Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

So despite there being x% more motor vehicles on the road compared to cyclists the police (and CTC seem to agree ) reckon that upto 1 in 4 accidents are the sole fault of the cyclist!

Yes the vast majority are the fault of the driver, and only tiny % is hi viz a factor, and for pedestrian drivers over driving their lights is issue.

So why the obsession solely on hi viz on cyclists.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

Yes the vast majority are the fault of the driver, and only tiny % is hi viz a factor, and for pedestrian drivers over driving their lights is issue.

So why the obsession solely on hi viz on cyclists.

Just taking your source and seeing how it measures up, it suggests that if there are 100000 cars and 5000 cyclists then despite the cyclists being only 5% of the traffic they would be responsible for up to 25% of the accidents!

Which would actually suggest that pro rata cyclists are extremely detrimental to overall accident rates!

How many cars v cycles were the police looking at in that survey?

Now given that 75% are the fault of motorists is it not a good idea to ensure higher visibility of cyclists? to reduce that number by even 2-5% would be a significent number of people saved from trauma for a minimal cost

Spook_ie

Just doing some searching and wonder what the situation is in Ireland?

At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24

Do the clipless pedals so esposed on the cycling forum have the reflectors fitted, as I must admit I see many cyclists now that don't seem to have amber reflectors on their pedals and pedals with reflectors seem the exception rather than the rule
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/clip-in-pedals/

Godge

beauf wrote: »

"Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds
Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury"








After all that, I've nothing against Hi Viz. I wear it myself, and would try to do the same when talking at night. But I'm baffled why its always dragged out as the cure of all evils when its not that big a factor in stats at all.

Can you link to the study you quoted?

"Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time."

A statement such as that means nothing out of context. Does it mean 2.5% of all accidents? Does it mean 2.5% of all accidents involving cycling? Does it mean 2.5% of all accidents at night/twilight? Does it mean 2.5% of accidents where cyclist culpability was a factor?

For example, if it includes all accidents on the road, day and night, involving cars only, cars and pedestrians, trucks only, trucks and cyclists etc., then 2.5% of those accidents citing dark clothing as an issue is extremely high.

If it just refers to accidents involving cyclists at night where there is some element of cyclist culpability, then it is an extremely low number.

Quoting statistics without providing a link to the original report is confusing.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably because most of my interactions on the road involve cyclists rather than pedestrians and I have very few problems with dark colored cars.

What do you mean by "interactions"?

What areas is this happening in?

Do these cyclists not have lights on their bikes?

beauf

Godge - I'd be curious to see a study where dark clothing at night was a factor in accidents during the day. Or indeed the colour of clothing being a factor in cars only, truck only accidents.

AFAIK the stats were solely accidents involving a car and a cyclist. 1:1 ratio. Otherwise its not a car + bike accident. I don't have link. Its quoted widely.

Spook_ie wrote: »

...Now given that 75% are the fault of motorists is it not a good idea to ensure higher visibility of cyclists? to reduce that number by even 2-5% would be a significent number of people saved from trauma for a minimal cost

The question really is why is the focus on 2% or potentially less (as it was potential cause) and not the other 98%. That assumes you get 100% adhering to the law, of that 2% (or less) Which is never going to happen. Every other driver is on their mobile, every other cyclist has no lights. Why focus on something thats not even law!

What about the pedestrians. No jaywalking law, no testing of car lights range at speeds?

oak5548

Yes, hi visibility is extremely important, especially at dawn, dusk and night time.

I cant count the amount of times I've only spotted somebody at the last minute and had to swerve because they were wearing dark clothing and walking or cycling on the road.
Even during day time it can be difficult to pick people out from a distance with strong sun and haze.

there's a reason hi-visibility jackets/vests are a thing. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to have their head examined.

Cookie_Monster

oak5548 wrote: »

Yes, hi visibility is extremely important, especially at dawn, dusk and night time.

I cant count the amount of times I've only spotted somebody at the last minute and had to swerve because they were wearing dark clothing and walking or cycling on the road.
Even during day time it can be difficult to pick people out from a distance with strong sun and haze.

there's a reason hi-visibility jackets/vests are a thing. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to have their head examined.

tbh that just sounds like incompetent driving.

oak5548

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

tbh that just sounds like incompetent driving.

You dont drive do you? And thats beside my point anyway.

monument

oak5548 wrote: »

there's a reason hi-visibility jackets/vests are a thing. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to have their head examined.

Don't post again until you have read the Commuting and Transport charter.

Moderator

Red Nissan

I'm not a fan of hi-vis, I believe in bright clothing, AND of contrasting colours, a sea of yellow actually becomes invisible to the average motorist.

There is far too much of the same colour, at one time we could identify road workers, builders, Gardaí, Ambulance crews, Fire crews, fishermen, children and adult pedestrians and even animals.

But then we all started to wear the same colours and given the right atmospheric conditions, we become invisible.

Also at nigh those highly reflective strips do a number of things, they dazzle the motorist and may trick him into dimming his lights, thus making the wearer in more danger. They can look like road signs so the motorist takes not avoiding action believing the structure to be further in off the road than the actual pedestrians or cyclist wearing them actually are and are in greater danger than they suspect.

Good old bright clothing that shapes the body is the answer, Hi-Vis concentrates attention but does not always alert the driver to the actual presence of people, especially as many a farm gate has a few vests hanging off them and they are tied to trees ~ and I could go on.

Believe it or not, I hate the thoughts of school children being given those vests. In any particular atmospheric condition, they may actually be less visible or dismissed as a sea of yellow and this same yellow green disappears completely in sunshine in the countryside against the hedgrows.

beauf

It has its place. But when you see it used instead over something more effective, like lights, or promoted over better standards of driving, or cycling. Then there's a problem.

Look in a mirror at a hi vest at night, its invisible.

oak5548

Just going to say that car lights dont make a difference. They only extend a certain distance and beyond that and their peripherals you cant see dark objects.

However you would notice reflection of lights off a hi-visibility strip/sign further away with darkness in between the edge of your light reach and the sign.

I see this weekly driving in and out of town where on the 100km stretch of road, busy road so all cars lights wouldnt be on full beams, and you see people fly past you in the hard shoulder that come out of nowhere, jogging in all black shorts and dark coloured tops.

Not usually an issue seeing as there's plenty of space i nthe hard shoulder for them to run/cycle in but you get the odd person near the yellow line that make you shake your head.

I regularly see cyclists in the evening time wearing not a bit of hi-viz, and with sun glare their rear and front lights arent always easy to pick out. Hi-viz makes this it so much safer for both me and the other road users.

The same goes for motorcyclists, and cars during the day. A black/silver car is very hard to pick out on a sunny day from a far distance even with lights on, and yes I have 20/20 vision.

Its not about discouraging people from cycling, walking, or doing whatever. If people are discouraged by reflective colours then its a personal issue with style or image. Instead, its about safety.

Be safe. Be seen. As a motorist I can 100% assure that hi-viz jackets are an absolute life-saver and help me see you sooner, even with my lights on.

Its not about distinguishing who's who. Emergency services wear them not only so we can distinguish who they are, but so we can see them easier especially on roads and built up area's.

Same goes for construction workers, council workers, factor/plant workers, Irish rail staff, Airport staff, and just about every other job/activity in a moving environment.


I've come around numerous corners in my rural area where there's walkers with hi-viz and I notice them those few seconds earlier and am able to make the safe decision to go around them giving plenty of time and space.

There have also been many times I've come around corners and suddenly I notice a black figure and I get a fright because it was too late for comfort.

Also, there's a huge difference between car lights and bicycle lights. They're so much more distinguishable and besides, you're expecting a car more than anything.

I'm a very safe driver and ensure I take extra care to observe. I have no issues with cyclists, pedestrians or other road users provided they pose no danger and the same goes for motorists.

I'm also a cyclist and wouldnt even feel comfortable without a hi-viz on.

Its just common sense in my opinion. They are cold hard facts, and any competant road user would be able to tell you that hi-viz does what it says on the tin.

so? either it's dark enough to require lights in which case it doesn't matter or it's bright enough not to need lights, in which case it doesn't matter.

So many things wrong with that post, but I've already mentioned most of what I need to say above.

Red Nissan

oak5548 wrote: »

Its not about discouraging people from cycling, walking, or doing whatever. If people are discouraged by reflective colours then its a personal issue with style or image. Instead, its about safety. .

I suspect you miss a point, it is all about what the danger is, at one time when the 'new' yellow green was only worn by a Guard, you / one prepared to stop.

When you saw the little children in the pink, yellow, reds and blue, you took a wider course.

Anticipation easier if one can more easily identify the potential danger.

Just to throw a point consideration, how many of us swerved to avoid tractors in fields and yard spots facing out on the road ~ same sort of difference. If we KNEW they were in the field and of no danger we would drive more safely.

And for the record, I am technically blind in one eye, a condition I've had for ten years, now considered operable, and I also pass the eye test ~ IMO, perhaps that should be revised, but that's the way it is.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

What do you mean by "interactions"?

What areas is this happening in?

