Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

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 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

What colour is your car Chuck?

07Lapierre wrote: »

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.

Hard to take that reply seriously to be honest. The whole point of high vis/reflective clothing is to have them used in poor light situations where cars etc will already have lights on in early morning or late evening. So are you saying most of the top cycling clothing manufacturers are providing gimmicks by adding reflective materials to their clothing ?

Chr1st, this conversation is exactly why it's painful to come onto the cycling forum anymore, as far as I could see there was no ill intent on the part of the poster and he's met with the usual diatribe from the same group of posters.

Maybe it's time this became a closed forum for likeminded individuals. It's not a very friendly place to be.

Etc wrote: »

Chr1st, this conversation is exactly why it's painful to come onto the cycling forum anymore, as far as I could see there was no ill intent on the part of the poster and he's met with the usual diatribe from the same group of posters.

Maybe it's time this became a closed forum for likeminded individuals. It's not a very friendly place to be.

Every week there are a couple of these people of no "ill intent" who like to tell cyclists what they are doing wrong. Fellas in black/dark cars telling us we need high vis and pontificating from their urban tractors about what equipment we should use.

He could have just told the story without the incorrect crap at the end and all would be fine

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You'll find the details on motocheck.ie.

Let me guess, black or navy, while you swan around lecturing others about bright colours?

It's a grey golf. Bright colours have nothing to do with the conversation unless you have missed the point. High vis refers to the reflective/fluorescent material Normally. It's pointless talking about the background colours if you are of the mindset that fluorescent high vis plays no part in road safety.

chuck eastwood wrote: »

It's pointless talking about the background colours if you are of the mindset that fluorescent high vis plays no part in road safety.

Agreed. The example i gave was to illustrate that point. Hi-viz is pointless on a bright Sunny day if your surrounded by bright colours.

If you go out at dusk/dawn in Autumn/winter, then Hi-viz has a part to play, as long as its used in conjunction with a descent set of lights. (which are a legal requirement anyway)

In my view, reflective elements stitched into shoe covers are just as/if not more effective than a Hi-viz jacket, as they are lower and the movement also attract's attention

Given the constant parroting in the media around 'Hi-Viz' (and cyclists should be in the cycle lane), its a bit harsh to have a go at dubbrin. If you're not a cyclist, and don't frequent (cycling) forums where these issues are discussed, it would be easy to assume that they are commonly accepted standards/ requirements. That's the real problem here, not a poster who pops in to share a genuine experience.

Every day on my commute, as well as obnoxious driving (and some very courteous driving) I come across idiotic cycling - no lights or token lights where the batteries are virtually dead. Those same cyclists also tend to demonstrate almost zero road craft/ sense - no situational awareness, disregard for traffic lights, hop onto the footpath etc. But one of the things that gets me almost every time is that in at least half the cases they are also 'Hi-Viz' cyclists. So you have this double-edged notion that if a cyclist isn't wearing 'Hi Viz' he/ she's a law breaking lunatic with no regard for their safety or the welfare of other road users. But if a cyclist does wear 'Hi-Viz', they're somehow exempted from signalling, using front/ rear lights, stopping at traffic lights etc and are magically going to be protected from harm. Some of the worst cycling I see are from Just Eat/ Deliveroo type cyclists who are head to toe in 'Hi Viz' jackets and bags.

The whole Hi Viz thing is a massive red herring which makes discussion about the real issues almost impossible - how to educate cyclists as to the importance of proper road craft/ bike handling on the one hand, and how to educate drivers as to sharing the road with cyclists.

That said, lecturing people in a patronising manner, or making the same 'observation' that has already been addressed to death ad nauseum is a pretty sure way to raising people's heckles. Should hardly be a surprise there - pop into in any other Boards forum as a visitor and try that approach... you'll probably get the exact same response.

Paddigol wrote: »

Given the constant parroting in the media around 'Hi-Viz' (and cyclists should be in the cycle lane), its a bit harsh to have a go at dubbrin. If you're not a cyclist, and don't frequent (cycling) forums where these issues are discussed, it would be easy to assume that they are commonly accepted standards/ requirements. That's the real problem here, not a poster who pops in to share a genuine experience.

