Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Seth Brundle

hots wrote: »

Oh 100%, cars are obviously more dangerous and driver-error is more often than not the cause for any incident... it doesn't make the suggestion of wearing high-vis a bad one though. You lock up your bike for the same reason, no one should nick it (or drive into you because they haven't noticed you), it's still not a bad idea all the same.

...so why not mandate high-viz for all cars, as well as cyclists, scooterists, pedestrians, horse riders and so on?
Surely high-viz is a good thing if it shows drivers where all the cyclkists and pedestrians are?


Incidentally, why then do I have close passes when I'm out cycling even with a bright rear light and high-viz? Should I wear a number of layers of high-viz to make me even more high-viz? Or is the problem really with some drivers just not looking properly coupled with driving too fast for the conditions and using high-viz as an excuse for **** poor enforcement of driving standards?

hots

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...so why not mandate high-viz for all cars, as well as cyclists, scooterists, pedestrians, horse riders and so on?
Surely high-viz is a good thing if it shows drivers where all the cyclkists and pedestrians are?


Incidentally, why then do I have close passes when I'm out cycling even with a bright rear light and high-viz? Should I wear a number of layers of high-viz to make me even more high-viz? Or is the problem really with some drivers just not looking properly coupled with driving too fast for the conditions and using high-viz as an excuse for **** poor enforcement of driving standards?

Jesus it's not all a tit-for-tat UsVsThem, you have close passes because some drivers are arsehles or incompetent (both). If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

Hurrache

hots wrote: »

Jesus it's not all a tit-for-tat UsVsThem, you have close passes because some drivers are arsehles or incompetent (both). If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

For the most part it's an attitude problem, not a visibility one.

hots

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...so why not mandate high-viz for all cars, as well as cyclists, scooterists, pedestrians, horse riders and so on?

One of these is not like the other (big, visible, nice and safely wrapped in metal)... I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for cyclists/peds/scooters/horse riders/any other vulnerable road user to make themselves more visible when they are surrounded by arsehles driving death machines? Yep.

Seth Brundle

I'm pointing out that it does not solve the problem. The problem is that some drivers don't look properly. They then crash into other cars. They crash into cyclists. They crash into pedestrians.
However, the default response is that a cyclist should wear high-viz despite no research showing that it effectiveness.
Furthermore, those who believe that high-viz is a great thing do not believe that cars should be covered in it. Kinda hypocritical and furthers the belief that it is simply victim blaming.

hots

Hurrache wrote: »

For the most part it's an attitude problem, not a visibility one.

No disagreement there, the close passes in this thread are insane. And the attitude in the "speed limits are too low" threads or "I hate speed vans" threads are just the same, the quality of driving in general is scarily poor.

Seth Brundle

hots wrote: »

One of these is not like the other (big, visible, nice and safely wrapped in metal)... I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for cyclists/peds/scooters/horse riders/any other vulnerable road user to make themselves more visible when they are surrounded by arsehles driving death machines? Yep.

Plenty of car occupants are injured or killed by other drivers.
I don't see you calling for all cars to be dayglo orange though!

Seth Brundle

hots wrote: »

No disagreement there, the close passes in this thread are insane. And the attitude in the "speed limits are too low" threads or "I hate speed vans" threads are just the same, the quality of driving in general is scarily poor.

The quality of driving is allowed to be scarily poor.
We have poor enforcement.
So many court decisions go in the drivers favour that there is a massive belief (with supporting evidence) out there that if you want to kill someone, you are best doing it in a car!

fat bloke

hots wrote: »

Jesus it's not all a tit-for-tat UsVsThem, you have close passes because some drivers are arsehles or incompetent (both). If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

Well I wouldn't for that infinitesmally insignificant improvement in my safety.

Can you give an example of any wholescale public policy that you would implement, or indeed a daily change in your own life for a 0.0001 percent safety bump?

magicbastarder

hots wrote: »

One of these is not like the other (big, visible, nice and safely wrapped in metal)... I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for cyclists/peds/scooters/horse riders/any other vulnerable road user to make themselves more visible when they are surrounded by arsehles driving death machines? Yep.

just to be clear, are you in agreement with the recommendation of the jury that it should be mandatory, or are you saying it's a good idea, but don't necessarily support a legal enforcement?
because you may find you're closer than you think to agreeing with many here if it's the latter.

hots

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm pointing out that it does not solve the problem. The problem is that some drivers don't look properly. They then crash into other cars. They crash into cyclists. They crash into pedestrians.
However, the default response is that a cyclist should wear high-viz despite no research showing that it effectiveness.
Furthermore, those who believe that high-viz is a great thing do not believe that cars should be covered in it. Kinda hypocritical and furthers the belief that it is simply victim blaming.

I don't think anyone has suggested some high viz is going to solve world peace, but if it forces a driver (who should be paying better care but we know won't be) to notice someone a bit earlier then winner winner.

magicbastarder

anyway, just getting back to the report that prompted this latest debate - there's no suggestion of the scooterist cutting out in front of the car, made in the report, which i assume would likely have been mentioned in a defence; if (and i stress that if) this was merely a case of the driver driving into the back of the scooter, the acquittal is bizarre. that motorist should be able to see *any* obstruction in the road in front of them.

christ, if i drove into a black bin someone had left out in the road, on a moderately lit suburban street, i'd be too embarrassed to mention it to anyone.

Seth Brundle

hots wrote: »

I don't think anyone has suggested some high viz is going to solve world peace, but if it forces a driver (who should be paying better care but we know won't be) to notice someone a bit earlier then winner winner.

So are you in favour of making all cars high-viz to force other drivers to notice them (to use your words)? This would surely reduce crashes and therefore reduce insurance claims so a win for everyone.

Macy0161

hots wrote: »

If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

If it makes cars less likely to be in accidents by being plastered in hi viz, why wouldn't we insist? Or make helmets mandatory for everyone in vehicles, just in case, given the prevalence of head injuries in vehicle accidents?

magicbastarder

hots wrote: »

If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

this is the thing though, people complain about whataboutery (not you i think) but why can't we apply the same logic to cars? why would you choose to drive a dark coloured car when it appears you're more likely to be involved in a crash, should this study be accurate?

Results of the analysis identified a clear statistically significant relationship between vehicle colour and crash risk

https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/reports/muarc263

cletus

hots wrote: »

because your car is very large and people have no issue seeing it.

My very large (Avensis estate) car was parked outside my house, and the driver who reversed into it seemed to have issues seeing it

magicbastarder

i suspect a large part of the reaction of keen cyclists - assuming they've had similar experiences to me when discussing this with non-cyclists - is that on multiple occasions, i have had discussions where it's clear that my interlocutor wants cyclists to wear hi-vis because actually looking for cyclists is not something that comes naturally to them. they want to partly outsource the task of seeing cyclists to the cyclists themselves; i.e. they don't want to have to look for cyclists, they want cyclists to announce their presence.

years ago, i bought some hi-vis leggings in lidl or aldi; they're *hideous*, but i was curious about the notion that as biomechanical motion is apparently much more eyecatching, it's best to wear hi-vis on your legs. on my very first commute to work wearing them, someone nearly drove into me, because she was looking the wrong way.

Paddigol

BoardsMember wrote: »

And do people think that's what they meant?

We all know what they really meant, but couldn't say, so dressed up in word salad instead... "f**king [scooters] / [cyclists]".

Laws should be based on solid logic, science and research. Not, "well I've spent 5 minutes thinking about something I've no experience in, and it's clear to me that the obvious answer is [X] - that should be the law". That becoming the law suddenly brings a whole load of other, unconsidered, consequences such as contributory negligence and influence on road user's behaviour.

