Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Paddigol · 11-10-2024 09:23AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122707081#Comment_122707081

There'll be a time in a few years - maybe 10/ 15 - when as a country we look back in utter disbelief at the sheer incompetence bordering on disinterest of the RSA in its current guise.

"What's the problem?"

"It's all these cars, the people who drive them, the lack of enforcement and unbalanced dependency on the car. We need to do something."

"Oh, is that all? Don't worry, I've got a fresh order in of hi viz builders vests for the kids".

Mefistofelino · 11-10-2024 09:46AM

A bit like the "Led by Donkeys" guerilla advertising that had them project their messages on the walls of the Houses of Parliament, perhaps we should should be displaying Tom Flood's sad-but-accurate summary on the walls of the RSA offices

tomasrojo · 11-10-2024 02:47PM

I remember David Roberts, US-based energy transition commentator and journalist, came across a school-campaign tweet from the gardaí and the RSA and while I can't quite remember what he said, the gist of it was that campaigns like that, that push the responsibility onto small children, were depraved.

beggars_bush · 11-10-2024 04:53PM

I actually agree with hi vis vests for country schools.

There are no footpaths in the countryside.

Paddigol · 11-10-2024 04:57PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708615#Comment_122708615

They are… but another angle to see it from is, what happens when these small children become adults in 10/ 15 years? What will their attitude to road safety and shared use of the roads be? How conditioned will they be to propagating the idea that being near a road without hi-viz is reckless? How many people who today bleat "but why wouldn't you?", as though the onus is on pedestrians and cyclists to do the motorist's job for them, take that attitude precisely because since childhood they've always been told to wear hi-viz or suffer the consequences?

The more you normalise something, the more it becomes simply accepted as the correct state of affairs. That's what I find most insidious about the approach to sharing the roads from so many within the RSA, media and Oireachtas.

CramCycle · 11-10-2024 07:24PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122709166#Comment_122709166

I live in the country, the problem isn't Hi Vis, there is lots of it, to the point, walkers stand out more without it, the issue is that cars go at 80kmph on bends where they cannot see as far as their breaking distance. If you are walking at night, bring a light. During the day though, any driver driving so fast they cannot stop in time after recognising a person on the road should be stripped of their license. The problem with this idea is someone has to die for someone to lose a license and sadly, even in that scenario, people will blame the kid for a lack of Hi Vis on a bright day, with them wearing bright colours.

Also, if we are going to push Hi Vis, lets push ankle reflectors, far ore effective, visible sooner, and so on.

Markcheese · 11-10-2024 08:09PM

Do you live in a country area with so many walkers that there is a sea of hi-vis , so much so that any walkers not in hi-viz stand out ?

Really , ? ? I wouldn't worry because if there are that many walkers the motorists can see a steady stream of them on both sides of the road ..

CramCycle · 11-10-2024 10:47PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122709852#Comment_122709852

I live in Wexford, almost all walkers wear Hi Vis but well done on being facetious. My point was and sorry it wasn't clear, is that during the day if a driver is paying attention, they see you regardless. Hi Vis is the norm to the point drivers will point it out to you when you aren't wearing Hi Vis. No sense of the irony they saw you regardless.

My point again, is if drivers are driving to the conditions and paying attention, then Hi Vis is irrelevant. Sadly very few do, even worse when something bad happens, a lack of Hi Vis is considered an excuse for poor driving, even when the conditions don't even make the atypical Hi Vis vest in anyway useful, most particularly in the country.

Paddigol · 12-10-2024 07:09AM

I also live in the country. From personal experience, I’ve never once had a near miss because a driver only saw me at the last minute. If out at night/ dusk, I’ll wear a head torch - what good is a hi-viz going to do me if I can’t see?

I have had near misses though, but as Cram points out it’s always down to drivers hugging the ditch on a bend at speed. All the hi viz and Christmas tree lights in the world wouldn’t have made a difference on any of those occasions.

Instead of tackling the problem - speed and inappropriate driving style - the suggestion is to put the onus on the person doing nothing at all wrong. Akin to advising the soldier going over the top on the Somme not to forget his helmet. It’s the same old trope.

Anyone at all who lives in the countryside will be able to identify the real problem if they’re being honest.

beggars_bush · 12-10-2024 08:00AM

Ok. But we're talking about kids here. Eg on the way to school - walking or cycling.

Yes cars are the issue. We have cars using our back roads as rat runs.

If hi vis reduces the risk of a child being killed then I'm for it.

Seth Brundle · 12-10-2024 08:17AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122710849#Comment_122710849

That's the problem though - we're putting the full onus on the vulnerable road user to be safe whilst gently asking drivers not to hit them.

Is there any evidence that wearing hi-viz would have reduced the risk of being killed for any of those killed (or seriously injured) in the past twenty years or are we issuing it simply because we feel better about it?

CramCycle · 12-10-2024 08:30AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122710849#Comment_122710849

And that is the excellent question, if hi vis reduces the risk of a child being killed then I'm for it. So does it?

Lets look at the data, 56 kids died on the roads from 2014 to 2022, 12 in 2023, 10 at least this year so far.

With the older data set (2014 - 2022), 51% were pedestrians, 18% were cyclists. This pattern of VRUs holding about 70% or just under is consistent until 2020 where it has increased to over 75% of fatalities.

The majority of deaths are in Urban settings, 67% of those on roads with speed limits of 60kmph or less and overall urban deaths of children who were walking or cycling is 87% of the total.

Here is the only stat that got me in the report, the RSA don't mention Hi Vis or Helmets, they don't mention whether the thing they promote the most was in any way effective. What they did point out was that over 50% of deaths of children who were walking or cycling occurred when the kids were crossing the road. If that doesn't highlight the issue isn't Hi Vis or Helmets, I don't know what will. Several anecdotal stories over the years where I am stopping on red on the Clonskeagh road and a car ploughs through as kids are crossing the road to the point that when the green man appears, many do not walk out for a few seconds to wait and see. In Bray and Shankill it was routine to see cars drive through as the lollipop person walked out, same on the N11 near the northside of Stillorgan.

In 2023 95% of Child pedestrians killed in Ireland were in an Urban area, and 87% of cyclists.

Long story short, there appears to be a few key demographics to target and none of them will be benefitted hugely by Hi Vis. Red Light Cameras, Average speed cameras etc will be far more effective, far more quickly. I am not saying do or do not wear Hi Vis. But please do not be under any illusion as to its effectiveness until driver behaviour changes. Hi Vis doesn't help when you have urban drivers driving around with parking lights on, it doesn't help at distance without full beams when it is dark out, which you shouldn't be using in an urban area. Sadly it will not change until enforcement becomes forceful and something to assume will happen rather than the current state of affairs where as driver caught for doing any of these things typically thinks they were unlucky, or the Gardai are shooting fish in a barrel or in the rare case they do admit fault, the reason they are at fault isn't that they knew the camera was there sometimes and they forgot to slow down but because they were in the wrong.

Sorry for the rambling incoherent post but this saves one life shite is just that, focus on what will save lots of lives and when that gets done, then lets focus on saving one life.

Markcheese · 12-10-2024 10:38AM

Look ,(1) hi-viz is usually 2 things , fluorescent colour which stands out against non fluorescing background, and reflective strips , obviously do f-all unless a light source hits it , reflects off it ..

Its neither body armour, nor allows anyone to see around corners ..

I agree that it won't save anyone from bad driving , and that on country roads we drive way ,way too fast .. the number of traffic jams I've caused by driving 60 kph ..and was still probably driving fast for the unexpected..

Blaming pedestrians for shite driving is stupid,I never saw them isn't a valid excuse, the roads size and it's bends are the constant , the amounts of traffic , size of tractors or trucks speed,pedestrians , even the briars in the ditch are all the variables - all mean go slower,

Encouraging pedestrians to have something hi-vis isnt a bad thing , I'd want my kids to wear something hi-viz if they ever walk country roads ( if they ever walked anywhere )

tomasrojo · 12-10-2024 12:07PM

"Encouraging" pedestrians to wear HV, in the form it takes here, results in a disproportionate emphasis on it. As in, not just provide it for free, but imply "wear this or die". In that form, it's also sort of an advertising campaign against active travel. People from outside Ireland find it quite weird.

Fluorescing material doesn't necessarily stand out from non-fluorescing material. It does stand out in low light conditions (provided there's still some UV light), but the HV given out here isn't good against foliage in daylight. It's sometimes worse than wearing normal clothes. Railway workers wear the bright orange variety for this reason. And yet the stereotypical case given for HV here is people walking on minor country roads, including in daylight.

tomasrojo · 12-10-2024 12:25PM

I'm kind of surprised that when the RSA were asked for the evidence base of their HV campaigns, they said they had nothing. Their research is sometimes quite bad, and often has the whiff of policy-based evidence making, but I was surprised they didn't do some sort of analysis on trends in this state itself, or refer to some of the research mentioned in this thread. I mean, there's at least one paper that would be acceptable to them.

breezy1985 · 12-10-2024 12:39PM

If they want to make country roads safer they should send every child home with a poster tells mammy and daddy to not be dumb fuks who overtake on blind bends and send texts while driving.

AndrewJRenko · 12-10-2024 01:16PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122709166#Comment_122709166

Have RSA every uttered a word about the importance of footpaths on the approaches to country schools?

tomasrojo · 12-10-2024 07:29PM

The approach to the RSA HQ in Ballina has no footpath and the pedestrian gate is welded shut. Or that was the case. It's almost comical how car-brained they are

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122711551#Comment_122711551

beggars_bush · 12-10-2024 08:46PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122711551#Comment_122711551

No

Nor on the importance of lights showing a school zone

Or on speed ramps either side of schools (should be mandatory)

And there should be speed cameras in school zones, like in Australia

thebullkf · 12-10-2024 10:38PM

There is also the point which is being missed /ignored/ unaware.

Measuring prevention is tough, really tough

Focusing on outcome only ( when said outcome is fatality) is not the best measurement.

A combination of layered methods is the safest.

Being seen doesn't equal being not hit.

But we don't have reports of near misses due to folks NOT being hit because they WERE seen.

Helmets do help prevent serious injury

Hi vis clothing increases visibility ( as does reflectors, and lights, and careful road users )

Iis obviously higher mpact via car, hence the competency test factor.

The silly comments about hi vis cars doesn't help.

I do remember reading about Accident instances or accidents rates being LOWER in those wearing hi vis clothing, so the focus on death / fatality rates only seems to indicate a bias tbh.

I spend more time in two wheels than four, and more time on two feet than two wheels, in both urban and rural settings

Our driving standard is piss poor, but the amount of cockwombles on e scooters in particular and other cyclists who pass me , at speed, zip through red lights each morning and evening has increased exponentially.

CramCycle · 12-10-2024 11:53PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122713112#Comment_122713112

B I N G O, do I win something?

You are of course right in some regards, being seen does not mean you won't be hit, of course there are two options there, you are seen too late and cannot stop in time (speed and awareness) or you are a psychopath. Can't do much about the latter group but the first can be tackled by enforcement, education only works when people want to hear the facts, so enforcement, of which we are incredibly poor at, is the only correct and immediate answer.

You are right about measuring prevention and to be honest, that should not be the aim. I posted data from the RSA earlier. They don't publish how many kids in rural areas were wearing Hi Vis or Helmets when they died, and to be honest, until they do, we have to presume that prevention is better than cure. They need to publish, time of day, locations, details of every specific incident. Over 50% of incidents were kids crossing roads, the implication in the report is that this is at junctions but it is not said. If it is, red light cameras will prevent the deaths of 100 children over the next 10 years.

Not addressing the Helmet bit, we have another thread for that, I would recommend reading it, but TLDR you are both wrong and right depending on what you mean.

Hi Vis increases visibility in certain situations, it does not however increase it on a rural road during the daytime (in fact dark clothing would be more noticeable) and it does not increase visibility at night in urban settings where people should be using dims and are often driving around with just parking lights on.

Long story short, I have no idea what you point was, but it made it easier to tick the B I N G O card.

AndrewJRenko · 13-10-2024 11:22AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122713112#Comment_122713112

Why does all that important prevention stuff not apply to drivers driving dark colour cars around?

Etc · 13-10-2024 11:32AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122714131#Comment_122714131

Jesus wept….

AndrewJRenko · 13-10-2024 12:30PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122714159#Comment_122714159

If it saves one driver

https://www.autolist.com/guides/safest-car-color

magicbastarder · 13-10-2024 12:32PM

i suspect that the largest factor in crashes which aren't primarily the cyclist's fault will probably be due to driver inattention, and that factor would very likely swamp whatever advantage hi-vis gives. and yes/no on 'was the cyclist wearing hi vis' is a far easier metric to capture than driver attentiveness.

the data on hi Vis and cycling seems equivocal; from the wikipedia article on hi vis, and the cycling section of the 'effectiveness' part:

2009 australian study on closed roads showed reasonably obvious conclusions on visibility - but obviously participants were actively partaking in this and knew they were looking for test cyclists - hardly real world.

2012 british case study - a 'non-significant increase' (which i presume means something like 'within the margin of error'; and my emphasis) of the odds of a crash for people wearing visibility aids (!)

2014 canadian study suggested light coloured clothing in the daytime reduces the odds of a crash, but an increase in the odds of a crash if using lights and reflective gear at night.

danish trial 2012/2013 - main flaw i can see is that the data was self-reported, which the authors did claim to correct for. but if it was a randomised controlled trial, did they actually ask people to cycle at night without hi-vis? danish laws on lights on bikes are fairly standard, and i would be curious as to whether they insisted that any participants cycled at night with lights, which could be another complicating factor. either way, the results reported show an overall 38% reduction in collisions.

i'd be curious as to whether any studies show or account for what i'd call 'collision distance' effects.

i.e. it's one thing being able to show that a hi-vis jacket allows you to see a cyclist from 150m away as opposed to 90m away or whatever - but the vast majority of the time, the difference between 150m and 90m (i plucked those figures out of my arse FWIW) would have little impact on the effect of a collision. i'd be much more interested in what happens with a distance of 20m.

at night, retroreflective strips are of use if there are lights shining directly at them, and fluorescent jackets don't fluoresce. so in an example of a cyclist cycling along a main road, t-boned by a motorist pulling out of a side road, we're again back to lights being the only real difference. there's no light from the motorist shining toward the cyclist.

thebullkf · 13-10-2024 03:35PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122714131#Comment_122714131

I assume this is not serious.?

AndrewJRenko · 13-10-2024 03:48PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122714814#Comment_122714814

Deadly serious.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/programs/nsw-country-hour/2013-08-12/dark-cars-hard-to-see/4880246

Surely we should be saving these drivers with hiviz panels for their cars?

Seth Brundle · 13-10-2024 03:50PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122714814#Comment_122714814

I assume Andrew's point is that given the number of drivers that drive into other cars, surely it would be a no trainer to make cars more visible. If we're all in agreement that hi-viz would make it easier for drivers to see pedestrians and other vulnerable road users (and therefore avoid hitting them), why would that same logic not apply to those drivers seeing other cars and avoiding colliding with them?

thebullkf · 13-10-2024 03:51PM

Remived to quote

thebullkf · 13-10-2024 03:51PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122713418#Comment_122713418

Incidentally it was your post that mentioned deaths. I just said using deaths as a measurement wasn't the greatest tool. We don't measure how many deaths were + potentially) prevented due to some form of hi vis methods, hence my suggestion a layered approach, I'm not sure how you missed what my point was.

Lots of variables in every accident, context matters.

definition of "hi vis" also matters ( on surface it can be argued to be subjective )

As magicbastarder pointed out the Danish study. Mentioned 50% reduction with hi vis and even accounting for inherent bias, it still accounted for ,38% reduction.

(But sure BINGO etc.)

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments