Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Markcheese · 06-11-2018 11:05AM

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

It's totally anecdotal, but i was cycling home yesterday evening and i saw a guy cycling along with no lights and wearing a hi-viz coat between Harolds Cross and Kimmage. It really was difficult see him. I was slightly taken aback as i thought there'd be some form of reflection off him.

There really is no substitute for a good light.

Hi viz is not a magical item,
It works by contrast, on a grey day when visibility is poorest it contrasts with the background, if someone in a hi-viz jacket is standing in front of the back of a motorway maintenance van they'll blend in nicely, (rare enough though),
In very poor light they'll be as invisible as their surroundings too, and reflective panels on the jackets is pretty poor if there is very little light to reflect..
So yes a good light is best, but anything else (like a Hi viz vest) that allows the busy brain of a motorist to subconsciously notice and understand the shape and direction of an item near it helps... Because a "motorist should see me" won't make much difference to an already overloaded brain, in the dark, rainy conditions wipers on, heavy traffic, radio on, kids yelling (or worse just on the phone), our brain prioritises.. And if you blend in you're not counted as there..

07Lapierre · 06-11-2018 02:37PM

If a driver is distracted, lights may get their attention quicker than anyHi-viz. in the video I posted earlier I knew there was a cyclist ahead of me two minutes before I caught up with her. IMO her pink hi-viz was irrelevant as I already knew she was there before I saw the jacket.

CramCycle · 06-11-2018 03:07PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

If a driver is distracted, lights may get their attention quicker than anyHi-viz. in the video I posted earlier I knew there was a cyclist ahead of me two minutes before I caught up with her. IMO her pink hi-viz was irrelevant as I already knew she was there before I saw the jacket.

That was the point i was trying to make earlier, she was 100% visible. Having the Hi Vis did not improve this, although the reflectors on her legs were far more effective than her torso, the distance at which they became useful was far too late considering the love of driving faster than they should many drivers have.

Coming through Rathdrum the other night, two young lads on bikes with no lights. I copped them in plenty of time, even though they were in Black. I seen them at 100m+, could have been walkers but at 80m it was clear they were cyclists. At 75m I caught the reflection of their pedals. They were visible because of the contrast of their entire black get up against the soft sodium lights on everything, HI vis would not have helped, although would not have made it worse either.

If they had decent lights, they would have been clear from 200m and nothing else would have mattered, and where the road gets winding further on, they would have been noticeable before they even came into a line of sight.

This said, in 100% agreement with GreeBo, this is not where the RSA should be focusing efforts. Enough people accept the importance of being seen that it is socially accepted to be visible, even if we don't agree on the level. The RSA really need to focus there efforts on where they can save the most lives.

GreeBo · 06-11-2018 04:14PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

If a driver is distracted, lights may get their attention quicker than anyHi-viz. in the video I posted earlier I knew there was a cyclist ahead of me two minutes before I caught up with her. IMO her pink hi-viz was irrelevant as I already knew she was there before I saw the jacket.

I'm my experience reflective gear & HiVis means you stand out as "not a car" much easier than you do with lights.

A driver doesnt really care about other vehicles on the road, as you are very rarely intersecting with each other.
Its the more vulnerable road users (non-vehicular traffic) that drivers really need to be aware so these need to stand out from the noise.

As an example, if you are travelling in slow moving traffic you really dont need to be aware of all the cars behind you, but you do need to be aware of the bike or jogger who is going to pass you on the inside.

GreeBo · 06-11-2018 04:34PM

Weepsie wrote: »

Rear lights are not going to be reflected an awful lot now though are they?

Rear lights reflect a lot, you only have to look at the street signs behind when you brake to see them light up.

Weepsie wrote: »

The white light that is going to be reflected, is going to be coming from behind any cyclists you'd think.

Typically there are cars coming against you with headlights on & streetlights nearby.

Grassey · 06-11-2018 04:47PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Rear lights reflect a lot, you only have to look at the street signs behind when you brake to see them light up.

Typically there are cars coming against you with headlights on & streetlights nearby.

So the high vis will work when you've the brake pressed.. and while you are travelling forward...what? The majority of street lights don't reflect at all on day-glo jackets.

