Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)
Options
Comments
-
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?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.
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....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.0 -
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.If car drivers were as vulnerable as all other road users it might be a conversation worth having.
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.I could equally ask you about the airbags, seatbelt & crumple zones on your bike, but I doubt you would take me seriously.0 -
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?0 -
-
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry but still no.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?
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.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.0 -
Indeed, so why you are surprised at my previous quote?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
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.0 -
Based on 2016 CSO figures, motoring commuters outnumber cycling commuters by a factor of more than 20 to 1.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.
See above. Also check the distances commuted by car versus by bike.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.
Its far safer to drive.
Got it, bikes are inherently less safe than cars. Thanks for confirming.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.
Cars didnt have seatbelts or crumple zones, they were added for safety.
Because it wouldnt save one life.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?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.0 -
Advertisement
-
It really depends what measure you use. If you use KSI per km, then yes it is. But that's not really a sensible comparison, given (as you point out yourself) people generally drive longer distances than they cycle. Motorists burn up lots of kms on motorways, which are probably the safest type of road, while cyclists spend lots of time in cities.Based on 2016 CSO figures, motoring commuters outnumber cycling commuters by a factor of more than 20 to 1.
See above. Also check the distances commuted by car versus by bike.
Its far safer to drive.
But the hard fact remains, that far more people are killed and injured in cars than on bikes, even with seat belts, airbags, crumple zones and more.
You didn't get that from me, because I didn't say that. Far more people are killed or injured in cars than on bikes. The weight, speed and momentum of cars and vans puts them in a totally different league of danger to bikes.Got it, bikes are inherently less safe than cars. Thanks for confirming.
Cars didnt have seatbelts or crumple zones, they were added for safety.
This is really fascinating. It's great to have a clearly defined threshold for safety initiatives.Because it wouldnt save one life.
What makes you so certain that hi-vis for cyclists will save one life? In 2017, 13 of the 15 cyclist deaths were in daylight hours, where hi-vis has negligible impact. How exactly did you work out that your plans for cyclists will actually save lives?
Do indeed count tomorrow. Check out how much of the background is grey concrete, or green foliage, or bright sun.Last time I checked there were more dark objects than suns, but I'll count again tomorrow, just to make sure.0 -
No, collimated light has a bright centre, but it's never perfectly unidirectional.
Collimation refers to the parallelism of light rays, not how vignetted it is.
That's far too narrow an angle. If that was true, I couldn't see the headlight of my headlight when standing off to one side. I can.
If you read what I said, "it isn't very effective", not that it can't be seen. As far as I see it, you're purposely misrepresenting what I'm saying to make my point look stupid.It's not a large surface. It's just a couple of strips. Unless it's one of the proviz tops, which isn't what most people are wearing.
It is a larger surface area relative to a light which is a point source. If someone is behind you, they can easily obscure your light. They're much less likely to obscure the full length of the reflective strip.It's not strawmanning. If another cyclist appeared at the end trailing a giant helium balloon with a strobe light attached to it, they'd be the most visible. It doesn't make any of the other three suddenly irresponsbile. They're all pefectly visible.
Perfect to me would be wearing white against a black background or vice versa. Wearing black in a cityscape isn't the best means of making yourself stand out in my book.See above. It's irrelvant. They're all visible. They've done enough. That's been the point all along. I never actuallly said anything about people being more visible or not. People only have to be adequately or, preferably, very visible. They don't have to be "as visible as possible",which is a moving target anyway.
Do you think that black clothing makes you very visible? Corner cases such as low sun aside? (I have said "majority" in my posts referring to reflecting clothing being beneficial)Arcade_Tryer wrote: »Thankfully there are people who are capable of doing that thinking for you.
Do you care that the country as a whole is becoming steadily better off, or do you care about your own disposable income?Cookie_Monster wrote: »lighting is mandatory already and once you have that hi vis become totally irrelevant so why make it mandatory?
It doesn't become totally irrelevant, because lights can be easily obscured for a multitude of reasons.AndrewJRenko wrote: »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.
And I don't believe total number of deaths or injuries to be a fair comparison either? Very few people in Ireland are killed Base jumping, but it's nevertheless a dangerous activity.AndrewJRenko wrote: »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.
As I said, I couldn't care less about the health of the overall population, I care about my personal health and safety. I cycle quite a lot compared to most people too.
And what proportion of people cycle vs. drive? Total numbers is not a valid comparison to gauge risk.AndrewJRenko wrote: »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%.AndrewJRenko wrote: »So if you're a big fan of mandatory hi-vis to save lives, you should be starting with vehicles or pedestrians.
Almost all new vehicles are fitted with lights that you can't turn off. My car has front, side and rear reflectors. And yet, my insurance company still ask what colour my car is, as this makes a difference to its risk category.
https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/articles/car-crash-by-colour/AndrewJRenko wrote: »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.
