Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

1…34689…58

Comments

  • #252
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Reflective bands are different, and not what most of those arguing for hi-viz expect cyclist and pedestrians to wear.

    There used to be emphasis on these too, as well as the Sam Browne. Hardly mentioned at all now. All more convenient and something you can slip out of sight when you're not on the road.


  • #253
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,175 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    CramCycle wrote: »
    On rural roads true but in cities and places where cars are meant to using their dipped lights, they are no better than any other type of clothing unless worn below the knee.
    this is what bugs me; there is a belief that hi-viz somehow only 'switches on' at night - on dull evenings, it's a lot more visible than your standard jacket, even when not caught by the beams of headlights. it's not just about light reflecting off your headlights.


  • #254
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    this is what bugs me; there is a belief that hi-viz somehow only 'switches on' at night - on dull evenings, it's a lot more visible than your standard jacket, even when not caught by the beams of headlights. it's not just about light reflecting off your headlights.
    Once the sun has gone down fully and the UV component of ambient light is essentially nil, their conspicuity is almost entirely down to reflection of headlights (can be excellent, but at limited angles of incidence; can be poor if you're off to the right of the centre line of the car) and ambient light (quite diffuse, not as good as headlights).

    But, as you say, on dull evenings, and at dusk and dawn the fluorescent material does "glow" by turning UV into visible light, and is actually quite useful.

    There are bike lights and flashlights now that are better than that useful but relatively modest effect, I would contend, but hiviz has the advantage of not requiring fresh batteries.


  • #255
    Cantona's Collars
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Beasty's post is actually about how someone carrying a flashlight was very conspicuous, rather than about hiviz. Road safety campaigns used to mention these as an option. Now it's all hiviz. I'd argue that someone swinging a flashlight is more visible than someone wearing a more-or-less static hiviz vest.

    This thread, to a large extent, is about when emphasis on hiviz is good, and when is it undue and inappropriate. The latter is especially offensive when it elides into victim blaming, or making out that pedestrians or cyclists cannot be seen on roads with good sightlines during times of good visibility.

    I mentioned using lights in my post,my point is use anything to make yourself visible.It's not ninja training school.
    Even in the middle of the day is it not better to wear something conspicuous while on the road than something that blends in with the background?A good mix is something hi-viz (and reflective) along with decent lights (we have a thread here about lights and what to buy).


  • #256
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    this is what bugs me; there is a belief that hi-viz somehow only 'switches on' at night - on dull evenings, it's a lot more visible than your standard jacket, even when not caught by the beams of headlights. it's not just about light reflecting off your headlights.

    Never thought it did. It was designed for use during the day. Having had several cyclists spring out from side roads and catch me unawares as I could not distinguish between their hi vis jacket and the black/grey abyss they sailed out from, I am confident that they don't switch on. If they had legally required lights it would have been a non issue. One time I let a roar as the guy nearly collided with me but more importantly nearly went under a car with good reactions thankfully. To which he politely told me to F off he had high vis. On my bike or in my car I generally see unlit cyclists in good time, but in the few situations that I don't, rare as they are, I see some of the time they have hi vis and sometimes they don't.

    There are situations where hi vis does what people think it does its job for cyclists, there are alot of times it comes nowhere near doing what some people would have you believe. In all of these cases, in my opinion, lights would have done that job.

    I have nothing against hi vis, I despise it's constant advertisement by some as a suitable substitute.

    I have reflective trouser clips for when I am in work/casual clothes, does not mean I would ride my bike without my lights on just because they may marginally increase my visibility.


  • #257
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,137 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    zerks wrote: »
    my point is use anything to make yourself visible
    This is at the heart of the endless hiviz debate.

    One faction wants to be maximally visible. This faction is represented by segwaydorks and Spanish prostitutes.

    Image1247.jpgEls-Alamus_1746724c.jpg

    Another faction wants to be sufficiently visible. This faction is represented by Danish hotties and athletic superstars.

    img_7708.jpg

    Cycle_hire_Chris_Boardman5.jpg


  • #258
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    I think a lot of heat in this thread has been generated, but the light is not as illuminating as it should be.

    Fundamentally hi-vis materials are fluorescent, and show up brightly in daylight, sun, overcast or twilight; while reflective materials reflect light shone on them from headlights, streetlights etc.

    What are called Hi-Viz-Vests almost always have retro-reflective strips.


    but retroreflective strips only refleci "incident" light, light that has been shone on them
    If you are off axis of the light shone by cars, such as merging etc, the retroreflective aspect is not great, while at night the fluorescent part is useless.

    what is very useful is bright lights. You literally cannot have a bright enough red light. Also retro-reflective strips on your calves, feet and shins ( any where below the knees) are really good because they move lots and are more easilier seen


  • #259
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    zerks wrote: »
    When I was young it was drummed into me,when on the road always be visible to motorists,I always had lights on the bike and wore reflectors.I lived in the country with zero street lighting,you were taking your life into your hands being on the roads especially in Winter without wearing something to make yourself more visible.

    It's not a fetish to keep yourself as safe as possible on the roads either walking,running or cycling-it's common sense.

    As per Beasty's last post,I had a similar incident before Xmas,driving to work on the edge of dark in bad fog when a woman walking appeared feet in front of me wearing clothes that the Rangers would be proud of as she blended in perfectly with the ditch,200 m on,I met another walker wearing one of the RSA vests,still hard to see with the fog but I spotted her from plenty of distance.
    I can't understand why some posters here seem to be railing against a measure to keep themselves safe while out on the nations roads.FFS,even Penneys sell reflective bands with LED's for about €3.

    I don't have anything against hi-vis as such. My winter jacket is hi-vis.

    So here's what I have something against. I have something against
    • The idea that hi-vis is more important or more preferable than lights. Lights are a legal requirement, and work from pretty much every direction in every lighting condition. Lights first, hi-vis second.
    • The developing culture that cyclists HAVE to wear hi-vis to be seen as responsible cyclists. It has come up in court cases. I had a driver whinge at me last summer on a bright summer's evening while I'm wearing a bright red jersey that I didn't have hi-vis.
    • The over-emphasis by RSA and Gardai on the importance of hi-vis, despite the remarkable absense of hi-vis as an issue in cyclist fatality reports. It's an easy thing for RSA, and avoids having to face up to the more thorny issue of driver behaviour.
    • The developing culture that cyclists have to 'look weird' - hi-vis and lycra and helmets and more. This is a big part of the reason why more teenage girls drive themselves to school than cycle to school. We need to make cycling accessible for ordinary people wearing ordinary clothes.


  • #260
    John_C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    The government should pass a law making both lights and reflectors mandatory at night. Surely that would be the best of both worlds?


  • #261
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    John_C wrote: »
    The government should pass a law making both lights and reflectors mandatory at night. Surely that would be the best of both worlds?

    Or they should just provide for FPNs so they the current adequate legislation is easily enforceable and not seen as a waste of Garda time and resources through court appearances.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,137 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    John_C wrote: »
    The government should pass a law making both lights and reflectors mandatory at night. Surely that would be the best of both worlds?
    They are already.


  • #263
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    RainyDay wrote: »
    • The developing culture that cyclists have to 'look weird' - hi-vis and lycra and helmets and more. This is a big part of the reason why more teenage girls drive themselves to school than cycle to school. We need to make cycling accessible for ordinary people wearing ordinary clothes.

    I was thinking about this recently, and wondering whether the normalisation of hiviz and helmets can get to the point where people who aren't all that keen on cycling start thinking they don't look all that bad. Already the normalisation has got to the point that nobody takes a second look at cyclists wearing them.

    I reckon it can't go that much further (although, as has come up here, pedestrians are also targeted, sometimes even in cities). Two things people universally find comical or ugly seem to be garishness and disproportion, especially combined, and these are the two things that current standard safety devices impose on cyclists.

    It's arguable and certainly argued that these are prices worth paying, but I do suspect that you're thereby limiting cycling to those who are very keen on it, or those who aren't too concerned with how they appear. Even combined, that isn't a lot of the population.


  • #264
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/31/eurpub.cku117

    http://victorianmotorcyclecouncil.org.au/uploads/INFO/Prof%20Huggins%20Hi%20Viz%20Letter%2006%202014.pdf


  • #265
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    RainyDay wrote: »
    We need to make cycling accessible for ordinary people wearing ordinary clothes.

    A million times this!


  • #266
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/31/eurpub.cku117

    http://victorianmotorcyclecouncil.org.au/uploads/INFO/Prof%20Huggins%20Hi%20Viz%20Letter%2006%202014.pdf
    From the second link:
    It appears the problem has arisen as "Researchers have tended to take at face value drivers' claims to accident investigators that they failed to see a motorcyclist or cyclist. Correspondingly the solution to the problem has been thought to be to make the motorcyclist or cyclist as physically conspicuous as possible..."