Do these cyclists not have lights on their bikes?

What do you think I mean by interactions? If you think it means knocking them off their bikes then perhaps interactions is the wrong word but generally I see a cyclist/pedestrian, I take what ever measures I deem appropriate, if I see a cyclist/pedestrian earlier ( because they are wearing high viz ) I can adapt my interactions to allow a more comfortable experience for me, my passengers ( if any ) and the cyclist concerned.

All area, all times but as I work predominately night time in NC Dublin then probably there and then

Some do, a lot don't, suffice to say one of these days I do believe some prick is going to end up as a mascot on my bonnet and I genuinely don't think it will be my fault, dash cam if it happens will answer that!

Spook_ie

Red Nissan wrote: »

I suspect you miss a point, it is all about what the danger is, at one time when the 'new' yellow green was only worn by a Guard, you / one prepared to stop.

When you saw the little children in the pink, yellow, reds and blue, you took a wider course.

Anticipation easier if one can more easily identify the potential danger.

Just to throw a point consideration, how many of us swerved to avoid tractors in fields and yard spots facing out on the road ~ same sort of difference. If we KNEW they were in the field and of no danger we would drive more safely.

And for the record, I am technically blind in one eye, a condition I've had for ten years, now considered operable, and I also pass the eye test ~ IMO, perhaps that should be revised, but that's the way it is.

Can't say I recall ever swerving for a tractor in a field or yard, I've taken my foot off the accelerator and covered the brake on a just in case basis ( much as I do when I spot any potential hazard ) but not swerved.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

It has its place. But when you see it used instead over something more effective, like lights, or promoted over better standards of driving, or cycling. Then there's a problem.

Look in a mirror at a hi vest at night, its invisible.

Only if you don't have a light source at the approx level of eye sight, that's why HiViz ( EN471 ) actually works to alert car drivers more so than lorry drivers because of the difference in height of the headlamps to eye level, that doesn't mean you get no light reflected just not as much

monument

oak5548 wrote: »

I'm also a cyclist and wouldnt even feel comfortable without a hi-viz on.

Maybe your fear or fear of comfort isn't based on rationality?

oak5548 wrote: »

Its just common sense in my opinion.

Not too long ago it was common sense to buy a house as quick as possible because house prices were apparently only going up. Lots of people are deep in it because they sheepishly followed that bit of common sense.

oak5548 wrote: »

They are cold hard facts,

Most of you post isn't facts, but rather just your opinion. You seem to be getting your opinion mixed up with facts.


Here's some detailed research which is backed up by fact:

The influence of a bicycle commuter's appearance on drivers’ overtaking proximities : an on-road test of bicyclist stereotypes, high-visibility clothing and safety aids in the United Kingdom, published in Accident Analysis and Prevention:

The amount of space left by motorists as they overtook a bicycle was not related to the rider’s apparent level of experience, as signalled by the outfit being worn. The only substantial change in drivers’ behaviour was seen in response to a high-visibility vest which invoked the name of the police and suggested the rider was video-recording the journey, although at present it is not clear which of these components was responsible for the effect. Given that a small proportion (1-2%) of overtaking drivers passed within 50 cm of the rider no matter what was being worn, we suggest that there is little riders can do, by altering their appearance, to prevent the very closest overtakes. We suggest that the optimum solution to the very closest overtakes will not lie with bicyclists themselves, and instead we should look to changes in infrastructure, education or the law to prevent drivers getting dangerously close when overtaking bicyclists

Or this study covers and lists a lot of the research out there, it concludes:

This study was designed to assess the effect of conspicuity aid use on the risk of crash for commuter and utility cyclists. A slightly greater proportion of cases than controls reported using conspicuity aids. There was therefore a raised odds ratio of collision crash involvement for those using conspicuity aids even after adjustment for a large number of important confounders. The study results do not demonstrate a protective effect as expected given previous work testing the effects of such aids on drivers’ awareness of cyclists and pedestrians. This study demonstrates the importance of understanding why many cyclists remain at risk of collision crash resulting in injury despite the use of conspicuity aids.

Spook_ie

Just to clarify things because I still think people are confused over the difference between Day Glo, Retro Reflective and Hi Viz

The Horse has Day Glo on it, the rider has Hi Viz Note the two in the background clearly more visible because of HiViz

the cyclist has reflective

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

Only if you don't have a light source at the approx level of eye sight, that's why HiViz ( EN471 ) actually works to alert car drivers more so than lorry drivers because of the difference in height of the headlamps to eye level, that doesn't mean you get no light reflected just not as much

The study isn't saying hi viz don't work. Its saying they aren't a significant factor in these accidents.

For example where a driver is not looking at the cyclist or are distracted by something else.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

The study isn't saying hi viz don't work. Its saying they aren't a significant factor in these accidents.

For example where a driver is not looking at the cyclist or are distracted by something else.

If a driver isn't looking then you could be aiming an AK47 at them to shoot them up ( if they're not looking! ) but that's par for the course on any road be it cyclists/pedestrians/car drivers/bus drivers or whatever, but the fact that if you are wearing high viz the moments attention they do pay is more likely to get you noticed than not.

beauf

As motorist. I'm not really concerned with the cyclists I can see. I'm concerned about the ones with a hi viz that I can't see very well. Increasingly you see people with very poor Hi Viz vests, and no lights, or decent hi viz vest and poor lights, and positioned just beyond the fall of the lights.

Its also noticeable you can see cyclists with decent lights at vastly great
distances, and from greater angles.

But lets not forget the pedestrians. Is there not a bigger problem when people find they aren't seeing pedestrians and cyclists until last minute in daylight, especially in the city?

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

If a driver isn't looking then you could be aiming an AK47 at them to shoot them up ( if they're not looking! ) but that's par for the course on any road be it cyclists/pedestrians/car drivers/bus drivers or whatever, but the fact that if you are wearing high viz the moments attention they do pay is more likely to get you noticed than not.

Personally I don't think its ok (par for the course).

Studies suggest say its not more likely to prevent an accident. They suggest other factors are more likely to prevent that.

Hilly Bill

beauf wrote: »

Personally I don't think its ok (par for the course).

Studies suggest say its not more likely to prevent an accident. They suggest other factors are more likely to prevent that.

What studies? did they go driving around Ireland at night? I thought it would be better to be seen than not on the roads.
Ive seen the reflectors off the high Viz far quicker than someone without them.

I saw an idiot on a bike saved from been knocked for six today because of his high viz yellow bike jacket.
A taxi was turning right through a gap in traffic at the new mater hospital building and as he was about to go into the drop off zone an idiot on a bike came racing against the flow of traffic and straight across the path of the turning taxi. The first thing the taxi would have saw would have been the bright yellow jacket so he braked to avoid a collision. The bright jacket would have come into your vision quicker than someone wearing dark clothes .

Red Nissan

beauf wrote: »

Personally I don't think its ok (par for the course).

Studies suggest say its not more likely to prevent an accident. They suggest other factors are more likely to prevent that.

I think the study is just toooooooo narrow.

We have six years olds to one hundred year olds on our roads.

In those are the boy racers, MUMS, MUMS actually driving tractors at unsafe velocities dropping off at school and endangering other mum's children ~ unbelievable but true,

Quite frankly, as long as mothers, endanger their own kids [children] we have an ecocentric problem, that defies instinct.

SeanW

John_C wrote: »

The lights make things more visible at night, that's pretty obvious. But you can't depend on every hazard having lights. On another night there might be a parked car on that patch of road, or a pedestrian or a stray animal or any other hazard. The same driver would have had to swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid any of these. That's why the law says you have to be able to stop in the length of road you can see to be clear. It's not just the law, it's also very good advice.

"Parked cars" are subject to rules and general practices - there are a lot places where it would not be reasonable to expect to see a parked car, and many more where it would only be reasonable to see a car parked in a proper marking bay. Pedestrians, by convention if walking on a quiet unlit road at night, should be marked by high vis and/or a flashlight. As to stray animals, I will deal with that below.

@spook: I did a quick google and the stopping distances for different speeds are listed here. It says stopping at 120kph will take a bit over 100m. You should be able to see that distance clearly on any motorway, they're designed like that.

Yes, even at night, you should be able to see any reasonable obstacle within those distances, ditto for the majority of speed limits on other roads which are logically solvent (about 90% of them, in my opinion).

But there are always going to be things you don't see. A cat could dart out from a hidden place off the road, into your path, too near to allow you to stop in time at a given speed.

It would not be reasonable to expect have driven at a slower speed prior to the fact, because you could see the road very clearly for the specified distance but the threat came from elsewhere, in addition to the general rarity of such occurances.

From what I've read, this was little different, the motorist in the posters story could see the road ahead and any reasonably aparent dangers. The cyclists exclusively caused the problem by not caring that they basically blended in with the road like a chameleon.

bk wrote: »

The problem with all these suggestions is they all are trying to punish and demonise cyclists and pedestrians, people who are the most vulnerable road users for the benefit of motorists.

All anyone is suggesting is reasonable means to ensure that the behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists is legal and safe. A sensible code of practice, and credible measures for enfocring road law, all of which and much, much more already apply to motorists. What is wrong with that?

Additionally, you say "the benefit of motorists." like it's a dirty word. Why? Unless a person becomes a second class citizen when they get behind the wheel, is not appropriate to consider their interests as well as those of everyone else?

Spook_ie wrote: »

the cyclist has reflective

You'd have to be blind not to see that! Is it not obvious that this is more visible than, for example the single LED backlights I see on the Dublin Bikes and tiny pieces of reflective plastic on others (both of which, incidentally, I saw while walking across the pedestrian-only Sean O'Casey bridge today.

Red Nissan

SeanW wrote: »

You'd have to be blind not to see that! Is it not obvious that this is more visible than, for example the single LED backlights I see on the Dublin Bikes and tiny pieces of reflective plastic on others (both of which, incidentally, I saw while walking across the pedestrian Sean O'Casey bridge today.

I, half blind can confirm, that that is just one blob.

I use a dashcam and am actually tempted to try to drive by it, photography DOES NOT REFLECT REALITY IN ACTUAL DRIVER VISION.

My recent incident was knocking down a pedestrian, she walked straight onto the pedestrian crossing, two reason why she is not dead now, I had my wife screaming at her and she [last minute] realised I was NOT stopping.

My dascam shows her VERY, VERY, VERY clearly. Now I say again, my dashcam shows her extremely clearly, BUT ~ I, me did NOT see her. I had to an emergency stop, that's about three in fifty years.

Believe me, more is often less. Take my word for it, subtle is best, movement is vital, flashing not good, moving and waving ~ simulate that.

Hilly Bill

Red Nissan wrote: »

I, half blind can confirm, that that is just one blob.

I use a dashcam and am actually tempted to try to drive by it, photography DOES NOT REFLECT REALITY IN ACTUAL DRIVER VISION.

My recent incident was knocking down a pedestrian, she walked straight onto the pedestrian crossing, two reason why she is not dead now, I had my wife screaming at her and she [last minute] realised I was NOT stopping.

My dascam shows her VERY, VERY, VERY clearly. Now I say again, my dashcam shows her extremely clearly, BUT ~ I, me did NOT see her. I had to an emergency stop, that's about three in fifty years.

Believe me, more is often less. Take my word for it, subtle is best, movement is vital, flashing not good, moving and waving ~ simulate that.

I think you being half blind and driving is the bigger danger.

SeanW

bk wrote: »

In Holland, a driver is 100% responsible for any accidents, and rightfully so, if you hit someone, then you weren't driving with due care and attention.

Just to follow up on this, as per a previous post, twice in as many days last week I saw pedestrians ignore red-man lights and force traffic (one a bus, another a series of cars) to stop at their green light. This was mid-cycle.

In town today after work, I saw the same thing happen THREE TIMES in 30 seconds on O'Connell Street. This time I got a slightly better look at the movements, and it was absolutely clear that the pedestrians, possibly more than 3 in total, (more than one in each incident) either didn't look for oncoming traffic before running the red, didn't care whether there was traffic coming, or decided "they're going slow enough, I'll make them stop for me." And again 15 minutes later, just outside the central area, I saw a woman blithely walk across a junction ignoring all the traffic and the pedestrian lights. Though to be fair she was hopelessly intoxicated. In broad daylight at 6:45PM ...

It seems to me that things being suggested here, like ever reducing speed limits and strict liability, have the effect of encouraging this sort of behaviour. I suggest to such people that the kind of behaviour I saw today, esp at O'Connell Street, should not be encouraged or rewarded.

Spook_ie

Red Nissan wrote: »

I, half blind can confirm, that that is just one blob.

I use a dashcam and am actually tempted to try to drive by it, photography DOES NOT REFLECT REALITY IN ACTUAL DRIVER VISION.

My recent incident was knocking down a pedestrian, she walked straight onto the pedestrian crossing, two reason why she is not dead now, I had my wife screaming at her and she [last minute] realised I was NOT stopping.

My dascam shows her VERY, VERY, VERY clearly. Now I say again, my dashcam shows her extremely clearly, BUT ~ I, me did NOT see her. I had to an emergency stop, that's about three in fifty years.

Believe me, more is often less. Take my word for it, subtle is best, movement is vital, flashing not good, moving and waving ~ simulate that.

If you are half blind I'd suggest giving up the license or at least look into the reason why you can see her on a DashCam but not in real time

monument

WARNING TO ALL: STICK TO THE TOPIC!

There's enough going on without rants about this and that off-topic.

Moderator.

Red Nissan

Spook_ie wrote: »

If you are half blind I'd suggest giving up the license or at least look into the reason why you can see her on a Rwandan but not in real time

It is a study I indent to take further, the eye test is far too forgiving, but this is on the road, now and will be for another ten years, i've heard it before, I shouted at other motorists that they should not be driving if they could not see.

I was accosted by one invalided blind person for blocking their wheelchair space but I pointed out that I was outside the regulation limits by a good margin, and she replied that her husband [now deceased] was half blind and he could not see the parking space if I was in front of it.

I said he should not be driving and she said not to threaten her or she'd call the guards.

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

What studies?

Maybe deal with the studies already referred to in the thread before looking for more?

Hilly Bill wrote: »

did they go driving around Ireland at night? I thought it would be better to be seen than not on the roads.

That's the job of bicycle lights.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I saw an idiot on a bike saved from been knocked for six today because of his high viz yellow bike jacket.
A taxi was turning right through a gap in traffic at the new mater hospital building and as he was about to go into the drop off zone an idiot on a bike came racing against the flow of traffic and straight across the path of the turning taxi. The first thing the taxi would have saw would have been the bright yellow jacket so he braked to avoid a collision. The bright jacket would have come into your vision quicker than someone wearing dark clothes .

That's really conclusive -- it must have been the yellow jacket! :rolleyes:

SeanW wrote: »

You'd have to be blind not to see that!

Or just not pointing a light / flash directly towards the cyclist as is being done in the picture!

For conditions of darkness in rural areas as shown, what's needed is good lights (which will have a far better chance of being seen before reflective strips.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

snipped









Or just not pointing a light / flash directly towards the cyclist as is being done in the picture!

For conditions of darkness in rural areas as shown, what's needed is good lights (which will have a far better chance of being seen before reflective strips.

Lights are only good for approaching or departing whereas hi viz is 360 degrees

wil

monument wrote: »

..
For conditions of darkness in rural areas as shown, what's needed is good lights (which will have a far better chance of being seen before reflective strips.

Disagree with that. In fact good reflective strips are powered by a far more powerful light than most rear bike lights are capable, mine.
And they are usually larger, but even so, I'd say in the majority of pitch black country driving, I can usually see the pedal reflectors long before that little blip of red, and usually it is a better indicator that I am approaching a slow moving vehicle than a red light which may seem to be a far off motorbike or tail out car.
Even a simple reflective strip on a tree at a gate makes an extremely clear and distinct marker visible from far off at night. Always on.

Red Nissan

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I think you being half blind and driving is the bigger danger.

Which is why we should discuss real situations and legal driving privileges.

Arguably all over 50 are suffering from sight defects, going though one myself, I agree, but I am legal, sight is vitally omportnat and yet a blind persons can drive a car., stupid. yes, legal, yes.

Should I be off the road, yes. Have I passed all the tests, yes. Have they understood the results, NO.

Sight tests should be far more comprehensive, and mandatory at 35 years of age.

wil

Wondering who is doing all this so called research, who is funding it and on what planet are they coming to their conclusions?

Now I can say with confidence and without a shred of scientific research that the most important sense I use when detecting what is on the road and in my path while driving is my sight.
Hearing comes in a very low third, well below common.

Anything that assists my seeing, taking notice of and accommodating another road user, verge, junction plays a very significant part in helping me avoid inadvertently increasing unpleasant stats.

And while cycling, again wouldn't get far with my eyes shut, my hearing does play an increased role, but common still comes second. Experience and reading the road/drivers is important. Knowing I'm not invisible does keep the anxiety down, but it is just one tool of cycling. Combining that with what the motorist is doing informs me what the danger is.

A lot of the more well intentioned posts are confusing safety with attitudes and education.
They go hand in hand, but are not the same. The best PPE is useless in the wrong hands/eyes

Makes no sense saying hi-vis clothes doesn't help with drivers cutting up cyclists if they do that in perfect visibility anyway. That is an education and attitude problem.

Equally makes no sense saying good attitude and education work if a blacked up cyclists looms out of the rain and under your bumper.

Observation is not visibility, or vice versa. Observation is seeking and making use of what visible (and audible) information is available and turning it in to useful information in your head. It informs your driving.

Quoting all this ridiculous research means nothing unless you know what you are looking at, literally and metaphorically.
All the hi-vis in the world makes little difference if drivers pull out without looking, but if they at least give a cursory glance, it can make that split second difference, or yes, they can just go ahead and ignore it. Ignorance proves little.

Good hi-vis can and often is far more effective than fairly underpowered bike lights particularly on long dark straights - that's experience not research.

