Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

arybvtcw0eolkf · 29-10-2015 5:20pm

CramCycle wrote: »

They probably only have yellow ones on with dull grey striping as opposed to hi vis but here it is:
http://rsa.pmms.ie/ProductMoreInfo.aspx?ProductID=RUCKCVR

Cheers.

I know I should drop into a bike shop for one but its always the case I'm reminded I want one when I'm home and read something about hi-viz.

brianomc · 29-10-2015 5:26pm

Frances Ugly Shopkeeper wrote: »

Anyone know where I can pick up a hi-viz backpack cover?.

I was told they're on the RSA website but I'm damned if I can find any.

http://rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Orders-online/Orders-online/

Then hi-vis goods on the left when you register. I got 2 of the drawstring bags last year off them, they're handy for lunch/clothes on a commute.

Edit: or what was said above with no need to register first

tomasrojo · 29-10-2015 5:55pm

https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1/status/659770514467090432

HivemindXX · 29-10-2015 10:13pm

brianomc wrote: »

And when everyone is wearing their hi-vis and motorists are still knocking down pedestrians what will be the next excuse for not accepting responsibility*

*assuming pedestrian didnt just walk out in front of the car/that the cyclists lights were working

Obviously "not enough high viz".

I can see various muppets wringing their hands about people actually outside their cars wearing only a high viz vest. With their arms and legs and heads and such TOTALLY INVISIBLE!!! What if they were sideways on to you, their arm would be almost completely covering their vest rendering them nearly impossible to see.

After everyone has to wear a high-viz hazmat suit I'm not sure where it will go Maybe extreme risk takers such as pedestrians should be required to have an escort car alongside them at all times so that it is possible to avoid hitting them.

This pdf on the DCC web site shows lots of roads in Dublin city with 60 or 80kph limits. Be interesting to see everyone walking from Heuston to Inchicore having to don their magical vests. Not that this effort is going to actually do anything other than identify a few dumbasses in government.

Qualitymark · 30-10-2015 10:37am

I was nearly run down yesterday by a van on High Street. Damn thing was tarmac-coloured and totally invisible.

tomasrojo · 30-10-2015 1:13pm

https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1/status/659808791664402432

Industrious fellow/lady.

Leroy42 · 30-10-2015 1:57pm

Is that the next 'big thing'?

Lights coated in HiVis, and possibly a whole industry for retro fitting current lights with little HiVis covers

monument · 30-10-2015 6:25pm

So, which one of you set up the alternative RSA Twitter ac?

tomasrojo · 30-10-2015 9:45pm

monument wrote: »

So, which one of you set up the alternative RSA Twitter ac?

Because there's a warrant out. Who knows how many people you've killed with your satire.

galwaycyclist · 30-10-2015 11:14pm

monument wrote: »

So, which one of you set up the alternative RSA Twitter ac?

The first to ask is always the prime suspect.

"My dear Watson, it is an elementary distraction tactic."

CramCycle · 30-10-2015 11:35pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

"My dear Watson, it is an elementary distraction tactic."

Another suspect is added to the list

monument · 01-11-2015 1:22pm

There's my top three suspects ^

tomasrojo · 02-11-2015 5:58pm

Advice from Federal Highway Administration. Mentioned here, referring to here.

tomasrojo · 02-11-2015 6:02pm

This is rather alarming, if you live in the USA:

traprunner · 02-11-2015 7:04pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is rather alarming, if you live in the USA:

Not really if you think about it. Very few children walk in most places of the US. It's worse than here for driving kids around. At halloween they do walk from house to house so there is more chance of them getting knocked down.

galwaycyclist · 02-11-2015 7:17pm

traprunner wrote: »

Not really if you think about it. Very few children walk in most places of the US. It's worse than here for driving kids around. At halloween they do walk from house to house so there is more chance of them getting knocked down.

It seems to me that you could also observe that there is no way that adult motorists could be unaware of the likely presence of children on Halloween night.

Unless they have beamed down from some other planet for the evening.

traprunner · 02-11-2015 7:20pm

I'd like to know the percentage of them that are killed in driveways or crossing driveways. I bet it's high.

Doctor Bob · 02-11-2015 7:39pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is rather alarming, if you live in the USA:

What's the downwards blip in mid-February? Valentine's day?

"If I order you an extra large pizza and let you go on the internet unsupervised, do you promise that you'll stay in your room until the morning?"

Hugo_Whoriskey · 02-11-2015 7:45pm

Doctor Bob wrote:

What's the downwards blip in mid-February? Valentine's day?

February 29th I'd assume

tomasrojo · 02-11-2015 8:18pm

Hugo_Whoriskey wrote: »

February 29th I'd assume

Yeah, ~25% of neighbouring values.

Qualitymark · 03-11-2015 1:19am

Also, drivers who aren't used to keeping an eye out for kids.

buffalo · 03-11-2015 9:59am

Hugo_Whoriskey wrote: »

February 29th I'd assume

So statistically, by raw numbers, Feb 29th is the safest day of the year?

...I feel bad joking about child pedestrian fatalities.

rollingscone · 04-11-2015 1:05am

Witnessed many people with pathetically inadequate lighting apparently believing themselves safe by virtue of jackets and jumpers in a particularly ugly and unreflective shade of yellow tonight.

ffs

Pinch Flat · 04-11-2015 1:08am

rollingscone wrote: »

Witnessed many people with pathetically inadequate lighting apparently believing themselves safe by virtue of jackets and jumpers in a particularly ugly and unreflective shade of yellow tonight.

ffs

Same in the fog. Plenty of hi vis on display but very few decent lights. My own view is that hi vis is being over promoted and over relied on as a means of being seen.

Qualitymark · 04-11-2015 7:34am

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Same in the fog. Plenty of hi vis on display but very few decent lights. My own view is that hi vis is being over promoted and over relied on as a means of being seen.

Very true. I also, however, looked out my window and saw a passing cyclist with a very bright light, but dressed in black, with a black helmet, black gloves and a black rucksack, on a black bike. He wasn't very visible.

tigerboon · 04-11-2015 9:44am

rollingscone wrote: »

Witnessed many people with pathetically inadequate lighting apparently believing themselves safe by virtue of jackets and jumpers in a particularly ugly and unreflective shade of yellow tonight.

ffs

Another thing I've seen a few times, at night on dark country roads, is lads with great front lights but crap rear lights. But they have the magic yellow jacket (without reflective strips). With the foggy conditions over the last week, lads need to be thinking of visibility at night

rollingscone · 04-11-2015 10:12am

Qualitymark wrote: »

Very true. I also, however, looked out my window and saw a passing cyclist with a very bright light, but dressed in black, with a black helmet, black gloves and a black rucksack, on a black bike. He wasn't very visible.

But were they adequate lights? It doesn't matter if the cyclist's hands or head aren't visible, just that someone will know there is a cyclist there.

Carawaystick · 04-11-2015 10:12am

Qualitymark wrote: »

Very true. I also, however, looked out my window and saw a passing cyclist with a very bright light, but dressed in black, with a black helmet, black gloves and a black rucksack, on a black bike. He wasn't very visible.

What wasn't very visible about that very bright light you saw?

tomasrojo · 04-11-2015 10:36am

I've said it before, but when it's not foggy or raining I can see dark-clad cyclists at night in the city centre. No problem at all.

Not saying that people shouldn't use lights or whatever, and some people with very dodgy eyesight are permitted to drive out of misplaced compassion, but the great abundance of street lighting in urban centres does make most people in moderate conditions quite easy to see for people with average vision or better.

Conspicuity being the determining factor in collisions is, I suspect, mostly a myth, strengthened by motorists who have killed cyclists and pedestrians lying about what they were doing just before the collision, or by an auto-centric society which is determined to absolve "people like us".

Leroy42 · 04-11-2015 10:40am

^ I would add to the above that surely drivers should be 'expecting' cyclists and pedestrians on the roads (well peds on the path!).

The excuse of 'I didn't see them' should not hold any weight in a court of law. Whilst the individual holds responsibility to make themselves visible, hitting a cyclist in a car and then claiming it was simply because one didn't see them would call into question the ability of that person to continue to drive.

It seems in some cases that it is accepted and the driver is let carry on.

tomasrojo · 04-11-2015 10:44am

I don't know about in Ireland, but in the UK drivers have admitted in court they were looking at their phone ("just for a second") before a collision, and the courts have put this down to a moment's inattention that anyone might have. (IIRC, recent one was a truck driver, who was trying to find a sermon recorded on his phone. The man's religious devotion was regarded favourably by the judge.)

