Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Chips Lovell · 01-11-2018 04:12PM

GreeBo wrote: »

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..

I think you missed my point actually. Do you think motorists hit those inanimate objects because they weren't visible or because they weren't paying sufficient attention?

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

You're actually contradicting yourself here.

Mickiemcfist · 01-11-2018 04:17PM

hesker wrote: »

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.

So your issue isn't with hi-vis then, it's with your family member?
There isn't 126 pages on the motors forum giving out about DRL's being made mandatory, they won't stop all accidents, but they'll help. Cars are bigger than us so don't really need to be made any more visible, but we really really do. That's what I find funny.
So as I said above, Hi-Vis isn't the be all & end all, but I wear it as it helps.
In an ideal world, every driver would be aware enough to look out for cyclists, but drivers manage to drive into Luases/Luasi, so I'm not holding out much hope of that.

07Lapierre · 01-11-2018 04:18PM

GreeBo wrote: »

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?

I don't ride in the sky? Last time i checked the sky doesn't ride a bike, doesn't have reflective elements on helmet? and it doesn't have a really bright light either..actually it does have a light!...the SUN in daylight and the MOON at night.

Mickiemcfist · 01-11-2018 04:22PM

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.

Fashion is subjective I know, (it's not something I care about when commuting) but I would not be willing to pay 90 quid to buy that when I've got plenty of warm jackets that I could wear in public & a free long sleeve yellow hi vis jacket to cycle my €200 bike 18k a day.

Additionally I said multiple times I also use lights, which I use day & night, no matter the weather.

GreeBo · 01-11-2018 04:23PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think you missed my point actually. Do you think motorists hit those inanimate objects because they weren't visible or because they weren't paying sufficient attention?

No I got your point alright.
I'm saying that motorists are selfish. They dont *need* to worry so much about hitting things are they are pretty bloody safe. The result of this is that they dont necessarily pay as much attention as the might and so things that blend in to the regular road scene can go unnoticed. Most things are travelling in straight lines and in the same direction in different lanes.

This is why you want to not blend into the background of the road scene as a cyclist, as if someone does hit you you have no protection.

You're actually contradicting yourself here.

See above.
Its not a contradiction because the results are not the same. A car gets a scratch, a cyclist gets dead.

GreeBo · 01-11-2018 04:24PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

I don't ride in the sky? Last time i checked the sky doesn't ride a bike, doesn't have reflective elements on helmet? and it doesn't have a really bright light either..actually it does have a light!...the SUN in daylight and the MOON at night.

Last time I checked the sky went all the way down to the horizon.

rubadub · 01-11-2018 04:28PM

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

There isn't 126 pages on the motors forum giving out about DRL's being made mandatory.

Yes, because they are not mandatory, if they were I expect there would indeed be plenty of complaints if they did have to go retrofitting cars. Just like if large high viz strips had to be added to all cars. Or if helmets were made mandatory for all drivers & passengers.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/VS_Information_Notes/Vehicle_Parts/FAQ%20Note%20on%20Daytime%20Running%20Lights.pdf

Are DRL’s compulsory? No

Will a vehicle fail the roadworthiness test if it doesn’t have DRLs fitted? It is not mandatory for DRLs to be fitted to
vehicles however where fitted they must work, otherwise the vehicle will fail the NCT

Can new cars be sold with Daytime Running Lights (DRLs)? Yes.

07Lapierre · 01-11-2018 04:28PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Last time I checked the sky went all the way down to the horizon.

Maybe the sky should wear a hi-vz jacket so.

Chips Lovell · 01-11-2018 04:31PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not a contradiction because the results are not the same. A car gets a scratch, a cyclist gets dead.

No, the contradiction lies in the fact that you said a car is "perfectly visible" yet other cars still crash into them. Inattention is the issue, not visibility.

Yet if it's a cyclist, then magically visibility does become the issue. Now can you see the contradiction?

Macy0161 · 01-11-2018 04:33PM

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

They shouldn't be starring, but at least you're (in a roundabout way) accepting the problem is the drivers, and their lack of observation.

