Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)
Options
Comments
-
I have a problem with the RSA encouraging people to use it and not making a far larger issue out of decent lights. Campaign for Hi Vis after the campaign for decent lighting has achieved something. So yes, I have an issue, but it is again you misinterpreting my posts, I think now intentionally. I have no issue with Hi Vis (talking about the vets the RSA promote). In a narrow set of circumstances it may be beneficial but in any of those circumstances, decent lights will have you seen long before. As the TRL study states, you have to be aware of the limitations of what you are endorsing. Hi Vis (vests in case anyone accuses me of misleading or some other thing), are suitable in a narrow range of circumstances. It is not visible around bends, it is not visible if the driver is using DRLs in the dark, it blends in several sodium lights into the surround from dusk till dawn in urban settings.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.
It is not whataboutery. Hi Vis requires an external light source to reflect back. If drivers are using dips or DRLs, in a dark setting, it provides no added visibility. It is a clear demonstration why Hi Vis is a dangerous placebo promoted by the RSA and believed to be acceptabel as a minimum standard. Someone else posted about askign the general public about cyclist visibility. Worringly, I imagine many would respond with that cyclists should wear Hi Vis without any understanding of Physics.Whataboutery.
Because that is what the post said, rear brake lights.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!
And you are entitled to that opinion. Several people believe Hi Vis vests on their own are sufficient. What I am saying is that decent lights are the desirable minimum standard for road users. You may believe that you need Hi Vis and decent Lights, a standard that is fine by me as it gets over the minimum. For the last time, i am just saying, Hi Vis on its own is not enough, you appear to agree with me on that. You disagree that decent lights on their own are enough, you may be right, I don't agree but at least we both agree that you need decent lights something the RSA are steadfastedly ignoring.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.
And my experience has not been this, I have noticed Hi Vis, I have noticed regular dark jumpers. The truth is though if you cannot determine where one decent light source comes from, how do you determine where the reflected light from the Hi Vis is in relation to your road position. It is the exact same problem.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.
I think decent lights are the minimum standard we need to meet. All I have had from you is your point on raindrops on a rear view mirror making it appear that lights are all coming from one source or that you have a hundered cyclists in your left mirror. Either way, you should drive as if there is someone there and if you cannot tell the distance, you stop and wait until that it is clear to proceed. A shoulder check will also help, which I presume you do at every turn anyway.Only if you think that lights are the be all and end all.
Actually yes. They are encouraging a safety device that both you and I agree is not enough. Gardai and RSa officials handing out Hi Vis vests on a dark day on the N11 when they don't have lights indicates to that person that this is sufficient, rather than either fining the cyclist for no lights or holding the bike at a local station until the cyclist turns up and fits lights. Cambridgeshire police used to do this and it was quite successful AFAIRThe RSA are never going to hand out €17 lights to people, would you prefer they did nothing?
Whether multiple or one, if it worked exactly as you say (and I have never found it to be the case), then you do a shoulder check, proceed slowly, and with extreme caution, with your indicator on well in advance. The problem here is, I suspect, some motorists don't even do one of these things, let alone all of them in these scenarios.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.
The mind is a wonderful thing in that it can usually decipher a huge amount of the noise and interpret it. There are some people who can't but I would not believe this to be the morm.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.
100%, hence why I don't trust other road users when out, I make informed and educated decisions as well as in the back of my brain, a risk analysis of the situation, same as most road users. The thing is, when encased in metal, your risj analysis is very different. There is another study from 2011 assessing motorcyclists driving cars vs general motorists driving cars. They found that motor cyclists are significantly more observant and risk adverse, most likely due to their learned risk analysis of road use. It is not to far of a leap to say this will apply to some cyclists as well, although not all, there are muppets in all groups.Thats all great in theory, but the reality of the situation is that there is only one loser if a mistake is made.
Here is the pic you gave: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.
It is far from the worst rain I have driven in, it certainly isn't making the rain drops into light sources or whatever else you were trying to insinuate.
has anyone said this?I can't understand why people think they look stupid in hi-viz vests. Do all builders and engineers look stupid?
And as shown in courts across the country, where even when the victim should have been clearly visible, often in broad daylight, the question of Hi Vis comes up consistently even though it is often in scenarios where it would not have aided the visibility of the cyclist or pedestrian.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.0 -
-
-
You really think more people cycle at night outside of sub/urban areas than in them?07Lapierre wrote: »No. Lots of people cycle at night... even us who live “in the country” where there are no street lights.
Do you have any facts to backup your assertion that "in any of those circumstances, decent lights will have you seen long before"?I have a problem with the RSA encouraging people to use it and not making a far larger issue out of decent lights. Campaign for Hi Vis after the campaign for decent lighting has achieved something. So yes, I have an issue, but it is again you misinterpreting my posts, I think now intentionally. I have no issue with Hi Vis (talking about the vets the RSA promote). In a narrow set of circumstances it may be beneficial but in any of those circumstances, decent lights will have you seen long before. As the TRL study states, you have to be aware of the limitations of what you are endorsing. Hi Vis (vests in case anyone accuses me of misleading or some other thing), are suitable in a narrow range of circumstances. It is not visible around bends, it is not visible if the driver is using DRLs in the dark, it blends in several sodium lights into the surround from dusk till dawn in urban settings.
Indeed it does, but as has been pointed out, there are lots of light sources, hence why bicycle lights can get lost in the noise.It is not whataboutery. Hi Vis requires an external light source to reflect back. If drivers are using dips or DRLs, in a dark setting, it provides no added visibility. It is a clear demonstration why Hi Vis is a dangerous placebo promoted by the RSA and believed to be acceptabel as a minimum standard. Someone else posted about askign the general public about cyclist visibility. Worringly, I imagine many would respond with that cyclists should wear Hi Vis without any understanding of Physics.
No one on here is saying its safe or logical to go cycling on a dark road with a yellow t-shirt on, yet you seem to keep arguing that point.
[Because that is what the post said, rear brake lights.
Yeah it said rear brake lights, but you for some reason decided that that means the cyclist was right against these lights.
I have seen my rear brake lights and indicators reflected in street signs that are at least 100M behind me.
Who are these "several people"?And you are entitled to that opinion. Several people believe Hi Vis vests on their own are sufficient. What I am saying is that decent lights are the desirable minimum standard for road users. You may believe that you need Hi Vis and decent Lights, a standard that is fine by me as it gets over the minimum. For the last time, i am just saying, Hi Vis on its own is not enough, you appear to agree with me on that. You disagree that decent lights on their own are enough, you may be right, I don't agree but at least we both agree that you need decent lights something the RSA are steadfastedly ignoring.
Are they arguing on this thread?
Every light source probably isn't a cyclist or pedestrian, every moving reflected body probably is.
And my experience has not been this, I have noticed Hi Vis, I have noticed regular dark jumpers. The truth is though if you cannot determine where one decent light source comes from, how do you determine where the reflected light from the Hi Vis is in relation to your road position. It is the exact same problem.
Indeed I do.I think decent lights are the minimum standard we need to meet. All I have had from you is your point on raindrops on a rear view mirror making it appear that lights are all coming from one source or that you have a hundered cyclists in your left mirror. Either way, you should drive as if there is someone there and if you cannot tell the distance, you stop and wait until that it is clear to proceed. A shoulder check will also help, which I presume you do at every turn anyway.
The problem is that *I'm* not the guy who is knocking down and killing cyclists.
I would have no problem with them confiscating bikes without lights and more than I would them fining cars without lights, but again you, as a cyclist can do squat about that.Actually yes. They are encouraging a safety device that both you and I agree is not enough. Gardai and RSa officials handing out Hi Vis vests on a dark day on the N11 when they don't have lights indicates to that person that this is sufficient, rather than either fining the cyclist for no lights or holding the bike at a local station until the cyclist turns up and fits lights. Cambridgeshire police used to do this and it was quite successful AFAIR
so this is why I cannot understand your being against cyclists being more visible via reflective clothing.Whether multiple or one, if it worked exactly as you say (and I have never found it to be the case), then you do a shoulder check, proceed slowly, and with extreme caution, with your indicator on well in advance. The problem here is, I suspect, some motorists don't even do one of these things, let alone all of them in these scenarios.
The mind is a wonderful thing in that it can usually decipher a huge amount of the noise and interpret it. There are some people who can't but I would not believe this to be the morm.
100%, hence why I don't trust other road users when out, I make informed and educated decisions as well as in the back of my brain, a risk analysis of the situation, same as most road users. The thing is, when encased in metal, your risj analysis is very different. There is another study from 2011 assessing motorcyclists driving cars vs general motorists driving cars. They found that motor cyclists are significantly more observant and risk adverse, most likely due to their learned risk analysis of road use. It is not to far of a leap to say this will apply to some cyclists as well, although not all, there are muppets in all groups.
We are all agreed that there are idiots and distracted people on both sides, so take things into your own hands and make yourself as visible as possible.
Your argument continually seems to be "I shouldn't have to do anything, motorists should be better".
Again, do you lock your bike or rely on the gardai to prevent thefts?
Exactly, its far from the worst rain yet already there are several light sources reflected. I count 17. Which of them are bike lights and which are cars, or street lights, or shop lights or a million other potential things?Here is the pic you gave:
It is far from the worst rain I have driven in, it certainly isn't making the rain drops into light sources or whatever else you were trying to insinuate.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
07Lapierre wrote: »No, that's not what i said. I said Lots of people cycle. Lots of people cycle in Urban and rural areas.
My point is, cycling is not unique to urban/city area's.
And yet I never said it was unique to those areas?!
I said
"I'd wager that the majority of 'night' cycling is done in areas with lots of other light sources."
and you replied
"No. Lots of people cycle at night"
so what exactly are you arguing about? 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oh boo hoo. Someone on the internet disagrees with you.
I must have touched a nerve. It really doesn’t bother me. Some are getting very riled up though about big bad people on the internet. Some here are speaking more sense than others. Some are grasping at straws from an empty box. It’s mildly entertaining. Keep it up please. It’s passing a bit of time for me. Also, try not to get worked up by this post like you did my last one. It’s bad for your health. Go for a spin (on a bike) instead.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement