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

Spook_ie · 08-04-2014 12:26PM

monument wrote: »

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.

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

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

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.

Good question, it would seem to me that you have drifted off topic and are arguing that

A) Hi Viz is of no use because it doesn't influence driver behaviour during daylight ( posted research )

Maybe detrimental to the number of cyclists who would cycle if HiViz were required and effect the safety in numbers theory by slowing down the uptake of cycling

To which both of them (edit: neither is relevent to the answer of) the OP question of "Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?" which is still yes because it DOES make them more visible and is arguably of benefit during dawn/dusk and other periods of poor visibility that can be encountered on cycles or walking

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

Never said it didn't, behaviour on the roads at times is appaling from all catagories of road user, major difference being that if appalling behaviour of a driver is witnessed by Garda Traffic Division it usually results in a buff envelope dropping on the door mat a few weeks later, despite newspaper columns saying that there is to be a major crackdown on other road users the court reports indicate not ( number wise )

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

No the study shows that the overall passing distance doesn't seem to be effected it does state ( in case you missed it 1st time you read the report or the 1st time you read my reply quoting it )

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.

alaimacerc · 08-04-2014 09:23PM

monument wrote: »

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

Given that he was referring to his "line of work" in his post, and was essentially making the association "person not wearing hiviz cycled like a numpty, therefore only numpties don't wear hiviz", I think you're misreading the "focus" of my post.

If you prefer: arguments from guilt by association are weak sauce, from any quarter.

monument · 08-04-2014 09:51PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Given that he was referring to his "line of work" in his post, and was essentially making the association "person not wearing hiviz cycled like a numpty, therefore only numpties don't wear hiviz", I think you're misreading the "focus" of my post.

If you prefer: arguments from guilt by association are weak sauce, from any quarter.

Please don't reply to moderation in-thread in future but, yes, your point is very valid -- he opened his line of work open to comment by mentioning it.

Sorry, your post was reported and in my attempt to be fair to all sides, I was unfair to you.

....

As an aside, while I'm taking the time to explain things: We don't see everything but when people report posts some users complain that we don't act on reported posts -- that's sometimes true just because we're busy and have not gotten to it, but other times we just don't act on everything. Some posts are borderline against the rules, while others don't break the rules.

Note to everybody: The don't reply to moderation rule strictly applies to this post -- PM me ir another mod if anybody had issues.

sheff_ · 08-04-2014 10:21PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

I once watched a work colleague run behind a reversing truck, while another colleague waited until the truck stopped moving and then walked past the front of the truck in clear view of the driver.

Relevance, none. But the hi viz on the first fella failed to improve his intelligence.

All your story shows is some people lack a bit of cop on and courtesy. This is true of them whether they are walking, running, cycling or driving and isn't affected by them wearing or not wearing some hi viz.

Spook_ie · 08-04-2014 10:31PM

sheff_ wrote: »

I once watched a work colleague run behind a reversing truck, while another colleague waited until the truck stopped moving and then walked past the front of the truck in clear view of the driver.

Relevance, none. But the hi viz on the first fella failed to improve his intelligence.

All your story shows is some people lack a bit of cop on and courtesy. This is true of them whether they are walking, running, cycling or driving and isn't affected by them wearing or not wearing some hi viz.

But did it improve his visibility or did the truck reverse over him or what?

sheff_ · 08-04-2014 10:54PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

But did it improve his visibility or did the truck reverse over him or what?

Driver saw him standing as he started reversing. Never saw him when he ran for it. If he had stumbled or been a second slower he was finished. Hi viz wouldn't have been much use then. Luckily he didn't.

To go back to your original example. It could easily have been a person in hi viz overtaking a person with none. The hi viz had no impact on that situation.

monument · 08-04-2014 11:33PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Good question, it would seem to me that you have drifted off topic and are arguing that

A) Hi Viz is of no use because it doesn't influence driver behaviour during daylight ( posted research )

Maybe detrimental to the number of cyclists who would cycle if HiViz were required and effect the safety in numbers theory by slowing down the uptake of cycling

To which both of them (edit: neither is relevent to the answer of) the OP question of "Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?" which is still yes because it DOES make them more visible and is arguably of benefit during dawn/dusk and other periods of poor visibility that can be encountered on cycles or walking

You'll have to read the thread because I've -- more than once --talked about the usefulness of "high-vis" at night and on dark roads.

How is B not not linked to use of high-vis at night?

Spook_ie wrote: »

which is still yes because it DOES make them more visible and is arguably of benefit during dawn/dusk and other periods of poor visibility that can be encountered on cycles or walking

You have yet to actually back this up.

Besides posting images of horses which are not legally required to use lights. Bicycle users are.

Spook_ie wrote: »

No the study shows that the overall passing distance doesn't seem to be effected it does state ( in case you missed it 1st time you read the report or the 1st time you read my reply quoting it )

Sure, they do say that overall passing distance doesn't seem to be effected it BY THE USE OR NON-USE OF HIGH-VIS. And that's why they conclude:

"...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."

Hilly Bill · 09-04-2014 12:24AM

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.

Thats what i said. I didnt mention the speed.

Hilly Bill · 09-04-2014 12:29AM

monument wrote: »

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.

WOW????????? Seriously?

It all depends on the speed and the layout of the road Monument.

Act like what ? What do you know about driving monument to advise someone of their driving habits?

alaimacerc · 09-04-2014 04:08AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats what i said. I didnt mention the speed.

So what speed do you generally drive at, pray tell? Because if it's "notably slower than everyone else on most roads", you didn't mention that, either.

And you didn't mention anything else about what constituted your idea of "safely" aside from "without clipping a cyclist with your wing mirror", and that in the context of dismissing the idea of a minimum safe passing gap. From this we're somehow supposed to conclude you actually meant "bearing in mind all sorts of other factors, including a wider gap sometimes, even though I specifically just scoffed at that". If that's what you mean, it's not a case of everyone else misreading what you wrote, it's a clearcut case of you miswriting what they read.

Hilly Bill · 09-04-2014 09:07AM

Its clear enough in the post. If you decided to misread it then thats an issue for you. Do you really need to be told how to pass a cyclist safely ?

monument · 09-04-2014 09:52AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Do you really need to be told how to pass a cyclist safely ?

Some people do.

Including those who think that it's alright as long as you don't clip the cyclist with their wing mirror!

Hilly Bill · 09-04-2014 10:05AM

monument wrote: »

Some people do.

Including those who think that it's alright as long as you don't clip the cyclist with their wing mirror!

Why wouldnt it be alright? If you have passed safely without hitting them then its clearly that you have passed safely. Is it that hard to understand?
I take it that you know nothing about overtaking cyclists in a car. Have you ever done it? Its clear that you are either going on assumptions again or scrapping the bottom of the barrel just to provoke, otherwise you would have understood the safely part of it.

monument · 09-04-2014 10:23AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Why wouldnt it be alright? If you have passed safely without hitting them then its clearly that you have passed safely. Is it that hard to understand?
I take it that you know nothing about overtaking cyclists in a car. Have you ever done it? Its clear that you are either going on assumptions again or scrapping the bottom of the barrel just to provoke, otherwise you would have understood the safely part of it.

That's like saying if a driver drove at 100km/h in a 50km/h zone and did not hit anybody it was "safe" speeding.

You're the one scrapping the bottom of the barrel trying to claim that it can be safe to pass a cyclist and only leave an inch or less between your wing mirror and the cyclist.

Unreal stuff.

Tenzor07 · 09-04-2014 11:09AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Why wouldnt it be alright? If you have passed safely without hitting them then its clearly that you have passed safely. Is it that hard to understand?

Wow, passing a bicyclist within a car mirror's distance is a bit like tight-rope walking, i.e. very little margin for error! All it takes is a gust of wind or a pothole to knock someone off balance and send them into the path of the passing vehicle.
I know I would hate to be responsible for knocking someone off there bike because I didn't give enough room!

No Pants · 09-04-2014 11:50AM

I was coming back from the airport last night at approximately 22:45, heading towards Swords. There's a roundabout where the Naul Road crosses the R132 and I don't know the name of it, but as soon as the road straightened out, I saw two cyclists in the distance. They were approaching the traffic light controlled junction at Airside, at the Texaco station. The lights they were using were fantastic, each having more than one rear-facing light. Both were also wearing high-vis, but that didn't become apparent until I came much closer.

So, to summarise the value of their visibility at night; they were both noticeable at a considerable distance. This was due to their active lighting, not due to high-vis.

ThisRegard · 09-04-2014 01:10PM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Wow, passing a bicyclist within a car mirror's distance is a bit like tight-rope walking, i.e. very little margin for error! All it takes is a gust of wind or a pothole to knock someone off balance and send them into the path of the passing vehicle.

I got clipped by a wing mirror some years back, it hit my handle bars somewhere around Aston Quay early on a quiet Saturday morning. Acres of room, I've no comprehension as to why he felt he had to go so close, but by continuing on without checking on me said a lot about the driver.

No Pants · 09-04-2014 04:21PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

I got clipped by a wing mirror some years back, it hit my handle bars somewhere around Aston Quay early on a quiet Saturday morning. Acres of room, I've no comprehension as to why he felt he had to go so close, but by continuing on without checking on me said a lot about the driver.

So in other words, you weren't even hit. What's the problem?

Sarcasm off now. The fact that the driver continued would lead me to think that he never saw you at all, before or after the collision. Scary.

Hilly Bill · 09-04-2014 11:46PM

monument wrote: »

That's like saying if a driver drove at 100km/h in a 50km/h zone and did not hit anybody it was "safe" speeding.

You're the one scrapping the bottom of the barrel trying to claim that it can be safe to pass a cyclist and only leave an inch or less between your wing mirror and the cyclist.

Unreal stuff.

No it doesnt. Thats just nonsense.
Did you miss the word Safe in my post? Why mention some random speeds that has nothing to do with it? I mention passing safely and you still try and pick a hole in it. Very strange indeed.

Hilly Bill · 09-04-2014 11:50PM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Wow, passing a bicyclist within a car mirror's distance is a bit like tight-rope walking, i.e. very little margin for error! All it takes is a gust of wind or a pothole to knock someone off balance and send them into the path of the passing vehicle.
I know I would hate to be responsible for knocking someone off there bike because I didn't give enough room!

Someone else i see has missed the word safely. Another cyclist?

monument · 10-04-2014 12:05AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

No it doesnt. Thats just nonsense.
... Why mention some random speeds that has nothing to do with it?

It's called an analogy. Here's a non-motoring one if it helps:

What you're saying is like saying running around in public swinging a steal bat close to random people's faces is safe as long as you don't hit them.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Did you miss the word Safe in my post?

No, I addressed the crazy idea that you can pass a cyclist within or closer than an inch of them safety.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I mention passing safely and you still try and pick a hole in it. Very strange indeed.

Not strange at all, the idea that you can pass safety within an inch is unreal stuff.

sdanseo · 10-04-2014 12:07AM

No Pants wrote: »

How do motorists manage not to drive into trees and houses? They're not painted in high-vis. Could it be that caution is exercised?

Right now I'm a motorist first, pedestrian second, runner third and cyclist fourth. As the days get longer and the weather (hopefully) better, I expect that order to change.

Trees and houses are not on the road, and don't move.

monument · 10-04-2014 12:17AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Another cyclist?

There has been enough warnings to both sides about the need to not focus or attack the user rather than their post.

You will get done for trolling if you keep it up.

-- moderator

Hilly Bill · 10-04-2014 12:40AM

monument wrote: »

It's called an analogy. Here's a non-motoring one if it helps:

What you're saying is like saying running around in public swinging a steal bat close to random people's faces is safe as long as you don't hit them.

No, I addressed the crazy idea that you can pass a cyclist within or closer than an inch of them safety.

Not strange at all, the idea that you can pass safety within an inch is unreal stuff.

No its not and your so called analogies are getting stranger.

Within an inch now?? Its getting closer with every post. Note that its you thats getting closer not me.
You have turned a post i made about passing safely into something about 100kph and swinging bats. Strange , very strange.

alaimacerc · 10-04-2014 01:15AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Within an inch now?? Its getting closer with every post. Note that its you thats getting closer not me.

I wonder where they could possibly have got that idea?

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Why wouldnt it be alright? If you have passed safely without hitting them then its clearly that you have passed safely. Is it that hard to understand?

Oh yeah, there. Among other places where you keep saying much the same thing. "Safely" is apparently to be defined a) after the fact, rather than any precautionary basis of objectively assessed risk, b) according to the perception of the motorist, c) on the basis of didn't actually fall off bike (not counting 'own stupid fault', I imagine) or make a loud clunk against the car, and d) (and here's the key part) without stipulating any minimum distance whatever, dependently on speed and conditions or otherwise.

I take it that you know nothing about overtaking cyclists in a car. Have you ever done it? Its clear that you are either going on assumptions again or scrapping the bottom of the barrel just to provoke, otherwise you would have understood the safely part of it.

I think this discussion might progress somewhat more productively if you'd actually respond to what people are saying (and ensure some basic clarity and consistency in what you are saying, ideally, but let's walk before we can run), rather than merely repeatedly and aggressively assuming and asserting that everyone else has no worthwhile or valid experience as a road-user at all, and that saying this in itself somehow establishes you as ruling authority on the topic.

Spook_ie · 10-04-2014 03:17AM

No Pants wrote: »

I was coming back from the airport last night at approximately 22:45, heading towards Swords. There's a roundabout where the Naul Road crosses the R132 and I don't know the name of it, but as soon as the road straightened out, I saw two cyclists in the distance. They were approaching the traffic light controlled junction at Airside, at the Texaco station. The lights they were using were fantastic, each having more than one rear-facing light. Both were also wearing high-vis, but that didn't become apparent until I came much closer.

So, to summarise the value of their visibility at night; they were both noticeable at a considerable distance. This was due to their active lighting, not due to high-vis.

Not wanting to take you too much to task on that but unless you're driving a truck and have a higher eye level than majority of cars then the line of site to those lights coming from the airport is approx 200 meters depending if you are in the bus lane or outside lane
https://www.google.ie/maps?q=cloghran+roundabout&hl=en&ll=53.440421,-6.22769&spn=0.000653,0.001206&sll=53.434891,-6.230082&sspn=0.010495,0.01929&t=h&hnear=Cloghran+Roundabout&z=20&layer=c&cbll=53.440421,-6.22769&panoid=qKl8f8w9_LQBMMod-j2DqA&cbp=12,357.07,,0,-2.4

monument · 10-04-2014 05:26AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

No its not and your so called analogies are getting stranger.

...

You have turned a post i made about passing safely into something about 100kph and swinging bats. Strange , very strange.

The analogies seem strange to you because you're describing something which most people view as unsafe and without explaining you're trying to claim it's safe.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Within an inch now?? Its getting closer with every post. Note that its you thats getting closer not me.

Why not within an inch? That fits perfictly with your very low bar of you claimed to be safe:

And "safely" was the most objective word you used -- and the context you used around that word coloured what people viewed.

"A recommended overtaking distance is mentioned which is pointless" -- you gave no reasoning beyond saying things like...

"...without clipping a cyclist with your wing mirror then that all that counts" -- just beyond wing mirror distance isn't viewed as safe!

"If the road and traffic allows it then overtake giving a wide berth" -- like it or not, you're effectively saying you don't give a wide berth on narrow roads, you pass closly on them. If that's not the case your unwillingness to clafary when people asked questions just compounded any misunderstanding. But one of your next lines shows that there might not be any misunderstanding...

You said "...as a driver who shows cyclists that deserve it some respect..." -- add that to your thinking of passing clear of your wing mirror being "all that counts", what exactly counts for cyclists that you deem to be undeserving of your respect? Do they get clipped by your mirror or what?

No Pants · 10-04-2014 08:45AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not wanting to take you too much to task on that but unless you're driving a truck and have a higher eye level than majority of cars then the line of site to those lights coming from the airport is approx 200 meters depending if you are in the bus lane or outside lane
https://www.google.ie/maps?q=cloghran+roundabout&hl=en&ll=53.440421,-6.22769&spn=0.000653,0.001206&sll=53.434891,-6.230082&sspn=0.010495,0.01929&t=h&hnear=Cloghran+Roundabout&z=20&layer=c&cbll=53.440421,-6.22769&panoid=qKl8f8w9_LQBMMod-j2DqA&cbp=12,357.07,,0,-2.4

Can't help you there. It had been a long week already by Tuesday evening and all I wanted to do was get home. I saw lights and knew that there was something there.
As a comparison, on the L3132 (according to Google Maps, I'm terrible with road/street names and numbers) out the side of the airport, I can sometimes spot cyclists at considerable distances due to their lighting. Probably not the full length of the straight, but once I come round the bend from the Swords direction, I can often spot a cyclist approaching Keeling's. That's then balanced out by the cyclists with no lights at all, but I tend to see them coming the opposite direction in the mornings.

On a side note, I cyclist that particular road often enough, but only during the day. If conditions are moderate to poor, I'll probably have the rear light flashing. I find all along the airport to be often windy. Going towards Ballymun is fine, but traffic seems to come a lot closer when travelling in the Swords direction, so much so that I don't like it. Once past the roundabout at the turn off for Knocksedan, I don't have the same problem.

sdanseo · 10-04-2014 09:22AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not wanting to take you too much to task on that but unless you're driving a truck and have a higher eye level than majority of cars then the line of site to those lights coming from the airport is approx 200 meters depending if you are in the bus lane or outside lane
https://www.google.ie/maps?q=cloghran+roundabout&hl=en&ll=53.440421,-6.22769&spn=0.000653,0.001206&sll=53.434891,-6.230082&sspn=0.010495,0.01929&t=h&hnear=Cloghran+Roundabout&z=20&layer=c&cbll=53.440421,-6.22769&panoid=qKl8f8w9_LQBMMod-j2DqA&cbp=12,357.07,,0,-2.4

That's nitpicking to be fair. A lot of cyclists invest decent money in decent lighting and you can see the difference both up close and from a distance. They are more visible. Period.

Then again, emergency vehicles are lit up like christmas trees and are also more visible. Doesn't go to say all cyclists should have fifteen different lights and flashing headlights and a siren, though.

Cyclists should make themselves stand out against whatever conditions they're cycling in, much as drivers should always expect the unexpected and leave themselves room to stop in the distance they can see to be clear. A modicum of common sense all round.

Going Forward · 10-04-2014 10:49AM

There's a downside to the much welcomed phenomenon of hi viz people people being seen on the roads and it's this: Those who now don't wear hi via run the risk of being ignored by motorists.

Hi viz , good as it, can spoil the motorist, the eye becomes trained to look for and see hi viz quite easily and we run the risk of not seeking out unlit pedestrians, particularly after dark.

There seems to be some sort of stumbling block halting a proper campaign (like seatbelts etc), from really getting cyclists and pedestrians to wear them.

That's a different thing than the RSA just tossing them out to people as a goodwill gesture.

Make them compulsory after dark? I would say yes.

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

Comments