Cookie_Monster

oak5548 wrote: »

You dont drive do you? And thats beside my point anyway.

I drive nearly every day and have been doing so for the past 7 years. What's that got to do with anything?
I made the point because you said it's happened to you "too many times to count". It's happened to me once, maybe twice in those sevens years, maybe it's the way you drive rather than the people you encounter...

I'm also a cyclist and wouldnt even feel comfortable without a hi-viz on.

would you feel comfortable cycling on a bike that's not painted high-vis?

Its just common sense in my opinion. They are cold hard facts, and any competant road user would be able to tell you that hi-viz does what it says on the tin.

It's either fact or your opinion, and it all very much sounds like opinion to me...
High vis does do what it says on the tin, it gives people the impression that the person wearing it is doing so because they are operating in a hazardous environment where they need to be highly visible to others. Cycling on the road is not a hazardous environment that requires it though, end of story.

So many things wrong with that post, but I've already mentioned most of what I need to say above.

what's wrong with it exactly? do you disagree that cyclists need lights when it's dark (or poor visibility due to rain/fog etc)or don't need to have them on when it's not?

Cookie_Monster

wil wrote: »

Good hi-vis can and often is far more effective than fairly underpowered bike lights particularly on long dark straights - that's experience not research.

proper high quality lights backed up by proper enforcement of those who don't have them would also be far more effective than anything else for cyclists and cars alike. But that would require an actual effort to be made by the RSA and AGS. Why do that when you can just throw out a few cheap high vis vests and blame cyclists for not being visible enough without them?

K.Flyer

This subject was discussed at length on another thread a while back.
Rather than write out my thoughts again here is what I posted back then. ..

K.Flyer wrote: »

Hi Guys,
.... I just wanted to give my perspective as a van driver.
In my opinion whilst a hi-viz jacket has its benefits it should never be considered a primary safety item.
On evenings like we have now, dark and wet, good bright lights are your no.1 safety item.
I can see a cyclist with a couple of decent bright lights quite a good distance away and I will spot them much sooner than someone just wearing a hi-viz.
The good bright slow flashing front / rear (two, one low, one high or on arm) lights immediately warn me its a cyclist in front or behind me and this allows me ample time to adjust my driving accordingly.
A hi-viz is only useful when light shines on it, please take it from me as a driver, wearing a hi-viz it is not enough on its own, please have good bright lights on your bikes, it makes it so much easier for me and others to see you.
Be Safe, Be Seen!

wil

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

proper high quality lights backed up by proper enforcement of those who don't have them would also be far more effective than anything else for cyclists and cars alike. But that would require an actual effort to be made by the RSA and AGS. Why do that when you can just throw out a few cheap high vis vests and blame cyclists for not being visible enough without them?

Partly agree.
Car lights are relatively self maintaining. Bikes need batteries. LEDs has improved that situation.
Throwing out stuff as you suggest is a token effort towards changing attitude, not a let off excuse.
But you have to consider cost and ease, otherwise it wont happen.

I suggest this approach
Anyone cycling at night in black clothes and/or no lights should be issued with a producer, not a fine.
Producer - show lights on same bike at police station with 7 days. perhaps with receipt (to reduce chancers), plus high-vis.
No producer - fine issued.

No bike should be sold without permanent and sensible lights.

Proper high-vis has a role, so has cop on. I see and know many who don't use either.

Cyclists who wear black clothes and don't use lights and high-vis at night are little better than jaywalkers who cross the road without even looking.
Silly.

Equally as stupid are high-vis wearers who throw a black bag over it.

All bike rucksacks should have scotchlite etc, - producer if absent.

monument

wil wrote: »

Wondering who is doing all this so called research, who is funding it and on what planet are they coming to their conclusions?

The research is publicly downable for free.

The fact that you are questioning it's funding shows you have not bothered to read it.

wil wrote: »

Now I can say with confidence and without a shred of scientific research that the most important sense I use when detecting what is on the road and in my path while driving is my sight.
Hearing comes in a very low third, well below common.

That's nice, nobody is saying otherwise.

wil wrote: »

A lot of the more well intentioned posts are confusing safety with attitudes and education.

Quote any posts you have issues with, otherwise get off your soapbox!

wil wrote: »

Makes no sense saying hi-vis clothes doesn't help with drivers cutting up cyclists

Maybe it does not make sense to you, but the authors of the reports back what they say up with hard data and so you'll have to do better than that to try to debunk the research.

The research also matches the experance of many cyclists who self-describe as being "dressed like a Chrismas tree" but still getting cut up by motorists.

wil wrote: »

Quoting all this ridiculous research means nothing unless you know what you are looking at, literally and metaphorically.

It helps if you try to read the research -- which you clearly have not.

wil wrote: »

Good hi-vis can and often is far more effective than fairly underpowered bike lights particularly on long dark straights - that's experience not research.

That's like suggesting a car with faulty, dimmed lights would be better getting high-vis painted on it rather than fixing the lights.

wil wrote: »

Producer - show lights on same bike at police station with 7 days. perhaps with receipt (to reduce chancers), plus high-vis.

You're getting ahead of your self, you have not even come close to dealing with the research against high-vis.

No Pants

wil wrote: »

Car lights are relatively self maintaining.

There are a thousand threads in the Motoring forum that would disagree with that assessment.

Spook_ie

I notice from the cycling forum that there's a an old thread resurfaced about a tragic hit and run in Monaghan, you do have to consider if HiViz may have influenced the outcome of the crash or possibly avoided it alltogether given some media reports of a poorly lit cyclist
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056892707

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

I notice from the cycling forum that there's a an old thread resurfaced about a tragic hit and run in Monaghan, you do have to consider if HiViz may have influenced the outcome of the crash or possibly avoided it alltogether given some media reports of a poorly lit cyclist
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056892707

Are you for real ? Seriously, I can't even fathom how would you even think to consider how this hit and run was in any way attributable to the cyclist.

You've come out with a lot of daft posts on the subject at this stage, so much so you're seen as nothing but a laugh when you come along, but this really takes the biscuit and says a lot about you and your attitude. You really need to read a better paper than the Herald when you're sitting on your ass at the ranks in order to educate yourself to the circumstances surrounding this story.

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

I notice from the cycling forum that there's a an old thread resurfaced about a tragic hit and run in Monaghan, you do have to consider if HiViz may have influenced the outcome of the crash or possibly avoided it alltogether given some media reports of a poorly lit cyclist
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056892707

Any ideas on how hi-vis could have prevented the following:

• failing to stop at the scene of a crash
• failing to stay at the scene
• failing to report the crash to gardaí.

Or his nine other convictions for road traffic offences?

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

Maybe deal with the studies already referred to in the thread before looking for more?



That's the job of bicycle lights.




That's really conclusive -- it must have been the yellow jacket! :rolleyes:




Or just not pointing a light / flash directly towards the cyclist as is being done in the picture!

For conditions of darkness in rural areas as shown, what's needed is good lights (which will have a far better chance of being seen before reflective strips.

The job of the lights is to help you see where you are going not just to let others know that you are there and are not very bright at the best of time.

Glad you agree with me about the yellow jacket as the driver would have seen the jacket first and then the bike.

Monument, go and drive at night on country lanes behind cyclists with reflective strips and then with just the standard bike lights and then come back to me with the honest answer as which one you could see better.

Hilly Bill

Red Nissan wrote: »

Which is why we should discuss real situations and legal driving privileges.

Arguably all over 50 are suffering from sight defects, going though one myself, I agree, but I am legal, sight is vitally omportnat and yet a blind persons can drive a car., stupid. yes, legal, yes.

Should I be off the road, yes. Have I passed all the tests, yes. Have they understood the results, NO.

Sight tests should be far more comprehensive, and mandatory at 35 years of age.

Thats a different nights topic .

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

Are you for real ? Seriously, I can't even fathom how would you even think to consider how this hit and run was in any way attributable to the cyclist.

You've come out with a lot of daft posts on the subject at this stage, so much so you're seen as nothing but a laugh when you come along, but this really takes the biscuit and says a lot about you and your attitude. You really need to read a better paper than the Herald when you're sitting on your ass at the ranks in order to educate yourself to the circumstances surrounding this story.

I haven't mentioned that the cyclist was in any way responsible for the hit and run, however I am tended to agree with the courts expression that poor visibility of the cyclist may well have been a contributory factor in the first instance, Given that the thread is Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ? then it is even more relevant.

As to the rant at the end of your post, the information is from the cycling forum on boards, I don't believe any of the quotes in there are attributed to "The Herald", perhaps (as I can only read the forum when I'm logged out, you'd like to go over there and verify this and report back afterwards

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

Any ideas on how hi-vis could have prevented the following:

• failing to stop at the scene of a crash
• failing to stay at the scene
• failing to report the crash to gardaí.

Or his nine other convictions for road traffic offences?

No idea at all but are any of those actually relevant to the argument, could the accident have been avoided if the cyclist was more visible? I don't know and neither do you but there is the distinct possibility it could have