Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Carawaystick

Kevin Irving wrote: »

And in the video posted, the cyclist could not stop in the distance he could see to be clear. I think it is absolutely reasonable to expect that the car may not see the cyclist due to the position of the sun and his speed.

Now the car SHOULD see him

In my experience very few cars can see, but luckily they have an adult driving so they don't need to be able to see.

Lumen

minikin wrote: »

I'd tend not to take safety advice from someone that cycles around with a brain spike attached.

Taking the piss out of Dead Sheldon Brown isn't likely to win any debating points in a cycling forum.

tomasrojo

Yeah, Sheldon Brown was one of the good guys. Very clear advice, very knowledgeable, and a great knowledge of old-timey cycling tech. too.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

Not much more than 2 euro though, I have seen USB rechargable lights with decent output going for a fiver in ALDI. They don't sell below cost AFAIK.

They should definitely give out fewer lights (if the budget remains unchanged) and give those out instead.

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

I can think of a few issues with this especially for folk like us who have lights but making it a stipulation of the BTW scheme that you have to get lights on your first bike? Not a catch all but would catch some.

A race to the bottom in regards light standards, and bike shops would be foolish to attempt to sell anything they might believe to be sub standard. The scheme works well, the more regulations you add in, the less it will work. A requirement of the shop to make a statement to the purchaser, much like the pharmacists need to stipulate about the addictive-ness of Codeine, saying that cycling between dusk and dawn without lights is illegal and dangerous, might be easier, for every bike purchased.

tomasrojo wrote: »

They should definitely give out fewer lights (if the budget remains unchanged) and give those out instead.

100% imagine if they stopped paying a few million to a crowd in Mayo for hi Vis (some of which turns out not even to be Hi VIs, hmmm, I wonder did they ever refund the RSA/Gardai for that blunder?!?) and just got as large a batch of USB chargeable lights like the ones Aldi sell. The buying power alone would make a huge dent in the price.

ballyharpat

the lights are next to useless, they are not even waterproof. Along with that, I got some from the RSA when they were mailing them out free, the envelope probably cost as much as the lights, but worse, the postage was nearly €4!!!! that is an awful waste of money by the RSA.

Carawaystick

Have the RSA anything to say about the flourescent/reflective wands that used to seperate lanes but motorists drove over and destroyed, in Sandyford, Lincoln Place etc?

ED E

Tell me again about how your hivis will save you....

The Police wrote:

If drivers can miss Emergency vehicles with lights and markings what chance have you got to be seen?

AndrewJRenko

Carawaystick wrote: »

Have the RSA anything to say about the flourescent/reflective wands that used to seperate lanes but motorists drove over and destroyed, in Sandyford, Lincoln Place etc?

"Is there anything to be said for more hi-vis - on the wands? " says Mr RSA.

Fighting Tao

Carawaystick wrote: »

Have the RSA anything to say about the flourescent/reflective wands that used to seperate lanes but motorists drove over and destroyed, in Sandyford, Lincoln Place etc?

There was a fancy steel bollard on the footpath on the corner of Castleforbes Road and Sherriff St Upper in Dublin 1. Even though it was about 2 foot in i the path it kept getting hit by motor vehicles and had to be replaced many times. A number of months ago it was replaced with a solid steel ugly looking bollard. It hasn’t moved yet it has been hit a number of times.

Lesson is that unless motor vehicles sustain substantial damages from the wands, cyclists will not be safe.

tomasrojo

A world without beige Volvos in fog:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/01/29/self-driving-cars-paint-detroit-auto-show/1032397001/

Pinch Flat

I’m really puzzled by the whole blame culture against pedestrians and cyclists - not suggesting cyclists should travel in the dark without lights.

I had reason to drive the back roads from west Dublin to join the m4 at maynooth in Friday night last. Not a great night weather wise. But one thing that struck me was that with even my dipped lights I had decent visibility - beams on no issue. Would have spotted a pedestrian or cyclist for that matter without too much difficulty.

At the other end of my journey, I was driving through rural Galway, so similarly at the other end - plenty of country roads, using dipped and high beams. Again I was happy enough with visibility - even managed to stop to avoid a hare on the road around Loughrea.

