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

Macy0161

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?

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.

plodder

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.

GreeBo

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.

GreeBo

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?

Fighting Tao

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

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.

[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

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.

GreeBo

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

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?

GreeBo

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?

Fighting Tao

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.

GreeBo

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?

Mickiemcfist

I can't believe this argument is going on for 126 pages. I wear hi-vis + lights as I'm the squishy thing on the road, it's human nature that car drivers will instinctively prioritise looking for things on the road that are dangerous to themselves first - Trucks, cars, walls. Anything practical I can do to make it easier for them to spot me, I'll do. I'm putting on a top anyway, why not make it easier to spot.

The image above is a perfect illustration to highlight the difference, anyone who's telling the truth will spot the hi-vis before the other cyclist. While there are a few situations where that may be reversed (i.e. facing into a low setting sun) they are the exceptions.

People shouldn't be forced to wear hi-vis, but for me the potential risk reward profile is pretty much: Risk(Angelina Jolie won't find me attractive should she see me) Reward(I'm marginally more visible to all road users 99% of the time)

Fighting Tao

GreeBo wrote: »

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?

Obviously if I’m in slow moving traffic I’d pay attention to those who’s path I may cross. I don’t pay attention to those who are long gone.

CramCycle

All strawmanning. GreeBo said "most visible". I saw them all too, but the guy in black was least visible.

They are all 100% visible, there is no increased visibility, if you can see them 100% of the time they are in your field of view, then they are 100% visible, this is a simple but undeniable fact, they cannot be more visible in this scenario.

I'll tell you what, try and write a computer vision algorithm to pick out the cyclists, and see which is the hardest to detect.

a light point would be far easier to catch in almost every scenario. Like most though, so long as it is moving against defined fixed points, it should be quite simple.

Whatever about contrived situations of cyclist in the park, in the real world, in murky grey urban environments, bright clothing stands out more in nearly every circumstance.

It really depends on the scenario and background. It also depends on the colour that is bright. One of the main issues against Hi Vis is the fact that it is treated as suitable for all scenarios or nearly all scenarios when in fact, it is only useful in a narrow range of scenarios.

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?

Despite the poster pointing it out / asking, nope, the person contrasts very well against the lighter background

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.

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.

That is misleading as hell, it is simply the way good drivers and road users work.

I noticed the closer cyclist first, only looking again after reading your statement. The Hi Vis cyclist is further away, around a corner and as such is not what should be first on your brains radar. Anyone who notices the Hi Vis one first, is either not looking at the pic as a driver or should not be driving. neither were hard to spot, both 100% visible, but in regards noticing, definitely the closer person. In a 2D image with no other info, a person with poor eyesight might even mistake the further away cyclist as street furniture if not paying attention but in real life there would be several other queues a mind would use without even realising.

Markcheese

True, crap photo,but it's never a crap day with limited visibility...
When i drive I'm not looking for cyclists.. I see lots, but they're just part of the mix, and I do notice high viz.. (Not as quick as I notice flashing lights but still)
Passed a guy in black lycra, (no lights) on a dual carraigway (typically where the hard shoulder disappeared) a few Saturdays ago, early morning... Now i Saw him... But what bothered me was how close I was to him when I spotted him.. He'd done nothing wrong.. But for 10 or 20 euro he'd could have a couple of flashing leds on his bike, and been "seconds " more visible...

blackbox

rubadub wrote: »

The majority of joggers I come across are on those jogging paths you see, aka cycletracks.

Plenty of them running on the road when there is a footpath available.

[Deleted User]

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

I can't believe this argument is going on for 126 pages. I wear hi-vis + lights as I'm the squishy thing on the road, it's human nature that car drivers will instinctively prioritise looking for things on the road that are dangerous to themselves first - Trucks, cars, walls. Anything practical I can do to make it easier for them to spot me, I'll do. I'm putting on a top anyway, why not make it easier to spot.

The image above is a perfect illustration to highlight the difference, anyone who's telling the truth will spot the hi-vis before the other cyclist. While there are a few situations where that may be reversed (i.e. facing into a low setting sun) they are the exceptions.

People shouldn't be forced to wear hi-vis, but for me the potential risk reward profile is pretty much: Risk(Angelina Jolie won't find me attractive should she see me) Reward(I'm marginally more visible to all road users 99% of the time)

I'm not disagreeing with your personal decision, and indeed, my regular winter jacket is a hi-vis style

but

just because you're not worried about the Angelina Jolie scenario does not mean that other people don't have concerns about their appearance. We've largely driven teenage girls off bikes with our societal obsession with hi-vis and helmets. More teenage girls drive themselves to school than cycle to school.

This has two real impacts;

Missed opportunity for improved 'safety in numbers' effect, which would make cycling safer for everybody
Missed opportunity for improved population health - less obesity, less diabetes, less stroke, less cancer

It's not just Angelina Jolie that loses out.

Chips Lovell

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

You're inadvertently arguing against your own position here. If you walk into a car in broad daylight, is it because a.) the car wasn't visible enough or b.) you weren't paying attention.

NIMAN

Hurrache wrote: »

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

I live in a rural area.

I see road runners too (mep mep)

Macy0161

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

I could see both. On first glance, the hi viz guy could be on the pavement. But as others have said, I could see both, so how is Hi Viz helping?

You're also ignoring the fact that in both examples, they were presumably moving, so even if you brought the hypothesis that they're invisible against the tree (and continued to ignore that their legs still contrasted readily with the road), they wouldn't be solely with the tree as a background. Back up the video a few seconds - how was the cloak of invisibility working?

Mickiemcfist

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with your personal decision, and indeed, my regular winter jacket is a hi-vis style

but

just because you're not worried about the Angelina Jolie scenario does not mean that other people don't have concerns about their appearance. We've largely driven teenage girls off bikes with our societal obsession with hi-vis and helmets. More teenage girls drive themselves to school than cycle to school.

This has two real impacts;
Missed opportunity for improved 'safety in numbers' effect, which would make cycling safer for everybody

Missed opportunity for improved population health - less obesity, less diabetes, less stroke, less cancer

It's not just Angelina Jolie that loses out.

First off, thank you - not many would feel Angelina Jolie is missing out :pac:

Look I do think the RSA put a little too much investment into ads telling us to wear hi-vis, money could be better spent by building segregated cycle lanes etc.
But I don't really get why there's this much resistance to hi-vis

Chips Lovell

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

But I don't really get why there's this much resistance to hi-vis

Because it's pointless, ineffective, and an a convenient distraction from the real issues, which are far more complex and expensive to tackle.

It's like saying "I understand we should be investing more in finding a cure for cancer, but I don't get why there's so much resistance to homeopathic remedies.

hesker

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

But I don't really get why there's this much resistance to hi-vis

In the fairly recent past a guy on his bike was run over and killed in broad daylight in the middle of the summer not far from where I live.

At the time it happened I expressed my sadness and disappointment at yet another needless loss of life.

Without a moments hesitation a member of my extended family blurted out.....

“Well if they continue to cycle around without wearing hi vis what can they expect.”

Can you begin to understand how infuriating this kind of thinking comes across.

07Lapierre

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

But I don't really get why there's this much resistance to hi-vis

I wear this kind of jacket....

https://www.bicycle-line.com/eng/giubbino-lode.html

It fits better, it looks better and it works better than a hi-viz "waistcoat". I also have LIGHTS, which are brighter, work in Daylight, low light and complete darkness.

rubadub

hesker wrote: »

Without a moments hesitation a member of my extended family blurted out.....

“Well if they continue to cycle around without wearing hi vis what can they expect.”

answer should be "did you expect to die or at very high risk of dying when you used to cycle around with no high viz or helmet?" since if they are over a certain age it is extremely likely that they did.

GreeBo

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

You're inadvertently arguing against your own position here. If you walk into a car in broad daylight, is it because a.) the car wasn't visible enough or b.) you weren't paying attention.

Not at all.
If I'm in a tank then I can have full cammo gear on and I dont really care who sees me or doesnt, its not me who is going to get hurt in a collision.

You are expecting drivers to drive like cyclists cycle, but they dont, because they are both dealing with totally different circumstances on the road.
You might not like the fact that a motorist isnt as careful about having a tip as a cyclist needs to be, but thats the reality of the situation.

Go into any car park and count the number of cars that have dings on their sides and their bumpers. The majority of them will be from hitting inanimate objects.

Thats what you are up against and thats why you should be making yourself as noticeable as possible.
Arguing that "both are perfectly visible" is pointless. Cars are all visible and yet they drive into each other all the time. But you choose to ignore that and just want "all drivers to be better".

Well best of luck with that approach.
The Dutch are often thrown out here as the paragon of cycling and why cant Irish drivers be like Dutch drivers?

Cycling in the Netherlands can be fun, but in 2017, for the first time ever, more cyclists were involved in fatal accidents than motorists. According to Statistics Netherlands (CBS), 613 people were killed in traffic accidents in 2017, 206 of these were cyclists, whilst 201 were motorists in passenger cars.

Dutch e-bike deaths
In 2017, there were 16 fewer traffic accident related deaths than in 2016. However, the number of cyclists suffering fatal injuries was at its highest in ten years time, and more than quarter of these victims met their end on an e-bike.

Looks like they are not all that great at avoiding cyclist related injuries either despite all their cycling infrastructure, segregation and all growing up being bike friendly.
So how on earth you think you are going to make a change to Irish motorists that will result in safer cycling is beyond me, but when you expend all your efforts to push back at the RSA just because they hand out free hiviz clothing ALONG with their general cycling/motorists videos, then I dont expect you to make much headway.

Macy0161 wrote: »

I could see both. On first glance, the hi viz guy could be on the pavement. But as others have said, I could see both, so how is Hi Viz helping?

Everyone can see both but one is FAR more noticeable than the other.
If this is not the case then why arent advertising hordings brown on brown like this cyclist is? Or lets be kind and say brown on 50% dark grey.

You're also ignoring the fact that in both examples, they were presumably moving, so even if you brought the hypothesis that they're invisible against the tree (and continued to ignore that their legs still contrasted readily with the road), they wouldn't be solely with the tree as a background. Back up the video a few seconds - how was the cloak of invisibility working?

Most drivers wont be staring at that part of the road in case their ae bicycles passing trees. They will look and then make their move.
Again you can cry foul all you want, but as I posted above, thats the reality here and in your cycling heaven of the Netherlands.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

I wear this kind of jacket....

https://www.bicycle-line.com/eng/giubbino-lode.html

It fits better, it looks better and it works better than a hi-viz "waistcoat". I also have LIGHTS, which are brighter, work in Daylight, low light and complete darkness.

The blue doesnt blend in with the sky at all?
Argument here in the past has been that hivis is useless in low sun, but your blue jacket and lights can somehow overcome this?