Qualitymark · 04-11-2015 10:53am

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't know about in Ireland, but in the UK drivers have admitted in court they were looking at their phone ("just for a second") before a collision, and the courts have put this down to a moment's inattention that anyone might have. (IIRC, recent one was a truck driver, who was trying to find a sermon recorded on his phone. The man's religious devotion was regarded favourably by the judge.)

Jesus (as it were)

tomasrojo · 04-11-2015 11:55am

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20151020-careless-driving-reckless-sentencing

That's the sermon-seeking truck driver.

The cyclist's mother clarified that the cyclist had been wearing a hi-viz jacket and white helmet that day. Of course, it was broad daylight and the truck driver wasn't looking at the road, but I guess you have to get these details out there to head the victim blamers off at the pass.

check_six · 04-11-2015 12:29pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

...but I guess you have to get these details out there to head the victim blamers off at the pass.

I'd like to think that if I get run over someone on here will make a point of stating that I was definitely wearing a hi-vis jacket, or I was reading an RSA leaflet, or at least thinking of your favourite deity (I'm not fussy which one).

CramCycle · 04-11-2015 12:40pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

Very true. I also, however, looked out my window and saw a passing cyclist with a very bright light, but dressed in black, with a black helmet, black gloves and a black rucksack, on a black bike. He wasn't very visible.

As said before though, you seen the light, the cyclist was therefore more than adequately visible.

I have told the story before about a co worker getting an earful from a motorist who "couldn't see him" without hi vis, but he did see his bright lights, which is how he knew there was someone there to pull over and give out to about being invisible.

I have no issue with hi vis but its over promotion and constant reinforcement that it is adequate is insane, particularly by government agencies, by Gardai (not all) who will stop people without hi vis (but have lights) but not the ones with hi vis and no lights, by people who see the lights but give out that the person they have clearly identified is invisible due to the colour of their clothing.

The mind boggles

jon1981 · 04-11-2015 5:54pm

Tragic event, not sure reflective gear would have made a difference, The driver is quite high up. If the driver is not checking their mirrors sufficiently or you as a cyclist is in the blind spot, no amount of reflective material is going to help.

The coroner nor driver could say that this was the case, however it's surprising that the driver could not see the man if he had got lights on front and rear as I assume he would have had to have passed the cyclist on the road....again who knows.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/truck-driver-unaware-he-had-run-over-cyclist-inquest-told-1.2417064

Dublin Fire Brigade paramedic Brian Lamon said Mr Rynne was unconscious and in cardiac arrest when the ambulance arrived. He was wearing a helmet and was lit up with front and rear lights along with a light on his backpack.

The jury returned a verdict of death by misadventure and recommended increased night lighting at the Citywest roundabout and asked for a review of the legal minimum requirement for lighting and reflective wear for cyclists.

NiallBoo · 04-11-2015 6:50pm

I think it's a little illogical that the coroner can essentially say "I don't really know what happened" (fair enough) but then (the Jury) go on to make recommendations about how hi-vis etc might prevent such incidents?

True or not, they really don't have a basis for saying it.

hesker · 04-11-2015 7:01pm

NiallBoo wrote: »

I think it's a little illogical that the coroner can essentially say "I don't really know what happened" (fair enough) but then go on to make recommendations about how hi-vis etc might prevent such incidents?

True or not, he doesn't have a basis for saying it.

Don't see where he said that in the article. The jury made recommendations but not the coroner.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 04-11-2015 7:07pm

NiallBoo wrote: »

I think it's a little illogical that the coroner can essentially say "I don't really know what happened" (fair enough) but then go on to make recommendations about how hi-vis etc might prevent such incidents?

True or not, he doesn't have a basis for saying it.

It probably wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference.

I'm drive trucks, and as a cyclist I'm very aware of the dangers of (in particular) left turns. As a result I'm probably overly cautious in checking for cyclists in my blind spots and still sometimes I'm surprised when a cyclist is suddenly in my view.

I think more should be done to make cyclists aware of just how big a truck drivers blind spots can be (despite all sorts of mirrors which might be fitted to the truck).

My worse nightmare is to do exactly what happened in this accident, hit someone and drive off totally unaware I'd been in an accident.

On a bright note (no pun).. A forum user gave me a really nice Hi-Viz backpack cover today ~ Thank you RT

NiallBoo · 04-11-2015 7:18pm

hesker wrote: »

Don't see where he said that in the article. The jury made recommendations but not the coroner.

You're quite right, I took that up the wrong way.

