nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Iwannahurl

MOD VOICE: So as not to take up room on the helmet thread I have taken out the last few pages of hi vis related material and put it together here. All material or threads relating specifically to hi vis will be moved in here or locked if it repeats what is already said in here. There are a few off topic posts but from now on if we could keep the discussion to Hi Vis, and related topics.

Cram

Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar was interviewed by Sean O'Rourke on RTE Radio 1 this morning.

Questions were submitted by listeners, and someone asked whether hi-viz and helmets were to be made mandatory for cyclists.

The Minister's response (paraphrased) was "hi-viz possibly, but the evidence is not great that helmets have a big impact on road safety."

I have mixed views on that response. The situation with helmets has been well rehearsed in this thread -- evidence of modest benefit versus anti-cycling effect of mandatory laws -- but it's odd that the Minister might consider making hi-viz mandatory given that there is no evidence (to date) that it reduces casualties.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Yellow, Green or Orange???? I really hope mine doesn't get one or she'll have a melt down over pink not being on the list of colours to choose from

Fighting Tao

This is depressing. The RSA is giving out this tat to schoolkids to get them to wear hi-vis at all times!

https://twitter.com/san_madd/status/1106273746690682885

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/1099583649199071232

It does suggest that the RSA's preferred solution for walking and cycling in those months with low sun at commuting time is, at the very least, not helpful.

That is, the cover-everything-with-yellow advice.

Chips Lovell

Duffryman wrote: »

Another thread started this morning.....

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057955346

Duffryman

Another thread started this morning.....

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057955346

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/CHAIRRDRF/status/1094660970385948672

Hurrache

For a moment I thought you were talking about the make up company. Either way, I'm not sure which is more bizarre.

[Deleted User]

Hurrache wrote: »

I don't really get this

https://twitter.com/MACofSA/status/1084930734467366912

Mac sponsored the queen stage of the tour down under today...... the Be Safe Be Seen MAC Stage 6 - Santos Tour Down Under. I kid you not.

cdaly_

Hurrache wrote: »

I don't really get this

https://twitter.com/MACofSA/status/1084930734467366912

However, there's https://twitter.com/baoigheallain/status/935789588425117696 in the comments to a linked article at https://nickhubble.bike/2018/01/18/on-why-be-safe-be-seen-is-nonsense/ which notes a much greater level of respect and awareness granted to a kid cycling to school in her uniform instead of hi-vis...

check_six

magicbastarder wrote: »

as soon as i saw it was australian...

Yeah, I'm struggling to get my head around the thinking that led to that video being created. The next logical step is to encourage people to avoid carrying sharp objects in their pockets lest they scrape the paintwork as they bounce off the bonnet of the car that hits them.

Aside from anything else, the lady is wearing a bike helmet in the shop. In. The. Shop. I'm presuming she would be at least jailed (along with the film crew, of course) if not wearing the helmet.

magicbastarder

as soon as i saw it was australian...

Hurrache

I don't really get this

https://twitter.com/MACofSA/status/1084930734467366912

tomasrojo

site_owner wrote: »

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.

I saw a guy today on the Grand Canal cycle route with pretty much this set up! He had a light on the handlebar pointed in at his fluorescent tabard. It was eye-catching, in that it caused me to gaze at him intently wondering whether he'd really meant to use a light to illuminate his hi-viz.

[Deleted User]

07Lapierre wrote: »

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.

Indeed - hi-vis is a solution looking for a problem.

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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!

07Lapierre

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The R125??

Yep. Well spotted.

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.

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??