FinnC wrote: » Christ....
AndrewJRenko wrote: » But not on cars, apparently. Normally, I charge €50 per hour to do research for people, but I’ll do a ‘first hour free’ special for you. Here’s the post where you agreed that hi-vis on cars would help visibility in dark environments.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113644399&postcount=463 The utter bustards. There’s you, trying to pretend that you’re interested in road safety while taking a sly kick and cyclists, and they keep coming out and pointing out factual truths that expose the fact that you’re really not that interested in safety at all.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So a black or burgandy or navy car wouldn't be significantly more visible when parked if hi-vis stripes were fitted on all sides?
Spook_ie wrote: » Just keep digging It's unlikely, unless it were parked in a black or burgundy or navy environment, maybe if it was speeding perhaps or killing 4 or 5 people a week it would benefit from hi viz stripes
AndrewJRenko wrote: » And you were the one complaining about people not being able to put a coherent argument together? Sheesh. Are you planning on continuing to ignore the question about how you agreed that hi-vis stripes would improve visibility of a dark car in a dark environment, such as nighttime.
Pinch Flat wrote: » ...on a bike
beauf wrote: » It was a biased study...
...criticism of the experiment, though, is the fact that the research subjects knew that they were looking out for cyclists, although the authors do say that their instructions were delivered in such a way as to limit “expectancy that they would encounter a planted/scripted researcher on a bicycle during their trip”. This could mean, though, that the test was more about how cyclists’ clothing affects the ability of drivers who are looking out for cyclists to be confident that what they have noticed is a cyclist, i.e. is not the same as testing whether clothing makes a difference to the likelihood of a driver having their eye caught by a cyclist in a situation where they may or may not be paying attention.
Spook_ie wrote: » that's what the majority of motorists do anyway
Spook_ie wrote: » even if the research subjects were looking for cyclists, that's what the majority of motorists do anyway
magicbastarder wrote: » it's not the (majority of) drivers who are paying attention that cyclists need to worry about, though. 95% (plus) of drivers are fine, cos they'll see you no matter what you're wearing. it's the small minority of drivers who won't see you no matter what.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Anyone who's cycled for more than a short time will have heard SMIDSY. Inattentional blindness is a literal killer of cyclist and only proper cycling infrastructure with solve ithttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/02/bad-drivers
magicbastarder wrote: » interestingly, the only study i'm aware of on effect of vehicle colour on chance of being involved in an RTA (from australia) shows a 47% increased chance of an RTA involving a black car over one involving a white car, in subdued light conditions. we need, as a society, to examine why we still allow black cars to be sold.https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/reports/muarc263
Spook_ie wrote: » But in the absence of money to pay for all this segregated infrastructure that cyclists want building today and tomorrow, which due to CoVid isn't likely to be available any time soon, then what options are left?
LeinsterDub wrote: » Indeed it's the ones who are well aware of you that worry you. You know they are aware of you because no one could accidentally drive 8 inches off your shoulder at 60 + kph or the ones who are totally unaware and wouldn't be aware of you if you cycled around on fire
Spook_ie wrote: » I see nothing in your original question, nor my answer that is referring to night time, perhaps that's why I didn't recall it. But now you've brought night time into it, then no, I don't see Hi Viz on any coloured car making it more visible when correctly parked with parking lights on if required by law between lighting up hours. Now I will admit to possibly learning something new about motoring laws in Ireland compared to other countries ( Specificly the UK, as I'm not familiar with other EU countries requirements ) and I may have missed it searching the Irish Databases but there appears to be no regulations comparable with the UK highway code rule number 249. I Must check further into it so I don't unnecessarily flatten my battery (kidding, it makes sense when parked facing wrong way, or where I might not be expected to be etc. So I always have and always will use parking lights) But again, if a car is using it's supplied PPE, be that DRLs, parking lights, clean reflectors, hazard lights etc. then no it doesn't need HI Viz 249 All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h). Law RVLR reg 24
Spook_ie wrote: » Yeah the ones at 60kph and 8 inches away, assuming they have seen you and aren't part of the "wouldn't see you if you were on fire" contingent need culling but the others surely need educating and given every opportunity to see the cyclist. I mean there are 3 types of cyclist I encounter, 1 the ones I see early enough to modify my driving with ease to avoid a conflict, 2 the ones who appear almost without warning because they are cycling at inappropriate speeds in slow, stationary traffic or at night time with no lights or lights that if they were any dimmer wouldn't classify as lights anyway 3 The ones I never see at all Ah, how do I know if there are any ones I never see at all, well I usually play a competition with any cyclists I get in the car by offering them a "small" discount if they spot more cyclists than I do, sometimes they win ( not often though! ) more often they are surprised by how many I see that they don't.
Spook_ie wrote: » . I mean there are 3 types of cyclist I encounter, 1 the ones I see early enough to modify my driving with ease to avoid a conflict, 2 the ones who appear almost without warning because they are cycling at inappropriate speeds in slow, stationary traffic or at night time with no lights or lights that if they were any dimmer wouldn't classify as lights anyway 3 The ones I never see at all
John_Rambo wrote: » If you're talking about the cities? Two options. 1 - Invade the roads for affordable cycling & public transport infrastructure that's easy to maintain. 2 - Build & maintain expensive infrastructure for single occupant motor vehicles.
LeinsterDub wrote: » You shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, you are clearly a danger
Spook_ie wrote: » The infrastructure is already in place for the single occupant cars, you want more PT what will you be doing about the social distancing aspect, reducing PT capacity by what 50% minimum, so buy twice as many trains and buses, CoVid is going to be around for some time yet, even with phase 2+
Spook_ie wrote: » Really, and on what do you base that assumption, Can only really be the cyclists that I don't see and I'd warrant that cars and pedestrians that you meet on the road fall into the same three categories.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » "Parked in a black or navy environment" - isn't that pretty much the definition of nighttime? And sure, we all believe that you use parking lights EVERY night, but for the 99.9999% of vehicles that don't, you agree that hi-vis stripes would improve visibility?
It's unlikely, unless it were parked in a black or burgundy or navy environment, maybe if it was speeding perhaps or killing 4 or 5 people a week it would benefit from hi viz stripes
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Do you have trouble seeing pedestrians when they cross the road, given that they rarely have lights or hi-vis?
Spook_ie wrote: » Sorry perhaps you are taking some psychotropic drugs but does not describe a night time environment. I was taught to drive outside of Ireland, parking at night time was more stringently enforced when i was in the UK, old habits die hard, and I don't tend to park on roads with a 50kph + limit at all if i can help it. For the 99.999% of cars that don't I would query where that figure is coming from and ask which of these 99.999% of cars are at a significant cross angle to enable hi viz stripes to actually work?
LeinsterDub wrote: » You don't need twice as many buses. Buses are covering routes in nearly half the time because the most inefficient form of transport isn't blocking them.
Spook_ie wrote: » At night times, outside of areas without street lights, yes, why do you have night time predators eyes instead of human eyes?
Spook_ie wrote: » You have some proof of this near doubling of the average bus speed in city centers
LeinsterDub wrote: » You've admitted that your incapable of observing your surroundings in fact forget about your surroundings you've admitted you can't observe what's in front of you
LeinsterDub wrote: » How can you possibly hold the opinion that many square metres of high vis on a parked car wouldn't work but less than 1 on a cyclist is essential
Spook_ie wrote: » Really, I think your stretching my post a little thin on the ground for credibility, there are cyclists that I don't see same as there are pedestrians that you don't see, you can't say that you see them all because you can't prove it, where as I'm quite happy to admit that I don't have 180 degree vision out of each eye.