The same logic still applies though, the recommendations (good or bad) are baseless and shouldn't be attached to the case like that.

rollingscone · 04-11-2015 7:20pm

Frances Ugly Shopkeeper wrote: »

It probably wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference.

I'm drive trucks, and as a cyclist I'm very aware of the dangers of (in particular) left turns. As a result I'm probably overly cautious in checking for cyclists in my blind spots and still sometimes I'm surprised when a cyclist is suddenly in my view.

I think more should be done to make cyclists aware of just how big a truck drivers blind spots can be (despite all sorts of mirrors which might be fitted to the truck).

My worse nightmare is to do exactly what happened in this accident, hit someone and drive off totally unaware I'd been in an accident.

On a bright note (no pun).. A forum user gave me a really nice Hi-Viz backpack cover today ~ Thank you RT

This.

If the cyclist side of things is to be addressed it's through education and road consciousness not more fetishistic "Ah sure ye're babbies, Wear this death blankie and hope for the best"

Maximum sympathy for HGV drivers btw, based on my professional experience of them. Very few "Aircoach" about the place.

RainyDay · 04-11-2015 9:24pm

NiallBoo wrote: »

I think it's a little illogical that the coroner can essentially say "I don't really know what happened" (fair enough) but then (the Jury) go on to make recommendations about how hi-vis etc might prevent such incidents?

True or not, they really don't have a basis for saying it.

I'm not sure he had the basis for "“Unfortunately I cannot tell you precisely what happened save that the cyclist came into contact with the truck and was run over,” the coroner said. "

Isn't it more likely that the truck came into contact with the cyclist? More victim-blaming I fear.

hesker · 04-11-2015 9:32pm

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm not sure he had the basis for "“Unfortunately I cannot tell you precisely what happened save that the cyclist came into contact with the truck and was run over,” the coroner said. "

Isn't it more likely that the truck came into contact with the cyclist? More victim-blaming I fear.

Ah come on now. Do you really think the coroner was making that distinction.

No one knows what really happened. You could speculate that maybe the cyclist passed the stationary truck on the inside as he seems to have done so with a car.

The message surely should be don't pass trucks or indeed any vehicles on the inside rather than mandatory hi-vis.

RainyDay · 04-11-2015 9:49pm

hesker wrote: »

Ah come on now. Do you really think the coroner was making that distinction.

No one knows what really happened. You could speculate that maybe the cyclist passed the stationary truck on the inside as he seems to have done so with a car.

The message surely should be don't pass trucks or indeed any vehicles on the inside rather than mandatory hi-vis.

Exactly, no-one knows what happened. So why did the coroner assume one version of events?

And why is the key message once again about blaming the victims? Is it possible that there should be a message to truck drivers to stop killing cyclists?

tomasrojo · 04-11-2015 10:54pm

RainyDay wrote: »

And why is the key message once again about blaming the victims?

I think this is the answer:
https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1/status/661969499005038593

hesker · 04-11-2015 11:23pm

RainyDay wrote: »

Exactly, no-one knows what happened. So why did the coroner assume one version of events?

And why is the key message once again about blaming the victims? Is it possible that there should be a message to truck drivers to stop killing cyclists?

I think you're reading too much into that quote from him.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 04-11-2015 11:42pm

hesker wrote: »

I think you're reading too much into that quote from him.

Its RainyDay, only the very brave disagree with him :pac:

Carawaystick · 05-11-2015 12:36am

its peculiar that the hsa take action against a sole trader for having a Pirelli calender in his office, but take no actions against people who kill other road users.

If a hgv is stopped, it shouldn't move unless it cannot harm any other road users.

Pinch Flat · 05-11-2015 12:52am

Carawaystick wrote: »

its peculiar that the hsa take action against a sole trader for having a Pirelli calender in his office, but take no actions against people who kill other road users.

If a hgv is stopped, it shouldn't move unless it cannot harm any other road users.

As well as cyclops mirrors, why can't proximity detectors or cctv be made mandatory to cover blind spots? I used to work with a fella who had one of them big feck off touregs - a commercial version. It had sensors on the left and right that would beep when a cyclist approached from the blind spot, it was primarily for Parking but seemed to serve a dual purpose.

roverrules · 05-11-2015 1:55am

For all those people who almost always launch into a victim blaming argument

If you sneak up on a lion and it kills and eats you, do you blame the lion? Like wise if you a sneak up the inside of an hgv is it always the hgvs fault?

Just use some uncommon common sense and don't do it

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments