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…6970727475…96

Comments

  • Options
    #2132
    site_owner
    Registered Users Posts: 955 ✭✭✭site_owner


    this is a weird experience, ireland is a small place...

    my opinion on hi-vis
    dont like it, dont care for it
    i am, however, big on reflective gear and low and behold RSA hi-viz jackets are handy for the reflective stripes and that the kids will wear these jackets if i ask them to.
    why do they wear it? all their friends have them i guess, all the schools put them on kids when they go out for walks etc. but they certainly wont wear sam brown belts or anything else reflective so everyones generally happy

    why are they wearing it in this photo?
    its early january, theyve been out on their scooters since 7.45am, its 8.15 in that photo and its only bright due to the camera taking good night time shots, its dark enough that i needed a torch to help a neighbor jump his car. i like the kids to have reflective gear when scooting, they have front lights but no where to mount a rear light.

    why are they still wearing it in the cargo bike?
    they refused to take them off, we were getting late and i didnt care as long as they were happy to go :)

    how many times have they wore hi-viz on the cargo bike, trailer, bike seat?
    i would estimate this is the first

    did they wear hi-viz today?
    not a hope, i could barely get regular coats on them :)


  • Options
    #2133
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    site_owner wrote: »
    Why not interact with me on the tweet?

    Only copped it is you, also had a quick skim and they aren't wearing Hi Vis in the other photos, so doesn't seem like its the norm, but even if it was, your the parent, that's your choice.


  • Options
    #2134
    site_owner
    Registered Users Posts: 955 ✭✭✭site_owner


    anyone looking might also find some photos of me wearing an RSA hi-viz too. theres a nice freeze frame of me almost going under a bus...

    i ahve 2 main reasons for wearing them
    1) the reflective strips, not the yellow. i prefer a sam browne style, but the material on the free ones is uncomfotable so i'll often just go with the free RSA one
    2) its one less thing to get shouted abuse at "wheres your f*cking hi viz" although its now going full circle with "hi viz w*nker" being the new one. also means i dont have to stop at the new garda checkpoints that keep springing up


  • Options
    #2135
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    The kids in my daughters' school were pretty stoked to get their RSA hi-viz on National whatever-day-it-was a few months back. I think kids like that kind of thing.


  • Options
    #2136
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,390 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Hardly madness, some schools ask parents to put hi vis on their kids on the walk to school,
    That's the madness though, isn't it? I've heard the primary school on Harolds Cross Road does this. Pure madness.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2137
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    CramCycle wrote: »
    It is OTT if the tweeter put them on for the trip but on the same note, that's the parents choice, I am just happy to see some more families out enjoying sustainable commuting, so long as they don't give out when I don't do it, i really don't care.

    Reminds me that on my way home through the city centre on the cargo bike before Christmas, a seemingly cheery fellow on a bike pulled up alongside me, hail-fellowed me in an accent I can't identify, and then said: "I'm sorry, I just don't think those bikes are safe for children". They weren't even in the bike at the time. So I invited him to mind his own business.


  • Options
    #2138
    site_owner
    Registered Users Posts: 955 ✭✭✭site_owner


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Reminds me that on my way home through the city centre on the cargo bike before Christmas, a seemingly cheery fellow on a bike pulled up alongside me, hail-fellowed me in an accent I can't identify, and then said: "I'm sorry, I just don't think those bikes are safe for children". They weren't even in the bike at the time. So I invited him to mind his own business.
    when i had my first on a bike seat i got chased down by another cyclist to tell me to be a real parent and stop putting my kids in danger because we cycled on the road.
    when i put them into a trailer i got told they weren't safe there, to stop taking such stupid risks. i think one person even wrote that they would be sad the day they read our obituary because i didn't listen to them.

    now in the cargo bike, its been about 4 weeks, i think 650km covered, and nobody has said anything yet, but i'm sure its coming.

    they are the minority, most people smile or wave or randomly say hello or ask me where they can get one.


  • Options
    #2139
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Mine kicked off in her first year at big school last year on nearly the first day when they tried make her wear a yellow builders vest on a walk to the church like the rest of the kids. The teacher considered her pink vest she wears in the child seat and on her own bike to be invalid. 20 minute conversion on the phone about hi-vis later and I'm sure teacher still calling me an arsshole but Lily is pink in a sea of yellow to this day :D

    Only reason she has one at all is she learned to cycle during a Grio and we played Giro out back with a pink vest and now she likes to wear it any time on the bike so I f'd up there now didn't I.


  • Options
    #2140
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,349 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    spotted on twitter:

    Scarborough Police say thieves may be wearing hi-vis gear to blend in
    HIGH-visibility gear could be the new way for thieves to blend into the crowd said Scarborough Police senior Sergeant Glenn Dowding.
    Sgt Dowding said there had been an increasing trend of thefts committed by people wearing high-vis clothing.
    “It is quite surprising, hi-vis work clothing has become a new way to blend in,” he said.
    https://www.communitynews.com.au/stirling-times/news/scarborough-police-say-thieves-may-be-wearing-hi-vis-gear-to-blend-in/


  • Options
    #2141
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    spotted on twitter:

    Scarborough Police say thieves may be wearing hi-vis gear to blend in

    https://www.communitynews.com.au/stirling-times/news/scarborough-police-say-thieves-may-be-wearing-hi-vis-gear-to-blend-in/

    Similar story posted here where a posters partner had their bike nicked by someone in a Hi Vis jacket and a bike helmet, ot blend in as they entered the area the bikes were locked up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2142
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,148 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    spotted on twitter:

    Scarborough Police say thieves may be wearing hi-vis gear to blend in

    https://www.communitynews.com.au/stirling-times/news/scarborough-police-say-thieves-may-be-wearing-hi-vis-gear-to-blend-in/

    Don't think it can be classed as a new way to blend in, it's a common enough method in Ireland anyway.


  • Options
    #2143
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,349 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i know a chap (a locksmith) who has plenty of stories about not beinq questioned while wearing hi-vis.
    he once had to drill out the lock on a front door on landsdowne road for a client, on a day there was an international on (it was an emergency) and despite the place being lousy with gardai, no one said boo to him.


  • Options
    #2144
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,271 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    We're nearly at Operation Transformation time, with loads of walks around GAA Pitches and Parks, with mandatory Hi Viz...


  • Options
    #2145
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Hurrache wrote: »
    Don't think it can be classed as a new way to blend in, it's a common enough method in Ireland anyway.

    Also forgot about the bike thefts beside the Car Park in Dundrum (across from the taxi rank). For ages a white van was rocking up at random times, two lads in Hi Vis were hopping out and cutting bike locks on anything not on the sheffield stands and piling them into their van. Gardai were saying the big issue is no one was ringing them at the time, everyone who was not a cyclist presumed they were council workers.


  • Options
    #2146
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,373 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    TheChizler wrote: »
    The torch thing might be a law actually, at least it's in the rules of the road (is there a real law behind it? Maybe it's the RSA making up things again).
    It is not a law. In the RoTR they use the word "must" and "should", and "must" refers to laws, "should" is their own recommendations.


    http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf
    This book uses a ‘how to’ approach and covers many of the manoeuvres
    identified as factors in road crashes. It uses three methods to set out clearly and
    concisely how the law applies to all road users.
    It uses must and must not to draw attention to behaviour the law clearly
    demands or forbids.
    It uses terms such as should and should not to tell you how best to act in
    a situation where no legal rule is in place.

    Walking beside or along a road
    If there is a footpath, you must use it.
    If there is no footpath, you must walk as near as possible to the righthand side of the road (facing oncoming traffic).
    Do not walk more than two abreast. If the road is narrow or carries heavy
    traffic, you should walk in single file.
    You should always wear bright and hi-viz clothing during the day and
    reflective clothing at night when walking outside built-up areas.
    You should always carry a torch when walking at night time.
    You should always be aware of other road users.


  • Options
    #2147
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Duffryman wrote: »
    I simply don't understand your attitude. To me, it smacks of refusing to take responsibility for your own safety.

    What's wrong with asking somebody who's walking at night on a country road with no footpaths and no street lights to wear a high-vis vest?

    Remember there's no legal requirement to carry a torch in such circumstances either. Suppose there was a proposal about this instead. How would you feel about that one?


    What annoys me about the High Viz push is that it's treated like they're protection from a speeding car, instead of the minor visual aid they are. The primary personal responsibility should lie with the person controlling the car and all this recent High Viz talk is being used to obfuscate that responsibility. It also fosters the mindset that you can drive faster and with less care because you'll see everyone from miles away (untrue).


  • Options
    #2148
    Duffryman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 547 ✭✭✭Duffryman


    Too many replies to my point about pedestrians and high-vis on unlit country roads to quote any one of them in a reply here.

    I'm talking about this from the point of view of somebody who lives on a typical rural road - no lights, no footpaths, and about 4 metres wide in most places, so you're definitely slowing down and probably going onto the grass verge too, every single time you meet another vehicle.

    I know from regular personal experience that if somebody is walking that road, I'll see them from a long distance away if they're wearing high-vis. This gives me much more time to slow down to go round them, or slow down almost or completely to a halt before I reach them if another vehicle happens to be coming the other way too. Not that I'd be going at breakneck speed anyway - probably 50 to 60 km/h would be normal on our road.

    However, if they're all in dark clothes, I won't see them until I'm much closer, no matter how much attention I'm paying.

    So, a pedestrian who's wearing high-vis while they walk such roads helps drivers to see them earlier and have more time to react accordingly. Despite all the points that many of you are making, I still fail to see how that's a bad thing.

    I'd speculate that many or most of you who question the usefulness of high vis on such roads probably live and do most or all of your driving/cycling/walking in towns or cities yourselves, under street lights, and have no real appreciation of just how dark a typical country road is.


  • Options
    #2149
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,390 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Duffryman wrote: »
    I simply don't understand your attitude. To me, it smacks of refusing to take responsibility for your own safety.

    What's wrong with asking somebody who's walking at night on a country road with no footpaths and no street lights to wear a high-vis vest?

    Remember there's no legal requirement to carry a torch in such circumstances either. Suppose there was a proposal about this instead. How would you feel about that one?

    Can we also ask all motorists to fit wide, hi-vis stripes on all sides of their cars so they are visible from all directions, regardless of whether or not lights are switched on and working?


  • Options
    #2150
    Duffryman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 547 ✭✭✭Duffryman


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Whats wrong with asking people to drive at a speed that they see a person on an unlit road in plenty of time. Hi Vis is useless once a person dips their beams, so whenever they meet another car, or they are forgetful. Also on bends, they won't see whats around the bend but some people think ploughing round corners with high ditches at 80km an hour is OK. It isn't OK at 50km/hr, even 30km/hr is a push, as you have to be able to stop in the space that you can see ot be clear ahead.

    The truth is, its probably to late to change this attitude, but the legal requirement is in all of the above scenarios, to drive slower but that's too much of an inconvenience.

    Like that farmer without Hi Vis who was killed by a car driver, who said they were doing 80kmph but blamed the lack of Hi Vis, the gardas widely accepted inaccurate method of measuring speed via skid marks put the car at 50kmph. This doesn't change the fact that the car was on a slight bend, and while the pedestrian could be considered partially at fault for crossing the road with oncoming traffic, the simple fact of the matter is that, and no one like to hear this, for the road and where on the road he was driving, at that time, he should have been doing 30kmph tops. even if he had been wearing Hi Vis, and presuming it helped visibility, he still would have not had time to stop if doing the speed he claimed, evidenced by the skid mark distance. By the gardais thinking, if they honestly believe 50kmph caused a skid that long, then that was too fast but no, lets blame the guy with no Hi Vis.

    I'm going to reply to elements of this one directly.

    'Whats wrong with asking people to drive at a speed that they see a person on an unlit road in plenty of time?' - this is the kind of thing that leads me to believe some or all of you with this viewpoint must only rarely (if ever) travel such roads yourselves. I slow to probably 20 to 30 km/h on that road whenever I know there's a pedestrian there - and usually I know because I've seen them in the distance, thanks to their high vis. With your way, nobody could ever go more than 20 to 30 at any time, just in case some other pedestrian was up ahead without high vis or a light.

    I know some people drive too fast too much of the time, but in fairness, asking everybody to slow to 20 or 30 km/h all the time is a bit much.

    I don't know the case you're talking about with the farmer, but if (as somebody else said) it was on a main national route, it seems ludicrous for you to say that traffic should go no faster than 30 km/h 'tops'.

    Also, if the victim did indeed attempt to cross the road in the face of oncoming traffic, then it's not that he 'COULD be considered partially at fault' - it's that he's definitely considerably at fault.

    Before you start with accusations of 'victim blaming', please consider the following few things:

    - Somebody driving a car does much the same thing...attempts to cross the road (let's say to take a side road), as there's traffic coming the other way. An oncoming car ploughs head first into them and kills them. Is this the oncoming driver's fault? Should they too have been going at 30 km/h 'tops', just in case? Is the victim here at least partially at fault?

    - Or since you might be one of the sort who thinks all motorists bad....a cyclist does the same thing as there's a group of other cyclists coming the other direction. One of the group ploughs into him. Maybe doesn't kill him, but at least injures him. Could the cyclist who tried to cross the road in the face of oncoming other cyclists be considered partially at fault?

    And finally...this 'victim blaming' accusation lark is put about too much. Fact is that sometimes, the victim IS to blame, either wholly or partially.

    You drink 12 pints, decide to drive home, wrap your car around a telephone pole, and kill yourself. You're the victim, but you're to blame.

    You're walking along a footpath when suddenly, for no apparent reason and with no advance signs, you step out in front of a passing lorry that rolls you into the ground. You're the victim, but you're to blame.

    And here we go....you're wearing only dark clothes as you walk an unlit road at night, and you attempt to cross that road while there's somebody driving towards you. The driver would more than likely have seen you a lot earlier if you were wearing high-vis, and would already have slowed down a bit. But now he's too close by the time he sees you, and he's unable to avoid you. You're the victim.......


  • Options
    #2151
    Duffryman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 547 ✭✭✭Duffryman


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Can we also ask all motorists to fit wide, hi-vis stripes on all sides of their cars so they are visible from all directions, regardless of whether or not lights are switched on and working?

    Yes we could, in certain circumstances.

    The talk in general is about how high-vis makes pedestrians/cyclists easier for others to see and take appropriate avoidance action.

    Cars are bigger than either pedestrians or cyclists, and also have much brighter lights than either pedestrians or cyclists use. Bigger things are easier to see, and brighter lights are easier to see. No need for those sorts of vehicles to have high-vis stripes all round.

    But if you're talking about some sort of car that's no bigger than a cyclist, and whose lights are no brighter than the sort of torch a pedestrian might carry or the sort of bike light that runs off four AA batteries, then yes, those cars should have a high-vis element too.

    I trust this answers your query.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2152
    Missus Doubtfire
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭Missus Doubtfire


    No need for those sorts of vehicles to have high-vis stripes all round.

    But HGVs have hi Vis stripes. Are they not bigger than cars?


  • Options
    #2153
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    There was a dash cam vid on the motors forum earlier of a person running on the road towards the camera, you can see his reflective strips and head torch a fair distance away because the car has full beams on, but once he switches to dips the vest becomes practically invisible.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109080213&postcount=4938

    If you took a similar situation on a dark road and unlit t junction no amount of looking left or right before turning is going to help you spot anyone in hi-vis and no lights.


  • Options
    #2154
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Duffryman wrote: »

    I'd speculate that many or most of you who question the usefulness of high vis on such roads probably live and do most or all of your driving/cycling/walking in towns or cities yourselves, under street lights, and have no real appreciation of just how dark a typical country road is.

    But what's wrong with just using a powerful flashlight?
    If you're following the RSA advice and walking towards oncoming traffic (advice which should be cautiously disregarded if you're walking around blind bend tending right), why do you need to add reflective clothing? You can even wave a flashlight around, if the speed of the oncoming car (from either direction) is worrying you. It's a much better option.


  • Options
    #2155
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,215 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Duffryman wrote: »
    I'd speculate that many or most of you who question the usefulness of high vis on such roads probably live and do most or all of your driving/cycling/walking in towns or cities yourselves, under street lights, and have no real appreciation of just how dark a typical country road is.

    I live in a rural area and I'm well aware how dark it can be on our roads. Which is why I'd never wear a hi viz vest if I was walking on the road. NO hi viz vest will help me see where I'm walking. When cycling at night, only lights wallow me to see potholes, debris on the road etc. No hi viz vest beats a descent set of lights. Lights don't need an outside light source to reflect off them to work. I consider lights to be "active" safety aids, where as a hi viz jacket is a "passive" aid and is totally dependent on the quality of the light hitting it to work.

    Here's an example of a hi viz jacket in action on a rural, unlit road:

    https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8

    Just watch the first 3 minutes.

    Here's another example. There are two cyclists in this vide. The first one is easy to spot. The second guy was cycling towards my car and he had no lights, but was wearing a hi-viz jacket. The jacket was not closed at the front and was flapping in the wind behind the rider.

    [url]Http://youtu.be/Kamklf8doLc[/url]


  • Options
    #2156
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,349 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Missus Doubtfire wrote: »
    No need for those sorts of vehicles to have high-vis stripes all round.
    tell that to the gardai and police forces all around the world. they certainly seem to believe it helps.


  • Options
    #2157
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Duffryman wrote: »
    Yes we could, in certain circumstances.

    The talk in general is about how high-vis makes pedestrians/cyclists easier for others to see and take appropriate avoidance action.

    Cars are bigger than either pedestrians or cyclists, and also have much brighter lights than either pedestrians or cyclists use. Bigger things are easier to see, and brighter lights are easier to see. No need for those sorts of vehicles to have high-vis stripes all round.

    But if you're talking about some sort of car that's no bigger than a cyclist, and whose lights are no brighter than the sort of torch a pedestrian might carry or the sort of bike light that runs off four AA batteries, then yes, those cars should have a high-vis element too.

    I trust this answers your query.

    Plenty of cars blending into the background recently with their lights turned off at lighting up time, bigger does not mean more visible.


  • Options
    #2158
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    This is leaning very heavily into Hi-viz Megathread territory, I think ...

    (None of my business though, I accept!)


  • Options
    #2159
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,349 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Duffryman wrote: »
    whose lights are no brighter than the sort of torch a pedestrian might carry or the sort of bike light that runs off four AA batteries, then yes, those cars should have a high-vis element too.

    I trust this answers your query.
    it doesn't for me. have you seen what's possible with 4 AA batteries these days?
    i have lights running off two AAA batteries that are *far* more visible than hi-vis jackets.


  • Options
    #2160
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I saw this recently, and I was intrigued by one bit I'd never heard before:
    https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/invisibility/
    And there is good evidence to suggest that making the objects people fail to see more ‘conspicuous’ has no effect on whether they would fail to continue to see them in future. Here, for instance, is an intriguing study which suggests police vehicles parked at the side of roads shouldn’t use their lights – and should park sideways – to make them appear less like a moving vehicle, and more like a stationary one.

    Maybe it's not true, but I guess a lot of people instinctively favour the interpretation of what's in front of them that allows them to keep going as fast as they like.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2161
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,390 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Missus Doubtfire wrote: »
    No need for those sorts of vehicles to have high-vis stripes all round.
    Why not?

    Duffryman wrote: »
    I know some people drive too fast too much of the time, but in fairness, asking everybody to slow to 20 or 30 km/h all the time is a bit much.

    So just to be clear, it's 'a bit much' to expect drivers to drive (as required by law) to be able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear, but it's not 'a bit much' to expect other people to wear special industrial clothes to suit you?


    Just think about that for a minute.

    Duffryman wrote: »
    - Or since you might be one of the sort who thinks all motorists bad....a cyclist does the same thing as there's a group of other cyclists coming the other direction. One of the group ploughs into him. Maybe doesn't kill him, but at least injures him. Could the cyclist who tried to cross the road in the face of oncoming other cyclists be considered partially at fault?

    How often does that happen?



    Duffryman wrote: »
    You're walking along a footpath when suddenly, for no apparent reason and with no advance signs, you step out in front of a passing lorry that rolls you into the ground. You're the victim, but you're to blame.
    How often does that happen?
    Duffryman wrote: »
    Yes we could, in certain circumstances.


    The talk in general is about how high-vis makes pedestrians/cyclists easier for others to see and take appropriate avoidance action.

    Cars are bigger than either pedestrians or cyclists, and also have much brighter lights than either pedestrians or cyclists use. Bigger things are easier to see, and brighter lights are easier to see. No need for those sorts of vehicles to have high-vis stripes all round.

    But if you're talking about some sort of car that's no bigger than a cyclist, and whose lights are no brighter than the sort of torch a pedestrian might carry or the sort of bike light that runs off four AA batteries, then yes, those cars should have a high-vis element too.

    I trust this answers your query.

    No, it doesn't really answer the query. Bigger doesn't make something all visible. Cars don't generally have lights on the sides. I see one or two cars each day in winter with no back lights because they don't know how their DRLs work. Black, navy and chocolate cars are very common, even with the evidence that shows they are more likely to be involved in crashes. It's not unusual to see cars with a broken headlight or one or two broken brake lights, or an entire cluster out on one or other side at the rear.

    So why shouldn't all cars have to have big hi-vis stripes to address all these issues? What's the problem with doing this?



    Or is it just cyclists that you get to tell what to do?


Advertisement