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

Not sure where I expressed any opinion on the netherlands - good, bad or indifferent.

Lumen · 01-11-2018 04:38PM

GreeBo wrote: »

This is why you want to not blend into the background of the road scene as a cyclist, as if someone does hit you you have no protection.

This is the type of thing that seems like such obvious common sense that it shouldn't need stating, but there is no evidence at all that hi vis achieves this, and this is also why many experienced cyclists tend not to wear it. It just doesn't work.

There are much more effective strategies for managing driver attention than hi vis clothing, most significantly road positioning, bright-but-not-blinding lighting and possibly retro-reflective ankle bands (if you're in to that sort of thing).

07Lapierre · 01-11-2018 04:40PM

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Fashion is subjective I know, (it's not something I care about when commuting) but I would not be willing to pay 90 quid to buy that when I've got plenty of warm jackets that I could wear in public & a free long sleeve yellow hi vis jacket to cycle my €200 bike 18k a day.

Additionally I said multiple times I also use lights, which I use day & night, no matter the weather.

Each to their own...(I didn't pay €90 for mine either). You choose to wear a Hi-viz?...good for you, that's your choice. You use lights day and night? excellent, well done!

Mickiemcfist · 01-11-2018 04:46PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

You choose to wear a Hi-viz?...good for you, that's your choice. You use lights day and night? excellent, well done!

And you don't, what a rebel! I'm sure everyone must think you're oh so cool.:rolleyes:

07Lapierre · 01-11-2018 04:49PM

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

And you don't, what a rebel! I'm sure everyone must think you're oh so cool.:rolleyes:

I AM COOL!

il_fullxfull.1187610965_sqhn_large.jpg?v=1504294398

buffalo · 01-11-2018 04:53PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not a contradiction because the results are not the same. A car gets a scratch, a cyclist gets dead.

A visible car gets a scratch, a hi-viz cyclist gets dead. Sounds about right.

Chips Lovell · 01-11-2018 04:54PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

I AM COOL!

I thought you were cool until I realised you couldn't cycle through the sky. Now my world feels empty.

07Lapierre · 01-11-2018 04:57PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I thought you were cool until I realised you couldn't cycle through the sky. Now my world feels empty.

Not as young as I used to be...back in the day though it was a piece of cake! ..

movie-star-news-e-t-flying-bicycle-portrait_a-G-14444747-8363142.jpg

hesker · 01-11-2018 05:13PM

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

So your issue isn't with hi-vis then, it's with your family member?

I wear a reflective harness belt and have good lights. I don’t have an issue with hi vis either on the whole.

What I do have an issue with is gross insensitivity and the willingness of people to distance themselves and other motorists from blame without question if a cyclist is not wearing hi vis. It turns out in that particular case the poor guy was wearing hi vis. Fat lot of good it did him.

GreeBo · 01-11-2018 05:20PM

rubadub wrote: »

Yes, because they are not mandatory, if they were I expect there would indeed be plenty of complaints if they did have to go retrofitting cars. Just like if large high viz strips had to be added to all cars. Or if helmets were made mandatory for all drivers & passengers.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/VS_Information_Notes/Vehicle_Parts/FAQ%20Note%20on%20Daytime%20Running%20Lights.pdf

If car drivers were as vulnerable as all other road users it might be a conversation worth having.

I could equally ask you about the airbags, seatbelt & crumple zones on your bike, but I doubt you would take me seriously.

GreeBo · 01-11-2018 05:49PM

Macy0161 wrote: »

They shouldn't be starring, but at least you're (in a roundabout way) accepting the problem is the drivers, and their lack of observation.

I dont think I ever denied that was (most of the time) the issue?

Not sure where I expressed any opinion on the netherlands - good, bad or indifferent.

I meant the generic "you", wasn't aimed at you specifically, but the Netherlands has been mentioned a few times on this thread and the forum in general.

AndrewJRenko · 01-11-2018 06:06PM

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

So your issue isn't with hi-vis then, it's with your family member?
There isn't 126 pages on the motors forum giving out about DRL's being made mandatory, they won't stop all accidents, but they'll help. Cars are bigger than us so don't really need to be made any more visible, but we really really do. That's what I find funny.
So as I said above, Hi-Vis isn't the be all & end all, but I wear it as it helps.
In an ideal world, every driver would be aware enough to look out for cyclists, but drivers manage to drive into Luases/Luasi, so I'm not holding out much hope of that.

Your car is a hi-vis colour, right? That'll help reduce accidents crashes right? Why would you push so much for hi-vis on a bike but not on your car, given that 75% of road deaths occur in vehicles, compared to just 5% on bikes. Was it this year or last that all but one cyclist deaths happened in daylight?

GreeBo wrote: »

If car drivers were as vulnerable as all other road users it might be a conversation worth having.

I could equally ask you about the airbags, seatbelt & crumple zones on your bike, but I doubt you would take me seriously.

75% of road deaths occur in vehicles, compared to 5% on bikes. Seems like all those airbags, seatbelts and crumple zones just aren't quite doing the biz. So all cars should have hi-vis stripes, right? If it saves one life....

rubadub · 01-11-2018 06:20PM

GreeBo wrote: »

If car drivers were as vulnerable as all other road users it might be a conversation worth having.

not sure what car drivers vulnerability has to do with the topic of motorists potentially complaining about having to retrofit vehicles with DRLs. Which is what I was responding to, the poster incorrectly saying they are mandatory.

GreeBo wrote: »

I could equally ask you about the airbags, seatbelt & crumple zones on your bike, but I doubt you would take me seriously.

Why would I not take you seriously? Do you think the idea/benefit of motorists wearing helmets is not to be taken seriously? sounds like you think the ideas are analogous, and that both are ridiculous or something.

GreeBo · 01-11-2018 06:55PM

rubadub wrote: »

not sure what car drivers vulnerability has to do with the topic of motorists potentially complaining about having to retrofit vehicles with DRLs. Which is what I was responding to, the poster incorrectly saying they are mandatory.

Well the whole point of all of this is safety and saving lives right?
If you aren't as vulnerable in a car then you don't need to take the same precautions as if you are outside of the car.

Why would I not take you seriously? Do you think the idea/benefit of motorists wearing helmets is not to be taken seriously? sounds like you think the ideas are analogous, and that both are ridiculous or something.

You see thats the issue, you are trying to make them analogous when they are not, because one person is in big metal cage designed to keep them safe, a full body helmet if you like and the other is relying on lycra.

So trying to use cars with reflective stripes to make some point about cyclists with reflective gear is nonsensical. You wear your seatbelt in a car, do you have one for your bike?
Its your same argument back at you, so why dont you have a harness on your bike and why does it not have crumple zones?

07Lapierre · 01-11-2018 08:22PM

GreeBo wrote: »

If you aren't as vulnerable in a car then you don't need to take the same precautions as if you are outside of the car?

:eek::eek:

GreeBo · 01-11-2018 08:24PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

:eek::eek:

If this is news to you then I fear for your safety while cycling.
Why is defensive cycling a thing? Why do people take up road position if this isn't the reality.

GreeBo · 01-11-2018 08:29PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

No, the contradiction lies in the fact that you said a car is "perfectly visible" yet other cars still crash into them. Inattention is the issue, not visibility.

Yet if it's a cyclist, then magically visibility does become the issue. Now can you see the contradiction?

Sorry but still no.

It's hard to not get your attention taken by a bright yellow blob entering your vision, if this happens you have noticed it and are aware of it.
A dark brown one that melts into the background, not so much.

Why are ambulances yellow? Why are fire engines red?
They both have flashing blue lights on them as well as their regular lights...surely we should be able to see them if they were "normal" vehicle colours?

07Lapierre · 01-11-2018 08:54PM

GreeBo wrote: »

If this is news to you then I fear for your safety while cycling.
Why is defensive cycling a thing? Why do people take up road position if this isn't the reality.

Defensive cycling is a thing because stupid motorists feel so safe in their cars they don't realise the danger they put others in by driving without due care and attention.

The fact that cyclists/pedestrians are VRU's is the very reason why stupid motorists have a greater responsibility to drive with due care and attention.

No amount of defensive cycling, lights, hi-viz etc. Etc. Will protect a cyclist from a car driven by a stupid numpty and to be honest I find your attitude quite scary. Unfortunately, your not alone having such an attitude.

AndrewJRenko · 01-11-2018 09:03PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Well the whole point of all of this is safety and saving lives right?
If you aren't as vulnerable in a car then you don't need to take the same precautions as if you are outside of the car.

It's worth remembering that far more people are killed in cars than on bikes, by a factor of more than 10 to 1.

GreeBo wrote: »

You see thats the issue, you are trying to make them analogous when they are not, because one person is in big metal cage designed to keep them safe, a full body helmet if you like and the other is relying on lycra.

Though even with that big metal cage designed to keep them safe, more pepole are killed in cars than on bikes, by a factor of more than 10 to 1.

GreeBo wrote: »

So trying to use cars with reflective stripes to make some point about cyclists with reflective gear is nonsensical. You wear your seatbelt in a car, do you have one for your bike?
Its your same argument back at you, so why dont you have a harness on your bike and why does it not have crumple zones?

Because of physics - there is nothing to safely anchor a seat belt to on a bike, and there is no zone to crumple on a bike. If there was, it would be a car.

But interestingly, there is loads of nice clean body surface that you could put hi-vis stripes on a car, so why wouldn't you? If it saves one life, right?

GreeBo wrote: »

It's hard to not get your attention taken by a bright yellow blob entering your vision, if this happens you have noticed it and are aware of it.
A dark brown one that melts into the background, not so much.

It all depends what the background is. Conspicuousness depends on colour contrast, not colour. The bright yellow blog against a bright yellow sunlight background does not stand out. A dark brown blog against a bright yellow sunlight background contrasts well.

GreeBo · 01-11-2018 09:16PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Defensive cycling is a thing because stupid motorists feel so safe in their cars they don't realise the danger they put others in by driving without due care and attention.

The fact that cyclists/pedestrians are VRU's is the very reason why stupid motorists have a greater responsibility to drive with due care and attention.

No amount of defensive cycling, lights, hi-viz etc. Etc. Will protect a cyclist from a car driven by a stupid numpty

Indeed, so why you are surprised at my previous quote?
I didn't say I liked it or agreed with it, its reality.

and to be honest I find your attitude quite scary. Unfortunately, your not alone having such an attitude.

Sorry but what attitude or are you referring to? All I have ever said is that as a vulnerable road user you need to do all you can to make other road users more aware of you.

If you think that's a scary attitude then I honestly don't know where we go from here.

GreeBo · 01-11-2018 09:23PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's worth remembering that far more people are killed in cars than on bikes, by a factor of more than 10 to 1.

Based on 2016 CSO figures, motoring commuters outnumber cycling commuters by a factor of more than 20 to 1.

Though even with that big metal cage designed to keep them safe, more pepole are killed in cars than on bikes, by a factor of more than 10 to 1.

See above. Also check the distances commuted by car versus by bike.

Its far safer to drive.

Because of physics - there is nothing to safely anchor a seat belt to on a bike, and there is no zone to crumple on a bike. If there was, it would be a car.

Got it, bikes are inherently less safe than cars. Thanks for confirming.
Cars didnt have seatbelts or crumple zones, they were added for safety.

But interestingly, there is loads of nice clean body surface that you could put hi-vis stripes on a car, so why wouldn't you? If it saves one life, right?

Because it wouldnt save one life.

It all depends what the background is. Conspicuousness depends on colour contrast, not colour. The bright yellow blog against a bright yellow sunlight background does not stand out. A dark brown blog against a bright yellow sunlight background contrasts well.

Last time I checked there were more dark objects than suns, but I'll count again tomorrow, just to make sure. Also I'm reliably informed by our French friend that cyclists are not in the sky.

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments