Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

13567…96

Comments

  • #62
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    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.
    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.
    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    At present the onus seems to be on the cyclist making them selves unmissable. It just trains motorists to be even lazier when looking for cyclists.



    From today's Galway City Tribune:
    One out of every three people killed on western roads in 2013 was a pedestrian, and none of them wore a high-vis vest.

    ...

    "The first massive step in tackling this problem of pedestrian deaths is for these people to be seen," [said the Garda Regional Roads Policing Superintendent for the Western division].


  • #63
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    "The first massive step in tackling this problem of pedestrian deaths is for these people to be seen,"
    I'd agree with that and I wonder why there isn't more focus put on cars having fully working lights and using them at appropriate times.


  • #64
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,409 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    No Pants wrote: »
    I'd agree with that and I wonder why there isn't more focus put on cars having fully working lights and using them at appropriate times.
    They brought in a fine for missing/broken lights awhile ago but it seems that there are more people than ever driving around with either one light or no lights on at night. It is not like they are expensive to replace, halfords tend to fit them for a fiver.


  • #65
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    CramCycle wrote: »
    They brought in a fine for missing/broken lights awhile ago but it seems that there are more people than ever driving around with either one light or no lights on at night. It is not like they are expensive to replace, halfords tend to fit them for a fiver.
    I'm also pointing at the people who don't switch on their lights until it's pitch black out. During the winter I pretty much have my dips on all the time while driving.


  • #66
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,409 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    No Pants wrote: »
    I'm also pointing at the people who don't switch on their lights until it's pitch black out. During the winter I pretty much have my dips on all the time while driving.
    Me too, every morning or evening there is some plank who pulls out of a junction with no lights at twilight hours. Grey cars that blend in with the dull background are the worst IMO but no proof of this. I miss my SAAB with its auto on lights, if the lights are not working the car refuses to start. Safest car I ever drove.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    No Pants wrote: »
    I'd agree with that and I wonder why there isn't more focus put on cars having fully working lights and using them at appropriate times.
    And something should be done about the motorists with uncorrectable vision defects:
    http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/03/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-the-evidence-and-context/

    Not sure whether the stats have changed in the UK much, as the book was published a while ago, but that suggests that about two million practising drivers would fail the eye test for acquiring a driving licence.

    Not to mention that when someone drives into someone in a car and kills them in broad daylight it should be taken with a pinch of salt when they say they couldn't see them. Of course they're going to say that.


  • #68
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Not to mention that when someone drives into someone in a car and kills them in broad daylight it should be taken with a pinch of salt when they say they couldn't see them. Of course they're going to say that.
    I'm amazed that how often that gets said at trials and how it doesn't automatically bring a reckless/dangerous driving charge upon admission.


  • #69
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,409 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    MOD VOICE: Irrelevant now


  • #70
    Newaglish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭Newaglish


    Quick question, which is semi-relevant to the thread:

    Anyone know where I can find the definitive regulations for cyclists in Ireland?

    I know that:
    Helmets = not required by law
    Lights = required by law

    But I'm wondering about high visibility clothing?


  • #71
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,409 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Newaglish wrote: »
    But I'm wondering about high visibility clothing?

    Not required by law.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    morana
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭morana


    Newaglish wrote: »
    Quick question, which is semi-relevant to the thread:

    Anyone know where I can find the definitive regulations for cyclists in Ireland?

    boards.ie


  • #73
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Headlight, tail light, rear red reflector and pedal reflectors are the only conspicuity aids required by law, I think. Somebody should be able to furnish you with the relevant bits from the statute book. I don't have them off-hand.


  • #74
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Vehicle lighting regulations of 1963 specify a front and rear light. No mention of reflectors. Unless there's been some supplementary legislation in the mean time.


  • #75
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html

    There's a few mentions of an 'obligatory rear reflector'. Obligatory pedal reflectors don't seem to get mentioned though. Pretty sure they're mentioned elsewhere though.


  • #76
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Ah, you're right. I missed that later section. Bikes need to have one rear reflector
    (4) (a) In the case of a pedal cycle or a mechanically propelled bicycle used without a side-car, one obligatory rear reflector shall be fitted to the vehicle.


  • #77
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,409 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html

    There's a few mentions of an 'obligatory rear reflector'. Obligatory pedal reflectors don't seem to get mentioned though. Pretty sure they're mentioned elsewhere though.
    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    Ah, you're right. I missed that later section. Bikes need to have one rear reflector

    Are you covered if your light includes a reflector like the majority of modern lights?


  • #78
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,008 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    Ah, you're right. I missed that later section. Bikes need to have one rear reflector

    Except...

    "Defence in case of racing vehicles.
    53. Where a person is charged with a contravention in the day time of articles 9, 22, 29 and 33 of these Regulations, it shall be a good defence to show that the vehicle was primarily constructed or adapted for the purpose of racing or trials and was either being used for such purpose or was travelling to or from the venue of a race or trial in which the vehicle had taken part or was intended to take part."

    #33 is "Obligatory rear reflectors."

    So we're OK on Thursdays and weekends during racing season.

    I wonder whether Strava commuting counts.


  • #79
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    I'm pretty sure you are.

    According to the regulations:
    "reflector" means a reflex reflector the reflected light of which is capable of being returned substantially within an angle not greater than 3 degrees with an imaginary line connecting the reflector and the source of the light;

    Also, according to that, rear facing yellow reflectors, i.e. pedal reflectors, are illegal:
    (2) Every reflector with which a vehicle is equipped and which is visible from outside the vehicle shall be—

    (a) red, if facing to the rear,
    (b) amber, if facing to the side,
    (c) white, if facing to the front.


  • #80
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Lumen wrote: »
    So we're OK on Thursdays and weekends during racing season.

    Only during day time. ;)


  • #81
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,008 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    ILLEGAL!

    IMG_5612.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Interestingly, white reflectorised material is commonplace on clothing. But it's illegal to fit it to the rear or sides of your bike.


  • #83
    Daroxtar
    Registered Users Posts: 4,319 ✭✭✭Daroxtar


    A guy on a site I was working on narrowly avoided being killed recently by a teleporter driver reversing in dark conditions and it was only that he saw the reflective stripes that stopped him.
    If it doesnt have the 3M stripes then it's not worth a wánk and should not be called Hi Viz as it could lead people to wear clothing which is of no benefit, possibly giving them false sense of security.


  • #84
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,008 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Daroxtar wrote: »
    A guy on a site I was working on narrowly avoided being killed recently by a teleporter driver reversing in dark conditions and it was only that he saw the reflective stripes that stopped him.
    On the subject of teleporters, I wonder why Star Trek away teams never wore hi-vis?

    Certainly for the redshirts. The attrition rate for those dudes was brutal.


  • #85
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    I might start a thread trying to round up the various laws relevant to cycling, to have them all in one handy, FAQ type place.


  • #86
    K.Flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    Hi Guys,
    Just reading through some of the thread and I just wanted to give my perspective as a van driver.
    In my opinion whilst a hi-viz jacket has its benefits it should never be considered a primary safety item.
    On evenings like we have now, dark and wet, good bright lights are your no.1 safety item.
    I can see a cyclist with a couple of decent bright lights quite a good distance away and I will spot them much sooner than someone just wearing a hi-viz.
    The good bright slow flashing front / rear (two, one low, one high or on arm) lights immediately warn me its a cyclist in front or behind me and this allows me ample time to adjust my driving accordingly.
    A hi-viz is only useful when light shines on it, please take it from me as a driver, wearing a hi-viz it is not enough on its own, please have good bright lights on your bikes, it makes it so much easier for me and others to see you.
    Be Safe, Be Seen!


  • #87
    Daroxtar
    Registered Users Posts: 4,319 ✭✭✭Daroxtar


    Lumen wrote: »
    On the subject of teleporters, I wonder why Star Trek away teams never wore hi-vis?

    Certainly for the redshirts. The attrition rate for those dudes was brutal.
    You have no idea how disappointed I was shortly after hearing that job title:D


  • #88
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    Also, according to that, rear facing yellow reflectors, i.e. pedal reflectors, are illegal
    (5) Sub-article (2) of this article shall not prevent a cycle from carrying amber coloured reflectors which are attached to or form part of the pedals of the cycle, notwithstanding that any of such reflectors faces to the front or rear.
    (as before:http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html)


  • #89
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Excellent. Need to update the other thread with that.


  • #90
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    What does this all mean?

    It means that if you are walking in a lit, urban area at night, wearing ordinary clothes, and you are struck and killed by a driver who should reasonably be able to see you as you cross a road, that driver will be found not guilty due, in part, to your lack of ‘conspicuity’.

    Don’t think that wearing hi-visibility clothing is just a ‘cycling’ issue.
    http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/where-next-for-hi-visibility-clothing

    (There does seem to be an inexhaustible enthusiasm in the courts in the UK to exculpate motorists who collide with people:
    http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/futility/

    I think if this continues everyone will tire of using every strategy possible to ensure their safety (or just to ensure freedom from contributory negligence) when walking and cycling, and just drive everywhere. Not sure how this trend can be reversed.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Interesting comment on the As Easy post (from the author of the Beyond the Kerb blog, coincidentally):
    The potentially more interesting case is another fairly high-profile one: that of Ray Elsmore, the Waterlooville lollipop man who was killed by a driver ploughing into him on his crossing. Note this pertinent paragraph from the following report:

    “An accident investigator, who visited the crash scene, experienced how the bright sun had the effect of ‘blending in’ with the colour of a colleague’s high visibility jacket, similar to that worn by Mr Elsmore at the time of the accident.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-24905080

    Beware hi-viz. They’ll screw you for not wearing it, and I have no doubt that, in time, if they can’t screw you for that then they’ll screw you for wearing it.


Advertisement