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)

1…6263656768…101

Comments

  • #1922
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,687 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    GreeBo wrote: »
    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.
    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.


    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.

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


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Because it wouldnt save one life.
    This is really fascinating. It's great to have a clearly defined threshold for safety initiatives.


    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?

    GreeBo wrote: »
    Last time I checked there were more dark objects than suns, but I'll count again tomorrow, just to make sure.
    Do indeed count tomorrow. Check out how much of the background is grey concrete, or green foliage, or bright sun.


  • #1923
    kirving
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,273 ✭✭✭kirving


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    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.
    tomasrojo wrote: »

    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.
    tomasrojo wrote: »
    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.
    tomasrojo wrote: »
    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.
    tomasrojo wrote: »
    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.
    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%.
    And what proportion of people cycle vs. drive? Total numbers is not a valid comparison to gauge risk.
    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-E0006

    AndrewJRenko 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?
    Hurrache wrote: »
    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.


  • #1924
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,687 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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.
    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: »
    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?
    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?
    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    Almost all new vehicles are fitted with lights that you can't turn off.
    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: »
    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
    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?
    If it saves one life, right?
    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.
    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.
    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-1.2567865


  • #1925
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,995 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    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.


  • #1926
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,372 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    GreeBo 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.

    So why aren't you advocating that every single person who steps outside of their house should be made wear one?


  • Advertisement
  • #1927
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,661 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    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!


  • #1928
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Hurrache wrote: »
    So why aren't you advocating that every single person who steps outside of their house should be made wear one?

    You mean like cyclists, pedestrians and joggers?


  • #1929
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,661 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    GreeBo wrote: »
    You mean like cyclists, pedestrians and joggers?
    And motorists going from their car to door? Pedestrians on their lunch break going to subway?


  • #1930
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,372 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    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?


  • #1931
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,995 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #1932
    kirving
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,273 ✭✭✭kirving


    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
    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?
    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: »
    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.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    If it saves one life, right?
    Where did I say this? The repetition of this phrase is tiresome.

    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.


  • #1933
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Hurrache wrote: »
    in which a polyester vest is the only way to stay safe
    Sorry to interrupt, but has anyone on here ever said that, or anything remotely like that?:confused:


  • #1934
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,372 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Sorry to interrupt, but has anyone on here ever said that, or anything remotely like that?:confused:

    But you're not disagreeing that everyone, once outside the confines of a building, should wear one?


  • #1935
    kirving
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,273 ✭✭✭kirving


    Hurrache wrote: »
    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.


  • #1936
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,661 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    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 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?

    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...


  • #1937
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    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?
    The same arguments apply only if you ignore what it is you are trying to address, i.e. reduce incidents.

    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.


  • #1938
    Grassey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    [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.


  • #1939
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,995 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    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.
    Cycling is highly recommended for people with knee problems and knee replacements as it is incredibly low impact.
    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
    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.
    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.
    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.
    What have cars got to do with this discussion? It's whataboutery.
    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.
    As I said, all cars do have retro-reflectors positioned in specific areas area on the vehicle body as mandated by EU legislation.
    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.
    Where did I say this? The repetition of this phrase is tiresome.
    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.


  • #1940
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,372 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    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.
    Hurrache wrote: »
    If someone is out running on footpaths, why should they wear high vis or have lights?
    GreeBo wrote: »
    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...
    Hurrache wrote: »
    So why aren't you advocating that every single person who steps outside of their house should be made wear one?
    GreeBo wrote: »
    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.


  • #1941
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Hurrache wrote: »
    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #1942
    conkennedy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 224 ✭✭conkennedy


    GreeBo wrote: »
    But again the attitude here seems to be "I'm not doing it because its not my fault if a car hits me".

    It's a pretty childish attitude and when there is only ever one loser is a car V bike incident, its a foolish and possibly deadly one to maintain.


    Well... I got knocked down by a motorist while I was in broad daylight, wearing a flouro jersey, with lights on.... go figure.


    Hint, hint, fluro and lights didnt' save me from a motorist who wasnt paying attention to the road and their surrounding.


  • #1943
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,372 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Because your exposure is far, far lower than someone commuting on that same road.

    But you said someone running on a footpath should wear one as they may have to cross the road, so what's the difference? Are you rowing back on your insistence that they should wear one? In fact the pedestrian crossing O'Connell Street may be in more danger as they could be a bit tipsy. Likewise they're more likely to slip off the footpath into traffic than someone out for a run.

    Dunno if you've ever driven through a city centre at night, but it's pedestrians, not runners, that are more liable to be in an road traffic incident.


  • #1944
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    conkennedy wrote: »
    Well... I got knocked down by a motorist while I was in broad daylight, wearing a flouro jersey, with lights on.... go figure.


    Hint, hint, fluro and lights didnt' save me from a motorist who wasnt paying attention to the road and their surrounding.

    So what you are saying is that lights are useless and cyclists shouldnt wear them?

    I think the lads who thanked your post are having a bad day, logic wise.


  • #1945
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Hurrache wrote: »
    But you said someone running on a footpath should wear one as they may have to cross the road, so what's the difference? Are you rowing back on your insistence that they should wear one? In fact the pedestrian crossing O'Connell Street may be in more danger as they could be a bit tipsy. Likewise they're more likely to slip off the footpath into traffic than someone out for a run.
    I'll try again.
    Dangerousness = Risk X Exposure

    You have limited exposure crossing the road, its what, 10M wide?
    Going for a run you have more exposure unless you are practicing for your 10M sprint finals.
    Dunno if you've ever driven through a city centre at night, but it's pedestrians, not runners, that are more liable to be in an road traffic incident.

    If you would like to read my post you would see what I actually said was
    "You mean like cyclists, pedestrians and joggers?"

    I didnt pick one group of people, I'm talking about all people who are vulnerable and have enough exposure to warrant them doing something about it.

    You can strawman all you want and it wont change what I said.


  • #1946
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,372 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I'll try again.
    Dangerousness = Risk X Exposure

    You have limited exposure crossing the road, its what, 10M wide?
    Going for a run you have more exposure unless you are practicing for your 10M sprint finals.

    Your logic is flawed. Someone running across a 10m road has less exposure than someone walking, therefore you're implying pedestrians should wear high vis as they have greater exposure to danger when walking through a city.

    You can claim strawman all you want, but this is your logic.


  • #1947
    kirving
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,273 ✭✭✭kirving


    conkennedy wrote: »
    Well... I got knocked down by a motorist while I was in broad daylight, wearing a flouro jersey, with lights on.... go figure.

    Hint, hint, fluro and lights didnt' save me from a motorist who wasnt paying attention to the road and their surrounding.

    What about all of those times that you didn't get hit?

    By that very same logic, you should be wear black and remove your lights to avoid being hit.

    At no stage have I suggested that clothing choice is a panacea to every incident - it's not, but as far as I see it, it's a very worthwhile effort.

    This is then this has somehow been construed to claim that I'm advocating for everyone outside their front door to be in reflective clothing - which I'm not.

    And the finally you have some posters, who say, with a straight face, that the guy dressed in black is as easy to see as the guy wearing yellow.


  • #1948
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Hurrache wrote: »
    Your logic is flawed. Someone running across a 10m road has less exposure than someone walking, therefore you're implying pedestrians should wear high vis as they have greater exposure to danger when walking through a city.

    You can claim strawman all you want, but this is your logic.

    I didnt say pedestrians walking through a city should all wear hivis.

    Also, Im afraid it is your logic that is flawed.
    I'm not, in any sense "implying" what you say I am.
    There are many sections of people who have various different levels of exposure. At *some* point it makes sense, to the person in question, to start doing something about reducing that risk.

    For some reason you have decided that means all pedestrians, but I didn't say that, your faulty logic "derived" it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy


  • #1949
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,372 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I didnt say pedestrians walking through a city should all wear hivis.

    You said that if they interact with a road they should. Therefore anyone stepping outside of their house should wear one


  • #1950
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Hurrache wrote: »
    You said that if they interact with a road they should. Therefore anyone stepping outside of their house should wear one

    No, you brought up interaction with roads.
    Hurrache wrote: »
    ...runners and cyclists should be made wear them because they interact with roads...

    I said
    Most footpaths intersect with roads just like bike lanes/paths/cycle areas do.
    in response to *YOUR* post
    If someone is out running on footpaths, why should they wear high vis or have lights?

    And now you are strawmanning about someone stepping outside their front door.


  • Advertisement
  • #1951
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    conkennedy wrote: »
    Well... I got knocked down by a motorist while I was in broad daylight, wearing a flouro jersey, with lights on.... go figure.
    Still waiting for a reply on this. how do you feel about proving lights are no better than hivis?
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Do you strap on a front and rear light when you cross the road? If not why not?

    @Hurrache
    and I'm still waiting on your reply to this question.


Advertisement