Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

RainyDay

zerks wrote: »

Re-read my post,perhaps the line about me wanting to be more visible to motorists wasn't hi-viz enough for you to see,maybe you missed the suggestion that I cycle-you do know it's not unusual for people who cycle to actually drive cars too.No need to try to be smart about it.

Thanks for the clarification. So what colour is your car so?

Cantona's Collars

RainyDay wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. So what colour is your car so?

At the minute a mix of brown,grey and black:D.BTW ALL the lights on it work and are on during daytime driving too.
Don't worry I also hate drivers who don't use their lights either.

RainyDay

zerks wrote: »

At the minute a mix of brown,grey and black:D.BTW ALL the lights on it work and are on during daytime driving too.
Don't worry I also hate drivers who don't use their lights either.

So the fetish for hi-vis only applies to cyclists then (including those cyclists who have working lights and keep them on during the day) and not to cars?

simonw

RainyDay wrote: »

So the fetish for hi-vis only applies to cyclists then (including those cyclists who have working lights and keep them on during the day) and not to cars?

It's not often a car comes from nowhere and then flies up the inside when I'm turning left at a junction. If you have lights and use them all the time, great, that's as it should be. But as has been mentioned in every second post in this thread, there are so many lads out there who are completely invisible at night or on rainy days because they wear dark clothes and have no lights, and obviously a reflective jacket is better than nothing.

CramCycle

simonw wrote: »

It's not often a car comes from nowhere and then flies up the inside when I'm turning left at a junction. If you have lights and use them all the time, great, that's as it should be. But as has been mentioned in every second post in this thread, there are so many lads out there who are completely invisible at night or on rainy days because they wear dark clothes and have no lights, and obviously a reflective jacket is better than nothing.

On rural roads true but in cities and places where cars are meant to using their dipped lights, they are no better than any other type of clothing unless worn below the knee. I certainly would not be in favour of letting someone off from a fine for no lights because they thought hi vis was grand. No lights, then they should be off the road at night. If the promotion of hi vis means that people believe lights are not necessary or a legal requirement then it should be stopped, regardless of who makes the hi vis vests.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

On rural roads true but in cities and places where cars are meant to using their dipped lights, they are no better than any other type of clothing unless worn below the knee.

I did come across a father with his very small child wearing a hiviz jacket when I was driving through a darkish part of Churchtown one recent night. The jacket was exemplary in its conspicuity when my headlights shone on it, in a way I've never seen with an adult wearer. Because, as you say, these things are most effective lower down.

(I am not making an argument for children out at night accompanied by adults on the footpath in quiet suburbs to wear hiviz jackets.)

Beasty

Came across a ped on an unlit country road last night carrying a light. As it was in their hand it was swinging backwards and forwards resulting in the individual being clearly identifiable from both directions.

A short while later I was heading down a winding hill, headlights dipped as I was approaching a junction. Just before the junction I spotted another ped, - just maybe 2-3 metres ahead, walking on the same side of the road as I was driving and indeed in the same direction, so they would have had no judgement of the distance I was away. It actually gave me a bit of a scare realising how close I got (even at slow speed) without seeing them as they completely blended into the dark background

Cantona's Collars

RainyDay wrote: »

So the fetish for hi-vis only applies to cyclists then (including those cyclists who have working lights and keep them on during the day) and not to cars?

When I was young it was drummed into me,when on the road always be visible to motorists,I always had lights on the bike and wore reflectors.I lived in the country with zero street lighting,you were taking your life into your hands being on the roads especially in Winter without wearing something to make yourself more visible.

It's not a fetish to keep yourself as safe as possible on the roads either walking,running or cycling-it's common sense.

As per Beasty's last post,I had a similar incident before Xmas,driving to work on the edge of dark in bad fog when a woman walking appeared feet in front of me wearing clothes that the Rangers would be proud of as she blended in perfectly with the ditch,200 m on,I met another walker wearing one of the RSA vests,still hard to see with the fog but I spotted her from plenty of distance.
I can't understand why some posters here seem to be railing against a measure to keep themselves safe while out on the nations roads.FFS,even Penneys sell reflective bands with LED's for about €3.

Macy0161

zerks wrote: »

I can't understand why some posters here seem to be railing against a measure to keep themselves safe while out on the nations roads.FFS,even Penneys sell reflective bands with LED's for about €3.

Can only speak for myself, but the hi-viz debate always seems to be about hi-viz vests. Up to and including talk of compulsion, or excusing motorists for hitting someone regardless of circumstances, if victims aren't wearing them. This is what I rail against.

Reflective bands are different, and not what most of those arguing for hi-viz expect cyclist and pedestrians to wear. imo they're more effective (particularly for cyclists, and also more effective in urban areas where every car should be on dips), and I do use them. To be more visible, you don't have to have the building site vest on!

I'd still stand by a torch/ lights being more important though!

tomasrojo

zerks wrote: »

As per Beasty's last post,I had a similar incident before Xmas,driving to work on the edge of dark in bad fog when a woman walking appeared feet in front of me wearing clothes that the Rangers would be proud of as she blended in perfectly with the ditch,200 m on,I met another walker wearing one of the RSA vests,still hard to see with the fog but I spotted her from plenty of distance.
I can't understand why some posters here seem to be railing against a measure to keep themselves safe while out on the nations roads.FFS,even Penneys sell reflective bands with LED's for about €3.

Beasty's post is actually about how someone carrying a flashlight was very conspicuous, rather than about hiviz. Road safety campaigns used to mention these as an option. Now it's all hiviz. I'd argue that someone swinging a flashlight is more visible than someone wearing a more-or-less static hiviz vest.

This thread, to a large extent, is about when emphasis on hiviz is good, and when is it undue and inappropriate. The latter is especially offensive when it elides into victim blaming, or making out that pedestrians or cyclists cannot be seen on roads with good sightlines during times of good visibility.

tomasrojo

Macy0161 wrote: »

Reflective bands are different, and not what most of those arguing for hi-viz expect cyclist and pedestrians to wear.

There used to be emphasis on these too, as well as the Sam Browne. Hardly mentioned at all now. All more convenient and something you can slip out of sight when you're not on the road.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

On rural roads true but in cities and places where cars are meant to using their dipped lights, they are no better than any other type of clothing unless worn below the knee.

this is what bugs me; there is a belief that hi-viz somehow only 'switches on' at night - on dull evenings, it's a lot more visible than your standard jacket, even when not caught by the beams of headlights. it's not just about light reflecting off your headlights.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is what bugs me; there is a belief that hi-viz somehow only 'switches on' at night - on dull evenings, it's a lot more visible than your standard jacket, even when not caught by the beams of headlights. it's not just about light reflecting off your headlights.

Once the sun has gone down fully and the UV component of ambient light is essentially nil, their conspicuity is almost entirely down to reflection of headlights (can be excellent, but at limited angles of incidence; can be poor if you're off to the right of the centre line of the car) and ambient light (quite diffuse, not as good as headlights).

But, as you say, on dull evenings, and at dusk and dawn the fluorescent material does "glow" by turning UV into visible light, and is actually quite useful.

There are bike lights and flashlights now that are better than that useful but relatively modest effect, I would contend, but hiviz has the advantage of not requiring fresh batteries.

Cantona's Collars

tomasrojo wrote: »

Beasty's post is actually about how someone carrying a flashlight was very conspicuous, rather than about hiviz. Road safety campaigns used to mention these as an option. Now it's all hiviz. I'd argue that someone swinging a flashlight is more visible than someone wearing a more-or-less static hiviz vest.

This thread, to a large extent, is about when emphasis on hiviz is good, and when is it undue and inappropriate. The latter is especially offensive when it elides into victim blaming, or making out that pedestrians or cyclists cannot be seen on roads with good sightlines during times of good visibility.

I mentioned using lights in my post,my point is use anything to make yourself visible.It's not ninja training school.
Even in the middle of the day is it not better to wear something conspicuous while on the road than something that blends in with the background?A good mix is something hi-viz (and reflective) along with decent lights (we have a thread here about lights and what to buy).

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is what bugs me; there is a belief that hi-viz somehow only 'switches on' at night - on dull evenings, it's a lot more visible than your standard jacket, even when not caught by the beams of headlights. it's not just about light reflecting off your headlights.

Never thought it did. It was designed for use during the day. Having had several cyclists spring out from side roads and catch me unawares as I could not distinguish between their hi vis jacket and the black/grey abyss they sailed out from, I am confident that they don't switch on. If they had legally required lights it would have been a non issue. One time I let a roar as the guy nearly collided with me but more importantly nearly went under a car with good reactions thankfully. To which he politely told me to F off he had high vis. On my bike or in my car I generally see unlit cyclists in good time, but in the few situations that I don't, rare as they are, I see some of the time they have hi vis and sometimes they don't.

There are situations where hi vis does what people think it does its job for cyclists, there are alot of times it comes nowhere near doing what some people would have you believe. In all of these cases, in my opinion, lights would have done that job.

I have nothing against hi vis, I despise it's constant advertisement by some as a suitable substitute.

I have reflective trouser clips for when I am in work/casual clothes, does not mean I would ride my bike without my lights on just because they may marginally increase my visibility.

Lumen

zerks wrote: »

my point is use anything to make yourself visible

This is at the heart of the endless hiviz debate.

One faction wants to be maximally visible. This faction is represented by segwaydorks and Spanish prostitutes.



Another faction wants to be sufficiently visible. This faction is represented by Danish hotties and athletic superstars.

Carawaystick

I think a lot of heat in this thread has been generated, but the light is not as illuminating as it should be.

Fundamentally hi-vis materials are fluorescent, and show up brightly in daylight, sun, overcast or twilight; while reflective materials reflect light shone on them from headlights, streetlights etc.

What are called Hi-Viz-Vests almost always have retro-reflective strips.


but retroreflective strips only refleci "incident" light, light that has been shone on them
If you are off axis of the light shone by cars, such as merging etc, the retroreflective aspect is not great, while at night the fluorescent part is useless.

what is very useful is bright lights. You literally cannot have a bright enough red light. Also retro-reflective strips on your calves, feet and shins ( any where below the knees) are really good because they move lots and are more easilier seen

RainyDay

zerks wrote: »

When I was young it was drummed into me,when on the road always be visible to motorists,I always had lights on the bike and wore reflectors.I lived in the country with zero street lighting,you were taking your life into your hands being on the roads especially in Winter without wearing something to make yourself more visible.

It's not a fetish to keep yourself as safe as possible on the roads either walking,running or cycling-it's common sense.

As per Beasty's last post,I had a similar incident before Xmas,driving to work on the edge of dark in bad fog when a woman walking appeared feet in front of me wearing clothes that the Rangers would be proud of as she blended in perfectly with the ditch,200 m on,I met another walker wearing one of the RSA vests,still hard to see with the fog but I spotted her from plenty of distance.
I can't understand why some posters here seem to be railing against a measure to keep themselves safe while out on the nations roads.FFS,even Penneys sell reflective bands with LED's for about €3.

I don't have anything against hi-vis as such. My winter jacket is hi-vis.

So here's what I have something against. I have something against

• The idea that hi-vis is more important or more preferable than lights. Lights are a legal requirement, and work from pretty much every direction in every lighting condition. Lights first, hi-vis second.
• The developing culture that cyclists HAVE to wear hi-vis to be seen as responsible cyclists. It has come up in court cases. I had a driver whinge at me last summer on a bright summer's evening while I'm wearing a bright red jersey that I didn't have hi-vis.
• The over-emphasis by RSA and Gardai on the importance of hi-vis, despite the remarkable absense of hi-vis as an issue in cyclist fatality reports. It's an easy thing for RSA, and avoids having to face up to the more thorny issue of driver behaviour.
• The developing culture that cyclists have to 'look weird' - hi-vis and lycra and helmets and more. This is a big part of the reason why more teenage girls drive themselves to school than cycle to school. We need to make cycling accessible for ordinary people wearing ordinary clothes.

John_C

The government should pass a law making both lights and reflectors mandatory at night. Surely that would be the best of both worlds?

CramCycle

John_C wrote: »

The government should pass a law making both lights and reflectors mandatory at night. Surely that would be the best of both worlds?

Or they should just provide for FPNs so they the current adequate legislation is easily enforceable and not seen as a waste of Garda time and resources through court appearances.

Lumen

John_C wrote: »

The government should pass a law making both lights and reflectors mandatory at night. Surely that would be the best of both worlds?

They are already.

tomasrojo

RainyDay wrote: »

• The developing culture that cyclists have to 'look weird' - hi-vis and lycra and helmets and more. This is a big part of the reason why more teenage girls drive themselves to school than cycle to school. We need to make cycling accessible for ordinary people wearing ordinary clothes.

I was thinking about this recently, and wondering whether the normalisation of hiviz and helmets can get to the point where people who aren't all that keen on cycling start thinking they don't look all that bad. Already the normalisation has got to the point that nobody takes a second look at cyclists wearing them.

I reckon it can't go that much further (although, as has come up here, pedestrians are also targeted, sometimes even in cities). Two things people universally find comical or ugly seem to be garishness and disproportion, especially combined, and these are the two things that current standard safety devices impose on cyclists.

It's arguable and certainly argued that these are prices worth paying, but I do suspect that you're thereby limiting cycling to those who are very keen on it, or those who aren't too concerned with how they appear. Even combined, that isn't a lot of the population.

Iwannahurl

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/31/eurpub.cku117

http://victorianmotorcyclecouncil.org.au/uploads/INFO/Prof%20Huggins%20Hi%20Viz%20Letter%2006%202014.pdf

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote: »

We need to make cycling accessible for ordinary people wearing ordinary clothes.

A million times this!

tomasrojo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/31/eurpub.cku117

http://victorianmotorcyclecouncil.org.au/uploads/INFO/Prof%20Huggins%20Hi%20Viz%20Letter%2006%202014.pdf

From the second link:

It appears the problem has arisen as "Researchers have tended to take at face value drivers' claims to accident investigators that they failed to see a motorcyclist or cyclist. Correspondingly the solution to the problem has been thought to be to make the motorcyclist or cyclist as physically conspicuous as possible..."

I have thought this for years. It's really obvious that most people who weren't looking where they were going, were going way too fast or were even buzzing a cyclist with a punishment pass or prank pass would claim in the event of it going horribly wrong that they simply couldn't see the cyclist. To admit the truth would be to risk going to jail or losing their licence. To assume that all or the vast majority of such claims are true shows incredible gullibility. But it's quite convenient when you're predisposed to see the minority as the problem, and here we are.

John_C

tomasrojo wrote: »

I have thought this for years. It's really obvious that most people who weren't looking where they were going, were going way too fast or were even buzzing a cyclist with a punishment pass or prank pass would claim in the event of it going horribly wrong that they simply couldn't see the cyclist. To admit the truth would be to risk going to jail or losing their licence. To assume that all or the vast majority of such claims are true shows incredible gullibility. But it's quite convenient when you're predisposed to see the minority as the problem, and here we are.

I once read a blog post from an american police motorcyclist. Over 3 months, he recorded the number of times a motorist cut him off during his commute to and from work. During the first month he wore his usual clothes and was cut off about once per day. For the second month he wore fluorescent gear and used daytime running lights. For this month, he also got cut off about once per day. For the third month he wore his police uniform and rode his police bike. He only got cut off once that whole month.

Beasty

John_C wrote: »

For the third month he wore his police uniform and rode his police bike. He only got cut off once that whole month.

... as the perpetrator was in the clink by day 2?:P

magicbastarder

John_C wrote: »

I once read a blog post from an american police motorcyclist.

i'll buy you a pint if you can dig out that link.

Pinch Flat

John_C wrote: »

I once read a blog post from an american police motorcyclist. Over 3 months, he recorded the number of times a motorist cut him off during his commute to and from work. During the first month he wore his usual clothes and was cut off about once per day. For the second month he wore fluorescent gear and used daytime running lights. For this month, he also got cut off about once per day. For the third month he wore his police uniform and rode his police bike. He only got cut off once that whole month.

I've been knocked off my bike twice from the rear by motorists overtaking me and cutting in left in front of me, both occasions in dim / dark by motorists who claimed they didn't see me.

'm 6'2", weigh the wrong side of 15 stone so not exactly a small object on the road. But never mind that - Let's see what I was wearing that could have further assisted the motorist:

Jersey with reflective piping
Hi vis bag cover
80 lumen flashing rear light on my seat post
1/2 watt flashing light on my helmet

I've lost count the amount if drivers that pull out in front of my 400 lumen light. The latest one was this morning, hasda close call in Lucan as well early Sunday

Some drivers are happy to pull out in front of cyclists - they think "ah what the hell" and gun it - you're never going to recover that 5 seconds it takes for me to pass

RainyDay

John_C wrote: »

The government should pass a law making both lights and reflectors mandatory at night. Surely that would be the best of both worlds?

What do you mean by 'reflectors'?

This article http://www.herald.ie/news/rogue-cyclists-set-to-face-50-onthespot-penalties-for-breaking-red-lights-30884651.html refers to "introduction of sanctions for not having lights or not wearing appropriate safety gear that identifies cyclists in the dark.f". Is mandatory hi-vis on the way?