    I have thought this for years. It's really obvious that most people who weren't looking where they were going, were going way too fast or were even buzzing a cyclist with a punishment pass or prank pass would claim in the event of it going horribly wrong that they simply couldn't see the cyclist. To admit the truth would be to risk going to jail or losing their licence. To assume that all or the vast majority of such claims are true shows incredible gullibility. But it's quite convenient when you're predisposed to see the minority as the problem, and here we are.


  • #267
    John_C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    I have thought this for years. It's really obvious that most people who weren't looking where they were going, were going way too fast or were even buzzing a cyclist with a punishment pass or prank pass would claim in the event of it going horribly wrong that they simply couldn't see the cyclist. To admit the truth would be to risk going to jail or losing their licence. To assume that all or the vast majority of such claims are true shows incredible gullibility. But it's quite convenient when you're predisposed to see the minority as the problem, and here we are.

    I once read a blog post from an american police motorcyclist. Over 3 months, he recorded the number of times a motorist cut him off during his commute to and from work. During the first month he wore his usual clothes and was cut off about once per day. For the second month he wore fluorescent gear and used daytime running lights. For this month, he also got cut off about once per day. For the third month he wore his police uniform and rode his police bike. He only got cut off once that whole month.


  • #268
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,515 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    John_C wrote: »
    For the third month he wore his police uniform and rode his police bike. He only got cut off once that whole month.
    ... as the perpetrator was in the clink by day 2?:P


  • #269
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,175 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    John_C wrote: »
    I once read a blog post from an american police motorcyclist.
    i'll buy you a pint if you can dig out that link.


  • #270
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,767 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    John_C wrote: »
    I once read a blog post from an american police motorcyclist. Over 3 months, he recorded the number of times a motorist cut him off during his commute to and from work. During the first month he wore his usual clothes and was cut off about once per day. For the second month he wore fluorescent gear and used daytime running lights. For this month, he also got cut off about once per day. For the third month he wore his police uniform and rode his police bike. He only got cut off once that whole month.

    I've been knocked off my bike twice from the rear by motorists overtaking me and cutting in left in front of me, both occasions in dim / dark by motorists who claimed they didn't see me.

    'm 6'2", weigh the wrong side of 15 stone so not exactly a small object on the road. But never mind that - Let's see what I was wearing that could have further assisted the motorist:

    Jersey with reflective piping
    Hi vis bag cover
    80 lumen flashing rear light on my seat post
    1/2 watt flashing light on my helmet

    I've lost count the amount if drivers that pull out in front of my 400 lumen light. The latest one was this morning, hasda close call in Lucan as well early Sunday

    Some drivers are happy to pull out in front of cyclists - they think "ah what the hell" and gun it - you're never going to recover that 5 seconds it takes for me to pass


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    John_C wrote: »
    The government should pass a law making both lights and reflectors mandatory at night. Surely that would be the best of both worlds?

    What do you mean by 'reflectors'?

    This article http://www.herald.ie/news/rogue-cyclists-set-to-face-50-onthespot-penalties-for-breaking-red-lights-30884651.html refers to "introduction of sanctions for not having lights or not wearing appropriate safety gear that identifies cyclists in the dark.f". Is mandatory hi-vis on the way?


  • #272
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057356011


  • #273
    John_C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    RainyDay wrote: »
    What do you mean by 'reflectors'?
    The law is here. I've got something like this attached to my bike.
    The Law wrote:
    All bicycles used on public roads in Ireland must at all times display a rear reflector. A rear reflector means a red reflector that can be plainly seen for a distance of 99 meters (325 feet) to the rear when the headlights of a vehicle shine directly on it.


  • #274
    John_C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i'll buy you a pint if you can dig out that link.

    Cool, I'll try to dig it up. I remember seeing it in the bikeforums.net site if that helps.


  • #275
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    John_C wrote: »
    Originally Posted by The Law
    All bicycles used on public roads in Ireland must at all times display a rear reflector. A rear reflector means a red reflector that can be plainly seen for a distance of 99 meters (325 feet) to the rear when the headlights of a vehicle shine directly on it.

    Luckily for those who are worried, most modern LED rear lights have reflectors built into them which are equivalent to the ones provided by bicycle shops. Never tested the 99metres though.


  • #276
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    John_C wrote: »
    I once read a blog post from an american police motorcyclist. Over 3 months, he recorded the number of times a motorist cut him off during his commute to and from work. During the first month he wore his usual clothes and was cut off about once per day. For the second month he wore fluorescent gear and used daytime running lights. For this month, he also got cut off about once per day. For the third month he wore his police uniform and rode his police bike. He only got cut off once that whole month.

    I've started to see a few motor bikers wearing a hi viz vest that says POLITE in big letters and then something below it about being nice to motor bikers.

    The POLITE is written so it looks exactly like a Police jacket would, even though we've no police over here, but it makes you think Police and you slow down.

    Edit: Here's a pic
    police-officer.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    John_C wrote: »
    The law is here. I've got something like this attached to my bike.

    So they are already mandatory - no change in law required then, right?


  • #278
    John_C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    RainyDay wrote: »
    So they are already mandatory - no change in law required then, right?

    Yep, the existing laws are entirely adequate.


  • #279
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,484 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    I've started to see a few motor bikers wearing a hi viz vest that says POLITE in big letters and then something below it about being nice to motor bikers.

    The POLITE is written so it looks exactly like a Police jacket would, even though we've no police over here, but it makes you think Police and you slow down.
    The motorbike bloke I saw with one last week on the Clonskeagh Road must have thought it actually made him a cop - with the way he filtered up a mandatory cycle lane on the left!


  • #280
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    The motorbike bloke I saw with one last week on the Clonskeagh Road must have thought it actually made him a cop - with the way he filtered up a mandatory cycle lane on the left!

    Haha yeah I'd the same experience with the ones I saw. The rules of the road didn't apply to him!

    It's not the Hi Viz that catches your eye its the likeness to Police


  • #281
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    I've started to see a few motor bikers wearing a hi viz vest that says POLITE in big letters and then something below it about being nice to motor bikers.

    The POLITE is written so it looks exactly like a Police jacket would, even though we've no police over here, but it makes you think Police and you slow down.

    Edit: Here's a pic
    police-officer.jpg

    I saw a cyclist with one of these in Dublin, near the Custom House a few weeks back.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,515 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    RainyDay wrote: »
    I saw a cyclist with one of these in Dublin, near the Custom House a few weeks back.
    It's the sort of thing you often see in the UK. For example it could be a sign by the roadside in a small village - "Polite Notice - Slow Down". Doesn't quite work over here mind ...


  • #283
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,137 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Beasty wrote: »
    It's the sort of thing you often see in the UK. For example it could be a sign by the roadside in a small village - "Polite Notice - Slow Down". Doesn't quite work over here mind ...
    It's a bizarre sentence whose mangled construction I find incredibly irritating (amongst many other things mind).

    Telling someone you're being polite doesn't make it so. It's like saying "Look mate, I'm not trying to be a dick or anything but your girlfriend is a right slapper".

    "Please slow down" would be self-evidently polite, rendering the "Polite notice" bit redundant.


  • #284
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    A similar jacket could be designed for over here:

    Guarded
    traffic safety

    Not impersonating anyone but if people see something else it's not really my fault is it?


  • #285
    mcgratheoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭mcgratheoin


    Lumen wrote: »
    It's a bizarre sentence whose mangled construction I find incredibly irritating (amongst many other things mind).

    Telling someone you're being polite doesn't make it so. It's like saying "Look mate, I'm not trying to be a dick or anything but your girlfriend is a right slapper".

    "Please slow down" would be self-evidently polite, rendering the "Polite notice" bit redundant.

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


  • #286
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,137 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    mcgratheoin wrote: »
    I think the whole point of the "Polite" bit is that it can easily be mistaken for "Police" at a glance.
    That bit is just plain stupid.

    Sure, maybe we should all ride around on white hybrids and dress in fake garda costumes to keep ourselves safe?

    grumpy_no.jpg


  • #287
    mcgratheoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭mcgratheoin


    Lumen wrote: »
    That bit is just plain stupid.

    Sure, maybe we should all ride around on white hybrids and dress in fake garda costumes to keep ourselves safe?

    How to stop speeding - stand by the side of the road in hi-vis and point a hairdryer at oncoming cars....


  • #288
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    It works though.

    Both times I've seen the jackets the first thing I thought was the rider was part of the Police, yes I know we've no Police here, it was only on second glance that I realised it said Polite.


  • #289
    Melodeon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭Melodeon


    Impersonating a Garda is a specific offence:
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0020/sec0060.html


  • #290
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,175 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    wearing that jacket in ireland would not count though, as the gardai do not wear jackets which say 'police' on them.


  • #291
    Melodeon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭Melodeon


    Ah I know, and I'd suppose that the main intention of the law is directed at those who might engage in criminal activity while passing themselves off as members of an Garda Siochana, but there must be a point somewhere along the continuum of confusion for a moment at first glance / taking the piss / premeditated criminality at which the criminal justice system begins to take an active interest.
    I'm sure it'd depend on what you were doing at the time and your attitude when confronted, but I'd be shy of setting myself up as the test case for what is or isn't 'impersonating a Garda'


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,175 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i once had an amusing exchange with a motorist who had just tried to kill me on the chapelizod road, on the narrow section at the bottom of knockmaroon hill.
    she threatened the cops on me (i'd given her car an open handed slap, as she had pulled over on top of me, sandwiching me between her car and the kerb), and i was in agreement that yes, we should involve them as her driving was, well, lacking. she then shot back with 'but *I* am a garda', so i said fine, let's involve the cops and i'll tell them you claimed you were one. she floored the car and drove off at speed.


  • #293
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    John_C wrote: »
    The law is here. I've got something like this attached to my bike.

    I call shennanigans

    There is no way we'd get a law that specifies 99m as a distance.
    There is also the undefined luminosity of the car headlights, plus the fact if the're yellow instead of white, there will be much less red light to reflect.

    Find a SI or Act to quote as "the law"


  • #294
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,095 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    I call shennanigans

    There is no way we'd get a law that specifies 99m as a distance.
    There is also the undefined luminosity of the car headlights, plus the fact if the're yellow instead of white, there will be much less red light to reflect.

    Find a SI or Act to quote as "the law"

    That's why it says 325 feet after it.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html
    (6) Every obligatory rear reflector shall be so constructed, fitted and maintained as to be plainly visible at night time in clear weather for a distance of 325 feet when illuminated by the head lamps of a mechanically propelled vehicle directly behind.

    edit: quoted wrong part. I'm not sure if this part still refers to bicycles...


  • #295
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,175 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    but the problem is how bright the reflector appears is also very much dependent on how bright the light shining on it is, as well as its own own native reflectivity. so specifying a distance from which it must be visible is a very vague benchmark.

    unless the person who drew up the text on the citizens information page got the law arseways - the measure quoted for reflectors in the CI article seems to be pulled from the measure quoted for lights in the statute book.


  • #296
    cdaly_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    buffalo wrote: »
    That's why it says 325 feet after it.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html#zzsi189y1963a26

    the distance of 325 feet is interesting. 330 feet is 1/16 of a mile or 1/2 of a furlong and would seem to be a better choice for the statute book of the time.
    I wonder was there a 100m value in some european statute which translated to 328 feet and it was decided to round this down rather than up as to round it up could have eliminated some hypothetical european legal vehicle from being legal here for the sake of 2 feet of lamp range.


  • #297
    cdaly_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    but the problem is how bright the reflector appears is also very much dependent on how bright the light shining on it is, as well as its own own native reflectivity. so specifying a distance from which it must be visible is a very vague benchmark.
    However, it also specifies the size and shape of the reflector and requires that a headlamp be powerfull enough to reach the reflector.
    unless the person who drew up the text on the citizens information page got the law arseways - the measure quoted for reflectors in the CI article seems to be pulled from the measure quoted for lights in the statute book.

    The statute book separately specifies 325 feet for both range of a headlamp (though not for a bicycle headlamp) and for visibility of a rear reflector. Presumably it is trying to say that your reflector should become visible once it comes within the prescribed range for a headlamp.


  • #298
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    cdaly_ wrote: »
    the distance of 325 feet is interesting. 330 feet is 1/16 of a mile or 1/2 of a furlong and would seem to be a better choice for the statute book of the time.
    I wonder was there a 100m value in some european statute which translated to 328 feet and it was decided to round this down rather than up as to round it up could have eliminated some hypothetical european legal vehicle from being legal here for the sake of 2 feet of lamp range.

    There wouldn't have been any European statute in 1963...


  • #299
    cdaly_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    ^^^
    Other european country's statute...


  • #300
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    There wouldn't have been any European statute in 1963...

    Its not as if we just copied other countries laws with the same general outlook on life socially (sort of/close enough), made them stricter, ran them past the church and then signed them into law.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    John_C wrote: »
    Yep, the existing laws are entirely adequate.
    Great, though I'm a bit confused by why you said:
    John_C wrote: »
    The government should pass a law making both lights and reflectors mandatory at night. Surely that would be the best of both worlds?

    CramCycle wrote: »
    A similar jacket could be designed for over here:
    How about


    Lake
    GARDA
    is lovely

    You couldn't be accused of impersonation surely, when you're just trying to help out the Italian Tourist Board?


Advertisement