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

Spook_ie · 03-04-2014 04:54PM

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Strange. I would assume anyone driving on the roads would have most of their interactions with other motorised vehicles as opposed to cyclists

Strange indeed seeing that the title of the thread is

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

monument · 03-04-2014 05:02PM

beauf wrote: »

Thats because you've a anti-cycling agenda. Which is why you single out cyclist only and not pedestrians. You'll promote anything that makes cycling less popular.

Attack the posts and not the poster.

Please drop the anti-cycling agenda line unless you can show it to be such in this thread or at least refer to posts in this thread to make arguments you want to make.

Spook_ie · 03-04-2014 05:04PM

beauf wrote: »

And a car is less visible than a 4x4 or a bus or truck. So what?

If you have stats to prove that its the major cause of accidents with pedestrians or cyclists, then provide them.That you don't suggests that pedestrian and cycling safety isn't your objective.

Because the EU have already decided that visibilty of cars of all colors should be improved via the provision of legislation for DLRs, given that the profile of a cyclist/pedestian is more difficult to see then IMO only a matter of time before they turn their attention to them.

It would probably be better for all if cyclists/pedestrians realised that just because you can see a vehicle doesn't mean the driver of the vehicle can see you and took steps to make themselves more visible especially at the danger times of dusk and dawn.

Likewise vehicles in fog, a lot of drivers seem to think that lights are to allow you to be seen, newsflash for them, they're not! they're to allow you to be seen.......funnily enough just like cyclists/pedestrians!

Seaswimmer · 03-04-2014 05:07PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Strange indeed seeing that the title of the thread is

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

Not sure I understand

you state

"most of my interactions on the road involve cyclists rather than pedestrians"

Do you not interact with other cars, buses, trucks ect.

Unless you are driving consistently in an area populated heavily with cyclists and to a lesser extent pedestrians I cant see how your statement can be true.

Spook_ie · 03-04-2014 05:11PM

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Not sure I understand

you state

"most of my interactions on the road involve cyclists rather than pedestrians"

Do you not interact with other cars, buses, trucks ect.

Unless you are driving consistently in an area populated heavily with cyclists and to a lesser extent pedestrians I cant see how your statement can be true.

Very little to understand if the title was motorised vehicles/cycles and pedestrians then I would say I interact with them all, however as the title of the thread is the visibility of cyclists/pedestrians then the majority of my observations will directly relate to interaction with cyclists/pedestrians, until people throw in the red herring of dark colored cars.

beauf · 03-04-2014 05:26PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Because the EU have already decided that visibilty of cars of all colors should be improved via the provision of legislation for DLRs...

If that's the preferred solution, and if your aware that hi viz according to research is of dubious value, then lights should be promoted for cyclists and pedestrians.

Why promote hi viz if its not law, and not as effective as lights?

Spook_ie wrote: »

...took steps to make themselves more visible especially at the danger times of dusk and dawn.... lights are to allow you to be seen.......funnily enough just like cyclists/pedestrians!

Its already law.

All bicycles used on public roads in Ireland must at all times display a rear reflector. A rear reflector means a red reflector that can be plainly seen for a distance of 99 meters (325 feet) to the rear when the headlights of a vehicle shine directly on it. The only exception to this rule is on a child's bicycle where that bicycle is used during the daytime.

During "lighting-up time", that is, the period beginning half an hour after sunset and ending half an hour before sunrise on the following morning, all cyclists are required to have fitted (and make use of) the following lighting on their bicycles:

One front lamp
One rear lamp
A front lamp means a lamp that is fitted to a non-mechanically propelled vehicle showing to the front a white or yellow light that is visible for a reasonable distance.

A rear lamp is a lamp that is fitted to the rear of your bicycle and when it is lit, showing a red light that is visible for a reasonable distance.

Under SI 487 of 2009, since 14 December 2009 it is legal to use flashing front and rear lamps.

Lamps do not need to be lit when stopped in traffic or when a person wheels the bicycle on foot as near as is possible to the left-hand edge of the road.

Failure to use proper lighting on a bicycle is an offence. If you are stopped by a member of the Gardai, the Garda may take your name and address, details about your bicycle and the time and date of the offence. You may be given a caution or you may be issued with a summons to appear in court.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/vehicle_standards/lighting_of_bicycles_in_ireland.html

The issue is how much of enforcement is going on....

beauf · 03-04-2014 05:35PM

"Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds
Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury"

he study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found....Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

The cyclists' lobby group CTC said the report showed that the government needed to focus more on driver behaviour...