Edit: BTW, it's good to see some reasoned discussion on the subject from both sides of the debate for a change!

07Lapierre

hots wrote: »

One of these is not like the other (big, visible, nice and safely wrapped in metal)... I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for cyclists/peds/scooters/horse riders/any other vulnerable road user to make themselves more visible when they are surrounded by arsehles driving death machines? Yep.

The Best way for vulnerable road users to make themselves visible to motorists is to place themselves correctly on the road.

Don't cycle "in the gutter" and if more than one cyclist, cycle two abreast.

At night, do the same only use good lights.

Macy0161

I've said many times, better than my "Really Bright Stuff" jackets, my Pro Viz 360 Jacket, The various other "hi viz" gear I have, the single most effective garment I have is my "Stayin Alive at 1.5" Gillet with the large camera on the back and the "Recording my journey" text...

Hurrache

ProViz stuff is great, and looks good too.

hesker

Hurrache wrote: »

ProViz stuff is great, and looks good too.

But don’t you sweat buckets in them. Agree the reflectivity is great but the sweating thing has put me off up to now

Hurrache

I don't think so, my wife wears a running one and hasn't complained yet but I can't say first hand.

AndrewJRenko

hots wrote: »

If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

You do have hi-viz stripes on your car, right, to make it 0.0001% less likely to be hit by another car if your lights fail or you forget to switch them on or you don't know how to operate your DRLs?

buffalo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Interesting jury verdict in a case against a taxi driver who hit an escooter rider clad in dark clothes on a rainy night. I didn't realise that a jury could make recommendations on the legislation.
Seems like a strange recommendation against a victim of a collision in my opinion.
Could this happen against a cyclist knocked down by a driver?


https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40320827.html

I'm trying to square up the above judgement and jury comment with the sad case in Galway of a drunk man who apparently jumped out in front of a car.

Scooter user with lights hit from behind by taxi driver, it's wasn't the driver's fault, the scooter user should have been wearing hi-viz.

Drunk pedestrian jumps onto a taxi driver's bonnet, family receives €250k.

I know they were criminal vs civil cases, but it just seems like a bizarre conflict. Does it mean if the scooter user took a civil case now, they could look forward to some compensation (depending on injuries of course) ?

cletus

buffalo wrote: »

I'm trying to square up the above judgement and jury comment with the sad case in Galway of a drunk man who apparently jumped out in front of a car.

Scooter user with lights hit from behind by taxi driver, it's wasn't the driver's fault, the scooter user should have been wearing hi-viz.

Drunk pedestrian jumps onto a taxi driver's bonnet, family receives €250k.

I know they were criminal vs civil cases, but it just seems like a bizarre conflict. Does it mean if the scooter user took a civil case now, they could look forward to some compensation (depending on injuries of course) ?

It's possible. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases

Mc Love

hesker wrote: »

But don’t you sweat buckets in them. Agree the reflectivity is great but the sweating thing has put me off up to now

Even with the claimed breathability of their garments, I do find you do sweat a lot after a good ride

AndrewJRenko

Mc Love wrote: »

I do find you do sweat a lot after a good ride

Me too, but can we stay on the cycling topic please?

Seth Brundle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Me too, but can we stay on the cycling topic please?

blackwhite

buffalo wrote: »

I'm trying to square up the above judgement and jury comment with the sad case in Galway of a drunk man who apparently jumped out in front of a car.

Scooter user with lights hit from behind by taxi driver, it's wasn't the driver's fault, the scooter user should have been wearing hi-viz.

Drunk pedestrian jumps onto a taxi driver's bonnet, family receives €250k.

I know they were criminal vs civil cases, but it just seems like a bizarre conflict. Does it mean if the scooter user took a civil case now, they could look forward to some compensation (depending on injuries of course) ?

The €250k in Galway was a settlement offered by the insurance company. It never made it to trial.

There were plenty of comments from counsel and the judge that liability wasn't clear-cut if it had gone to trial