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

RobertFoster

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It is a depressing photo but what's it from?

It's from the RSA: https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/950744996847734784

Stark

Jesus, hadn't seen the horse one previously. Drivers aren't even expected to be able to see large animals in the middle of the day unless they're dressed in yellow now?

check_six

Stark wrote: »

Jesus, hadn't seen the horse one previously. Drivers aren't even expected to be able to see large animals in the middle of the day unless they're dressed in yellow now?

Along those lines, I'm thinking that the road surface itself is a little on the dark side. Maybe it's time to give it a little visibility boost by giving every road in the country a coat of hi-viz (especially make sure we coat every surface of the cats-eyes).

Hedgerows! We're coming for you next!

mamax

Interesting conclusion.....

Drivers' judgments of the effect of headlight glare on their ability to see pedestrians at night.
Whetsel Borzendowski SA1, Stafford Sewall AA2, Rosopa PJ3, Tyrrell RA4.

INTRODUCTION:
Several studies have concluded that pedestrians typically overestimate their own conspicuity to approaching drivers at night. The present experiments extended this research by exploring the accuracy of drivers' judgments of pedestrian conspicuity while facing varying degrees of headlight glare.

METHOD:
In Experiment 1, participants on an open road estimated their ability to see a roadside pedestrian in each of two clothing configurations and with each of three different glare intensities present. In Experiment 2, participants responded to a roadside pedestrian under the same open road conditions; the participants were naïve with regard to both the position of the pedestrian and to the clothing and glare manipulations.

RESULTS:
Consistent with earlier research, estimates of response distance were, on the average, over three times greater than actual recognition distance. The extent to which participants overestimated conspicuity was greater when the pedestrian wore a retroreflective vest, and participants incorrectly judged that headlight glare would not degrade drivers' ability to see a pedestrian wearing a retroreflective vest.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS:
These results confirm that road users' understanding of issues involving drivers' night vision is limited. These misunderstandings may result in road users behaving in ways that increase the risk of nighttime collisions with pedestrians.

Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25933995

Stark

mamax wrote: »

Interesting conclusion.....

....

I actually agree with all that and have no problem with advocating lighting up at night in the absence of footpaths and street lighting. It is a legal requirement for cars and cyclists after all. I've cycled/jogged through the Phoenix Park at night and on a few occasions only realised there was someone within a few metres of me when I heard them. Granted, my bike lights aren't as strong as my car headlights but still.

If the RSA Twitter account had pictures of people walking on unlit country roads with visibility aid vs without (and not photoshopped to make a point like that ridiculous one Shane Ross posted) it would be a lot less ludricuous. Instead we get pictures of children in hi-viz in schoolyards, because sure without the protective vests, poor innocent drivers would have every right to crash through those school gates and plough through them on their lunch break.

mamax

Stark wrote: »

I actually agree with all that and have no problem with advocating lighting up at night in the absence of footpaths and street lighting. It is a legal requirement for cars and cyclists after all.

When I cycle I use lights in both day and night, not just little flasher ones but really bright lights and our club gear has hi-viz yellow on it and I also have reflective strips on my helmet, bike and clothing.
I will use any means necessary to improve my chances of being seen but that still does not stop the close passes, it actually makes no difference at all !
From now on I will be saving the video of all close passes and going to the gardai to make a complaint.

rubadub

Stark wrote: »

Jesus, hadn't seen the horse one previously. Drivers aren't even expected to be able to see large animals in the middle of the day unless they're dressed in yellow now?

tail lights!
ABQ+Mounted+Patrol+Christmas+2014.jpg?format=1000w

Stark

Nice

To be fair, it looks like it's after dark there so I guess lighting is a legal requirement to be on the road.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone civilised in Ireland riding horseback on public roads after dark here. Or maybe I just didn't see them because they weren't in hi-viz :pac:

Obviously certain parts will have certain types of people doing certain things they shouldn't be doing after dark but that's a different matter.

GreeBo

I was contemplating this last night in the rain and traffic.

I think when people say "I didnt see you" its not that they cant see cyclists (or pedestrians) its that they cant easily distinguish them from vehicular traffic.
I actually think the big bright white lights make this problem worse.
If a driver looks in their mirror and sees a bright white light, they can be forgiven for assuming thats a car and that, like all other cars that are behind them on the road that car is in the same lane as they are.
but if its a bike its not in the same lane, and subject to the same rules as cars are.

I suggest that bikes should have a specific coloured light that isnt white.
In the same way that we use flashing blue lights to alert people to the fact that the vehicle with these lights isnt a regular vehicle and that it may not behave as they would expect (driving the wrong way down the road for example, not obeying traffic lights, etc, etc)

I think if all bike lights were yellow (for example) it would be immediately obvious to everyone that that "thing" is a bike and that it needs special consideration and extra care that is not required when its just a car behind you.

Thoughts?

CramCycle

The cynic in me sees ambulances and gardai on the N11 not getting noticed with their sirens going and blue lights galore, I am wondering if anything would get some people to notice anyone else.

xckjoo

GreeBo wrote: »

I was contemplating this last night in the rain and traffic.

