Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

zell12 · 17-12-2018 4:35pm

check_six wrote: »

Was I hallucinating ...

There was a Yella Vest protest in Dublin on 15th in the pouring rain, from Custom House to Dáil.

Melodeon · 17-12-2018 4:39pm

check_six wrote: »

Was I hallucinating when I heard that there was to be a "Hi-Vis Day" coming up soon as advertised on the radio? Maybe I'm just misinterpreting some call to arms for a protest movement with vague objectives?

It's probably the Usual Suspects professionally-outraged crowd trying to create an Irish version of the French Mouvement des gilets jaunes.

Now, it they were trying to create a 'Maillot Jaune' movement...

zell12 · 19-12-2018 1:52pm

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1075331887315542017

rubadub · 19-12-2018 2:04pm

zell12 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1075331887315542017

I wonder was anything said to the woman with the motorbike which was presumably uninsured, untaxed, no plates, no helmet etc. Not just a stand on scooter, had a little seat.

Noel Rock went on his in full view of 2 gardai who did nothing.

Ray Bloody Purchase · 19-12-2018 3:06pm

rubadub wrote: »

I wonder was anything said to the woman with the motorbike which was presumably uninsured, untaxed, no plates, no helmet etc. Not just a stand on scooter, had a little seat.

Noel Rock went on his in full view of 2 gardai who did nothing.
[IMGhttps://cdn-02.independent.ie/videos/article37529438.ece/f73c8/AUTOCROP/w620/3208622-1542223019481816.jpg[/IMG]

Are those scooters illegal or not? I see they are being sold in a BMS on Abbey Street.

https://www.cyclebike.ie/scooters/

rubadub · 19-12-2018 3:09pm

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

Are those scooters illegal or not? I see they are being sold in a BMS on Abbey Street.

https://www.cyclebike.ie/scooters/

illegal to use on a public road AFAIK, though some like to make out like its a grey area. Totally legal to sell, you could be using them on private land.

The garda had a tweet before about doing someone on one very similar to that pictured.

DMR Traffic Electric mechanically propelled scooter stopped on public road No Insurance/Licence Scooter seized & prosecution to follow

https://twitter.com/gardatraffic/status/890477022245519361?lang=en

here is a bicycle with petrol tank
https://twitter.com/gardatraffic/status/897540601788420096

Ray Bloody Purchase · 19-12-2018 3:14pm

rubadub wrote: »

illegal to use on a public road AFAIK, though some like to make out like its a grey area. Totally legal to sell, you could be using them on private land.

The garda had a tweet before about doing someone on one very similar to that pictured.

Cheers, i see a lot of them on my daily commute now. They're silent and can fairly zip along.

It's a bit disconcerting to be pedaling up the bridge at Harolds Cross on the way out of town and some silent raider zooms up outside you on one of those things.

Macy0161 · 19-12-2018 4:07pm

check_six wrote: »

Was I hallucinating when I heard that there was to be a "Hi-Vis Day" coming up soon as advertised on the radio? Maybe I'm just misinterpreting some call to arms for a protest movement with vague objectives?

Heard the ad today from the RSA - National Be Safe Be Seen Day, which is this Friday. The advert encourages wearing a hi-hiz arm band "in solidarity" FFS....

Mickiemcfist · 19-12-2018 4:14pm

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

Cheers, i see a lot of them on my daily commute now. They're silent and can fairly zip along.

It's a bit disconcerting to be pedaling up the bridge at Harolds Cross on the way out of town and some silent raider zooms up outside you on one of those things.

Me too, it's fairly humiliating when they whizz past you as you're on an uphill section!

check_six · 19-12-2018 5:22pm

Macy0161 wrote: »

Heard the ad today from the RSA - National Be Safe Be Seen Day, which is this Friday. The advert encourages wearing a hi-hiz arm band "in solidarity" FFS....

Aha! My initial hallucination is starting to spread. Everyone will be hearing it all the time shortly. Bit like St. Vitus Dancing Plague!

Could I fashion a counter armband in time? Not black, but maybe camouflage pattern? (Yes, I will still be running my bright lights, in case anyone asks).

AndrewJRenko · 19-12-2018 6:30pm

check_six wrote: »

Macy0161 wrote: »

Heard the ad today from the RSA - National Be Safe Be Seen Day, which is this Friday. The advert encourages wearing a hi-hiz arm band "in solidarity" FFS....

Could I fashion a counter armband in time? Not black, but maybe camouflage pattern? (Yes, I will still be running my bright lights, in case anyone asks).

I tried that last year but no one noticed

Thinkingaboutit · 20-12-2018 10:13am

check_six wrote: »

Was I hallucinating when I heard that there was to be a "Hi-Vis Day" coming up soon as advertised on the radio? Maybe I'm just misinterpreting some call to arms for a protest movement with vague objectives?

So maybe all those RSA yellow jackets could overthrow the state (á la gillet jaune), and maybe get more considered cycle lane design, or a non spoofer as Minister for Transport. The RSA created a monster. :pac:

Macy0161 · 22-12-2018 4:01pm

Would've been spotted had they had lights...

https://road.cc/content/news/253705-gatwick-drone-suspects-hid-plain-sight-riding-bikes-and-wearing-hi-vis

tomasrojo · 22-12-2018 4:09pm

https://twitter.com/nigreenways/status/1076492763510784000

(Ok, not hiviz)

FreudianSlippers · 22-12-2018 4:41pm

rubadub wrote: »

illegal to use on a public road AFAIK, though some like to make out like its a grey area. Totally legal to sell, you could be using them on private land.

Correct , see Road Traffic Act 1961, section 3:

“mechanically propelled vehicle” means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—

(a) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,

(b) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical,

Clearly the Act is probably out of date and likely doesn't realistically envision electric bicycles and scooters (the latter of which I think, personally, are so dumb) and should be updated to allow for their use on public roads but require the usual safety equipment that would be expected.

I'm not sure about insurance? Seems a slippery slope - would we then logically suggest that cyclists should have a licence / insurance?

Water John · 22-12-2018 5:52pm

Seems to be a real problem in The Netherlands too with all these various modes of transport on the cycleways.

Hurrache · 23-12-2018 10:11am

Obligatory I'm surprised they saw them to stop them comment
https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1076189573116514304?s=19

zell12 · 23-12-2018 12:11pm

Garda join in Dublin yellow vest protest yesterday :pac:
pedestrians and wheelchairs in the bike lane etc etc
BBRiP1U.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=568&y=342

BBRiP1U.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=568&y=342

tomasrojo · 24-12-2018 6:07pm

https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/1077206568192622592

Grassey · 07-01-2019 3:36pm

garda prevents disaster after arson attack at petrol station in Cork

The arsonist was cycling a bike, wearing a hi-vis jacket and white clothing.

Guess he went full camo for this :rolleyes:

conkennedy · 07-01-2019 8:11pm

Grassey wrote: »

garda prevents disaster after arson attack at petrol station in Cork

"around 15 minutes later, a garda rushed to the scene"

Must be a new definition of the meaning of 'rushed'

CramCycle · 07-01-2019 11:34pm

conkennedy wrote: »

"around 15 minutes later, a garda rushed to the scene"

Must be a new definition of the meaning of 'rushed'

I also understood it was pure luck he was passing and spotted it.

07Lapierre · 08-01-2019 9:30am

More hi viz madness! Do we really need kids wearing hi viz while sitting INSIDE a black cargo bike?

https://twitter.com/alan_downtown/status/1082217273660768256?s=21

conkennedy · 08-01-2019 11:12am

CramCycle wrote: »

I also understood it was pure luck he was passing and spotted it.

Absolutely, it was just a pure coincidence he was passing by

site_owner · 08-01-2019 1:36pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

More hi viz madness! Do we really need kids wearing hi viz while sitting INSIDE a black cargo bike?

https://twitter.com/alan_downtown/status/1082217273660768256?s=21

Why not interact with me on the tweet?

CramCycle · 08-01-2019 1:41pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

More hi viz madness! Do we really need kids wearing hi viz while sitting INSIDE a black cargo bike?

https://twitter.com/alan_downtown/status/1082217273660768256?s=21

Hardly madness, some schools ask parents to put hi vis on their kids on the walk to school, they may need it for a school trip. I think its a lovely tweet, and hi vis is not the thing to be picking on. Seen other pics on the tweets of that tweeter and they don't have HI Vis so hardly a big issue.

07Lapierre · 08-01-2019 2:06pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Hardly madness, some schools ask parents to put hi vis on their kids on the walk to school, they may need it for a school trip. I think its a lovely tweet, and hi vis is not the thing to be picking on. Seen other pics on the tweets of that tweeter and they don't have HI Vis so hardly a big issue.

Maybe but unless the kids are going for a walk along the M50 motorway, i think Hi-viz is a bit OTT. I guess it does make it easier to count the kids if there are a lot of them.

CramCycle · 08-01-2019 2:11pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Maybe but unless the kids are going for a walk along the M50 motorway, i think Hi-viz is a bit OTT. I guess it does make it easier to count the kids if there are a lot of them.

My point was that it may have nothing to do with the tweeter. I disagree with Hi Vis for school trips as most schools use it. My daughters school used Pink Baseball caps, which was very effective. It is OTT if the tweeter put them on for the trip but on the same note, that's the parents choice, I am just happy to see some more families out enjoying sustainable commuting, so long as they don't give out when I don't do it, i really don't care.

07Lapierre · 08-01-2019 2:20pm

CramCycle wrote: »

My point was that it may have nothing to do with the tweeter. I disagree with Hi Vis for school trips as most schools use it. My daughters school used Pink Baseball caps, which was very effective. It is OTT if the tweeter put them on for the trip but on the same note, that's the parents choice, I am just happy to see some more families out enjoying sustainable commuting, so long as they don't give out when I don't do it, i really don't care.

Fair enough... guess I’m overly sensitive to hi vis on kids! I find it very annoying.

07Lapierre · 08-01-2019 2:21pm

site_owner wrote: »

Why not interact with me on the tweet?

I did, but my Twitter account was set to “Private” . I’ve changed it now.

site_owner · 08-01-2019 2:26pm

this is a weird experience, ireland is a small place...

my opinion on hi-vis
dont like it, dont care for it
i am, however, big on reflective gear and low and behold RSA hi-viz jackets are handy for the reflective stripes and that the kids will wear these jackets if i ask them to.
why do they wear it? all their friends have them i guess, all the schools put them on kids when they go out for walks etc. but they certainly wont wear sam brown belts or anything else reflective so everyones generally happy

why are they wearing it in this photo?
its early january, theyve been out on their scooters since 7.45am, its 8.15 in that photo and its only bright due to the camera taking good night time shots, its dark enough that i needed a torch to help a neighbor jump his car. i like the kids to have reflective gear when scooting, they have front lights but no where to mount a rear light.

why are they still wearing it in the cargo bike?
they refused to take them off, we were getting late and i didnt care as long as they were happy to go

how many times have they wore hi-viz on the cargo bike, trailer, bike seat?
i would estimate this is the first

did they wear hi-viz today?
not a hope, i could barely get regular coats on them

CramCycle · 08-01-2019 2:31pm

site_owner wrote: »

Why not interact with me on the tweet?

Only copped it is you, also had a quick skim and they aren't wearing Hi Vis in the other photos, so doesn't seem like its the norm, but even if it was, your the parent, that's your choice.

site_owner · 08-01-2019 2:34pm

anyone looking might also find some photos of me wearing an RSA hi-viz too. theres a nice freeze frame of me almost going under a bus...

i ahve 2 main reasons for wearing them
1) the reflective strips, not the yellow. i prefer a sam browne style, but the material on the free ones is uncomfotable so i'll often just go with the free RSA one
2) its one less thing to get shouted abuse at "wheres your f*cking hi viz" although its now going full circle with "hi viz w*nker" being the new one. also means i dont have to stop at the new garda checkpoints that keep springing up

tomasrojo · 08-01-2019 11:38pm

The kids in my daughters' school were pretty stoked to get their RSA hi-viz on National whatever-day-it-was a few months back. I think kids like that kind of thing.

AndrewJRenko · 08-01-2019 11:40pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Hardly madness, some schools ask parents to put hi vis on their kids on the walk to school,

That's the madness though, isn't it? I've heard the primary school on Harolds Cross Road does this. Pure madness.

tomasrojo · 08-01-2019 11:42pm

CramCycle wrote: »

It is OTT if the tweeter put them on for the trip but on the same note, that's the parents choice, I am just happy to see some more families out enjoying sustainable commuting, so long as they don't give out when I don't do it, i really don't care.

Reminds me that on my way home through the city centre on the cargo bike before Christmas, a seemingly cheery fellow on a bike pulled up alongside me, hail-fellowed me in an accent I can't identify, and then said: "I'm sorry, I just don't think those bikes are safe for children". They weren't even in the bike at the time. So I invited him to mind his own business.

site_owner · 09-01-2019 1:21am

tomasrojo wrote: »

Reminds me that on my way home through the city centre on the cargo bike before Christmas, a seemingly cheery fellow on a bike pulled up alongside me, hail-fellowed me in an accent I can't identify, and then said: "I'm sorry, I just don't think those bikes are safe for children". They weren't even in the bike at the time. So I invited him to mind his own business.

when i had my first on a bike seat i got chased down by another cyclist to tell me to be a real parent and stop putting my kids in danger because we cycled on the road.
when i put them into a trailer i got told they weren't safe there, to stop taking such stupid risks. i think one person even wrote that they would be sad the day they read our obituary because i didn't listen to them.

now in the cargo bike, its been about 4 weeks, i think 650km covered, and nobody has said anything yet, but i'm sure its coming.

they are the minority, most people smile or wave or randomly say hello or ask me where they can get one.

09-01-2019 2:06am

Mine kicked off in her first year at big school last year on nearly the first day when they tried make her wear a yellow builders vest on a walk to the church like the rest of the kids. The teacher considered her pink vest she wears in the child seat and on her own bike to be invalid. 20 minute conversion on the phone about hi-vis later and I'm sure teacher still calling me an arsshole but Lily is pink in a sea of yellow to this day

Only reason she has one at all is she learned to cycle during a Grio and we played Giro out back with a pink vest and now she likes to wear it any time on the bike so I f'd up there now didn't I.

magicbastarder · 09-01-2019 10:38am

spotted on twitter:

Scarborough Police say thieves may be wearing hi-vis gear to blend in

HIGH-visibility gear could be the new way for thieves to blend into the crowd said Scarborough Police senior Sergeant Glenn Dowding.
Sgt Dowding said there had been an increasing trend of thefts committed by people wearing high-vis clothing.
“It is quite surprising, hi-vis work clothing has become a new way to blend in,” he said.

https://www.communitynews.com.au/stirling-times/news/scarborough-police-say-thieves-may-be-wearing-hi-vis-gear-to-blend-in/

CramCycle · 09-01-2019 10:41am

magicbastarder wrote: »

spotted on twitter:

Scarborough Police say thieves may be wearing hi-vis gear to blend in

https://www.communitynews.com.au/stirling-times/news/scarborough-police-say-thieves-may-be-wearing-hi-vis-gear-to-blend-in/

Similar story posted here where a posters partner had their bike nicked by someone in a Hi Vis jacket and a bike helmet, ot blend in as they entered the area the bikes were locked up.

Hurrache · 09-01-2019 10:42am

magicbastarder wrote: »

spotted on twitter:

Scarborough Police say thieves may be wearing hi-vis gear to blend in

https://www.communitynews.com.au/stirling-times/news/scarborough-police-say-thieves-may-be-wearing-hi-vis-gear-to-blend-in/

Don't think it can be classed as a new way to blend in, it's a common enough method in Ireland anyway.

magicbastarder · 09-01-2019 10:45am

i know a chap (a locksmith) who has plenty of stories about not beinq questioned while wearing hi-vis.
he once had to drill out the lock on a front door on landsdowne road for a client, on a day there was an international on (it was an emergency) and despite the place being lousy with gardai, no one said boo to him.

Macy0161 · 09-01-2019 10:46am

We're nearly at Operation Transformation time, with loads of walks around GAA Pitches and Parks, with mandatory Hi Viz...

CramCycle · 09-01-2019 10:47am

Hurrache wrote: »

Don't think it can be classed as a new way to blend in, it's a common enough method in Ireland anyway.