..."The main cause of crashes seems to be 'failed to look properly', whereas very few cyclists are injured or killed acting illegally, such as failing to use lights at night or disobeying traffic signals,"

Pedestrian Visibility Dims At Night
When scaled by the number of miles driven, pedestrian fatality rate is three times higher at night. Part of the reason is greater chance of driver drinking and fatigue, but the critical factor is lower visibility due to reduced ambient illumination. People have contrast sensitivity in dim light. Moreover, the eye exhibits “night myopia” focusing too near and causing distant objects to blur.

The obvious solution, increased highway lighting, is impractical due to high energy costs. Moreover, there would also be a great outcry against the resulting “light pollution.” Since road lighting cannot be made sufficiently high for daytime safety levels, drivers typically rely on headlamp illumination to detect pedestrians. However, normal low-beams make pedestrians visible only at relatively short distances. The key concept is “assured-clear-distance,” which refers to the distance ahead that a driver can see a pedestrian on the road. Most drivers are taught to drive slowly enough that they could stop for a pedestrian who just falls within their assured-clear-distance, otherwise they would be “overdriving” their headlamps. Some US states have even made this a matter of law; anyone who overdrives his/her headlamps and has an accident is automatically guilty. However, automobile headlamps provide such a short assured-clear-distance that even drivers who obey the speed limit are often overdriving their headlamps.

After all that, I've nothing against Hi Viz. I wear it myself, and would try to do the same when talking at night. But I'm baffled why its always dragged out as the cure of all evils when its not that big a factor in stats at all.

Spook_ie · 03-04-2014 05:43PM

beauf wrote: »

"Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds
Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury"

So despite there being x% more motor vehicles on the road compared to cyclists the police (and CTC seem to agree ) reckon that upto 1 in 4 accidents are the sole fault of the cyclist!

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

The cyclists' lobby group CTC said the report showed that the government needed to focus more on driver behaviour...

Del2005 · 03-04-2014 05:50PM

bk wrote: »

The problem with all these suggestions is they all are trying to punish and demonise cyclists and pedestrians, people who are the most vulnerable road users for the benefit of motorists.

I think it is entirely the wrong approach.

Instead we should be doing the opposite. We should be trying and get as many people as possible cycling and walking by promoting the benefits of it (e.g. health and speed). And thus create safety in numbers.

Also better education of cyclists from a young age in school. And by that, I don't mean telling them to wear stupid high-viz and helmets, instead promoting the use of quality bike lights and safe cycling techniques.

I think a major problem is that people go into bike shops and see that lights cost about €40 and don't buy them. While in reality just as good bike lights can be bought online for €10.

What's wrong with punishing cyclists who break the law? If a drunken cyclist has lights they're breaking no law, if a sober cyclist doesn't have lights they are breaking the law and should have some consequences. The current system doesn't work, wasting a Garda's time by making take cyclists and pedestrians who break the law to court.

Spook_ie · 03-04-2014 05:58PM

Stark wrote: »

The boundary of the road generally isn't covered in hi-viz either.

Irrelevant justification anyway. Plenty of incidents of people driving into trees and houses where caution wasn't exercised. So whether they're in the middle of the road or at the side of the road isn't all that relevant.

Most road bounderies and centerlines are retroflective paint when 1st applied, they do need redoing after a while but that's a cost factor of your local council or the roads authority

beauf · 03-04-2014 06:01PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

So despite there being x% more motor vehicles on the road compared to cyclists the police (and CTC seem to agree ) reckon that upto 1 in 4 accidents are the sole fault of the cyclist!

Yes the vast majority are the fault of the driver, and only tiny % is hi viz a factor, and for pedestrian drivers over driving their lights is issue.

So why the obsession solely on hi viz on cyclists.

Spook_ie · 03-04-2014 06:21PM

beauf wrote: »

Yes the vast majority are the fault of the driver, and only tiny % is hi viz a factor, and for pedestrian drivers over driving their lights is issue.

So why the obsession solely on hi viz on cyclists.

Just taking your source and seeing how it measures up, it suggests that if there are 100000 cars and 5000 cyclists then despite the cyclists being only 5% of the traffic they would be responsible for up to 25% of the accidents!

Which would actually suggest that pro rata cyclists are extremely detrimental to overall accident rates!

How many cars v cycles were the police looking at in that survey?

