Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

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.

tomasrojo · 27-01-2015 11:28am

That's a good light.

Jawgap · 27-01-2015 11:30am

RainyDay wrote: »

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

Funny enough I was 'talking' - as in emailing - a colleague today about cycling. she's interested in taking it up but didn't want to get all 'lycra'ed up.'

I referred her to this site and she responded with some shock that no one was wearing helmets or hi-viz!

Iwannahurl · 27-01-2015 11:58am

dashcamdanny wrote: »

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

I saw that segment on Crime Call and I thought it was the usual motorist-centric guff.

All of the "advice" was directed at cyclists and pedestrians, including children, as if the primary source of danger was themselves. Not a word about engineering or enforcement, about speed limits, junction design, street lighting, the provision of pedestrian crossings, traffic calming or Garda presence on the streets.

And would the CrimeCall presenter be the same one who, when presenting Cycle Drivetime on RTE Radio 1 a while back accused cyclists of seeking to be "road hogs" and that the national campaigning group cyclist.ie was being "greedy" for demanding proven environmental measures such as 30 km/h zones?

Iwannahurl · 27-01-2015 12:02pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Here is my light in the countryside:

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/images/products/Lights/sch-edelux-II-800.jpg

And here's one of your batteries being delivered.

Pinch Flat · 27-01-2015 12:22pm

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.

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

Both times I was knocked off my bike from the rear I had a 0.5 watt led light mounted on my helmet (very bright strobe) and an 80 lumen flashing rear light on "day light" mode on the bike (which the manufacturer claims is visible from 1km). Both lights are extremely bright and I use these day and night, summer and winter. I also have a high vis bag cover and reflective piping on my jersey.

Both occasions the drivers claimed to not have seen me - I'm 6'2", lit light a christmas tree with hi vis and in front of them at the lights. What else can I do?

Iwannahurl · 27-01-2015 12:36pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What else can I do?

This anecdote might suggest a way forward.

I know of someone who recently decided to cycle rather than drive to work, in a country where fossil fuels rule, the car is king, traffic is mental, women are seen as lesser beings and cycling is for poor people. As she approached a roundabout, where a police officer is regularly on duty to keep traffic moving, he barked at her "where's your car?"

tomasrojo · 27-01-2015 3:01pm

A walk in the park. Idiom. An undertaking that is easy.

Is Cabinteely Park crisscrossed by high-velocity traffic or something?

(Front page of the Dundrum Gazette)

RainyDay · 27-01-2015 4:05pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

A walk in the park. Idiom. An undertaking that is easy.

Is Cabinteely Park crisscrossed by high-velocity traffic or something?

(Front page of the Dundrum Gazette)

It's a common feature of all the Operation Transformation events - masses of families and kids in hi-vis in parks all round the country. Wear sunglasses while watching.

tomasrojo · 27-01-2015 4:07pm

For the love of God, why?

Alanstrainor · 27-01-2015 4:16pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Both times I was knocked off my bike from the rear I had a 0.5 watt led light mounted on my helmet (very bright strobe) and an 80 lumen flashing rear light on "day light" mode on the bike (which the manufacturer claims is visible from 1km). Both lights are extremely bright and I use these day and night, summer and winter. I also have a high vis bag cover and reflective piping on my jersey.

Both occasions the drivers claimed to not have seen me - I'm 6'2", lit light a christmas tree with hi vis and in front of them at the lights. What else can I do?

I've never been hit from behind, but always worry about it. At the moment I have 2 bright rear lights to prevent this. And 2 up front also.

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments