Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

CramCycle · 07-01-2015 6:27pm

In all seriousness though it is a poor advertisement for the quality of person behind the wheel of some vehicles that the only reason they would attempt to either avoid another vehicle/person or have due consideration for another persons safety is the fear that the person is a member of law enforcement.

The mind boggles

BostonB · 07-01-2015 7:09pm

Is there any data to support that collisions between motor traffic and cyclists decrease when Hi Viz is worn.

CatFromHue · 07-01-2015 7:14pm

CramCycle wrote: »

In all seriousness though it is a poor advertisement for the quality of person behind the wheel of some vehicles that the only reason they would attempt to either avoid another vehicle/person or have due consideration for another persons safety is the fear that the person is a member of law enforcement.

The mind boggles

From my experience it just stops you beeping them when they wiz out of nowhere with no regard for the rules of the road :pac::pac:

Leroy42 · 07-01-2015 7:34pm

CatFromHue wrote: »

From my experience it just stops you beeping them when they wiz out of nowhere with no regard for the rules of the road :pac::pac:

Why would it stop you doing that, garda have to obey the rules as well.

tomasrojo · 07-01-2015 8:15pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would it stop you doing that, garda have to obey the rules as well.

I think you know the answer! (Similar answer to: Why can't I remind them that I pay their salary?)

tomasrojo · 07-01-2015 8:16pm

BostonB wrote: »

Is there any data to support that collisions between motor traffic and cyclists decrease when Hi Viz is worn.

I don't think so. The blogger Bez of Beyond the Kerb was asking the same question on Twitter, but I don't think he got anything solid back.

monument · 07-01-2015 8:39pm

BostonB wrote: »

Is there any data to support that collisions between motor traffic and cyclists decrease when Hi Viz is worn.

Not unless you count a flawed study funded by the makers of a high-vis jacket, no, and there's data to suggest it has no benefits, but it indicates that the 'police'-type jackets have some effect.

Beasty · 07-01-2015 8:55pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would it stop you doing that, garda have to obey the rules as well.

Do they

Thought they could pretty much ignore all road traffic law provided they are in pursuit of their duties

Leroy42 · 07-01-2015 9:29pm

Beasty wrote: »

Do they Thought they could pretty much ignore all road traffic law provided they are in pursuit of their duties

The garda are still bound by the road traffic laws, but can't temporarily suspend this requirement should it be required in the interest of law/public safety.

They must cede to regular road users/pedestrians etc unless given permission to do so (most normal people will allow a blue light flashing vehicle take the junction first but there is no requirement in law for this). This is my understanding and happy to be corrected.

They can ignore traffic law once nobody pulls them up on it. Since the poster said he wouldn't spot them I doubt they had sirens/lights balzing and therefore were not in pursuit of their duties.

Whether you can get away with pointing all this out to a Garda is another matter entirely

CramCycle · 07-01-2015 10:38pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

They must cede to regular road users/pedestrians etc unless given permission to do so (most normal people will allow a blue light flashing vehicle take the junction first but there is no requirement in law for this). This is my understanding and happy to be corrected.

Sort of correct, a blue light is basically like a giant Please sign, asking for permission to proceed as well as asking you to please get out of the way. You can ignore it but you can also be charged with a multiple of other offences if you do as you could be costing someone there life or similar. Just because you don't know what your doing does not mean your not guilty.

In relation to Gardai as opposed to any other emergency service, they are exempt from the road traffic act while in pursuit of their duties. Which means they don't have to ask, and they don't have to follow the rules. The issue that I have seen on other threads is what the phrase in pursuit of their duties mean. Bike cops presumably use it to cycle on the pavement while on duty but many argue that it applies to active pursuit of their duties i.e. on a call out/chasing someone etc. but then they don't have to wear seat belts at any time in case it hinders a sudden call to duty. Some argue once they are on the clock they are in pursuit of their duties, I certainly wouldn't argue semantics with a Garda over it.

On my phone so will dig out the SI later

monument · 07-01-2015 11:26pm

Road Traffic Act 2004

Exemptions for emergency vehicles.

