No Pants wrote: » Heard something on the radio the other morning about the RSA handing out high-vis vests to schoolkids. It'll be like a mandatory uniform for everyone who isn't in a car soon.
Iwannahurl wrote: » AGS apparently believes that cyclists and pedestrians have a "social responsibility" to ensure their own safety by making themselves "visible to traffic".
Iwannahurl wrote: » Still, it could be worse:
the.red.baron wrote: » Or just people wearing high viz with no lights.
Iwannahurl wrote: » It's unrelenting. There's another campaign under way in the West advising pedestrians to "make themselves safer". Hi-viz is inevitably part of the mix. No mention of traffic law enforcement, or chronic lack of same.
bedirect wrote: » I think most drivers see cyclists
mirrormatrix wrote: » i've actually seen a lot of cyclists adopt this approach
the.red.baron wrote: » I don't see anyone being knocked down.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » That's nice.
the.red.baron wrote: » Yes tonnes of people in non high viz, in high viz, in lycra, in casual clothing all with no lights. Seems dangerous, right, but I don't see anyone being knocked down.
tomasrojo wrote: » To be fair, I can't see a mention of hi-viz there. The advice to walk towards oncoming traffic is probably wrong as you approach a blind bend though.
buffalo wrote: » Holy ****. That video is ****ing insane.
Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: » What are you talking about? You don't witness an accident so it must not have happened? How illogical is that? This morning on my way to work I was hit by a car, as she overtook me with oncoming traffic while I was overtaking a stationary bike (man putting his daughter on the child seat). She didn't have room for the maneuver but continued on anyway. The lady continued driving because she was in shock, I caught up with her and asked her WTF was she doing. Her response said it all "I didn't think ...bla bla bla". She didn't even know what to do in an accident. The traffic started moving again and she moved off. Every day there are incidents on the trip to work. ... Helmets, high viz gear and lights are essential. It's idiotic to venture out without. Expensive lights and high viz clothing (gloves, bib & coat) couldn't prevent stupid people doing stupid things.
Iwannahurl wrote: » Nuts, isn't it? The evaluation showed they were wasting everyone's time (except for motorists'), which should have been no surprise imo. I'm inclined to trot out the old "only in America" cliche, but I'm afraid that when it comes to hivisteria and helmetophilia this country can hold its own.
Iwannahurl wrote: » Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you saying hi-viz is essential or that it can't in fact "prevent stupid people doing stupid things"?
Were you wearing hi-viz when that motorist nearly hit you? Do you wear hi-viz every day on the trip to work?
If so, what difference is the hi-viz making in practical terms? Genuine question, by the way, not merely rhetorical.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Just in case there is any confusion. Bicycle helmets are only designed to protect a cyclist falling off a bike up to about 20-30Kmph. They are not designed to offer significant protection for a collision with a motor vehicle at 50Kmph+ , for that you'd need something much stronger like a motorbike helmet. High levels of high Viz, means motorists may be come lazy because they are conditioned to cyclists being easy to see and thus won't look as hard in future. Ninja cyclists serve to keep motorists on their toes. But they are scary and should be arrested. High Vis at night is almost useless. lights and reflectors (not all high vis are equal) matter much more than colour.
tomasrojo wrote: » It's been said here before, but it's worth repeating. The reflective stripes in hi-viz jackets are some use at night. The green/orange bit does nothing. Fluorescent materials convert UV radiation to visible radiation, which is why they "glow". Artificial light contains negligble UV, and artificial is all that's really available at night. Fluorescent materials do increase conspicuity at dawn and dusk. But, really, there are such very good lights available now, you really should try one of them and then consider whether you need to dress like a binman. If you want to sport reflective stripes at night, a Sam Browne at least can be folded up in your bag out of the way when you're off the bike.
Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: » All the gear I have has the reflective stripes which glow fantastically when light hits it. I don't think I have seen a high viz jacket yet that does not have the reflective strips on them. While the bright colors may not be great, they are certainly better than dark colors.
Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: » While the bright colors may not be great, they are certainly better than dark colors.
An 2009 Australian study of drivers trying to see stationary cyclists on a closed circuit found that fluorescent vests (without retro-reflective stripes) were not a significant improvement on black clothing at night, and that retro-reflective strips were more effective when attached to knees and ankles than on a more or less static jacket
ThisRegard wrote: » Similarly I've been behind guys with lights attached to the top of their rucksacks. All well and good when stopped and standing, but only serves to highlight your presence to passing air traffic once cycling.
Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: » I agree with your points apart from what I put in bold. High vis is pretty important at night. It's definitely better than dull/dark clothing. It's doesn't take a massive lack of concentration to miss a cyclist/pedestrian who is wearing dark clothing.
There's multiple parties involved and all parties should contribute to the safety of others.
