Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's been said here before, but it's worth repeating. The reflective stripes in hi-viz jackets are some use at night. The green/orange bit does nothing. Fluorescent materials convert UV radiation to visible radiation, which is why they "glow". Artificial light contains negligble UV, and artificial is all that's really available at night.

Fluorescent materials do increase conspicuity at dawn and dusk. But, really, there are such very good lights available now, you really should try one of them and then consider whether you need to dress like a binman.

If you want to sport reflective stripes at night, a Sam Browne at least can be folded up in your bag out of the way when you're off the bike.

All the gear I have has the reflective stripes which glow fantastically when light hits it. I don't think I have seen a high viz jacket yet that does not have the reflective strips on them. While the bright colors may not be great, they are certainly better than dark colors.

tomasrojo

Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »

All the gear I have has the reflective stripes which glow fantastically when light hits it. I don't think I have seen a high viz jacket yet that does not have the reflective strips on them. While the bright colors may not be great, they are certainly better than dark colors.

There are plenty of jackets that have only reflective spots or piping. Or neither. All they are is fluorescent, or Chartreuse in colour.

Reflective stripes can be very visible, but it really depends on the angle of incidence of the light. They're really positioned too high to make optimal use of dipped headlights, though that's far from saying they do nothing. They however do do nothing as you approach side traffic from the right.

tomasrojo

Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »

While the bright colors may not be great, they are certainly better than dark colors.

Not much, from my observation, and I'm not the only one:

An 2009 Australian study of drivers trying to see stationary cyclists on a closed circuit found that fluorescent vests (without retro-reflective stripes) were not a significant improvement on black clothing at night, and that retro-reflective strips were more effective when attached to knees and ankles than on a more or less static jacket

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-visibility_clothing

tomasrojo

A final observation I've made about hi-viz jackets is that I'm not sure they work all that well when worn on road bikes. The stooped position means the stripes are pointing mostly up at the sky, especially if strained over a backpack. Might increase side-on visibility though.

ThisRegard

Similarly I've been behind guys with lights attached to the top of their rucksacks. All well and good when stopped and standing, but only serves to highlight your presence to passing air traffic once cycling.

tomasrojo

ThisRegard wrote: »

Similarly I've been behind guys with lights attached to the top of their rucksacks. All well and good when stopped and standing, but only serves to highlight your presence to passing air traffic once cycling.

Similarly, many lights attached to back of helmets disappear into the rucksack once the cyclist is back in the drops and on the move.

CramCycle

ThisRegard wrote: »

Similarly I've been behind guys with lights attached to the top of their rucksacks. All well and good when stopped and standing, but only serves to highlight your presence to passing air traffic once cycling.

My new favourite position is behind (or is it in front) of pannier bags, I only see them just as I pass. I find it hard to believe no one sees the stupidity.

Kav0777

Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »

All the gear I have has the reflective stripes which glow fantastically when light hits it. I don't think I have seen a high viz jacket yet that does not have the reflective strips on them. While the bright colors may not be great, they are certainly better than dark colors.

Voila:

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/castelli-squadra-long-waterproof-jacket/

(in "flouro" obviously)

CramCycle

Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »

All the gear I have has the reflective stripes which glow fantastically when light hits it. I don't think I have seen a high viz jacket yet that does not have the reflective strips on them. While the bright colors may not be great, they are certainly better than dark colors.

The ones the RSA were handing out a few months ago did not have reflective strips, they had matte grey strips which did not reflect anything.

Capt'n Midnight

Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »

I agree with your points apart from what I put in bold.

High vis is pretty important at night. It's definitely better than dull/dark clothing. It's doesn't take a massive lack of concentration to miss a cyclist/pedestrian who is wearing dark clothing.

I'd even argue that Hi Viz yellow is so over used it's becoming part of the scenery. Given a choice I'd use orange.

At night it's lights, reflectors on moving parts like pedals or legs and then reflectors on jacket and as others have pointed out they are of no use unless you are on a sit-up-and-beg type bike , for bikes you want reflectors on the seat of you pants or on the bottom of a backpack. Hi Viz/light clothing might help a bit but is absolutely no sustitute. Sharp Contrast is better than a larger blur. Reflective surfaces on a black jacket would stand out better.

