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

Hurrache

ProViz stuff is great, and looks good too.

hesker

Hurrache wrote: »

ProViz stuff is great, and looks good too.

But don’t you sweat buckets in them. Agree the reflectivity is great but the sweating thing has put me off up to now

Hurrache

I don't think so, my wife wears a running one and hasn't complained yet but I can't say first hand.

[Deleted User]

hots wrote: »

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

You do have hi-viz stripes on your car, right, to make it 0.0001% less likely to be hit by another car if your lights fail or you forget to switch them on or you don't know how to operate your DRLs?

buffalo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Interesting jury verdict in a case against a taxi driver who hit an escooter rider clad in dark clothes on a rainy night. I didn't realise that a jury could make recommendations on the legislation.
Seems like a strange recommendation against a victim of a collision in my opinion.
Could this happen against a cyclist knocked down by a driver?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40320827.html

I'm trying to square up the above judgement and jury comment with the sad case in Galway of a drunk man who apparently jumped out in front of a car.

Scooter user with lights hit from behind by taxi driver, it's wasn't the driver's fault, the scooter user should have been wearing hi-viz.

Drunk pedestrian jumps onto a taxi driver's bonnet, family receives €250k.

I know they were criminal vs civil cases, but it just seems like a bizarre conflict. Does it mean if the scooter user took a civil case now, they could look forward to some compensation (depending on injuries of course) ?

cletus

buffalo wrote: »

I'm trying to square up the above judgement and jury comment with the sad case in Galway of a drunk man who apparently jumped out in front of a car.

Scooter user with lights hit from behind by taxi driver, it's wasn't the driver's fault, the scooter user should have been wearing hi-viz.

Drunk pedestrian jumps onto a taxi driver's bonnet, family receives €250k.

I know they were criminal vs civil cases, but it just seems like a bizarre conflict. Does it mean if the scooter user took a civil case now, they could look forward to some compensation (depending on injuries of course) ?

It's possible. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases

Mc Love

hesker wrote: »

But don’t you sweat buckets in them. Agree the reflectivity is great but the sweating thing has put me off up to now

Even with the claimed breathability of their garments, I do find you do sweat a lot after a good ride

[Deleted User]

Mc Love wrote: »

I do find you do sweat a lot after a good ride

Me too, but can we stay on the cycling topic please?

Seth Brundle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Me too, but can we stay on the cycling topic please?

blackwhite

buffalo wrote: »

I'm trying to square up the above judgement and jury comment with the sad case in Galway of a drunk man who apparently jumped out in front of a car.

Scooter user with lights hit from behind by taxi driver, it's wasn't the driver's fault, the scooter user should have been wearing hi-viz.

Drunk pedestrian jumps onto a taxi driver's bonnet, family receives €250k.

I know they were criminal vs civil cases, but it just seems like a bizarre conflict. Does it mean if the scooter user took a civil case now, they could look forward to some compensation (depending on injuries of course) ?

The €250k in Galway was a settlement offered by the insurance company. It never made it to trial.

There were plenty of comments from counsel and the judge that liability wasn't clear-cut if it had gone to trial

tomasrojo

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?

My subjective experience is you get more punishment passes and prank passes when you wear a lot of it.

The balance of evidence though, from what I've read and based on what Ian Walker has said, is that it doesn't make a lot of difference either way.

(I also could make myself a lot more than 0.0001% less likely to be injured by never drinking alcohol and then walking home, but I continue to do so.)

tomasrojo

Scooter rear lights are hard to mount at an optimal height though. Bike lights have to be about 35cm above the ground to be legal. I suppose e-scooters still aren't legally allowed on the road, as things stand, and have no official lighting standards at all.

CHESSMUTANT

hots wrote: »

I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for...horse riders...to make themselves more visible

You don't think that horses are visible enough?
Horses?

breezy1985

tomasrojo wrote: »

Scooter rear lights are hard to mount at an optimal height though. Bike lights have to be about 35cm above the ground to be legal. I suppose e-scooters still aren't legally allowed on the road, as things stand, and have no official lighting standards at all.

If this was "after hours" ide post a link to a light that can be attached half way up the body to the rear

Eamonnator

breezy1985 wrote: »

If this was "after hours" ide post a link to a light that can be attached half way up the body to the rear

But, would that work?

breezy1985

Eamonnator wrote: »

But, would that work?

It would be legal in one sense at least and I'm sure you would be more noticeable to traffic

tomasrojo

I don't think you can legally light a scooter right now because it hasn't been legislated for. Some sort of a belt with a clip-on light seems a sensible approach, and is allowed as the sole rear light for cyclists in the Netherlands, but it's not the law here. Probably the best solution rather than thin-end-of-the-wedge hi-viz laws.

tomasrojo

(NL passed legislation years ago to allow cyclists meet lighting requirements with lights worn on their person rather than attached to the bike.)

[Deleted User]

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't think you can legally light a scooter right now because it hasn't been legislated for. Some sort of a belt with a clip-on light seems a sensible approach, and is allowed as the sole rear light for cyclists in the Netherlands, but it's not the law here. Probably the best solution rather than thin-end-of-the-wedge hi-viz laws.

I think I mentioned a lady I see about on a scooter with a decent light setup. I actually got chatting to her there one of the evenings while waiting to cross the road with the dog and it's one of these she uses https://www.decathlon.ie/lights/312549-3782-run-light-250-fw19-running-light-black.html#/demodelsize-200one_size_fits_all/demodelcolor-8573980?search=&display=&KW=&position=&device_model=

tomasrojo

breezy1985 wrote: »

If this was "after hours" ide post a link to a light that can be attached half way up the body to the rear

Reminiscent of Nabokov's quite weird metaphor of two men inspecting a fallen bicycle's "anal ruby" in Bend Sinister.

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I mentioned a lady I see about on a scooter with a decent light setup. I actually got chatting to her there one of the evenings while waiting to cross the road with the dog and it's one of these she uses https://www.decathlon.ie/lights/312549-3782-run-light-250-fw19-running-light-black.html#/demodelsize-200one_size_fits_all/demodelcolor-8573980?search=&display=&KW=&position=&device_model=

Yeah, a light with a belt clip and a Sam Browne would work fine (and possibly satisfy the people who obsess with hi-viz, though full jackets seem to be the minimum acceptable for many), but at the moment all road vehicles need lights attached to the vehicle, and a certain distance above the ground. Not that e-scooters are road vehicles officially yet.

breezy1985

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't think you can legally light a scooter right now because it hasn't been legislated for. Some sort of a belt with a clip-on light seems a sensible approach, and is allowed as the sole rear light for cyclists in the Netherlands, but it's not the law here. Probably the best solution rather than thin-end-of-the-wedge hi-viz laws.

Irish rules of the road on lighting are from the 1960s
They still talk about lights in size rather than watts or lumens.

tomasrojo

Yes, if the gardaí were willing to turn a blind eye, as they do to bike lights that have an insufficient surface area, but they seem quite keen on looking up what the rules are when it comes to e-scooters.

Effects

tomasrojo wrote: »

My subjective experience is you get more punishment passes and prank passes when you wear a lot of it.

I can't quote a reference now, but aren't you more likely, statistically, to be involved in an accident if you are wearing hi vis?

tomasrojo

Effects wrote: »

I can't quote a reference now, but aren't you more likely, statistically, to be involved in an accident if you are wearing hi vis?

There might be, though I don't recall it here. The study done in Nottingham found no statistically significant effect. There was a Copenhagen study that found a few scenarios where "a yellow jacket" seemed to have a beneficial effect, but it had a response bias I'm not convinced they really corrected adequately for, and Ian Walker said a few interesting but not very enthusiastic things about it:
https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/1380541925078491139

In other words, it's a study of how hi-viz might work in an environment where A a lot of danger is already removed through infrastructure, B there are presumed liability laws and C a large % of drivers will be active cyclists, rather than just "imacyclistmyself"

This is the take-home message for me, applicable to Ireland too, I think:
https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/1380831494298566660

I think all we can realistically do is look across a range of studies, each of which comes at it from a different angle. Critically, I've not seen anything to make me think conspicuity aids have a substantial "naked eye sized" effect, especially in a context like UK

Seth Brundle

https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1417526738674913280

https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1417526778919280642

[Deleted User]

Hadn't seen this thread before, but about six weeks ago I was cycling in the countryside on a very bright and sunny evening. It was about 6.45pm and the start of June but still had front and rear lights going.

A tractor nudged out of a field, glanced my way and the other but never looked back my way. I was wary but still didn't think for a second he would pull out, but he did as I was about 5 metres from him going at 30kph.

I slammed on and bailed into the ditch before I could clip out and somehow managed to avoid going straight into the maws of the tractor and the bailing forks and mower to the rear.

I was shaken but just glad to escape a very close call so I just cycled off. About 20 metres up the road I heard the driver roaring at me and having come to a bit I turned around and went back.

He was shaking his fists and roaring about me not wearing a high vis jacket. I got angry and took photos of his reg and told him I was reporting him to the Gardaí. He said he was reporting me for not wearing a high vis. He seemed to think he was in the right because I was not wearing one.

I suggested we go straight to a nearby Garda station to get some clarity and he got nervous. I explained that he came really close to killing me and all he cared about was roaring at me about high vis when I was prepared to let it go.

I showed him a high vis gilet I always carry in pocket in case the light fades and finally he saw some sense and apologised.

I was very shaken after but it was amazing that the guy seemed to think that nearly killing me was my fault as I wasn't wearing a high vis.

kirving

Not excusing his behaviour, and I tend to be in favour of optional "hi-vis" (read: reflective) clothing, but I think what can tend to happen with the likes of builders, and farmers to a lesser extent, is that in their workplaces, everyone is required to wear hi-vis, and so they become accustomed to only looking for hi-vis.

The same of course is likely true for the likes of DRL's and Centre brake lights (I was rear-ended in a friends car without one, and I suspect it was a contributing factor)

magicbastarder

maybe we should ban builders and farmers from driving on public roads so, if their ability to spot other road users is compromised to that extent.

Macy0161

Feck all farmers around me where hi-viz as routine anyway, even if I anyway brought that as contributory factor!