And your car is between those lights and the cyclist.

07Lapierre · 06-11-2018 04:54PM

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm my experience reflective gear & HiVis means you stand out as "not a car" much easier than you do with lights.

A driver doesnt really care about other vehicles on the road, as you are very rarely intersecting with each other.
Its the more vulnerable road users (non-vehicular traffic) that drivers really need to be aware so these need to stand out from the noise.

As an example, if you are travelling in slow moving traffic you really dont need to be aware of all the cars behind you, but you do need to be aware of the bike or jogger who is going to pass you on the inside.

It must be the cyclist in me, but when i'm driving and i see a single, really bright red light ahead of me, i always remind myself that it could be a car with only one light working, or a motorbike or a cyclist. either way it prompts me to slow down and wait until I've confirmed whats ahead of me before considering overtaking.

kirving · 06-11-2018 06:38PM

Weepsie wrote: »

Because telling people what they should wear can have a negative impact on participation. Cycling is wonderful precisely because it can be done by the lycra clad folk, or the bowler hat, tweed jacket wearing folk. Whatever makes them comfortable.

Lights are just more effective.
People still get hit as you say, but the problem isn't because of people not wearing hiviz, or because of lights. It's driver attentiveness.

It's again going around in circles, so I'm out and believe what you want to believe.

I don't think it's a good idea to put participation (in the hope of safety-in-numbers), ahead of wearing the appropriate (bright, reflective) clothing for the situation.

Life jackets have lights, but are also yellow. Why? Machinery safety stop buttons are illuminated, but are also yellow/red. Why?

Lights are great if they're pointing at you and are obscured - which is by no means 100% of the time.

A driver has a limited amount of attention they can give to cyclists, making that job as easily as possible means that they dedicate more of their time to cyclists.

buffalo wrote: »

They can co-exist, with the right amount of emphasis - i.e. a tiny amount on hi-viz as an optional choice, and tonnes of reminders about legally required lights. This is very much not the case in just about every media outlet at present (and this ****ing thread).

I have contended from the start that clothing matters much more than a tiny percentage of the time - even with good lights.

Grassey wrote: »

So the high vis will work when you've the brake pressed.. and while you are travelling forward...what? The majority of street lights don't reflect at all on day-glo jackets.

And your car is between those lights and the cyclist.

His point is that reflective clothing can be so good, that it can even reflect diffuse brake light back to the driver.

I'm sitting in traffic waiting to turn left, with my brake lights and indicator on, there is a stream of cyclists going past on my left (common in the city), the guy dressed in all black is obscuring the light of the guy behind.

My brake lights illuminate the second cyclists reflective jacket and arms, and I can plainly see that he is there - despite his light being obscured.

GreeBo · 06-11-2018 06:57PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

It must be the cyclist in me, but when i'm driving and i see a single, really bright red light ahead of me, i always remind myself that it could be a car with only one light working, or a motorbike or a cyclist. either way it prompts me to slow down and wait until I've confirmed whats ahead of me before considering overtaking.

It must be the driver in me that was specifically talking about slow moving traffic and cyclists overtaking...

GreeBo · 06-11-2018 07:00PM

Grassey wrote: »

So the high vis will work when you've the brake pressed.. and while you are travelling forward...what? The majority of street lights don't reflect at all on day-glo jackets.

Reflective strips work in lots of light, not just brake lights.
Reflective clothing works with lights, hiviz works in daylight.

And your car is between those lights and the cyclist.

My car is between streetlights and the cyclist?
Also, unless you are driving too close to the car in front, there is plenty of room for oncoming lights to shine on the cyclist.

07Lapierre · 06-11-2018 08:47PM

GreeBo wrote: »

It must be the driver in me that was specifically talking about slow moving traffic and cyclists overtaking...

If the cyclist is overtaking, the onus is on the cyclist to ensure its safe to do so. In slow moving traffic, I set my front light to flash mode. I find it gets noticed by drivers.

GreeBo · 07-11-2018 11:28AM

07Lapierre wrote: »

If the cyclist is overtaking, the onus is on the cyclist to ensure its safe to do so. In slow moving traffic, I set my front light to flash mode. I find it gets noticed by drivers.

Sure the onus is on the cyclist, but when cars are turning left and bikes are going straight on, on a dark wet night, then I want the bag of mostly water to stand out as much as possible.

AndrewJRenko · 07-11-2018 09:49PM

I came up behind a cyclist with no lights, a reflective helmet cover, and a reflective armband tied under his saddle last night. He was really hard to see, compared to the other cyclists with lights around him.

https://streamable.com/p0lr0

Unfortunately, I didn't catch up to have a chat with him.

07Lapierre · 09-11-2018 10:20PM

There’s RSA cheap Hi-viz, and there’s hi end Rapha hi viz!

https://youtu.be/rxzcDVIh2Xw

AndrewJRenko · 11-11-2018 03:39PM

Great to see our Minister focusing on the important issue of our time - wrapping every child, man and woman in the country up in hi-vis

https://twitter.com/Shane_RossTD/status/1060963078920196101

Grassey · 11-11-2018 06:17PM

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Great to see our Minister focusing on the important issue of our time - wrapping every child, man and woman in the country up in hi-vis

Can't be too safe in the classroom. If it saves even 1 child from missing homework etc

GreeBo · 11-11-2018 11:27PM

Grassey wrote: »

If it saves even 1

Yawn.

Grassey · 11-11-2018 11:51PM

GreeBo wrote:

Yawn.

I thought that was the bar at which all measures shall be measured?

buffalo · 13-11-2018 09:35AM

There's some posts on this thread that I can see on mobile, but not on desktop. Weird.

GreeBo wrote: »

Sure the onus is on the cyclist, but when cars are turning left and bikes are going straight on, on a dark wet night, then I want the bag of mostly water to stand out as much as possible.

Anyway, throwing some more anecdotal evidence into the ring. I didn't have a head-on collision with on oncoming cyclist in the Phoenix Park last night, but it wasn't for want of his trying.

With no lights on his bike, I was nearly on top of him before my brain had recognised the white bits as another cyclist. When I did realise, I couldn't tell which side of the path he was on, because I had no context - depth perception was difficult, and he didn't have a lamp shining on the ground indicating position.

This is what happens when the RSA and commentators bang on about hi-viz - cycling in the pitch black with just hi-viz is socially acceptable.

Chips Lovell · 14-11-2018 09:44AM

buffalo wrote: »

Anyway, throwing some more anecdotal evidence into the ring. I didn't have a head-on collision with on oncoming cyclist in the Phoenix Park last night, but it wasn't for want of his trying.

I think I saw your friend last night. Coming around the Aras an Uachtarain roundabout, wrong side of the road, no visible lights.

GreeBo · 14-11-2018 10:22AM

Grassey wrote: »

I thought that was the bar at which all measures shall be measured?

Oh, well in that case you should definitely wear hiviz clothing....in case it saves 1 life. :rolleyes:

buffalo wrote: »

This is what happens when the RSA and commentators bang on about hi-viz - cycling in the pitch black with just hi-viz is socially acceptable.

Except NO ONE is saying this!
Can you show my where anyone on this thread or otherwise is saying cycling without lights is ok?

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think I saw your friend last night. Coming around the Aras an Uachtarain roundabout, wrong side of the road, no visible lights.

So you think you saw the guy who couldn't be seen?;)

buffalo · 14-11-2018 10:41AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Except NO ONE is saying this!

I'm saying that. Every cycling-related photoshoot for the RSA features hi-viz predominantly, rarely lights. The message that is absorbed is that hi-viz is important. The more emphasis that we - as a society - put on hi-viz for cyclists, the less we put on lights (and driver behaviour, but let's leave that alone for now).

GreeBo · 14-11-2018 10:47AM

buffalo wrote: »

I'm saying that. Every cycling-related photoshoot for the RSA features hi-viz predominantly, rarely lights. The message that is absorbed is that hi-viz is important. The more emphasis that we - as a society - put on hi-viz for cyclists, the less we put on lights (and driver behaviour, but let's leave that alone for now).

Well then maybe you should stop saying that, as the RSA demonstrably aren't.
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Cycle-Smart-Cycle-Safe/

Ok, they aren't the lights I would use, but they are at least using strong batteries and showing lights with equal footing as hiviz/reflective gear.

I dont see *any* evidence of the RSA promoting cycling in the dark without lights.

Grassey · 14-11-2018 10:57AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Oh, well in that case you should definitely wear hiviz clothing....in case it saves 1 life. :rolleyes:

On occasion I do, if it's dawn/dusk when I'm starting or due to end my commute in addition to about €400 worth of good lights.

I fail to see the point in high-vis for all occasions though when it is broad day light and visibility is already good, or at night in an urban environment where it is ineffective and blends into everything else under washed out visibility of orange street lights.

buffalo · 14-11-2018 11:01AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok, they aren't the lights I would use, but they are at least using strong batteries and showing lights with equal footing as hiviz/reflective gear.

So lights are equal to hi-viz when cycling in the dark?

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont see *any* evidence of the RSA promoting cycling in the dark without lights.

Scroll through the RSA's Twitter. First tweet relating to cycling, no mention of lights. Shows a pedestrian with a torch, but no mention of lights in the text, and no indication of lights for cyclists at all:

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1060585240685699072

Grassey · 14-11-2018 11:01AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Well then maybe you should stop saying that, as the RSA demonstrably aren't.
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Cycle-Smart-Cycle-Safe/

Ok, they aren't the lights I would use, but they are at least using strong batteries and showing lights with equal footing as hiviz/reflective gear.

I dont see *any* evidence of the RSA promoting cycling in the dark without lights.

Did you see the ****e button lights they were previously handing out as part of a campaign to cyclists, that had a tiny LED that wasn't visible past about a foot?

If that's not trying to promote cycling in the dark I don't know what is.

GreeBo · 14-11-2018 11:25AM

buffalo wrote: »

So lights are equal to hi-viz when cycling in the dark?
[/ quote]
They are complementary.

Scroll through the RSA's Twitter. First tweet relating to cycling, no mention of lights. Shows a pedestrian with a torch, but no mention of lights in the text, and no indication of lights for cyclists at all:

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1060585240685699072

Ah come on, the pedestrian had a bloody light in their hand!
Are you telling me more people will read the text then view the picture?

buffalo · 14-11-2018 11:37AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Are you telling me more people will read the text then view the picture?

Fair enough. If we're only dealing with pictures and not text - first result when searching for "RSA cycling":

Plenty of hi-viz, no lights, despite the fact it's dim enough and the photoshoot is clearly emphasising visibility.

CramCycle · 14-11-2018 12:08PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Except NO ONE is saying this!

But they are implying this and not realising this is just willful ignorance on the matter. They are saying it by not saying anything else. never a statement after solicitors use it as a reasonable defence for being hit. they are a disgrace as a body for road safety.

GreeBo wrote: »

Well then maybe you should stop saying that, as the RSA demonstrably aren't.
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Cycle-Smart-Cycle-Safe/

Ok, they aren't the lights I would use, but they are at least using strong batteries and showing lights with equal footing as hiviz/reflective gear.

I dont see *any* evidence of the RSA promoting cycling in the dark without lights.

They are only promoting Hi Vis as a necessity in every TV ad involving pedestrians and cyclists with rarely a mention of lights. They do it in the daytime, and in their poster campaigns, as well as hand out thousands of the inadequate yellow waistcoats in conjunction with the Gardai who I have seen let people continue on, in the hours of darkness, with nary a word about lights.

They mention lights once, a brief mention, with inadequate lights demonstrated, and treated as, well you have to legally, rather than the important feature that they are. Bothe pretty weak see me lights, they will not illuminate the road ahead or behind, and one is fitted slightly obscured by the pannier rack. I mean, WTF, useless as f*ck.

14-11-2018 12:46PM

Here is what the RSA have in that link regarding lights and high vis, people can judge for them selves where the emphasis is.

Equipment Check: This covers the correct set-up of a bicycle and the necessary safety equipment. Is the saddle the correct height? Are the tyres nice and firm, and the bell, lights and brakes all working properly? The film also gives advice on the choosing and wearing of a properly approved helmet and the importance of high visibility clothing

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments