Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?

No Pants · 01-04-2014 10:03AM

SeanW wrote: »

Entirely reasonable if the cyclist or pedestrian thinks they only need the same visibility as various OFF ROAD objects ...

Why would one need more? If you can see the objects off the road, then you can see a cyclist or pedestrian (assuming the presence of lights at night) on the road in front of you.

SeanW · 01-04-2014 10:05AM

No Pants wrote: »

Why would one need more? If you can see the objects off the road, then you can see a cyclist or pedestrian (assuming the presence of lights at night) on the road in front of you.

Trees don't have lights :pac:

You don't need to see objects off the road for the most part, you need to see things that are on the road. That's why cars have such big azz lights.

No Pants · 01-04-2014 10:07AM

SeanW wrote: »

Trees don't have lights ...

Yet cyclists should do. So it should be easier.

Spook_ie · 01-04-2014 10:37AM

No Pants wrote: »

Yet cyclists should do. So it should be easier.

So the fact that high viz makes cyclists easier to spot during daylight/dusk/night time hours isn't sufficent reason to recommend wearing high viz?

Note the term Hi Viz is refering to clothing that conforms to EN471 which includes provision for retroreflective capability.

Spook_ie · 01-04-2014 10:46AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

... And what about all those people driving black cars...

I've lights on my bike for when they're needed, aside from that I've no interest in any kind of ugly reflective clothing, nor do I care what anyone thinks about what I'm wearing, it's none of their business.

so? either it's dark enough to require lights in which case it doesn't matter or it's bright enough not to need lights, in which case it doesn't matter.

Nope, seems like just another cheap shot at non motorists using the roads.

Well I suppose you could take into consideration the thickness of cyclists when looking at them, far easier to see a thick cyclist than a thin one, perhaps thats why it's so much easier to see the thicker shape of a car regardless of its coloration

bk · 01-04-2014 11:04AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

So the fact that high viz makes cyclists easier to spot during daylight/dusk/night time hours isn't sufficent reason to recommend wearing high viz?

No, as it can have unexpected consequences.

It can make cycling look more dangerous and less attractive then it actually is, which results in less people cycling, which actually makes cycling more dangerous due to the effect of safety in numbers.

Also some cyclists then think it is enough to wear just some silly high-viz vest and they then don't use the much more effective bike lights.

If you are suggesting cyclists should wear high-viz at all times, then I would suggest that all motorists and car passengers should too. After all a car often stops on the side of the road and the motorist and some passengers step out on the road, so by your logic surely they should be wearing high-viz on the road too?

And of course all cars should be covered in high-viz strips too, as cars parked on a road, don't have lights on and therefore require the same visibility!!

Another thing you need to be careful of is, if you start making everyone to start wearing high-viz, it can make it less effective as people see it so often, which can increase the danger to people who really need to use it (for instance Gardai standing in the middle of a road, road workmen, etc.).

This thread is almost as ridiculous as the thread about making the deer in phoenix park all wear reflective collars! It shows that we have our priorities all wrong here in Ireland.

It seems that we want to put the priority on the car so that people can drive as fast as they like and put all responsibility for safety on cyclists and pedestrians. It seems some people want to marginalise cyclists and pedestrians, to push them out of the way and off to the side, so motorists can drive as fast as they want, with as little care as they want.

This is completely the opposite approach to places like Amsterdam, where cyclists and pedestrians safety is put first and motorists must make way for them, not the other way around. In Holland, a driver is 100% responsible for any accidents, and rightfully so, if you hit someone, then you weren't driving with due care and attention.

People here in Ireland often seem to forget that there is a great deal of responsibility that comes with driving a massive multi-ton vehicle, that can travel at speeds up to 160km/h. That you are the one that needs to take the extra care while operating such a potentially deadly vehicle.

We really need to change our priorities here in Ireland. We really need to prioritise cyclists and pedestrians first and get as many people as possible cycling and walking.

whisky_galore · 01-04-2014 07:19PM

bk wrote: »

No, as it can have unexpected consequences.

It can make cycling look more dangerous and less attractive then it actually is, which results in less people cycling, which actually makes cycling more dangerous due to the effect of safety in numbers.

Oh please what a load of old cobblers....a good proportion of the population wear hi vis on a daily basis be it for work or walking/jogging etc and don't see it as being marked out as a social pariah. OK a lot of it isn't catwalk high fashion, but some of the raincheaters and stuff doesn't look too bad and a pedestrian/cyclist is a way smaller object than a car in terms of being spotted, a hell of a lot more vunerable than a car to boot.

Imo hi vis, preferably with reflective strips, plus lights in poor light and hours of darkness is a sensible belt and braces.

bk wrote: »

Another thing you need to be careful of is, if you start making everyone to start wearing high-viz, it can make it less effective as people see it so often, which can increase the danger to people who really need to use it (for instance Gardai standing in the middle of a road, road workmen, etc.).

Oh sweet Jebus :rolleyes: so everyone else goes around in black jackets, or camo gear to look inconspicious?

bk wrote: »

If you are suggesting cyclists should wear high-viz at all times, then I would suggest that all motorists and car passengers should too. After all a car often stops on the side of the road and the motorist and some passengers step out on the road, so by your logic surely they should be wearing high-viz on the road too?

You can't legislate for stupidity. You'll be suggesting we wear hi vis indoors next.

No Pants · 01-04-2014 08:20PM

whisky_galore wrote: »

Oh please what a load of old cobblers....a good proportion of the population wear hi vis on a daily basis be it for work or walking/jogging etc and don't see it as being marked out as a social pariah. OK a lot of it isn't catwalk high fashion, but some of the raincheaters and stuff doesn't look too bad and a pedestrian/cyclist is a way smaller object than a car in terms of being spotted, a hell of a lot more vunerable than a car to boot.

Oh sweet Jebus :rolleyes: so everyone else goes around in black jackets, or camo gear to look inconspicious?

You can't legislate for stupidity. You'll be suggesting we wear hi vis indoors next.

His points are backed up by research, if I remember correctly. Yours are...what exactly?

01-04-2014 08:21PM

I would just be happy with cyclists in general having lights.... any lights

I was in Dublin a few weeks back and was terrified driving around once the sun went down.
It was truly insane the risks some cyclists were taking. Recalling my younger days, I got around Dublin for 6 years on a bike..... without lights. Looking back now, I don't know how I wasn't hit.

This coming from someone who cycles for recreation on rural roads but drives for day-to-day usage

There is no logical reason not to have good lights, and if you want to wear hi-vis, fire ahead, if not, no worries

No Pants · 01-04-2014 08:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I would just be happy with cyclists in general having lights.... any lights

I think most cyclists would support you in this.

hardCopy · 01-04-2014 08:37PM

Visibility is important, lights work. Fluorescent clothes are of little or no benefit and a waste of time.

Anything that discourages people hopping their bike should avoided. Other road users just need to take responsibility and look where they're going.

SeanW · 01-04-2014 08:43PM

bk wrote: »

No, as it can have unexpected consequences ... which actually makes cycling more dangerous due to the effect of safety in numbers.

Hahahaha ... oh wait you're serious. Funny, I didn't ever see you claiming that more restrictions on motorists would make anything less safe, probably because the argument is BS.

Also some cyclists then think it is enough to wear just some silly high-viz vest and they then don't use the much more effective bike lights.

So what? You say below that pedestrians and cyclists should have no responsibility for road safety, so what differene does it make?**

If you are suggesting cyclists should wear high-viz at all times, then I would suggest that all motorists and car passengers should too. After all a car often stops on the side of the road and the motorist and some passengers step out on the road, so by your logic surely they should be wearing high-viz on the road too?

Yes, best practice indicates that a motorist may have to pull over to make repairs, change a punctured tyre, charge a flat battery or something, so good practice would include carrying a hi-vis vest for such an eventuality. (It is the law in France AFAIK). Good practice would also suggest a cyclist, if for example cycling country regional roads late at night (where it would be unusual to see another car let alone a cyclist), are by virtue of differing speeds and considerable rarity, a hazard, and as such should be well advertised. Ditto for pedestrians. Not law, but good practice.

And of course all cars should be covered in high-viz strips too, as cars parked on a road, don't have lights on and therefore require the same visibility!!

Cars are big, shiny, and usually parked in parking bays that are well marked. You have no reason not to expect to see one, unless the owner of the parked car is parked illegally or dangerously.

This thread is almost as ridiculous as the thread about making the deer in phoenix park all wear reflective collars! It shows that we have our priorities all wrong here in Ireland.

I might agree about deer in a park, but the idea is not without precedent. In Lapland, herders are trialling reflective paint on reindeer antlers. Is that more evidence that just have it "all wrong in Ireland?"

And BTW, where did you establish that the people calling for reflective neckbands for deer in the Phoinex Park were reflecting the views of all Irish motorists?

It's really difficult to take any of this seriously?

It seems that we want to put the priority on the car so that people can drive as fast as they like and put all responsibility for safety on cyclists and pedestrians.

Are you on the same planet? Irish motorists are given plenty of responsibility. An eye watering mountain of taxes, a list of laws, rules and regulations that are quite severe and grow, in volume and onerousness, with each passing year. Licensing, insurance, penalty points, roadworthiness regulations. None of the applies to pedestrians and cyclists and for the most part I agree with that.

This is completely the opposite approach to places like Amsterdam, where cyclists and pedestrians safety is put first and motorists must make way for them, not the other way around. In Holland, a driver is 100% responsible for any accidents, and rightfully so, if you hit someone, then you weren't driving with due care and attention.

**Twice in as many days last week, I saw pedestrians running red-man lights MID CYCLE and forcing law abiding drivers (once, a bus, the other time, a series of cars) to slam on the brakes. It happened very quickly and I did not get a chance to analyse the mentality of the people involved, but what I saw would lead any reasonable person to conclude that they thought something like "Screw them, I'll just cross and make them stop for me regardless of the lights."

Your solution appears to be slow traffic down and have strict liability to reward and encourage such behaviour. I'd like to know why you think that is reasonable.

People here in Ireland often seem to forget that there is a great deal of responsibility that comes with driving a massive multi-ton vehicle, that can travel at speeds up to 160km/h. That you are the one that needs to take the extra care while operating such a potentially deadly vehicle.

Again, on what planet are motorists generally not aware of the responsibilities they're under?

We really need to change our priorities here in Ireland. We really need to prioritise cyclists and pedestrians first and get as many people as possible cycling and walking.

I agree in part - as a daily, hardcore pedestrian myself I want to encourage cyclists and pedestrians to cycle and walk, plenty. I just want them to do so with safety in mind and respect for other road users. I also think its fair to consider the interest of motorists, to have a sensible balance, these do not have to be mutually exclusive, at least not universally.

Marhay70 · 01-04-2014 09:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I would just be happy with cyclists in general having lights.... any lights

I was in Dublin a few weeks back and was terrified driving around once the sun went down.
It was truly insane the risks some cyclists were taking. Recalling my younger days, I got around Dublin for 6 years on a bike..... without lights. Looking back now, I don't know how I wasn't hit.

This coming from someone who cycles for recreation on rural roads but drives for day-to-day usage

There is no logical reason not to have good lights, and if you want to wear hi-vis, fire ahead, if not, no worries

I was driving the road from Delgany to Drummin before Christmas at about 7pm when a car coming toward me suddenly veered into my path, I had to brake hard to avoid hitting him. Only when I had stopped did I see the reason, two cyclists abreast on the road and not a light between them, the irony was they both wore helmets.
Not only had these people no regard for their own safety but I, or the occupants of the other car could have been killed or seriously injured.
At least reflective clothing might have given some chance of seeing them.
It's high time cyclists were made to take responsibility for their own actions and at least required to carry some form of insurance.

John_C · 01-04-2014 10:38PM

Marhay70 wrote: »

I was driving the road from Delgany to Drummin before Christmas at about 7pm when a car coming toward me suddenly veered into my path, I had to brake hard to avoid hitting him. Only when I had stopped did I see the reason, two cyclists abreast on the road and not a light between them, the irony was they both wore helmets.
Not only had these people no regard for their own safety but I, or the occupants of the other car could have been killed or seriously injured.
At least reflective clothing might have given some chance of seeing them.
It's high time cyclists were made to take responsibility for their own actions and at least required to carry some form of insurance.

& don't forget the driver of the other car. If he had to swerve to avoid a collision, he was going too fast.

SeanW · 01-04-2014 10:42PM

Marhay70 wrote: »

I was driving the road from Delgany to Drummin before Christmas at about 7pm when a car coming toward me suddenly veered into my path, I had to brake hard to avoid hitting him. Only when I had stopped did I see the reason, two cyclists abreast on the road and not a light between them, the irony was they both wore helmets.
Not only had these people no regard for their own safety but I, or the occupants of the other car could have been killed or seriously injured.
At least reflective clothing might have given some chance of seeing them.
It's high time cyclists were made to take responsibility for their own actions and at least required to carry some form of insurance.

Ah Marhay, me oul flower, you are obviously not a regular on C&T.

If you were, you'd "know" that both you and the other motorist were the real problem, being motorists you're both automatically guilty in the first place, doubly so for driving above "walking speed" which should be the national default limit. If you had hit a ninja pedestrian crossing againt a red man at the next junction, that would have been your fault too, for the same reasons. Expecting cyclists to share any responsibility for road safety, no matter how reasonable (e.g. registration plates, a credible penalty mechanism for lawbreaking, some demonstration of understanding of the rules of the road) would "discourage cycling" and should therefore not even be discussed. The objective is to have "strict liability" for these situations because we want slow cars down to 3MPH so that we can fill the roads with 6 year olds playing in traffic. Oh, and your motoring taxes should be doubled because you are an evil, carbon polluting pig.

Did I miss anything?

John_C wrote: »

& don't forget the driver of the other car. If he had to swerve to avoid a collision, he was going too fast.

I'm surprised you didn't blame the poster for "driving too fast" to react to a car swerving, let alone not seeing the ninja cyclists himself.

monument · 01-04-2014 11:06PM

Trolling won't be tolerated. At least a infraction will be given to the next attempt.

High-vis trolling even less so.

Anybody unaware of the rules should read them before posting again.

- Moderator

Marhay70 · 01-04-2014 11:09PM

John_C wrote: »

& don't forget the driver of the other car. If he had to swerve to avoid a collision, he was going too fast.

I'm pretty sure he didn't see them, I didn't see them and they were between me and him. Anybody who has driven that road would agree, it's not a road for speeding on and anyway that doesn't excuse the cyclists from behaving irresponsibly.
Maybe confiscating bikes from offenders is the answer, like they do with untaxed cars.

Stark · 01-04-2014 11:19PM

SeanW wrote: »

Hahahaha ... oh wait you're serious. Funny, I didn't ever see you claiming that more restrictions on motorists would make anything less safe, probably because the argument is BS.

The concept of safety in numbers is well established for pedestrians and cyclists. There's no such concept of safety in numbers for motorists.

John_C · 01-04-2014 11:19PM

Marhay70 wrote: »

that doesn't excuse the cyclists from behaving irresponsibly.

I agree completely. It's also true that the cyclists behavior doesn't excuse the dangerous driving. There are three people breaking the law in the situation you described. Both cyclists should have had lights and the driver should have been able to stop his car in the distance he could see to be clear.

It reminds me of a quote from The Great Gatsby; A bad driver is safe until she meets another bad driver.

John_C · 01-04-2014 11:23PM

SeanW wrote: »

I'm surprised you didn't blame the poster for "driving too fast" to react to a car swerving

This is from the original post:

Marhay70 wrote: »

a car coming toward me suddenly veered into my path, I had to brake hard to avoid hitting him.

He reacted correctly to the danger. There was nothing wrong with his driving.

Marhay70 · 02-04-2014 12:32AM

John_C wrote: »

I agree completely. It's also true that the cyclists behavior doesn't excuse the dangerous driving. There are three people breaking the law in the situation you described. Both cyclists should have had lights and the driver should have been able to stop his car in the distance he could see to be clear.

