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

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

NO. Experience counts for more than just theory. Come back to me when you get that experience from the drivers view.

Nobody is talking about "just theory".

And you've just confirmed that you have not read the research already linked to, or you have not understood it.

And you would have also had to have missed the bit where I said real-world research.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

Nobody is talking about "just theory".

And you've just confirmed that you have not read the research already linked to, or you have not understood it.

And you would have also had to have missed the bit where I said real-world research.

So basically you have no opinion of your own from experience but just going by what someone else said and believed what suited you. There is no substitute to reality.
You might agree with not being seen on the road and thinking it has no value but it has a high value to a driver who would be trying to avoid crashing into you.

patrickbrophy18

Seaswimmer wrote: »

But again no substitute for good lighting..

I concur with this alright. I'm pretty sure that there are methods of lighting a bike without necessarily having them pedal powered. You can get battery powered ones. Here is quite a stylish way of lighting a bike without resorting to high viz jackets:



One of these would be well hard to miss at night. Move over "Pimp My Ride" and bring in "Pimp My Bike".:D

While we're on the subject, I'm surprised that no one has invented an add-on to back carriers that would provide lights for left and right hand signals. I do acknowledge the highly common practice of putting left or right hands out to indicate the intended direction of travel. However, I'm pretty sure many here would agree that this is potentially dangerous as it could make a cyclist loose balance. Moreover, hand signals may lack visibility in poorly lit areas. On the other hand, light signals for bikes would make the world of a difference for nocturnal cyclists. Plus, cyclists would no longer have to take there hands of the handle bars and it would be a hell of a lot easier. You could have buttons on both sides of the handle bars to operate their respective signal lights.

Hilly Bill

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I concur with this alright. I'm pretty sure that there are methods of lighting a bike without necessarily having them pedal powered. You can get battery powered ones. Here is quite a stylish way of lighting a bike without resorting to high viz jackets:



One of these would be well hard to miss at night. Move over "Pimp My Ride" and bring in "Pimp My Bike".:D

While we're on the subject, I'm surprised that no one has invented an add-on to back carriers that would provide lights for left and right hand signals. I do acknowledge the highly common practice of putting left or right hands out to indicate the intended direction of travel. However, I'm pretty sure many here would agree that this is potentially dangerous as it could make a cyclist loose balance. Moreover, hand signals may lack visibility in poorly lit areas. On the other hand, light signals for bikes would make the world of a difference for nocturnal cyclists. Plus, cyclists would no longer have to take there hands of the handle bars and it would be a hell of a lot easier. You could have buttons on both sides of the handle bars to operate their respective signal lights.

Now, thats a cool bike.

Spook_ie

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I concur with this alright. I'm pretty sure that there are methods of lighting a bike without necessarily having them pedal powered. You can get battery powered ones. Here is quite a stylish way of lighting a bike without resorting to high viz jackets:



One of these would be well hard to miss at night. Move over "Pimp My Ride" and bring in "Pimp My Bike".:D

While we're on the subject, I'm surprised that no one has invented an add-on to back carriers that would provide lights for left and right hand signals. I do acknowledge the highly common practice of putting left or right hands out to indicate the intended direction of travel. However, I'm pretty sure many here would agree that this is potentially dangerous as it could make a cyclist loose balance. Moreover, hand signals may lack visibility in poorly lit areas. On the other hand, light signals for bikes would make the world of a difference for nocturnal cyclists. Plus, cyclists would no longer have to take there hands of the handle bars and it would be a hell of a lot easier. You could have buttons on both sides of the handle bars to operate their respective signal lights.

Not so sure that if people lose their balance while using hand signals that they should be on the road at all. You can get cycle gloves in hi viz that help other road users see your signalled intentions more easily.

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

So basically you have no opinion of your own from experience but just going by what someone else said and believed what suited you. There is no substitute to reality.

So, basically, I'm correct that you have not bothered to read the research which has already been presented -- please do correct me on this if you have read it.

I'll take the reality of scientific research based on real-world data over the "reality" of your perception any day.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You might agree with not being seen on the road...

