RSA and high viz vests

BostonB wrote: »

I didn't think the location mattered.

What I mean is, you want to change a passive reflector into an active one by shining a light on it. Why not just use a light and forget the reflector?

You can buy high viz vests with flashing LEDs if you really want to.

At least it's still only advised for you. Stick an engine into the equation and by law you need to wear high viz when learning. Next they want full arm high viz for fully licensed bikers.

As said already, it doesn't matter if they don't bother looking.

The effectiveness of HiVis (Motorcycle)

Isn't there some kind of high tech/super nerdy spoke light thing that spells words as it spins? I want that one. (Also, a hover bike!)

Have said it here before but will say it again. If they really care about making other road users more visible, they'd insist on eye tests when renewing driving licenses. Not like it would cost that much.

What am I supposed to be seeing here? I see no distinguishable differnce...

Serious visibility from all angles with these things: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/revolights/revolights-join-the-revolution

Or for cheaper side on lighting, get knock off knog frogs on dealextreme.

I've had this argument with my kids teachers in school and creche where they were handing out hi-vis vests for the children walking to school. All this hi-vis is making it more dangerous imo because drivers may just look out for it and assume if they don't see something bright yellow coming towards them there's nobody there.

I'd say that most peoples lights are either to dim or facing the wrong way/covered. Properly fitted lights are all that you need. The Dublin bikes are a great example of this, you can't miss them.

My rambling and highly offensive thoughts on the topic ...

Wearing of hi-viz gear should not be made mandatory just because some pen pushers in the RSA are anxious to justify their existence in these economically straitened times. In any case, such proposals can be safely ignored. A large proportion of cyclists in my neighbourhood are POB's who do most of their cycling on the footpath, without lights and while dressed from head to toe in navy/black. The idea that the Gardaí are going to exert themselves in running around after them to enquire as to the whereabouts of their mandatory hi-viz vests is beyond laughable.

In the dark, equipping yourself with decent lights undoubtedly takes priority. However, this does not mean that reflective gear has no useful role to play. My own preference is to opt for both - 2 good LED lights on the front and rear (so 4 in total), combined with a Sam Browne belt and reflective ankle/wrist straps. And then there's my bike, which is a riot of high quality reflective tape, applied zebra fashion to most of the frame tubing, the forks, seatpost and rear mudguard.

Interestingly, the only negative or less than complimentary comments on the nausea-inducing bike have been from other cyclists. Conversely, I've had a couple of car drivers, complete strangers, make very favourable comments while stopped alongside at traffic lights at night.

Regarding "cycling chic", I'm not sure what it is or how you go about conveying the desired impression to other road users on a black winter's night in a blowing gale and horizontal rain. However, when driving at night, I certainly appreciate the efforts of cyclists and pedestrians to make my job a little easier by making themselves seen. I find that people who don't drive tend to underestimate just how poor visibility can become from inside a car under such conditions. And that's assuming that the driver is paying attention.

But matters are further compounded by drivers who insist on using their phones while on the move or are otherwise needlessly distracted. So bearing these factors in mind, there's something to be said for taking a more pro-active approach to visibility. Using good lights means that drivers can see you but if you can take measures to further increase the likelihood that they do see you, that's got to be worthy of serious consideration. This means grabbing their attention if possible, rather than just providing them with the opportunity to see you, should they so choose to take it.

As for this lark about not wanting to be seen as "the other" and "different", this sounds like the kind of psychobabble you might expect to encounter on some undergraduate gender studies course. I believe it is much healthier to focus on the physical reality of the situation instead of attempting an ad-hoc psychoanalysis on the driving population with the aim of proving what you already "know".

And the physical reality is pretty straightforward. "You" are on a flimsy little vehicle weighing somewhere in the region of 7-15kg, offering essentially zero protection and with maybe several hundred Watts of power at your disposal. "They" are rolling along, often at a multiple of your speed, in vehicles weighing 100-200 times as much and with typically 70,000+ Watts at their disposal. You are very much "the other", whether you like it or not.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

My rambling and highly offensive thoughts on the topic ...

Wearing of hi-viz gear should not be made mandatory just because some pen pushers in the RSA are anxious to justify their existence in these economically straitened times. In any case, such proposals can be safely ignored. A large proportion of cyclists in my neighbourhood are POB's who do most of their cycling on the footpath, without lights and while dressed from head to toe in navy/black. The idea that the Gardaí are going to exert themselves in running around after them to enquire as to the whereabouts of their mandatory hi-viz vests is beyond laughable.

In the dark, equipping yourself with decent lights undoubtedly takes priority. However, this does not mean that reflective gear has no useful role to play. My own preference is to opt for both - 2 good LED lights on the front and rear (so 4 in total), combined with a Sam Browne belt and reflective ankle/wrist straps. And then there's my bike, which is a riot of high quality reflective tape, applied zebra fashion to most of the frame tubing, the forks, seatpost and rear mudguard.

Interestingly, the only negative or less than complimentary comments on the nausea-inducing bike have been from other cyclists. Conversely, I've had a couple of car drivers, complete strangers, make very favourable comments while stopped alongside at traffic lights at night.

Regarding "cycling chic", I'm not sure what it is or how you go about conveying the desired impression to other road users on a black winter's night in a blowing gale and horizontal rain. However, when driving at night, I certainly appreciate the efforts of cyclists and pedestrians to make my job a little easier by making themselves seen. I find that people who don't drive tend to underestimate just how poor visibility can become from inside a car under such conditions. And that's assuming that the driver is paying attention.

But matters are further compounded by drivers who insist on using their phones while on the move or are otherwise needlessly distracted. So bearing these factors in mind, there's something to be said for taking a more pro-active approach to visibility. Using good lights means that drivers can see you but if you can take measures to further increase the likelihood that they do see you, that's got to be worthy of serious consideration. This means grabbing their attention if possible, rather than just providing them with the opportunity to see you, should they so choose to take it.

As for this lark about not wanting to be seen as "the other" and "different", this sounds like the kind of psychobabble you might expect to encounter on some undergraduate gender studies course. I believe it is much healthier to focus on the physical reality of the situation instead of attempting an ad-hoc psychoanalysis on the driving population with the aim of proving what you already "know".

And the physical reality is pretty straightforward. "You" are on a flimsy little vehicle weighing somewhere in the region of 7-15kg, offering essentially zero protection and with maybe several hundred Watts of power at your disposal. "They" are rolling along, often at a multiple of your speed, in vehicles weighing 100-200 times as much and with typically 70,000+ Watts at their disposal. You are very much "the other", whether you like it or not.

I do wish people would stop going on about how dangerous cycling is perceived by themselves as you do above. What's the point in that kind of scaremongering? I've got front and rear lights, proper ones including backups, and I have spoke reflectors for side view prominence. I bet I am just as safe as you while nor looking quite as garishly odd (no offence). I object to the hi-vis bandwagon not only because it's ugly and unnecessary and not very breathable but precisely because it does as previously inferred make cyclists odd when we should be making every effort to normalise the activity so as to make it easily integrated into everyday life. having to carry all this singularly useless for any other purpose yellow crap around is also hassle.

coolbeans wrote: »

I do wish people would stop going on about how dangerous cycling is perceived by themselves as you do above. What's the point in that kind of scaremongering?

I don't perceive cycling to be dangerous. If I did, I couldn't in good conscience continue doing it, despite how much I enjoy it, since I have a young family who expect to see me walking in the door in one piece each evening. But the simple fact remains that my vulnerability as a cyclist is radically different to that as a driver. I therefore believe it is wise to take precautions when cycling which aren't necessary when driving. If you see this as scaremongering, so be it.

Think of it in these terms. If you drive everywhere, how many collisions do you think you might "get away with" before something really nasty happens? Quite a few I'd say, especially if most or all of your journeys are urban/suburban and aren't undertaken at insane speeds. There are plenty of inattentive drivers around who've had numerous shunts and fender benders and are still out there carrying on with the same old bad habits. Does the same apply to cyclists? Certainly not. If you want cycling to be a permanent part of your life, you really have to keep collisions with other vehicles down to an absolute minimum, ideally zero. So day in, day out, year in, year out, for decades, you cannot afford to slip up. Since cycling is an important part of my life, I'm willing to consider any measures which might improve my chances of being able to continue with it into old age.

I've got front and rear lights, proper ones including backups, and I have spoke reflectors for side view prominence. I bet I am just as safe as you

I hope you are just as safe and maybe all my reflective gear is just redundant junk. But neither of us can know for sure, since neither would be willing to trade places with the other.

while nor looking quite as garishly odd (no offence).

None taken, since I couldn't care less how "odd" I look to other road users. If being garish helps them to see me in the first place, then that's a worthwhile price to pay in my view.

I object to the hi-vis bandwagon not only because it's ugly

... a recurring theme at this stage. Try to get your concerns about your appearance out of the way. How many people do you think are looking at you anyway?

and unnecessary

In an urban setting, lights are unnecessary too, since it's still easy to cycle everywhere without them. That doesn't mean you're no worse off without them.

and not very breathable

I wouldn't wear a hi-viz vest for that very reason. But a Sam Browne belt and a couple of straps don't need to be breathable.

but precisely because it does as previously inferred make cyclists odd when we should be making every effort to normalise the activity so as to make it easily integrated into everyday life.

Look, on a manky Irish winter's night, of which there are plenty, my number one priority is to ensure, insofar as possible, that other road users can see me, so that I'm not mown down before reaching my destination. With respect, I really couldn't give a s***e about all this lifestyle b******s (no offence).

having to carry all this singularly useless for any other purpose yellow crap around is also hassle.

4 dinky little straps and a rolled up Sam Browne belt. Not really all that much hassle tbh.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

Based on the impression gained from reading a number of your posts, I'm guessing that you might just be a teensy bit more observant and proficient than the average Irish motorist.

Very disarming, you flatterer!

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

But I'm sure you'll agree that it's best to account for the antics of those drivers who are well below average when considering your own safety.

Sure, but I do this by monitoring where cars are and what they're doing, and listening to engine noise for hard acceleration. Again, with a 1W Smart at the rear, I haven't had anyone behave in such a way that would suggest they've failed to see me. Sometimes they've behaved in ways that are discourteous or hazardous, but I still find that they've modified their course or pace in such a way that it's clear they've seen me.

Though I should add that I do use wrist lights at night, which is a significant enhancer of conspicuity in several ways, and, I must admit, in its own way probably looks as alarmist to the layman as hi-viz. Having tried both hi-viz and wrist lights together and separately though, I found the wristlights were the more effective of the two and seemed just as effective used without the hi-viz. It's one less thing to put on before I head out.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

In other words, there are clearly circumstances in which reflective gear complements the visibility offered by lights alone. That's a good enough reason to wear it in my view.

Yes, but there are clearly circumstances in which they add relatively little, so cyclists should be aware that they're not automatically visible by any means. It's quite a steep hill that one, so it's not a common scenario. Jackets on cyclists that are to the right of oncoming traffic, such as on some cycle facilities, really reflect very little. I found that hi-viz on cyclists circulating on roundabouts doesn't increase conspicuity very much at all from the point of view of motorists waiting to enter the roundabout, because the car lights are angled so much away to the left.

A lot of this discussion is really just misgivings about the RSA putting hi-viz, and especially hi-viz jackets, higher in the hierarchy of precautions than, for example, good lights, or working brakes or well-tuned gears. It's clearly less important, though not useless by any means. Which I think you agree with, given what you've posted.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

Also, if some of the material is positioned low down, such as on the seat stays and ankles, it will be caught that much sooner by a dipped headlight beam.

Very much so. I think that would be much more effective than a hi-viz jacket. Actually, when I added mudflaps to my bike, I put some discreet reflective stickers on the mudflaps, for just that reason: as low down as you can practically get. I like the way my pannier has a reflective stripe for the same reason.

If I were cycling on a rural road at night where motorists might not be expecting a cyclist, I would put something on my ankles, since biomotion has been shown to be particularly effective in making the perceiver alert. I actually have some small reflective strips kept in the pannier which would do the trick, but I haven't found myself in circumstances where I thought I should use them yet.

So I suppose what I think -- after all that -- is that the RSA really should move its emphasis away from hi-viz jackets and onto measures that work rather better.