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
1…6364666869…96

Comments

  • Options
    #1952
    conkennedy
    Registered Users Posts: 220 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1953
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1954
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1955
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1956
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1957
    kirving
    Registered Users Posts: 5,921 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1958
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #1959
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #1960
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1961
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭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
  • Options
    #1962
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    GreeBo wrote: »
    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

    And there is the crux of it. People don't seem to grasp that if you are visible from the moment you enter a field of view, until you leave it, you are 100% visible in that scenario.
    There is no data in most of the scenarios given that makes someone in hi Vis more visible. If you were trying to make the point that Hi Vis is useful, they were the worst examples you could have given.
    There are times and places, and studies have shown this, where what you wear will make you less than 100% visible. In some of these cases, that clothing is Hi Vis, sometimes it's grey, sometimes it's orange. So people who believe they are are visible wearing Hi Vis need to understand that while they are in some scenarios, they are not in all, and I'm some cases, less visible.
    All of this aside though, all I really want to get across is, wear what you want, but realise the limitations of what you wear. It's the reason Hi Vis for the general public will never be mandatory, it's because it simply is not enough use in most of the situations that the general public find themselves In day to day life.


  • Options
    #1963
    conkennedy
    Registered Users Posts: 220 ✭✭conkennedy


    GreeBo wrote: »
    So what you are saying is that lights are useless and cyclists shouldnt wear them?


    No, that's what you're saying. Stop making assumptions.

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


    There you go again, making asumptions


  • Options
    #1964
    conkennedy
    Registered Users Posts: 220 ✭✭conkennedy


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Still waiting for a reply on this. how do you feel about proving lights are no better than hivis?


    There I've answered it.


    In other news: I have a life outside Boards.ie and I'm not hanging on for every post every minute of the day. Put down the keyboard and go out side! It's a wonderful world out there!


  • Options
    #1965
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    CramCycle wrote: »
    And there is the crux of it. People don't seem to grasp that if you are visible from the moment you enter a field of view, until you leave it, you are 100% visible in that scenario.

    You don't see to grasp that being visible is not the same thing as being seen.

    It's the difference between reality and a lab.


  • Options
    #1966
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    conkennedy wrote: »
    No, that's what you're saying. Stop making assumptions.





    There you go again, making asumptions

    So what was your point then.
    the argument has been that wearing hiviz doesnt stop accidents, you are living proof that lights dont stop accidents, so why are lights good and hiviz bad?


  • Options
    #1967
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,379 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    And the "hi-vis for cars" line ad nauseam doesn't come across as witty or clever.
    It is not supposed to be witty, clever, facetious or whatever. Neither is the idea of all vehicle passengers wearing helmets.

    If anybody thinks either idea is being a smartarse then it is really just showing up themselves as being irrational and illogical, they obviously have stumped themselves. It's a pathetic copout to just dismiss it. Reminds me of arguments of drug legalisation and gobshites sticking their fingers in their ears if it is pointed out that alcohol is a drug.

    If you have no reasonable argument just say so.

    It is strange how some who think high viz for cyclists is quite beneficial are refusing to see any potential benefit of cars being more visible.

    https://www.carbuyersguide.net/motoring-news-ireland/details/which-is-the-safest-colour-car-to-have
    White coloured cars of been consistently found to be the least likely to be involved in a collision due to its high visibility.
    When compared to White vehicles, Black, Brown and Dark Green cars were found to be up to 12% more likely to be involved in a crash during daylight hours. There was a staggering 47% increase in the risk of a crash during the twilight and night-time hours for cars of these colours. Brown coloured cars involved in collisions were also found to be the most likely to result in serious injury, according to the study.
    I know several people who buy higher visibility painted cars for safety. I know people who have put additional high viz labels on their vans.


  • Options
    #1968
    conkennedy
    Registered Users Posts: 220 ✭✭conkennedy


    GreeBo wrote: »
    It's the difference between reality and a lab.


    The 'lab', as you put it, is usually reality. This type of research is always counducted in the envrionment and not in a 'lab'


  • Options
    #1969
    conkennedy
    Registered Users Posts: 220 ✭✭conkennedy


    GreeBo wrote: »
    ... so why are lights good and hiviz bad?


    Again with the assumptions!


  • Options
    #1970
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,651 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Kevin Irving wrote: »

    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.
    "As far as you can see" isnt really a great measure for the rest of the world. Your inability to see the big picture and the true source of danger on the road is your own problem. There are bigger fish to fry here.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    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.
    Yep, we can agree on that. The real question is what is the 'something' to be done. Are we going to accept that the only measure or the priority measure is a victim blaming tactic with no evidence to support it? Or are we going to fix the problem at source?
    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.



    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.
    A quick look at the road death statistics would suggest that your calculation of danger is very faulty and way off the mark. It completely ignores the major factors that result in 75% of road deaths being motorists, not cyclists - such as speed, weight and momentum. Maybe you'd like to revise your calculation and see where the real danger lies on the road. That will give you a big hint about where to start with your safety measures.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    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.
    'Reducing incidents' is a fairly academic objective. I'd have thought that we're trying to save lives and reduce injuries - a very practical objective.

    Again, your flawed calculation of 'danger' doesn't identify the real sources of danger on the road. But it's good to hear that you work on the basis of 'there comes a point'. How specifically did you work out that 'hi-vis for cyclists' is past that point, where as hi-vis for motorists and pedestrians (who both die in much bigger numbers on the road) is not past that point?
    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.
    Why would they help for some road users but not for others? Why would they help for cyclists, but not for pedestrians or motorists?
    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    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.
    We have only one Minister/Department of Transport. We have only one RSA. We have only one AGS. Each of those have limited resources available.

    Any focus on mandatory hi-vis/helmets nonsense for cyclists by these bodies and organisations is a distraction from the real source of danger on the roads - the motorists who kill 3 or 4 people each week and maim many more.

    The hi-vis for cars line isn't meant to be witty or clever. It's meant to demonstrate the idiocy of pushing public policies with no evidence base and no sensible prioritisation. Is it working?
    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.

    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
    If everyone cycled everywhere, our cancer rates would be dramatically reduced, probably halved. Our stroke/diabetes/hypertension rates would be dramatically reduced. Some mental health issues would be reduced.

    How could these factors NOT result in more medical resources being available for other issues?
    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    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.
    But hi-vis stripes would definitely improve visibility in some circumstances, surely? When the car is parked with no lights operating? Or when the idiot driver has no lights because he hasn't worked out how DRLs work? Or when one or more bulbs are blown? Or when the car is side on to other traffic?

    How can this visibility improvement not be significant, but the evidenced improvement for cyclists apparently is?
    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    What have cars got to do with this discussion? It's whataboutery.
    It is prioritising measures that address the real sources of danger on the road. Why would you want to ignore these priority issues and focus on issues of negligible significance?
    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    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.
    That's your personal decision, and one that I'd generally concur with myself. But you do see that it doesn't solve the problem for people like Rose Hoey mentioned above? You do see that victim-blaming doesn't solve the root cause of the problem?
    GreeBo wrote: »
    You mean like cyclists, pedestrians and joggers?
    And please don't forget motorists too.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    You don't see to grasp that being visible is not the same thing as being seen.
    Fully agree - it doesn't really matter what the cyclist is wearing when the motorist is looking at their phone. So let's focus on the real issues here.


  • Options
    #1971
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    MOD VOICE: This thread isn't going anywhere again. Can I suggest anyone who hasnt, but thinks they have something novel to add, read the entire thread to see if your points have been made before. Also remember this is a discussion forum, not one for arguing or pointless point scoring. Someone not agreeing with you does not make them wrong Let's be civil and try and either progress the discussion or just leave it as is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1972
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,220 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Came across this lady while cycling home yesterday. Hi-Viz Jacket, reflective elements on her bib tights and pedals...

    0:18 seconds.... you can just see her up ahead.
    1:55...i'm about 100 meters behind
    2:04...finally catch her..

    https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8

    Conclusion? Lights 1, Hi-viz 0. (0 is probably a bit harsh, but pink is not my colour! :) )


  • Options
    #1973
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Came across this lady while cycling home yesterday. Hi-Viz Jacket, reflective elements on her bib tights and pedals...

    0:18 seconds.... you can just see her up ahead.
    1:55...i'm about 100 meters behind
    2:04...finally catch her..

    https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8

    Conclusion? Lights 1, Hi-viz 0. (0 is probably a bit harsh, but pink is not my colour! :) )

    The rear reflectors on the cars and vans are also crap compared to their lights.


  • Options
    #1974
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,000 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    The rear reflectors on the cars and vans are also crap compared to their lights.

    I find reflectors on pedals to be better than most on cars. The fact they move as they catch the light is good. A stationary reflector is not great until you're close up and by which point it may be too late


  • Options
    #1975
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,911 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Weepsie wrote: »
    I find reflectors on pedals to be better than most on cars. The fact they move as they catch the light is good. A stationary reflector is not great until you're close up and by which point it may be too late

    Does anybody in the RSA know this? Perhaps they just understand it.

    Reflectors on pedals especially in Urban Environments are more useful than a cheap RSA vest. Especially in Urban Environments where "most"* cars have dipped headlights on. The reflective pedals are the first thing that is reflected from a moving bike.

    * I count at least 2-3 Ninja cars every evening these days with no lights at all on, this is on a 30/35 min commute cycle across Galway City.
    Just last Wednesday evening at 20h00 I counted 3 Ninja Cars v's 2 Ninja Cyclists.


  • Options
    #1976
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,651 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Hope the man is doing OK

    https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/news/pedestrian-hit-moments-after-receiving-safety-reflector-from-police/


  • Options
    #1977
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,060 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Horrible story: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/11/03/four-dead-after-truck-hits-girl-scouts-picking-up-trash-along-wisconsin-highway
    Four people, including three Girl Scouts, died Saturday after a pickup truck left a western Wisconsin highway and hit a group that had been picking up trash in a ditch.
    ...

    The group of about 16 girls had split into two smaller groups to pick up trash along the highway, part of a service project they conducted each fall and spring. They were wearing brightly colored safety vests, the Leader-Telegram reported.

    Conclusion: hi-viz doesn't protect you from bad driving or distracted drivers.


  • Options
    #1978
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    buffalo wrote: »
    Horrible story: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/11/03/four-dead-after-truck-hits-girl-scouts-picking-up-trash-along-wisconsin-highway



    Conclusion: hi-viz doesn't protect you from bad driving or distracted drivers.

    Do you think lights would have prevented the truck from leaving the road and hitting them, or what's your point?


  • Options
    #1979
    Grassey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    The point seems succinct to me: nothing will protect you against bad driving or distracted drivers.

    So it doesn't matter if you've high vis, enough lights to look like a Christmas tree, whether it's broad daylight or nightime, or you are someone who has the sun shines out your arse. Someone not paying attention, on the road will be what kills you.

    Ergo, that's where resources should be allocated to address the problem.


  • Options
    #1980
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Grassey wrote: »
    The point seems succinct to me: nothing will protect you against bad driving or distracted drivers.

    So it doesn't matter if you've high vis, enough lights to look like a Christmas tree, whether it's broad daylight or nightime, or you are someone who has the sun shines out your arse. Someone not paying attention, on the road will be what kills you.

    Ergo, that's where resources should be allocated to address the problem.

    No argument from me, so why all the fuss about hiviz and reflective clothing in favour of lights i wonder?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1981
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,760 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Came across this lady while cycling home yesterday. Hi-Viz Jacket, reflective elements on her bib tights and pedals...

    0:18 seconds.... you can just see her up ahead.
    1:55...i'm about 100 meters behind
    2:04...finally catch her..

    https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8

    Conclusion? Lights 1, Hi-viz 0. (0 is probably a bit harsh, but pink is not my colour! :) )

    You cycled past me on your way home as I was approaching a junction in the car. You were not wearing hi viz, (or indeed club gear:eek:), but I could see you as a cyclist, and indeed recognise who you are. That's how good my eyesight is!!! (either that or you were actually quite visible without anything resembling "hi-vis")


Advertisement