This is in contrast to the "hierarchy of controls" as posted earlier. Here. Number 1 is Elimination. If you don't cycle up the inside of the truck, you cant get hit. Doing something that you know to be risky, and passing the responsibility onto the driver is pure and utter stupidity if you ask me.
If I go out without a raincoat and get wet, I have some responsibility in that, no matter how much I attempt the blame the weatherman for getting it wrong.AndrewJRenko wrote: »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?
Yes they do. My last few cars have had them, side marker lamps, daytime running lights, and emergency brake lights. Newer vehicle lighting packages have saved thousands of lives, and yet they still come with reflectors.
See here:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A42007X0530%2801%29#ntr6-L_2007137EN.01000101-E0006AndrewJRenko wrote: »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.
Again, I don't understand the relevance of inferred outcomes of laws in other countries? How does the inactivity of the general population help me in a collision?If someone is out running on footpaths, why should they wear high vis or have lights?
Because footpaths and roads cross once in a while, and you can be damn sure they're not going to wait at the lights. If I can see them at a distance, I'll make sure to plan my driving around them as early as possible.0 -
Who said anything about 'gauging risk'? We're not on some academic exercise here. We're trying to work out where we should focus our attention for road safety measures. About 75% of road deaths occur in cars, so if we think hi-vis is going to save lives, we should be focusing on hi-vis for cars - it's just common sense.Kevin Irving wrote: »And I don't believe total number of deaths or injuries to be a fair comparison either? Very few people in Ireland are killed Base jumping, but it's nevertheless a dangerous activity.
And what proportion of people cycle vs. drive? Total numbers is not a valid comparison to gauge risk.
And as I said, your personal choice to give a crap or not has zero impact on the validity of public safety measures.Kevin Irving wrote: »As I said, I couldn't care less about the health of the overall population, I care about my personal health and safety. I cycle quite a lot compared to most people too.
Again, I don't understand the relevance of inferred outcomes of laws in other countries? How does the inactivity of the general population help me in a collision?
But if you do want to take a self-centered view, improved public health measures for the rest of the population will free up health resources to help you in case of a collision. There's only so many doctors and nurses available, so do you want them dealing with people with obesity, diabetes and cancer, or dealing with your collision injuries?
So why do I keep seeing new cars 14D, 15D and later driving in traffic with back lights on at all? I thought it was because the buyers haven't read the manual to work out how their DRLs work?Kevin Irving wrote: »Almost all new vehicles are fitted with lights that you can't turn off.
Yes indeed, still lots of older cars out there with no side lights, and lots of cars with lights not working, and lots of black and navy cars out there - so surely hi-vis for all cars would be a great opportunity to improve safety for those vehicles where most deaths and serious injuries occur?Kevin Irving wrote: »My car has front, side and rear reflectors. And yet, my insurance company still ask what colour my car is, as this makes a difference to its risk category.
https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/articles/car-crash-by-colour/
Yes they do. My last few cars have had them, side marker lamps, daytime running lights, and emergency brake lights. Newer vehicle lighting packages have saved thousands of lives, and yet they still come with reflectors.
See here:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A42007X0530%2801%29#ntr6-L_2007137EN.01000101-E0006
If it saves one life, right?
Yeah, No 1 is elimination - so for trucks, that means eliminating the blind spots - fitting proper cameras or mirrors or extra crew so that it can share space in the city with children, young people, older people, people with disabilities.Kevin Irving wrote: »
This is in contrast to the "hierarchy of controls" as posted earlier. Here. Number 1 is Elimination. If you don't cycle up the inside of the truck, you cant get hit. Doing something that you know to be risky, and passing the responsibility onto the driver is pure and utter stupidity if you ask me.
If I go out without a raincoat and get wet, I have some responsibility in that, no matter how much I attempt the blame the weatherman for getting it wrong.
That's what would have saved Rose Hoey - not blaming victims;
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/coroner-s-court/reverse-lights-broken-on-truck-which-killed-ranelagh-pedestrian-1.25678650 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »So why do I keep seeing new cars 14D, 15D and later driving in traffic with back lights on at all? I thought it was because the buyers haven't read the manual to work out how their DRLs work?
It#s because DRLs are really really f'in stupid. Rather than do what Saab done years ago and made the car immobile unless a minimum of Dims were on (so front and rear lights), they added a minimum standard that is the equivalent of driving with just your front parking lights on.0 -
Because footpaths and roads cross once in a while, and you can be damn sure they're not going to wait at the lights. If I can see them at a distance, I'll make sure to plan my driving around them as early as possible.
So why aren't you advocating that every single person who steps outside of their house should be made wear one?0 -
Yeah, I'm not sure how effective my ProViz 360 jacket has been this week, the numbers driving with DRL or no lights on my commute. I've had more lights on my bike than a significant minority of motorists have had on their cars!0
-
-
-
Exactly, every single person who steps from their door into the apparently extremely dangerous world we live in, in which a polyester vest is the only way to stay safe, why aren't you advocating for it be law that it's mandatory to wear highvis when in public?0
-
Mickiemcfist wrote: »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
I suppose its not resistance as it is annoyance to the fact that it is distracting from far better safety measures, ones that are already legal requirements.
These include:
- lights
- driving with due care and attention
- driving to the conditions (ie able to stop in the space you see to be clear as well as not flying round blind bends)
The RSA have done a spectacular job in convincing alot of the general public that Hi Vis is sufficient for road safety of vulnerable road users and this is simply misleading and dangerous. Plenty of people now use only Hi Vis when walking or cycling on the road in situations where lights may have them seen earlier and easier, as well as on roads where driver behaviour is sub par. But they are not going after poor drivers or pushing for decent lights, they are convincing our legal system and the general public that Hi Vis is sufficient.
I am not talking about the benefits or negatives of it, I don't care what it looks like, I care that almost everyone now believes wearing Hi Vis is the single most important thing you can do to protect yourself when not in a motorised vehicle and it is simply mind blowing. When these opinions become ingrained, they are difficult, nigh impossible to shift the mentality, even with proof.0 -
Advertisement
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Who said anything about 'gauging risk'? We're not on some academic exercise here. We're trying to work out where we should focus our attention for road safety measures. About 75% of road deaths occur in cars, so if we think hi-vis is going to save lives, we should be focusing on hi-vis for cars - it's just common sense.
Why are you talking about deaths in cars? This is a cycling forum, where cyclists, are discussing cycling safety. And the "hi-vis for cars" line ad nauseam doesn't come across as witty or clever.AndrewJRenko wrote: »And as I said, your personal choice to give a crap or not has zero impact on the validity of public safety measures.
But if you do want to take a self-centered view, improved public health measures for the rest of the population will free up health resources to help you in case of a collision. There's only so many doctors and nurses available, so do you want them dealing with people with obesity, diabetes and cancer, or dealing with your collision injuries?
Are we talking about the merits of reflective clothing, or the countries wider heath problems? If everyone cycled everywhere, Ireland's hospitals will be clogged with knee surgeries.
You're making a lot of assumptions to square this circle...
- No requirement for hi-vis
- Encourages more cyclists
- Better population health
- Fewer people in hospital
- Same number of doctors employed
- More docotrs moved to A&E
- More availability of doctors when I'm knocked down
Back light are more important when traffic is approaching from the rear with a larger speed differential. It has been deemed preferential by some manufacturers to leave rear lights off in certain circumstances in order to make brake lights more visible when they illuminate.AndrewJRenko wrote: »So why do I keep seeing new cars 14D, 15D and later driving in traffic with back lights on at all? I thought it was because the buyers haven't read the manual to work out how their DRLs work?AndrewJRenko wrote: »Yes indeed, still lots of older cars out there with no side lights, and lots of cars with lights not working, and lots of black and navy cars out there - so surely hi-vis for all cars would be a great opportunity to improve safety for those vehicles where most deaths and serious injuries occur?
What have cars got to do with this discussion? It's whataboutery.
As I said, all cars do have retro-reflectors positioned in specific areas area on the vehicle body as mandated by EU legislation.
Where did I say this? The repetition of this phrase is tiresome.AndrewJRenko wrote: »If it saves one life, right?AndrewJRenko wrote: »Yeah, No 1 is elimination - so for trucks, that means eliminating the blind spots - fitting proper cameras or mirrors or extra crew so that it can share space in the city with children, young people, older people, people with disabilities.
Since I'm not a truck driver, I don't own a trucking company, and I'm not involved in drafting EU legislation to mandate cameras on trucks, I'll do what I can to eliminate the danger from my perspective.
Eliminating a blindspot still requires that the driver looks - which I'm not about to bet my life on - so I'll stay well out of the way.0 -
-
-
But you're not disagreeing that everyone, once outside the confines of a building, should wear one?
Absolutely not.
You seem to be so insulted by even the suggestion that they may help (for some road users), that you're intentionally conflating the opposing argument to include everybody, everywhere, at all times. Which noone has remotely suggested. It's called the slippery slope fallacy.0 -
I think the issue is when does someone become a pedestrian. Logically, it's as soon as they are outside. Or why does it only apply to some pedestrians? If you're out for a walk, you should have one, but if you have to park a bit away from where you want to go, you don't? Surely the same safety arguements apply?Kevin Irving wrote: »Absolutely not.
You seem to be so insulted by even the suggestion that they may help (for some road users), that you're intentionally conflating the opposing argument to include everybody, everywhere, at all times. Which noone has remotely suggested. It's called the slippery slope fallacy.
I'm off the buy my sambo for lunch, it'll involve public roads and crossings. Should I wear my proviz360 I commuted in, or will I be "safe" with my normal jacket. It's a bit overcast now...0 -
The same arguments apply only if you ignore what it is you are trying to address, i.e. reduce incidents.I think the issue is when does someone become a pedestrian. Logically, it's as soon as they are outside. Or why does it only apply to some pedestrians? If you're out for a walk, you should have one, but if you have to park a bit away from where you want to go, you don't? Surely the same safety arguements apply?
It's all about the dangerousness of the situation, which is Risk x Exposure.
Its more dangerous to do something for 23 hours a day that has a small risk than do something once that has a large risk.
That's why skydiving is, on paper, "safer" than playing golf.
There comes a point when yes, it would make sense to stick a hiviz vest on if you were walking 2 miles on a country road to get your lunch, but if you are crossing O'Connell street, then probably not.
Why do many countries insist you have a hiViz in your car for breakdowns?
By your argument they should just insist you hold a torch.0 -
[QUOTE=GreeBo;108517003
Why do many countries insist you have a hiViz in your car for breakdowns?
By your argument they should just insist you hold a torch.[/QUOTE]
Probably for the same reason you are told stand behind the crash barrier if you break down on a motorway... Because you are now invisible.0 -
Cycling is highly recommended for people with knee problems and knee replacements as it is incredibly low impact.Kevin Irving wrote: »Are we talking about the merits of reflective clothing, or the countries wider heath problems? If everyone cycled everywhere, Ireland's hospitals will be clogged with knee surgeries.
Most of which is backed up with data. Except for the second one, I think what you mean is "does not discourage cyclists". BMJ have covered points 3 and 4 in recent studies.You're making a lot of assumptions to square this circle...
- No requirement for hi-vis
- Encourages more cyclists
- Better population health
- Fewer people in hospital
- Same number of doctors employed
- More docotrs moved to A&E
- More availability of doctors when I'm knocked down
So back lights are important. Some cars are far less visible because they don't have rear lights in operation. People think DRLs are dims. DRLs are a stupid idea. Just have dims on at all times as a minimum, problem solved.Back light are more important when traffic is approaching from the rear with a larger speed differential. It has been deemed preferential by some manufacturers to leave rear lights off in certain circumstances in order to make brake lights more visible when they illuminate.
It is not whataboutery, it reinforces the idea that we waste time promoting ineffectual safety measures, which even if they did work, would have little affect on the mortality rate at a population level, it may even increase it over time.What have cars got to do with this discussion? It's whataboutery.
They are in the lights, and a few spot ones. They don't look great hence manufacturers have made a point of making them as small and as ineffectual as possible.As I said, all cars do have retro-reflectors positioned in specific areas area on the vehicle body as mandated by EU legislation.
Well that is the insinuation as that would appear to be all itmight save one per annum immediately, if it does indeed work at all, but will possibly cost more lives as discussed above in dangerisation and lowering cycling numbers.Where did I say this? The repetition of this phrase is tiresome.0 -
Kevin Irving wrote: »Absolutely not.
You seem to be so insulted by even the suggestion that they may help (for some road users), that you're intentionally conflating the opposing argument to include everybody, everywhere, at all times. Which noone has remotely suggested. It's called the slippery slope fallacy.
Hang on a sec, this is not my logic by the way, it's yours and Greebos. You can't have it both ways, you either argue that runners and cyclists should be made wear them because they interact with roads, but then cry I'm twisting your own logic that therefore every person outside of a vehicle and building should also, your own logic to remind you again, when it doesn't suit.Kevin Irving wrote: »Because footpaths and roads cross once in a while, and you can be damn sure they're not going to wait at the lights. If I can see them at a distance, I'll make sure to plan my driving around them as early as possible.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.
Oh look, your argument that you've been perpetuation from the outset is now getting watered down below...So why aren't you advocating that every single person who steps outside of their house should be made wear one?but if you are crossing O'Connell street, then probably not.
Why not, look at the amount of traffic, buses, cars, bikes using that road. Anything to help you stand out amongst all the mayhem sure is essential to reducing incidents.0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh look, your argument that you've been perpetuation from the outset is now getting watered down below...
Why not, look at the amount of traffic, buses, cars, bikes using that road. Anything to help you stand out amongst all the mayhem sure is essential to reducing incidents.
Because your exposure is far, far lower than someone commuting on that same road.
Do you put your seatbelt on in your car when you drive Dublin to Galway?
Do you put it on when you get into the car to get something from your glovebox?
Its the same argument.
Did you read my post on what dangerousness is?
Edit to add, do you strap on a front and rear light when you cross the road? If not why not?0
Advertisement