beauf wrote: » We know why. However most people (especially anti cyclists) don't want to hear why, they want to re-enforce their preconceived bias. One of which is the dogma about Hi-Viz. Hi-Viz has its place but its entirely over stated. This thread a good example. The thread is about social distancing and cycling, face masks. Even about cycling on footpaths. But its another thread completely over run and derailed with Hi-Viz. That every cycling thread is derailed with Hi-Viz (or helmet) spam, usually by the same handful of people clearly indicates its abnormal posting behavior.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I never said that hi-vis doesn't make you more visible. I simply pointed out that if you reckon it does make you more visible, surely you would slap a load of it on your car.
magicbastarder wrote: » the funny thing is, a dutch person reading this debate would be scratching their head wondering what in holy hell the argument is about. again, cycling safety has boiled down to an argument about hi vis. i gotta hand it to spook_ie, well played.
magicbastarder wrote: » https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1266129897078087681 neither hi-vis nor helmets are mandatory. the government has repeatedly made clear that they're not going to be made mandatory, as doing so would have a *negative* impact on public health. anyway, that's two more ticks on the bingo card.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Should we apply these restrictions to cars too - no stereos or radios blaring, no black/blue/burgandy cars - nice hi-vis stripes on the sides of all cars, hi-vis for drivers walking to/from cars - because otherwise - Putting yourself in harms way is contributing to the problem - why would anyone do this ? What's your source for this please?
Hurrache wrote: » With all the absence of high vis you still managed to see all these people. I've always found this very strange.
07Lapierre wrote: » Glad to hear people are not falling for this nonsense! Hi-Viz? in Summer? on what have been some of the brightest/warmest days we've had so far.
Pinch Flat wrote: » I'm impressed the amount of attention people give to cyclists - I had no idea people were so interested in what we are wearing.
Spook_ie wrote: » Actually, the day glow portion of a HI viz garment works better in sunlight
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Were these houses not big enough to be seen?https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/audis-in-houses/ You don't have your key in the ignition, so surely hi-vis stripes would help protect your car when parked. Isn't it better that the 80% or whatever are reacting earlier to the HI Viz than a 100% reacting later to no Hi Viz?
magicbastarder wrote: » To be fair, you did run from the argument like a scalded cat.
Spook_ie wrote: » But aren't the very people arguing against Hi Viz guilty of their own pre conceived bias?
beauf wrote: » I don't see them spamming every other motoring thread. The majority aren't saying hi viz had no value either.
Charles Babbage wrote: » The is a certain hypocrisy in complaining that a thread about cycling on paths which was derailed by cycling apologists spouting all sorts of things about motorists was subsequently in derailed in a direction that didn't suit you as well.
Spook_ie wrote: » And once again I compare the visibility of a cyclist/pedestrian with no visibility PPE to cars with their built in PPE for visibility such as headlights, glass that reflects street lights, etc. If you were as visible as a car without the PPE then I might agree with you, until then keep digging. I do, however, have a suggestion for you, maybe wrap yourself in tin foil, it would likely have the same effect as the shiny bits on car, maybe add two red reflectors on your back and two white ones on your chest for real comparability.
Spook_ie wrote: » Hardly surprising as cyclist threads seem to be confined to the cycling forum and on the commuting and transport threads, perhaps you should ask for all future cycling threads to be moved to the cycling forum where you can bask in the Thank You posts from fellow cyclists. Or of course cyclists could venture into the real world where people don't always agree with them and debate the points rather than throwing in the usual "what about" posts.
Spook_ie wrote: » Sorry I didn't drag it into a discussion on HI Viz, it was already there and yes the usual suspects are among them.
Spook_ie wrote: » I forgot I wanted to respond to this dig a hole post of yours Andrew. Let's look briefly at the sources of the photos and see what caused the collision with the offending buildings. 1 handbrake not set or faulty 2 Drunk driver, taken without consent 3 no information 're investigation found 4 excessive speed possibly involving drink as he returned to the scene after leaving 5 3x drink limit, no seatbelt 6 driver charged with drink driving You can research the rest yourself it would seem that not one of the incidents was down to visibility but more to do with criminal And negligent behaviour.
beauf wrote: » It started because it was claimed it was dangerous but there were no stats to back it up.
Spook_ie wrote: » Difficult because very few stats, especially for Ireland are taken or published, however, the figures provided by the ONS in the UK for deaths caused by cyclists are availiable. Apparently the figures for injuries are subject to another department. + + | Deaths (persons) | | | | Year | (a) Pedestrian hit by | (b) Pedestrian hit by | | | pedal cycle | car, pick-up or truck | | + + | | 2006 | 3 | 233 | | + + | | 2007 | 6 | 267 | | + + | | 2008 | 3 | 247 | | + + | | 2009 | 0 | 141 | | + + | | 2010 | 2 | 123 | + + So though undoubtedly motorised vehicles cause more deaths, to say that cyclists on footpaths aren't dangerous is disingenuous to say the least.
beauf wrote: » Most cyclists are motorists. Keen drivers even. You see them on other threads discussing cars. It's only these cycling threads that are spammed by anti cyclists. Same issues over and over.
13% of the firm’s insured drivers make at least one claim per year, found Day, but this fell to 6% for cyclists who were insured on the firm’s cyclist-driver policy.
Spook_ie wrote: » You would think then that if most cyclists are drivers perhaps they should be more aware of the need for cyclists to follow the traffic regulations and to even use hand signals!
07Lapierre wrote: » I use hand signals, I use lights, I obey the ROTR. I have no control over what other road users do.
Spook_ie wrote: » I did, from profiz web site
Spook_ie wrote: » And good for you, but of course logically, if a large percentage of cyclists also drive, then surely a large percentage of Andrews speeding drivers and non hands free phone users must be cyclists too, go figure!