27.—Requirements under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2004 relating to vehicles and requirements, restrictions and prohibitions relating to the driving and use of vehicles, other than those provided under sections 49 and 50 (inserted by sections 10 and 11, respectively, of the Act of 1994), 51A and 52 (inserted by sections 49 and 50, respectively, of the Act of 1968) and 53 of the Principal Act and sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act of 1994, do not apply to a driver of a fire brigade vehicle, an ambulance or the use by a member of the Garda Síochána of a vehicle in the performance of the duties of that member or a person driving or using a vehicle under the direction of a member of the Garda Síochána, where such use does not endanger the safety of road users.

ROK ON · 09-01-2015 7:56pm

Have posts been deleted from this thread? There was a post from Galwaycyclists last night containing a link to an RSA publication on the RSA website. It listed how much has been spent on hi-viz and listed from whom the products had been procured.

I responded to this informative post with a question.

The original post and my question no longer seem to be here.
If they were deleted I would like to know why please? Seems to be the height of bad manners not to contact a person if deleting the post. The post in question contained factual information provided by the RSA.
In fact it was a mod that initially highlighted the locational proximity between where the RSA are based and the company where hi-viz are procured.

magicbastarder · 09-01-2015 8:28pm

have you checked that it's not been moved to a different thread?

dashcamdanny · 09-01-2015 8:38pm

monument wrote: »

Not unless you count a flawed study funded by the makers of a high-vis jacket, no, and there's data to suggest it has no benefits, but it indicates that the 'police'-type jackets have some effect.

I did not think a common sense thing would need an extensive study.

monument · 09-01-2015 9:46pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I did not think a common sense thing would need an extensive study.

Are you trying to claim that Ireland and other countries which heavily push high-vis for normal walking and cycling are good at coming to reasoned common sense?

Take just a few examples in Ireland:

A large percentage of the population and system gets caught up in massive property bubble
A notable (even if overall small) percentage of the population buy houses far away from their homes and give out about how long they have to commute
In the capital, a clearly predicted massive property shortage follows the bust after the boom and the public backlash isn't up there as one of the main backlashes against the government
Urban areas are plagued by car traffic mainly being used for trips under 7km and this causes major economic and health issues

Anyway, this article puts the argument against common sense far better than I ever could: Common Sense Is Neither Common nor Sense

When searching for the above link (which I had found before), I also found these quotes from people who were more intelligent and more wiser than I'll ever be:

“Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.”

― René Descartes

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”

― Thomas Paine

Iwannahurl · 12-01-2015 9:45pm

It didn't take a lot to convince these chickens. Puns at the ready...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spfy_uolGB8

Meanwhile, in the more complicated world of humans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I04opivmgic

RainyDay · 13-01-2015 12:07am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It didn't take a lot to convince these chickens.

Why?

Velotogo · 13-01-2015 12:25am

Saw a bloke crossing at the pedestrian lights beside St. Laurence's College near Cherrywood last Wednesday, wearing what appeared to be a completely reflective jacket. It had an almost UFO quality about it - very eerie. Google led me to this www. provizsports. com/en_fr/ (leave out the gaps, I'm a newbie).

Velotogo · 13-01-2015 12:31am

YouTube: www. youtube. com/watch?v=etEozvmdJAA (leave out the gaps and go to about 1.02 mark)

CatFromHue · 13-01-2015 3:15am

I saw a fella wearing one of them before too and yeah they really stand out!

Not massively expensive either!

Pinch Flat · 13-01-2015 8:53am

Halfords have them. You'd want to be clinically blind not to see them at night when they reflect, but then again nothing surprises me with the dullards on our roads. My own experience of 'not been seen' when hit is a 80 lumen tear light and 1/2 watt strobe. Oh and a hi vis bag cover.

Lumen · 13-01-2015 10:13am

Velotogo wrote: »

Saw a bloke crossing at the pedestrian lights beside St. Laurence's College near Cherrywood last Wednesday, wearing what appeared to be a completely reflective jacket. It had an almost UFO quality about it - very eerie. Google led me to this www. provizsports. com/en_fr/ (leave out the gaps, I'm a newbie).

Judging by the reviews, like most hi-vis jackets they're only useful for slow cycling as they turn into a sweat chamber if you put any effort in.

Iwannahurl · 13-01-2015 10:33am

RainyDay wrote: »

Why?

...did the chicken cross the road?

