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

Hurrache

Crimecall using a video of people walking on footpaths with and without vests as an example as why you should wear one as those on the footpath with one are easier to see. If a car is going to mount a footpath no vest will save you.

tomasrojo

I've always like the way the J sound goes to Sh in Irish. Fairly elaborately in Seoirse

what_traffic

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't know what I'll do if an authority figure ever has that conversation with me. I suppose my Father Ted-style "that would be an epidemiological matter" might work.

I still have not met a Garda who can tell me what "Hi-Viz" in Gaeilge is.
In fairness most Gaelgoirs might struggle as well.

high visibility vest = veist sofheicthe / veist lonrach
high visibility jacket = seaicéad sofheicthe / seaicéad lonrach

tomasrojo

MisterJinx wrote: »

True if you get one of the grey ones. I had one and returned it. Got a neon blue one instead which is visible day and night and when the light hits it it turns Hi-Viz. Most of the time I just look like a blue highlighter pen

Yes, I've only seen the ones that look grey in sunlight.

MisterJinx

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've had similar experiences with those proviz jackets, they're only visible when you're in a line with the light shining on them.

True if you get one of the grey ones. I had one and returned it. Got a neon blue one instead which is visible day and night and when the light hits it it turns Hi-Viz. Most of the time I just look like a blue highlighter pen

Seth Brundle

buffalo wrote: »

That is not a legitimate road sign to indicate a bus lane, from my understanding.

Cool thanks - reported via fixmystreet.ie

buffalo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'd often cycle on the Balllyowen Road (R136) from Lucan to the Naas Rd. However, from the Nangor Rd all the way until the N7 interchange, the bus lane does not allow bicycles and I guess that bikes are expected to use either the adjacent cycle path/foot path or use the general traffic lanes (which would obviously not be recommended given the vehicle speeds there).
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3247463,-6.4318038,3a,75y,165.82h,88.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shTJ5d-RvzX6CF9fpp_bOKw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I still use the bus lane and haven't been pulled up on it yet. I think any garda that would do this is just being a bully.

That is not a legitimate road sign to indicate a bus lane, from my understanding.

SI 332/2012 wrote:

32. (1)(a) A bus lane shall be indicated by means of traffic sign number RUS 028 or traffic sign number RUS 029 used in association with traffic sign number RRM 024.

(b) A contra-flow bus lane shall be indicated by means of traffic sign number RUS 030 used in association with traffic sign number RRM 024.

s1aCnxgYuEAEh_TnDacPM1PpppE_wXOvcTvXTZCfkUUfexCcbdBaiiYgajF6UaRT9PYR7KIVphNpnwjsemjttAcfD2krFlaYPmLu_y2HIao

Seth Brundle

I'd often cycle on the Balllyowen Road (R136) from Lucan to the Naas Rd. However, from the Nangor Rd all the way until the N7 interchange, the bus lane does not allow bicycles and I guess that bikes are expected to use either the adjacent cycle path/foot path or use the general traffic lanes (which would obviously not be recommended given the vehicle speeds there).
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3247463,-6.4318038,3a,75y,165.82h,88.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shTJ5d-RvzX6CF9fpp_bOKw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I still use the bus lane and haven't been pulled up on it yet. I think any garda that would do this is just being a bully.

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've been waiting for this to happen to me. the number of times i've had to explain to people that 99% of bus lanes are also explicitly marked for bikes is nuts. many, many motorists seem unaware of this.

And those that aren't explicitly marked for bikes aren't technically bus lanes.

I've a couple of stretches of segregated cycle tracks near me that aren't technically signed as cycle tracks and therefore - as I understand it - are just coloured footpaths. I look forward to the day when a Garda admonishes me for cycling on the road beside them.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

I've been moved into the cycle lane from the bus lane by one Garda.

i've been waiting for this to happen to me. the number of times i've had to explain to people that 99% of bus lanes are also explicitly marked for bikes is nuts. many, many motorists seem unaware of this.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't know what I'll do if an authority figure ever has that conversation with me. I suppose my Father Ted-style "that would be an epidemiological matter" might work.

Depends on the situation, as Paddigol did, typically I weigh up the intention with the outcome and in most cases say yes Garda. I've refused the Hi Vis before from those RSA / Garda hand out stops, and let them know my lights were enough. I've been moved into the cycle lane from the bus lane by one Garda. i explained that it was because the cycle lane is actually blocked by 20 cars only a short way down the road but he wouldn't budge. It was ridiculous as I had to bunny hop down 20seconds later anyway. I regret not moving out of the bus lane and into the main traffic lane when I seen the Garda but hindsight is wonderful.

conkennedy

tomasrojo wrote: »

I"epidemiological matter"

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

tomasrojo

I don't know what I'll do if an authority figure ever has that conversation with me. I suppose my Father Ted-style "that would be an epidemiological matter" might work.