Every day on my commute, as well as obnoxious driving (and some very courteous driving) I come across idiotic cycling - no lights or token lights where the batteries are virtually dead. Those same cyclists also tend to demonstrate almost zero road craft/ sense - no situational awareness, disregard for traffic lights, hop onto the footpath etc. But one of the things that gets me almost every time is that in at least half the cases they are also 'Hi-Viz' cyclists. So you have this double-edged notion that if a cyclist isn't wearing 'Hi Viz' he/ she's a law breaking lunatic with no regard for their safety or the welfare of other road users. But if a cyclist does wear 'Hi-Viz', they're somehow exempted from signalling, using front/ rear lights, stopping at traffic lights etc and are magically going to be protected from harm. Some of the worst cycling I see are from Just Eat/ Deliveroo type cyclists who are head to toe in 'Hi Viz' jackets and bags.

The whole Hi Viz thing is a massive red herring which makes discussion about the real issues almost impossible - how to educate cyclists as to the importance of proper road craft/ bike handling on the one hand, and how to educate drivers as to sharing the road with cyclists.

That said, lecturing people in a patronising manner, or making the same 'observation' that has already been addressed to death ad nauseum is a pretty sure way to raising people's heckles. Should hardly be a surprise there - pop into in any other Boards forum as a visitor and try that approach... you'll probably get the exact same response.

You're veering massively off point by bringing in the behaviour of delivery cyclists etc, high Viz or not has no bearing on their cycling. if you're a dick on a bike you're a dick on a bike . Also I've rarely been out on an evening cycle when the sun is low and blinding only for it to stay in that position until I get home, 20 mins later it's getting dark and I'm fairy sure the fluorescent stripes make me easier to see.
I don't think I'm being pedantic here but there is no logic to saying once you've got reflective markings on your shoes it's enough.

"That said, lecturing people in a patronising manner, or making the same 'observation' that has already been addressed to death ad nauseum is a pretty sure way to raising people's heckles" .
you're on a public forum making statement's that go against road safety and you expect not to get challenged ?.

breezy1985 wrote: »

If you know it's gonna be dark by the time you get home turn on your lights at the start of your journey or pull in half way through and do it and you won't need to worry bout the sun's reflective power

The lights are on all the time but that doesn't having any bearing on the benifits of fluorescent gear. You don't need to look like a sign post

Deleted User wrote: »

On that last point I vaguely recall a video or an article were they took people out in the car and asked them to watch out for the cyclist along the route or some such, and that what stood out the most to the drivers were the reflective bits on the shoes, pedals and pants due to movement.

Yeah, there was an Australian study carried out on a closed track, and observers were told to look out for cyclists on it, and fluorescent jackets or bibs didn't do any better than black clothing (I think it was at night, rather than dusk, so no ambient UV light to feed the fluorescence process), but reflective material on the heels and knees were effective.

One thing they noted was the observers were quite good at spotting all cyclists, since they'd been told by a sort of authority figure to do it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't most high viz have reflective strips on them too?
Any I have here do

Quite a lot of cycling jackets are fluoro but with minimal reflective detail, and even then they're suboptimally placed for reflection in urban situations, as they're too high to be in the main beam of dipped car headlights.

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't most high viz have reflective strips on them too?
Any I have here do

Torso isn't that effective when it's dipped lights - you'd see a decent light at a far greater distance, and then next would be lower leg detail. This isn't new - hence the old school pedals with the reflectors on them, and the positioning of a reflector on the bottom of old school mudguards. Actually, you can also see it in road markings - cats eyes, and the reflectors along a road side aren't at cyclists or pedestrian torso height.

The focus on builders vests is what really irritates me - I'd be less bothered if people were arguing for a browne belt. Fluorescent material adds nothing in the dark.

Yes, fluorescent materials are pretty good at dusk, but do nothing much at night.

My personal strategy if I felt my lights were inadequate would be to add another light rather than hi-vis, but each to their own. The bike itself is a good place to put reflectors too, though road bikes don't provide you with many points to attach them to.

tomasrojo wrote: »

If that's the video I'm thinking of, I was impressed by how conspicuous the pedal reflectors were, between the biomotion and the brightness, but not by how late they became apparent.

I think that's because reflectors are only as good as the lights they reflect off?