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

standardg60

The DPP has no role in changing traffic laws. The only body that can do this is the Oireachtas.

I meant in regard to appealing the decision

BoardsMember

standardg60 wrote: »

I completely agree, though can understand the reaction to your previous post, was a little dismissive.
I think the decision of the DPP to actually bring a case here is telling, if they were hit from behind on a straight road visibility shouldn't really be a factor, any idiot should be able to see in front of them with lights on.
As someone said earlier it only takes one influential juror to persuade the rest, and they were probably all drawn from areas less sympathetic to non car users.

You're right, apologies @Hurrache I went over the top.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you find yourself buying hi-vis panels for those that you love in cars, to make them as visible as possible? Oh and crash helmets? Far more people get killed or injured in cars than on bikes or scooters.

I don't want to go over the top again. So I'll try to be neutral - Really? Is this what you have taken from what I have posted? I presume you are being pedantic or clever or something.

It seems quite simple to me - there is a category of road user that is very vulnerable and can be hard to see. I'm all for measures to address these 2 things. That does not absolve drivers of blame for not seeing people they should or could see. And I just don't see how the relative numbers of deaths in cars, versus scooters or bikes, relates.

magicbastarder

BoardsMember wrote: »

It seems quite simple to me - there is a category of road user that is very vulnerable and can be hard to see.

yes, but do you not see how this is shifting the burden of responsibility from those creating the danger to those experiencing the danger?
if hi-vis has such an impact (and the jury is most definitely out on whether it does, not even the RSA can point to any research which shows this), why isn't there any push to make cars more visible?
the only study which ever looked at car colour *did* show a link between likelihood of being in a collision, and car colour, in subdued light.

hots

magicbastarder wrote: »

why isn't there any push to make cars more visible?

They're quite a bit larger and more lit up than kids in dark clothing on unlit scooters tbf. If someone was driving a car with no lights turned on we'd all call them morons for the exact same reason.

magicbastarder

yes, they also weigh 10-30 times as much as cyclists do and can travel a hell of a lot faster. but no-one has ever once commented to me on the fact that my car is black, but as a cyclist i'd often get comments about how bright my clothing is.
what i'm saying is that if hi-vis so crucial to be visible, why are we only discussing mandating it for the class of road user who only exceptionally rarely causes significant damage?

anyway, PPE is very often last on the list of considerations.

Seth Brundle

hots wrote: »

They're quite a bit larger and more lit up than kids in dark clothing on unlit scooters tbf. If someone was driving a car with no lights turned on we'd all call them morons for the exact same reason.

...and yet there are thousands of occasions each year where one car hits another, even in daylight.
My own big red car with DRLs was killed last November when another driver performed an illegal turn into me (completely their fault). I could not have been any more obvious to them.

hots

magicbastarder wrote: »

but no-one has ever once commented to me on the fact that my car is black, but as a cyclist i'd often get comments about how bright my clothing is.[/IMG]

because your car is very large and people have no issue seeing it.

We do mandate measures to make cars visible too, such as using your lights when appropriate.

hots

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...and yet there are thousands of occasions each year where one car hits another, even in daylight.
My own big red car with DRLs was killed last November when another driver performed an illegal turn into me (completely their fault). I could not have been any more obvious to them.

Oh 100%, cars are obviously more dangerous and driver-error is more often than not the cause for any incident... it doesn't make the suggestion of wearing high-vis a bad one though. You lock up your bike for the same reason, no one should nick it (or drive into you because they haven't noticed you), it's still not a bad idea all the same.

BoardsMember

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes, but do you not see how this is shifting the burden of responsibility from those creating the danger to those experiencing the danger?
if hi-vis has such an impact (and the jury is most definitely out on whether it does, not even the RSA can point to any research which shows this), why isn't there any push to make cars more visible?
the only study which ever looked at car colour *did* show a link between likelihood of being in a collision, and car colour, in subdued light.

Honestly, I don't but I can see your point how it does, or might be seen to do so. I'm not aware of any visibility issues with cars. I don't often read accident analysis, but I'd be surprised if I read that the car could not be seen or heard.

And I don't buy into the logic that you seem to be using - it feels like WhatAboutery. Am I right in saying this is the argument: scooters are hard to see so I'm suggesting high viz and lights should be mandatory; you're scooters are not the issue, it's cars are causing the deaths; so whatever applies to scooters (hi viz) should apply to cars because they are the problem.

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes, they also weigh 10-30 times as much as cyclists do and can travel a hell of a lot faster. but no-one has ever once commented to me on the fact that my car is black, but as a cyclist i'd often get comments about how bright my clothing is.
what i'm saying is that if hi-vis so crucial to be visible, why are we only discussing mandating it for the class of road user who only exceptionally rarely causes significant damage?

anyway, PPE is very often last on the list of considerations.

Again, is the visibility of cars the cause of accidents? They are many times more visibile (bigger, big bright lights) and noisier than the other more vulnerable modes. It just feeks like WhatAboutery.

If we're looking to make cars less of an issue, or drivers in cars, then there must be more relevant things to do than make them more visible, surely. This assumes that visibility of the car/bus is not a major factor in accidents - which I am assuming and don't know to be the case. For example, speed limits, speed calming, software to identify difficult to see "obstructions" etc.

Feels to me like the issue here is recognising if the solution to help reduce the vulnerability of one class of road user is necessarily applicable or the most appropriate to other classes. I don't think it is. It reads to me like Whataboutery.

magicbastarder

hots wrote: »

We do mandate measures to make cars visible too, such as using your lights when appropriate.

same for bikes.

Seth Brundle

hots wrote: »

Oh 100%, cars are obviously more dangerous and driver-error is more often than not the cause for any incident... it doesn't make the suggestion of wearing high-vis a bad one though. You lock up your bike for the same reason, no one should nick it (or drive into you because they haven't noticed you), it's still not a bad idea all the same.

...so why not mandate high-viz for all cars, as well as cyclists, scooterists, pedestrians, horse riders and so on?
Surely high-viz is a good thing if it shows drivers where all the cyclkists and pedestrians are?

Incidentally, why then do I have close passes when I'm out cycling even with a bright rear light and high-viz? Should I wear a number of layers of high-viz to make me even more high-viz? Or is the problem really with some drivers just not looking properly coupled with driving too fast for the conditions and using high-viz as an excuse for **** poor enforcement of driving standards?

hots

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...so why not mandate high-viz for all cars, as well as cyclists, scooterists, pedestrians, horse riders and so on?
Surely high-viz is a good thing if it shows drivers where all the cyclkists and pedestrians are?

Incidentally, why then do I have close passes when I'm out cycling even with a bright rear light and high-viz? Should I wear a number of layers of high-viz to make me even more high-viz? Or is the problem really with some drivers just not looking properly coupled with driving too fast for the conditions and using high-viz as an excuse for **** poor enforcement of driving standards?

Jesus it's not all a tit-for-tat UsVsThem, you have close passes because some drivers are arsehles or incompetent (both). If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

Hurrache

hots wrote: »

Jesus it's not all a tit-for-tat UsVsThem, you have close passes because some drivers are arsehles or incompetent (both). If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

For the most part it's an attitude problem, not a visibility one.

hots

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...so why not mandate high-viz for all cars, as well as cyclists, scooterists, pedestrians, horse riders and so on?

One of these is not like the other (big, visible, nice and safely wrapped in metal)... I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for cyclists/peds/scooters/horse riders/any other vulnerable road user to make themselves more visible when they are surrounded by arsehles driving death machines? Yep.

Seth Brundle

I'm pointing out that it does not solve the problem. The problem is that some drivers don't look properly. They then crash into other cars. They crash into cyclists. They crash into pedestrians.
However, the default response is that a cyclist should wear high-viz despite no research showing that it effectiveness.
Furthermore, those who believe that high-viz is a great thing do not believe that cars should be covered in it. Kinda hypocritical and furthers the belief that it is simply victim blaming.

hots

Hurrache wrote: »

For the most part it's an attitude problem, not a visibility one.

No disagreement there, the close passes in this thread are insane. And the attitude in the "speed limits are too low" threads or "I hate speed vans" threads are just the same, the quality of driving in general is scarily poor.

Seth Brundle

hots wrote: »

One of these is not like the other (big, visible, nice and safely wrapped in metal)... I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for cyclists/peds/scooters/horse riders/any other vulnerable road user to make themselves more visible when they are surrounded by arsehles driving death machines? Yep.

Plenty of car occupants are injured or killed by other drivers.
I don't see you calling for all cars to be dayglo orange though!

Seth Brundle

hots wrote: »

No disagreement there, the close passes in this thread are insane. And the attitude in the "speed limits are too low" threads or "I hate speed vans" threads are just the same, the quality of driving in general is scarily poor.

The quality of driving is allowed to be scarily poor.
We have poor enforcement.
So many court decisions go in the drivers favour that there is a massive belief (with supporting evidence) out there that if you want to kill someone, you are best doing it in a car!

fat bloke

hots wrote: »

Jesus it's not all a tit-for-tat UsVsThem, you have close passes because some drivers are arsehles or incompetent (both). If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

Well I wouldn't for that infinitesmally insignificant improvement in my safety.

Can you give an example of any wholescale public policy that you would implement, or indeed a daily change in your own life for a 0.0001 percent safety bump?

magicbastarder

hots wrote: »

One of these is not like the other (big, visible, nice and safely wrapped in metal)... I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for cyclists/peds/scooters/horse riders/any other vulnerable road user to make themselves more visible when they are surrounded by arsehles driving death machines? Yep.

just to be clear, are you in agreement with the recommendation of the jury that it should be mandatory, or are you saying it's a good idea, but don't necessarily support a legal enforcement?
because you may find you're closer than you think to agreeing with many here if it's the latter.

hots

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm pointing out that it does not solve the problem. The problem is that some drivers don't look properly. They then crash into other cars. They crash into cyclists. They crash into pedestrians.
However, the default response is that a cyclist should wear high-viz despite no research showing that it effectiveness.
Furthermore, those who believe that high-viz is a great thing do not believe that cars should be covered in it. Kinda hypocritical and furthers the belief that it is simply victim blaming.

I don't think anyone has suggested some high viz is going to solve world peace, but if it forces a driver (who should be paying better care but we know won't be) to notice someone a bit earlier then winner winner.

magicbastarder

anyway, just getting back to the report that prompted this latest debate - there's no suggestion of the scooterist cutting out in front of the car, made in the report, which i assume would likely have been mentioned in a defence; if (and i stress that if) this was merely a case of the driver driving into the back of the scooter, the acquittal is bizarre. that motorist should be able to see *any* obstruction in the road in front of them.

christ, if i drove into a black bin someone had left out in the road, on a moderately lit suburban street, i'd be too embarrassed to mention it to anyone.

Seth Brundle

hots wrote: »

I don't think anyone has suggested some high viz is going to solve world peace, but if it forces a driver (who should be paying better care but we know won't be) to notice someone a bit earlier then winner winner.

So are you in favour of making all cars high-viz to force other drivers to notice them (to use your words)? This would surely reduce crashes and therefore reduce insurance claims so a win for everyone.

Macy0161

hots wrote: »

If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

If it makes cars less likely to be in accidents by being plastered in hi viz, why wouldn't we insist? Or make helmets mandatory for everyone in vehicles, just in case, given the prevalence of head injuries in vehicle accidents?

magicbastarder

hots wrote: »

If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

this is the thing though, people complain about whataboutery (not you i think) but why can't we apply the same logic to cars? why would you choose to drive a dark coloured car when it appears you're more likely to be involved in a crash, should this study be accurate?

Results of the analysis identified a clear statistically significant relationship between vehicle colour and crash risk

https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/reports/muarc263

cletus

hots wrote: »

because your car is very large and people have no issue seeing it.

My very large (Avensis estate) car was parked outside my house, and the driver who reversed into it seemed to have issues seeing it

magicbastarder

i suspect a large part of the reaction of keen cyclists - assuming they've had similar experiences to me when discussing this with non-cyclists - is that on multiple occasions, i have had discussions where it's clear that my interlocutor wants cyclists to wear hi-vis because actually looking for cyclists is not something that comes naturally to them. they want to partly outsource the task of seeing cyclists to the cyclists themselves; i.e. they don't want to have to look for cyclists, they want cyclists to announce their presence.

years ago, i bought some hi-vis leggings in lidl or aldi; they're *hideous*, but i was curious about the notion that as biomechanical motion is apparently much more eyecatching, it's best to wear hi-vis on your legs. on my very first commute to work wearing them, someone nearly drove into me, because she was looking the wrong way.

Paddigol

BoardsMember wrote: »

And do people think that's what they meant?

We all know what they really meant, but couldn't say, so dressed up in word salad instead... "f**king [scooters] / [cyclists]".

Laws should be based on solid logic, science and research. Not, "well I've spent 5 minutes thinking about something I've no experience in, and it's clear to me that the obvious answer is [X] - that should be the law". That becoming the law suddenly brings a whole load of other, unconsidered, consequences such as contributory negligence and influence on road user's behaviour.

Edit: BTW, it's good to see some reasoned discussion on the subject from both sides of the debate for a change!

07Lapierre

hots wrote: »

One of these is not like the other (big, visible, nice and safely wrapped in metal)... I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for cyclists/peds/scooters/horse riders/any other vulnerable road user to make themselves more visible when they are surrounded by arsehles driving death machines? Yep.

The Best way for vulnerable road users to make themselves visible to motorists is to place themselves correctly on the road.

Don't cycle "in the gutter" and if more than one cyclist, cycle two abreast.

At night, do the same only use good lights.

Macy0161

I've said many times, better than my "Really Bright Stuff" jackets, my Pro Viz 360 Jacket, The various other "hi viz" gear I have, the single most effective garment I have is my "Stayin Alive at 1.5" Gillet with the large camera on the back and the "Recording my journey" text...