I think when people say "I didnt see you" its not that they cant see cyclists (or pedestrians) its that they cant easily distinguish them from vehicular traffic.
I actually think the big bright white lights make this problem worse.
If a driver looks in their mirror and sees a bright white light, they can be forgiven for assuming thats a car and that, like all other cars that are behind them on the road that car is in the same lane as they are.
but if its a bike its not in the same lane, and subject to the same rules as cars are.

I suggest that bikes should have a specific coloured light that isnt white.
In the same way that we use flashing blue lights to alert people to the fact that the vehicle with these lights isnt a regular vehicle and that it may not behave as they would expect (driving the wrong way down the road for example, not obeying traffic lights, etc, etc)

I think if all bike lights were yellow (for example) it would be immediately obvious to everyone that that "thing" is a bike and that it needs special consideration and extra care that is not required when its just a car behind you.

Thoughts?

I use blinking lights for this reason. It does a few different patterns. But to be honest I think the bigger factor is 1) some people just aren't looking so won't see you no matter what and 2) the people that cycle like d1cks won't be bothered with sufficient lighting no matter what.

magicbastarder

i use two lights on the front, partly just for redundancy. one is set to blink and one on steady.
someone once told me, or i read somewhere, that a blinking light delays the perception of depth, hence once steady light, but by the same token i don't want them both steady because i once had a quarter second of 'is that a car in the distance or a cyclists with two lights much closer' when i spotted two lights heading towards me.

Grassey

magicbastarder wrote: »

i use two lights on the front, partly just for redundancy. one is set to blink and one on steady.
someone once told me, or i read somewhere, that a blinking light delays the perception of depth, hence once steady light, but by the same token i don't want them both steady because i once had a quarter second of 'is that a car in the distance or a cyclists with two lights much closer' when i spotted two lights heading towards me.

I've the same setup. 1 blinking, 1 solid. Have 2 rear see.sense at the rear though at different flash patterns.

GreeBo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i use two lights on the front, partly just for redundancy. one is set to blink and one on steady.
someone once told me, or i read somewhere, that a blinking light delays the perception of depth, hence once steady light, but by the same token i don't want them both steady because i once had a quarter second of 'is that a car in the distance or a cyclists with two lights much closer' when i spotted two lights heading towards me.

blinking lights are a terrible distraction though, especially at the lumens currently available.
You dont want to dazzle someone so they hit the guy in front just because they were checking for you behind them!

xckjoo wrote: »

I use blinking lights for this reason. It does a few different patterns. But to be honest I think the bigger factor is 1) some people just aren't looking so won't see you no matter what and 2) the people that cycle like d1cks won't be bothered with sufficient lighting no matter what.

1) You cant do anything about that
2) You cant do anything about that either!

I just think that something that distinguishes a bike would mean that for the majority of drivers who glance in their mirrors before making a move, they can quickly determine that there is something there worth a second look.
today a glance that shows a bright white light can easily be dismissed as just belonging to a car behind that they dont need to worry about.

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

blinking lights are a terrible distraction though, especially at the lumens currently available.

I find a blinking front light is good for getting a drivers attention when filtering on the left. set your light at handlebar height and it reflects in passenger door mirrors.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

I find a blinking front light is good for getting a drivers attention when filtering on the left. set your light at handlebar height and it reflects in passenger door mirrors.

on an otherwise empty road its brilliant, but on a road already busy with traffic (and the associated lights) it becomes much harder for a driver to figure out what they are looking at.

eeeee

GreeBo wrote: »

on an otherwise empty road its brilliant, but on a road already busy with traffic (and the associated lights) it becomes much harder for a driver to figure out what they are looking at.

In my experience, drivers don't see a steady light at all.
I have a 40k a day commute, 2 front lights, one's a dimish strobe. The difference if the strobe isn't on is huge. Drivers don't see me, close pass, drive at or into me.
The other light is very bright and on a gentle on-off.
Both pointed down.
I wouldn't cycle without a flashing light in front and behind, 100% of my experience of riding with steady lights only confirms this.

GreeBo

eeeee wrote: »

In my experience, drivers don't see a steady light at all.
I have a 40k a day commute, 2 front lights, one's a dimish strobe. The difference if the strobe isn't on is huge. Drivers don't see me, close pass, drive at or into me.
The other light is very bright and on a gentle on-off.
Both pointed down.
I wouldn't cycle without a flashing light in front and behind, 100% of my experience of riding with steady lights only confirms this.

Thats the entire point of my original post.
They dont "see" a bright bike light because it looks just like a car light and a driver doesnt need to worry about car lights because stay in car lanes and follow set paths, bikes dont, the could be inside you, outside you and going from one to to the other.

It's not that the bike lights aren't seen, its that in the 1s a driver might glance in the mirror, they dont realise what they are seeing is "not a car".

