Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Grassey

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

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.

I doubt elimination of cars is practical, so I'll settle for substitution with public transport & bikes :P

Duckjob

The whole question of the effectiveness of hi-viz is a BS red herring.

The bigger question we need to be discussing is, what kind of society do we want to move towards. Do we want a society :

a) where the whole public space of the society is essentially like a big high-danger site where anyone not encased in at least 2 tonnes of metal is compelled to walk around like a builder in the hope that they don't get hit by heavy fast moving traffic

or

b) where we hold people in the charge of dangerous vehicles to strict account for their actions and in doing so compel them to slow down and prioritise their great duty of care to those around them, particularly where they are sharing restricted space with unprotected road users like pedestrians and cyclists.


What frustrates me most about the constant opposition to a culture change away from a car-dominant society is that we don't have to make a leap of faith that such a change will work. We can look across the water to NL and see healthy people, clear, quiet air, clean beautiful city spaces AND thriving city centre business.

All these benefits are proven to follow if we just make that switch in our mindsets. Yet in the best traditions of our wonderful little country, too many people dig their heels in the mud and resist changing from their miserable car-clogged status quo. The attempt to compel people to don hi-viz is symptomatic of that closed mindset.

kirving

07Lapierre wrote: »

Fog? Again LIGHTS are the best option.

In all cases, every time? Light can be obscured by bags, jackets, dirt, and most have limited projection angles.

I would agree that, lights are the best option in the majority of circumstances, but retro-reflective material supplements a set of lights extremely well. Finally, bright clothing is far easier to see than dark clothing in the majority of circumstances. I don't see how there's any argument about that.

There's a reason on-patrol Gardai wear bright colors, and armed Gardai wear dark colours. In an urban environment, warning signs are yellow,white and red, road markings are white/yellow instead of blue.

CramCycle

Kevin Irving wrote: »

In all cases, every time? Light can be obscured by bags, jackets, dirt, and most have limited projection angles.

But most project. Using examples of where people use them incorrectly is just strawmanning. The number of cyclists who wear their Hi Vis jacket under their backpack or is covered in dirt, grime etc. It is the same thing. It also relies on other light sources, so unless the right situations are in play, it is effectively no different than wearing a random t shirt.

A properly fitted, decent light, in all circumstances will be better than a hi Vis jacket. I think someone here even put pictures up of themselves with and without their bike lights and then also used cars with no lights, dims and high beams to illustrate the point. In Ireland we have a high level of roadside greenery, which, during daylight hours, blends in with Hi vis.

I have nothing against Hi Vis, use it if you want too but don't go around thinking your visible enough if your just wearing Hi Vis. Consider the number of drivers who drive around with DRLs, instead of dims, which are not shining the light high enough for a Hi Vis vest to work anyway. Council workers trousers are the best form of Hi Vis clothing. They catch low lights, add movement that the brain can interpret as human motion, and push comes to shove, the only way a Hi vis jacket is useful in most cycling circumstances is if it has been tailored to fit around your lower legs like ankle warmers.

I would agree that, lights are the best option in the majority of circumstances, but retro-reflective material supplements a set of lights extremely well. Finally, bright clothing is far easier to see than dark clothing in the majority of circumstances. I don't see how there's any argument about that.

Again, look at the RSA ad, the granddad is more visible because of his black jacket, circumstance and situation are key.

There's a reason on-patrol Gardai wear bright colors, and armed Gardai wear dark colours. In an urban environment, warning signs are yellow,white and red, road markings are white/yellow instead of blue.

On patrol Gardai wear a uniform that is easily identifiable, it is sometimes Hi Vis yellow, it is sometimes dark Blue. Armed gardai typically wear what is most suited to the situation, depending on whether they are Detectives, ARU etc.

I say this in full acceptance of my view that if road users paid attention and drove to the conditions, most PPE and lights for cyclists would be unnecessary but as we all know, this is an unrealistic dream and I am not enough of an idiot to actually say that. People make mistakes and lose concentration, thats why I have great lights.

magicbastarder

Kevin Irving wrote: »

In all cases, every time? Light can be obscured by bags, jackets, dirt, and most have limited projection angles.

surely a hi-vis jacket is far more likely to be obscured by a bag or jacket?

as Cram mentioned above, the human eye is far more attuned to detecting biomechanical motion, so will more readily detect reflective flashing on your legs/feet as you pedal. plus, it has the benefit of being more likely to be caught by dipped beams.

i have a very sexy pair of fluorescent yellow leg warmers. as i found the few times i've used them, they make you visible to motorists in situations that you're already visible.

07Lapierre

Kevin Irving wrote: »

In all cases, every time? Light can be obscured by bags, jackets, dirt, and most have limited projection angles.

I would agree that, lights are the best option in the majority of circumstances, but retro-reflective material supplements a set of lights extremely well. Finally, bright clothing is far easier to see than dark clothing in the majority of circumstances. I don't see how there's any argument about that.

There's a reason on-patrol Gardai wear bright colors, and armed Gardai wear dark colours. In an urban environment, warning signs are yellow,white and red, road markings are white/yellow instead of blue.

Lights are the best option in all circumstances. By lights I mean good lights that are fitted correctly. A bright light covered by a backpack is useless so I would not consider that to be a good light.

IMO all lights shoul be on the bike itself. Rear light should be under the saddle or if the bike has a rack fitted, the rear light should be fitted to the rack or on the rear mudguard.

All front lights should be fitted no higher that the handlebars. Front lights should be angled down slightly.

CramCycle

CramCycle wrote: »

................. I think someone here even put pictures up of themselves with and without their bike lights and then also used cars with no lights, dims and high beams to illustrate the point. In Ireland we have a high level of roadside greenery, which, during daylight hours, blends in with Hi vis.

I recall those posts, wasn't able to find them though. They really did give a good indication of the effectiveness of hi vis or lack of. If I recall one was a hi vis vest on a clothes line and the other was of a car waiting to turn right on a dark road with a cyclist approaching from their right.

Must have another search later. Maybe they were in a different thread.

Ryath

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have a very sexy pair of fluorescent yellow leg warmers. as i found the few times i've used them, they make you visible to motorists in situations that you're already visible.

And don't you look fabulous not sure the leg warmers are what they notice first though. :P

07Lapierre wrote: »

Lights are the best option in all circumstances. By lights I mean good lights that are fitted correctly. A bright light covered by a backpack is useless so I would not consider that to be a good light.

IMO all lights shoul be on the bike itself. Rear light should be under the saddle or if the bike has a rack fitted, the rear light should be fitted to the rack or on the rear mudguard.

All front lights should be fitted no higher that the handlebars. Front lights should be angled down slightly.

Agree there is no no substitute for proper lights on the bike. Still think it's can be good to have a small rear light on the helmet though. If you fell off and are separated from the bike I'd certainly prefer to have it.

Have had club mate comment on my lack of hi viz. I usually use my bike with dynamo lights supplemented with a pair of back up lezynes. I'm not being missed on the bike even if I dressed in black with not a stitch of reflective material.

07Lapierre

Deleted User wrote: »

I recall those posts, wasn't able to find them though. They really did give a good indication of the effectiveness of hi vis or lack of. If I recall one was a hi vis vest on a clothes line and the other was of a car waiting to turn right on a dark road with a cyclist approaching from their right.

Must have another search later. Maybe they were in a different thread.

There is a cyclist cycling towards my car is this video. He was wearing a hi viz jacket (no front light) can you spot him?

https://youtu.be/Kamklf8doLc

Polar wizard adventure

All front lights should be fitted no higher that the handlebars. Front lights should be angled down slightly.

For city cycling i find a front facing helmet light (supplementing my handlebar lights) aids visibility for approaching cars who would otherwise not be able to see the handlebar lights over the intervening cars.

07Lapierre

Polar wizard adventure wrote: »

For city cycling i find a front facing helmet light (supplementing my handlebar lights) aids visibility for approaching cars who would otherwise not be able to see the handlebar lights over the intervening cars.

I find helmet lights (especially if they are flashing) very distracting and that’s as they approach me while I’m cycling or driving. Having said that ... fair play to you for using lights... lots don’t.

magicbastarder

07Lapierre wrote: »

There is a cyclist cycling towards my car is this video. He was wearing a hi viz jacket (no front light) can you spot him?

https://youtu.be/Kamklf8doLc

that road looks familiar - between roganstown and knocksedan?

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

that road looks familiar - between roganstown and knocksedan?

Yep that's it...you recognised the road, but did you spot the cyclist?

CramCycle

07Lapierre wrote: »

Yep that's it...you recognised the road, but did you spot the cyclist?

I only seen the one heading with you, about 1.26, but none against. Have to admit the video quality is not the best so may influence abilities quite a bit,

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

There is a cyclist cycling towards my car is this video. He was wearing a hi viz jacket (no front light) can you spot him?

https://youtu.be/Kamklf8doLc

07Lapierre wrote: »

I find helmet lights (especially if they are flashing) very distracting and that’s as they approach me while I’m cycling or driving. Having said that ... fair play to you for using lights... lots don’t.

In my experience lights on a bike are better in conditions where there are no other lights (such as the road in your example)
Reflective clothing is better in places where there is a lot of other light pollution (city driving for example)

Bike lights either get drowned out by following cars or are extremely distracting (the flashing lighthouses some people wear on their heads. Viewing bike lights in rear/side mirrors makes it very difficult to determine how far away the bike is, especially if the lights are flashing, solid, reflective blocks make determining how far away and at what speed the object is (again in my experience)

The above is why I use lights and reflective clothing when cycling.

Macy0161

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have a very sexy pair of fluorescent yellow leg warmers. as i found the few times i've used them, they make you visible to motorists in situations that you're already visible.

The ankle/ arm bands that aldi and lidl do are good for this, without the need for the leg warmers . I only tend to use them running (all my bib tights have reflective details low down, as do my shoe covers).

A bit like the whole browne belt v builders vest, the RSA could promote these options more. But then, not much room for their branding on an ankle band, so wouldn't be seen to be doing something.

07Lapierre

CramCycle wrote: »

I only seen the one heading with you, about 1.26, but none against. Have to admit the video quality is not the best so may influence abilities quite a bit,

He's between 1.42/1.46

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

Bike lights either get drowned out by following cars or are extremely distracting (the flashing lighthouses some people wear on their heads. Viewing bike lights in rear/side mirrors makes it very difficult to determine how far away the bike is, especially if the lights are flashing, solid, reflective blocks make determining how far away and at what speed the object is (again in my experience)

I would have said the opposite about hi vis, light pollution and the fact that cars should be driving with dims, as well as bikes in rear view relying on ambient light make them less reliable (to me).

I would have thought a solid light would achieve the same as what you are saying the reflective block achieves?

In regards distance, in most cases you will have other reference points to determine whether the cyclist is really close or just humongous.

GreeBo

CramCycle wrote: »

I would have said the opposite about hi vis, light pollution and the fact that cars should be driving with dims, as well as bikes in rear view relying on ambient light make them less reliable (to me).

I would have thought a solid light would achieve the same as what you are saying the reflective block achieves?

In regards distance, in most cases you will have other reference points to determine whether the cyclist is really close or just humongous.

In darkness with multiple car lights reflecting in your mirrors, a bike light just doesnt really show up.
Add in rain and its almost impossible, you cant tell the difference between a bike light and a rain drop reflecting a car light.

Cars are driving with dims, it still reflects in your mirrors. Bike lights can look like any other light when you are looking at it against a myriad of other lights around the same level, but a sam browne or fully reflective jacket just doesnt blend in as nothing else looks like it.

What are the other reference points you so sarcastically point out?

Grassey

My front bike light max 1700 lumens, though I usually run it at 850 lumens so as not to blind anyone, and max is excessive in Dublin. The spread would be comparable to a motorbike.

According to a quick google, a motorbike headbeam undipped is 1200 lumen, and 700 on dipped, so I don't buy you couldn't see me in the wingmirrors even in rain. Given how builder jackets don't reflect most orange street lights they won't show in the wingmirrors either until they pull up around your back left wheel.

Now if you are talking about those tiny button lights the RSA hand out that have no function then I could agree with you.

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

In darkness with multiple car lights reflecting in your mirrors, a bike light just doesnt really show up.
Add in rain and its almost impossible, you cant tell the difference between a bike light and a rain drop reflecting a car light.

Cars are driving with dims, it still reflects in your mirrors. Bike lights can look like any other light when you are looking at it against a myriad of other lights around the same level, but a sam browne or fully reflective jacket just doesnt blend in as nothing else looks like it.

What are the other reference points you so sarcastically point out?

So what your saying is..drivers shouldn't really depend on the view in their rear view mirrors and should take extra caution when it's raining? (A good driver already know this)

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

So what your saying is..drivers shouldn't really depend on the view in their rear view mirrors and should take extra caution when it's raining? (A good driver already know this)

No, what I'm saying is these are the issues a motorist faces, whether in their mirror or just on their window, at the best of times a bike light can get hidden, in rain they get multiplied to the point of being invisible.

Speaking as a cyclist, relying on drivers instead of just using lights and reflective gear is, to me at least, akin to not bringing wetgear on my commute to force the weather man to get better at forecasting.

There is only going to be one loser.

Macy0161

Interestingly, the bus drivers defence quoted the limitations of the hiviz the victim was wearing in the Dublin bus driver case that finished today...

"He said the headlights of the bus could not have caught Ms White and that his client could not have seen her."

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

No, what I'm saying is these are the issues a motorist faces, whether in their mirror or just on their window, at the best of times a bike light can get hidden, in rain they get multiplied to the point of being invisible.

Speaking as a cyclist, relying on drivers instead of just using lights and reflective gear is, to me at least, akin to not bringing wetgear on my commute to force the weather man to get better at forecasting.

There is only going to be one loser.

I never said the a cyclist should not use lights or reflective clothes. What I am saying is that regardless of how bright your lights are, how reflective your clothes are, they are useless if drivers are not looking/observing what's going on around them. As a cyclist, I have no control over drivers looking in their mirrors. as a motorists I drive a car that has heated mirrors and I use them. I also look over my shoulder when turning left or right and don't rely on what I see in my mirrors. It must be the cyclist in me that makes me drive "with due care and attention".

07Lapierre

Ryath wrote: »

Agree there is no no substitute for proper lights on the bike. Still think it's can be good to have a small rear light on the helmet though. If you fell off and are separated from the bike I'd certainly prefer to have it.

Have had club mate comment on my lack of hi viz. I usually use my bike with dynamo lights supplemented with a pair of back up lezynes. I'm not being missed on the bike even if I dressed in black with not a stitch of reflective material.

Small lights on helmets (a red light at the rear) is fine. The same goes for small led type lights that are on wristbands etc. But I do think really bright white lights on helmets are too high and their benefits are quite limited. just my opinion and they are certainly better than no lights.

tomasrojo

Macy0161 wrote: »

A bit like the whole browne belt v builders vest, the RSA could promote these options more. But then, not much room for their branding on an ankle band, so wouldn't be seen to be doing something.

I have a reflective belt, which is a repurposed old Sam Browne that goes around my satchel. It doesn't do that much, because reflectors don't do much when you already have good lights, but it does add a little "top" to the bike image, above the rear light and the reflectors on the bike.

Sam Brownes aren't as awful as hiviz jackets, and they might actually be more effective when worn on a dark top, as you get a reflective, and eye-catching shape, and sharp contrast. But they're much more expensive than the stuff the RSA does give out (no seams, velcro fasteners: very cheap; probably 50c an item at cost price, or less). The RSA's choice of "safety" give-aways is pretty clearly driven primarily by price. The lights they give away are probably less than a euro at cost price.

07Lapierre

Macy0161 wrote: »

Interestingly, the bus drivers defence quoted the limitations of the hiviz the victim was wearing in the Dublin bus driver case that finished today...

"He said the headlights of the bus could not have caught Ms White and that his client could not have seen her."

IMO the defence lawyers was trying to defend the indefensible. From what I read, the cyclists was wearing a helmet, had lights and Hi-viz. the impact took place while the bus was on the wrong side of the road. This bus had cut the corner and there was a yield sign (which implies that the cyclist had right of way) In short, pretty hard for the lawyers to defend.

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

Small lights on helmets (a red light at the rear) is fine. The same goes for small led type lights that are on wristbands etc. But I do think really bright white lights on helmets are too high and their benefits are quite limited. just my opinion and they are certainly better than no lights.

Imo small lights are worse than nothing, people with them on think they are visible web really they are not at all.
Those faint little blinkers are pointless and dangerous.

07Lapierre wrote: »

I never said the a cyclist should not use lights or reflective clothes. What I am saying is that regardless of how bright your lights are, how reflective your clothes are, they are useless if drivers are not looking/observing what's going on around them. As a cyclist, I have no control over drivers looking in their mirrors. as a motorists I drive a car that has heated mirrors and I use them. I also look over my shoulder when turning left or right and don't rely on what I see in my mirrors. It must be the cyclist in me that makes me drive "with due care and attention".

Which is fair enough, but they're is nothing that you the cyclist can do about that, so why argue over wearing reflective gear with your lights?

tomasrojo wrote: »

I have a reflective belt, which is a repurposed old Sam Browne that goes around my satchel. It doesn't do that much, because reflectors don't do much when you already have good lights, but it does add a little "top" to the bike image, above the rear light and the reflectors on the bike.

Sam Brownes aren't as awful as hiviz jackets, and they might actually be more effective when worn on a dark top, as you get a reflective, and eye-catching shape, and sharp contrast. But they're much more expensive than the stuff the RSA does give out (no seams, velcro fasteners: very cheap; probably 50c an item at cost price, or less). The RSA's choice of "safety" give-aways is pretty clearly driven primarily by price. The lights they give away are probably less than a euro at cost price.

Reflective gear doesn't have to be expensive, it just had to be reflective.
I strongly disagree that refractive great doesn't do much when you have lights on, fit the reasons I started in my previous post.

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

In darkness with multiple car lights reflecting in your mirrors, a bike light just doesnt really show up.
Add in rain and its almost impossible, you cant tell the difference between a bike light and a rain drop reflecting a car light.

Cars are driving with dims, it still reflects in your mirrors. Bike lights can look like any other light when you are looking at it against a myriad of other lights around the same level, but a sam browne or fully reflective jacket just doesnt blend in as nothing else looks like it.

And I respectfully disagree in an urban environment, on a murky evening, a hi vis is not standoutish, with the sodium lights all round the place it drains into the surround unless you are coming from behind with full beams on. A Sam Browne is more noticeable, but again unless directly reflecting, I would imagine this i a contrast rather than reflection you are noticing. I'll try and dig out the pics around here as I'd rather not go out and take pics in the rain (or dry), I'll see if I catch anything that fits on my bike cams over the coming days as it gets darker.

What are the other reference points you so sarcastically point out?

It wasn't sarcasm, it really was a serious comment. how do you tell how far away a single beam car is (and there are loads), how do you estimate the distance of a motorbike. Typically you will use, unknowingly a range of reference points around the person or vehicle, be it the poll they are beside, marks on the road as well as basic estimations based on typical size and observation giving you a reasonable estimation.

GreeBo wrote: »

No, what I'm saying is these are the issues a motorist faces, whether in their mirror or just on their window, at the best of times a bike light can get hidden, in rain they get multiplied to the point of being invisible.

if your vision is that impaired, I presume you are driving alot slower, indicators on in plenty of time, keeping out from the kerb. In these scenarios, ankle, wrist and helmet auxillary lights would be great for a cyclist but to be honest, if a cyclist has decent lights, it really is one of those things where you have to hope the driver is on their game. I am more cautious on the bike in reduced visibility, stopping before corners where I see wheel twinges but no indicators, moving into traffic rather than the side of traffic. As you say yourself, you cannot solely rely on the behaviour of other road users.

Speaking as a cyclist, relying on drivers instead of just using lights and reflective gear is, to me at least, akin to not bringing wetgear on my commute to force the weather man to get better at forecasting.

There is only going to be one loser.

hence why I am pushing for good lights and good road positioning over the stance of the RSA that Hi Vis is good enough. If my lights fail on my commute (admittedly I have back ups but if all else fails), I am walking or bussing it if it a dark miserable night because it is not worth it, I have a family and a job tomorrow, I'd like if they have me as well. If I am in a rural setting, hoping I hae enough mobile battery to use as a torch for the walk, or just ringing someone for collection.

I cannot say this enough times, I have no issue with Hi Vis, I have issue with people advocating its use before the other minimum requirements are satisfied.

kirving

CramCycle wrote: »

But most project. Using examples of where people use them incorrectly is just strawmanning.

It's not strawmanning - if you asked the general public (and not a cycling forum), I believe the majority of people would say most cyclists are poorly lit up.

Most lights I see personally are woefully inadequate. Whether that's because of low batteries, pointed toward the ground, dirty, low batteries, its doesn't matter. I realise the irony in me saying that I can see poor lights, but managing to spot someone is a pretty low bar - they should be plainly obvious to any driver in a mirror.

What is strawmanning since you brought it up, is talking about "Hi Vis Jacket/vest" four times, and "Hi Vis" (implying a builder jacket) another 5 times.

I didn't mention jackets, or "hi-vis" at all. I specifically said retro-reflective, and bright colours. I fully understand people's issue with being dictated by the media and government to wear a vest - and also their limitations in terms of coverage and location.

But these days, you can dress sensibly and not look stupid, or have to wear yellow at all.

CramCycle wrote: »

It also relies on other light sources, so unless the right situations are in play, it is effectively no different than wearing a random t shirt.

To be fair, all cars have lights, and modern retro-reflective materials are excellent. In very many situations, they will return a strong reflection.

What I find best about them is the surface area. Most light are just a few square cm in area, and even if set up properly, can be easily obscured by cyclists or traffic in front and behind. Large surface areas of retro-reflective material are very visible even when illuminated by brake lights and seen in a side mirror.

CramCycle wrote: »

A properly fitted, decent light, in all circumstances will be better than a hi Vis jacket.I think someone here even put pictures up of themselves with and without their bike lights and then also used cars with no lights, dims and high beams to illustrate the point.

You can't say that they're better in "all" circumstances - that is assuming that you've seen every cyclist, ever, from every point of view, in all conditions possible. It's just an outlandish statement to make.

Vast majority maybe, but lights too have their limitations. Which is why EU law mandates that cars are also fitted with reflectors.

CramCycle wrote: »

In Ireland we have a high level of roadside greenery, which, during daylight hours, blends in with Hi vis.

I can understand this to an extent, but wearing dark grey in the city, or brown in the countryside is no better.

CramCycle wrote: »

People make mistakes and lose concentration, thats why I have great lights.

You might have great lights, but very many others do not. For them, and as I stated, retro-reflective material and bright colours are a good supplement to lights.