Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Grassey

GreeBo wrote: »

The light shining on a cyclist is coming from in front of them, not behind them.
if it was only behind them you wouldn't seen them.

Your point about their front light drowning out other lights would only work if they are right on top of your mirror, if thats the first time you see them its too late.

If you see lights in the wingmirror then those lights must be behind you. So if there is a cyclist between mirror and light source they wont be illuminated. I'm therefore confused as to "the light shining on a cyclist is coming from in front of them Is it the car rear lights that are illuminating a high vis wearing cyclist? Or oncoming cars lights blocked by cars to right of cyclist? or overhead streetlights? or is the cylist shining a light from handlebars onto their chest (yes I've seen this recently)

If it's a bright light then it'd be visible much further back than right on top of the wing mirror.

P_1

I'd suggest this thread needs an asparin but u suspect itd give it a headache

GreeBo

Grassey wrote: »

If you see lights in the wingmirror then those lights must be behind you. So if there is a cyclist between mirror and light source they wont be illuminated. I'm therefore confused as to "the light shining on a cyclist is coming from in front of them Is it the car rear lights that are illuminating a high vis wearing cyclist? Or oncoming cars lights blocked by cars to right of cyclist? or overhead streetlights? or is the cylist shining a light from handlebars onto their chest (yes I've seen this recently)

If it's a bright light then it'd be visible much further back than right on top of the wing mirror.

All sorts of light sources are shining on the cyclist, (my rear lights, the rear lights of the car in front of me, the rear lights of any car in front of the cyclist & the front lights from cars travelling in the opposite direct to the cyclist) your point (as I understand it!) was that the cyclist would block out the light from behind them.
I'm saying that this is irrelevant as I cant see their back anyway.

Grassey

GreeBo wrote:

I'm saying that this is irrelevant as I cant see their back anyway.

Hardly irrelevant if they block all the additional sources of light you see in the wingmirror, leaving their front light as the only, or primary light visible.

buffalo

GreeBo wrote: »

All sorts of light sources are shining on the cyclist, (my rear lights, the rear lights of the car in front of me, the rear lights of any car in front of the cyclist & the front lights from cars travelling in the opposite direct to the cyclist) your point (as I understand it!) was that the cyclist would block out the light from behind them.
I'm saying that this is irrelevant as I cant see their back anyway.

You're saying all the light shining on the cyclist is bright and shiny and visible, but an actual light isn't? Are you serious?

GreeBo

07Lapierre wrote: »

Heres a better one: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp6ci/p6cii/p6mtw/

I'm failing to see how this disproves my belief and/or proves yours?

07Lapierre wrote: »

Statistically speaking...very few builders cycle, so even less reason to wear a "Builders hi-viz vest" maybe the RSA should look at Hi-viz 3 piece suits as Male office workers seem to make up the majority of cyclists? (in urban areas too)

I'm not aware of reflective material achieving consciousness that would mean it is aware of what type of material its on, perhaps you have access to newer publications than I do however?

GreeBo

Grassey wrote: »

Hardly irrelevant if they block all the additional sources of light you see in the wingmirror, leaving their front light as the only, or primary light visible.

Unless our cyclist is a rather rotund individual I dont believe they are blocking all the light hitting my wing mirror until they are directly in front of it.

buffalo wrote: »

You're saying all the light shining on the cyclist is bright and shiny and visible, but an actual light isn't? Are you drunk?

No, I am saying that I cant see the back of the cyclist no matter what light is or is not shining on them*. I dont know what relevance the back of the cyclist has to the argument, but if you keep bringing it up, I'll keep knocking it down.

In my numerous years of both cycling in and driving alongside bike lanes/tracks/areas in the city, at night:

1) There are a ton of light sources hitting my mirror, one of which is hopefully the cyclists own light
2) These all interfere with each other making it difficult to distinguish individual sources
3) Reflective material on the cyclist, in this scenario, will be easier to distinguish than their bike light.

* does apply if cyclist is cycling backwards

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not aware of reflective material achieving consciousness that would mean it is aware of what type of material its on, perhaps you have access to newer publications than I do however?

MOD VOICE: No need to be facetious. It was quite clear what the poster meant, presumably in jest but I could be wrong.

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm saying that this is irrelevant as I cant see their back anyway.

GreeBo wrote: »

No, I am saying that I cant see the back of the cyclist no matter what light is or is not shining on them*. I dont know what relevance the back of the cyclist has to the argument, but if you keep bringing it up, I'll keep knocking it down.

You appear to be the only one bringing up seeing the cyclists back. It again, would appear to be other posters implying some sort of silhouette effect. This is a warning, not just to you but all posters, if you or anyone else continue to willfully ignore or clearly misinterpret the obvious intentions of a post, and reply in such a manner then you will be asked to stop posting in this thread. Any questions via PM only. This is not After Hours, I have better things to be doing than modding a Hi Vis thread.

tomasrojo

Grassey wrote: »

One thing that seems to be missed is that you say you'd see a high vis in the mirror... but by dint of the cyclist being a large light blocking mass the closer they get to the car mirror the more background light they would block thereby reducing the amount of light sources directly hitting the wing mirror, not to mention that their front light should also be bright enough to drown out the minor other lights? That's what I'd tend to observe when I'm driving .

Yes, the one thing clear from that image of a wing mirror is that there isn't a nearby(*) cyclist with a good headlight approaching from behind on the left. Because physics, to quote somebody or other.

(*)I suppose a cyclist further away might look like one of the other points of light, but who cares about the image of a cyclist who's far away and behind a car moving forward. It's only important if the cyclist is passing, at which point their light is much bigger and brighter.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, the one thing clear from that image of a wing mirror is that there isn't a nearby(*) cyclist with a good headlight approaching from behind on the left. Because physics, to quote somebody or other.

(*)I suppose a cyclist further away might look like one of the other points of light, but who cares about the image of a cyclist who's far away and behind a car moving forward. It's only important if the cyclist is passing, at which point their light is much bigger and brighter.

Its important *before* they are passing, I dont know about you but I prefer to see cyclists before they are alongside me.

You cant easily tell if a cyclist is near or far away based on their light as you have no idea what type of light they have, if it a weakm, crappy one and they are right on top of me or a powerful one and they are actually several hundred metres behind me.

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

Its important *before* they are passing, I dont know about you but I prefer to see cyclists before they are alongside me.

I said "nearby" not "alongside". And hiviz, unless there's a strong light source right in front of you *pointing backwards* at the cyclist, hiviz adds nothing in this scenario.

GreeBo wrote: »

You cant easily tell if a cyclist is near or far away based on their light as you have no idea what type of light they have, if it a weakm, crappy one and they are right on top of me or a powerful one and they are actually several hundred metres behind me.

You are about the least observant person who has ever posted here.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I said "nearby" not "alongside".

No, you said
"It's only important if the cyclist is passing, at which point their light is much bigger and brighter."

I dont know how you pass without being alongside?

tomasrojo wrote: »

And hiviz, unless there's a strong light source right in front of you *pointing backwards* at the cyclist adds nothing in this scenario.

You mean like all the cars in front of me, me own cars brake lights and all the oncoming cars front lights?

But I guess your bike light has more light than all of these things...

tomasrojo wrote: »

You are about the least observant person who has ever posted here.

Reported, fwiw.

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

No, you said
"It's only important if the cyclist is passing, at which point their light is much bigger and brighter."

I dont know how you pass without being alongside?

I meant that an image of a cyclist in a rear-facing mirror is only important if the cyclist#s speed relative to your own is such that they can actually pass you. So it's really only relevant if the car is slow-moving or stationary -- as in parked or in peak traffic.

tomasrojo

.

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

You mean like all the cars in front of me, me own cars brake lights and all the oncoming cars front lights?

Brake lights are diffuse, decent bike headlights are collimated and far brighter than a reflection of already diffuse light.

The oncoming car lights are pointing to their left, not towards you, and in the scenario where a bike would be passing you on the left, there's a snake of cars that would be blocking that light anyway.

Macy0161

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Not really, when you compare it to the general public's opinion of motorists who routinely break speed limits, red lights, mobile phone laws and kill 3 or 4 people each week.

Speeding is so endemic it's not even seen as an issue, but I see far more cars break reds on my commute than cyclists, but it just isn't accepted.

Either they're breaking reds, or the sequencing is seriously out at every junction and that's the reason there's always several cars going across while I have green....

07Lapierre

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm failing to see how this disproves my belief and/or proves yours?

I actually thought it confirmed what you were saying about the majority of cyclists cycling in urban areas. Not that I think that matters really as IMO, once it's dark, all road users should use good lights.

TBH, the most depressing statistic in the report is the Sheer number of commuters who use cars to get to work! 72% in rural areas!

mloc123

Passed a labrador while out cycling today... he was wearing a high viz vest, standard RSA issue one

Grassey

Clearly the only solution is to mix lights and high vis for everyone to be safe. Cars, pedestrians, cyclists Unite!

buffalo

GreeBo wrote: »

No, I am saying that I cant see the back of the cyclist no matter what light is or is not shining on them*. I dont know what relevance the back of the cyclist has to the argument, but if you keep bringing it up, I'll keep knocking it down.

I never mentioned the cyclist's back. As far as I can see, you're the only person who's mentioned it, and keeps bringing it up.

GreeBo

buffalo wrote: »

I never mentioned the cyclist's back. As far as I can see, you're the only person who's mentioned it, and keeps bringing it up.

You were talking about the cyclist blocking other light behind them.
The only light they are blocking would be shining on their beck, so is irrelevant.

buffalo

GreeBo wrote: »

You were talking about the cyclist blocking other light behind them.
The inky light they are blocking would ke be shining on their beck, so is irrelevant.

I didn't say anything about them blocking light.

buffalo wrote: »

You're saying all the light shining on the cyclist is bright and shiny and visible, but an actual light isn't?

I'd ask if you were drinking, but I don't want to make CramCycle angry. :pac:

AndrewJRenko

mloc123 wrote: »

Passed a labrador while out cycling today... he was wearing a high viz vest, standard RSA issue one

We should do some tests to see how effective the hi-vis is for the labrador.


We should do some lab tests.

Grassey

GreeBo wrote:

You were talking about the cyclist blocking other light behind them. The inky light they are blocking would ke be shining on their beck, so is irrelevant.

I actually belive it was me that said it'd block light behind them...

Anyways, given the narrow field of vision of a left wing mirror how are the raindrop magnified lights dazzling light sources in your earlier posts, yet if blocked by a cyclist are inky in this latest post...

07Lapierre

Grassey wrote: »

Clearly the only solution is to mix lights and high vis for everyone to be safe. Cars, pedestrians, cyclists Unite!

I know your joking, but we have to remember the biggest issue on our roads is lack of observation/awareness and not visibility.

We have experienced cyclists, inexperienced cyclists mixed in with inexperienced motorists and experienced motorists. It's a lethal combination!
Example: video below from my commute home yesterday. I have a hope district rear light set to flash mode. This light is bright. I'm wearing a bright orange/blue jacket. Yet Mr van driver sees me and still makes the decision to overtake straingt into the path of an oncoming car on a road with a solid white line. No amount of hi viz will prevent this type of incident..

https://www.hopetech.com/product/district-plus-rear/

https://youtu.be/iwj8XgX6ZV0

GreeBo

Grassey wrote: »

I actually belive it was me that said it'd block light behind them...

Anyways, given the narrow field of vision of a left wing mirror how are the raindrop magnified lights dazzling light sources in your earlier posts, yet if blocked by a cyclist are inky in this latest post...

Indeed it was you.

You think a car mirror has a narrow field of vision?
Compared to what, Hubble?

Clearly that was an auto correct, but whatever floats your boat chief.

GreeBo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hebsjiVviQ

Pop quiz.
Of the three bicycles who pass the camera on the left, who is the most visible?

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

We should do some tests to see how effective the hi-vis is for the labrador.


We should do some lab tests.

You have won this thread Andrew

GreeBo wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hebsjiVviQ

Pop quiz.
Of the three bicycles who pass the camera on the left, who is the most visible?

It's the middle of the day, they are all pretty visible, if you think any of them are less visible I would suggest an eye test. Now some are more memorable but that's a different story,

tomasrojo

Pop quiz. Of the hundred or so cyclists approaching the camera, who is the most conspicuous?

GreeBo

It's the middle of the day, they are all pretty visible, if you think any of them are less visible I would suggest an eye test. Now some are more memorable but that's a different story,

Its not the middle of the day, that's why the vast majority of vehicles have their lights on.

So you are honestly trying to say the dark cyclist is just as visible as the other two? You think a black jacket stands out from a dark background the same way a yellow jacket does?

Well at least you are consistently biased, i guess. Laughably so.