Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

work

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1180933673367027715

Their level of acceptable is so far below what is expected by others is shocking.



Just looked at their website. Nothing really on cycling on the homepage but you can find their advice to cyclists if you look, I put some points below:

• Always wear luminous clothing such as hi-vis vests, fluorscent armbands and reflective belts so that other road users can see you
• Wear a helmet
• Make sure you keep to the left.
• Respect other road users – don’t get into shouting matches with motorists; stop at pedestrian crossings; don’t cycle on the footpath

Now I am no expert but lets consider those points:

• Luminous clothing and helmet....moves responsibility to the unwanted road user the cyclist. I think there is loads of evidence this reduces cyclist numbers...mmmm I wonder what their game is?
• ...Keep to the left. Oh sure I suppose only cyclists have heard of taking the lane or road????? Vulnerable users will feel much safer in a ditch!!
• Respect other road users, Why? If someone puts me in danger I bloody well will have little respect for them and perhaps shouting will save my life.
• Don't cycle on the footpath. Cycle my kids from age 3 and 4 on the footpath every day and until their is an alternative they can stick that one. Absolute respect for pedestrians MUST be given though.

I then had a look at the board and its chairpeson, Liz O'Donnell. A recent article quoting her bought up a few points:


https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/next-road-safety-strategy-to-focus-on-cyclists-and-pedestrians-930558.html


Liz O'Donnell, Chair of the Road Safety Authority, said we need to move away from just driver safety................"Cycling and walking must ascend the pecking order in terms of priority.”


So she openly admits they have just concerned themselves with driver safety AND cycling and walking are "lower" on their priority list.
Obviously I am biased in my opinion but that is some indictment. In fairness they are saying change is needed. Why hasn't it happened and a complete change of board would help. Anyway The cycle lobby groups are gaining momentum, lets keep it up.

Stark

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/road-safety-authoritys-cycling-column/

Should tell you all you need to know about their attitude towards cyclists.

zell12

We also want to hear what you’re doing to support Irish Road Safety Week in your community, school or workplace,
so send the details to campaigns@rsa.ie and we’ll post them on this page.
We look forward to working with you to help save lives and prevent serious injuries on our roads.
https://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Irish-Road-Safety-Week-2019/

RSA say they will post your comments on road safety!

magicbastarder

chatting to a fellow cyclist in the changing rooms yesterday, he mentioned his commute includes some unlit roads. i mentioned having two rear lights on my bike, and his response was that he doesn't have rear lights because he doesn't need them - he has a good quality hi-vis jacket. and reflectors.
i kept my mouth shut, not my fight.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

chatting to a fellow cyclist in the changing rooms yesterday, he mentioned his commute includes some unlit roads. i mentioned having two rear lights on my bike, and his response was that he doesn't have rear lights because he doesn't need them - he has a good quality hi-vis jacket. and reflectors.
i kept my mouth shut, not my fight.

Maybe tell him that legally he could be held partially responsible in the case of an accident as he is legally required to have a rear light? Make it the laws fault not yours

Mickiemcfist

magicbastarder wrote: »

chatting to a fellow cyclist in the changing rooms yesterday, he mentioned his commute includes some unlit roads. i mentioned having two rear lights on my bike, and his response was that he doesn't have rear lights because he doesn't need them - he has a good quality hi-vis jacket. and reflectors.
i kept my mouth shut, not my fight.

I always turn the argument on it's head & say "I'd just be worried about a dumba55 driver who forgot to turn on their lights because they've got DRL's, they won't see the hi vis".

Sandwell

I got told off on my spin at the weekend for not wearing a high-vis jacket. This was in broad daylight, with front and rear lights flashing and while wearing a high-vis coloured helmet. All I could do was laugh. It shows how utterly ridiculous the high-vis dogma has become.

tomasrojo

A photoshopped picture from about fifty years ago? What more evidence do you need!
https://irishcycle.com/2019/10/25/minister-ross-promotes-high-vis-with-deceptive-image-of-child-crossing-road-blacked-out/

micar

Sandwell wrote: »

I got told off on my spin at the weekend for not wearing a high-vis jacket. This was in broad daylight, with front and rear lights flashing and while wearing a high-vis coloured helmet. All I could do was laugh. It shows how utterly ridiculous the high-vis dogma has become.

I just don't get this ...... if a motorist needs you to wear high viz during the day in order to see you then that motorist should be banned from driving.

Pinch Flat

Sandwell wrote: »

I got told off on my spin at the weekend for not wearing a high-vis jacket. This was in broad daylight, with front and rear lights flashing and while wearing a high-vis coloured helmet. All I could do was laugh. It shows how utterly ridiculous the high-vis dogma has become.

Had this myself when a motorist nearly hit me in st Stephens green a while back - rainy morning and I was lit up front and rear. Indicated right into Merrion row. They somehow tried to link my lack of hi vis wit their ****ty driving - for good measure she they’re in I had “no right to be on the road”. a motorist has zero right to comment on your hi vis or lack of.

magicbastarder

much as i like to think i'm well aware of the shades of grey (pun intended) of the hi-vis debate, i'm not comfortable out in the dark, even with lights, with a dark coloured top and gloves; and that mainly centres around my hands and arms. twice on the way home this evening i just about copped that cyclists in front of me were signalling to turn, but it was very difficult to see because they were wearing dark tops and gloves. because my commute is on busy enough urban and suburban roads, all car headlights are dipped, so the illumination from that is never going to be stellar.
this evening, i was wearing the dayglo neoprene gloves aldi or lidl have had in a few times over the last year or two. they're reasonably warm and windproof, but i wouldn't like to wear them for more than an hour or so as they don't breathe at all.

a colleague was telling me that there was some recent controversy in his cycling club because the new strip is largely black, and obviously it was a bone of contention with some that there should have been more visible elements to it.

also, this evening - i'd say only about 30% of cyclists i saw - if that - were adequately illuminated.

micar

Was cycling home from work shortly after 4pm yesterday. It was darker than today because of the rain.

Anyway, two separate females (mid/late 20s) walking on the footpath both with a high viz top on.....that's the way things are now going

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

much as i like to think i'm well aware of the shades of grey (pun intended) of the hi-vis debate, i'm not comfortable out in the dark, even with lights, with a dark coloured top and gloves; and that mainly centres around my hands and arms. twice on the way home this evening i just about copped that cyclists in front of me were signalling to turn, but it was very difficult to see because they were wearing dark tops and gloves.

You know where that sort of thinking brings you ... It's a lonely place; current population: 1 (approx.)

Stark

magicbastarder wrote: »

much as i like to think i'm well aware of the shades of grey (pun intended) of the hi-vis debate, i'm not comfortable out in the dark, even with lights, with a dark coloured top and gloves; and that mainly centres around my hands and arms. twice on the way home this evening i just about copped that cyclists in front of me were signalling to turn, but it was very difficult to see because they were wearing dark tops and gloves. because my commute is on busy enough urban and suburban roads, all car headlights are dipped, so the illumination from that is never going to be stellar.
this evening, i was wearing the dayglo neoprene gloves aldi or lidl have had in a few times over the last year or two. they're reasonably warm and windproof, but i wouldn't like to wear them for more than an hour or so as they don't breathe at all.

That's reasonable imo. As responsible adults, we take what's legally mandated and then we add on whatever we think is reasonable to feel safe/comfortable. And different situations/conditions call for different levels of safety equipment. I'd feel uncomfortable myself heading out in head to toe black without any reflective bits on a rainy dark evening in busy traffic in spite of lights. In good visibility conditions or where traffic wasn't an issue, I'd feel differently.

Where it gets unreasonable is when you have people using it as excuse to harass people in the middle of the day in order to put them off cycling or you have the likes of the RSA creaming themselves because our roads are so unsafe that they can flog their ****ty branded builders vests with ease.

Or that the culture has become so pervasive that pedestrians don't even feel safe walking on lit up city streets with footpaths without them as micar pointed out. A few years ago the thought of having to wear a hi-viz to head out in the city would have been consider ludicrous.



https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1144632351424688128

I mean how ****ing depressing is this photo?

tomasrojo

The RSA's recollection of VéloCity wasn't shared by many people from what I could tell. The attendees, I got the impression, were aghast at the weird priorities on view everywhere in Dublin, which definitely would include the RSA's little-visited hi-viz stall, which I think was their only contribution to the symposium?

The second photo is full of strange tensions. There's more than joyless, unspontaneous travel going on here.

Stark

They're probably being marched somewhere to have their walking helmets fitted.

Breezer

I saw a car with hi viz strips on it tonight. Not joking. Blue/grey Audi A4.

CramCycle

Stark wrote: »

They're probably being marched somewhere to have their walking helmets fitted.

My mind went to grimmer places, one of those kids ain't coming home :eek:

RobertFoster

CramCycle wrote: »

My mind went to grimmer places, one of those kids ain't coming home :eek:

At least the dumped body will be easier to spot.

Seth Brundle

Stark wrote: »

I mean how ****ing depressing is this photo?

It is a depressing photo but what's it from?

RobertFoster

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It is a depressing photo but what's it from?

It's from the RSA: https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/950744996847734784

Stark

Jesus, hadn't seen the horse one previously. Drivers aren't even expected to be able to see large animals in the middle of the day unless they're dressed in yellow now?

check_six

Stark wrote: »

Jesus, hadn't seen the horse one previously. Drivers aren't even expected to be able to see large animals in the middle of the day unless they're dressed in yellow now?

Along those lines, I'm thinking that the road surface itself is a little on the dark side. Maybe it's time to give it a little visibility boost by giving every road in the country a coat of hi-viz (especially make sure we coat every surface of the cats-eyes).

Hedgerows! We're coming for you next!

mamax

Interesting conclusion.....



Drivers' judgments of the effect of headlight glare on their ability to see pedestrians at night.
Whetsel Borzendowski SA1, Stafford Sewall AA2, Rosopa PJ3, Tyrrell RA4.

INTRODUCTION:
Several studies have concluded that pedestrians typically overestimate their own conspicuity to approaching drivers at night. The present experiments extended this research by exploring the accuracy of drivers' judgments of pedestrian conspicuity while facing varying degrees of headlight glare.

METHOD:
In Experiment 1, participants on an open road estimated their ability to see a roadside pedestrian in each of two clothing configurations and with each of three different glare intensities present. In Experiment 2, participants responded to a roadside pedestrian under the same open road conditions; the participants were naïve with regard to both the position of the pedestrian and to the clothing and glare manipulations.

RESULTS:
Consistent with earlier research, estimates of response distance were, on the average, over three times greater than actual recognition distance. The extent to which participants overestimated conspicuity was greater when the pedestrian wore a retroreflective vest, and participants incorrectly judged that headlight glare would not degrade drivers' ability to see a pedestrian wearing a retroreflective vest.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS:
These results confirm that road users' understanding of issues involving drivers' night vision is limited. These misunderstandings may result in road users behaving in ways that increase the risk of nighttime collisions with pedestrians.

Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved




Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25933995

Stark

mamax wrote: »

Interesting conclusion.....

....

I actually agree with all that and have no problem with advocating lighting up at night in the absence of footpaths and street lighting. It is a legal requirement for cars and cyclists after all. I've cycled/jogged through the Phoenix Park at night and on a few occasions only realised there was someone within a few metres of me when I heard them. Granted, my bike lights aren't as strong as my car headlights but still.

If the RSA Twitter account had pictures of people walking on unlit country roads with visibility aid vs without (and not photoshopped to make a point like that ridiculous one Shane Ross posted) it would be a lot less ludricuous. Instead we get pictures of children in hi-viz in schoolyards, because sure without the protective vests, poor innocent drivers would have every right to crash through those school gates and plough through them on their lunch break.

mamax

Stark wrote: »

I actually agree with all that and have no problem with advocating lighting up at night in the absence of footpaths and street lighting. It is a legal requirement for cars and cyclists after all.

When I cycle I use lights in both day and night, not just little flasher ones but really bright lights and our club gear has hi-viz yellow on it and I also have reflective strips on my helmet, bike and clothing.
I will use any means necessary to improve my chances of being seen but that still does not stop the close passes, it actually makes no difference at all !
From now on I will be saving the video of all close passes and going to the gardai to make a complaint.

rubadub

Stark wrote: »

Jesus, hadn't seen the horse one previously. Drivers aren't even expected to be able to see large animals in the middle of the day unless they're dressed in yellow now?

tail lights!

Stark

Nice To be fair, it looks like it's after dark there so I guess lighting is a legal requirement to be on the road.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone civilised in Ireland riding horseback on public roads after dark here. Or maybe I just didn't see them because they weren't in hi-viz :pac:

Obviously certain parts will have certain types of people doing certain things they shouldn't be doing after dark but that's a different matter.

GreeBo

I was contemplating this last night in the rain and traffic.

I think when people say "I didnt see you" its not that they cant see cyclists (or pedestrians) its that they cant easily distinguish them from vehicular traffic.
I actually think the big bright white lights make this problem worse.
If a driver looks in their mirror and sees a bright white light, they can be forgiven for assuming thats a car and that, like all other cars that are behind them on the road that car is in the same lane as they are.
but if its a bike its not in the same lane, and subject to the same rules as cars are.

I suggest that bikes should have a specific coloured light that isnt white.
In the same way that we use flashing blue lights to alert people to the fact that the vehicle with these lights isnt a regular vehicle and that it may not behave as they would expect (driving the wrong way down the road for example, not obeying traffic lights, etc, etc)

I think if all bike lights were yellow (for example) it would be immediately obvious to everyone that that "thing" is a bike and that it needs special consideration and extra care that is not required when its just a car behind you.

Thoughts?

CramCycle

The cynic in me sees ambulances and gardai on the N11 not getting noticed with their sirens going and blue lights galore, I am wondering if anything would get some people to notice anyone else.