latest helpful road safety recommendations

magicbastarder

as seen on the cycling forum; to be fair, it's just a local authority who commissioned it, but the RSA and HSE are mentioned, so it's hard to know who is responsible for each suggestion.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/safety-report-recommends-compulsory-hi-vis-jackets-404933.html

my favourite bit is

Cllr Declan Hurley (Ind) agreed with him, and also asked for the document to include that it be compulsory for all pedestrians to wear the jackets at night.

Del2005

On roads with street lighting it's a joke but for unlit roads with no footpath it could useful. 1st time I saw someone wearing a hiviz on an unlit rural road I was trying to figure out what it was for over a km, it was only when my main beams caught them I saw the 2nd person who wasn't wearing hiviz.

ludite

Passed a guy on an unlit road last night, dressed in black, I only saw him at the very last second, and had to swerve, if there was an oncoming car I would have hit either him or the car. If he had been visible I could have prepared for passing him safely.
It would definitely be a good idea to make that fool wear one!

magicbastarder

apparently several claims made in the article are untrue.

http://irishcycle.com/2016/06/15/compulsory-helmets-and-hi-vis-not-included-in-draft-cork-safety-plan/

Macy0161

Why do they keep lumping pedestrians and cyclists in together in the stats, seemingly just to push hi-viz? They're two distinct groups, with cyclists already needing to have lights front and back at night time. Pedestrians make up the majority of the combined group fatality stats.

Even for pedestrians, I think a bright torch is more effective than hi-viz in my experience - drivers seem to be more cautious approaching me if I'm on the road at night with a torch (with or without hi-viz) than the odd time I've had hi-viz only.

Biggest danger to pedestrians and cyclists is distracted drivers imo, so the focus on these groups is nothing more than victim blaming.

Cookie_Monster

Macy0161 wrote: »

Why do they keep lumping pedestrians and cyclists in together in the stats, seemingly just to push hi-viz? .

both use the roads but don't have engines, so in many peoples eyes they shouldn't be there.

I'm surprised they haven't throw motorbikes into the mix too tbh

Mrs OBumble

As a city-dwelling pedestrian, I find myself on an unlit road with no footpath once a year on average - or maybe even less. Even so, I routinely carry a very small LED torch, and reflective armbands for just these situations.

If rural-dwelling pedestrians who know they will be in situations like this cannot wear hi-vis, or do at least at much as I do, without needing laws to tell them to - then it's just evolution in action.

Carawaystick

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

As a city-dwelling pedestrian, I find myself on an unlit road with no footpath once a year on average - or maybe even less. Even so, I routinely carry a very small LED torch, and reflective armbands for just these situations.

If rural-dwelling pedestrians who know they will be in situations like this cannot wear hi-vis, or do at least at much as I do, without needing laws to tell them to - then it's just evolution in action.

High Vis doesn't work in the dark though, so I'm not sure what it would solve.
Maybe if motorists who killed pedestrians because they were driving too fast to stop were jailed for manslaughter, they would drive slower and more safely. Because the existing laws telling motorists to drive carefully don't seem to work.

Macy0161

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

As a city-dwelling pedestrian, I find myself on an unlit road with no footpath once a year on average - or maybe even less. Even so, I routinely carry a very small LED torch, and reflective armbands for just these situations.

If rural-dwelling pedestrians who know they will be in situations like this cannot wear hi-vis, or do at least at much as I do, without needing laws to tell them to - then it's just evolution in action.

Only the reflective bit is any good in the dark - doesn't need to be attached to a builders jacket. This is one of the main problems in my opinion - reflective material keeps getting confused with Hi-viz.

For a cyclist, I believe reflective bands on ankles (in addition to decent lights) are much more effective than the "hi-viz" jacket certain cohorts seem to want to insist on being standard. Ankles have movement when cycling, and torso reflective material as well as being static, isn't going to catch the same light if vehicles have their dips on (assuming properly aligned lights, which is a pretty big assumption in this state). Similarly as a pedestrian, I prefer reflective arm bands and a torch. Again, you have the movement with both the arm bands and the torch. When I'm running, I go ankle bands and it's generally a head torch (good enough for trail running, so definitely visible enough for on coming vehicles).

