Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

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 .

Your quite right and I should have qualified my comments be adding that small led's, hi viz etc. are fine as long as they are used in conjunction with good lights and not instead of good lights.

AndrewJRenko

Kevin Irving wrote: »

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.

If you asked the general public anything about cyclists, you would get the usual oul guff about red lights, road tax and menace on the road nonsense. It's not a great standard to hold up.

Grassey

But it doesn't detract from the point that most Commuter cyclists aren't well lit.

During lighting up hours this morning bar myself, only 1 other Commuter had a (single rear) light. Another handful had builder jackets only, 2 had high vis cycle jackets only , 4 were in normal clothes only.

That's fairly reflective of most of my commutes, that the majority aren't lit up during the required times at a minimum. The RSA would be far better off advocating for a minimum lighting standard and promoting lights during lighting up period to both cars and cyclists over saying here's a magic yellow jacket you'll be fine now.

AndrewJRenko

Grassey wrote: »

But it doesn't detract from the point that most Commuter cyclists aren't well lit.

During lighting up hours this morning bar myself, only 1 other Commuter had a (single rear) light. Another handful had builder jackets only, 2 had high vis cycle jackets only , 4 were in normal clothes only.

That's fairly reflective of most of my commutes, that the majority aren't lit up during the required times at a minimum. The RSA would be far better off advocating for a minimum lighting standard and promoting lights during lighting up period to both cars and cyclists over saying here's a magic yellow jacket you'll be fine now.

I had to tell one driver he had his fog lights on, I saw two others with non-functioning brake lights (one with two lights gone) and one with no back lights because he doesn't know how his DRLs work. When can I expect the RSA campaigns to get motorists to comply with minimum lighting standards?

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

Reflective gear doesn't have to be expensive, it just had to be reflective.

The point was that they give away inconvenient and outlandish-looking clothing, because it's cheap. They don't give away Sam Brownes, which fold up nice and small, and can be worn in hot weather without any discomfort, because they're expensive.

GreeBo wrote: »

I strongly disagree that refractive great doesn't do much when you have lights on, fit the reasons I started in my previous post.

Your "motorists mistake powerful lights for drops of rain" isn't very convincing at all.

magicbastarder

random observation - on alfie byrne road this morning at about 7am, coming from clontarf, there was a cyclist in front of me - i saw him from maybe 100m or 200m away, he had a reasonable light on the back of the bike.
it was only when i got to about 10m away that i realised he had a fully reflective proviz jacket on. granted, he was in the cycle lane and i was on the road, but a couple of cars passed (running dipped lights) before i got to him and i didn't cop the reflective jacket until i was nearly on top of him.

Duckjob

magicbastarder wrote: »

random observation - on alfie byrne road this morning at about 7am, coming from clontarf, there was a cyclist in front of me - i saw him from maybe 100m or 200m away, he had a reasonable light on the back of the bike.
it was only when i got to about 10m away that i realised he had a fully reflective proviz jacket on. granted, he was in the cycle lane and i was on the road, but a couple of cars passed (running dipped lights) before i got to him and i didn't cop the reflective jacket until i was nearly on top of him.

Yes I have one of those and in dull light, without light directed onto it it can look a very dull grey colour. With any direct light however, even a weak one, it glows bright bright white.

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

If something even happened to me, then based on the nonsense we're hearing being trotted out by supposed legal professionals in our courts, I can imagine the court being told that "I wasnt wearing hi-viz", as in I wasn't wearing one of the yellow RSA ones, even though for reflective ability, the provis stuff knocks those yokes into a cocked hat.

Macy0161

Grassey wrote: »

The RSA would be far better off advocating for a minimum lighting standard and promoting lights during lighting up period to both cars and cyclists over saying here's a magic yellow jacket you'll be fine now.

I would've said that this is pretty much what this whole thread is about!

Well the bit about promoting lights. Only some of us continually banging on about a recognised standard. I'd hazard a guess zero cyclists comply with the lights having an illuminated area of at least 2 square inches, given the advances (nevermind the move to metric) since 1963!

Incidentally, while some could've had better lights (or charged/ new batteries), I don't recall any other cyclist without lights this morning on my way in the N11 from Loughlinstown, until UCD. It was probably borderline at that stage whether they were needed - but that's well into pedestrians using a bike territory.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

The point was that they give away inconvenient and outlandish-looking clothing, because it's cheap. They don't give away Sam Brownes, which fold up nice and small, and can be worn in hot weather without any discomfort, because they're expensive.

Indeed, I'm not sure what any of that has to do about the usefulness of reflective gear though...or are you just shifting the goalposts now and moving on to moaning about the government not spending money on something people can easily buy for themselves?

tomasrojo wrote: »

You're "motorists mistake powerful lights for drops of rain" isn't very convincing at all.

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

Indeed, I'm not sure what any of that has to do about the usefulness of reflective gear though...or are you just shifting the goalposts now and moving on to moaning about the government not spending money on something people can easily buy for themselves?

Its one of the key points of the thread, the debate on whether the RSa is being devious or even negligent in their pushing of Hi Vis vests over more suitable visibility aids. It is not moving the goalposts, it is clarifying where they are and should be.

Very helpful and engaging, much like this comment I suppose.

GreeBo

CramCycle wrote: »

Its one of the key points of the thread, the debate on whether the RSa is being devious or even negligent in their pushing of Hi Vis vests over more suitable visibility aids. It is not moving the goalposts, it is clarifying where they are and should be.

Well the thread is entitled "Hi Vis discussion thread"
I'd suggest you add something specific about the RSA in there if points are only allowed to deal with the RSA and their free hi-vis clothing.

BTW its a bit of a stretch to suggest that the RSA are being 'devious', Conspiracy thread is -->

CramCycle wrote: »

Very helpful and engaging, much like this comment I suppose.

Actually I was explaining the other posters complete misunderstanding of my point.

Cant imagine where I got the idea of using an image from....

CramCycle wrote: »

CramCycle

Kevin Irving wrote: »

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.

I was referring to the RSA nad their hunt to convince Hi Vis vests are a solution to all our visibility problems.

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

I don't care about looking stupid, I ride a bike with various outfits, none of whihc match or exude style. Sitting at my desk this mornign I realise my laces are different colours. I really do not care what I look like, so long as I am visible to others.

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

To be fair, a large percentage of cars drive round in the middle of the night with DRLs and no proper lights on. Modern retro reflective materials are great but only work if they are reflecting back at the appropriate other road user.

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.

If you only notice a cyclist when they are at your brake lights, then you did not see them in time. I prefer lights where I can be seen around bends, from a few 100m away.

I have no issue with hi vis or retro reflective clothing, but they alone are not enough, even with poor lights, they are not enough. cyclists need good lights until other road users behaviour improves immensely, that is my only 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.

Find me a situation where my 400 lumen front and 300 lumen rear is worse than any wearable retroreflective material. i don't think my statement is outlandish, I think that i have not seen anything that disproves it yet, but am open to hearing about them.

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

During daylight hours I imagine Brown would be better than yellow or green in the countryside for most of the year. Taken from the Guardian, in relation to motorcyclists but it applies to cyclists who think wearing certain coloured garments is sufficient:

Given that environments may differ over even fairly small changes in time or location, there is not likely to be a one-size-fits-all solution, meaning that motorcyclists need to be aware of the limitations of whichever interventions they use.

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.

And here is my problem, your fixing an issue with a plaster rather than sowing kit. If the lights are not good enough, they need better lights, not a coulourful t shirt. I am not saying it is not an improvement on the ****ty lights, I am saying that it doesn't fix the problem.

Nowadays, decent lights cost less than decent clothing. A 300Lumen front and 50 Lumen rear, USB rechargable, are 17euro from Aldi. Last for over5 hours after a single charge. But yet no, lets encourage jackets that most commuters won't but as they are too bloody expensive (Pro vis is well over 50quid) or follow the RSA and hand out sub standard vests.

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

Well the thread is entitled "Hi Vis discussion thread"
I'd suggest you add something specific about the RSA in there if points are only allowed to deal with the RSA and their free hi-vis clothing.

BTW its a bit of a stretch to suggest that the RSA are being 'devious', Conspiracy thread is -->

I never said it was intentional, but it is there, they are being negligent. You are also willfully misreading my posts. I said a key point, not what the whole thread was about, just a key discussion point.

Actually I was explaining the other posters complete misunderstanding of my point.

You were being dismissive. I have driven and cycled for over 25years, in some pretty ****ty weather, raindrops on your rear view mirror are annoying but they do not get mistake for cyclists lights. You adapt your driving to the conditions, slow down, caution, analysis of the road. If lets say you did see a raindrop that looked like a cyclists light. you know what you should do, you treat it as if it is a cyclist and act accordingly.

You mention physics but when I mentioned reference points earlier, you claimed I was being sarcastic, hence the picture to explain the difference of how many people add up all the clues in a 3D world to get a better overall picture.

kirving

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you asked the general public anything about cyclists, you would get the usual oul guff about red lights, road tax and menace on the road nonsense. It's not a great standard to hold up.

It's not a great standard, but remember too that this forum is a subset of those who by definition of talking about it online, are more interested and take it more seriously than most. There's absolutely more than just a shred of truth in the general public's opinion of cyclists. And I say that as a cyclist myself.

GreeBo

CramCycle wrote: »

I was referring to the RSA nad their hunt to convince Hi Vis vests are a solution to all our visibility problems.

I don't care about looking stupid, I ride a bike with various outfits, none of whihc match or exude style. Sitting at my desk this mornign I realise my laces are different colours. I really do not care what I look like, so long as I am visible to others.

Great, reflective gear makes you more visible so I guess you have no issue with wearing it or with the RSA encouraging people to wear it then.

CramCycle wrote: »

To be fair, a large percentage of cars drive round in the middle of the night with DRLs and no proper lights on. Modern retro reflective materials are great but only work if they are reflecting back at the appropriate other road user.

Whataboutery.

CramCycle wrote: »

If you only notice a cyclist when they are at your brake lights, then you did not see them in time. I prefer lights where I can be seen around bends, from a few 100m away.

Why are you deciding they are only at your lights? The clothes are reflective, the lights are shining, they dont only shine 2 feet behind your vehicle!

CramCycle wrote: »

I have no issue with hi vis or retro reflective clothing, but they alone are not enough, even with poor lights, they are not enough. cyclists need good lights until other road users behaviour improves immensely, that is my only point.

Is anyone saying that they are enough on their own?
It seems that you and others are repeatedly saying that lights on their own are enough, many of us disagree with that.

CramCycle wrote: »

Find me a situation where my 400 lumen front and 300 lumen rear is worse than any wearable retroreflective material. i don't think my statement is outlandish, I think that i have not seen anything that disproves it yet, but am open to hearing about them.

When its hidden by the lights from many other road vehicles.
I may see the light but I can't easily & quickly determine the source of the light its not that useful.
Whereas a reflective jacket like above, in my experience, makes it much easier to spot and more importantly distinguish.

CramCycle wrote: »

And here is my problem, your fixing an issue with a plaster rather than sowing kit. If the lights are not good enough, they need better lights, not a coulourful t shirt. I am not saying it is not an improvement on the ****ty lights, I am saying that it doesn't fix the problem.

Only if you think that lights are the be all and end all.

CramCycle wrote: »

Nowadays, decent lights cost less than decent clothing. A 300Lumen front and 50 Lumen rear, USB rechargable, are 17euro from Aldi. Last for over5 hours after a single charge. But yet no, lets encourage jackets that most commuters won't but as they are too bloody expensive (Pro vis is well over 50quid) or follow the RSA and hand out sub standard vests.

The RSA are never going to hand out €17 lights to people, would you prefer they did nothing?

GreeBo

CramCycle wrote: »

You were being dismissive. I have driven and cycled for over 25years, in some pretty ****ty weather, raindrops on your rear view mirror are annoying but they do not get mistake for cyclists lights.

If you cant accept the simple physics involved with raindrops focusing light from multple sources onto your mirror then I'm not sure there is any point in trying to continue a logical conversation with you.

Every drop of rain on your mirror will look like a light source, if you have never experienced this then I question the validity of your driving experience.

CramCycle wrote: »

You adapt your driving to the conditions, slow down, caution, analysis of the road. If lets say you did see a raindrop that looked like a cyclists light. you know what you should do, you treat it as if it is a cyclist and act accordingly.

Thats all great in theory, but the reality of the situation is that there is only one loser if a mistake is made.

CramCycle wrote: »

You mention physics but when I mentioned reference points earlier, you claimed I was being sarcastic, hence the picture to explain the difference of how many people add up all the clues in a 3D world to get a better overall picture.

I countered your graphic with a real world example of what Im talking about.
I'm sorry if the reality of the situation annoys you and I wish it were not so, but it is, so complaining about the RSA and trying to make it everyone elses problem to solve is going to get you dead.

Duckjob

GreeBo wrote: »

The RSA are never going to hand out €17 lights to people, would you prefer they did nothing?

Can't speak for others here, but I'd be happy if they simply spent less effort on pushing hi-viz as the main driver of road safety, and spent more effort lobbying the gardai to buck up their enforcement of all EXISTING legislation on ALL road users - which would include penalising cyclists caught out in the dark without lights.

blackbox

I can't understand why people think they look stupid in hi-viz vests. Do all builders and engineers look stupid?

I think that cyclists dressed in dark clothes, whether it is an old duffle coat or slick Lycra look more stupid than those wearing hi-viz.

On rural roads especially, hi-viz vests make pedestrians and cyclists much more visible in ALL light conditions. Lights are not mandatory (unfortunately) during daylight hours.

Mc Love

blackbox wrote: »

I can't understand why people think they look stupid in hi-viz vests. Do all builders and engineers look stupid?

I think that cyclists dressed in dark clothes, whether it is an old duffle coat or slick Lycra look more stupid than those wearing hi-viz.

On rural roads especially, hi-viz vests make pedestrians and cyclists much more visible in ALL light conditions. Lights are not mandatory (unfortunately) during daylight hours.

Hi viz dont work in dark light unless you shine a light on the reflective parts.

Jem72

As somebody who both cycles and drives, I find that pink/magenta high vis clothing to be far more visible in daylight hours than the standard yellow. Neither are much use when driving into low sun.

What seems to work during daylight hours is a relatively decent set of lights set to flash. I can see how flashing can be confusing for motorists at night especially on rural roads where they are not expecting to see a cyclist. When I used to cycle at night, I tended to use both a solid and a weaker flashing light on the back and the front but to be honest, no matter what you do, you are taking your life in your hands cycling on rural roads at all during darkness.

This isn't right or fair but it is the way it is - cyclists have effectively been driven off rural roads at night.

Chips Lovell

I train on unlit rural roads at night. With decent lights, you're as well lit up as a car or motorbike. Have never had any issue.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

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!

I have said it here before that the yellow high viz jacket I used to wear made me much more visible in the drab grey depressing background that is the Irish city in Autumn/Winter months. However, the yellow jacket, along with my 2 rear bike lights, the rear light on my helmet, 2 front lights, RSA issue high viz bag cover and reflective gloves/bib/shoe covers, is absolutely no match for the average ignorant twat in a vehicle. Do you realize the amount of times I have encountered a driver who almost hit me or cut me off and then said "Oh, i'm sorry, I didn't see you" then proceed to drive exactly the same way, like a complete cnut.

This one driver really comes to mind, she overtook me on a small roundabout, we know how people are incapable of using them, she cut me off and almost hit me. She was looking at facebook while driving on the effing roundabout. Then came to a halt 100 meters up the road due to traffic. When I knocked on her window she was still checking her likes on a photo of last nights dinner, it was that or a selfie. To this day I regret not reaching in a taking that phone from her and smashing it on the ground.

greenspurs wrote: »

I did expect those responses.

So Hiviz/reflective clothing is good BUT ......
"why should we........ Drivers should.. " etc etc ....
Im sorry, but i will wear Reflective/hiviz when on the roads in the evenings.
Its better than wearing none ?

Sure, campaign for the high viz crap to be worn by everybody. Then what? Ankle lights? 2 meter high viz flags/lights to be added to all bikes? Indicators? Reg plates? Bike Insurance? Where does it end? At what point do we say, you know what? The responsibility doesn't lie with cyclists anymore, lets shift that responsibility to where it really belongs, and where it belongs in most civilized countries in Europe, the motorist. It's just used as a scapegoat excuse to push the anti cycling agenda. The RSA can die a horrible death as far as I am concerned.

Macy0161

GreeBo wrote: »

The RSA are never going to hand out €17 lights to people, would you prefer they did nothing?

As has been said, I'd rather they focused on enforcement....

• Pursue ANPR (tax, insurance, nct/ doe, unqualified drivers, bus and cycle lanes, yellow boxes etc) which would provide cost effective enforcement freeing up gardai.
• Pursue more speed cameras, and especially red light cameras and the resulting enforcement.

Things that would actually change road behaviours meaningfully, rather than their main focus regarding vulnerable road users being dressing up them up in clothes that are more about the RSA being seen to do something, rather than the vulnerable road user actually being seen.

If they wanted to do something for cyclist visibility, they should be addressing/ updating the 1963 Act to reflect modern technology and the metric system, and establishing a clear standard of lighting like they have in Germany*.

* for the motorist lobby/ fanboys, this would actually make enforcement on cyclists easier - you're light will either meet the standard or it won't.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

blackbox wrote: »

I can't understand why people think they look stupid in hi-viz vests. Do all builders and engineers look stupid?

I think that cyclists dressed in dark clothes, whether it is an old duffle coat or slick Lycra look more stupid than those wearing hi-viz.

On rural roads especially, hi-viz vests make pedestrians and cyclists much more visible in ALL light conditions. Lights are not mandatory (unfortunately) during daylight hours.

A dress code for cycling is bottom of the barrell dumb. There's no connection between high viz and safety in cycling. There's no high viz in Denmark or Germany, no they don't focus on pigeonholing cyclists.

An equally stupid idea would be to enforce drivers to wear a neck brace, fire retardant clothing, helmet and spinal protection. Idiotic, right? Imagine having to dress up in that garb in order to pop to the shop for a pint of milk.

07Lapierre

Jem72 wrote: »

As somebody who both cycles and drives, I find that pink/magenta high vis clothing to be far more visible in daylight hours than the standard yellow. Neither are much use when driving into low sun.

What seems to work during daylight hours is a relatively decent set of lights set to flash. I can see how flashing can be confusing for motorists at night especially on rural roads where they are not expecting to see a cyclist. When I used to cycle at night, I tended to use both a solid and a weaker flashing light on the back and the front but to be honest, no matter what you do, you are taking your life in your hands cycling on rural roads at all during darkness.

This isn't right or fair but it is the way it is - cyclists have effectively been driven off rural roads at night.

I cycle on Rural roads at night and my experience is the exact opposite. I find I get less close passes at night. I suspect this is due to me cycling in the middle of the left lane and having a really, really Bright rear light!

kirving

CramCycle wrote: »

I was referring to the RSA nad their hunt to convince Hi Vis vests are a solution to all our visibility problems.

I don't care about looking stupid, I ride a bike with various outfits, none of whihc match or exude style. Sitting at my desk this mornign I realise my laces are different colours. I really do not care what I look like, so long as I am visible to others.

But it is an argument that is consistently trotted out about how wearing "builders vests" discourages people from cycling.

CramCycle wrote: »

I have no issue with hi vis or retro reflective clothing, but they alone are not enough, even with poor lights, they are not enough. cyclists need good lights until other road users behaviour improves immensely, that is my only point.

I haven't said that it is, I said it was helpful in addition to good lights.

CramCycle wrote: »

Find me a situation where my 400 lumen front and 300 lumen rear is worse than any wearable retroreflective material. i don't think my statement is outlandish, I think that i have not seen anything that disproves it yet, but am open to hearing about them.

The following image was on the first page when I searched for "cyclist london night"
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/images/j-ennis-blaze-laserlight.jpg

You're making an all-encompasing statment about lights always being better in all circumstances, which almost certainly cannot be true. I have said that lights are best in the majority of circumstances, but reflective or bright clothing is a great supplement for those corner cases where a light is obscured due to its size.

CramCycle wrote: »

And here is my problem, your fixing an issue with a plaster rather than sowing kit. If the lights are not good enough, they need better lights, not a coulourful t shirt. I am not saying it is not an improvement on the ****ty lights, I am saying that it doesn't fix the problem.

Agreed, it doesn't fix the problem of visibility - but it's a great start as far as I'm concerned. Lights or not, wearing black clothing while cycling at night is not helpful.

CramCycle wrote: »

Nowadays, decent lights cost less than decent clothing. A 300Lumen front and 50 Lumen rear, USB rechargable, are 17euro from Aldi. Last for over5 hours after a single charge. But yet no, lets encourage jackets that most commuters won't but as they are too bloody expensive (Pro vis is well over 50quid) or follow the RSA and hand out sub standard vests.

Can we not encourage both? I'm not putting down lights, but what I am say is that they have their own limitations, and so a secondary method of standing out is invaluable.

GreeBo

Duckjob wrote: »

Can't speak for others here, but I'd be happy if they simply spent less effort on pushing hi-viz as the main driver of road safety, and spent more effort lobbying the gardai to buck up their enforcement of all EXISTING legislation on ALL road users - which would include penalising cyclists caught out in the dark without lights.

Tbf, I dont think the remit of the RSA is "get the gardai to do their jobs".

GreeBo

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I train on unlit rural roads at night. With decent lights, you're as well lit up as a car or motorbike. Have never had any issue.

This is by far the best use case for lights, but I'd wager that the majority of 'night' cycling is done in areas with lots of other light sources.

GreeBo

Mathias Quiet Cardboard wrote: »

Sure, campaign for the high viz crap to be worn by everybody. Then what? Ankle lights? 2 meter high viz flags/lights to be added to all bikes? Indicators? Reg plates? Bike Insurance? Where does it end? At what point do we say, you know what? The responsibility doesn't lie with cyclists anymore, lets shift that responsibility to where it really belongs, and where it belongs in most civilized countries in Europe, the motorist. It's just used as a scapegoat excuse to push the anti cycling agenda. The RSA can die a horrible death as far as I am concerned.

Hopefully it ends before you get run over by a car that 'didn't see you'.

I'll repeat my earlier analogy, you are cycling without wetgear to make the weathermen better.

Ask yourself who gets wet in this scenario?

Do you lock your bike or are you expecting the gardai to stamp out all crime instead?

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

This is by far the best use case for lights, but I'd wager that the majority of 'night' cycling is done in areas with lots of other light sources.

No. Lots of people cycle at night... even us who live “in the country” where there are no street lights.