Also forgot about the bike thefts beside the Car Park in Dundrum (across from the taxi rank). For ages a white van was rocking up at random times, two lads in Hi Vis were hopping out and cutting bike locks on anything not on the sheffield stands and piling them into their van. Gardai were saying the big issue is no one was ringing them at the time, everyone who was not a cyclist presumed they were council workers.

rubadub · 09-01-2019 6:06pm

TheChizler wrote: »

The torch thing might be a law actually, at least it's in the rules of the road (is there a real law behind it? Maybe it's the RSA making up things again).

It is not a law. In the RoTR they use the word "must" and "should", and "must" refers to laws, "should" is their own recommendations.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf

This book uses a ‘how to’ approach and covers many of the manoeuvres
identified as factors in road crashes. It uses three methods to set out clearly and
concisely how the law applies to all road users.
It uses must and must not to draw attention to behaviour the law clearly
demands or forbids.
It uses terms such as should and should not to tell you how best to act in
a situation where no legal rule is in place.

Walking beside or along a road
If there is a footpath, you must use it.
If there is no footpath, you must walk as near as possible to the righthand side of the road (facing oncoming traffic).
Do not walk more than two abreast. If the road is narrow or carries heavy
traffic, you should walk in single file.
You should always wear bright and hi-viz clothing during the day and
reflective clothing at night when walking outside built-up areas.
You should always carry a torch when walking at night time.
You should always be aware of other road users.

xckjoo · 09-01-2019 6:18pm

Duffryman wrote: »

I simply don't understand your attitude. To me, it smacks of refusing to take responsibility for your own safety.

What's wrong with asking somebody who's walking at night on a country road with no footpaths and no street lights to wear a high-vis vest?

Remember there's no legal requirement to carry a torch in such circumstances either. Suppose there was a proposal about this instead. How would you feel about that one?

What annoys me about the High Viz push is that it's treated like they're protection from a speeding car, instead of the minor visual aid they are. The primary personal responsibility should lie with the person controlling the car and all this recent High Viz talk is being used to obfuscate that responsibility. It also fosters the mindset that you can drive faster and with less care because you'll see everyone from miles away (untrue).

Duffryman · 09-01-2019 6:48pm

Too many replies to my point about pedestrians and high-vis on unlit country roads to quote any one of them in a reply here.

I'm talking about this from the point of view of somebody who lives on a typical rural road - no lights, no footpaths, and about 4 metres wide in most places, so you're definitely slowing down and probably going onto the grass verge too, every single time you meet another vehicle.

I know from regular personal experience that if somebody is walking that road, I'll see them from a long distance away if they're wearing high-vis. This gives me much more time to slow down to go round them, or slow down almost or completely to a halt before I reach them if another vehicle happens to be coming the other way too. Not that I'd be going at breakneck speed anyway - probably 50 to 60 km/h would be normal on our road.

However, if they're all in dark clothes, I won't see them until I'm much closer, no matter how much attention I'm paying.

So, a pedestrian who's wearing high-vis while they walk such roads helps drivers to see them earlier and have more time to react accordingly. Despite all the points that many of you are making, I still fail to see how that's a bad thing.

I'd speculate that many or most of you who question the usefulness of high vis on such roads probably live and do most or all of your driving/cycling/walking in towns or cities yourselves, under street lights, and have no real appreciation of just how dark a typical country road is.

AndrewJRenko · 09-01-2019 6:54pm

Duffryman wrote: »

I simply don't understand your attitude. To me, it smacks of refusing to take responsibility for your own safety.

What's wrong with asking somebody who's walking at night on a country road with no footpaths and no street lights to wear a high-vis vest?

Remember there's no legal requirement to carry a torch in such circumstances either. Suppose there was a proposal about this instead. How would you feel about that one?

Can we also ask all motorists to fit wide, hi-vis stripes on all sides of their cars so they are visible from all directions, regardless of whether or not lights are switched on and working?

Duffryman · 09-01-2019 7:05pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Whats wrong with asking people to drive at a speed that they see a person on an unlit road in plenty of time. Hi Vis is useless once a person dips their beams, so whenever they meet another car, or they are forgetful. Also on bends, they won't see whats around the bend but some people think ploughing round corners with high ditches at 80km an hour is OK. It isn't OK at 50km/hr, even 30km/hr is a push, as you have to be able to stop in the space that you can see ot be clear ahead.

The truth is, its probably to late to change this attitude, but the legal requirement is in all of the above scenarios, to drive slower but that's too much of an inconvenience.

Like that farmer without Hi Vis who was killed by a car driver, who said they were doing 80kmph but blamed the lack of Hi Vis, the gardas widely accepted inaccurate method of measuring speed via skid marks put the car at 50kmph. This doesn't change the fact that the car was on a slight bend, and while the pedestrian could be considered partially at fault for crossing the road with oncoming traffic, the simple fact of the matter is that, and no one like to hear this, for the road and where on the road he was driving, at that time, he should have been doing 30kmph tops. even if he had been wearing Hi Vis, and presuming it helped visibility, he still would have not had time to stop if doing the speed he claimed, evidenced by the skid mark distance. By the gardais thinking, if they honestly believe 50kmph caused a skid that long, then that was too fast but no, lets blame the guy with no Hi Vis.

I'm going to reply to elements of this one directly.

'Whats wrong with asking people to drive at a speed that they see a person on an unlit road in plenty of time?' - this is the kind of thing that leads me to believe some or all of you with this viewpoint must only rarely (if ever) travel such roads yourselves. I slow to probably 20 to 30 km/h on that road whenever I know there's a pedestrian there - and usually I know because I've seen them in the distance, thanks to their high vis. With your way, nobody could ever go more than 20 to 30 at any time, just in case some other pedestrian was up ahead without high vis or a light.

I know some people drive too fast too much of the time, but in fairness, asking everybody to slow to 20 or 30 km/h all the time is a bit much.

I don't know the case you're talking about with the farmer, but if (as somebody else said) it was on a main national route, it seems ludicrous for you to say that traffic should go no faster than 30 km/h 'tops'.

Also, if the victim did indeed attempt to cross the road in the face of oncoming traffic, then it's not that he 'COULD be considered partially at fault' - it's that he's definitely considerably at fault.

Before you start with accusations of 'victim blaming', please consider the following few things:

- Somebody driving a car does much the same thing...attempts to cross the road (let's say to take a side road), as there's traffic coming the other way. An oncoming car ploughs head first into them and kills them. Is this the oncoming driver's fault? Should they too have been going at 30 km/h 'tops', just in case? Is the victim here at least partially at fault?

- Or since you might be one of the sort who thinks all motorists bad....a cyclist does the same thing as there's a group of other cyclists coming the other direction. One of the group ploughs into him. Maybe doesn't kill him, but at least injures him. Could the cyclist who tried to cross the road in the face of oncoming other cyclists be considered partially at fault?

And finally...this 'victim blaming' accusation lark is put about too much. Fact is that sometimes, the victim IS to blame, either wholly or partially.

You drink 12 pints, decide to drive home, wrap your car around a telephone pole, and kill yourself. You're the victim, but you're to blame.

You're walking along a footpath when suddenly, for no apparent reason and with no advance signs, you step out in front of a passing lorry that rolls you into the ground. You're the victim, but you're to blame.

And here we go....you're wearing only dark clothes as you walk an unlit road at night, and you attempt to cross that road while there's somebody driving towards you. The driver would more than likely have seen you a lot earlier if you were wearing high-vis, and would already have slowed down a bit. But now he's too close by the time he sees you, and he's unable to avoid you. You're the victim.......

Duffryman · 09-01-2019 7:10pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can we also ask all motorists to fit wide, hi-vis stripes on all sides of their cars so they are visible from all directions, regardless of whether or not lights are switched on and working?

Yes we could, in certain circumstances.

The talk in general is about how high-vis makes pedestrians/cyclists easier for others to see and take appropriate avoidance action.

Cars are bigger than either pedestrians or cyclists, and also have much brighter lights than either pedestrians or cyclists use. Bigger things are easier to see, and brighter lights are easier to see. No need for those sorts of vehicles to have high-vis stripes all round.

But if you're talking about some sort of car that's no bigger than a cyclist, and whose lights are no brighter than the sort of torch a pedestrian might carry or the sort of bike light that runs off four AA batteries, then yes, those cars should have a high-vis element too.

I trust this answers your query.

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments