Going for walks in hi vis jackets

Hurrache

meeeeh wrote: »

We are talking about hi vis in winter. Anyone who lives was anywhere near countryside will tell you background will be more likely brown or grey. Black is the worst color to wear. I'm pretty sure you can selectively find photos of anything online and use them a prof for anything. Just because it's approved by people like an expert on the helmets in the car above it doesn't make it any more scientific.

No, the context is at all times, it's also bright and sunny during the winter.

I live on a rural road, with no footpath, which I travel several times a day, sometimes by car, sometimes on foot, sometimes on bike, And shock horror, I wear black a lot of the time when running on it.

I'm not being selective by choosing a particular photo, I'm talking first hand experience.

If the discussion was specific to only hours of darkness I don't have an issue. But we know that's not the case. Even the bloody RSA tweet photos asking people to wear it when on footpaths during the day.

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1046776760849829888

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

No, the context is at all times, it's also bright and sunny during the winter.

Yes you are right hi vis is absolutely useless in any circumstances because you could wear it on extremely sunny day walking by highlight yellow house and blend in the background.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're right, that would be stupid. A more measured approach would look at the data showing that far more head injuries occur in cars than on bikes, even with airbags and seat belts etc. That would highlight the importance of driving helmets for all.

Yes and because there are less head injuries in Ireland on motorbikes than cars they don't need to wear helmets either but people driving do. Yeah that make perfect sense.

Except that no, removing helmets would add danger, not reduce it.

Why shouldn't motorists all wear helmets like Stig? Do you not care about all the motorists killed or disabled by head injuries?

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that no, removing helmets would add danger, not reduce it.

Why shouldn't motorists all wear helmets like Stig? Do you not care about all the motorists killed or disabled by head injuries?

Show me a study which proved the usefulness outside motor racing and we can talk. Or are you basing all your scientific proofs on entertainment tv show. Stig also wears helmet walking so we might think about that too since this constitutes scientific proof in your world.

Hurrache

meeeeh wrote: »

Show me a study which proved the usefulness outside motor racing and we can talk.

The most used argument against it is in fact the inconvenience rather than the fact it's not safer.

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

The most used argument against it is in fact the inconvenience rather than the fact it's not safer.

Ah ok. Is there a source for that? Except someone in tse cycling forum saying that?

AndrewJRenko

ImARebel wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What about him? He should have lights and he shouldn't be cycling on the footpad, but if you're looking out for pedestrians crossing, you'll have no problem seeing him.

And if you do kill him, don't worry about it - there's probably no sanction for you. Don't worry about your legal obligation to drive in a manner that allows you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. Victim blaming is alive and well.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/driver-who-killed-hero-father-wont-face-court-37224880.html
TW, what colour is your car? At least if it was yellow or white with hi-vis stripes all round, he'd have seen you and stopped.

as the ad says "be safe be seen" and I fully support it

Have you any plans to make it easier for people to see your car from the side? Change of colour or adding hi-vis stripes maybe?

ImARebel

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you any plans to make it easier for people to see your car from the side? Change of colour or adding hi-vis stripes maybe?

you're just being silly now, you know that wasn't what I was referring to

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you any plans to make it easier for people to see your car from the side? Change of colour or adding hi-vis stripes maybe?

I actually think it should be mandatory for cars to have lights always on and many countries actually have that.

As for hi-vis stripes they are used by emergency vehicles and using stripes on regular would make the situation for emergency service much trickier. I know you are very proud of your 'innovative' arguments because you air them at any opportunity a bit like broken record but I never actually saw any study from you that would prove their usefulness.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that no, removing helmets would add danger, not reduce it.

Why shouldn't motorists all wear helmets like Stig? Do you not care about all the motorists killed or disabled by head injuries?

Show me a study which proved the usefulness outside motor racing and we can talk. Or are you basing all your scientific proofs on entertainment tv show. Stig also wears helmet walking so we might think about that too since this constitutes scientific proof in your world.

You did go looking for the same studies before recommending hi-vis for pedestrians and cyclists, right?

Hurrache

meeeeh wrote: »

Except someone in tse cycling forum saying that?

We're not binary people, activities aren't mutually exclusive.

AndrewJRenko

ImARebel wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you any plans to make it easier for people to see your car from the side? Change of colour or adding hi-vis stripes maybe?

you're just being silly now, you know that wasn't what I was referring to

So by "fully support", you meant that you fully support other people doing things to be seen, but not you doing things to be seen. Gotcha.

gctest50

meeeeh wrote: »

I actually think it should be mandatory for cars to have lights always on and many countries actually have that.

As for hi-vis stripes they are used by emergency vehicles and using stripes on regular would make the situation for emergency service much trickier. I know you are very proud of your 'innovative' arguments because you air them at any opportunity a bit like broken record but I never actually saw any study from you that would prove their usefulness.

A nice silver stripe along the side and a red stripe across the rear bumper


Volvos had that sort of thing :




- http://www.volvogue.com/Volvogue_Reflective_Bumper_Striping.php

meeeeh wrote: »

.........

As for hi-vis stripes they are used by emergency vehicles and using stripes on regular would make the situation for emergency service much trickier.

Lots of long vans have stripes, doesn't make the situaaaation trickier

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you any plans to make it easier for people to see your car from the side? Change of colour or adding hi-vis stripes maybe?

As for hi-vis stripes they are used by emergency vehicles and using stripes on regular would make the situation for emergency service much trickier.

Why would making vehicles more visible cause problems for the emergency services? They will still have sirens and blue lights for emergencies. The reduced collision rates associated with more visible vehicles will reduce their workload. What's not to like?

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

We're not binary people, activities aren't mutually exclusive.

I meant as a source of information. If you type hi vis use into search engines most links will be to cycling forums and to very little other information.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You did go looking for the same studies before recommending hi-vis for pedestrians and cyclists, right?

You mean except the stuff which is ISO certified as safety gear for the purpose of increasing visibility. I'm sure they are wrong.

Hurrache

meeeeh wrote: »

I meant as a source of information. If you type hi vis use into search engines most links will be to cycling forums and to very little other information.

You were asking about helmets and how it's safer for drivers.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would making vehicles more visible cause problems for the emergency services? They will still have sirens and blue lights for emergencies. The reduced collision rates associated with more visible vehicles will reduce their workload. What's not to like?

Yeah you are right I give up. Not differentiating services and emergency vehicles from others makes no sense.

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

You were asking about helmets and how it's safer for drivers.

And I can't find any research for it except what someone said on some cycling forum. But you are welcome to prove me wrong. (outside motor racing obviously).

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Hurrache wrote: »

So what I gather from this thread is that lots of people have seen people wearing dark clothing at night and safely managed to avoid them.

Well, sadly the road death statistics every year will include some pedestrians. Some of them will be people hit on rural roads.

gctest50

meeeeh wrote: »

You mean except the stuff which is ISO certified as safety gear for the purpose of increasing visibility. I'm sure they are wrong.

Shiny tape can be UN - ECE104

If a goods veehicle has a DGVW over 3,500kg it needs shiny tape


This van has a DGVW > 3,500kg :

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You did go looking for the same studies before recommending hi-vis for pedestrians and cyclists, right?

You mean except the stuff which is ISO certified as safety gear for the purpose of increasing visibility. I'm sure they are wrong.

Motor crash helmets have ISO standards as well. Does that mean that they should be mandatory for all motorists?

meeeeh

gctest50 wrote: »

Shiny tape can be UN - ECE104

Yes and they are used for road maintenance vehicles for obvious reasons.

I think it's obvious that different vehicles have different markings. Emergency and maintenance have it for visibility. Long or tall or wide loads have them to indicate those priorities but if you want to deck out Hyundai i30 as Garda car be my guest but I doubt it will be appreciated.

Hurrache

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, sadly the road death statistics every year will include some pedestrians. Some of them will be people hit on rural roads.

42 pedestrians killed last year, 83 people within vehicles. If a helmet could save just one life then it's worth it.

Daylight hours are also statistically the most dangerous for VRUs, although in 2017 more pedestrians died in hours of darkness.

However Dublin, a city with widespread footpaths and street lights, statistically is the most dangerous for non motorists.

AndrewJRenko

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Hurrache wrote: »

So what I gather from this thread is that lots of people have seen people wearing dark clothing at night and safely managed to avoid them.

Well, sadly the road death statistics every year will include some pedestrians. Some of them will be people hit on rural roads.

Most of the road death statistics will be motorists in cars, vans and trucks. Mandatory bright colours and hi-vis stripes would surely reduce this, along with mandatory helmets of course.

gctest50

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes and they are used for road maintenance vehicles for obvious reasons.

I think it's obvious that different vehicles have different markings. Emergency and maintenance have it for visibility. Long or tall or wide loads have them to indicate those priorities but if you want to deck out Hyundai i30 as Garda car be my guest but I doubt it will be appreciated.

You could buy that van above for your business, it would still need shiny stripes

because it is over 3,500 KG DGVW

meeeeh wrote: »

.........

but if you want to deck out Hyundai i30 as Garda car be my guest but I doubt it will be appreciated.

