Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Yea, although small, incandescent bulbs do give off UV. Their sub-group, halogen bulbs, give off even more UV. Most car headlamp technologies emit some (albeit, small) amounts of UV, although they are not designed this way. But I agree, nighttime isn't when fluorescence is the most effective.

Fluorescence works by absorbing the UV and emitting it as visible light, hence the ability for fluorescence material to be brighter than normal or even white clothing. When it has no UV to convert, it is as good as someone wearing bright colored clothing, which is a good fall-back to have.

Reflective clothing is a very different technology. It reflects oncoming rays directly back to the source. If the receiver (drivers eyes) are not roughly in the same line as the emitter (car headlamps), it loses its effectiveness. It is no better than bright clothing while it is lit in daylight, or lesser amount when it is lit indirectly by streetlights or by another drivers headlamps, for example. Another advantage of fluorescence is that it is super cheap, you can pick up a vest for next to nothing. Fluorescence can be appear brighter while being indirectly lit, unlike reflective clothing on its own. One often overlooked advantage is its recognisability. Road workers, emergency service personnel, the Gardai, heavy industry workers, even fishermen wear fluorescent and reflective high-vis clothing. When we see someone wearing it we immediately recognize it as a person in an vunerable environemnt. It can take longer to recognise what a flashing bicycle light is, for example. For these reasons both reflective, flourescent, or lights can complement each other to make the wearer better seen. Each has weaknesses where the other can compensate for.

Unfortunately, research out there either supporting or dismissing the types of high-vis clothing is mixed at best. Its a shame on the governments and institutions that no major research is being made into this area.

Fluorescence has a dirty name with some in the cycling community which I think is understandable, but unfair. It is understandable, as drivers and politicians will often wrongly victim blame cyclists for "not wearing fluorescent clothing" when the main issue is the lack of cycling facilities, the carelessness of drivers or the safety of their vehicles. As a result, some in the cycling community has pushed back by dismissing fluorescent material altogether. This is unfair, as the issue isnt with the technology, its with the people making the wrong accusations in the first place.

Bright bicycle lights, reflective, fluorescent and bright clothing can improve the visibility of vulnerable road users. Probably in that order of most importance. That said, we shouldn't legislate cyclists to have to use any of these technologies. The less hindrance there is for someone to switch from driving to cycling the better off we all are as a society. A bicycles best selling point is the ease at which you can just pick one up and go.

"push cycle enthusiast"

this is what happens when houses don't wear high vis or helmets or pay heed to red lights.

🙄 ..

Some of the cars parked dumped on the side of main streets/ just outside town centres (looking at you Bray!) could do with mandatory hi-viz vests when parked up abandoned.

" Pedestrians and cyclists must wear high-vis clothing. "

That a humiliating apology?

New Zealanders on point

Yeah, I spent a while there and used to cycle to work without a helmet. People at work would come over to me all concerned that I was cycling without a helmet, having driven past me on the way in. Eventually the police pulled me over and I had to get one. Only time I've ever worn one in my life. Absolutely f**king ridiculous, they're completely brainwashed.