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

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

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.

conkennedy

tomasrojo wrote: »

I"epidemiological matter"

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

buffalo wrote: »

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

Cool thanks - reported via fixmystreet.ie

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

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.

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

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

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.

magicbastarder

i always regard those stories - especially if assisted by the gardai when they're made - as being a 'look, we've given up. you're on your own' admission.

tomasrojo

Nadia Williams wrote about some of her research on hi-viz and perception of safety with regard to cycling:
https://twitter.com/racingboo/status/1331173021453836288

Ian Walker noticed:
https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/1331174116917993472

5uspect

She clearly wasn’t listening out or paying attention. Turning without looking and signalling is just plain stupid.

I’m not sure what difference a helmet will have if hit by a car however, they’re only going to protect you from a fall, not from being crushed by a car.

High viz is also of questionable utility, a recent court case in the UK where a cyclist was killed say the defendant argue that the cyclist’s high viz made them blend into the trees.

A good set of lights and situational awareness are key.

TheChizler

dubbrin wrote: »

If you know anyone who's a bit lax on the safety please tell them to put that lid on and wear something high viz.

If you know anyone

How would that have helped? You saw her in plenty time as you say visibility wasn't an issue, the sudden turn was. But thankfully your decent driving meant nothing happened.

CramCycle

dubbrin wrote: »

If you know anyone who's a bit lax on the safety please tell them to put that lid on and wear something high viz.

If you know anyone

First of all, well done on the quick reactions, the cyclist got very lucky. It very rare for any road user to give absolutely no hint they are going to change direction. The Helmet and Hi Vis though are not the issue here, they will and would have achieved nothing. You had already seen the person. Lights should help you see them earlier if visibility is reduced, and them using common sense such as looking around, indicating and being aware is far more valuable.

breezy1985

dubbrin wrote: »

Nearly mowed down a youngster yesterday. Country road near ballincollig. I know the road, came upon her at a bend so hung back until the straight afterwards. Noted she wasn't very visible but thought nothing more of it. Round corner, road clear, indicate and move right over to give max clearance. Accelerate to pass and she does a hard right with no warning. I slammed on and my Abs let me steer back to the left to avoid her. Fricking close one. I'm glad I was paying attention. The road was clear ahead so I was watching her. Helmet on the bars.... Best place for it..... She got a right fright though and I stopped and explained a few things

If you know anyone who's a bit lax on the safety please tell them to put that lid on and wear something high viz.

If you know anyone

Throughout the whole situation you could clearly see her so why the stupid hi-viz comment at the end?

Thargor

Because she wasn't paying road tax.

dubbrin

breezy1985 wrote: »

Throughout the whole situation you could clearly see her so why the stupid hi-viz comment at the end?

You've done very well to read the whole post yourself, you should be able to get the context and appreciate that increasing your visibility on the road is a good idea regardless of what is moving you along. Maybe you've misunderstood my post as one looking for a debate on the matters raised, or a stupid troll response. I'm simply making an example and hoping others think about it within the context of my experience.

cletus

dubbrin wrote: »

You've done very well to read the whole post yourself, you should be able to get the context and appreciate that increasing your visibility on the road is a good idea regardless of what is moving you along. Maybe you've misunderstood my post as one looking for a debate on the matters raised, or a stupid troll response. I'm simply making an example and hoping others think about it within the context of my experience.

I think breezy's point might have been what added benefit would the hi viz clothing have given in this encounter. You had already seen the cyclist without it.

breezy1985

dubbrin wrote: »

You've done very well to read the whole post yourself, you should be able to get the context and appreciate that increasing your visibility on the road is a good idea regardless of what is moving you along. Maybe you've misunderstood my post as one looking for a debate on the matters raised, or a stupid troll response. I'm simply making an example and hoping others think about it within the context of my experience.

Looks like quite a few of us have misunderstood then.
The person on the bike was in the wrong to cut across you but what has that got to do with hi-vis.

Maybe you are just trying to be nice and give some advice but almost every day the cycling forum has someone coming playing the edgelord with some anecdotal story about how we all need to wear hi-vis or similar nonsense

[Deleted User]

dubbrin wrote: »

You've done very well to read the whole post yourself, you should be able to get the context and appreciate that increasing your visibility on the road is a good idea regardless of what is moving you along. Maybe you've misunderstood my post as one looking for a debate on the matters raised, or a stupid troll response. I'm simply making an example and hoping others think about it within the context of my experience.

What colour is your car BTW? And what colour is the crash helmet you use when driving?

CramCycle

dubbrin wrote: »

You've done very well to read the whole post yourself, you should be able to get the context and appreciate that increasing your visibility on the road is a good idea regardless of what is moving you along. Maybe you've misunderstood my post as one looking for a debate on the matters raised, or a stupid troll response. I'm simply making an example and hoping others think about it within the context of my experience.

If a cyclist is in broad daylight, on a country road, or has adequate lighting and other surrounding traffic is driving appropriately, then Hi Vis doesn't add to visibility. A Hi Vis jacket in rural areas is often believed to blend in with the hedgerow, and at night, if the driver has dimmed their lights, will not reflect back any light. A proper set of lights is visible a few 100m away.