Del2005

Carawaystick wrote: »

High Vis doesn't work in the dark though, so I'm not sure what it would solve.
Maybe if motorists who killed pedestrians because they were driving too fast to stop were jailed for manslaughter, they would drive slower and more safely. Because the existing laws telling motorists to drive carefully don't seem to work.

The only time I've seen a hiviz that wasn't reflective to dipped beams was a Garda standing beside a car. Every other hiviz is reflective and always makes the taps in work turn on as people wearing hiviz walk past.

People also have to take personal responsibility and try to negate risk. Every other road user has to have lights during lighting up hours why don't the most vulnerable? Not much good saying that I was legal and someone else wasn't when you're in an ambulance with severe injuries.

Crocked

Del2005 wrote: »

The only time I've seen a hiviz that wasn't reflective to dipped beams was a Garda standing beside a car. Every other hiviz is reflective and always makes the taps in work turn on as people wearing hiviz walk past.

People also have to take personal responsibility and try to negate risk. Every other road user has to have lights during lighting up hours why don't the most vulnerable? Not much good saying that I was legal and someone else wasn't when you're in an ambulance with severe injuries.

I'm fairly sure the RSA outdid themselves a year or two ago and handed out a load of "hiviz" which had no reflective material.

I don't think having pedestrians wearing hiviz jackets in urban or lit up areas is necessary. On the rare occasions I'd be out and about in more rural areas anyone walking on dark roads would have either torch in their hand or hiviz clothes on. A torch is much better though

Macy0161

Cyclists already have to have lights under current legislation. It's the RSA and politicians that seem to put a greater emphasis on "hi viz" rather than the actual legal requirement of lights.

I'll repeat again, it's the reflective strips you'll see at night, not the hi viz. If they wanted to push reflective wear I think I'd have less issue.

Just as a btw, for bike week they appear to have gone for Orange builders jackets - pretty useless hi viz for anyone colour blind (one of the reasons you can't be a train driver with poor colour vision is the lack of contrast orange gives on a green background!)

ED E

The Finns mandate reflectors, makes a lot of sense. You'll see most dogs wearing them in winter too.

Using reflector tags

When using roads in the dark, pedestrians must wear an appropriate reflector tag. Reflector tags must be CE certified. Despite the legal requirement to use them, only half of all pedestrians wear reflector tags, in both densely and sparsely populated areas.

A driver with long-range headlights on will see a pedestrian without a reflector tag from a distance of approximately 100 metres, depending on the pedestrian’s clothing.

If the pedestrian wears a reflector tag, the driver will see him or her from a distance of 300 metres.

https://www.liikenneturva.fi/en/road-safety/pedestrians/reflector

magicbastarder

what do they mean by 'in the dark'? do they mean after nightfall, or specifically on unlit roads after nightfall?

Carawaystick

What do they mean by nightfall? The sun can be set but it still be twilight at the darkest in Finland?

del2005 wrote:

People also have to take personal responsibility and try to negate risk. Every other road user has to have lights during lighting up hours why don't the most vulnerable?

Thats a depressing victim blaming attitude.
Road users who can kill or maim should be regulated/controlled to reduce the risk, long before PPE is needed.

ED E

If its "dark" they expect reflectors or lights for bikes. Pretty sure the Poliisi decide what counts.

Macy0161

ED E wrote: »

If its "dark" they expect reflectors or lights for bikes. Pretty sure the Poliisi decide what counts.

Same as our own legislation for cycling so. But it's never the focus of any road safety advice here/ campaigns here, even though it's the law - it's all about the hi viz.

I'm pretty sure the lights given as part of a RSA/ Garda joint effort each autumn in Dublin aren't even up to the legal minimum! Certainly they wouldn't be good enough for me to use as my only lights, even in an urban environment.

Del2005

Carawaystick wrote: »

Thats a depressing victim blaming attitude.
Road users who can kill or maim should be regulated/controlled to reduce the risk, long before PPE is needed.

Why do all road users apart from the most vulnerable need lights during lighting up hours?

Carawaystick

To see where they're going, and not crash into pedestrians?

monument

Del2005 wrote: »

Why do all road users apart from the most vulnerable need lights during lighting up hours?

Cyclists and motorcyclists are usually included in the "vulnerable" lable and both are required to have lights on their bikes.