Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

1…6970727475…101

Comments

  • #2132
    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.......


  • #2133
    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.


  • #2134
    Missus Doubtfire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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?


  • #2135
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 15,661 ✭✭✭✭ [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.


  • #2136
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #2137
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,400 ✭✭✭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]


  • #2138
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,278 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.


  • #2139
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,994 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.


  • #2140
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


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

    (None of my business though, I accept!)


  • #2141
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,278 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.


  • Advertisement
  • #2142
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #2143
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,686 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #2144
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    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.


  • #2145
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,400 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Maybe all houses should be painted bright yellow! :)

    http://www.thejournal.ie/tallaght-crash-dublin-car-4434030-Jan2019/


  • #2146
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,088 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    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.......
    You seem to be assuming that only pedestrians are potential hazards on rural roads. A relative of mine was killed in the 1970's when his car struck an Aberdeen Angus bullock (black in colour) at night on a rural road. Do you expect livestock to be quipped with hi viz in case they abscond from their enclosures while you may be travelling? You may be the victim!
    07Lapierre wrote: »
    ...Here's an example of a hi viz jacket in action on a rural, unlit road:

    https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8....
    The R125??


  • #2147
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    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.
    So do you get annoyed thinking of taxpayer money squandered on kitting out garda cars, coast guard cars, ambulances, fire trucks etc with high viz?

    I usually see 1 or 2 cars with no lights on when I am out. I see a lot more with 1 broken light.

    My friend put it on the work van he owns himself.


  • #2148
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,400 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Wishbone Ash wrote: »

    The R125??

    Yep. Well spotted.


  • #2149
    Duffryman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 547 ✭✭✭Duffryman


    Jaysus, I dunno, lads. I just came on to what was originally a different thread to wonder why somebody would have a problem with what to me was a perfectly sensible suggestion that pedestrians on dark and unlit roads should wear high-vis clothing.

    Didn't expect this whole can of worms, and didn't even know there was this separate 'mega thread' thing that just seems to go round in circles all the time (am basing that on a quick scan back through some of the previous pages).

    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

    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.

    It would definitely be a big help in cases where one headlight is not working on an oncoming vehicle. Instead of just seeing one light and not knowing if it’s a motorbike or a wider vehicle, you’d see the reflective strip at the side where the light’s not working too.

    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!


  • #2150
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,278 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    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.
    the only study i'm aware of which investigated car colour and prevalence in collisions is an australian one (almost certainly predating DRLs) which found black cars were 47% more likely to be involved in a collision in subdued light.


  • #2151
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,473 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    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!


    I don't think anybody is refusing to wear high-viz. The issue is the narrative that anybody not wearing high-viz is at fault for getting hit by a car and the person driving should not shoulder any real blame. A seat belt and air bags reduce injury in the case of an accident (proven fact) while high-viz is (supposedly) an accident prevention tool so they aren't really comparable.

    (Disclaimer: The views expressed above are my own, etc.)


  • Advertisement
  • #2152
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,660 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    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
    Light/ torch is better than "hi-viz". But as ever, it's not the "hi viz" bit that is effective at night, it's the reflective detail.

    The issue is the lack of "hi viz" seems to excuse motorists from poor driving, and ignores the fact you are only supposed to drive at a speed you can see and safely stop in. Forcing vulnerable road users to wear a builders vest will do nothing to protect anyone while the latter is routinely ignored.


  • #2153
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,686 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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.
    We've managed to scare teenage girls off the road by 'dangerising' cycling with all this hi-vis and helmets nonsense. We have more secondary school girls driving themselves to school than cycling to school. In our mad rush to 'safety', we have built up our growing obesity crisis, contributed to our traffic chaos, produced more toxic emissions and more.

    Look at the most successful cycling cultures in the world in Netherlands and Denmark. No hi-vis, no helmets - just people choosing cycling as a normal daily mode of transport, not a hazardous industrial activity.

    Be careful what you wish for.


  • #2154
    site_owner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 956 ✭✭✭site_owner


    I remember about 5 years ago, on the clontarf cycle track, a chap appearing around the bend at the sheds with the strangest set up i had ever seen.

    A non reflective hi viz jacket and a small blinky led light on the bars.
    The strange thing was, He had the light pointing towards him in an apparent effort to light up his hi viz.

    It didnt work very well at all.


  • #2155
    Grassey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    site_owner wrote: »
    the strangest set up i had ever seen.

    I saw similar around Rathfarnham before Christmas, but they were shining a red light onto their (high vis covered) chest... mind boggling


  • #2156
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,278 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    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.
    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.


  • #2157
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,400 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Making pedestrians use lights AND hi viz is a bit like insisting that all drivers wear flame proof clothing, a helmet and neck brace, AND wear seatbelts while driving.


  • #2158
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,400 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    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.

    Of the 9 cyclists killed last year, how many died during the hours of darkness?


  • #2159
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Of the 9 cyclists killed last year, how many died during the hours of darkness?

    Not sure about last year but ask how many were wearing Hi Vis, its a far higher number than the people saying we must use Hi Vis to save lives would have you believe.


  • #2160
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,686 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Of the 9 cyclists killed last year, how many died during the hours of darkness?

    IIRC, the number for 2017 was one or two out of 16 in the hours of darkness.


  • Advertisement
  • #2161
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,400 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    IIRC, the number for 2017 was one or two out of 16 in the hours of darkness.

    Which would suggest visibility is not the be all and end all of road safety. IMO it suggests lack of observation / awareness / inexperience / speed etc.are greater risks.


Advertisement