It reminds me of a quote from The Great Gatsby; A bad driver is safe until she meets another bad driver.

No doubt it could be argued that the driver should have seen the danger sooner but there coulid have been several reasons for that. It was a wet, windy night, there was spray and dazzle etc. but it doesn't change the fact that lights or reflective clothing would have made the cyclists visible from a much greater distance.
I just don't understand why people won't equip themselves properly for the conditions. How many more people could have been affected that night, did they have families and children at home? Just pure selfishness IMO.
Perhaps a tour of the rehab should be included in schools curricular.

John_C · 02-04-2014 09:43AM

Marhay70 wrote: »

No doubt it could be argued that the driver should have seen the danger sooner

I don't think it could be argued any other way. The driver had to swerve to avoid a hazard, that's exactly the legal definition of driving too fast. I've copied the bit of law below. He should have been going slower to allow for the rain & poor visibility.

General obligation regarding speed
18. A driver shall not drive at a speed exceeding that which will enable him to halt the vehicle within the distance he can see to be clear.

hardCopy · 02-04-2014 09:48AM

Marhay70 wrote: »

I was driving the road from Delgany to Drummin before Christmas at about 7pm when a car coming toward me suddenly veered into my path, I had to brake hard to avoid hitting him. Only when I had stopped did I see the reason, two cyclists abreast on the road and not a light between them, the irony was they both wore helmets.
Not only had these people no regard for their own safety but I, or the occupants of the other car could have been killed or seriously injured.
At least reflective clothing might have given some chance of seeing them.
It's high time cyclists were made to take responsibility for their own actions and at least required to carry some form of insurance.

How would a cyclist's insurance help in the event of ahead on collision between two cars?

Marhay70 · 02-04-2014 10:39AM

hardCopy wrote: »

How would a cyclist's insurance help in the event of ahead on collision between two cars?

If you can prove liability against a third party it can at least mitigate your circumstances.
There is also the possibility of pedestrians or others, injured by cyclists, claiming against the offender rather than claiming against the state

SeanW · 02-04-2014 10:41AM

John_C wrote: »

I don't think it could be argued any other way. The driver had to swerve to avoid a hazard, that's exactly the legal definition of driving too fast. I've copied the bit of law below. He should have been going slower to allow for the rain & poor visibility.

The driver may have thought it was clear. The cyclists probably blended in well with the colour of the road, giving the road some appearance of being clear, and its likely that the "mental scotoma" of the drivers (something all human beings have, it's a fact of life) completed the ninja cyclist effect.

No Pants · 02-04-2014 10:57AM

Marhay70 wrote: »

There is also the possibility of pedestrians or others, injured by cyclists...claiming against the state

Is this what is happening now?

John_C · 02-04-2014 11:12AM

SeanW wrote: »

The driver may have thought it was clear. The cyclists probably blended in well with the colour of the road, giving the road some appearance of being clear, and its likely that the "mental scotoma" of the drivers (something all human beings have, it's a fact of life) completed the ninja cyclist effect.

Yeah, these things are all possible. Whatever the reason, the driver didn't have a clear view of the road ahead of him and should have slowed down to allow for that.

hardCopy · 02-04-2014 11:21AM

Marhay70 wrote: »

If you can prove liability against a third party it can at least mitigate your circumstances.
There is also the possibility of pedestrians or others, injured by cyclists, claiming against the offender rather than claiming against the state

If they're liable they're liable, insurance or not.

SeanW · 02-04-2014 11:22AM

John_C wrote: »

Yeah, these things are all possible. Whatever the reason, the driver didn't have a clear view of the road ahead of him and should have slowed down to allow for that.

Despite the likelihood that the road (may have, I did not see the incident obviously) appeared to him to be clear?

John_C · 02-04-2014 11:26AM

SeanW wrote: »

Despite the likelihood that the road (may have, I did not see the incident obviously) appeared to him to be clear?

Exactly, you can't just assume the road ahead of you is empty. You need to be able to see it clearly. If the rain and other conditions reduced his visibility, he should have reduced his speed to match.

Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?

Comments