It is not a go at you, but more a hope that you appreciate the flaws with promoting Hi Vis as a visibility aid outside of a dull grey worksite. The issue in your encounter is the cyclists dangerous cycling and lack of awareness, nothing else.

chuck eastwood

CramCycle wrote: »

If a cyclist is in broad daylight, on a country road, or has adequate lighting and other surrounding traffic is driving appropriately, then Hi Vis doesn't add to visibility. A Hi Vis jacket in rural areas is often believed to blend in with the hedgerow, and at night, if the driver has dimmed their lights, will not reflect back any light. A proper set of lights is visible a few 100m away.

It is not a go at you, but more a hope that you appreciate the flaws with promoting Hi Vis as a visibility aid outside of a dull grey worksite. The issue in your encounter is the cyclists dangerous cycling and lack of awareness, nothing else.

As a driver and cyclist of 20 years this has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard yet "high vis doesn't add to visibility" then throws in anecdotal statement abouts blending into hedge rows, the exact opposite of what high vis is designed for.
I spend my days driving and cycling around west Wicklow, blessington lakes and surrounding mountains. Lack of awareness is down to the individual be they in a car or on a bike. Genuinely dumbfounded by your argument.

Just an edit to add I'm well aware cyclists don't like being asked or told to wear high vis but to detract from the blindingly obvious benifts of any extra visibility aid is simply stupid. Excuse my language but I think it fits in well with the tone

CramCycle

I'm not sure where to begin as your post doesn't seem to follow itself logically but, and just to be clear, I wasn't arguing with the poster, I was pointing out why others might not see the point in mentioning Hi Vis. First, the poster had already seen the cyclist, so it clearly didn't add anything there and two, neither the Hi Vis or Helmet would have changed what happened in regards the cyclist being a complete f*ck wit and nearly getting themselves killed.

chuck eastwood wrote: »

As a driver and cyclist of 20 years this has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard yet "high vis doesn't add to visibility" then throws in anecdotal statement abouts blending into hedge rows, the exact opposite of what high vis is designed for.

Hi Vis jackets, or builders vests were designed for identification on sites where their bright colour would stand out for machinery operators in a closed environment that is predominately going to be dark/grey/drab colours. They were not designed for pedestrians or cyclists out and about. Its been used in court as a defense for not seeing a cyclist. Do I agree, not really. I would be of the opinion that in broad daylight, you can either see someone or you can't. If you can't, you should not be driving in that situation, or possibly at all. I see people with ease in black at night and I see walkers with Hi Vis in daylight with ease as well. Blending into Hedgerow is often mentioned but my own opinion is quite clear, whether that is true or not is irrelevant, if you can't see a person in broad daylight, what they are wearing will make little difference if you are not paying attention.
If you, as a driver of 20 years, see the rear light of a cyclist from 500m away at night, dim your lights then two things have happened. First, you have seen them before you notice their Hi Vis, therefore it doesn't add anything in that context, you either have seen them or you haven't. Second, if you have dimmed your lights as would be appropriate, you are no longer shining light onto the Hi Vis jacket, which is what the retro reflective bands need to be seen. Now if someone had said at retroreflective material to ankles, that would make sense, and would be a visual aid.

I spend my days driving and cycling around west Wicklow, blessington lakes and surrounding mountains. Lack of awareness is down to the individual be they in a car or on a bike. Genuinely dumbfounded by your argument

There is no argument, you have said exactly what I said, lack of awareness is down to the individual, it is not an argument. I really don't get what your point is as you seem to use the tone of an argument but yet agree with what i have said?

07Lapierre

chuck eastwood wrote: »

As a driver and cyclist of 20 years this has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard yet "high vis doesn't add to visibility" then throws in anecdotal statement abouts blending into hedge rows, the exact opposite of what high vis is designed for.

I came across a cyclist last summer. He was wearing a Green long sleeved top and a Yellow, Hi-Viz builders tyre jacket. He was cycling along a rural road where the Sun (Yellow) was shining through the trees (Green) and he was cycling past a high, 6foot+ tall hedge, which had Green leaves, which looked yellow in the sunlight.

This guy would have been much easier to see if he was wearing all black.

07Lapierre

dubbrin wrote: »

Nearly mowed down a youngster yesterday. Country road near ballincollig. I know the road, came upon her at a bend so hung back until the straight afterwards. Noted she wasn't very visible but thought nothing more of it. Round corner, road clear, indicate and move right over to give max clearance. Accelerate to pass and she does a hard right with no warning. I slammed on and my Abs let me steer back to the left to avoid her. Fricking close one. I'm glad I was paying attention. The road was clear ahead so I was watching her. Helmet on the bars.... Best place for it..... She got a right fright though and I stopped and explained a few things

If you know anyone who's a bit lax on the safety please tell them to put that lid on and wear something high viz.

If you know anyone

If I knew that cyclists I'd be advising them to look over their shoulder before turning right!