Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Macy0161 · 15-12-2020 02:56PM

I use lights in day time on my bike, particularly this time of year. The only reason to wear "hi viz", imo, is because we can't trust our judiciary to sentence based upon what the law actually says, and accept the lack of hi-viz (and helmets) as a mitigating factor even when it would have zero impact.

tomasrojo · 15-12-2020 02:57PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

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

Yeah, and they're very dependent on the angle of incidence and the placement of the observer. For example, a car waiting to enter a roundabout on a dark road won't see a reflector approaching from the right, as the headlights will be pointing off to the left.

07Lapierre · 15-12-2020 03:05PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, and they're very dependent on the angle of incidence and the placement of the observer. For example, a car waiting to enter a roundabout on a dark road won't see a reflector approaching from the right, as the headlights will be pointing off to the left.

I have the Hope R4 front light. It is BRIGHT, but i'm still very cautious negotiating my way around roundabouts/junctions etc. Visibility is not the issue really, its observation. And i'm referring to all roadusers. i see lots of cyclists who turn right without looking and who cycle "around" a roundabout cutting across two lanes of traffic....crazy stuff!

tomasrojo · 15-12-2020 03:08PM

Just looking up that light. 2000 lumens. That is bright, for sure!

Enduro · 15-12-2020 03:19PM

Anecdote alert!

Last night I was out for my standard nightly run on the unlit backroads of south Dublin, but with a new much brighter red LED armband light (I always run with one at night, but this one was a noticable step up in luminosity). The much brighter light seemed to have a significant affect on how much more room cars were passing by, and how much earlier they were pulling out to pass. Very very noticably so.

In many many years of running on roads only two things seem to have this positive affect... a very bright red armband, or a very bright headtorch. Clothing colour or reflectiveness seems to no noticable affect whatsover. So pretty much exactly the same as my experiences cycling.

15-12-2020 03:22PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.

OK cheers. All my jackets have reflecting down arms and across lower back. I've not cycled in a while so not sure what newer gear would have.
All my running gear has reflective strips too.

But (running or cycling) I would always treat them as a supplement to lights both front and back.

A generated light always trumps reflected.

07Lapierre · 15-12-2020 03:28PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Just looking up that light. 2000 lumens. That is bright, for sure!

Well i use it on the 1000 setting and its angled down to illuminate the road ( the video above was recorded using this setting).

Paddigol · 15-12-2020 03:30PM

chuck eastwood wrote: »

"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 ?.

Not at all. Just don't go banging the 'cyclists get all defensive when you criticise them' drum when you start making up stuff about "going against road safety". Which brings me back to my point (which rather than veering off topic is actually bang on topic) - Hi Viz is a far less significant part of ensuring road safety than road sense and lights, yet you want to ignore those issues and yet contend that your argument is about road safety. That's called trying to have your cake and eat it and is why you get the sort of responses you see above.

Paddigol · 15-12-2020 03:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Most do, but as pointed out, its the reflective strips that people consider to be the 'high visibility' element of the clothes.

Yet when I get stopped at a random Garda checkpoint and politely advised to wear 'Hi Viz', when I point out that if my two lights front - two lights rear weren't enough, my black cycling top and bib tights both have reflective strips incorporated, I'm advised "that's not enough".

Bottom line, people with absolutely NO clue are completely confused as to what constitutes 'Hi Viz', yet at the same time insist that it should be compulsory. It's bolloxology and is called out as such time and time again.

07Lapierre · 15-12-2020 04:44PM

Paddigol wrote: »

Bottom line, people with absolutely NO clue are completely confused as to what constitutes 'Hi Viz', yet at the same time insist that it should be compulsory. It's bolloxology and is called out as such time and time again.

Agree 100%! I'd love to know how many cyclists who were injured or killed on our roads this year were wearing Hi-viz (and Helmets). I suspect every one of them were fully fitted out! IMO the vast majority of incidents on our roads are down to lack of observation, combined with speed and inexperience. (and i'm referring to all modes of transport)

keane2097 · 15-12-2020 06:23PM

Paddigol wrote: »

Most do, but as pointed out, its the reflective strips that people consider to be the 'high visibility' element of the clothes.

Yet when I get stopped at a random Garda checkpoint and politely advised to wear 'Hi Viz', when I point out that if my two lights front - two lights rear weren't enough, my black cycling top and bib tights both have reflective strips incorporated, I'm advised "that's not enough".

Bottom line, people with absolutely NO clue are completely confused as to what constitutes 'Hi Viz', yet at the same time insist that it should be compulsory. It's bolloxology and is called out as such time and time again.

You're right, they say 'hi-viz' but they don't care how highly-visible your lights etc make you they just want you in Day-Glo

magicbastarder · 15-12-2020 07:19PM

was out in the car, was passed by a chap who'd wrapped his bike in christmas lights. that is one way to be seen...

AndrewJRenko · 15-12-2020 08:04PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agree 100%! I'd love to know how many cyclists who were injured or killed on our roads this year were wearing Hi-viz (and Helmets). I suspect every one of them were fully fitted out! IMO the vast majority of incidents on our roads are down to lack of observation, combined with speed and inexperience. (and i'm referring to all modes of transport)

If I recall the figures for 2018 (I think), 14 out of 16 cyclist deaths were in daylight. But yeah, hi-viz......

tomasrojo · 15-12-2020 08:41PM

keane2097 wrote: »

You're right, they say 'hi-viz' but they don't care how highly-visible your lights etc make you they just want you in Day-Glo

Yeah, judging by what people say on here (I haven't been stopped yet), they don't really try to appraise how conspicuous you are based on your current set-up, but just try to make you take a €1 builder's vest if you're not wearing one.

I'm dreading this conversation with them. I mean, on my cargo bike I have two front lights, two rear lights, wrist lights, as well as effectively three reflectors at the rear, and a reflective strap around my messenger bag. It beggars belief they'd tell me it's not enough, but I'm still expecting it.

There was a Garda checkpoint near me two weeks ago, and I passed through with my more minimal cargobike light set-up, as it was a local trip and they just waved me through, but they were checking insurance, not giving out hi-vis.

15-12-2020 08:47PM

Was headed home this afternoon around 3:45 west at one point and that horrible combination of a low sun and wet road was as good an advert you can get for why you should run your rear light at that time of day or all day in fact. Also a lesson to me not to leave my sunglasses behind.

07Lapierre · 15-12-2020 08:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Was headed home this afternoon around 3:45 west at one point and that horrible combination of a low sun and wet road was as good an advert you can get for why you should run your rear light at that time of day or all day in fact. Also a lesson to me not to leave my sunglasses behind.

Another example of a situation where a yellow vest is a bad idea?
It's also good idea to cycle a bit further out from the kerb to ensure you are directly in a drivers lane of sight.

tomasrojo · 15-12-2020 08:54PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Another example of a situation where a yellow vest is a bad idea?

There was a lollipop man killed in England a good few years ago, and the crash-site investigator suggested that his hi-vis outfit blended with the low sun, rendering him very hard to see. Think that was rather letting the driver off the hook, and people do bend over backwards to exonerate drivers, but that's what he said.

Mr Lawson said an accident investigator, who visited the crash scene, experienced how the bright sun had the effect of "blending in" with the colour of a colleague's high visibility jacket similar to that worn by Mr Elsmore at the time of the accident.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/driver-22-blinded-by-sun-knocked-over-and-killed-82-year-old-lollipop-man-8933201.html

Seth Brundle · 23-12-2020 12:53PM

How long will it be until drivers take this on board...

https://twitter.com/Sam_Fitzgerald7/status/1172043425102868481?s=19

Markcheese · 23-12-2020 06:34PM

Is there similar stats for cars with their lights on in the daytime ,
I think all new cars need " daylight running lights " with a good few years ...
If I'm walking and sharing space with cars it's not a bad idea to wear hi-vis , doesn't shift any responsibilitys though..

Grassey · 23-12-2020 06:56PM

A quick google shows there are plenty of studies on this, with the European research showing 5 - 10% reduction from an aggregation of 41 studies. (and reduction in collision with pedestrians by 12%) The RSA also have a document available on their analysis from 2009.

I can't find a refer, but I do remember one ESB campaign touting that their recorded accidernts dropped dramatically from other drivers hitting parked ESB vehicles on side of the road by leaving DRL on while stationary.

AndrewJRenko · 23-12-2020 07:10PM

Markcheese wrote: »

Is there similar stats for cars with their lights on in the daytime ,
I think all new cars need " daylight running lights " with a good few years ...
If I'm walking and sharing space with cars it's not a bad idea to wear hi-vis , doesn't shift any responsibilitys though..

Any stats on covering all cars with hi-vis stripes? Not a bad idea, presumably?

mvt · 23-12-2020 08:24PM

Is that a mock up of an RSA safety ad ?

Fair play to the guy for his FOI request, there has to be more realism from the RSA towards a cyclists POV.

Also,does anyone know where is that road in the ad, looks great.

magicbastarder · 23-12-2020 09:21PM

Markcheese wrote: »

If I'm walking and sharing space with cars it's not a bad idea to wear hi-vis , doesn't shift any responsibilitys though..

have mentioned before that though i don't wear what would be termed 'hi vis', i do favour brighter coloured jerseys - though largely so if i *do* come a cropper, blame won't be transferred to me even if my visibility is utterly moot.

CramCycle · 23-12-2020 09:51PM

chuck eastwood wrote: »

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

Which is what wearing Hi Vis accomplishes. I notice a set of lights while driving on the N11 as soon as I have a clear line fof sight. I have to be a damn sight closer to make out the tiny road signs, and my eyesight is in perfect nick.

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.

There was a similar study on full beams vs dips on seeing pedestrians in the US, I must look it up as it was really interesting in that it seemed to imply there was little to no difference in identification distance of a pedestrian when you had a car with full or dipped lights approaching.

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.

The same (anecdote time) from me in regards council workers at night on the N11. I used to work nights in a lab, and I did drive on occasion and hands up, I noticed the council workers legs long before anything else when it was the time of year to waste up the budget.

Enduro wrote: »

Last night I was out for my standard nightly run on the unlit backroads of south Dublin, but with a new much brighter red LED armband light (I always run with one at night, but this one was a noticable step up in luminosity). The much brighter light seemed to have a significant affect on how much more room cars were passing by, and how much earlier they were pulling out to pass. Very very noticably so.

In many many years of running on roads only two things seem to have this positive affect... a very bright red armband, or a very bright headtorch. Clothing colour or reflectiveness seems to no noticable affect whatsover. So pretty much exactly the same as my experiences cycling.

I found the same when I started audaxes and bought a decent dynamo light,drivers thought I was a motorcycle and gave me much more space and appreciation.

magicbastarder wrote: »

was out in the car, was passed by a chap who'd wrapped his bike in christmas lights. that is one way to be seen...

My son gets me to do this on occasion, first year I have dodged it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If I recall the figures for 2018 (I think), 14 out of 16 cyclist deaths were in daylight. But yeah, hi-viz......

Much like the Helmet debate, me memory of those that were "high profile" in the media all had helmets bar one. Having known one person who died in such a scenario, in a cold way, i found it strange how the news never commented on how they had Hi Vis, lights and a helmet in the middle of the day. I guess, quite sadly, it is only worth noting in its absence, rather than in the absence of a wonderful person who followed all the recommendations, even the ones that have no basis in reality bar the feelings of the media and those who haven't thought it through.

07Lapierre · 23-12-2020 10:40PM

5 people dead..yet they were wearing helmets??

https://youtu.be/pD5W2sm3sQY

23-12-2020 11:09PM

Read about that over the weekend. Silver lining is that it happened in the US and he will get the punishment to fit the crime.

magicbastarder · 26-12-2020 12:46PM

https://twitter.com/DonnellyStephen/status/1342790914532646912

i guess it's in case the fridge doesn't see him and falls over onto him?

magicbastarder · 26-12-2020 12:47PM

also; i wouldn't have matched those shoes to that suit.

26-12-2020 02:43PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

also; i wouldn't have matched those shoes to that suit.

They look to be the same safety boot I use when visiting one of our sites. It's actually a requirement for me and no entry without.

Seth Brundle · 16-01-2021 12:26PM

It's funny to see the blame passing by the drivers onto pedestrians in this twitter thread...

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1350068211652419584?s=19

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments