- This topic has 29 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
Pilot Pete.
-
CreatorTopic
-
January 19, 2018 at 10:15 am #28048
Bikebikebike
Some guy has started a campaign to hand out hi viz vests to kids. Whilst I admire him for doing something, he’s doing completely the wrong thing. If you put no thought whatsoever into it, then it seems like a positive plan. But when you step back and see that it is again putting the emphasis on kids to make sure they aren’t run over rather than focussing on the actual cause of the danger i.e. cars.
This has been in the local paper a few times, and I get more annoyed each time I see it.
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
Pilot Pete
When you are talking “hi-viz”
When you are talking “hi-viz”, most people think those bright green/ yellow/ orange tabbards that seem prevelant in every workplace and beyond these days.
The fact is, those jackets make you slightly more visible in day light, but have no effect on a dark, unlit road at night. Employers insist on them due to some health and safety driven insurance legality requirement. I work at an airport and the proliferation of these jackets means nobody stands out…
It is the reflective 3M type silver strips attached to (some) of them and much other clothing that reflects light back to the source that actually gets noticed in the dark when a light falls upon it.
Fantastic on a dark country lane if a car approaches with his headlights on high beam. On dipped beam, by definition the beam is tilted down and only floods a much shorter distance in front (and to the left in the UK) on the road. Once again, the reflectives are much less observable under such circumstances than a reasonably powered flashing tail light on your bike.
If you really want to be seen fit a daylight flasher and use it during daylight and a lower powered flasher on pitch black roads at night. The flashing attracts attention much more effectively than any “hi-viz” or reflective material at a much greater distance.
However, it is harder to judge distance to a flashing light, so for completeness add a steady rear light of reasonable intensity.
Do the same on the front with white lights and that is what will get you seen much more effectively.
Im happy to wear black at night as the colour makes no difference unless you are actually so close to a car for it to be too late for the driver to see what colour I am wearing in a potential collision. Why? Because I have great quality lights and use them effectively.
PP
Canyon48
I really fail to see how this
I really fail to see how this is of any significant use whatsoever.
High viz is absolutely excellent to supplement a light if you are walking around unlit country lanes when it is dark (and yes, I do this quite often as my house is about a 5 min walk down a lane from the local Post Office).
High viz is useless if you are a pedestrian walking on the pavement in daylight. It’s hardly going to be any help at a pedestrian crossing either.
In this case, in a town/city, the solution is not high viz, the solution is safe footpaths/routes for children.
The same is true when cycling. I don’t see why cyclists chose to wear a high viz vest when cycling in the dark but have absolutely rubbish low power lights on their bikes – it’s very difficult to distinguish these from the traffic.
PRSboy
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:PRSboy wrote:Yes of course the onus must be on drivers to be as responsible as possible… my point is that hi viz clothing can mean that a child will be visible earlier to another road user.We know nothing of the circumstances of this tragedy, but its just possible that seeing a child crossing the road earlier, even driving (or cycling) at 20 mph, could be the difference between hitting them and not.
No it doesn’t, what it is proven to do is reduce the onus of responsibility for safety and create a victim blaming culture. People like you and the idiot in the link just propagate this and make matters worse.
Wow.
Presumably you cycle at night in dark clothing with no rear light, to avoid giving other road users an unfair advantage in spotting you.
Anonymous
Pegestrian hit and run, dies
Pegestrian hit and run, dies of head injury = murder charge http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-42765515
But hang on, no hi-vis, no helmet, surely the driver will get off scot free and the pedstrian blamed for causing their own death, no because the system hates people on bikes and is discriminatory against them to the point of a massively unequal application of the law and responsibility to keep safe at virtually every avenue
To think any so called safety aid will change that is not thinking clearly nor taking into account the facts regarding such to present.
alansmurphy
ClubSmed wrote:To take the example offered previously and take it a little bit further, if you read that a person was hit by a train driver you would expect that a person licenced to drive a train had physically assaulted someone (possibly on-board a train). If you read that a person was hit by a train, you would draw the conclusion that they we hit by a train being driven by a train driver.
You are correct.
The difference though is “van hits cyclist” results in no action “van driver gets out of van and rugby tackles woman claiming he thought it was a man” gets slightly harsher but lenient punishment.
ClubSmed
Duncann wrote:FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:stories are always either ‘cyclist knocked down child’ or ‘truck/car ran over child’. Drivers are consistently erased from the picture.I’m not sure that’s a conscious thing, although it does appear inconsistent.
It may be something to do with the size and kinetic energy of the vehicle relative to the person controlling it. You wouldn’t expect a story about someone being “hit by a train driver“, for example.
I understand the point with regards to how it builds perception, however, it could be argued that in a collision involving a driver that the vehicle is the only thing to have the physical impact. Whereas ones involving cyclists will likely involve impact from both cycle and cyclist.
To take the example offered previously and take it a little bit further, if you read that a person was hit by a train driver you would expect that a person licenced to drive a train had physically assaulted someone (possibly on-board a train). If you read that a person was hit by a train, you would draw the conclusion that they we hit by a train being driven by a train driver.
The object that makes the difference to the impact involving motorised vehicles is the vehicle itself so describing that gives a better indication of the magnitude of the incident. The object that makes the difference to the impact involving a bicycle is the cyclist, knowing the type of bicycle would not change the magnitude of the incident in anyone’s mind. When you a writing a headline you need to use the most concise words to get the impact (no pun intended) across.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Duncann wrote:FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:stories are always either ‘cyclist knocked down child’ or ‘truck/car ran over child’. Drivers are consistently erased from the picture.I’m not sure that’s a conscious thing, although it does appear inconsistent.
It may be something to do with the size and kinetic energy of the vehicle relative to the person controlling it. You wouldn’t expect a story about someone being “hit by a train driver“, for example.
I’d concede that point to some degree. But the thing is, it goes further than that, till you end up with weird-sounding stories about cars ‘making mistakes’ or ‘deliberately running someone over’ or ‘flipping over’ and trapping the poor victimised driver.
And, conversely, it seems that cyclists ‘plough into’ someone rather than colliding with them. Also the wording of the mobility-schooter story doesn’t seem to quite fit that explanation.
And even though what you say is part of the reason, it still has the _effect_ of according different levels of responsibility to different groups.
Also – a train driver doesn’t really get much say over which direction the train goes in, so it’s not the same situation either.
Dnnnnnn
stories are always either
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:stories are always either ‘cyclist knocked down child’ or ‘truck/car ran over child’. Drivers are consistently erased from the picture.I’m not sure that’s a conscious thing, although it does appear inconsistent.
It may be something to do with the size and kinetic energy of the vehicle relative to the person controlling it. You wouldn’t expect a story about someone being “hit by a train driver“, for example.
Incidentally, Pages of Google
Incidentally, first page of search hits also demonstrated again how such stories are always either ‘cyclist knocked down child’ or ‘truck/car ran over child’. Drivers are consistently erased from the picture.
e.g.
Three people injured after car mounts pavement and ‘drives over people’ in Leicester city centreA 19-year-old man has been seriously injured after he was “deliberately” hit by a truck, which ran over him twice.WATCH: Incredible video of toddler run over by car who escaped with just cuts and bruisesor how the story above was first reported
Neston girl, 4, who died after being hit by a van was playing on her scooter, say neighboursvs
Horrifying moment hit-and-run cyclist riding on pavement smashes into three-year-old girl and drags her 12ftThe most callous cyclist in Britain: Shocking moment he mows down three-year-old girl and drags her along pavement before riding offCyclist ploughed into three-year-old as she walked out of her front gate
to be fair, it’s not just cyclists who have the moral agency denied to drivers
OAP HIT AND RUNBoy, 6, ‘dragged 35ft along a pavement by OAP who ran him over on mobility scooter’- and FLED the scene
With that last one compared to previous one with the van driver, the double-standard seems pretty blatant, really. If that OAP had been in a van or a car, it would have been worded very differently.
Bluebug wrote:the onus is always on the other road user not to hit them and they only get off if there are witnesses who can prove the child ran into the road.
Come on, that clearly isn’t true. As you said ‘always’ and ‘only’ it only takes one example to falsify it, so I can just go with the first google hit.
(Why make statements that are easily shown to be false?)
e.g.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437
Bluebug
Pudsey Pedaller wrote:
Pudsey Pedaller wrote:Firstly it’s important to distinguish between fluorescent, hi-viz and reflective clothing as they often get conflated.
Secondly, it’s the contrast that’s important, so depending on where you are cycling and what time of day it is, darker clothing may be the better choice.
Thirdly, if the aim is to be seen and to be seen sooner then wearing hi-viz on the upper body isn’t nearly as effective as wearing it on the lower half. The brain is wired to see movement and when walking, running or cycling, it is generally the legs that move the most.
I know this comes up a lot, but if the aim is to be seen then why aren’t cars fluorescent with reflective stripes all over? If cyclists or pedestrians could see the chunk of metal driving at them sooner, they would have more time to get out of the way.
It’s to do with size. While a van and HGV have lights a HGV is much easier to see. Also all vehicles from 2011 have day running lights to help ensure all other road users can see them. Unfortunately this doesn’t stop idiots driving with fog lights on and non-working brake lights.
In regards to reflective and high viz clothing – I have a black jacket with reflective bits and a yellow high viz jacket with reflective bits for running. I’ve noticed when running down a particular road every time I’ve wore the yellow jacket motorists would slow down and even stop when I was a junction away. I’ve also have different cycling jackets and the proviz reflective one gets motorists to stop two junctions away.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:PRSboy wrote:Yes of course the onus must be on drivers to be as responsible as possible… my point is that hi viz clothing can mean that a child will be visible earlier to another road user.We know nothing of the circumstances of this tragedy, but its just possible that seeing a child crossing the road earlier, even driving (or cycling) at 20 mph, could be the difference between hitting them and not.
No it doesn’t, what it is proven to do is reduce the onus of responsibility for safety and create a victim blaming culture. People like you and the idiot in the link just propagate this and make matters worse.
You have clearly not lost a family member who was a child to being run over or seem other children being hit. If you have you would know the onus is always on the other road user not to hit them and they only get off if there are witnesses who can prove the child ran into the road. (I live opposite a primary school, on the route of a secondary school and grew up with a primary school a minute away. )Also having looked after a child who had a habit of wandering into the road – which shocked two children development experts I showed – anything that helps make such children more visible helps decrease their chances of being hit. Oddly with the girl neither her younger brother or older sister ever had this habit making it more difficult for anyone who looked after her, as if a 4 year old boy doesn’t walk into the road randomly, knows how to behave when crossing the road etc then you expect his 6 year sister to as well.
Pudsey Pedaller
Firstly it’s important to
Firstly it’s important to distinguish between fluorescent, hi-viz and reflective clothing as they often get conflated.
Secondly, it’s the contrast that’s important, so depending on where you are cycling and what time of day it is, darker clothing may be the better choice.
Thirdly, if the aim is to be seen and to be seen sooner then wearing hi-viz on the upper body isn’t nearly as effective as wearing it on the lower half. The brain is wired to see movement and when walking, running or cycling, it is generally the legs that move the most.
I know this comes up a lot, but if the aim is to be seen then why aren’t cars fluorescent with reflective stripes all over? If cyclists or pedestrians could see the chunk of metal driving at them sooner, they would have more time to get out of the way.
Jetmans Dad
I am all for a bit of hi-viz
I am all for a bit of hi-viz and tend to buy shirts and jackets with as much reflective material as possible. That said, my issue is with creating a perception in society that riding without those things is irresponsible and unacceptable.
The courts rejecting a charge of careless driving because a cyclist was not wearing a hi-viz top would be beyond the pale for me, and that sort of thing should never be acceptable as an excuse for a driver who hits a cyclist and claims SMIDSY.
Interestingly, the only time I have been hit by a car while on my bike was at dusk, while I was wearing a bright green, and highly reflective jacket, reflective patches on both my shorts and overshoes and both a flashing and steady light front and back. Inattentiveness is far more of a killer than lack of hi-viz clothing I think.
However, I do believe it is important to do everything you can to be seen, and always encouraged my kids to wear the reflective wristbands the school provided when walking home in dim light (I am not convinced they did, because they thought they looked a bit dorky, which was true, but still). However, hi-viz and reflectives do no more to guarantee safety on a bike than anything else and we should not put ourselves in a position where those in authority think it is legitimate to reduce drivers’ level of responsibility on the roads just because a rider is not wearing them.
ClubSmed
Bikebikebike wrote:ClubSmed wrote:To be honest I am all for both kids and dogs wearing hi-vis reflective gear for extra visibility (what happened to child bike flags?) as they are both likely to do things that are not expected.* I say this as a Father and a dog owner
No, they do things that should be expected. That is the whole point.
Yes, but you need to be able to see them in order to expect them to do something that others would not!
On my commute through the park (when the nights and mornings are dark) one of the biggest issues are dogs that are not on leads darting onto the path from what seems like nowhere. If these dogs were wearing reflectives I would be able to see them a lot sooner and avoid any injuries.
It is dark and it takes all my concentration to navigate what’s on the path with my light, If I start to have to scan the trees and fields I start missing obstacles on the path which is very dangerous. I would imagine the same could be said for drivers and roads without street lights. If there was a child on a bike wobbling along on the pavement a driver may not see them as they are concentrating on the road. It is more than possible that this child could wobble onto the road at some point and if they had reflective details on then they could be identified earlier and planned for.
I agree that too much hi-vis and reflectives can be a negative on the roads, but we are talking about children here and they are more likely to not be travelling on the road but more likely to wander onto the road without due care/attention.
Just my opinion.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.