Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

AndrewJRenko

greenspurs wrote: »

Can ANYONE on here actually admit that wearing hi viz jacket/vest/clothing at dusk or at night, actually does make you more visible?

Do you have hi-vis stripes on your car? They would definitely make your car more visible, especially for when you forget your lights, or for when you drive with no back lights because you don't know how your DRLs work, or when you are seen from the side.

I've a few of the lights they hand out during their campaigns and you'd see better ones on a christmas tree.

07Lapierre

greenspurs wrote: »

Can ANYONE on here actually admit that wearing hi viz jacket/vest/clothing at dusk or at night, actually does make you more visible?

When i go for a walk in the evenings, i wear a viz vest, to increase my visibility .When i cycled in low light i wear a hiviz gilet.

Why cant people on here admit that, instead of digging their heels in, just to create/fight an arguement!

No... Hi-viz makes you look like a numpty! If you go out on the roads at dawn/dusk/low light or when it’s dark... use lights! Remember, the real problem on our roads is not visibility, it’s Observation! A goof light will get someone’s attention much better (and from further away and doesn’t need a light source to work) than any hi-viz.

I will admit that anyone who goes out wearing hi-viz on a bright sunny day doesn’t need lights!

meeeeh

07Lapierre wrote: »

No... Hi-viz makes you look like a numpty!

It's that what it is. People not wanting to lower themselves to the level of construction or other manual workers.

07Lapierre

meeeeh wrote: »

It's that what it is. People not wanting to lower themselves to the level of construction or other manual workers.

Not sure where you got “manual worker” from? Im all for wearing appropriate clothing for any given activity. I’m not covering my cycling specific clothing with any hi-viz jacket of any kind. Especially since my existing clothing has reflective elements built in. My helmet has a reflector on the rear, my gloves have reflective strips, but most importantly, my bike has good working lights.

meeeeh

07Lapierre wrote: »

Not sure where you got “manual worker” from? Im all for wearing appropriate clothing for any given activity. I’m not covering my cycling specific clothing with any hi-viz jacket of any kind. Especially since my existing clothing has reflective elements built in. My helmet has a reflector on the rear, my gloves have reflective strips, but most importantly, my bike has good working lights.

There is cycling, running gear that goes under hi-vis. Hi-vis is not just the vests. But if you think your reflective straps will do anything in fog you are very naive. Anyway as it happens highlight yellow is also one of the fashionable colours so there is good chance fashion trends will limit your choice to the hi-viz in the future anyway.

Hurrache

Speaking of giving out lights, the Dublin Cycling Campaign are handing some out this evening
https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1054701897544806401

Grassey

Q: What do cars do when it's foggy?

A1: Stick on their high vis stripes?

A2: Turn on lights to aid others to see them

A3: leave off the lights because they can see and maintain maximum permissible speed limits?

07Lapierre

meeeeh wrote: »

There is cycling, running gear that goes under hi-vis. Hi-vis is not just the vests. But if you think your reflective straps will do anything in fog you are very naive. Anyway as it happens highlight yellow is also one of the fashionable colours so there is good chance fashion trends will limit your choice to the hi-viz in the future anyway.

Fog? Again LIGHTS are the best option.

Fashion? nah i'm still wearing converse all-stars! Good clothing never goes out of fashion!

Macy0161

meeeeh wrote: »

But if you think your reflective straps will do anything in fog you are very naive.

I'll put on my lights, pretty much the same as I'd do if I was in the car! ffs.

buffalo

meeeeh wrote: »

It's that what it is. People not wanting to lower themselves to the level of construction or other manual workers.

It's not a lowering. Constructions workers wear hi-viz on sites where there are people working in JCBs, driving forklifts, teleporters, dump trucks - it's a hazardous environment by design, as those vehicles are necessary for the work involved, and hi-viz is used to lower the risk of crushing, etc.

For the RSA to encourage hi-viz gear for pedestrians is to say "there's not much we can do to lower the level of risk from distracted or speeding drivers except dress you in shiny outfits. Good luck out there!" It's an acceptance that a culture of entitled driving is more important than the safety of those who choose to walk or jog in public areas.

07Lapierre

buffalo wrote: »

It's not a lowering. Constructions workers wear hi-viz on sites where there are people working in JCBs, driving forklifts, teleporters, dump trucks - it's a hazardous environment by design, as those vehicles are necessary for the work involved, and hi-viz is used to lower the risk of crushing, etc.

For the RSA to encourage hi-viz gear for pedestrians is to say "there's not much we can do to lower the level of risk from distracted or speeding drivers except dress you in shiny outfits. Good luck out there!" It's an acceptance that a culture of entitled driving is more important than the safety of those who choose to walk or jog in public areas.

Any Construction workers I know place more safety importance on their hard hats and Steel toed Boots!

buffalo

07Lapierre wrote: »

Any Construction workers I know place more safety importance on their hard hats and Steel toed Boots!

I can already imagine the next RSA ad...

Ray Bloody Purchase

buffalo wrote: »

I can already imagine the next RSA ad...

Every morning I pass a guy cycling with a pair of rigger boots on.

Did i miss the memo?

Chips Lovell

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

Every morning I pass a guy cycling with a pair of rigger boots on.

If it saves one life....

Mc Love

You see some people wearing pink "hi viz" tops but as has been said here, its the reflective bits that show up in the dark. Find it odd that more of the gilets, jackets dont have more reflective material on them.

In Copenhagen for the weekend, thousands and thousands of people cycling, didn't see one cyclist wearing a high-viz, and very few helmets.

Chips Lovell

Deleted User wrote: »

In Copenhagen for the weekend, thousands and thousands of people cycling, didn't see one cyclist wearing a high-viz, and very few helmets.

Shocking Joe.

Seriously though, that's because in a lot of other countries, cycling is seen as about as normal an activity as walking or driving. Here it's all too often cast as some sort of high risk activity. That impression is bolstered by constant scaremongering from the likes of the road safety authority.

07Lapierre

Deleted User wrote: »

In Copenhagen for the weekend, thousands and thousands of people cycling, didn't see one cyclist wearing a high-viz, and very few helmets.

I think you answered your own question. If we had more people cycling (and better cycling infrastructure), cycling would be safer for everyone.

https://www.visitcopenhagen.com/sites/default/files/asp/visitcopenhagen/Visit-sites/1024x576/Bikes/cykler_kasper_thyge.jpg

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you have hi-vis stripes on your car? They would definitely make your car more visible, especially for when you forget your lights, or for when you drive with no back lights because you don't know how your DRLs work, or when you are seen from the side.

A cyclist is a lot smaller than a car though.

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

A cyclist is a lot smaller than a car though.

True, and the cyclist is generally lighter and slower too - so all the more important for cars to be visible at all times.

tomasrojo

meeeeh wrote: »

It's that what it is. People not wanting to lower themselves to the level of construction or other manual workers.

I don't want to dress like a ballerina either. It's not because I regard ballet as a low-status activity.

tomasrojo

Esprit d'escalier: Rather than ballerina, I should have said cowboy, sailor, native American or leatherman.

Ray Bloody Purchase

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dublin-bus-driver-denies-dangerous-driving-causing-death-of-a-cyclist-37452813.html

This gives an interesting insight into the view the judiciary have of hi-vis etc.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Esprit d'escalier: Rather than ballerina, I should have said cowboy, sailor, native American or leatherman.

that's exclusionary towards cops and construction workers.

Macy0161

just for the record, I've no problem with appropriate PPE, in the appropriate setting. Builders vest for when I'm on a building site (or marshaling, as it's the rules), as well as hard hat and safety shoes, which I'd put more important on a site. I don't deem a builders vest as appropriate on the bike - limited value (the yellow material zero good in the dark, and positions of the reflective detail in an urban setting are not ideal), flappy, and potentially questionable reflective detail if got from the RSA/ cheapo sources.

If I'm going to wear something to enhance my visibility, it is something designed for the activity I'm doing - so I have a reflective Gillet, reflective rain jacket. But even most of my commuting gear from Ali has some reflective detail (all my "decent" gear does). But they're not as important as lights*.

*and I'm going to highlight, again, the lack of a clear standard for lights in this state. Something the RSA could be doing for cyclists.

BrianHenryIE

greenspurs wrote: »

Why cant people on here admit that, instead of digging their heels in, just to create/fight an arguement!

People can't admit it because in countries where cycling is safer, hi-viz isn't the factor that makes things safer.



We are literally begging for safer cycling. If you can clearly demonstrate the advantages of hi-viz, then it will sell itself.

magicbastarder

i can't remember who it was, but someone here explained the official hierarchy of risk reduction a couple of years back (probably earlier in this thread).
IIRC (and unsurprisingly), making those who face the risk take actions to protect themselves is well down the list. the primary actions are on those who *create* the risk.

i'm 100% sure the RSA are hammering on the door of the gardai pleading with them to ramp up their actions against bad driving. 100%. because it'd be absurd if they weren't.

Ray Bloody Purchase

magicbastarder wrote: »

i can't remember who it was, but someone here explained the official hierarchy of risk reduction a couple of years back (probably earlier in this thread).
IIRC (and unsurprisingly), making those who face the risk take actions to protect themselves is well down the list. the primary actions are on those who *create* the risk.

i'm 100% sure the RSA are hammering on the door of the gardai pleading with them to ramp up their actions against bad driving. 100%. because it'd be absurd if they weren't.

It's called the hierarchy of controls. PPE is the last mitigation you put in place. At the top is eliminate and after that I think it's isolate the hazard.

Macy0161

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm 100% sure the RSA are hammering on the door of the gardai pleading with them to ramp up their actions against bad driving. 100%. because it'd be absurd if they weren't.

Yep, we can see this with all the pressure they're putting on for more cameras/ ANPR, in more locations...