at people who don't wear hiviz.

I see your Miller and I raise you one Lahrmann.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528
Also please not the difference in participants between the two reports.

~350 Vs ~6800

Also, interesting information here (albeit from a manufacturer)
https://www.tredz.co.uk/clothing-buyers-guides/hi-vis-clothing-guide
Scroll to "Hi Viz Comparison" section

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

I see your Miller and I raise you one Lahrmann.

Yeah, I mentioned that earlier. It's earlier in the thread. It's not a very good design, mostly because it's got substantial report bias, which they acknowledge, but they try to correct it with a really simplistic correction factor.

I'll save myself repeating by linking:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101436251&postcount=931

In fact, really, there's not a lot more to be said. It's all come up in this thread multiple times. So I'll leave it at that. It really is just a snake eating its tail at this stage.

Duckjob

GreeBo wrote: »

Even they way you say "it would be very convenient"...its like you still wouldn't wear it even if it was a silver bullet, just to spite someone.
No one cares what you wear (unlike as already mentioned, they do in France)

You appear very determined to fixate on this idea that people are not wearing hi his out of some strange sense of spite, when myself and other posters have already explained that that is not the case.

There's a big difference between resisting wearing hi vis and resisting being compelled to wear it at the expense of attention being directed on other measures that could make a real impact on road safety.

GreeBo

Duckjob wrote: »

You appear very determined to fixate on this idea that people are not wearing hi his out of some strange sense of spite, when myself and other posters have already explained that that is not the case.

What you say here seems to contradict with what you say below tbh.
"resisting being compelled to wear it" reads a lot like a child refusing to wear their uniform to me.

I'm sure you will come back with something like "taken out of context" but the point is the same, you are not wearing it because you feel someone else is making you wear it.

Duckjob wrote: »

There's a big difference between resisting wearing hi vis and resisting being compelled to wear it at the expense of attention being directed on other measures that could make a real impact on road safety.

Is there though? Do you think motorists are changing their behaviour because they somehow know you are only wearing reflective/hiviz because you are compelled to, or worse still, you aren't wearing it at all and they are somehow able to distinguish you not wearing it because of a greater cause versus the person who is not wearing it because they just couldnt give a ****e?

Based on the stats, I believe you are giving too much benefit to motorists.

It's far easier and far more effective (at the moment) to encourage the vulnerable road user to do all they can rather than try to change the motorised population. The change you (and I btw) are looking for is a mindset change that is likely going to require generations to pass.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, I mentioned that earlier. It's earlier in the thread. It's not a very good design, mostly because it's got substantial report bias, which they acknowledge, but they try to correct it with a really simplistic correction factor.

I'll save myself repeating by linking:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101436251&postcount=931

In fact, really, there's not a lot more to be said. It's all come up in this thread multiple times. So I'll leave it at that. It really is just a snake eating its tail at this stage.

I'll still take more from a high volume Danish study than a tiny volume UK one.
I wouldnt use a study of 350 people to try and sell someone milk let alone try to determine the effectiveness of a 'safety garment'.

Duckjob

Not sure if you're deliberately obtuse or not paying attention to what I've said -before. Just for the record;

I have a sort of a hi vis jacket (not a yellow one - a provis which is vastly more reflective). I wear it on the bike sometimes but not always, because I wear it more based on the weather conditions. I don't resist wearing it, however I will argue to the ends of the earth against the movement to only talk about compelling people to wear it, because, on the balance of studies done on the subject indicate that safety effect of wearing hi vis is neutral to slightly negative.

a) there is NO statistical body of evidence that indicates that people wearing hi vis are involved in less collisions with vehicles.
b) There IS some statistical evidence that indicates that in fact the opposite is true.

As I mentioned, I spend time on the bike both with and without a reflective jacket on. My own perception, which admittedly is non-scientific is that I get more close passes and general dickish behaviour from motorists when I have the jacket on. I think you will find that perception is shared by others having the same experience.

As long as we are spenting our time talking about hi vis, we are not directing attention where it should go - eg. infrastructure and driver behaviours. And I fully accept that those are not overnight jobs, but change cannot happen to any degree until the road safely discussion stops being dominated by talk about something that has NO proven success record at all.

GreeBo wrote: »

What you say here seems to contradict with what you say below tbh.
"resisting being compelled to wear it" reads a lot like a child refusing to wear their uniform to me.

I'm sure you will come back with something like "taken out of context" but the point is the same, you are not wearing it because you feel someone else is making you wear it.

I'm glad you acknowledged that you took it out of context, If you take someones sentence, truncate the most salient point from it, and then quote the remainder, well, thats pretty much a textbook example.
And again, I think you're falsely conflating resistance with wearing something with resistance to a potentially dangerous campaign of misdirection.