There's multiple parties involved and all parties should contribute to the safety of others.

At present the onus seems to be on the cyclist making them selves unmissable. It just trains motorists to be even lazier when looking for cyclists.


Back on topic

When it come to collisions with cars the main use of a helmet is as a Hi-Viz hat. It can be a large bright , reflective surface that's up high in line of sight.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There's another campaign under way in the West advising pedestrians to "make themselves safer". Hi-viz is inevitably part of the mix. No mention of traffic law enforcement, or chronic lack of same.

tomasrojo wrote: »

To be fair, I can't see a mention of hi-viz there. The advice to walk towards oncoming traffic is probably wrong as you approach a blind bend though.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

At present the onus seems to be on the cyclist making them selves unmissable. It just trains motorists to be even lazier when looking for cyclists.

From today's Galway City Tribune:

One out of every three people killed on western roads in 2013 was a pedestrian, and none of them wore a high-vis vest.

...

"The first massive step in tackling this problem of pedestrian deaths is for these people to be seen," [said the Garda Regional Roads Policing Superintendent for the Western division].

No Pants

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"The first massive step in tackling this problem of pedestrian deaths is for these people to be seen,"

I'd agree with that and I wonder why there isn't more focus put on cars having fully working lights and using them at appropriate times.

CramCycle

No Pants wrote: »

I'd agree with that and I wonder why there isn't more focus put on cars having fully working lights and using them at appropriate times.

They brought in a fine for missing/broken lights awhile ago but it seems that there are more people than ever driving around with either one light or no lights on at night. It is not like they are expensive to replace, halfords tend to fit them for a fiver.

No Pants

CramCycle wrote: »

They brought in a fine for missing/broken lights awhile ago but it seems that there are more people than ever driving around with either one light or no lights on at night. It is not like they are expensive to replace, halfords tend to fit them for a fiver.

I'm also pointing at the people who don't switch on their lights until it's pitch black out. During the winter I pretty much have my dips on all the time while driving.

CramCycle

No Pants wrote: »

I'm also pointing at the people who don't switch on their lights until it's pitch black out. During the winter I pretty much have my dips on all the time while driving.

Me too, every morning or evening there is some plank who pulls out of a junction with no lights at twilight hours. Grey cars that blend in with the dull background are the worst IMO but no proof of this. I miss my SAAB with its auto on lights, if the lights are not working the car refuses to start. Safest car I ever drove.

tomasrojo

No Pants wrote: »

I'd agree with that and I wonder why there isn't more focus put on cars having fully working lights and using them at appropriate times.

And something should be done about the motorists with uncorrectable vision defects:
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/03/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-the-evidence-and-context/

Not sure whether the stats have changed in the UK much, as the book was published a while ago, but that suggests that about two million practising drivers would fail the eye test for acquiring a driving licence.

Not to mention that when someone drives into someone in a car and kills them in broad daylight it should be taken with a pinch of salt when they say they couldn't see them. Of course they're going to say that.

No Pants

tomasrojo wrote: »

Not to mention that when someone drives into someone in a car and kills them in broad daylight it should be taken with a pinch of salt when they say they couldn't see them. Of course they're going to say that.

I'm amazed that how often that gets said at trials and how it doesn't automatically bring a reckless/dangerous driving charge upon admission.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Irrelevant now

Newaglish

Quick question, which is semi-relevant to the thread:

Anyone know where I can find the definitive regulations for cyclists in Ireland?

I know that:
Helmets = not required by law
Lights = required by law

But I'm wondering about high visibility clothing?

CramCycle

Newaglish wrote: »

But I'm wondering about high visibility clothing?

Not required by law.

morana

Newaglish wrote: »

Quick question, which is semi-relevant to the thread:

Anyone know where I can find the definitive regulations for cyclists in Ireland?

boards.ie

tomasrojo

Headlight, tail light, rear red reflector and pedal reflectors are the only conspicuity aids required by law, I think. Somebody should be able to furnish you with the relevant bits from the statute book. I don't have them off-hand.

Chips Lovell

Vehicle lighting regulations of 1963 specify a front and rear light. No mention of reflectors. Unless there's been some supplementary legislation in the mean time.

tomasrojo

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

There's a few mentions of an 'obligatory rear reflector'. Obligatory pedal reflectors don't seem to get mentioned though. Pretty sure they're mentioned elsewhere though.

Chips Lovell

Ah, you're right. I missed that later section. Bikes need to have one rear reflector

(4) (a) In the case of a pedal cycle or a mechanically propelled bicycle used without a side-car, one obligatory rear reflector shall be fitted to the vehicle.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

There's a few mentions of an 'obligatory rear reflector'. Obligatory pedal reflectors don't seem to get mentioned though. Pretty sure they're mentioned elsewhere though.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Ah, you're right. I missed that later section. Bikes need to have one rear reflector

Are you covered if your light includes a reflector like the majority of modern lights?

Lumen

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Ah, you're right. I missed that later section. Bikes need to have one rear reflector

Except...

"Defence in case of racing vehicles.
53. Where a person is charged with a contravention in the day time of articles 9, 22, 29 and 33 of these Regulations, it shall be a good defence to show that the vehicle was primarily constructed or adapted for the purpose of racing or trials and was either being used for such purpose or was travelling to or from the venue of a race or trial in which the vehicle had taken part or was intended to take part."

#33 is "Obligatory rear reflectors."

So we're OK on Thursdays and weekends during racing season.

I wonder whether Strava commuting counts.

Chips Lovell

I'm pretty sure you are.

According to the regulations:

"reflector" means a reflex reflector the reflected light of which is capable of being returned substantially within an angle not greater than 3 degrees with an imaginary line connecting the reflector and the source of the light;

Also, according to that, rear facing yellow reflectors, i.e. pedal reflectors, are illegal:

(2) Every reflector with which a vehicle is equipped and which is visible from outside the vehicle shall be—

(a) red, if facing to the rear,
(b) amber, if facing to the side,
(c) white, if facing to the front.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

So we're OK on Thursdays and weekends during racing season.

Only during day time.

Lumen

ILLEGAL!

Chips Lovell

Interestingly, white reflectorised material is commonplace on clothing. But it's illegal to fit it to the rear or sides of your bike.

Daroxtar

A guy on a site I was working on narrowly avoided being killed recently by a teleporter driver reversing in dark conditions and it was only that he saw the reflective stripes that stopped him.
If it doesnt have the 3M stripes then it's not worth a wánk and should not be called Hi Viz as it could lead people to wear clothing which is of no benefit, possibly giving them false sense of security.

Lumen

Daroxtar wrote: »

A guy on a site I was working on narrowly avoided being killed recently by a teleporter driver reversing in dark conditions and it was only that he saw the reflective stripes that stopped him.

On the subject of teleporters, I wonder why Star Trek away teams never wore hi-vis?

Certainly for the redshirts. The attrition rate for those dudes was brutal.

Chips Lovell

I might start a thread trying to round up the various laws relevant to cycling, to have them all in one handy, FAQ type place.

K.Flyer

Hi Guys,
Just reading through some of the thread and I just wanted to give my perspective as a van driver.
In my opinion whilst a hi-viz jacket has its benefits it should never be considered a primary safety item.
On evenings like we have now, dark and wet, good bright lights are your no.1 safety item.
I can see a cyclist with a couple of decent bright lights quite a good distance away and I will spot them much sooner than someone just wearing a hi-viz.
The good bright slow flashing front / rear (two, one low, one high or on arm) lights immediately warn me its a cyclist in front or behind me and this allows me ample time to adjust my driving accordingly.
A hi-viz is only useful when light shines on it, please take it from me as a driver, wearing a hi-viz it is not enough on its own, please have good bright lights on your bikes, it makes it so much easier for me and others to see you.
Be Safe, Be Seen!

Daroxtar

Lumen wrote: »

On the subject of teleporters, I wonder why Star Trek away teams never wore hi-vis?

Certainly for the redshirts. The attrition rate for those dudes was brutal.

You have no idea how disappointed I was shortly after hearing that job title:D

tomasrojo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Also, according to that, rear facing yellow reflectors, i.e. pedal reflectors, are illegal

(5) Sub-article (2) of this article shall not prevent a cycle from carrying amber coloured reflectors which are attached to or form part of the pedals of the cycle, notwithstanding that any of such reflectors faces to the front or rear.

(as before:http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html)

Chips Lovell

Excellent. Need to update the other thread with that.

tomasrojo

What does this all mean?

It means that if you are walking in a lit, urban area at night, wearing ordinary clothes, and you are struck and killed by a driver who should reasonably be able to see you as you cross a road, that driver will be found not guilty due, in part, to your lack of ‘conspicuity’.

Don’t think that wearing hi-visibility clothing is just a ‘cycling’ issue.

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/where-next-for-hi-visibility-clothing

(There does seem to be an inexhaustible enthusiasm in the courts in the UK to exculpate motorists who collide with people:
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/futility/

I think if this continues everyone will tire of using every strategy possible to ensure their safety (or just to ensure freedom from contributory negligence) when walking and cycling, and just drive everywhere. Not sure how this trend can be reversed.

tomasrojo

Interesting comment on the As Easy post (from the author of the Beyond the Kerb blog, coincidentally):

The potentially more interesting case is another fairly high-profile one: that of Ray Elsmore, the Waterlooville lollipop man who was killed by a driver ploughing into him on his crossing. Note this pertinent paragraph from the following report:

“An accident investigator, who visited the crash scene, experienced how the bright sun had the effect of ‘blending in’ with the colour of a colleague’s high visibility jacket, similar to that worn by Mr Elsmore at the time of the accident.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-24905080

Beware hi-viz. They’ll screw you for not wearing it, and I have no doubt that, in time, if they can’t screw you for that then they’ll screw you for wearing it.

CramCycle

TBF

Investigator"The defendant's driving at the time fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver in all the circumstances."

I think I have told this one before about the Garda on Georges St. Pulling over a car who ran the red through a junction, he pulled her over when she got stuck in traffic and asked her why she had done it, to which she responded, the sun was in my eyes so I couldn't see in front of me. To which he took the fairly common sense approach of telling her (can't remember the exact wording) if she can't see in front of her, she shouldn't fuppin proceed forward.

Chips Lovell

I'm a 6ft 2in man.

I'm fairly certain that if I cycled wearing a just a bra and thong that I would be highly conspicuous on the road.

Since it's plain common sense to adopt any safety measure that makes you even a little bit more visible, I should therefore cycle in a bra and thong.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

I think I have told this one before about the Garda on Georges St. Pulling over a car who ran the red through a junction, he pulled her over when she got stuck in traffic and asked her why she had done it, to which she responded, the sun was in my eyes so I couldn't see in front of me. To which he took the fairly common sense approach of telling her (can't remember the exact wording) if she can't see in front of her, she shouldn't fuppin proceed forward.

Depressingly, and amazingly, the case in this post dispenses with that excellent advice:

The truly jaw-dropping moment in this case comes at the end, when the judge allegedly states that the jury “will be directed to ignore Highway Code [rules 93 and 237, advising drivers to] slow down or stop if dazzled [because the] Highway Code is not law” and that the defendant’s failure to adhere to such rules “could be used as evidence of without due care and attention, or could be ignored“.

http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/futility/#more-571

(This is all UK stuff. I don't know how bad it is in our courts.)

doozerie

There is a relevant, and disturbing, article in the Fit Magazine section of the Indo today, entitled Wear high-viz gear – it's foolish and selfish not to. It’s an article by Gerry Duffy and it is aimed at runners who run at night.

I’m not opposed to people wearing hi-viz, that is entirely their choice, but I am opposed to the idea that it’s essential. Runners are a little different to cyclists in that it’s much easier to attach decent lights to a bike that to your body, so I can see why runners might favour hi-viz as a possibly more convenient option than powerful lights (not to mention the fact that runners don't necessarily run on the road). However, this article goes way beyond recommending hi-viz, it bypasses all rationality and basically pins responsibility for the safety of other road users on the runner who “refuses” (the article’s wording) to wear hi-viz. Here is where the article describes people “refusing” to wear hi-viz while on a stretch of *footpath* which the article describes as being “perhaps a third of a mile” long:

Not only is it foolish, it is selfish. It has no regard for the consequences that might occur, were any kind of a freak occurrence to happen, which happens somewhere every single day.

It has no regard for other road users or the people who might be in my car, the car behind me or anybody else in the vicinity. I have been driving for nearly 30 years and have seen or been made aware of hundreds of unexpected occurrences on our roads. An unexpected manoeuvre, a driver taking unwell, poor road conditions, to name but three. All can impact a driver's behaviour.
We have a duty of care not to be a hazard – if not to help ourselves – then surely to those around us. By slipping on a reflective vest or jacket you are as bright as an illuminated Christmas tree. Surely it's not too much to ask.

So there you go, if you don’t wear hi-viz then you are responsible should a driver “taking unwell” or carrying out “an unexpected manoeuvre” plough you down, or should their passengers be hurt, while you are running (or walking, presumably) on a footpath, according to the author. Presumably a hi-viz vest will casually bat away any car that comes hurtling towards you in such circumstances, whereas without such a vest you are somehow defenceless. It would be easy to dismiss this nonsense article on the basis that the author has inadvertently nudged his hysteria meter up to 11. I’d like to think that he’ll re-read his own article in a calmer frame of mind and wonder how he screwed up his own logic so badly, but sadly I think it’s really yet another demonstration of the hysterical mindset that has taken hold in society generally.

That mindset sees dangers everywhere and sees hi-viz as some kind of miraculous protection against those dangers. Nothing new there, unfortunately. What is more sinister in this particular case though is that the author doesn’t hesitate to blame those who “refuse” to wear hi-viz, in fact he clearly states they are responsible not just for themselves but also for the safety of passengers in cars in addition to the safety of the drivers. It seems like the barrier to blaming the victim (and in the circumstances the author describes, someone running/walking on a footpath truly is a victim here, hi-viz endowed or not) is being lowered further all the time.

tomasrojo

were any kind of a freak occurrence to happen

Anyone who counsels others to take precautions against freak occurrences is a lunatic, a neurotic, or doesn't actually know what a freak occurrence is.

tomasrojo

The "selfish" bit is very James Cracknell as well.

tomasrojo

(On a mostly irrelevant academic note, I think hi-viz on the torso of runners is more effective than the equivalent on cyclists, as running results in biomotion of the upper body, unlike cycling.)

Lumen

"The excuse of "but I only use the footpaths" doesn't hold for three reasons. Almost certainly, at some point, you will leave the footpath, however briefly. Second, it is setting a bad example to children"

What sets a bad example to children is writing illogical bullsht in national newspapers.

Chips Lovell

This kind of illogical scaremongering and victim-blaming is bad enough.

The fact that is so often unquestioningly accepted is worse.

Nobody, from the people making these pronouncements, to those accepting them as gospel, appears to be capable of critical assessment of the arguments they are making.

CramCycle

doozerie wrote: »

that it’s much easier to attach decent lights to a bike that to your body, so I can see why runners might favour hi-viz as a possibly more convenient option than powerful lights (not to mention the fact that runners don't necessarily run on the road).

I noticed when driving up near Stepaside the number of runners with the reflective strips with Hi Vis that had little red LED lights built in. They are great and particularly useful where some drivers may not use their full beams as they are only in a dark stretch for 30seconds, they are not strong but they stand out and cost almost nothing (I got 4 of them for less than the price of the batteries that were in them from Deal Extreme and also seen them in Tesco and either LIDL/ALDI for not much more over the year)

tomasrojo wrote: »

(On a mostly irrelevant academic note, I think hi-viz on the torso of runners is more effective than the equivalent on cyclists, as running results in biomotion of the upper body, unlike cycling.)

Much akin to the idea that Reflectors on cyclists are more useful on their legs and pedals (I actually thought you out a link up to a study on it but I could be mistaken). I think the theory being that even if a driver does not notice the cyclist immediately, something will trigger the recognition of human movement, also the fact that this is where Dims(lights not people) will hit first does not hurt either.