RSA and high viz vests

Undercover Elephant · 24-11-2011 07:31PM

monument wrote: »

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.

That's a key point. It's at least possible that hi-vis is actually making cyclists less safe, because of its effect on numbers of people cycling.

Given the 20:1 health benefit to risk loss, it is almost certainly killing people overall.

Cookie_Monster · 24-11-2011 11:14PM

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

The thing is that all regular cyclist already wear clothing that is bright and has some sort of reflective paint..

not true. For example I don't have any tops with reflective on them, most of what I wear is black apart from a couple of tops, the bike has no reflectors...

Ok, so most cycling jackets seem to have some sort of strip, if they are not luminous yellow in the first place but aside from that I don't see many shorts/jerseys with reflectives on them.

mahoo wrote:

Is just an observation that people people seam to have a negative attitude towards the benefits of wearing one, which surprised me

Of course they do, it's just more H&S nonsense. There is no need for them, just like helmets or cycle lanes. If some people feel safer with them good for them for whatever reason they have, but there should be no compulsion from anyone, especially state bodies to wear them or try and push them on certain user groups. All they do is erode common sense on the road, allowing other groups to abdicate their responsibility little by little with the eventual consequence of "oh, he wasn't wearing a high vis, how was I supposed to see him" being used when somebody squashes a cyclist

BostonB · 25-11-2011 01:47AM

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

That's a key point. It's at least possible that hi-vis is actually making cyclists less safe, because of its effect on numbers of people cycling...

If it has that effect, then hi vis gets noticed. You could equally argue that people noticing other people cycling actually encourages them to cycle.

monument · 25-11-2011 02:10AM

BostonB wrote: »

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

That's a key point. It's at least possible that hi-vis is actually making cyclists less safe, because of its effect on numbers of people cycling...

If it has that effect, then hi vis gets noticed. You could equally argue that people noticing other people cycling actually encourages them to cycle.

Something which makes cycling so dangerous looking that it requires the high-vis used by builders and road workers is more likey to reenforce the perceptions that cycling is dangerous and hard to do.

Something which makes cycling look so abnormal is unlikely to make people think "I can do that too".

Something which adds to all the gear cyclists "must" have is hardly going to inspire people to ditch using car just to go down to the local shop.

tomasrojo · 25-11-2011 02:13AM

Where does it end though? Sure, if you dress in night camouflage and have no lights, then you're at the wrong end of the scale and are remiss in making yourself visible.

But of making yourself more visible there is no end. There must be a point where you're optimally visible and can leave it at that. I mean, if the RSA starts saying that since everyone is wearing hi-viz and we still have cycling casualties, now cyclists should wear a blue rotating light on their heads, do we say, well,they have a point, I would be more visible with a blue rotating light on my head, or do you say that if you have good lights and cycle sensibly, you've done enough already.

tomasrojo · 25-11-2011 02:17AM

monument wrote: »

Something which makes cycling so dangerous looking that it requires the high-vis used by builders and road workers is more likey to reenforce the perceptions that cycling is dangerous and hard to do.

I saw a cyclist a few days ago wearing a hi-viz jacket, hi-viz trousers, a huge (apparently ventless) helmet, and multiple flashing lights, fore and aft, at different levels.

It did suggest to me that that man is constantly in fear of his life.

Dawn Rider · 25-11-2011 02:52AM

BostonB wrote: »

All humans can become task saturated in a busy environment. Standing out from the noise of the environment especially in peripheral vision is the objective of High Viz, especially as you move in about out of blind spots.

+1

This whole subject is a bit of a struggle for me.

Of course it's better to make yourself stand out more in traffic, if only so drivers can't use that 'came out of nowhere - should have been wearing a hi-viz jacket' excuse.
But, I've noticed that I can sometimes get so used to seeing hi-viz jackets that the ninja's are even more invisible.

monument · 25-11-2011 03:19AM

Manchegan wrote: »

Personally, I think the debate would be better served by giving less weight to anecdotal evidence compared to the scientific studies of perception behind the design of high-visibility specifications.

Let's talk about results.

Do you want to know about the least contested scientific studies which show the most proven way to make cycling safer? It's basically called "safety in numbers" and, as already outlined, things like high-vis goes against it.

Manchegan wrote: »

It is otherwise all to reminiscent of the "and he would have died if he'd been wearing his seat-belt" or "five and drive" type of rejoinders. Ditto concerns about how euro it looks - legislation specifically exempts "racing-style" bicycles from having bells, so there's no reason for the sporting cyclists not to have similar exemptions wrt hi-viz. What should be discussed here should be Fred-specific, I feel.

You want more focus and legislation on high-vis when there is still little enforcement of the current laws (not helped by the lack of on-the-spot fines) of far more important things such as stopping at red light, having bike lights and not cycling on the footpath? :eek:

mahoo wrote: »

im surprised at all the anti-HiVis sentiment. as a driver and a cyclist i think they are really effective.. i know when a driver is coming from the side and his headlights aren't directed at you they aren't affective, but i think in general they offer much better visability than a small red light lost in a sea of brighter, larger red lights (im talking city commuting here). when driving on a wet night id always find it easier to judge the distance from me to a cyclist with a HiVis on than one with just a light on the back... just me t'pence

My rear and front lights do not get lost in a sea of brighter, larger lights.

If the light from your lights gets lost among other lights on the road you really need to get new brighter lights, or recharged your batteries or getting replacement batteries.

Dawn Rider wrote: »

This whole subject is a bit of a struggle for me.

A clear sign of RSA advertising / brainwashing / indoctrination / etc working well on some people.

Dawn Rider wrote: »

Of course it's better to make yourself stand out more in traffic, if only so drivers can't use that 'came out of nowhere - should have been wearing a hi-viz jacket' excuse.

If you want to please every excuse, how do you fulfil the excuse that cyclists should not have even be on the road?

Dawn Rider wrote: »

But, I've noticed that I can sometimes get so used to seeing hi-viz jackets that the ninja's are even more invisible.

Where does this end? Drivers breaking pedestrians crossings or a zebra crossing and hitting a pram only to say "it should have been high-vis!"?

monument · 25-11-2011 03:29AM

From the British Medical Journal:

Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

BostonB · 25-11-2011 03:51AM

monument wrote: »

Something which makes cycling so dangerous looking that it requires the high-vis used by builders and road workers is more likey to reenforce the perceptions that cycling is dangerous and hard to do.

Something which makes cycling look so abnormal is unlikely to make people think "I can do that too".

Something which adds to all the gear cyclists "must" have is hardly going to inspire people to ditch using car just to go down to the local shop.

You can use the same excuses for some lycra clad bod on a flashy bike with lights. Completely off putting and looks dangerous, because they need all that gear and a flashing light. Or two, one front and back if you feel really threatened.

BostonB · 25-11-2011 03:54AM

monument wrote: »

From the British Medical Journal:

Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

Does that imply that cycling is dangerous when there's low number of people cycling.

DePurpereWolf · 25-11-2011 08:20AM

BostonB wrote: »

You can use the same excuses for some lycra clad bod on a flashy bike with lights. Completely off putting and looks dangerous, because they need all that gear and a flashing light. Or two, one front and back if you feel really threatened.

But he wears that as his free choice. Not because some penpusher tells him to.

BTW, the gigh-viz guy needs to have lights on his bike as well.

Personally, I have difficulties believing special high-viz clothing would prevent accidents in broad daylight. If a driver doesn't see a 2 meter high moving obstacle, it's not going to change if that obstacle was in yellow.

droidus · 25-11-2011 11:18AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Where does it end though? Sure, if you dress in night camouflage and have no lights, then you're at the wrong end of the scale and are remiss in making yourself visible.

Im getting one of these:

BostonB · 25-11-2011 11:38AM

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

But he wears that as his free choice. Not because some penpusher tells him to.

As do people who wear Hi Viz now???

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

BTW, the gigh-viz guy needs to have lights on his bike as well.

The suggestion was made that theres people with Hi Viz and no lights. Personally I think people with absolutely nothing is the bigger issues.

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

Personally, I have difficulties believing special high-viz clothing would prevent accidents in broad daylight. If a driver doesn't see a 2 meter high moving obstacle, it's not going to change if that obstacle was in yellow.

Personally I think they stand out better than a dark vehicle. Its the premise of those Radion, Dyno-Rod colours. Also there some stuff on Wiki but surprising little research into it.

Battenburg markings were originally developed in the mid-1990s by the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) (now the Home Office Scientific Development Branch (HOSDB)) at the request of the national motorway policing sub-committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers. They were first developed for the United Kingdom police forces to use on traffic patrol cars, although other private organisations and civil emergency services have since started to use the pattern on their vehicles.

The research showed the human eye is most sensitive to blue/green shades at night and yellow/green in daylight.

The Hurt Report and a New Zealand study[3] found that high-visibility clothing significantly reduced multiple vehicle accidents involving motorcycles.

The first version was worn as a jerkin and was "visible at ... half a mile in normal weather conditions."[2] In the UK, it is a requirement of Network Rail that all personnel working on or around the track wear high-visibility clothing (or HV gear as it is known). The rate of deaths and injuries on the rail network has been reduced considerably since the early 1970s when high-visibility clothing and the acceptance of the need for it became common.

BostonB · 25-11-2011 11:42AM

I don't say these are definitive though. A lot of these examples for and against are misleading. There are usually other factor influencing the result. For example if you have safety in numbers how do isolate that from an established culture of cycling or a good cycling infrastructure. Or work safety might be improved through education and training not just hi vis jackets.

Lumen · 25-11-2011 12:23PM

I don't wear hivis and never have accidents caused by drivers not seeing me. There may be many cases where drivers don't see me, but those situations never cause accidents so my clothing choices are completely irrelevant to my safety, regardless of the visual effects they might have.

In any case, we do not typically live our lives in the most risk-averse way possible, but some people are motivated by employment or personal tragedy to promote a particular type of risk avoidance (smoking, drinking, drug taking, eating red meat, having unprotected sex, queuing outside a chipper at 2am on a Saturday morning). These people are usually labelled "killjoys" and ignored, particuarly by people who like to combine all these activities together.

BostonB · 25-11-2011 12:28PM

Non of these guys Hi Viz...

http://www.interbent.com/extreme-ironing-wtf/

smacl · 25-11-2011 12:53PM

Lumen wrote: »

I don't wear hivis....

....particuarly by people who like to combine all these activities together.

To be fair, if I was having unprotected sex while queuing outside a chippy at 2am on a Saturday, stoned out of my bonce on drugs chewing on a t-bone steak, I wouldn't wear a high-viz either. Mightn't even wear my boards jersey.

Lumen · 25-11-2011 12:55PM

smacl wrote: »

To be fair, if I was having unprotected sex while queuing outside a chippy at 2am on a Saturday, stoned out of my bonce on drugs chewing on a t-bone steak, I wouldn't wear a high-viz either. Mightn't even wear my boards jersey.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/8086050/Spanish-prostitutes-ordered-to-wear-reflective-vests-for-their-own-safety.html

check_six · 25-11-2011 01:08PM

The problem is not Hi vis jackets per se, the problem is that the RSA promote Hi Vis jackets as some kind of panacea for all your cyling ills.

Why don't they promote a "check your brakes wednesday", or check your tyre pressure, or check your batteries in your lights days?

I suppose they feel they have to do "something", and it is easier to be seen handing out a yellow vest than to be giving sensible well thought out advice which is slightly more intangible. (Wouldn't it be nice if they gave out spare tubes? Or tyre levers, or patches? Or nice new brake pads!)

I secretly think that Uncle Gaybo has invested heavily in a Hi vis jacket factory and needs to keep getting the RSA to buy the jackets to keep him afloat financially... Conspiracialicious!

doozerie · 25-11-2011 02:40PM

tomasrojo wrote:

Where does it end though? Sure, if you dress in night camouflage and have no lights, then you're at the wrong end of the scale and are remiss in making yourself visible.

But of making yourself more visible there is no end. There must be a point where you're optimally visible and can leave it at that. I mean, if the RSA starts saying that since everyone is wearing hi-viz and we still have cycling casualties, now cyclists should wear a blue rotating light on their heads, do we say, well,they have a point, I would be more visible with a blue rotating light on my head, or do you say that if you have good lights and cycle sensibly, you've done enough already.

I'm not sure they'd even stop there, to be honest. If the RSA is truly concerned about my safety, having pushed me to light up both myself and my bike like an epileptic's worst nightmare, they'll try to coerce me into wearing a full-face helmet (regular bike helmets provide little or no protection for the chin/face, for example, which must keep the RSA awake at night with worry), steel toe capped boots (in case a car drives over my foot, no doubt due to the driver being blinded by my flashing lights), full body armour, chain mail gloves, etc.

But better protection again would be provided by an outer shell around my bike with built-in airbags. Stick glass windows in it so that I can actually look out and see all the scary things that are clearly trying to squash me (my own fault, of course, I'm just asking for it). And four wheels are more stable than two, and they may as well be wide tyres for greater grip. Sure the contraption is so heavy at this stage that it'll need a petrol/diesel engine to propel it.

There, I've got a full-blown car now, no more fear of being squashed on the roads. Ha! ...but wait, aren't the stats for the numbers of deaths of car drivers and passengers far worse than those for cyclists? So, I've now joined a higher risk group?... Not to worry though, I'm sure the RSA has a solution for that too, maybe we should all just "upgrade" to monster trucks instead, 'cos if they acheieve nothing else, the RSA prove that there's always room for more ill-conceived and blinkered "ideas".

BostonB · 25-11-2011 02:48PM

...and they call people with a Jacket paranoid....:eek:

doozerie · 25-11-2011 02:51PM

If the RSA really give a toss about cyclist safety, why don't they freely distribute some of these:

Respro® ankle bands are the ideal product for increasing visibility for both day and night time use. They incorporate Scotchlite™ on one side and Day-Glo yellow nylon lycra on the other side. Two Velcro™ fasteners make the product quick and easy to use and can be stored readily when not in use.

Features:
• Scotchlite material
• Neoprene for easy stretch
• Day-Glo yellow material
• Easy Velcro™ fastenings

Benefits:
• Fits all ankles
• Can double up as arm band
• value for money
• Do not crack or fade

They are functional (they replace trouser clips as well as being hi-viz/refective), they are placed where car lights are far more likely to fall on you, they are made more visible by being on a part of the body which is moving, etc. Far better than a hi viz vest in my view. Plus mine are a bit tatty from a couple of years of use, so I could do with a new pair.

They'd certainly have been a better option for the guy on a bike that I saw while driving home from the supermarket last night, in the dark and the rain. He had no lights whatsoever, presumably expecting his hi viz vest to beam out to all and sundry - it didn't, the only thing that was in any way visible was the rear reflector on his pannier rack and the rear reflectors on his pedals.

BostonB · 25-11-2011 03:23PM

Confiscate the bikes off people with no lights. They don't get the bike back unless they pay for lights to be fitted to it. The lights get fitted by a third party before the bike gets returned.

You could have a check point on any street in Dublin and catch every other bike this way.

check_six · 25-11-2011 03:35PM

BostonB wrote: »

Confiscate the bikes off people with no lights. They don't get the bike back unless they pay for lights to be fitted to it. The lights get fitted by a third party before the bike gets returned.

You could have a check point on any street in Dublin and catch every other bike this way.

Hey, why stop there, why not have a loose swinging bar set at head height, if you wear a helmet/fallhat you'll be fine, but otherwise... Whack! Take that, hippy!

Also, you could win extra Great Leader Loyalty Points by informing on your friends who have let the batteries run out on the bikes they have in their sheds. Nighttime swoops on these miscreants by our Public Safety Troopers will soon remove them from out roads!

I, for one, support this new regime (in public only)!

BostonB · 25-11-2011 03:54PM

check_six wrote: »

Hey, why stop there, why not have a loose swinging bar set at head height, if you wear a helmet/fallhat you'll be fine, but otherwise... Whack! Take that, hippy! ..

Because lights are required by law a helmet isn't.

I think reflectors are required by law too, and a bell.

Flashing lights might not be actually legal either, dunno if they changed that like they said they would.

check_six · 25-11-2011 04:10PM

I think you need to give people a bit more of a sporting chance before getting too heavy handed. It's just a short step to having a friendly secret policeman sit down next to you on the train in the morning and tricking you into admitting you watched Fair City the night before and then throwing you in the gulag for not having a TV Licence... I think!

On another note, seeing as how VAT is popular at the moment, why not get VAT reduced on bike lights? The increase on everything else should cover the difference with a little to spare.

Beasty · 25-11-2011 04:22PM

check_six wrote: »

On another note, seeing as how VAT is popular at the moment, why not get VAT reduced on bike lights? The increase on everything else should cover the difference with a little to spare.

It would be a bit odd, charging full VAT on the bike, but not on these "accessories" (having said that, the UK does zero-rate helmets, but that is under a rule applied to certain safety equipment, rather than being specific to bike helmets). Then the law would need to distinguish between those lights to be used on bikes, and those for other purposes (such as general torches)

BostonB · 25-11-2011 05:12PM

check_six wrote: »

I think you need to give people a bit more of a sporting chance before getting too heavy handed.....

A 10 sec head start before they get tasered?

tomasrojo · 25-11-2011 05:32PM

BostonB wrote: »

B
Flashing lights might not be actually legal either, dunno if they changed that like they said they would.

No, they made the change. Flashing lights are legal now.

RSA and high viz vests

Comments