Warning, facetious, over-exaggerated example ahead:
If I dressed up as a tree, in broad daylight and stood on the side of the road I bet very few cyclists (or drivers) would notice me. A tree isn't something you need to worry about on a bike or in car. However if I did it at a pedestrian crossing and you hit me I'd probably be shouting at you "How did you not see me? Im dressed up as a 15 foot tree for gods sake?!"
You saw me, but you filed me under "things I dont need to worry about"

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats the entire point of my original post.
They dont "see" a bright bike light because it looks just like a car light and a driver doesnt need to worry about car lights because stay in car lanes and follow set paths, bikes dont, the could be inside you, outside you and going from one to to the other.

It's not that the bike lights aren't seen, its that in the 1s a driver might glance in the mirror, they dont realise what they are seeing is "not a car".

Warning, facetious, over-exaggerated example ahead:
If I dressed up as a tree, in broad daylight and stood on the side of the road I bet very few cyclists (or drivers) would notice me. A tree isn't something you need to worry about on a bike or in car. However if I did it at a pedestrian crossing and you hit me I'd probably be shouting at you "How did you not see me? Im dressed up as a 15 foot tree for gods sake?!"
You saw me, but you filed me under "things I dont need to worry about"

I know people keep inventing commercial variations of these (quoted two pages back) and they never take off, but they actually do solve -- to my satisfaction anyway, by little waves or feigned face rubs or whatever you judge won't anger motorists -- most of the problems mentioned on this page, as well as helping with signalling and side-on visibility.

As I said, to _my_ satisfaction. They definitely haven't caught on, and variations have been around for decades now.

tomasrojo wrote: »

You know where that sort of thinking brings you ... It's a lonely place; current population: 1 (approx.)

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

on an otherwise empty road its brilliant, but on a road already busy with traffic (and the associated lights) it becomes much harder for a driver to figure out what they are looking at.

Nah they know it’s a bicycle coming towards them on the left/inside. I know this because quite a few move out to give me space to pass (or they are afraid I’ll damage their passenger side mirror)

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

Nah they know it’s a bicycle coming towards them on the left/inside. I know this because quite a few move out to give me space to pass (or they are afraid I’ll damage their passenger side mirror)

Some do, most don't.

So either they can't see your light, unlikely, or they don't comprehend that it's a bike.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I know people keep inventing commercial variations of these (quoted two pages back) and they never take off, but they actually do solve -- to my satisfaction anyway, by little waves or feigned face rubs or whatever you judge won't anger motorists -- most of the problems mentioned on this page, as well as helping with signalling and side-on visibility.

As I said, to _my_ satisfaction. They definitely haven't caught on, and variations have been around for decades now.

For me they suffer from the same issue, they blend.

Why do emergency vehicles have blue lights?
Why do service vehicles have orange lights?

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

For me they suffer from the same issue, they blend.

Why do emergency vehicles have blue lights?
Why do service vehicles have orange lights?

They don't blend if you move them around, which you can do if you think someone's about to make a move.

I have to say, this issue of cars moving into your path anywhere other than at junctions isn't a major issue for me. I mostly know when they're going to do it, and the problem is making them see you before they do it. The other option is just to stop and let them do it, which I do more often.

(I used to have yellow lights, but they're hard to get now in small sizes. It's all whites or reds now.)

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

Some do, most don't.

So either they can't see your light, unlikely, or they don't comprehend that it's a bike.

Either way, I find they move over to the right as I pass (I give them a thumbs up as I pass too)

tomasrojo

07Lapierre wrote: »

Either way, I find they move over to the right as I pass (I give them a thumbs up as I pass too)

Yeah, the only time lately I can think of a car swinging into my path that wasn't at a junction was on the wide cycle track on the south side of Stephen's Green, which motorists seem to have started using as a overtaking lane. But it wasn't a close call or anything. As you say, I also mostly find people, if they move at all when I'm passing them and we're not at a junction, move a little to the right to give me room.

tomasrojo

I suppose there are taxis pulling in to pick up fares too, but I can't even think of a time lately I've had any trouble with them. The person waving to the taxi gives you some warning it's about to happen, I suppose.

tomasrojo

Anyway, I don't want to gainsay other people's experience. I suspect some of my experience is down to the routes I frequent, which overall have a lot of cyclists, so people driving expect them passing a bit more. In fact, it's quite hard to get drivers to turn left sometimes, as they wait for you to pass on the inside, which I don't really like doing when someone has already signalled an intention to turn.

droidus

Had one this morning on Charlemont street heading towards the canal. Passing a row of stationary cars on the right and just in front of me a lady pulls out of the row and into a parking space with no indicator or warning. Got a no-eye-contact apology when I pointed out that she could easily have crushed me.

tomasrojo

Yeah, fair enough. That does happen. I don't know, I don't recall it being much of a problem for me. If I had to list the issues I have most frequently, the top one would be slip lanes, and that's people just being jerks cutting across your path (and right of way) at speed even though it's clear they've seen you.

droidus

Yeah, Id generally agree. People pulling into park is the main offender. Ranelagh is probably the worst for that. Had someone there try and reverse into me while parking a while ago and had to hit their boot before they saw me.