Even you must realise your arguments are so weak that you have to put words in my mouth.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

...and thinking it has no value but it has a high value to a driver who would be trying to avoid crashing into you.

I think being seen is very valuable and lights are very effective and well-proven at that job (that's unlike the usefulness of high-vis which has been debunked).

Cookie_Monster

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I concur with this alright. I'm pretty sure that there are methods of lighting a bike without necessarily having them pedal powered. You can get battery powered ones. Here is quite a stylish way of lighting a bike without resorting to high viz jackets:

snip pic

One of these would be well hard to miss at night. Move over "Pimp My Ride" and bring in "Pimp My Bike".:D

that's nothing more than a moving distraction for every other road user and will undoubtedly cause someone to crash
(never mind the complete illegality of it)

patrickbrophy18

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that's nothing more than a moving distraction for every other road user and will undoubtedly cause someone to crash
(never mind the complete illegality of it)

It's illegal? How so?

Moving distraction? Explain!

ArmaniJeanss

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not so sure that if people lose their balance while using hand signals that they should be on the road at all.

Can quite easily happen (and bloody scary when it does) if you are signalling with your stronger hand (righthanded person signalling to turn right) and you go over a pot hole. Just happened to me yesterday turning right from SSG onto Dawson St, theres a dangerous chunk of road missing. Flailed for about 2 seconds and just about managed to hold it upright.
But I don't think its means I houldn't be on the road at all.

thebullkf

monument wrote: »

You're ranting again, putting words in my mouth and making no attempt to deal with what you have quoted.

...

monument wrote: »

Good, we're all agreed that above average or greater bicycle lights are what's needed on dark roads, not high-vis.




Now you're claiming you don't understand the quoting system, so I'll leave it at that.

eh , who's putting words i n who's mouth?

thebullkf

Reflective/ Hi Vis Clothing does help at night.

1. Runners have it,
2. tops have them in seams
3. Lollypop ladies
4. Gardai
5. Ambulance
6. Boats and marine gear
7. ring buoys
8. motocyclists gear
9. Even the emergency services gear bags have it..

Why the stubbornness to say its of no benefit??? Like the thread on the cycling forum the staunch hatred of all things reflective/hi vis beggars belief:rolleyes:

thebullkf

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I concur with this alright. I'm pretty sure that there are methods of lighting a bike without necessarily having them pedal powered. You can get battery powered ones. Here is quite a stylish way of lighting a bike without resorting to high viz jackets:


One of these would be well hard to miss at night. Move over "Pimp My Ride" and bring in "Pimp My Bike".:D

While we're on the subject, I'm surprised that no one has invented an add-on to back carriers that would provide lights for left and right hand signals. I do acknowledge the highly common practice of putting left or right hands out to indicate the intended direction of travel. However, I'm pretty sure many here would agree that this is potentially dangerous as it could make a cyclist loose balance. Moreover, hand signals may lack visibility in poorly lit areas. On the other hand, light signals for bikes would make the world of a difference for nocturnal cyclists. Plus, cyclists would no longer have to take there hands of the handle bars and it would be a hell of a lot easier. You could have buttons on both sides of the handle bars to operate their respective signal lights.

they have, folks over here just dont use 'em/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekGdIy3rR7E


there even a helmet with built in signal lights... though i'd be loathe to mention helmets here either, they dont help either- or / Pedestrias should wear them :rolleyes:


In australia its the law to have a reflector on your bike for riding at night, and its the law to wear a helmet, and ironically a cyclist cant even move into the path of a driver OR pedestrian.

No Pants

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

It's illegal? How so?

I believe that in the legislation that covers the lighting requirement for bicycles it states what colours that can be used and what size and shape they should be.

monument

thebullkf wrote: »

...


eh , who's putting words i n who's mouth?

Keep looking back there and you'll see he smartly said we're all agreed before that! Anyway, one or both of us saying saying we're all agreed smartly when we're clearly not, it quite different than saying somebody the other person is against being seen or against safety on the road.

thebullkf wrote: »

Why the stubbornness to say its of no benefit???

It's not stubbornness to say such -- it's what more and more research shows.

thebullkf

monument wrote: »

Keep looking back there and you'll see he smartly said we're all agreed before that! Anyway, one or both of us saying saying we're all agreed smartly when we're clearly not, it quite different than saying somebody the other person is against being seen or against safety on the road.




It's not stubbornness to say such -- it's what more and more research shows.

So is everybody .. Wrong? All the folks I mentioned , never mind the many more I didn't ... Genuinely amazed tbh.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

So, basically, I'm correct that you have not bothered to read the research which has already been presented -- please do correct me on this if you have read it.

I'll take the reality of scientific research based on real-world data over the "reality" of your perception any day.




Even you must realise your arguments are so weak that you have to put words in my mouth.




I think being seen is very valuable and lights are very effective and well-proven at that job (that's unlike the usefulness of high-vis which has been debunked).

If your research says that high-viz jackets are not useful then i seriously question the credabillity of it.

I drive and prefer to see a cyclist making an effort to be seen which gives me a bit more respect for that cyclist over a cyclist who doesnt care because some research says that they dont need it, and wont or cant see it from the drivers side.
Lights are good, high viz are good. Both are no good on their own but pair them together then you have a match made in heaven.

monument

thebullkf wrote: »

So is everybody .. Wrong? All the folks I mentioned , never mind the many more I didn't ... Genuinely amazed tbh.

You mean there's no examples in history of loads of apparent experts being proven wrong by evidence-based research?

I presume you can think of a few examples your self... Or do I have to list a load to prove the point?

Hilly Bill wrote: »

If your research says that high-viz jackets are not useful then i seriously question the credabillity of it.

You need to do more than just say that you are questioning the credabillity of it.

If you want to challenge research you have to read it first and challenge it based on its methods, content, or conclusions.

But clearly reading it first is needed above all. Something your posts show that you clearly have not done.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I drive and prefer to see a cyclist making an effort to be seen which gives me a bit more respect for that cyclist over a cyclist who doesnt care because some research says that they dont need it, and wont or cant see it from the drivers side.
Lights are good, high viz are good. Both are no good on their own but pair them together then you have a match made in heaven.

That's (understandable) emotion and (understandable) personal-bias mixed with misconceptions that any notable level of danger comes from cyclists who only use half decent or better lights to be seen.

Where cyclists are without anything in clear conditions and using half decent lights in dark or dull conditions, collisions don't notable occur because of line-of-sight* visibility issues. High-vis is a population-level treatment trying to solve an excuse or at best a very marginal issue.

As for people who think a cyclist with high-vis on is "a cyclist making an effort" -- it's that type of thinking that has high-vis on people cycling on footpaths, pulling out to go around parked cars without looking, on the wrong side of the road, going down one-way streets, not using lights etc.... When was the last time one if these things were targeted on a national bases? But a ton of time and resources are wasted on promoting high-vis.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

You mean there's no examples in history of loads of apparent experts being proven wrong by evidence-based research?

I presume you can think of a few examples your self... Or do I have to list a load to prove the point?




You need to do more than just say that you are questioning the credabillity of it.

If you want to challenge research you have to read it first and challenge it based on its methods, content, or conclusions.

But clearly reading it first is needed above all. Something your posts show that you clearly have not done.




That's (understandable) emotion and (understandable) personal-bias mixed with misconceptions that any notable level of danger comes from cyclists who only use half decent or better lights to be seen.

Where cyclists are without anything in clear conditions and using half decent lights in dark or dull conditions, collisions don't notable occur because of line-of-sight* visibility issues. High-vis is a population-level treatment trying to solve an excuse or at best a very marginal issue.

As for people who think a cyclist with high-vis on is "a cyclist making an effort" -- it's that type of thinking that has high-vis on people cycling on footpaths, pulling out to go around parked cars without looking, on the wrong side of the road, going down one-way streets, not using lights etc.... When was the last time one if these things were targeted on a national bases? But a ton of time and resources are wasted on promoting high-vis.

What was that you said to the other poster about putting words in mouth?


Now its getting silly.

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

What was that you said to the other poster about putting words in mouth?

ME: "...misconceptions that any notable level of danger comes from cyclists who only use half decent or better lights to be seen"

If that's not your stance, and there's no notable level of danger from not using high-vis, you'll need to outline what exact you think high-vis is for.

ME: "...it's that type of thinking that has high-vis on people cycling on footpaths, pulling out to go around parked cars without looking, on the wrong side of the road, going down one-way streets, not using lights etc..."

I have not said you said those things, nor have I even implied that you support such things.

But well meaning people like your self thinking a cyclist with high-vis on is "a cyclist making an effort" happens along side loads of others thinking that high-vis "effort" comes above far more important things.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Now its getting silly.

Only now?

Not at the point where people were putting emotion over evidence-based research and trying to dismiss that research without reading it?

Victor

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.

You may have a point, but attack the post, not the poster.

Moderator

Cookie_Monster

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

It's illegal? How so?

No front or rear facing lights, red at the front.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Moving distraction? Explain!

Do I really need to spell it out? People are going to look at it as they pass it, same way as people will stare at anything else unusual they see and get momentarily distracted

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

ME: "...misconceptions that any notable level of danger comes from cyclists who only use half decent or better lights to be seen"

If that's not your stance, and there's no notable level of danger from not using high-vis, you'll need to outline what exact you think high-vis is for.

ME: "...it's that type of thinking that has high-vis on people cycling on footpaths, pulling out to go around parked cars without looking, on the wrong side of the road, going down one-way streets, not using lights etc..."

I have not said you said those things, nor have I even implied that you support such things.

But well meaning people like your self thinking a cyclist with high-vis on is "a cyclist making an effort" happens along side loads of others thinking that high-vis "effort" comes above far more important things.




Only now?

Not at the point where people were putting emotion over evidence-based research and trying to dismiss that research without reading it?

Its clear what you said Monument so no amount of back pedalling will change that. One of the researches was done in London, where you would need to be mad to venture on the road on a bike due to the lack of respect shown by a lot of drivers so in that respect a high-viz wont change anything which you may have blinked when i mentioned this earlier.
A recommended overtaking distance is mentioned which is pointless. If you can overtake safely without clipping a cyclist with your wing mirror then that all that counts . If the road and traffic allows it then overtake giving a wide berth , its all simple driving which isnt in abundance on our roads by all its users.
Now this thread is asking is it considered value at night, as a driver who shows cyclists that deserve it some respect, i feel that in areas of darkness like country lanes etc without street lightning then ye, i would say it has some value as i can see them better as the car lights would hit the reflectors first.
There are a lot of drivers out there that shouldnt be on the road and show no respect to other road users and in these cases nothing you can do or wear will protect you from them.

sheff_

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its clear what you said Monument so no amount of back pedalling will change that. One of the researches was done in London, where you would need to be mad to venture on the road on a bike due to the lack of respect shown by a lot of drivers so in that respect a high-viz wont change anything which you may have blinked when i mentioned this earlier.
A recommended overtaking distance is mentioned which is pointless. If you can overtake safely without clipping a cyclist with your wing mirror then that all that counts . If the road and traffic allows it then overtake giving a wide berth , its all simple driving which isnt in abundance on our roads by all its users.
Now this thread is asking is it considered value at night, as a driver who shows cyclists that deserve it some respect, i feel that in areas of darkness like country lanes etc without street lightning then ye, i would say it has some value as i can see them better as the car lights would hit the reflectors first.
There are a lot of drivers out there that shouldnt be on the road and show no respect to other road users and in these cases nothing you can do or wear will protect you from them.

Based on the bit in bold I'm guessing you don't cycle much? Just because you don't hit them, doesn't mean passing within a few inches of a cyclist while driving at 40 or 50 kmph is acceptable. It's got to be safe overtaking for both parties, thus the recommended distance.

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

If you can overtake safely without clipping a cyclist with your wing mirror then that all that counts

Wow!

This really puts your other comments in context.

Motorists who pass cyclists like that are passing far too close -- those close passes are far more of an issue than visibility is overall. Motorists who act like that need to adjust their driving.

Spook_ie

sheff_ wrote: »

Based on the bit in bold I'm guessing you don't cycle much? Just because you don't hit them, doesn't mean passing within a few inches of a cyclist while driving at 40 or 50 kmph is acceptable. It's got to be safe overtaking for both parties, thus the recommended distance.

Just out of interest, views on this:

Driving into town in the bus lane, passenger on board and overtaking a cyclist, me doing about 20-30Kph in case of numpties turning across the bus lane or pulling into bus lane, Now I'm giving the cyclist about the 1.5 meters gap when another numpty on a cycle decides to squeeze past between me and the cyclist! I definately saw the cylist I was overtaking wobble because of him being squeezed by the other cyclist, sheer madness and impatience.

Relevence One of them was wearing hi viz and it wasn't the numpty

alaimacerc

Spook_ie wrote: »

Relevence One of them was wearing hi viz and it wasn't the numpty

Taxi drivers in glass houses don't want to be throwing "guilt by association" stones when it comes to "using the road like a numpty", I'm thinking!

Spook_ie

At present, then, the literature suggests that the safety benefits of so-called high-visibility clothing in daylight are likely smaller than is widely believed (although the night-time benefits of retroreflective clothing might be another matter).

I suppose it depends on if you are using a study to show close passing during the day or close passing at night, so typical to drag a study into a debate that itself contradicts what you are arguing
http://opus.bath.ac.uk/37890/1/Walker_2013.pdf

Got to love the get out clause as well " likely smaller than is widely believed" just in case someone does another survey that has a different conclusion

EDIT

I note also that the statement "approximately 1-2% of overtakes came within 50 cm no matter
what outfit was worn. " would seem to be paramount to your arguments, but what of the 98-99% that it does seem to effect

I also note under methodology "•Visibility was good, with daylight, no rain and no fog"

I also note that given the above good visibility that the mean passing distance was 1.17 meters, maybe if the roads were wider you'd get a larger distance but it would seem that lane widths were not taken into consideration

Also noted

We were also interested in this study to see the effects of the HIVIZ condition, given that
such clothing is often recommended to bicyclists for its safety benefits. Watts (1979) found only a
very small effect of a high-visibility vest on overtaking proximities in his study, and we similarly
found no overtaking proximity advantage from wearing a high-visibility bicycling jacket, or most of
the high-visibility vests, over casual clothing or an ordinary commuter cycling outfit. The finding
that high-visibility clothing did not change overtaking proximity does not necessarily mean that
such clothing has no value – it is intended primarily to make riders less likely to be overlooked,
rather than influence the behaviour of people who have already seen them

Also I note their final paragraph

Finally, this study could measure only one aspect of driver reaction to the outfits – their
passing proximity – but it is possible that other behaviours might have changed in response to the
rider’s appearance, such as passing speed, or the tendency to hold back and wait for clear
overtaking possibilities. There is also a small possibility that differences in conspicuity between the
outfits in Figure 1 could have had some effect. Again, these would be very useful areas for future study.

It would seem to me that the research so often cited about HiViz not being of use is neither conclusive or definitive

alaimacerc

Spook_ie wrote: »

Got to love the get out clause as well " likely smaller than is widely believed" just in case someone does another survey that has a different conclusion

Yeah, that's a bugbear of mine, too. "It's different from what you might think." Possible to be any less specific about what's actually being claimed, there?

monument

alaimacerc wrote: »

Taxi drivers in glass houses don't want to be throwing "guilt by association" stones when it comes to "using the road like a numpty", I'm thinking!

Please read the charter -- focus on the post and not the poster or their line of work.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

so typical to drag a study into a debate that itself contradicts what you are arguing

It depends what you think I'm arguing. You seem confused.

What exactly do you think I'm saying overall? Try looking at the whole of my contribution to the thread and not just one or two posts alone.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I note also that the statement "approximately 1-2% of overtakes came within 50 cm no matter
what outfit was worn.

Which shows a driver behavior issue, not a visibility issue.

Spook_ie wrote: »

" would seem to be paramount to your arguments, but what of the 98-99% that it does seem to effect

The study does not support the idea that high-vis effects 98-99% -- it shows those people do not react differently regardless if high-vis is worn or not.