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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

13567…58

Comments

  • #102
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Much akin to the idea that Reflectors on cyclists are more useful on their legs and pedals (I actually thought you out a link up to a study on it but I could be mistaken). I think the theory being that even if a driver does not notice the cyclist immediately, something will trigger the recognition of human movement, also the fact that this is where Dims(lights not people) will hit first does not hurt either.

    Yeah, exactly that. I think I brought it up indirectly, as it's mentioned on the Wikipedia page about High-Visibility Clothing.

    I posted some other links before that are interesting:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/10/14/see-me-don-t-kill-me.html
    In numerous studies conducted by Owens and others, drivers spotted pedestrians with strips of retroreflective tape attached to points known to invoke the perception of biomotion significantly better than pedestrians using any other approach to visibility.

    This little animation shows how points of light judiciously placed attracts the eye, and makes it clear that a walker is ahead in the dark. If you mess around with the sliders, you can make the walker have a feminine gait, or a heavier person's gait, and so on (female-light-nervous-happy is quite an amusing setting). So a lot of information can be conveyed by relatively little.

    http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/BMLwalker.html


  • #103
    NeedMoreGears
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭NeedMoreGears


    Re: "The truly jaw-dropping moment in this case comes at the end, when the judge allegedly states that the jury “will be directed to ignore Highway Code [rules 93 and 237, advising drivers to] slow down or stop if dazzled [because the] Highway Code is not law” and that the defendant’s failure to adhere to such rules “could be used as evidence of without due care and attention, or could be ignored“.

    I assume the judge is correct in terms of the law.

    What does seem odd is the choice of language, which needs some parsing to grasp exactly what the judge is saying (at least to me). He seems to intend to say something like

    The Highway code is not the law. It is only guidance - you can only make your decision on the basis of the law.

    You may decide the fact that the defendent did not slow down or stop when dazzled [this does not appear to be in dispute based on my reading of the report - NMG] is evidence of failure to drive with due care and attention or you may decide it is not. It is your choice.

    Whereas the actual words could be misunderstood to mean "not slowing down or stopping when dazzled is not against the law" leading to "you don't have to stop or slow down when dazzled" etc etc

    I wonder did any of the jury ask the judge to clarify what he/she meant?


  • #104
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,167 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    I understood it as the judge saying, it's not the law to slow down when dazzled no matter what the prosecutors claim. When in fact he should have instructed them to decide whether not slowing down in the undisputed situation constituted a criminal act under whatever guise the prosecution are pressing


  • #105
    Eamonnator
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭Eamonnator


    On 11th November last, at 11.30am, I was knocked from my bike by a driver, who drove from a minor road onto a major road. The Gardai and ambulance were called. I was completely in the right. It was a bright and sunny morning.
    Two Gardai arrived at the scene. I was lying on the ground, the first question, I was asked, was "why weren't you wearing Hi-Viz.?. My long suffering wife arrived, while I was still on the ground. I told her, I wasn't in imminent danger. I asked her to get the car driver's name. She went to speak to him. She told me afterwards, that the first thing, he said to her was "he wasn't wearing a hi-viz jacket. The ambulance arrived. As I was being loaded onto it, one of the medics said to me "you should have worn HiViz.
    The above is all perfectly true.
    Funny thing is, I'm 6 foot one, and I was on a bright red bike.
    The driver, later admitted, that he hadn't seen me.
    I drove the route with my wife the following day, at the same time. At the place, where the accident happened, the sun would have been low in the sky, directly in the driver's eyes.
    I have no doubt, he was dazzled by the Sun, but carried on anyway.


  • #106
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,167 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    FFS I can only imagine that not what one of them asked the driver, why didn't you stop? Twice in the last week I have seen drivers hit from a minor to major road without even slowing and cars having to brake to narrowly avoid them. His first words to your wife should have been, "I hope your husband is alright" regardless of blame or belief of it.


  • #107
    ROK ON
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,831 ✭✭✭ROK ON


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    I'm a 6ft 2in man.

    I'm fairly certain that if I cycled wearing a just a bra and thong that I would be highly conspicuous on the road.

    Since it's plain common sense to adopt any safety measure that makes you even a little bit more visible, I should therefore cycle in a bra and thong.

    Pics or gtfo


  • #108
    Borderfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,263 ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    Eamonnator wrote: »
    On 11th November last, at 11.30am, I was knocked from my bike by a driver, who drove from a minor road onto a major road. The Gardai and ambulance were called. I was completely in the right. It was a bright and sunny morning.
    Two Gardai arrived at the scene. I was lying on the ground, the first question, I was asked, was "why weren't you wearing Hi-Viz.?. My long suffering wife arrived, while I was still on the ground. I told her, I wasn't in imminent danger. I asked her to get the car driver's name. She went to speak to him. She told me afterwards, that the first thing, he said to her was "he wasn't wearing a hi-viz jacket. The ambulance arrived. As I was being loaded onto it, one of the medics said to me "you should have worn HiViz.
    The above is all perfectly true.
    Funny thing is, I'm 6 foot one, and I was on a bright red bike.
    The driver, later admitted, that he hadn't seen me.
    I drove the route with my wife the following day, at the same time. At the place, where the accident happened, the sun would have been low in the sky, directly in the driver's eyes.
    I have no doubt, he was dazzled by the Sun, but carried on anyway.

    I was knocked down on the road bike twice both times wearing hi viz and lights and one of the drivers went through a red light to hit me.


  • #109
    DaveR1000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72 ✭✭DaveR1000


    Back to the OP - would be more in governments line to remove VAT from Helmets and other safety equipment, they were all guns blazing 2 years ago with the RSA for motorcyclists to wear hi-vis whatnots and were met with huge resistance.

    I personally do wear hi-viz but also use my lights during the day - DRL for bikes makes more sense imo


  • #110
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Wearing hi-viz makes you invisible.

    If you want to gain access to places you shouldn't be apparently all you need to do is wear hi-viz and carry a toolbox , chances are no one will even look at you.

    Seriously we've all walked past workmen in hi-viz and not even noticed them.


  • #111
    NeedMoreGears
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭NeedMoreGears


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I understood it as the judge saying, it's not the law to slow down when dazzled no matter what the prosecutors claim. When in fact he should have instructed them to decide whether not slowing down in the undisputed situation constituted a criminal act under whatever guise the prosecution are pressing

    That's the problem with people (as in the legal profession) who have excellent command of a language that looks and sounds like spoken english but is deceptively different.

    I agree with you the judge should have been crystal clear in more plain language as to what he intend to convey. In day to day parlance "ignore" tends to mean "disregard it cos it's crap", whereas his/her honour was probably trying to say "decide whether not stopping was dangerous etc." - No wonder legal costs are so high.

    I once worked in the aircraft industry and many of the maintenance manuals were re-written in a simplified version of english to allow non-native speakers understand it better (english is the working language of that industry). It usually took us native speakers a few attempts to understand what it meant! Maybe the legal profession are so inured (ok ok "used to") the need for precision in their language that they find it hard to effectively communicate with regular jo(e)s.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Harrybelafonte
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,450 ✭✭✭Harrybelafonte


    NeedMoreGears wrote: »
    That's the problem with people (as in the legal profession) who have excellent command of a language that looks and sounds like spoken english but is deceptively different.

    I agree with you the judge should have been crystal clear in more plain language as to what he intend to convey. In day to day parlance "ignore" tends to mean "disregard it cos it's crap", whereas his/her honour was probably trying to say "decide whether not stopping was dangerous etc." - No wonder legal costs are so high.

    I once worked in the aircraft industry and many of the maintenance manuals were re-written in a simplified version of english to allow non-native speakers understand it better (english is the working language of that industry). It usually took us native speakers a few attempts to understand what it meant! Maybe the legal profession are so inured (ok ok "used to") the need for precision in their language that they find it hard to effectively communicate with regular jo(e)s.

    They do not have an excellent command of the English language, they simply have specific understandings of particular words. The lay person will have a more fluid understanding of particular words according to the situation in which they find themselves, a lawyer, within their working environment, has a stricter definition for reasons of clarity.


  • #113
    ednwireland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Wearing hi-viz makes you invisible.

    If you want to gain access to places you shouldn't be apparently all you need to do is wear hi-viz and carry a toolbox , chances are no one will even look at you.

    Seriously we've all walked past workmen in hi-viz and not even noticed them.


    wearing a suit used to do that where i used to work (pre hi viz mania) we had several laptops stolen guys just walked past the security guard - you were supposed to have a security pass - guess hi viz would do it now.

    actually i've caught myself a couple of times not seeing pedestrians in hi viz its like my brain blanks it out, always see the ones with lights on though.

    My weather

    https://www.ecowitt.net/home/share?authorize=96CT1F



  • #114
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,095 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Gem of a headline in yesterday's Indo Fit mag:

    295118.jpg


  • #115
    The Novacastrian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭The Novacastrian


    I'm new to all this cycling/ commuting. I commute 50 kms per day into St. Stephens Green.

    My thoughts are this: I have 7 lights; 2 on helmet, 1 front of bike, 2 rear of bike and 2 LED reflective bands around both legs, I also wear Hi-vis (and a helmet but that is a different debate) . Why, you may ask? Because I have a wife & kids and I want to go home every night to see them, and so I want to minimise the dangers as much as possible to which I am exposed daily. I believe that the more chances I have of me being seen, increases my chances of returning home.

    Sometimes I think it is the people that don't wear safety gear in general are the ones with fewer responsibilities to others, e.g. family. These are just my feelings, its just what I do to be as safe as possible.

    I, also, from my own observations over the past 6 months know for sure that I can see hi-vis wearing cyclists from further away than non-wearing.


  • #116
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    buffalo wrote: »
    Gem of a headline in yesterday's Indo Fit mag:

    295118.jpg

    I "stupidly" and "selfishly" "refused" to wrap this earlier post in hi-viz which probably explains why you missed it :p

    My negligence means that I should really hold myself personally responsible for any harm that comes to anyone using the Internet, or their friends and families, as an direct/indirect/unrelated result of my "invisible" post. I feel terrible, and an angry Gerry Duffy is dropping round later to give me a proper hiding.


  • #117
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    goslie wrote:
    Sometimes I think it is the people that don't wear safety gear in general are the ones with fewer responsibilities to others, e.g. family.

    Wrong. And offensively condescending to boot.


  • #118
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,095 ✭✭✭buffalo


    doozerie wrote: »
    I "stupidly" and "selfishly" "refused" to wrap this earlier post in hi-viz which probably explains why you missed it :p

    My negligence means that I should really hold myself personally responsible for any harm that comes to anyone using the Internet, or their friends and families, as an direct/indirect/unrelated result of my "invisible" post. I feel terrible, and an angry Gerry Duffy is dropping round later to give me a proper hiding.

    Ah ****e, missed that post. I'll go flagellate myself now with my hi-viz whip.


  • #119
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,167 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    doozerie wrote: »
    Wrong. And offensively condescending to boot.

    I have two children and a partner who I fully intend on making it home too every day. In fact since I have relaxed my attitudes, the only motorists I give out to are those who nearly stop me getting home to my family. I drove in today, sun was glaring, I noticed in my rear view mirror that there was no difference between Hi vis and black with the Sun directly behind a person, and from a side on view, Black seemed to work better (I seen daragh_ the other morning in black, he was the only cyclist at the junction I could make out until the convoy of 8 hi vis jackets used him as a shield against the wind). That said I could barely see the cars when I took my sunglasses down.


  • #120
    The Novacastrian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭The Novacastrian


    Sorry, I thought the next sentence qualified the tone....
    These are just my feelings, its just what I do to be as safe as possible.

    I have no intention of being offensive or condescending to anyone. It is a personal choice to wear what we want, I don't look down on anyone and I hope nobody looks down on me for my clothes/ gear.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Micilin Muc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,842 ✭✭✭Micilin Muc


    Surely silver high-viz reflective material is more effective on unlit country roads than on city streets?

    I commute over 30kms per day on unlit country roads and I can see high-viz strips at driveways etc from a long way off, before the beam of my own lights hits them.


  • #122
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    goslie wrote: »
    I'm new to all this cycling/ commuting. I commute 50 kms per day into St. Stephens Green.

    My thoughts are this: I have 7 lights; 2 on helmet, 1 front of bike, 2 rear of bike and 2 LED reflective bands around both legs, I also wear Hi-vis (and a helmet but that is a different debate). Why, you may ask? Because I have a wife & kids and I want to go home every night to see them, and so I want to minimise the dangers as much as possible to which I am exposed daily. I believe that the more chances I have of me being seen, increases my chances of returning home.

    Sometimes I think it is the people that don't wear safety gear in general are the ones with fewer responsibilities to others, e.g. family. These are just my feelings, its just what I do to be as safe as possible.

    I, also, from my own observations over the past 6 months know for sure that I can see hi-vis wearing cyclists from further away than non-wearing.
    Why don't you have eight lights?

    Once you do, come back and I'll ask you why you don't have nine.


  • #123
    droidus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Why don't you have eight lights?

    Once you do, come back and I'll ask you why you don't have nine.

    9 lights and a sumo suit. Anything else is irresponsible.


  • #124
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I'm often reminded of Office Space when the subject of conspicuity aids comes up:
    Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: We need to talk about your flair.

    Joanna: Really? I... I have fifteen pieces on. I, also...

    Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: Well, okay. Fifteen is the minimum, okay?

    Joanna: Okay.

    Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: Now, you know it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Or... well, like Brian, for example, has thirty seven pieces of flair, okay. And a terrific smile.

    Joanna: Okay. So you... you want me to wear more?

    Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: Look. Joanna.

    Joanna: Yeah.

    Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: People can get a cheeseburger anywhere, okay? They come to Chotchkie's for the atmosphere and the attitude. Okay? That's what the flair's about. It's about fun.

    Joanna: Yeah. Okay. So more then, yeah?

    Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: Look, we want you to express yourself, okay? Now if you feel that the bare minimum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that, okay? You do want to express yourself, don't you?


  • #125
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    goslie wrote:
    I have no intention of being offensive or condescending to anyone. It is a personal choice to wear what we want, I don't look down on anyone and I hope nobody looks down on me for my clothes/ gear.

    Your earlier post categorised anyone who chooses not to wear hi-viz as someone who has no responsibilities, basically someone who doesn’t care about their own fate or perhaps someone who is actively irresponsible. You now say above that what people wear is personal choice yet you so casually denigrated those that don’t share your choice that it seems clear that as far as you are concerned there is only one socially responsible choice, and that is to wear hi-viz.

    That same biased and offensive mindset is conveyed in that nonsense article in yesterday’s Indo, an article that proudly declares that people who don’t wear hi-viz are reprehensible and, further still, pose an actual danger to others. Whether you realise it or not, your own posts convey the impression of someone well along the path to holding people responsible for their own fate if they don’t wear hi-viz - do you really want a society that so casually blames victims?


  • #126
    The Novacastrian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭The Novacastrian


    Your earlier post categorised anyone who chooses not to wear hi-viz as someone who has no responsibilities,

    No, it doesn't, my post says:
    Sometimes I think it is the people that don't wear safety gear in general are the ones with fewer responsibilities

    And I went on to explain, these are my thoughts, sometimes, not all the time. I am not forcing anyone to agree with me, as I say, it's a personal choice.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    petethedrummer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    droidus wrote: »
    9 lights and a sumo suit. Anything else is irresponsible.

    Do you not have a pulsing audible alarm?


  • #128
    Seweryn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,487 ✭✭✭Seweryn


    goslie wrote: »
    I'm new to all this cycling/ commuting. I commute 50 kms per day into St. Stephens Green.

    My thoughts are this: I have 7 lights; 2 on helmet, 1 front of bike, 2 rear of bike and 2 LED reflective bands around both legs, I also wear Hi-vis (and a helmet but that is a different debate). Why, you may ask? Because I have a wife & kids and I want to go home every night to see them, and so I want to minimise the dangers as much as possible to which I am exposed daily.
    I cover over 50km a day also, however having no kids and no wife I decided one day that I should be OK with only a single high quality headlight and a very good one at the back. I carry a spare rear light and a spare battery for the front light fully charged just in case.
    I don't think I would be putting much more stuff on if I had kids instead of a dog and a wife instead of a partner.

    I understand your position, but I believe that the most effective way to reduce risk for all cyclists is to encourage more people to cycle. Also using your bike to cycle skilfully and in a vehicular safe manner is the best way of reducing the risks.


  • #129
    The Novacastrian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭The Novacastrian


    I have this adapted for my bike...

    http://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Everything's_OK_alarm


  • #130
    petethedrummer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    New RSA lighting strategy for cyclists.


  • #131
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Cycling is a relatively safe activity.

    The number of cyclists killed every year in Ireland is less than 10.

    You are more likely to get injured gardening than cycling.

    Why don't we have hysterical articles in the Indo warning us that we are foolish and selfish not to take every precaution possible when gardening?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    petethedrummer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    1180.jpg


  • #133
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,138 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Seweryn wrote: »
    I cover over 50km a day also, however having no kids and no wife I decided one day that I should be OK with only a single high quality headlight and a very good one at the back
    I have two kids who act up a bit and a wife who gives me a hard time about not being emotionally available, so I restrict myself to a hub dynamo and single rear flasher in the hope that a serious accident will make them appreciate me more.

    When I cycle to see my girlfriend I add an extra two lights because I really want to get there in one piece, but I take them off afterwards to save batteries.


  • #134
    Seweryn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,487 ✭✭✭Seweryn


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    Cycling is a relatively safe activity.

    Why don't we have hysterical articles in the Indo warning us that we are foolish and selfish not to take every precaution possible when gardening?

    Or... driving. Hundreds of people die in road collisions in this country every year. Non of them use...

    driving-dying.jpg


  • #135
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    goslie wrote:
    And I went on to explain, these are my thoughts, sometimes, not all the time. I am not forcing anyone to agree with me, as I say, it's a personal choice.

    My apologies, you are right, you didn’t say people with “no” responsibilities, you cast the nest even broader by saying people with “fewer” responsibilities, thereby encompassing, disparaging, and offending, a larger group of people.

    And fewer responsibilities than whom exactly? You clearly have some kind of standard of socially responsible cyclist in mind here that you are comparing against, and that cyclist is one who wears hi-viz. Whether you acknowledge it or not you are declaring that, as far as you are concerned, wearing hi-viz is the norm for cyclists and that anyone who doesn’t wear hi-viz is somehow less responsible, and that kind of thinking is the basis for the belief that such people are not only less (socially) responsible but also themselves culpable in anything that happens to them. That is victim blaming. The fact that you believe this “not all the time” makes it no less damaging and dangerous an attitude.

    If you truly want safer roads, try to broaden peoples’ minds - promote empathy and social responsibility on the part of everyone (cyclists and drivers alike). By contrast, dismissing people that don’t wear hi-viz as somehow less socially responsible promotes division, distrust, and discrimination, all of which serves to feed the antagonistic mindset that is a source of many of the dangers in the first place.


  • #136
    The Novacastrian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭The Novacastrian


    Thank you. You are correct. I am wrong. I apologise wholeheartedly to all I offended.


  • #137
    droidus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    This is getting complicated. We need some kind of guide to the suitable ratio of safety equipment to responsibility:
    • Single, no family, no dependents >> No lights, black bike, black clothes, stealth technology
    • Single with 1 dog >> as above, w/Sam Browne belt
    • Single with 1 dog, 1 cat and a fish >> Hi-vis jacket, mid-toned clothing
    • In an on/off again relationship >> Hi-vis jacket, single knog on back
    • In a serious relationship but not cohabiting >> Hi vis jacket, knog on front and back
    • Cohabiting with pets >> Hi-vis, decent front and back lights, bright clothing
    • Married with 1 dependent >> His vis onesie, 2 front lights, 2 back lights
    • Married with 2+ dependents >> Hi-vis sumo suit, 9+ lights
    • Polygamist w/5+ dependents >>Hi vis sumo suit, 20+ lights, armoured fluorescent bike
    • Patriarch of small interrelated community w/50+ members >> As above w/ 4 hi-vis sumo suited, flag waving outriders.


  • #138
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    Lumen wrote:
    When I cycle to see my girlfriend I add an extra two lights because I really want to get there in one piece, but I take them off afterwards to save batteries.

    I like to pretend that my girlfriend is prettier than your girlfriend by adding an extra *three* lights when I cycle to see her. Someday though some driver will see through my ploy, realising that in reality I only have a single extra light’s level of responsibility (my girlfriend is …ginger!), and they’ll therefore administer death by car as society demands.


  • #139
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    I wear high vis when I'm visiting lumen's girlfriend because I don't want him to notice me


  • #140
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,167 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    doozerie wrote: »
    I like to pretend that my girlfriend is prettier than your girlfriend by adding an extra *three* lights when I cycle to see her. Someday though some driver will see through my ploy, realising that in reality I only have a single extra light’s level of responsibility (my girlfriend is …ginger!), and they’ll therefore administer death by car as society demands.

    Never met Lumens girl, but yours is really pretty, I remember riding with her in Blessington all evening. Pretty and fit. I had to stop but she kept going...
    ...in the club league race obviously ;)


  • #141
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Wearing hi-viz makes you invisible.

    If you want to gain access to places you shouldn't be apparently all you need to do is wear hi-viz and carry a toolbox , chances are no one will even look at you.

    Seriously we've all walked past workmen in hi-viz and not even noticed them.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0528/131588-moffettb/
    http://www.gra.cc/garda_shooting_25-09-07.shtml
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-shot-in-the-arm-while-sitting-in-car-near-airport-139848.html

    Spot the trend?
    CramCycle wrote: »
    Never met Lumens girl, but yours is really pretty, I remember riding with her in Blessington all evening. Pretty and fit. I had to stop but she kept going...
    ...in the club league race obviously ;)
    Careful now - http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0220/505522-black-tailed-antechinus/


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Paddigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,832 ✭✭✭Paddigol


    Wow. Most of you are on here a lot LOT longer than I.

    I have to admire your perseverance.

    Already for me, just seeing a thread title containing the words "lights", "helmets" and "hi-viz" gives me pulsating head-aches. I like to 'go to last page' of these sort of threads to confirm that the world still is mad.


  • #143
    The Novacastrian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭The Novacastrian


    Thank you. You are correct. I am wrong. I apologise wholeheartedly to all I offended.

    Sarcasm detectors not working? Someday I must intentionally try and wind you up!


  • #144
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    goslie wrote: »
    I, also, from my own observations over the past 6 months know for sure that I can see hi-vis wearing cyclists from further away than non-wearing.
    Look again.

    hi-viz in the day time isn't always stand out.

    hi-viz at night relies on reflective strips , look off axis as well

    lights are best of course.


  • #145
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    From: Men armed with gun and crowbar rob bank in Dublin city centre:
    The first raider was described as 5ft 11inches in height, with a heavy build and wore a hi-visibility jacket and black woolly hat and carried a crowbar.

    What a moral dilemma! Clearly that raider is a model citizen, as he had the consideration to others to wear a hi-viz jacket. And yet he is clearly a toe rag that has no qualms about threatening others for his own ends. So should I love him or despise him? I'm conflicted. Curse you, morally ambiguous hi-viz!


  • #146
    robertxxx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭robertxxx


    I cycle with 3 front lights one point in front and the other two pointing at me so it really lights up my yellow hivis jacket.


  • #147
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Micilin Muc wrote: »
    Surely silver high-viz reflective material is more effective on unlit country roads than on city streets?
    Yes reflective material works, no it doesn't work so well off-axis, and mostly hi-viz is about brightly yellow and doesn't always include good quality reflective materials


  • #148
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,095 ✭✭✭buffalo


    goslie wrote: »
    I, also, from my own observations over the past 6 months know for sure that I can see hi-vis wearing cyclists from further away than non-wearing.

    How do you know there weren't loads of hi-viz wearing cyclists that you didn't see?


  • #149
    Nwm2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Nwm2


    I wear hi-vis a lot. Not the RSA-type pedestrian ones. I have a couple of hi-vis jerseys, and couple of hi-vis jackets, and a hi-vis gilet which I wear a lot. I even have a hi-vis helmet rain cover.

    I'll often wear white, if not wearing true hi-vis.

    Part of my calculation is that I'm protecting myself against the texter who is glancing up occasionally and giving him/her that chance to see me. Not sure how that is captured in the test of effectiveness. I also know myself that I spot hi-vis stuff much earlier than lo-vis when I'm in the car.

    At night, I wear reflective stripes on my body, LED lights on my ankles, two bright lights pointed forward, one red light behind, sometimes two.

    For all that, I am against making these things mandatory, in daylight.


  • #150
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    robertxxx wrote: »
    I cycle with 3 front lights one point in front and the other two pointing at me so it really lights up my yellow hivis jacket.
    Joke? Sorry if I'm being slow.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Topical ...
    322671.jpg


Advertisement