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 vis discussion thread (read post #1)

24567…96

Comments

  • #32
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    It's unrelenting.

    There's another campaign under way in the West advising pedestrians to "make themselves safer". Hi-viz is inevitably part of the mix. No mention of traffic law enforcement, or chronic lack of same.

    AGS apparently believes that cyclists and pedestrians have a "social responsibility" to ensure their own safety by making themselves "visible to traffic".

    That's asking a lot of my Sam Browne. Still, it could be worse:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAy4Bxo6FTg






    Postscript: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/pedpolicy_pedcrossingflags.htm


    .


  • #33
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    No Pants wrote: »
    Heard something on the radio the other morning about the RSA handing out high-vis vests to schoolkids. It'll be like a mandatory uniform for everyone who isn't in a car soon.



    It's also turning children into high-visibility mobile PR installations: http://www.electricireland.ie/ei/residential-gas/supporting-the-community/RSA.jsp


  • #34
    Seweryn
    Registered Users Posts: 4,487 ✭✭✭Seweryn


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    AGS apparently believes that cyclists and pedestrians have a "social responsibility" to ensure their own safety by making themselves "visible to traffic".
    Visible to what traffic? What are cyclists, are they not traffic? Are they street furniture or something?

    I don't get this

    "cyclists



    and traffic".


  • #35
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,044 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Still, it could be worse:

    Holy ****. That video is ****ing insane.


  • #36
    the.red.baron
    Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    It's weird how we don't see hoards of dead or injured ninja cyclists lining the roads of ireland. Or just people wearing high viz with no lights.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    mirrormatrix
    Registered Users Posts: 615 ✭✭✭mirrormatrix


    the.red.baron wrote: »
    Or just people wearing high viz with no lights.

    i've actually seen a lot of cyclists adopt this approach


  • #38
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    It's unrelenting.

    There's another campaign under way in the West advising pedestrians to "make themselves safer". Hi-viz is inevitably part of the mix. No mention of traffic law enforcement, or chronic lack of same.
    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.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    AGS apparently believes that cyclists and pedestrians have a "social responsibility" to ensure their own safety by making themselves "visible to traffic".

    That's farcical. Let's be world-leaders in shifting the burden of responsibility to the vulnerable party. Go us.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Still, it could be worse:
    Came across the Kirkland business before.

    Here are their FAQs. Fascinating!

    http://www.kirklandwa.gov/depart/Public_Works/Transportation___Streets/Pedestrian_Flags_-_FAQs.htm


  • #39
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    bedirect wrote: »
    I think most drivers see cyclists
    Yay, that's good news.


  • #40
    the.red.baron
    Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    mirrormatrix wrote: »
    i've actually seen a lot of cyclists adopt this approach

    Yes tonnes of people in non high viz, in high viz, in lycra, in casual clothing all with no lights.

    Seems dangerous, right, but I don't see anyone being knocked down.


  • #41
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    the.red.baron wrote: »
    I don't see anyone being knocked down.

    That's nice.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    the.red.baron
    Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    That's nice.

    it is nice


  • #43
    Kav0777
    Registered Users Posts: 549 ✭✭✭Kav0777


    the.red.baron wrote: »
    Yes tonnes of people in non high viz, in high viz, in lycra, in casual clothing all with no lights.

    Seems dangerous, right, but I don't see anyone being knocked down.

    Maybe you'd see them if they had lights....


  • #44
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    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.


    It was mentioned in the local radio report, but not on their website. I can't find anything on the Garda website.


    buffalo wrote: »
    Holy ****. That video is ****ing insane.


    Nuts, isn't it? The evaluation showed they were wasting everyone's time (except for motorists'), which should have been no surprise imo. I'm inclined to trot out the old "only in America" cliche, but I'm afraid that when it comes to hivisteria and helmetophilia this country can hold its own.


  • #45
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    the.red.baron wrote: »
    Yes tonnes of people in non high viz, in high viz, in lycra, in casual clothing all with no lights.

    Seems dangerous, right, but I don't see anyone being knocked down.

    What are you talking about? You don't witness an accident so it must not have happened? How illogical is that?

    This morning on my way to work I was hit by a car, as she overtook me with oncoming traffic while I was overtaking a stationary bike (man putting his daughter on the child seat). She didn't have room for the maneuver but continued on anyway. The lady continued driving because she was in shock, I caught up with her and asked her WTF was she doing. Her response said it all "I didn't think ...bla bla bla". She didn't even know what to do in an accident. The traffic started moving again and she moved off.

    Every day there are incidents on the trip to work. Some of the stuff you witness is mental.

    Cars actually swerving for cyclists like lunatics. A go pro is a fantastic investment.

    Helmets, high viz gear and lights are essential. It's idiotic to venture out without.



    Expensive lights and high viz clothing (gloves, bib & coat) couldn't prevent stupid people doing stupid things.


  • #46
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »
    What are you talking about? You don't witness an accident so it must not have happened? How illogical is that?

    This morning on my way to work I was hit by a car, as she overtook me with oncoming traffic while I was overtaking a stationary bike (man putting his daughter on the child seat). She didn't have room for the maneuver but continued on anyway. The lady continued driving because she was in shock, I caught up with her and asked her WTF was she doing. Her response said it all "I didn't think ...bla bla bla". She didn't even know what to do in an accident. The traffic started moving again and she moved off.

    Every day there are incidents on the trip to work.

    ...

    Helmets, high viz gear and lights are essential. It's idiotic to venture out without.


    Expensive lights and high viz clothing (gloves, bib & coat) couldn't prevent stupid people doing stupid things.


    Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you saying hi-viz is essential or that it can't in fact "prevent stupid people doing stupid things"?

    Were you wearing hi-viz when that motorist nearly hit you? Do you wear hi-viz every day on the trip to work?

    If so, what difference is the hi-viz making in practical terms? Genuine question, by the way, not merely rhetorical.


  • #47
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,044 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Nuts, isn't it? The evaluation showed they were wasting everyone's time (except for motorists'), which should have been no surprise imo. I'm inclined to trot out the old "only in America" cliche, but I'm afraid that when it comes to hivisteria and helmetophilia this country can hold its own.

    I'm going to use it as a facetious counter-example the next time someone tells me I should always wear hi-viz so as to have every chance of being seen.


  • #48
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you saying hi-viz is essential or that it can't in fact "prevent stupid people doing stupid things"?

    Being highly visible is a good thing, it will help other road users see you.

    It won't protect you from gobshítes who don't give a damn and terrible drivers.
    Were you wearing hi-viz when that motorist nearly hit you? Do you wear hi-viz every day on the trip to work?

    Yup, sure was. I wear it every day. She seen me. She just hasn't a clue on how to use the road. Oh and there was no nearly in my sentence. She did hit me, just didn't knock me off the bike.

    If so, what difference is the hi-viz making in practical terms? Genuine question, by the way, not merely rhetorical.

    If you don't wear high viz, or use GOOD lights on your bike it makes you harder to be seen. By all means, wear what you like, but it's definitely easier to see somebody wearing lights/high viz than those who chose not to wear it.


  • #49
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    bedirect wrote: »
    I think most drivers see cyclists
    I see dead cyclists.


  • #50
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Just in case there is any confusion.

    Bicycle helmets are only designed to protect a cyclist falling off a bike up to about 20-30Kmph.

    They are not designed to offer significant protection for a collision with a motor vehicle at 50Kmph+ , for that you'd need something much stronger like a motorbike helmet.


    High levels of high Viz, means motorists may be come lazy because they are conditioned to cyclists being easy to see and thus won't look as hard in future.



    Ninja cyclists serve to keep motorists on their toes. But they are scary and should be arrested. High Vis at night is almost useless. lights and reflectors (not all high vis are equal) matter much more than colour.

    I agree with your points apart from what I put in bold.

    High vis is pretty important at night. It's definitely better than dull/dark clothing. It's doesn't take a massive lack of concentration to miss a cyclist/pedestrian who is wearing dark clothing.

    There's multiple parties involved and all parties should contribute to the safety of others.


  • #51
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    It's been said here before, but it's worth repeating. The reflective stripes in hi-viz jackets are some use at night. The green/orange bit does nothing. Fluorescent materials convert UV radiation to visible radiation, which is why they "glow". Artificial light contains negligble UV, and artificial is all that's really available at night.

    Fluorescent materials do increase conspicuity at dawn and dusk. But, really, there are such very good lights available now, you really should try one of them and then consider whether you need to dress like a binman.

    If you want to sport reflective stripes at night, a Sam Browne at least can be folded up in your bag out of the way when you're off the bike.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    It's been said here before, but it's worth repeating. The reflective stripes in hi-viz jackets are some use at night. The green/orange bit does nothing. Fluorescent materials convert UV radiation to visible radiation, which is why they "glow". Artificial light contains negligble UV, and artificial is all that's really available at night.

    Fluorescent materials do increase conspicuity at dawn and dusk. But, really, there are such very good lights available now, you really should try one of them and then consider whether you need to dress like a binman.

    If you want to sport reflective stripes at night, a Sam Browne at least can be folded up in your bag out of the way when you're off the bike.

    All the gear I have has the reflective stripes which glow fantastically when light hits it. I don't think I have seen a high viz jacket yet that does not have the reflective strips on them. While the bright colors may not be great, they are certainly better than dark colors.


  • #53
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »
    All the gear I have has the reflective stripes which glow fantastically when light hits it. I don't think I have seen a high viz jacket yet that does not have the reflective strips on them. While the bright colors may not be great, they are certainly better than dark colors.
    There are plenty of jackets that have only reflective spots or piping. Or neither. All they are is fluorescent, or Chartreuse in colour.

    Reflective stripes can be very visible, but it really depends on the angle of incidence of the light. They're really positioned too high to make optimal use of dipped headlights, though that's far from saying they do nothing. They however do do nothing as you approach side traffic from the right.


  • #54
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »
    While the bright colors may not be great, they are certainly better than dark colors.

    Not much, from my observation, and I'm not the only one:
    An 2009 Australian study of drivers trying to see stationary cyclists on a closed circuit found that fluorescent vests (without retro-reflective stripes) were not a significant improvement on black clothing at night, and that retro-reflective strips were more effective when attached to knees and ankles than on a more or less static jacket
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-visibility_clothing


  • #55
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    A final observation I've made about hi-viz jackets is that I'm not sure they work all that well when worn on road bikes. The stooped position means the stripes are pointing mostly up at the sky, especially if strained over a backpack. Might increase side-on visibility though.


  • #56
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Similarly I've been behind guys with lights attached to the top of their rucksacks. All well and good when stopped and standing, but only serves to highlight your presence to passing air traffic once cycling.


  • #57
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Similarly I've been behind guys with lights attached to the top of their rucksacks. All well and good when stopped and standing, but only serves to highlight your presence to passing air traffic once cycling.
    Similarly, many lights attached to back of helmets disappear into the rucksack once the cyclist is back in the drops and on the move.


  • #58
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Similarly I've been behind guys with lights attached to the top of their rucksacks. All well and good when stopped and standing, but only serves to highlight your presence to passing air traffic once cycling.
    My new favourite position is behind (or is it in front) of pannier bags, I only see them just as I pass. I find it hard to believe no one sees the stupidity.


  • #59
    Kav0777
    Registered Users Posts: 549 ✭✭✭Kav0777


    Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »
    All the gear I have has the reflective stripes which glow fantastically when light hits it. I don't think I have seen a high viz jacket yet that does not have the reflective strips on them. While the bright colors may not be great, they are certainly better than dark colors.

    Voila:

    http://www.wiggle.co.uk/castelli-squadra-long-waterproof-jacket/

    (in "flouro" obviously)


  • #60
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »
    All the gear I have has the reflective stripes which glow fantastically when light hits it. I don't think I have seen a high viz jacket yet that does not have the reflective strips on them. While the bright colors may not be great, they are certainly better than dark colors.
    The ones the RSA were handing out a few months ago did not have reflective strips, they had matte grey strips which did not reflect anything.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »
    I agree with your points apart from what I put in bold.

    High vis is pretty important at night. It's definitely better than dull/dark clothing. It's doesn't take a massive lack of concentration to miss a cyclist/pedestrian who is wearing dark clothing.
    I'd even argue that Hi Viz yellow is so over used it's becoming part of the scenery. Given a choice I'd use orange.

    At night it's lights, reflectors on moving parts like pedals or legs and then reflectors on jacket and as others have pointed out they are of no use unless you are on a sit-up-and-beg type bike , for bikes you want reflectors on the seat of you pants or on the bottom of a backpack. Hi Viz/light clothing might help a bit but is absolutely no sustitute. Sharp Contrast is better than a larger blur. Reflective surfaces on a black jacket would stand out better.

    There's multiple parties involved and all parties should contribute to the safety of others.
    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.


    Back on topic

    When it come to collisions with cars the main use of a helmet is as a Hi-Viz hat. It can be a large bright , reflective surface that's up high in line of sight.


Advertisement