GreeBo wrote:

Is there though? Do you think motorists are changing their behaviour because they somehow know you are only wearing reflective/hiviz because you are compelled to, or worse still, you aren't wearing it at all and they are somehow able to distinguish you not wearing it because of a greater cause versus the person who is not wearing it because they just couldnt give a ****e?

Based on the stats, I believe you are giving too much benefit to motorists.

It's far easier and far more effective (at the moment) to encourage the vulnerable road user to do all they can rather than try to change the motorised population. The change you (and I btw) are looking for is a mindset change that is likely going to require generations to pass.

As mentioned above, there's absolutely no evidence, none, to backup your assertion that I have bolded.

Also, the very idea that hi vis can increase chances of being in a collision is itself worrying because it indicates that a seed has somehow been planted in the collective motorist subconsience that hi vis serves as some sort of "body armour", thereby reducing the duty of care that needs to be taken around them.

[Deleted User]

GreeBo wrote: »

What you say here seems to contradict with what you say below tbh.
"resisting being compelled to wear it" reads a lot like a child refusing to wear their uniform to me.

There are good reasons for resisting compulsion. Any extra legal requirements for cycling is a barrier to cycling. It will reduce the numbers cycling. It creates a deterrant to cycling. We have deterred teenage girls from cycling to the extant that more secondary school girls now drive themselves to school than cycle.

On this particular issue of hi-vis, it creates an image of cycling as a hazardous activity, with no evidence to support this. It also creates an environment of victim blaming.

Let's have compulsory hi-vis stripes for all cars before you come blaming victims.

There is good evidence of 'safety in numbers' in cycling. If we want to make cycling safer, get more people cycling.

Grassey

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's a good question about lights. I've looked it up before. It's never been investigated in relation to collision frequency, as far as I could see. I might have another look. However, hiviz has, and it didn't do very well.

While not cycling related (though some what along these lines) I remember reading before that since ESB set their fleet to have lights on when parked at side of road working , the collision rate of other vehicles hitting them dropped by 70%.

kirving

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

n this particular issue of hi-vis, it creates an image of cycling as a hazardous activity, with no evidence to support this. It also creates an environment of victim blaming.

Cycling is a hazardous activity, relative to driving, per km travelled. Why all the talk of vulnerable road users if not? The fact that the car creates the hazard is irrelevant for this point.

If you cycle at night, with no lights for example, or do something stupid like cycle up the inside of a truck turning left, then as far as I'm concerned, victim blaming is absolutely necessary.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

et's have compulsory hi-vis stripes for all cars before you come blaming victims.

Eh, all cars DO have reflectors to aid being seen at night. Nevermind daytime running lights.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

here is good evidence of 'safety in numbers' in cycling. If we want to make cycling safer, get more people cycling.

I couldn't give a crap about safety in numbers when I'm lying on the tarmac. This argument is used against helmets too.

I came off my mountain bike last year, I can tell you I was glad I was wearing mine when I woke up. Last thing I was thinking was the macro public health benefits of not mandating hemet usage. You can be sure as anything wear it in the city too.

Arcade_Tryer

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Last thing I was thinking was the macro public health benefits of not mandating hemet usage.

Thankfully there are people who are capable of doing that thinking for you.

NIMAN

Its shocking to see cyclists (and joggers are equally as bad) out in this current time of year wearing all black or dark colours.

Should be illegal.

At least cyclists have lights. Joggers are in a different league.

corks finest

Regards hi vis ,an idiot without one cycling in a pitch dark road,no lights,6.00 2 nights ago, ballygarvan to carrigaline needs his head examined,so hi Vis and lighting needs to be mandatory, especially at night

Cookie_Monster

corks finest wrote: »

Regards hi vis ,an idiot without one cycling in a pitch dark road,no lights,6.00 2 nights ago, ballygarvan to carrigaline needs his head examined,so hi Vis and lighting needs to be mandatory, especially at night

lighting is mandatory already and once you have that hi vis become totally irrelevant so why make it mandatory?

Chips Lovell

GreeBo wrote: »

What you say here seems to contradict with what you say below tbh.
"resisting being compelled to wear it" reads a lot like a child refusing to wear their uniform to me.

If the government passed a law compelling men to wear women's knickers rather than men's underwear, would "resisting being compelled to wear them" read a lot like a child refusing to wear their uniform to you or would it sound like someone objecting on the grounds that it's silly and pointless?

plodder

NIMAN wrote: »

Its shocking to see cyclists (and joggers are equally as bad) out in this current time of year wearing all black or dark colours.

Should be illegal.

At least cyclists have lights. Joggers are in a different league.

I presume you mean in the dark. Most joggers run on paths, but anyone on the road should have hi-viz/reflective gear and/or lights. Our athletics club strongly recommends both. But, I wouldn't agree with making it legally required.

I've noticed a couple of cyclists lately completely in black and with only a single LED not terribly bright rear light. Legal I'm sure, but not adequate imo. I think the combination of good lights and hi-viz/reflective gear is best. That's what most bike commuters in the Dublin area do as far as I can see.

Macy0161

plodder wrote: »

Legal I'm sure, but not adequate imo. I think the combination of good lights and hi-viz/reflective gear is best.

Probably not legal, given the 1963 act (most "decent" or even German standard lights probably aren't technically meeting the requirements that are still in operation!).

Again, reflective is the important bit.

[Deleted User]

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Cycling is a hazardous activity, relative to driving, per km travelled. Why all the talk of vulnerable road users if not? The fact that the car creates the hazard is irrelevant for this point.

The KSI per km figures aren't a fair comparison. People travel further in cars by default, and do long mileage on motorways, the safest road type for drivers. Cyclists are over-represented in towns and cities, where most collisions occur.

UK stats show that cycling is safer than playing tennis, or using rowing exercise machines. The risk of inactivity is far more likely to kill you than a road crash.

Far, far more people are killed and injured in vehicles or indeed on foot than while cycling. Cyclists are about 5% of road deaths, motorists/passengers are about 75% and pedestrians are about 20%.

So if you're a big fan of mandatory hi-vis to save lives, you should be starting with vehicles or pedestrians.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

If you cycle at night, with no lights for example, or do something stupid like cycle up the inside of a truck turning left, then as far as I'm concerned, victim blaming is absolutely necessary.

Interesting to note your rush to blame the victim, rather than, for example, wondering why the motorist wasn't driving in a manner that allows them to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, as required by law. Or for example, wondering why the truck owner or driver took a truck out on the road knowing that it had 'blind spots' that could be fairly easily rectified with extra mirrors or extra cameras or extra crew on watch.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Eh, all cars DO have reflectors to aid being seen at night. Nevermind daytime running lights.

Cars don't have reflectors on the sides or at the front. Surely if you're really committed to hi-vis as a solution, all cars should have hi-vis on all sides as a basic safety measure. If it saves one life, right?

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I couldn't give a crap about safety in numbers when I'm lying on the tarmac. This argument is used against helmets too.

I came off my mountain bike last year, I can tell you I was glad I was wearing mine when I woke up. Last thing I was thinking was the macro public health benefits of not mandating hemet usage. You can be sure as anything wear it in the city too.

Your personal decision to give a crap or otherwise doesn't change the body of international evidence about Safety in Numbers. Here's some good information from the UK;

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/safety-in-numbers

If you want to do some digging around Australia, you'll see how mandatory helmet laws have killed off utility cycling with no reduction in head injuries. This will have dramatic consequences for traffic problems and health/obesity/inactivity problems. Be careful what you wish for.

plodder

Macy0161 wrote: »

Again, reflective is the important bit.

The day-glo yellow or orange helps in the kind of low light conditions that are all too common here, in my experience.

Hurrache

NIMAN wrote: »

Its shocking to see cyclists (and joggers are equally as bad) out in this current time of year wearing all black or dark colours.

Should be illegal.

At least cyclists have lights. Joggers are in a different league.

If someone is out running on footpaths, why should they wear high vis or have lights?

Macy0161

plodder wrote: »

The day-glo yellow or orange helps in the kind of low light conditions that are all too common here, in my experience.

The quote was from a scenario when it is dark. If light is that low, drivers should have lights on (as should the VRU), and then the reflective bit is still in play.

And again, drivers should be driving to conditions, and at a speed they can stop as far as they can see. If visibility is that bad, the motorist should be slowing down to take into account the conditions!

Mc Love

Not necessarily cycling but last night I arrived home and 10 minutes later, my MIL calls in having walked to our house. She says did you see me walking? I was like no, I dont even recall seeing a Hi-Viz (she wears one of the free pink Centra gilets). The road wasnt particularly well lit in parts. Maybe I took no notice or maybe if she had a light I might have taken more notice.

I'm coming to the conclusion that if you're not concentrating fully on the road/footpaths then you wont see someone with a hi-viz on.

Fighting Tao

plodder wrote: »

The day-glo yellow or orange helps in the kind of low light conditions that are all too common here, in my experience.

Low sun level like the last few mornings make it impossible to spot day-glo. On my route to work. Anyone wearing it was lost in the sun. Cyclists wearing black stood out. I’d be certain it was the same for other times of the day.

plodder

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Low sun level like the last few mornings make it impossible to spot day-glo yellow. On my route to work. Anyone wearing it was lost in the sun. Cyclists wearing black stood out. I’d be certain it was the same for other times of the day.

I've heard that argument before ...

I don't think much of it

cdaly_

Mc Love wrote: »

Not necessarily cycling but last night I arrived home and 10 minutes later, my MIL calls in having walked to our house. She says did you see me walking? I was like no, I dont even recall seeing a Hi-Viz (she wears one of the free pink Centra gilets). The road wasnt particularly well lit in parts. Maybe I took no notice or maybe if she had a light I might have taken more notice.

I'm coming to the conclusion that if you're not concentrating fully on the road/footpaths then you wont see someone with a hi-viz on.

I've long been of the view that road users (of all type) fall into a 'tunnel vision' mode. If something is not in my path, it's not going to affect me so it becomes invisible. For a car driver, the off-road cycle path is outside of their affected zone and so the cyclists are invisible and it's only when they move onto the road itself that they 'appear from nowhere'. Similarly, pedestrians on the footpath are invisible regardless of what they're wearing.

Road positioning will do far more for you to 'be seen' than any amount of hi-vis (and possibly even lights)...

Fighting Tao

plodder wrote: »

I've heard that argument before ...

I don't think much of it

Try going down Merrion road, rock road etc. tomorrow morning into the sun. I’ll be the guy standing out in black with lights that can be seen up to 2km away in daylight (not that the lights make much difference to many drivers).

CramCycle

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

If the government passed a law compelling men to wear women's knickers rather than men's underwear, would "resisting being compelled to wear them" read a lot like a child refusing to wear their uniform to you or would it sound like someone objecting on the grounds that it's silly and pointless?

I remember hearing years ago this is how they used to catch German spies at the Canadian border trying to cross during the war. They would refuse to wear American/Canadian style underwear as it was not warm enough. So to speed things up, Guards would make lines of men line up and drop their trousers to pick out the Germans quicker.

This could be completely fictitious but I always thought humourous.

GreeBo

Hurrache wrote: »

If someone is out running on footpaths, why should they wear high vis or have lights?

Most footpaths intersect with roads just like bike lanes/paths/cycle areas do.
90% of my journey (in either car or bicycle) has no interaction between the two modes, where the interaction and hence possible conflict occurs is when one crosses the other, typically by a car turning left or a bike turning right.

Macy0161 wrote: »

Again, reflective is the important bit.

I think both bits are important.
Reflective on its own does little during the day.
HiVis on its own does little during the night if there are no other light sources.

Some feel that this means lights are perfect for all scenarios, but hivis is easier to spot during the day and reflective material *can be* easier to spot at night.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

If the government passed a law compelling men to wear women's knickers rather than men's underwear, would "resisting being compelled to wear them" read a lot like a child refusing to wear their uniform to you or would it sound like someone objecting on the grounds that it's silly and pointless?

If there was a good reason behind it then no, as it wouldnt be silly and pointless (for example declining population due to impaired sperm levels in males due to overheating testes, just as an example, not because I happen to like the feel of a nice thong :eek:)

rubadub

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Eh, all cars DO have reflectors to aid being seen at night. Nevermind daytime running lights.

Bikes are also legally required to have reflectors. I guess many who want high viz compulsory do not think the requirement is good enough. Much larger high viz strips could be put on cars. It is very common to see cars going about with no lights on, in which case I do reckon a large strip would be better than the reflectors they might have.

Hurrache wrote: »

If someone is out running on footpaths, why should they wear high vis or have lights?

The majority of joggers I come across are on those jogging paths you see, aka cycletracks. Most going in the direction the are advised not to. Some probably in their cars the next day wondering why that bloody cyclist is not using the perfectly good cycletrack.

blackbox

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

lighting is mandatory already and once you have that hi vis become totally irrelevant so why make it mandatory?

Lighting is only mandatory after "lighting up time".

There are lots of conditions when lights are not mandatory but when day-glo hi-viz will make you much more visible.

Hurrache

GreeBo wrote: »

Most footpaths intersect with roads just like bike lanes/paths/cycle areas do.
90% of my journey (in either car or bicycle) has no interaction between the two modes, where the interaction and hence possible conflict occurs is when one crosses the other, typically by a car turning left or a bike turning right.

And that leads on to why don't you make all pedestrians wear them as you're going to cross a road at some stage. Going into Dublin City for dinner and beers, don't forget your mandatory highvis.

rubadub wrote: »

The majority of joggers I come across are on those jogging paths you see, aka cycletracks. Most going in the direction the are advised not to. Some probably in their cars the next day wondering why that bloody cyclist is not using the perfectly good cycletrack.

What's are the jogging paths?