Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Fighting Tao wrote: »

How often are you going to twist and change things to suit your agenda?

Unless the mirror is from the 19th century the image won’t be such crap quality.

Twist and change things?
You think its some made up scenario that there would be cyclist in your mirrors?
The image would be even smaller and so harder for you to see.
You could be in slow moving traffic waiting to turn left and these 2 are coming up behind you. The distance in the image was 30M, which is a couple of seconds for them to be alongside you.

But to you thats some crazy contrived example?

GreeBo wrote: »

How about the same image in one of your mirrors?

How often are you going to twist and change things to suit your agenda?

Unless the mirror is from the 19th century the image won’t be such crap quality.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

No contradiction. Crap camera and watching out for potentials that are nowhere near the point of view heading the same way...they wouldn’t be acknowledged as they will never be any interaction as they are long gone. Someone around the corner that looks like an item on a footpath due to the crap camera wouldn’t register as someone else highlighted earlier. Come back with some decent high resolution photos please that I can actually see on my phone.

How about the same image in one of your mirrors?

GreeBo wrote: »

Your first paragraph contradicts your second one.
I didn't notice the cyclist because I was busy noticing the other cyclist.
What that tells me is that you had to focus all your energy on spotting the guy who was harder to spot, and actually missed the unmissable bright yellow object in the photo.

There you have it folks, we have the answer to why "hi-vis causes more accidents", observers are still too busy trying to spot the hard to spot idiots who blend in.

No contradiction. Crap camera and watching out for potentials that are nowhere near the point of view heading the same way...they wouldn’t be acknowledged as they will never be any interaction as they are long gone. Someone around the corner that looks like an item on a footpath due to the crap camera wouldn’t register as someone else highlighted earlier. Come back with some decent high resolution photos please that I can actually see on my phone.

Btw, is it ground hog day?

Macy0161 wrote: »

No, actually.

The one with the light that's nearest to the camera, not the one already around the corner.

I think you have more an issue with a blury camera, and if that matches your eyes you should have glasses (or schedule a retest).

I really have no issue seeing either.

Of course you can see both, but if you are seriously trying to tell me that the dark cyclist who is perfectly lined up with the dark tree behind him is easier to spot that than totally unnatural, bright yellow cyclist, I'm going to have to say you are being disingenuous.

It would be *much* harder to detect that dark cyclist using all manner of object/collision devices, the guy in yellow would be picked up a lot easier. Even just from edge detection its a no brainer.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Funny. First thing I noticed from the pics before even reading your text was the cyclist. Why? Because I was looking out for cyclists. People won’t register what they choose not to look out for.

ETA: I’ll be honest and say I didn’t even notice the cyclist in day-glo until I read your text. Although he is around a bend. The guy in black jumped out at me.

Your first paragraph contradicts your second one.
I didn't notice the cyclist because I was busy noticing the other cyclist.
What that tells me is that you had to focus all your energy on spotting the guy who was harder to spot, and actually missed the unmissable bright yellow object in the photo.

There you have it folks, we have the answer to why "hi-vis causes more accidents", observers are still too busy trying to spot the hard to spot idiots who blend in.

[Deleted User]

blackbox wrote: »

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

And there are conditions where day-glo hi-viz will make you much less visible - bright sunlight conditions especially

GreeBo wrote: »

You dont think this guy is hard to spot?

No, actually.

GreeBo wrote: »

Which cyclist do you see first?

The one with the light that's nearest to the camera, not the one already around the corner.

GreeBo wrote: »

Despite the moderator on this forum telling me I must have an eyesight problem, during the day it can easily he hard to spot someone in daylight.

I think you have more an issue with a blury camera, and if that matches your eyes you should have glasses (or schedule a retest).

I really have no issue seeing either.

GreeBo wrote: »

Despite the moderator on this forum telling me I must have an eyesight problem, during the day it can easily he hard to spot someone in daylight.

You dont think this guy is hard to spot?

Which cyclist do you see first?

Funny. First thing I noticed from the pics before even reading your text was the cyclist. Why? Because I was looking out for cyclists. People won’t register what they choose not to look out for.

ETA: I’ll be honest and say I didn’t even notice the cyclist in day-glo until I read your text. Although he is around a bend. The guy in black jumped out at me.

Macy0161 wrote: »

Why wouldn't a car driver be able to see someone in daylight?

Despite the moderator on this forum telling me I must have an eyesight problem, during the day it can easily he hard to spot someone in daylight.

You dont think this guy is hard to spot?

Which cyclist do you see first?

rubadub wrote: »

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.

Cars are not vulnerable road users though.

If you don't see a car and you walk into it, the guy inside is probably ok, even if he isn't wearing a safety vest and a hard had as some here would like to mention.

Its *much* safer to be in the car.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

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).

Well I'm sceptical that hi-viz makes much difference in that situation. Bright lights might help all right. But, it's the more common dull, low light conditions where I think the benefit is significant. And I'm not saying that hiviz should be mandatory. So, whether people want to wear them in bright sunlight should be their choice imo.

Mc Love

Dont they say that there's a reduction in accidents when cars have their lights on during the day, hence the rise of DRL's. Same should be said for bikes.

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

Why wouldn't a car driver be able to see someone in daylight?

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?

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.

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.

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:)

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.

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).

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 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

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.

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.

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!

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 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.

[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 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.