Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

I love Sean nos

ThisRegard wrote: »

Typical. Not that motorists should be more aware of their surroundings and drive to meet the conditions, nope, cyclists and pedestrians, the onus is on you.

Not surprising. Whenever there's a report of something getting hit by a car at night, there's always mention of whether the pedestrian or cyclist had high-vis. Not a word on whether the vehicle's lights were functioning or the state of the driver's eyesight.

what_traffic

what_traffic wrote: »

Surprised no mention of the EY Entreprenur of the Year 2017 in this thread.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1027/915597-entrepreneur-of-the-year-award/

RSA is one of the top Irish Customers that they have. Helps I guess that they are both located in Mayo.

So the question we should ask - what global Bike Light Manufacturer can we get to relocate their European Headquarters into Ballina?

I love Sean nos

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Not surprising. Whenever there's a report of something getting hit by a car at night, there's always mention of whether the pedestrian or cyclist had high-vis. Not a word on whether the vehicle's lights were functioning or the state of the driver's eyesight.

That is a very good point. I drove from Clonmel to Kilkenny one evening (7pm) last week and was surprised at the number of vehicles with one faulty headlight.

Every road user should take measures to ensure their own safety. One of the main ones is that they can be seen by other road users and are aware of their surroundings. Walking or cycling along unlit country roads, wearing dark clothes and listening to headphones is a recipe for disaster. Likewise, driving with faulty lights.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Walking or cycling along unlit country roads, wearing dark clothes and listening to headphones is a recipe for disaster.

And yet, the 'disaster' contributes one or two road deaths each year, as far as I can work out. Whereas motorists crashing into other motorists contributes about 150 road deaths each year. Where is the real disaster, Mary Anne?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And yet, the 'disaster' contributes one or two road deaths each year, as far as I can work out. Whereas motorists crashing into other motorists contributes about 150 road deaths each year. Where is the real disaster, Mary Anne?

Really? These figures say differently. http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? These figures say differently. http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

If you take an average over recent years instead of just one year, you'll get close enough to that figure. But you got my point generally - you refer to this scenario as a 'disaster', but in terms of death statistics, it is a very minor issue. Every week, motorists kill other motorists due to speeding, texting, drinking - yet people get very obsessed about what cyclists/walkers need to do to behave.

Why do people get so obsessed with the minor issue while ignoring the causes of the vast majority of road deaths?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you take an average over recent years instead of just one year, you'll get close enough to that figure. But you got my point generally - you refer to this scenario as a 'disaster', but in terms of death statistics, it is a very minor issue. Every week, motorists kill other motorists due to speeding, texting, drinking - yet people get very obsessed about what cyclists/walkers need to do to behave.

Why do people get so obsessed with the minor issue while ignoring the causes of the vast majority of road deaths?

I suppose it’s a bit like the old saying “Look after the pennies and the pounds will mind themselves “. In other words, small things do make a difference. So, be safe. Be seen.

07Lapierre

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose it’s a bit like the old saying “Look after the pennies and the pounds will mind themselves “. In other words, small things do make a difference. So, be safe. Be seen.

That slogan is too short. It should be: “be safe, be seen and watch out for and respect other road users”

07Lapierre

07Lapierre wrote: »

That slogan is too short. It should be: “be safe, be seen and watch out for and respect other road users”

Indeed.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose it’s a bit like the old saying “Look after the pennies and the pounds will mind themselves “.

In this context, it would be a bit like saying "Look after the pennies, while pi$$ing away the pounds over there" - not quite a recipe for a good outcome.

HivemindXX

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Not surprising. Whenever there's a report of something getting hit by a car at night, there's always mention of whether the pedestrian or cyclist had high-vis. Not a word on whether the vehicle's lights were functioning or the state of the driver's eyesight.

I don't think faulty lights or bad eyesight is the main issue, but inattention and speed.

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose it’s a bit like the old saying “Look after the pennies and the pounds will mind themselves “. In other words, small things do make a difference. So, be safe. Be seen.

"Be Safe, Be Seen" is one of the more pernicious frames we allow in public discourse. In just four words it gets across the largely wrong message that the main problem with cyclists and pedestrians is that they're practically invisible, and on top of that, it's their responsibility to do something about it.

It's a remarkably hard-working four-word combination.

I love Sean nos

HivemindXX wrote: »

I don't think faulty lights or bad eyesight is the main issue, but inattention and speed.

True. My point is that the question isn't even asked. There's a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. We're told that the driver is unhurt and that the cyclist/pedestrian is injured/dead. We're then told whether high-vis or helmet was in use by the pedestrian without fail. The implication being that the person hit by the vehicle somehow contributed to it. No mention of whether the vehicle had properly functioning lights or whether the driver could see properly.

I always find that strange.

I don't know why it's not part of the collision investigation process. There's a crash. The driver is tested for alcohol and also drug use. Why not a check that the driver could see where he/she was going? Why is it still okay to use an honour system that allows a driver to submit an eyesight report at 17 and then not have to do it again until 70?

I love Sean nos

I love Sean nos wrote: »

True. My point is that the question isn't even asked. There's a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. We're told that the driver is unhurt and that the cyclist/pedestrian is injured/dead. We're then told whether high-vis or helmet was in use by the pedestrian without fail. The implication being that the person hit by the vehicle somehow contributed to it. No mention of whether the vehicle had properly functioning lights or whether the driver could see properly.

I always find that strange.

I don't know why it's not part of the collision investigation process. There's a crash. The driver is tested for alcohol and also drug use. Why not a check that the driver could see where he/she was going? Why is it still okay to use an honour system that allows a driver to submit an eyesight report at 17 and then not have to do it again until 70?

I’m sure that it would come out in the technical examination that takes place after a serious or fatal accident.

AndrewJRenko

I love Sean nos wrote: »

True. My point is that the question isn't even asked. There's a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. We're told that the driver is unhurt and that the cyclist/pedestrian is injured/dead. We're then told whether high-vis or helmet was in use by the pedestrian without fail. The implication being that the person hit by the vehicle somehow contributed to it. No mention of whether the vehicle had properly functioning lights or whether the driver could see properly.

I always find that strange.

I don't know why it's not part of the collision investigation process. There's a crash. The driver is tested for alcohol and also drug use. Why not a check that the driver could see where he/she was going? Why is it still okay to use an honour system that allows a driver to submit an eyesight report at 17 and then not have to do it again until 70?

I don't think we're great at checking out whether the driver's mobile phone was in use at the time of the crash. This comes up fairly frequently in the UK.

I love Sean nos

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m sure that it would come out in the technical examination that takes place after a serious or fatal accident.

Anyone able to confirm that? There must be a guard or two on this forum.

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m sure that it would come out in the technical examination that takes place after a serious or fatal accident.

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Anyone able to confirm that? There must be a guard or two on this forum.

In regards this conversation, does it matter. The media rarely come put and clarify after and the damage is already done. Parents don't let their kids cycle, people choose not too cycle due to being misled. Once people make the decision not too, I imagine its rare they change their mind after a certain age.

I love Sean nos

CramCycle wrote: »

In regards this conversation, does it matter. The media rarely come put and clarify after and the damage is already done. Parents don't let their kids cycle, people choose not too cycle due to being misled. Once people make the decision not too, I imagine its rare they change their mind after a certain age.

As part of the greater thread subject? No. But I'd still like to know whether it forms part of the Garda technical investigation, as claimed.

tomasrojo

Dublin Cycling Campaign on the streets giving out ...

LIGHTS!

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/924594516681805825

EDIT: more here:
http://dublincycling.com/cycling/light-your-bike

It’s also important to note that so-called hi-vis clothing is not a valid substitute for lights on your bike, nor is there any legal requirement to wear hi-vis. If you think you can get away without lights by wearing hi-vis clothing, you are mistaken.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

In regards this conversation, does it matter. The media rarely come put and clarify after and the damage is already done. Parents don't let their kids cycle, people choose not too cycle due to being misled. Once people make the decision not too, I imagine its rare they change their mind after a certain age.

the problem is that a lot of the detail which is important here is detail which is not known/cannot be reported immediately after an incident. saying a cyclist was not wearing a helmet is a simple statement of fact. saying a driver was distracted is something that can only be determined by a legal process, and the media have long moved on to the latest accident by the time this info is available.
i don't know if there's a database (whether publically accessible or not) of serious and fatal road collisions which allows for statistical analysis of the major causes of these collisions; without such information, much informed debate is stymied.

OleRodrigo

Just to clarify, in long distance sports cycling, hi viz is essential.

I'd also say its essential for rural general cycling and commuting on unlit roads. Even during the day outside an urban area, theres a noticeable difference in the way traffic reacts to you when wearing a hi viz gilet/ jacket.

That makes up a significant body of cyclists. France has the right approach - illegal to cycle at night outside of an urban area without a piece of hi viz clothing. For everyone else, wear what you like.

A German standardisation of lights and a French approach to hi viz would combine to resolve the matter.

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

the problem is that a lot of the detail which is important here is detail which is not known/cannot be reported immediately after an incident. saying a cyclist was not wearing a helmet is a simple statement of fact. saying a driver was distracted is something that can only be determined by a legal process, and the media have long moved on to the latest accident by the time this info is available.
i don't know if there's a database (whether publically accessible or not) of serious and fatal road collisions which allows for statistical analysis of the major causes of these collisions; without such information, much informed debate is stymied.

Some stats available at; http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/

Some data available at; http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Just to clarify, in long distance sports cycling, hi viz is essential.

Is this personal opinion or an organiser's rule?

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Some stats available at; http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/

Some data available at; http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

does it record causes though?

tomasrojo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this personal opinion or an organiser's rule?

It was discussed a bit upthread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104914135&postcount=1161

(But a Sam Browne suffices. Gilets and builders' vests not required.)

tomasrojo

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Even during the day outside an urban area, theres a noticeable difference in the way traffic reacts to you when wearing a hi viz gilet/ jacket.

Just spotted this. I've tried cycling with and without hiviz (including Sam Brownes and builder's vests). I've observed no difference in the way traffic behaves around me, but, then, it would be hard to notice unless the difference were large.

Ian Walker tried to quantify this difference in behaviour by looking at close passes between people wearing various conpspicuity-enhancing outfits, and wearing none. The percentage of passes that were close passes was essentially the same.

I think his research was mostly carried out in Bath, so I guess that's an urban area. Think there was a study in Florida that did much the same and found no difference. I think that one had more ex-urban cyclists.

Grassey

tomasrojo wrote:

Ian Walker tried to quantify this difference in behaviour by looking at close passes between people wearing various conpspicuity-enhancing outfits, and wearing none. The percentage of passes that were close passes was essentially the same.

Was that the one where the only difference was larger overtaking space when he wore a blonde wig & dress?

tomasrojo

Grassey wrote: »

Was that the one where the only difference was larger overtaking space when he wore a blonde wig & dress?

Very similar, but the one where he wore a long wig was a study into helmet-wearing and close passes. I think it was a dark wig, but I couldn't swear to it.

Be interesting to see the results using a child seat and a doll , surely someones already done a test like that? I'm no genius

OleRodrigo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Just spotted this. I've tried cycling with and without hiviz (including Sam Brownes and builder's vests). I've observed no difference in the way traffic behaves around me, but, then, it would be hard to notice unless the difference were large.

Ian Walker tried to quantify this difference in behaviour by looking at close passes between people wearing various conpspicuity-enhancing outfits, and wearing none. The percentage of passes that were close passes was essentially the same.

I think his research was mostly carried out in Bath, so I guess that's an urban area. Think there was a study in Florida that did much the same and found no difference. I think that one had more ex-urban cyclists.

Referring to outside an urban area and I'm convinced it makes a difference there. Many experienced riders have reported the same.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this personal opinion or an organiser's rule?

Organiser rules vary from highly recommended to mandatory depending on the route and distance.

Fighting Tao

Today I noticed as I cycled southward between Dunleer and Drogheda two sets of legs in the hard shoulder. I couldn't see the upper bodies until up closer because the sun was above and behind. The two people obviously thought they were following the best advice. While it would be excellent advice at night, it certainly wasn't on a sunny day. The Sam Browne belt would have been ideal to give them the feeling of safety but making them stand out today and tonight.