CatFromHue · 13-01-2015 1:32pm

Lumen wrote: »

Judging by the reviews, like most hi-vis jackets they're only useful for slow cycling as they turn into a sweat chamber if you put any effort in.

They do a sleeve less and a vest type version, dunno if they're sweat chambers too though.

Iwannahurl · 18-01-2015 7:38pm

RainyDay wrote: »

... The developing culture that cyclists have to 'look weird' - hi-vis and lycra and helmets and more ... We need to make cycling accessible for ordinary people wearing ordinary clothes.

Just found this report within the past hour. It's from the Transport & Health Study Group and dates back to March 2014. I don't believe it has been posted previously.

The role of bicycle sharing systems in normalising the image of cycling: An observational study of London cyclists.

Goodman et at, Journal of Transport & Health, March 2014

Bicycle sharing systems are increasingly popular around the world and have the potential to increase the visibility of people cycling in everyday clothing. This may in turn help normalise the image of cycling, and reduce perceptions that cycling is 'risky' or 'only for sporty people'.

This paper sought to compare the use of specialist cycling clothing between users of the London bicycle sharing system (LBSS) and cyclists using personal bicycles. To do this, we observed 3594 people on bicycles at 35 randomly-selected locations across central and inner London.

The 592 LBSS users were much less likely to wear helmets (16% vs. 64% among personal-bicycle cyclists), high-visibility clothes (11% vs. 35%) and sports clothes (2% vs. 25%). In total, 79% of LBSS users wore none of these types of specialist cycling clothing, as compared to only 30% of personal-bicycle cyclists. This was true of male and female LBSS cyclists alike (all p>0.25 for interaction).

We conclude that bicycle sharing systems may not only encourage cycling directly, by providing bicycles to rent, but also indirectly, by increasing the number and diversity of cycling 'role models' visible.

This paper, and its key message that cycling is a normal and healthy activity, ought to be circulated widely. Go forth and multiply.

RainyDay · 25-01-2015 10:41pm

mcgratheoin wrote: »

I think the whole point of the "Polite" bit is that it can easily be mistaken for "Police" at a glance.

Just saw the owner of the UK business that makes the Polite jackets on UK Dragons Den. Her main business is hi-vis stuff for horsey folks. She claims to have approval from the UK Assoc of Chief Police Officers for the Polite design.

Macy0161 · 25-01-2015 10:51pm

RainyDay wrote: »

Just saw the owner of the UK business that makes the Polite jackets on UK Dragons Den. Her main business is hi-vis stuff for horsey folks. She claims to have approval from the UK Assoc of Chief Police Officers for the Polite design.

Its possibly only a few motorbike riders (as it's always stillorgan, goats town, clonskeagh), but every time I've spotted bikes with these in recent weeks theyve been doing an illegal manoeuvre!

Tenzor07 · 25-01-2015 11:07pm

On a related matter, a cyclist was the fatal victim of a hit and run incident:

motorist-fined-10-000-for-driving-away-from-scene-of-fatal-incident-

Mr Fahy told the court the deceased man, who was single and lived alone, was wearing dark clothing at the time and was not wearing a high-visibility jacket.
Judge Rory McCabe said the interests of justice would not be served by imposing a custodial sentence and he imposed the maximum fine of €10,000.
He disqualified the accused for two years, taking charges of not having insurance or a driving licence at the time into account.

Pinch Flat · 26-01-2015 12:49am

Macy0161 wrote: »

Its possibly only a few motorbike riders (as it's always stillorgan, goats town, clonskeagh), but every time I've spotted bikes with these in recent weeks theyve been doing an illegal manoeuvre!

Got buzzed by them climbing the wicklow way on 3rd jan last - it was ironic that they passed so close to me and at great speed - certainly in excess of the speed limit and on frosty roads

CramCycle · 26-01-2015 8:41am

Tenzor07 wrote: »

On a related matter, a cyclist was the fatal victim of a hit and run incident:

Not wearing hi vis but the car who overtook him just before not only avoided him but seen him fly into the air in his rear view mirror.

Tenzor07 · 26-01-2015 10:38am

CramCycle wrote: »

Not wearing hi vis but the car who overtook him just before not only avoided him but seen him fly into the air in his rear view mirror.

Just another example of shifting the blame onto the victim, i.e. the reference by the prosecution lawyer about not wearing Hi-Viz..

Leroy42 · 26-01-2015 10:38am

And herein lies the problem. It seems that not wearing hi-vis is taken as an acceptable excuse for a driver not seeing you. No one seems to be questioning why the driver failed to spot a fellow road user or was driving too fast to be able to deal with a situation (I am not taking about any case in particular).

Someone mentioned previously on the thread whether there were any reliable statistics to show is the drivers had failed to spot the cyclist due to lack of attention or actually because of a fault of the cyclist.

Just seems an easy excuse for a driver to use and effectively shifts the blame, at least in part, onto the cyclist.

tomasrojo · 26-01-2015 10:53am

We can be fairly sure he was wearing a helmet though, since it isn't mentioned.

(Even more popular implicit victim-blaming strategy.)

Doctor Bob · 26-01-2015 11:40am

And to add insult to injury (well, to death, in fact), the deceased isn't even tagged in the article, unlike the judge, the defendant, the Guards, two separate courts, a city, a country and the journalist herself:

Macy0161 · 26-01-2015 11:54am

Even ignoring the point about Hi Vis, why was the prosecution trying to make a mitigating point in the court?

NS77 · 26-01-2015 12:06pm

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Just another example of shifting the blame onto the victim, i.e. the reference by the prosecution lawyer about not wearing Hi-Viz..

Surprising then that one rarely hears of daytime car accidents where one or both parties did not have their dipped headlights on.... :rolleyes:

26-01-2015 12:49pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

And herein lies the problem. It seems that not wearing hi-vis is taken as an acceptable excuse for a driver not seeing you. No one seems to be questioning why the driver failed to spot a fellow road user or was driving too fast to be able to deal with a situation (I am not taking about any case in particular).

Someone mentioned previously on the thread whether there were any reliable statistics to show is the drivers had failed to spot the cyclist due to lack of attention or actually because of a fault of the cyclist.

Just seems an easy excuse for a driver to use and effectively shifts the blame, at least in part, onto the cyclist.

Even more idiotic it's not dark at half past 8 in late April. So what is the significance of dark clothing or hi-vis?

dashcamdanny · 26-01-2015 3:45pm

Without knowing exactly what happened its hard to say if it was the cause or not.

Im sure if the judge ruled on it, then the drivers solicitor must have had compelling evidence to say that it may have at least been a factor.

tomasrojo · 26-01-2015 4:21pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Without knowing exactly what happened its hard to say if it was the cause or not.

Im sure if the judge ruled on it, then the drivers solicitor must have had compelling evidence to say that it may have at least been a factor.

I think the use of hiviz is usually brought up to reduce damages on the grounds of contributory negligence.

The logic is something like: would the cyclist have been more conspicuous had he been wearing hiviz? Surely yes. Therefore the cyclist could have done more to avoid the collision.

The question that is missed very often is whether conspicuity actually mattered. Part of the reason for this emphasis on visibility is that the authorities have been very credulous in taking at face value claims by motorists involved in fatal collisions with cyclists that they simply couldn't see the cyclist.

galwaycyclist · 26-01-2015 6:29pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Even more idiotic it's not dark at half past 8 in late April. So what is the significance of dark clothing or hi-vis?

Correct, if I have it right, the incident happened about 20min before sunset. It is also relevant that the crash happened on an urban road with street lighting - there is also a pedestrian crossing near the site of the collision.

Edit: Also the sun would have been going down at 290 degrees (so 20 degrees north of west). At this place, the Gort road runs south of west at about 250-260 degrees possibly more.

dashcamdanny · 26-01-2015 9:10pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the use of hiviz is usually brought up to reduce damages on the grounds of contributory negligence.

The logic is something like: would the cyclist have been more conspicuous had he been wearing hiviz? Surely yes. Therefore the cyclist could have done more to avoid the collision.

The question that is missed very often is whether conspicuity actually mattered. Part of the reason for this emphasis on visibility is that the authorities have been very credulous in taking at face value claims by motorists involved in fatal collisions with cyclists that they simply couldn't see the cyclist.

The issue of contributory negligence is the real big question. And the real big issue for everyone here.
I would be pro hi viz for cyclist . Even if it means that it be made mandatory.

I ride motorcycles as well as bicycles and the issue of be seen is equally important on both disciplines as we are equally as vulnerable .
In Fact the lack of thick cowhide leather and high spec helmets would make the cyclist the most vulnerable. By far...
Yet it is now mandatory for motorcyclists to wear hi vis. And they have powerful headlights and taillights as well.

A cyclist can ride around in the pitch dark with a flashing led 3v light and no high vis and pretend they are shining beacons of light to be seen for miles .

Therefore I believe an aspect of contributory negligence should be included in bicycle accidents. One has to make the effort to be seen . Its not fair on other road users if they turn a blind eye.

Iwannahurl · 26-01-2015 10:23pm

There's another issue I have become acutely aware of in recent months, and which is at least indirectly related to hivisteria.

Motorists are required by law to

stop at red lights
yield to pedestrians on zebra crossings
stop for School Traffic Wardens

School Traffic Wardens and their paraphernalia are among the most conspicuous things you'll see on Irish roads. They're dressed head to toe in hi-vis, and they carry a large brightly painted sign.

Media,1883,en.jpg

All of this ensures the safety of children walking to and from school, right?

It ensures that motorists exercise more than usual care and attention, right?

It guarantees that motorists slow down and stop to let children cross, right?

Wrong. Not a bit of it.

Turns out that, in Galway at least, School Traffic Wardens are located on or near pelican and zebra crossings, because of the number of motorists who fail to stop. Not only that, but in some cases the warden can only cover one half of a staggered signalised crossing, and children are left to take their chances crossing the other lane(s). Not only that, but every day the Wardens witness motorists who fail to stop, while they are walking out onto the road, or actually standing in it holding their sign, with kids lined up on the pavement waiting to cross.

Anyone who believes that hi-vis has significant preventive powers in road safety, compared to, say, engineering and enforcement, is at best naive. Evidence-wise, it's about on a par with blessing the roads.

In my opinion, the farcical (and dangerous) situation with regard to School Traffic Wardens demonstrates that much road safety policy in this country is based on blame-the-victim ideology and a penny-pinching tokenistic approach to the creation of a safer environment for people who travel by means other than the private car.

tomasrojo · 26-01-2015 11:03pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

In Fact the lack of thick cowhide leather and high spec helmets would make the cyclist the most vulnerable. By far...

The two most common metnods of measuring vulnerability (or at least probability of death or serious injury) is "Killed or Seriously Injured" persons per hours of activity and KSIs per distance travelled (usually measured per 100 million km, or something like that). By either metric, motorcycling is clearly the most dangerous mode of transport. Cycling is about the same as walking: a bit safer when measured on the basis of distance travelled, a bit less safe on the basis of hours of activity.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Yet it is now mandatory for motorcyclists to wear hi vis. And they have powerful headlights and taillights as well.

When did that happen? I know something along those lines (or interpreted along those lines by motorcycling groups) was mooted at European level. I hadn't heard anything about any laws. I am a bit out of the loop these days though.

Unless you mean the 'L' tabard?

dashcamdanny wrote: »

A cyclist can ride around in the pitch dark with a flashing led 3v light and no high vis and pretend they are shining beacons of light to be seen for miles .

Actually you can be seen from more than a km away at night with the best lights. The users of the high-end lights here could enlighten me as to from how far away they are effective. There isn't much practical application in being seen from further away in urban areas in particular, with lower general speeds; that's a very comfortable margin for a motorist of any competence to react.

Besides, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the few studies published show no measurable direct benefit of hiviz in lowering KSIs.

dashcamdanny · 26-01-2015 11:51pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

The two most common metnods of measuring vulnerability (or at least probability of death or serious injury) is "Killed or Seriously Injured" persons per hours of activity and KSIs per distance travelled (usually measured per 100 million km, or something like that). By either metric, motorcycling is clearly the most dangerous mode of transport. Cycling is about the same as walking: a bit safer when measured on the basis of distance travelled, a bit less safe on the basis of hours of activity.

When did that happen? I know something along those lines (or interpreted along those lines by motorcycling groups) was mooted at European level. I hadn't heard anything about any laws. I am a bit out of the loop these days though.

Unless you mean the 'L' tabard?

Actually you can be seen from more than a km away at night with the best lights. The users of the high-end lights here could enlighten me as to from how far away they are effective. There isn't much practical application in being seen from further away in urban areas in particular, with lower general speeds; that's a very comfortable margin for a motorist of any competence to react.

Besides, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the few studies published show no measurable direct benefit of hiviz in lowering KSIs.

Ok. your bike is not a motorbike. But the effects of getting a slap in traffic is going to be worse for cyclist. All the stats and KSIs? does not change that.

To be clear Irish motorcycle riders are already subject to mandatory high visibility clothing. The only reason you haven't noticed is that wearing the L tabard applies only to L riders . By the looks of it. Europe will be looking for it to cover all motorcyclist. Sooner rather than later.

As for LED. I must be going blind, but I can see headlights from cars and motorbikes in day light and dust. I cant see many of these spaces age LEDs you speak of. I am being a little sarcastic there, I do apologise, but a hivis can be got for free from the RSA and I would not let my kid ride out on his bike without one. I would not value your life as a fellow cyclist any less. And I just heard on TV on crime call right now. Cyclist and pedestrian deaths are on the up.

I am lit up like a christmas tree when cycling to work. I would not ride in black. That would be silly.

CramCycle · 27-01-2015 12:24am

tomasrojo wrote: »

When did that happen? I know something along those lines (or interpreted along those lines by motorcycling groups) was mooted at European level. I hadn't heard anything about any laws. I am a bit out of the loop these days though.

I knew the RSA were pushing for it but had no idea it had happened. It was in their sites to push for legislation by 2014.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Ok. your bike is not a motorbike. But the effects of getting a slap in traffic is going to be worse for cyclist. All the stats and KSIs? does not change that.

It would indicate you are more likely to get into a serious accident

To be clear Irish motorcycle riders are already subject to mandatory high visibility clothing. The only reason you haven't noticed is that wearing the L tabard applies only to L riders . By the looks of it. Europe will be looking for it to cover all motorcyclist. Sooner rather than later.

So is it a legal requirement or not? I see plenty of motorcyclists without hi vis, the daytime running lights are more than satisfactory. If another motorist cannot see them then they will not see the hi vis.

As for LED. I must be going blind, but I can see headlights from cars and motorbikes in day light and dust. I cant see many of these spaces age LEDs you speak of. I am being a little sarcastic there, I do apologise, but a hivis can be got for free from the RSA and I would not let my kid ride out on his bike without one. I would not value your life as a fellow cyclist any less. And I just heard on TV on crime call right now. Cyclist and pedestrian deaths are on the up.

I do, mine are up there with a cars headlights only mine are shaped to be seen and light the road so don't blind people.

I am lit up like a christmas tree when cycling to work. I would not ride in black. That would be silly.

That's your choice, I wear black. I am more visible than the majority of hi vis wearers. The problem is that many of these hi vis wearers think their hi vis jacket is a suitable substitute for lights when every study and IMO common sense says it is not. It might be an aid, it might increase visibility. but on its own it is not satisfactory for a cyclist or any other road user.

If another road user cannot see any of my front lights or any of my back lights, they will never see my hi vis, you may think me foolish but I think the various idiots coming out of university every night at UCD who never realise how close to being crushed they were because a motorist never seen them with their hi vis jacket on are the idiots.

Good lights and Hi-vis = smart
Good lights = smart
No lights with hi vis= Ignorant at best but being ignorant does not mean they are not behaving stupidly, and people are defined by their actions.
No lights and no Hi vis = Stupid

tomasrojo · 27-01-2015 12:31am

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Ok. your bike is not a motorbike. But the effects of getting a slap in traffic is going to be worse for cyclist. All the stats and KSIs? does not change that.

Why would the effect be worse for a cyclist? Given that you'll probably be travelling faster on a motorbike, the outcome generally would be worse. One of the main reasons motorcycling turns out to be more dangerous in the stats is because of the speed of the user -- as well as the weight of the vehicle, I assume.

If we disregard stats and KSIs all we're left with is anecdotes and hand-waving, so I'm going to continue to use stats.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

To be clear Irish motorcycle riders are already subject to mandatory high visibility clothing. The only reason you haven't noticed is that wearing the L tabard applies only to L riders . By the looks of it. Europe will be looking for it to cover all motorcyclist. Sooner rather than later.

Your statement made before and repeated here is misleading (unintentionally, I'm sure). Motorcycle riders are not subject to mandatory hiviz; learner motorcycle riders are. You wouldn't say "motorists have to display 'L' plates" and expect people to understand what you meant.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

As for LED. I must be going blind, but I can see headlights from cars and motorbikes in day light and dust.

The very good ones are relatively expensive (as in more than €20), and most cyclists use relatively weak LEDs. Partly because the RSA overemphasises hiviz, and also partly because the RSA distributes weak LEDs. The ones the RSA distribute can be bought for under €3 in Aldi (white light and red light combined for under €3). I don't recall anyone pointing out that these lights are unsuitable as a primary light, but they should have.

All the same, even LEDs of quite modest strength can be quite conspicuous, such as the dublinbike front lights, which are quite conspicous, even during the day.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

And I just heard on TV on crime call right now. Cyclist and pedestrian deaths are on the up.

Yes, we've been over the recent rise in deaths recently on this thread. There's no obvious connection to hiviz. As in: there's no obvious change in hiviz-wearing trends between 2013 (historically low cycling fatalities) and 2014 (over twice as high). Part of the reason for this rise is that we're dealing with very small numbers (2013: five, 2014: about a dozen), which makes large oscillations due to chance quite probable.

dashcamdanny · 27-01-2015 1:26am

listen lads. If ya want to ride around in traffic trying to be stylish instead of lit up . Go ahead.

I hope you are right about your predictions on the outcome.

Its your skin. Not mine.

Good lights and Hi-vis = A whole lot smarter. Possible the bit that reflects the powerful car headlight back to the source.
Good lights = smart
No lights with hi vis= Ignorant at best but being ignorant does not mean they are not behaving stupidly, and people are defined by their actions.
No lights and no Hi vis = very Stupid

monument · 27-01-2015 9:34am

dashcamdanny wrote: »

listen lads. If ya want to ride around in traffic trying to be stylish instead of lit up . Go ahead.

I hope you are right about your predictions on the outcome.

Its your skin. Not mine.

Nobody is saying not to use lights??! Are they?

But, sure, listen: If you want to go around dressed up making yourself even more different than a dominant socal group who are driving 1 ton+ cars often going 50km/h+etc, many of whom already have a problem with your mode of transport and can hardly see you as another human, just a "cyclist". Fire ahead.

I hope you are right about your predictions on the outcome. It's your skin. Not mine

RainyDay · 27-01-2015 9:49am

dashcamdanny wrote: »

listen lads. If ya want to ride around in traffic trying to be stylish instead of lit up . Go ahead.

I hope you are right about your predictions on the outcome.

Its your skin. Not mine.

This approach is one of the main reasons why we have more secondary school girls who drive themselves to school than cycle to school. This needs to change. We are creating traffic jams and lots of future demand on our health service by bullying people out of cycling unless they look like a builder.

This is where we need to be; http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/

CramCycle · 27-01-2015 11:20am

dashcamdanny wrote: »

listen lads. If ya want to ride around in traffic trying to be stylish instead of lit up . Go ahead.

I have a lumberjack hat on to keep my ears warm, stylish is the least of my concerns.

Are you honestly telling me that if a driver can't see my front or rear lights that he will somehow notice me with a hi vis jacket if I am in an urban environment. Your reflection point makes sense in the countryside where people will drive with full beams (still need good lights, IMO better lights, to see the road and trouble ahead), but barring a few idiots with incorrectly set lights and the idiots who drive with full beams in a built up area, it doesn't really fly.

Here is my light in the countryside:

Note, not only the brightness but also the beam pattern (not up into other road users eyes). My rear lights are on par with a cars brake lights.

On the basis that a car dims when they see me, the hi vis provides nothing as there should be no incident light to reflect of it. There is no situation where I become more visible wearing a hi vis unless the other vehicle is inconsiderate (does not dim) or has their lights incorrectly set.

On the motorbike point, I don't know any motor cyclist who does not have DRLs, I thought the L tabards were for somewhere to hang the L plate. If you can't see a motorbikes lights, you are not going to see a hi vis.

Maybe it makes them more perceptible up close, but if you haven't noticed the lights below the hi vis before you get that close, you probably should not be driving. If the cyclists does not have lights at night, they should not be cycling.

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments