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

Macy0161

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

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

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

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

Enduro

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.

[Deleted User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

[Deleted User]

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

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.

[Deleted User]

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

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

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

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

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

Markcheese

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

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.

[Deleted User]

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

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

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/pD5W2sm3sQY

[Deleted User]

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

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

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

magicbastarder

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

[Deleted User]

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

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