RSA and high viz vests

Finally, a sombre illustration of what happens when you think too much about conspicuity:

The Flashing Neon Light Display (FNLD) is intended to make the cyclist more visible on the road at night. It includes a sign with six foot high blue neon letters which spell "CYCLIST" and a series of bright red, interlocking arrows beneath that descend to point to the cyclist below. As an added safety feature, every five seconds, the entire light rapidly flashes off and on several times. At the bottom of the sign are mounted two floodlights, one on either side of the arrow, that illuminate the cyclist, dressed in a cycling jacket covered with sequins, brilliantly (in fact, blindingly). Unfortunately, this device eats up battery power at a frightful rate. It seems that the inventor lived in an area with frequent high-power powerline crossings and therefore did not see the necessity of providing more than a small auxilliary battery which would automatically recharge while passing under each powerline. The best solution seems to be a small motorized trailer to hold the sign and an electric generator. Such a trailer is now being tested, but, in my opinion, the small diesel engine produces undesirable exhaust fumes.

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/humor/addit.htm

Bizarrely, an approach commended, apparently in all seriousness, by Randy Swart of the BHSI:
http://www.bhsi.org/webdocs/lights.htm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

IE totally utterly pointless, it makes no difference.

If I was to be perfectly honest, if you look past the headlight at the rider, the rider (specifically, rather than the bike) becomes visible in the hi-vis about 3m before the rider without.

But of course that's irrelevant because if the driver hasn't spotted the rider by then, the extra 3m won't make a difference when the driver has pulled out.

There's also the obvious argument that a driver who hasn't "seen" the headlights won't see the hi-vis either, making it utterly pointless. In fact the headlights drown out the rider and make him invisible until he's right on the top of the car.

monument wrote: »

It's not lifestyle bull, it's dealing with reality, and scientific research.

The best widely proven way to make cycling safer is to convince non-cyclist to cycle and cyclists to cycle more often. Search google for "safety in numbers cycling" and add the term "site:boards.ie" if you want to find refrences I've posted before.

The worst way by far to promote something is to make it look unsafe, strange, and, at the same time, promote* extra things to buy/remember/carry like high-vis and helmets as needed items.

Thank you for being eloquent than I. This is precisely why looking normal matters. All the serious literature acknowledges this phenomenon. Discounting image, and some people continue to do this, when promoting everyday cycling will lead to under performance at best and failure at worst.

@keepherlit - I've cycled daily in Dublin, for more than twelve years. I cycle over short trips and long as I hate walking and for me lights work well as long as you have decent batteries. As you say, it's a hugely important part of my life. We've both have embarked on risk minimisation strategies. I've yet to be involved in an incident where a third party could plausibly state that they "didn't see me" and all of this without dressing like an irradiated banana.

Del2005 wrote: »

Lights are needed in urban areas [full stop]

FYP.

Street lighting is not adequate. It illuminates, sure. It creates detail, sure. But it removes colour. In daytime we rely heavily on the existence of colours to recognise movement and patterns. When the colour is removed we lose a lot of pattern-matching ability because objects tend to blend into eachother more easily, creating a pseudo-camoflage effect.

This is why it's much harder to see at dawn and dusk - because there's still some light there, but the colour is mostly gone. It's also why we naturally prefer colour film over black-and-white; you require less effort to see what's going on.

Proper lights in urban areas mean that you stand out from the ambient background light and the motorists' eyes require little or no additional effort to see you. The same is not true of hi-vis in urban areas because without a light source, the yellow colour blends in with everything else.

worded wrote:

My skilled motor bike trainer said that if you have an off on a motor bike (applies to a push bike as well) and are wearing a high viz it makes it easier for on coming traffic to see you on the road and avoids you getting run over on the road. He seen suggested a white lid as well. Anything that makes you more visible. it difficult to see through car windows in the winter at times.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't wear hi vis, I'm saying it's not a necessity. There are many things higher up the list of priorities, and they've been mentioned in the thread already (using lights, not doing stupid things on the bike, etc.). Even when it comes to being separated from your bike by a fall there is a stronger argument in favour of having good lights on your person than hi vis as these should make you more visible at any time than having to rely entirely on hi vis, but obviously this choice is entirely up to the individual (you could even combine the two).

worded wrote:

I really cant see what all the fuss is about not wanting to wear a high viz.

The fuss arises when there is push to either make hi vis compulsory or to create the impression that choosing not to wear hi vis is irresponsible and/or makes you culpable in any accident in which you are involved. The RSA seems to be guilty of at least one of those and probably both.

The RSA are selectively idiotic though, for example they are not calling on all car drivers to wear hi vis so that they are safe on those occasions where they choose to park beside the road, climb out on the road side, and walk to the shops (I believe they do suggest that you keep a hi vis vest in the boot in case you have to change a tyre or break down, I can only assume they expect drivers to climb into the boot from the inside of the car and don the hi vis before exiting the car!). Selective stupidity probably belongs in a different category of stupid, marking the RSA out as overachievers in the idiot field.

Manchegan wrote:

So the trend to high-viz isn't singling out cyclists for special treatment, as motorcyclists well know.

Thanks for the link. It's interesting, and sensible, that the French legislation requires that the hi vis jacket be within reach inside the car. That aside though, I think as legislation goes it remains a bit weak as I think someone exiting a car on an unlit road should really be obliged to carry a torch in addition to the jacket. I certainly know that if I had to walk along an unlit road, even briefly, I'd prefer to carry a torch. But that's a whole other topic of debate though.

As regards singling out cyclists though, that remains the case. Motorbikers are targeted too but their arguments against hi vis being made compulsory will differ in various ways from those of cyclists. For me personally, I've invested a lot of money in the clothing that I commute in (I'm distinguishing here between my cycling-specific kit and kit I just commute in). I commute by bike at least 5 days a week and have done so for many years now. My priority for clothing is that it be comfortable and functional, image means little to me in this context (I've worn some eye-watering clothing in the past in the hope that I'd be more visible to drivers, but my experiences suggested it actually made little difference). Another requirement is that the clothing be affordable - even though I've put more money into this clothing than the average commuter, I still have a limited budget. To take a jacket as one example, I've yet to find one which is an acceptable (to me) combination of being breathable, water repellent, fits well, and is very visible. It doesn't have to be non-garish for my current job, but in a previous job this was a concern too as I cycled to client sites too (the fact that I was carrying a helmet under my arm, and a rucksack on my back, was challenge enough to the accepted norms of a business environment, if I'd looked like Big Bird on top of that my employer would have had words with me - cycling is still not entirely accepted in the business world, in my experience).

Anyway, I couldn't find a hi vis jacket before that met my needs before, and from the brief checks I've done in recent months I'd still struggle to find one. Which is fine, as I don't need one because I've also put money into decent lights for my bikes. Hi vis really is just a pointless distraction from real solutions to the issue of road behaviour - enforce the laws that require us cyclists to carry lights in darkness, and laws that discourage suicidal and stupid antics on the bike (and likewise for motorised road users), and that'll go further towards providing greater safety than some yellow or orange clothing. But it's easier and cheaper to just bang on about how cyclists should be luminous at all times, and the RSA seems to like easy and cheap options.

ratracer wrote: »

Why has the rider got full beam headlights on? SurelyThe dazzling effect of them negate the validity of the test as in normal road conditions he should be using dipped headlights.

Did you watch the video? It says in the opening text that the rider is using dipped headlights. If you watch the video you can see the exact same thing from a car driving on the road.

ratracer wrote: »

I did watch the video and read what it 'said', but that motorbike has full headlights on in the video.

There's a difference to both lights being on and high beam. If Simona had been using full beam the lights would have been much brighter.

Del2005 wrote: »

Making vulnerable road users wear high viz will put partial blame on them for other people's inattention. The other person will say that the person they crashed into wasn't wearing high viz, so they are partially responsible for my crashing into them.

This is a long way from being the case, if ever. The point was made in relation to a recent UK ruling on the "contributory negligence" of a cyclist in an accident not wearing a helmet:

Contributory negligence - latest case - ctc.org.uk
"The Judge also referred to the Highway Code's (non-compulsory) advice that cyclists "should" (i.e. not "MUST") wear helmets (rule 59). However, the Highway Code also advises pedestrians to wear bright or fluorescent clothing in poor daylight and reflective materials at night (rule 3), yet a court would be unlikely to reach a finding of "contributory negligence" against an injured pedestrian who hadn't done so."

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

If you read that link and go down it says:

Outside of built-up areas, bicyclists are now obliged to wear high-viz clothing at night or during periods of poor visibility (fog) under the same law. However, motorcyclists are EXEMPT from these regulations.

From what I've heard, it's about as rigorously policed as our mandatory use of cycle tracks. It doesn't apply, as far as I know, to urban cyclists either.