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.
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?
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.
Missus Doubtfire wrote: » No need for those sorts of vehicles to have high-vis stripes all round.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Duffryman wrote: » 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. I grew up in rural Ireland, your probably closer to the more sensible in regards speed but, and here is that thing that people don't like, on the roads I grew up on with bends, turns, 4m wide. It is too fast, but everyone down from my neck of the woods thinks I am wrong, and trying to explain it to someone who has done it this way since they started driving, and they learned from their peers and parents that this is the way its done means it simply won't change without a massive change in the judicials treatment of those involved in accidents when they do happen. 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. What if they are round a bend, on a slight hill, an oncoming car means you dim etc. The truth is, I have driven for now 20+ years, I whole heartedly admit that my driving was not great and probably still needs improvement but in all that time, if my full beams were on, I always seen a walker in dark clothes, on a dark night in plenty of time to stop 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. Born and raised in rural north longford Duffryman wrote: » '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. Coming to a corner, YES, with your dims on, YES. Its almost as if there is an expectation that you only drive as fast as is safe and so that you can stop in the distance you can see ot be clear. Even if you see a guy in Hi Vis a mile away, you still shouldn't plough on, how do you know an animal isn't on the roadway. You drive as fast that with reaction times included you can stop inside the area you can see to be well illuminated. No one likes this but those are the facts. 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. Only when its appropriate, it is just appropriate more often than people like in rural ireland (and urban ireland as well). 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'. I did explain I was wrong, I thought it happened on a bend on a road, so apologies for that 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. He is definitely partially at fault - 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? They are at fault but if the car was going slower it is unlikely they would have killed them, it doesn't mean that the car or pedestrian is not to blame but that the other road user could have alleviated the issue - 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? Yes, same as above 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. I never said otherwise 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. I'm really not sure of your point here 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. depends on the situation, when I see pedestrians on the sidewalk/pavement, same as in the country, I'll slow and pull out a bit more in case they slip/fall etc. 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....... But if he had been driving slower, paying attention and been able to stop in the distance he sees to be clear, I am the victim but we are both to blame.
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.
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.
Duffryman wrote: » '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.
- 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.......
Duffryman wrote: » ...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.......
07Lapierre wrote: » ...Here's an example of a hi viz jacket in action on a rural, unlit road:https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8....
Duffryman wrote: » 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.
Wishbone Ash wrote: » The R125??
Duffryman wrote: » As regards the thing about high-vis on other vehicles...I never really thought about it before, and my gut reaction was that it’s not needed on cars, etc., but having thought about it now for a day or two, I actually think it could be a good idea and I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with it. Could put high vis/reflective strips on both front and back bumper, for instance.
Duffryman wrote: » Anyway, I still don’t understand why people refuse to wear high-vis. Of course it won’t protect you in every circumstance, but it can make a big difference, all the same. It’s like seat belts and air bags in cars. They won’t save you from everything either, but they can certainly make a difference. Would the people who say things like ‘cyclists and pedestrians shouldn’t have to wear high-vis, because motorists should just slow down and take more care’ also say something like ‘motorists and passengers shouldn’t have to wear seat belts, because other motorists should slow down and take more care’ too? I’ll leave you with that one. Goodbye!
Duffryman wrote: » Anyway, couple of things to sum up, before I go - Lot of people talking about how lights/torches are more effective than high-vis. I never suggested otherwise. To me, the scale would be: worst of all - no light/torch, no high-vis better: wear high-vis better again: use a good torch/light best of all: use a good torch/light AND wear high-vis
Duffryman wrote: » Anyway, I still don’t understand why people refuse to wear high-vis. Of course it won’t protect you in every circumstance, but it can make a big difference, all the same. It’s like seat belts and air bags in cars. They won’t save you from everything either, but they can certainly make a difference.
site_owner wrote: » the strangest set up i had ever seen.
Duffryman wrote: » Anyway, I still don’t understand why people refuse to wear high-vis. Of course it won’t protect you in every circumstance, but it can make a big difference, all the same.
magicbastarder wrote: » there have only been two studies into the effectiveness of hi-vis; one was dogged with errors, and the other showed no significant difference. if your claim that it can make a big difference is backed by evidence, i'd genuinely be interested to hear what that is. or whether it's just the usual assumption.
07Lapierre wrote: » Of the 9 cyclists killed last year, how many died during the hours of darkness?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » IIRC, the number for 2017 was one or two out of 16 in the hours of darkness.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/892f365931e5cb4ba5c9d4ce2c7da299.svg)