A single stripe is not decking out a "Hyundai i30 as Garda car "


See here :



.

meeeeh

gctest50 wrote: »

You could buy that van above for your business, it would still need shiny stripes

because it is over 3,500 KG DGVW

We have white van for business it doesn't have shinny stripes and doesn't need it.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would making vehicles more visible cause problems for the emergency services? They will still have sirens and blue lights for emergencies. The reduced collision rates associated with more visible vehicles will reduce their workload. What's not to like?

Yeah you are right I give up. Not differentiating services and emergency vehicles from others makes no sense.

Why do emergency vehicles need to differentiate, other than in emergency situations where they use siren and blue lights?

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why do emergency vehicles need to differentiate, other than in emergency situations where they use siren and blue lights?

There might be a benefit to seeing the stationary vehicle at the side of the road where we expect vehicles to move. Possibly not and all the international practices are wrong because you want to make an argument for walking around in the dark dressed in black.

gctest50

meeeeh wrote: »

We have white van for business it doesn't have shinny stripes and doesn't need it.

Is it over 3,500kg DGVW ?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Hurrache wrote: »

42 pedestrians killed last year, 83 people within vehicles. If a helmet could save just one life then it's worth it.

Daylight hours are also statistically the most dangerous for VRUs, although in 2017 more pedestrians died in hours of darkness.

However Dublin, a city with widespread footpaths and street lights, statistically is the most dangerous for non motorists.

With a quarter of the country’s population there, that makes sense. A greater volume of traffic, more corners etc. The reasons for urban pedestrians deaths are likely different.

Growing up rurally, we had a lot of close shaves at twilight and at night with darkly-dressed pedestrians. This was with a driver who never speeds. You will highlight that we never did hit anyone but it only has to happen once. There were pedestrian deaths in our locality for this reason. The walking groups I know of take in both well-lit roads and roads with no lights at all and no footpaths. Walks generally happen in the evening, so for a good chunk of the year that’s in fading light and darkness. I cannot fathom why it would bother anyone to see people wearing clothing with reflective strips in this type of scenario. It does make them more visible. This I know from experience. Do I have to have actually struck and killed someone before I’m allowed to make this observation?

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why do emergency vehicles need to differentiate, other than in emergency situations where they use siren and blue lights?

There might be a benefit to seeing the stationary vehicle at the side of the road where we expect vehicles to move. Possibly not and all the international practices are wrong because you want to make an argument for walking around in the dark dressed in black.

Expecting other vehicles to do anything, whether it be to move or to stay, is a bit of a hiding to nothing. Expect the unexpected.

gctest50

850,000 accidents over 20 years -

Compared to white vehicles, a number of colours were associated with higher crash risk. These colours are generally those lower on the visibility index and include black, blue, grey, green, red and silver


https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1045297/muarc263.pdf

freshpopcorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why do emergency vehicles need to differentiate, other than in emergency situations where they use siren and blue lights?

If there blue lights failed at the scene of an incident.
There reflective strips would come in useful.

meeeeh

gctest50 wrote: »

Is it over 3,500kg DGVW ?

No it's not. But I think regulation is for trailer with DGVW over 3500kg and HGV's over 7500kg. I could be wrong about that though because I can only find UK sources.

AndrewJRenko

freshpopcorn wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why do emergency vehicles need to differentiate, other than in emergency situations where they use siren and blue lights?

If there blue lights failed at the scene of an incident.
There reflective strips would come in useful.

They sure would. There is no suggestion that emergency services should remove their hi-vis stripes.

meeeeh

gctest50 wrote: »

850,000 accidents over 20 years -

Compared to white vehicles, a number of colours were associated with higher crash risk. These colours are generally those lower on the visibility index and include black, blue, grey, green, red and silver


https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1045297/muarc263.pdf

Would not then exactly the same color visibility apply for people walking and cyclists. With the added fact that the lights they are using (if they are using them) are smaller.

freshpopcorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They sure would. There is no suggestion that emergency services should remove their hi-vis stripes.

Thanks for clearing that up.
It's the same reason why cars/trucks don't remove there rear reflectors because it would be dangerous.
It's similar to pedestrians and cyclists who don't wear reflectors when it's dark. They are dangerous

gctest50

meeeeh wrote: »

No it's not.

Well it won't be needing stripes then.

meeeeh wrote: »

But I think regulation is for trailer with DGVW over 3500kg and HGV's over 7500kg. I could be wrong about that though because I can only find UK sources.

If it's a goods vehicle over 3,500kg DGVW or

a trailer combination > 11 meters you need shiny stripes

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why do emergency vehicles need to differentiate, other than in emergency situations where they use siren and blue lights?

because you want to make an argument for walking around in the dark dressed in black.

I've never made this argument.

In general, the argument that I've been making is that all of the stuff pushed on cyclists and pedestrians by motorists about helmets and hi-vis also applies to motorists, equally if not even more so.

It raises questions about the credibility of the advice if those who are giving the advice do not "walk the talk" themselves. Indeed, it raises a question about why so many motorists are so full of enthusiasm and creativity when it comes to ideas for 'fixing' cycling or walking, while they largely sit back and ignore the carnage on the road caused by motorists.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

gctest50 wrote: »

850,000 accidents over 20 years -

Compared to white vehicles, a number of colours were associated with higher crash risk. These colours are generally those lower on the visibility index and include black, blue, grey, green, red and silver


https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1045297/muarc263.pdf

Would not then exactly the same color visibility apply for people walking and cyclists. With the added fact that the lights they are using (if they are using them) are smaller.

Do you have any of those studies that you mentioned earlier to support this?

AndrewJRenko

freshpopcorn wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They sure would. There is no suggestion that emergency services should remove their hi-vis stripes.

Thanks for clearing that up.
It's the same reason why cars/trucks don't remove there rear reflectors because it would be dangerous.
It's similar to pedestrians and cyclists who don't wear reflectors when it's dark. They are dangerous

No, emergency services parked at emergency incidents is really not the same as cyclists cycling or pedestrians walking.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you have any of those studies that you mentioned earlier to support this?

No I don't have studies to prove that darker clothing makes less visible in the dark. At least not without searching which I'm not going to do.

Btw what the obsession with helmets? I didn't know they are part of hi vis uniform.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you have any of those studies that you mentioned earlier to support this?

No I don't have studies to prove that darker clothing makes less visible in the dark. At least not without searching which I'm not going to do.

I could say exactly the same thing about the question of the benefits of helmets for motorists, the issue that you asked me for studies on.

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you have any of those studies that you mentioned earlier to support this?

Btw what the obsession with helmets? I didn't know they are part of hi vis uniform.

Good question - helmets and hi-vis are often thrown in together in these discussions

ImARebel

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So by "fully support", you meant that you fully support other people doing things to be seen, but not you doing things to be seen. Gotcha.

not true I drive with my lights on in the daytime...

as i said I fully support it whether I'm a pedestrian or a driver

you're just being argumentative for the sake of it!

Hurrache

ImARebel wrote: »

as i said I fully support it whether I'm a pedestrian or a driver

You're not very rebellious really are you.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I co say exactly the same thing about the question of the benefits of helmets for motorists, the issue that you asked me for studies on.

You can believe that there is no proof that darker clothing doesn't make less visible if you want to and that that claim is on par with your outlandish claims. I'm not going to try to provide research for that.

Amirani

If car drivers were to wear helmets, then their risk of head trauma would be reduced. Car crashes are the most common cause of head trauma among teens in the US: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/04/02/forget-football-car-crashes-are-the-leading-cause-of-fatal-head-trauma-among-teens/#53581ed670bd

If we're looking at advising everyone to go maximum safety, then car drivers wearing helmets and having reflective strips can only help. It's not going to hurt anyone to use them.

I have to admit, I use neither when I'm driving. But that's because I think it's reasonable to take a sensible risk-based approach to safety measures. On the same basis, I choose not to wear high viz while walking or cycling around well-let urban streets.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I co say exactly the same thing about the question of the benefits of helmets for motorists, the issue that you asked me for studies on.

You can believe that there is no proof that darker clothing doesn't make less visible if you want to and that that claim is on par with your outlandish claims. I'm not going to try to provide research for that.

Again, that's not what I said. I'm simply shining a light on the double standards on the degree of evidence expected to justify things that cyclists and pedestrians must do, and the degree of evidence expected to justify things that motorists must do.

meeeeh

Amirani wrote: »

If car drivers were to wear helmets, then their risk of head trauma would be reduced. Car crashes are the most common cause of head trauma among teens in the US: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/04/02/forget-football-car-crashes-are-the-leading-cause-of-fatal-head-trauma-among-teens/#53581ed670bd

If we're looking at advising everyone to go maximum safety, then car drivers wearing helmets and having reflective strips can only help. It's not going to hurt anyone to use them.

I have to admit, I use neither when I'm driving. But that's because I think it's reasonable to take a sensible risk-based approach to safety measures. On the same basis, I choose not to wear high viz while walking or cycling around well-let urban streets.

What about dark country lanes?

I don't have time to continue with this but your helmet thing will help in accidents but it might reduce visibility and endanger others.