Now given that 75% are the fault of motorists is it not a good idea to ensure higher visibility of cyclists? to reduce that number by even 2-5% would be a significent number of people saved from trauma for a minimal cost

Spook_ie · 03-04-2014 06:39PM

Just doing some searching and wonder what the situation is in Ireland?

At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24

Do the clipless pedals so esposed on the cycling forum have the reflectors fitted, as I must admit I see many cyclists now that don't seem to have amber reflectors on their pedals and pedals with reflectors seem the exception rather than the rule
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/clip-in-pedals/

Godge · 03-04-2014 07:13PM

beauf wrote: »

"Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds
Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury"

After all that, I've nothing against Hi Viz. I wear it myself, and would try to do the same when talking at night. But I'm baffled why its always dragged out as the cure of all evils when its not that big a factor in stats at all.

Can you link to the study you quoted?

"Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time."

A statement such as that means nothing out of context. Does it mean 2.5% of all accidents? Does it mean 2.5% of all accidents involving cycling? Does it mean 2.5% of all accidents at night/twilight? Does it mean 2.5% of accidents where cyclist culpability was a factor?

For example, if it includes all accidents on the road, day and night, involving cars only, cars and pedestrians, trucks only, trucks and cyclists etc., then 2.5% of those accidents citing dark clothing as an issue is extremely high.

If it just refers to accidents involving cyclists at night where there is some element of cyclist culpability, then it is an extremely low number.

Quoting statistics without providing a link to the original report is confusing.

monument · 03-04-2014 08:10PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably because most of my interactions on the road involve cyclists rather than pedestrians and I have very few problems with dark colored cars.

What do you mean by "interactions"?

What areas is this happening in?

Do these cyclists not have lights on their bikes?

beauf · 03-04-2014 08:52PM

Godge - I'd be curious to see a study where dark clothing at night was a factor in accidents during the day. Or indeed the colour of clothing being a factor in cars only, truck only accidents.

AFAIK the stats were solely accidents involving a car and a cyclist. 1:1 ratio. Otherwise its not a car + bike accident. I don't have link. Its quoted widely.

Spook_ie wrote: »

...Now given that 75% are the fault of motorists is it not a good idea to ensure higher visibility of cyclists? to reduce that number by even 2-5% would be a significent number of people saved from trauma for a minimal cost

The question really is why is the focus on 2% or potentially less (as it was potential cause) and not the other 98%. That assumes you get 100% adhering to the law, of that 2% (or less) Which is never going to happen. Every other driver is on their mobile, every other cyclist has no lights. Why focus on something thats not even law!

What about the pedestrians. No jaywalking law, no testing of car lights range at speeds?

oak5548 · 03-04-2014 08:53PM

Yes, hi visibility is extremely important, especially at dawn, dusk and night time.

I cant count the amount of times I've only spotted somebody at the last minute and had to swerve because they were wearing dark clothing and walking or cycling on the road.
Even during day time it can be difficult to pick people out from a distance with strong sun and haze.

there's a reason hi-visibility jackets/vests are a thing. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to have their head examined.

Cookie_Monster · 03-04-2014 09:06PM

oak5548 wrote: »

Yes, hi visibility is extremely important, especially at dawn, dusk and night time.

I cant count the amount of times I've only spotted somebody at the last minute and had to swerve because they were wearing dark clothing and walking or cycling on the road.
Even during day time it can be difficult to pick people out from a distance with strong sun and haze.

there's a reason hi-visibility jackets/vests are a thing. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to have their head examined.

tbh that just sounds like incompetent driving.

oak5548 · 03-04-2014 09:09PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

tbh that just sounds like incompetent driving.

You dont drive do you? And thats beside my point anyway.

monument · 03-04-2014 09:22PM

oak5548 wrote: »

there's a reason hi-visibility jackets/vests are a thing. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to have their head examined.

Don't post again until you have read the Commuting and Transport charter.

Moderator

Red Nissan · 03-04-2014 09:22PM

I'm not a fan of hi-vis, I believe in bright clothing, AND of contrasting colours, a sea of yellow actually becomes invisible to the average motorist.

There is far too much of the same colour, at one time we could identify road workers, builders, Gardaí, Ambulance crews, Fire crews, fishermen, children and adult pedestrians and even animals.

But then we all started to wear the same colours and given the right atmospheric conditions, we become invisible.

Also at nigh those highly reflective strips do a number of things, they dazzle the motorist and may trick him into dimming his lights, thus making the wearer in more danger. They can look like road signs so the motorist takes not avoiding action believing the structure to be further in off the road than the actual pedestrians or cyclist wearing them actually are and are in greater danger than they suspect.

Good old bright clothing that shapes the body is the answer, Hi-Vis concentrates attention but does not always alert the driver to the actual presence of people, especially as many a farm gate has a few vests hanging off them and they are tied to trees ~ and I could go on.

Believe it or not, I hate the thoughts of school children being given those vests. In any particular atmospheric condition, they may actually be less visible or dismissed as a sea of yellow and this same yellow green disappears completely in sunshine in the countryside against the hedgrows.

beauf · 03-04-2014 09:30PM

It has its place. But when you see it used instead over something more effective, like lights, or promoted over better standards of driving, or cycling. Then there's a problem.

Look in a mirror at a hi vest at night, its invisible.

oak5548 · 03-04-2014 09:41PM

Just going to say that car lights dont make a difference. They only extend a certain distance and beyond that and their peripherals you cant see dark objects.

However you would notice reflection of lights off a hi-visibility strip/sign further away with darkness in between the edge of your light reach and the sign.

I see this weekly driving in and out of town where on the 100km stretch of road, busy road so all cars lights wouldnt be on full beams, and you see people fly past you in the hard shoulder that come out of nowhere, jogging in all black shorts and dark coloured tops.

Not usually an issue seeing as there's plenty of space i nthe hard shoulder for them to run/cycle in but you get the odd person near the yellow line that make you shake your head.

I regularly see cyclists in the evening time wearing not a bit of hi-viz, and with sun glare their rear and front lights arent always easy to pick out. Hi-viz makes this it so much safer for both me and the other road users.

The same goes for motorcyclists, and cars during the day. A black/silver car is very hard to pick out on a sunny day from a far distance even with lights on, and yes I have 20/20 vision.

Its not about discouraging people from cycling, walking, or doing whatever. If people are discouraged by reflective colours then its a personal issue with style or image. Instead, its about safety.

Be safe. Be seen. As a motorist I can 100% assure that hi-viz jackets are an absolute life-saver and help me see you sooner, even with my lights on.

Its not about distinguishing who's who. Emergency services wear them not only so we can distinguish who they are, but so we can see them easier especially on roads and built up area's.

Same goes for construction workers, council workers, factor/plant workers, Irish rail staff, Airport staff, and just about every other job/activity in a moving environment.

I've come around numerous corners in my rural area where there's walkers with hi-viz and I notice them those few seconds earlier and am able to make the safe decision to go around them giving plenty of time and space.

There have also been many times I've come around corners and suddenly I notice a black figure and I get a fright because it was too late for comfort.

Also, there's a huge difference between car lights and bicycle lights. They're so much more distinguishable and besides, you're expecting a car more than anything.

I'm a very safe driver and ensure I take extra care to observe. I have no issues with cyclists, pedestrians or other road users provided they pose no danger and the same goes for motorists.

I'm also a cyclist and wouldnt even feel comfortable without a hi-viz on.

Its just common sense in my opinion. They are cold hard facts, and any competant road user would be able to tell you that hi-viz does what it says on the tin.

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.

So many things wrong with that post, but I've already mentioned most of what I need to say above.

Red Nissan · 03-04-2014 10:03PM

oak5548 wrote: »

Its not about discouraging people from cycling, walking, or doing whatever. If people are discouraged by reflective colours then its a personal issue with style or image. Instead, its about safety. .

I suspect you miss a point, it is all about what the danger is, at one time when the 'new' yellow green was only worn by a Guard, you / one prepared to stop.

When you saw the little children in the pink, yellow, reds and blue, you took a wider course.

Anticipation easier if one can more easily identify the potential danger.

Just to throw a point consideration, how many of us swerved to avoid tractors in fields and yard spots facing out on the road ~ same sort of difference. If we KNEW they were in the field and of no danger we would drive more safely.

And for the record, I am technically blind in one eye, a condition I've had for ten years, now considered operable, and I also pass the eye test ~ IMO, perhaps that should be revised, but that's the way it is.

Spook_ie · 03-04-2014 10:06PM

monument wrote: »

What do you mean by "interactions"?

What areas is this happening in?

Do these cyclists not have lights on their bikes?

What do you think I mean by interactions? If you think it means knocking them off their bikes then perhaps interactions is the wrong word but generally I see a cyclist/pedestrian, I take what ever measures I deem appropriate, if I see a cyclist/pedestrian earlier ( because they are wearing high viz ) I can adapt my interactions to allow a more comfortable experience for me, my passengers ( if any ) and the cyclist concerned.

All area, all times but as I work predominately night time in NC Dublin then probably there and then

Some do, a lot don't, suffice to say one of these days I do believe some prick is going to end up as a mascot on my bonnet and I genuinely don't think it will be my fault, dash cam if it happens will answer that!

Spook_ie · 03-04-2014 10:09PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

I suspect you miss a point, it is all about what the danger is, at one time when the 'new' yellow green was only worn by a Guard, you / one prepared to stop.

When you saw the little children in the pink, yellow, reds and blue, you took a wider course.

Anticipation easier if one can more easily identify the potential danger.

Just to throw a point consideration, how many of us swerved to avoid tractors in fields and yard spots facing out on the road ~ same sort of difference. If we KNEW they were in the field and of no danger we would drive more safely.

And for the record, I am technically blind in one eye, a condition I've had for ten years, now considered operable, and I also pass the eye test ~ IMO, perhaps that should be revised, but that's the way it is.

Can't say I recall ever swerving for a tractor in a field or yard, I've taken my foot off the accelerator and covered the brake on a just in case basis ( much as I do when I spot any potential hazard ) but not swerved.

Spook_ie · 03-04-2014 10:12PM

beauf wrote: »

It has its place. But when you see it used instead over something more effective, like lights, or promoted over better standards of driving, or cycling. Then there's a problem.

Look in a mirror at a hi vest at night, its invisible.

Only if you don't have a light source at the approx level of eye sight, that's why HiViz ( EN471 ) actually works to alert car drivers more so than lorry drivers because of the difference in height of the headlamps to eye level, that doesn't mean you get no light reflected just not as much

monument · 03-04-2014 10:23PM

oak5548 wrote: »

I'm also a cyclist and wouldnt even feel comfortable without a hi-viz on.

Maybe your fear or fear of comfort isn't based on rationality?

oak5548 wrote: »

Its just common sense in my opinion.

Not too long ago it was common sense to buy a house as quick as possible because house prices were apparently only going up. Lots of people are deep in it because they sheepishly followed that bit of common sense.

oak5548 wrote: »

They are cold hard facts,

Most of you post isn't facts, but rather just your opinion. You seem to be getting your opinion mixed up with facts.

Here's some detailed research which is backed up by fact:

The influence of a bicycle commuter's appearance on drivers’ overtaking proximities : an on-road test of bicyclist stereotypes, high-visibility clothing and safety aids in the United Kingdom, published in Accident Analysis and Prevention:

The amount of space left by motorists as they overtook a bicycle was not related to the rider’s apparent level of experience, as signalled by the outfit being worn. The only substantial change in drivers’ behaviour was seen in response to a high-visibility vest which invoked the name of the police and suggested the rider was video-recording the journey, although at present it is not clear which of these components was responsible for the effect. Given that a small proportion (1-2%) of overtaking drivers passed within 50 cm of the rider no matter what was being worn, we suggest that there is little riders can do, by altering their appearance, to prevent the very closest overtakes. We suggest that the optimum solution to the very closest overtakes will not lie with bicyclists themselves, and instead we should look to changes in infrastructure, education or the law to prevent drivers getting dangerously close when overtaking bicyclists

Or this study covers and lists a lot of the research out there, it concludes:

This study was designed to assess the effect of conspicuity aid use on the risk of crash for commuter and utility cyclists. A slightly greater proportion of cases than controls reported using conspicuity aids. There was therefore a raised odds ratio of collision crash involvement for those using conspicuity aids even after adjustment for a large number of important confounders. The study results do not demonstrate a protective effect as expected given previous work testing the effects of such aids on drivers’ awareness of cyclists and pedestrians. This study demonstrates the importance of understanding why many cyclists remain at risk of collision crash resulting in injury despite the use of conspicuity aids.

Spook_ie · 03-04-2014 10:24PM

Just to clarify things because I still think people are confused over the difference between Day Glo, Retro Reflective and Hi Viz

The Horse has Day Glo on it, the rider has Hi Viz Note the two in the background clearly more visible because of HiViz

the cyclist has reflective

beauf · 03-04-2014 10:32PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Only if you don't have a light source at the approx level of eye sight, that's why HiViz ( EN471 ) actually works to alert car drivers more so than lorry drivers because of the difference in height of the headlamps to eye level, that doesn't mean you get no light reflected just not as much

The study isn't saying hi viz don't work. Its saying they aren't a significant factor in these accidents.

For example where a driver is not looking at the cyclist or are distracted by something else.

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

Comments