Paddigol

Informed by an old-school (i.e. late 50's not fresh out of Templemore) Garda at a checkpoint near Crumlin at 8.30am this morning that my two lights front and two lights rear weren't enough - I needed the cloak of invincibility that comes with Hi-Viz. I just nodded and agreed.

In fairness, he made the comments with the best of intentions and his heart was in the right place. I didn't feel there was anything to gain by arguing the point. But my concern would be that the Hi-Viz lobby group becomes sufficiently loud that regulations are passed to make these sort of nanny-state rules law.

Street-smarts + lights + common courtesy > hi-viz vest

tomasrojo

The pedal reflectors aren't too shabby in that, but they're visible very, very late, compared with the rear light.

07Lapierre

I think this video shows why lights trump hi viz.

The cyclist is visible at the 30 second mark. You only See the hi viz at the two minute mark!

https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8

tomasrojo

I've noticed it as well. Same as the strips on the standard hi-viz jacket: if you are near a powerful light source shining nearly directly onto the reflective fabric, they're very effective. But a fair bit of the time, you aren't aligned like that. Even as a car occupant, a cyclist in quite a few scenarios (roundabouts, right-turn lanes, for example) can be off to your right, and your headlights throw more to the left.

The leitfmotif of this thread: reflectors aren't a substitute for pretty decent lights.

eeeee

Yeah, my front light lit it up as I got closer to it (flashing). The lack of lights that usually goes with them confuses me. I don't think they understand how light works.

magicbastarder

i've had similar experiences with those proviz jackets, they're only visible when you're in a line with the light shining on them.

eeeee

I was out 5k lapping after work and saw a cyclist up ahead who, as I got closer was wearing one of those all reflective jackets - like the proviz ones under a backpack. I couldn't believe how indistinct it was (I was going through Ringsend at the time, a pretty noisy spot visually). The jacket made no difference to their visibility at all, but their rear light did, that's how I spotted them in the first place. Maybe strips stand out more than a whole jacket in a visually busy environment?
I have seen them pretty effective in the phoenix park at night when car headlights shine on them, although they're invisible without (even under the wee gaslamps on Chesterfield Avenue).

Today was the first time I saw someone wear one of those jackets with lights on their bike too. Now that I don't understand! (the no lights just hi viz thing).

Seth Brundle

https://twitter.com/pward82/status/1328363650327961606

tomasrojo

Galway councillor lobbying Eamon Ryan for mandatory hi-viz:
https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1304324735149449217

Doesn't seem very likely to work.

tomasrojo

There was a case in the UK previously where a driver ran into a lollipop man and the lollipop man's hi-viz apparel was blamed, allegedly blending with the low sun.

Here's another one, with vegetation blending thrown in:

Jones had been wearing a high-vis jacket. Asked by Jim Davis, prosecuting, how she had failed to see him “right in front of your bonnet,” Powell replied: “The lighting coming through the trees and foliage on the side had created a flickering effect and I believe the high visibility jacket blended in with that.”

https://road.cc/content/news/hi-vis-jacket-blended-trees-277019

Stark

Some very intelligent considered replies from Jez TG there.

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1266129897078087681

tomasrojo

It's one terrible job after another really, isn't it?

rubadub

tomasrojo wrote: »

Reminds me of that joke about UK adult chatlines in late October/early November.

which reminds me of the poor strip clubs that had to close

EUPOiPzU4AEky-3?format=jpg&name=large

but some got new jobs doing delivers as "boober eats".

NSFW, well maybe that does not apply if you are at home!
https://manofmany.com/lifestyle/food/boober-eats-topless-delivery-service

This one is safe, "uber eats" went and sent a cease & desist
https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/boober-eats-uber-lucky-devil-strip-club-dancers-delivering-dinners.html

tomasrojo

I guess the caller might seek clarification about how conspicuously their interlocutor is dressed. Best to be prepared.

Reminds me of that joke about UK adult chatlines in late October/early November.

Caller: Tell me what you are wearing
Girl: Nothing
Caller: WHERE IS YOUR POPPY!

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

seems you now need a hi-vis (over your suit) to start answering phones.
(yes, i know the topic being referred to and the photo used may have no link whatsoever)

He's been on too many construction site photo-ops if he thinks that's appropriate PPE for returning to medicine!

magicbastarder

seems you now need a hi-vis (over your suit) to start answering phones.
(yes, i know the topic being referred to and the photo used may have no link whatsoever)

https://twitter.com/John_McGahon/status/1247072543531466752