Driving at or just below the speed limit might have had something to do with it.

CramCycle

Coming home this evening stopped at a junction when out of the dark, like Jack Nicholson coming out of the shadows as Joker in Batman, comes into view only a metre or two from me. He had no lights and the junction he was at was at an incline so all the cars light were higher than normal. His hi vis was one of those, its not actually hi vis from the RSA. For the first time in a long time, he was invisible.

On a counter note, there was a runner on the N11 cycle path whom I seen almost a km away (between junctions at Cabinteely) as he had an anklet thing on with red LEDs, same for another guy who had a hi vis and a sh*tty red light attached, I seen both when I was 100m away but I seen the really bright red LED under his saddle at least 700m away. Now neither caused an issue or would have, as Pinch Flat said, you'd see them long before you got to them if you were driving for the conditions and paying attention.

07Lapierre

Came across these two cyclists this morning.. (Yes there are two in the video) Both are wearing Hi-Viz, but only one has lights.

First one is @ 1:27

Hint: The other one is coming towards me on the right.

https://youtu.be/Kamklf8doLc?t=1m12s

CramCycle

buffalo wrote: »

If it could save even one life...

07Lapierre wrote: »

Came across these two cyclists this morning.. (Yes there are two in the video) Both are wearing Hi-Viz, but only one has lights.

First one is @ 1:27

Hint: The other one is coming towards me on the right.

https://youtu.be/Kamklf8doLc?t=1m12s

I seen the first one at 1.17. Was the second one at around 1.40 or so. I got a glimpse of what I thought were pedal reflectors. Was the cyclist wearing hi vis? Don't get me wrong, the settings on your camera are very dark but it clearly shows the benefit of a half decent light over hi vis.

You can just about see him at 1:44

07Lapierre

Well Spotted! yep that's him @ 1:40. He was wearing one of those builders hi-viz waistcoats. it was flapping in the wind as he didnt have it secured at the front. (so its useless). Yes the camera is a bit dark and he was a bit (a tiny bit) more noticeable to the naked eye. The video is dark because this morning the sun was rising right into the camera, which makes anything in the shadows look even darker.

I just think its a good example of how necessary lights are when compared to Hi-Viz! If the cyclist coming towards me had lights, I'd have seen him a lot sooner. Hi-viz is useless for oncoming traffic.

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/cosaingalway/status/968258204324057088

I think Robert Troy threw this in with the minimum passing distance legislation heading off to the Oireachtas Select Committee on Wednesday. Doesn't appear to be about cyclists, just pedestrians on unlit roads. Definition of high visibility seems to be weird, as it's impossible for a material to be easily discernible from all backgrounds (chartreuse isn't that easily discernible from vegetation, for example), and it doesn't allow for a pedestrian to use a flashlight instead. And it's bound to have unforeseen consequences.

Lumen

First they came for the pedestrians....

Chips Lovell

Another Trojan horse

CramCycle

Lumen wrote: »

First they came for the pedestrians....

Then they came for me, and there was no one left, which to be honest, made my commute alot more pleasant.

Lumen

"Walking on an unlit public road...shall be guilty of an offence".

Not even restricted to "at night time". 24 hour mandatory hi vis.

I'm rarely outraged, but this has definitely triggered me.

What the actual fck.

ford2600

Lumen wrote: »

"Walking on an unlit public road...shall be guilty of an offence".

Not even restricted to "at night time". 24 hour mandatory hi vis.

I'm rarely outraged, but this has definitely triggered me.

What the actual fck.

I work very frequently on road; always in daylight with hi vis, cones on road, flashing lights. It doesn't matter a ****e. The majority of driver's treat pedestrians on road with contempt, worse than my treatment as a cyclist.

On seeing me, braking is never the first input but a steering one which might leave them in a position where there are only bad outcomes; oncoming car, ditch or me.

The only time there is braking is when camera is pointed towards them and I'm confused for a Garda. So whether a conscious thought or not on some level drivers think "fcuk you" when they see a pedestrian.

Expecting elected representative to lead rather than pander to the majority will usually end in disappointment.

It is a stepping stone for it being illegal to walk on regional roads and above. Build a few greenways, fcuk off and use them as we won't be slowing down is the message

Macy0161

tomasrojo wrote: »

Definition of high visibility seems to be weird, as it's impossible for a material to be easily discernible from all backgrounds

Yes, and the orange "hi vis" don't work for anyone red/green colour blind either. No mention of even reflective material, which is the important bit (if we have to go down this road, why a builders vest and not a browne belt?

eeeee

This is absolutely disgusting.

Forgive my ignorance, as I haven't really been following this (I just assumed it wouldn't make it in) but is this the law now? And if so can it be taken back with enough public pressure? If td's are pressured enough can it be rescinded like mandatory cycle lane use?
I was wondering who the pedestrian lobby groups are, which is a fcuking outrageous thing to have to think about.
This is absolutely indefensible. So in an accident the victim can be culpable because they weren't wearing high viz? Or at least considered a contributory factor? It's fcuking walking down the road. "The victim wasn't wearing hi viz" I'm boiling over this :mad:

Chips Lovell

The legislation in question is the Road Traffic Amendment Bill 2017, which was introduced by the Minister for Transport Shane Ross. The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Road Traffic Act to toughen drink driving penalities by providing for "for automatic disqualification from driving in the case of a person paying a fixed charge in respect of a drink driving offence".

Fianna Fail Transport spokesman Robert Troy [URL="http out against this proposal[/URL]

However, Fianna F’s spokesman on transport, Robert Troy, said his party would not support such measures.

Mr Troy said the Minister had not produced any evidence to support the proposals.

Speaking to The Irish Times, he said: “Minister Ross is being lazy in my opinion. There is nothing to suggest such a road safety measure will be effective or will save lives.

You have to commend Deputy Troy for his public spiritedness and dedication to road safety though. Despite his objection to the main purpose of the bill, he keeps attempting to tack on well meaning additional road safety measures as amendments. No doubt this will make the bill trickier to pass, since all may not agree with them. But if the additional challenge can save one more life, surely it'll all be worth it?

For example, he is keen to add an amendment mandating a minimum passing distance for cyclists:

“We need to see an increase in the minimum required distance between a motorist and cyclist when overtaking. Accordingly, I will shortly bring forward an amendment to the Road Traffic Bill to bring about such a change,” Mr Troy said.

And now he's trying to make it mandatory that pedestrians wear high viz. I'm sure we can all raise a glass to Robert and toast his commitment to keeping us all safe on the road.

Annie get your Run

I don't think it's law yet, it's only being brought the houses of the Oireachtas now as far as I know? I'm not sure what we can do at this stage to make sure it's not passed. I'd be willing to bet it will get huge support while the MPDL probably won't get enough votes. It seems they are two different amendments..

Edit: I see Barons' post above - so it sounds like it's the whole bill or nothing?

Steoller

Annie get your Run wrote: »

I don't think it's law yet, it's only being brought the houses of the Oireachtas now as far as I know? I'm not sure what we can do at this stage to make sure it's not passed. I'd be willing to bet it will get huge support while the MPDL probably won't get enough votes. It seems they are two different amendments..

Edit: I see Barons' post above - so it sounds like it's the whole bill or nothing?

I think the amendments are going to committee on Wednesday, to see if they are included, before the whole bill is voted on.

gmacww

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSANTRnEBgg

tomasrojo

Macy0161 wrote: »

Yes, and the orange "hi vis" don't work for anyone red/green colour blind either. No mention of even reflective material, which is the important bit (if we have to go down this road, why a builders vest and not a browne belt?

It does mention "reflective properties" though. But, as you say, why not allow a Sam Browne, or even a flashlight of a certain output? At least you could put them easily in your pocket or bag.

It's pretty badly written so Troy might not have considered that his amendment makes the hi-viz mandatory during daylight as well. Maybe it doesn't. Does "unlit road" generally mean a road that has neither daylight nor artificial light at the time of use?