CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Hi Viz (rules?)

(91 posts)

No tags yet.


1234

  1. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Except, as I said, that's not a rule. It's saying that if you go round you outside of the roundabout you can and may want to ride in this manner. Not even a should so anyone riding round a roundabout doesn't have to go round the outside, nor ride round the outside in the way suggested. It's a very very different rule from the hi-viz wear light clothing or hi-viz 'rule' and the suggested removal is not because people want to break it (mainly because there's nothing actually to break) but because it puts in the minds of inexperienced riders that riding round the outside of a roundabout is a safe thing to do which it isn't.

    I'm going to assume you do understand the difference and the tonguey-smiley was to show you were being facetious.

    I'd be interested if there was a similarly worded 'you might want to do something this way if you happen to want to do this but you don't have to do either and this really is just here to fill space' 'rule' in the driving section.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. Roibeard
    Member

    @Dave French legislation means that you need to wear hi-viz at night *outside* built-up areas only, despite being pretty redundant in that situation

    I may disagree here - in town it's pretty hard to miss seeing pedestrians and cyclists. If they're not in your headlights, they're illuminated by street lighting or other headlights. And closing speeds are (should be) low. And pedestrians are expected.

    In the country, closing speeds are higher and there are fewer sources of light beyond your own headlights. And pedestrians are less frequent.

    Catching a flash of retro-reflective can make you aware of a person ahead much further than the limit of your normal headlight throw and that means extra time for braking or even just deceleration. Few drivers actually drive to be able to stop in the distance they can see in their headlights; mostly one assumes that the carriageway is clear, or will be clear by the time one gets to it (tailgating!) - so that extra warning can be very useful.

    Of course, there could be a black cow, in the middle of the road, just past the apex of the next sharp corner...

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. steveo
    Member

    Ah but a decent rear LED lights up like a flare out of the street lights especially a mad flashy one like the cherry bomb. Theoretically you can see a rear light much further away than you would the reflection from your head lights.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. Roibeard
    Member

    @steveo - Absolutely - decent active lighting beats passive lighting any day, but it doesn't necessarily indicate "cyclist". Could be a motorbike or car with a taillight missing, which you won't catch up with for a while, unlike a cyclist that you could be on top of round the next bend.

    I'm also in the solid, rather than flashing camp (or both if you prefer!) - flashing catches the eye, but doesn't as readily provide velocity (speed + direction) information. I prefer drivers to not just know that I'm there, but how quickly I'm moving and where I'm going...

    One might argue that if they know you're there somewhere, but not exactly where, they might have to pay more attention, but somehow I doubt that...

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. steveo
    Member

    I prefer to run both and both are searingly bright...

    A flashing red light always says cyclist ime no other vehicle uses them. Problem is if the driver doesn't respond to the ranged warning of a bright light what chance does one have at the much closer range of retro reflectives? If you come across a bad driver on back roads at speed you're in deep trouble what ever method you use to highlight your presence.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. ARobComp
    Member

    I wear black as it's slimming. I'm worried the horizontal stripe on a high vis will make my posterior look big.

    On a more serious note this is a really interesting argument. Lots of valid opinions. Frankly I haven't found a high vis anything that I find comfortable enough to wear. I wear dark clothing mostly, and the biggest concession I have is a buff with a reflective stripe which faces backwards.

    I doubt the efficacy of high vis in general however happy to be proved otherwise. I am in the opinion that kids should probably be wearing it as they are smaller road users. On the flip side I also think it makes cycling more dangerous than it actually is.

    So I'm so far on both sides of the argument to make this post officially moot.
    My2C

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. amir
    Member

    "Of course, there could be a black cow, in the middle of the road, just past the apex of the next sharp corner..."

    And this has happened to me (more or less). Fortunately I was driving at the right speed to stop in time. In our area, there is also a small but non-neglible chance that a roe deer will bound out in front. And as for Gilmerton ....

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. Dave
    Member

    @steveo - Absolutely - decent active lighting beats passive lighting any day, but it doesn't necessarily indicate "cyclist". Could be a motorbike or car with a taillight missing, which you won't catch up with for a while, unlike a cyclist that you could be on top of round the next bend.

    This is a bit like the "don't have two front lights or people will think you're a very distant car" problem IMO. I don't think that, in practice, it's ever possible to make this kind of mistake - just based on my own experience as a driver though, no evidence.

    Your brain knows how far away the light is pretty much immediately by the changing angles and context. All that smart evolutionary stuff generally precludes the concious "oh, it's something much bigger miles away" stuff which might come later.

    Admittedly dangerous but it would be interesting to prove this with a field test in which drivers come around a bend to be presented with a legally-lit bicycle at various distances, and see how many crash into it!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. Roibeard
    Member

    @Dave - Admittedly dangerous but it would be interesting to prove this with a field test in which drivers come around a bend to be presented with a legally-lit bicycle at various distances, and see how many crash into it!

    I think I'll re-post that link to the Australian study... Oh, wait, I've already done that.

    :-p

    For younger drivers (probably including yourself Dave), there wasn't much difference based on the cyclist (pretty much down to full ninja, as I recall), but for older drivers, there were significant improvements in spotting cyclists as the high viz ramped up.

    Worryingly so, given our aging population, wedded to their cars...

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #

  10. Dave
    Member

    Hmm, did they actually measure an increased collision rate, or something more nebulous like "saw them with 400m to go instead of 500m"?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  11. spytfyre
    Member

    more frothing

    Posted 12 years ago #

  12. Roibeard
    Member

    @Dave - they measured the binary "did you see a cyclist?", with drivers going round a track and cyclists being present or not at various points, in various states of dress, with various distractors (lights, roadworks, etc).

    Not as much fun as "did you hit a cyclist this time?", of course...

    @spytfyre - go on, froth away, you're amongst friends...

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #

  13. spytfyre
    Member

    Nooooo, select all CUT is my friend

    Posted 12 years ago #

  14. Dave
    Member

    Hmm. I guess they knew what they were doing, and probably there are limitations to what you can get people to drive into in the name of science.

    It doesn't really seem to measure what we're discussing though. For instance, you recall that study which found gender was a strong predictor of the space drivers leave when overtaking - I would have thought that if you performed the above experiment with people of variously hair lengths standing about and then asked about the driver's recall, it wouldn't necessarily predict such an effect.

    I encourage everyone to try the "Edinburgh D-Lock Experiment", where you switch from hi-viz to black, but hold a d-lock nonchelantly in your right hand while riding. If such an effect could be produced with any other safety item we'd be all over it.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  15. steveo
    Member

    Having ridden back from the bike shop with an old chainset, cogs on display, I can attest to the extra space especially at the lights. No body makes eye contact and seem to stop before the asl... Not sure it could be recommended as a safety measure though...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  16. Dave
    Member

    There are all sorts of things you can do to screw with the idea that 'high contrast = safer'. Almost anything to do with a recumbent, for instance - much smaller cross section, vast increase in safety.

    Ditto my bike trailer. I've become worryingly addicted to using it just because of the change in behaviour it illicits - yet the trailer is very low-key compared with my body. (Depending on what's on it I suppose - but empty, it is just a wee thing 20" off the deck).

    Posted 12 years ago #

  17. Roibeard
    Member

    We're back to the being "big" on the road - I'm sure I've come across an article online about this. The trailer has more road presence, but so does a 5 year old beside me, or cycling in primary, or leaving your coat undone and flapping, or...

    Although all of these have more to do with changing driver behaviour than simply whether they notice you. Observation is only the first step as we've discussed extensively above!

    However, in logical terms, being seen is "necessary, but not sufficient" for safety.

    Perhaps the issue really is that being seen is portrayed as sufficient? Something none of us would deem correct, I'd guess.

    I'll remain making myself more visible, but consider being seen only the first (necessary) step to safety.

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #

  18. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "I'm sure I've come across an article online about this"

    Citycycling. But I can't remember which issue and if it's online at the mo or not.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  19. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Robert, were you thinking of The Theory of BIG?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  20. Roibeard
    Member

    @Arellcat - ta, if it wasn't that exact piece it was awfully close! Perhaps Anth had re-printed it?

    In any case, it's not a new idea...

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #

  21. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Yep, David Martin who revisited this for me a few years back. He's a scientisty type in Dundee.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  22. freewhwheelin
    Member

    The problem with Hi Viz, as the motorcyclists are finding out, is that once it becomes "embedded", the lawyers will claim that you "contributed" to your accident, or injuries by NOT wearing Hi Viz, which they will claim is the "norm" and that you are at least partially negligent. This argument is now used as I say ,among lawyers dealing with car/motorcyle accidents. :0/

    Posted 12 years ago #

  23. Smudge
    Member

    In the same way that when some poor sod is killed by half a ton of metal doing sixty miles per hour people feel obliged to comment if the victim wasn't wearing a helmet. Makes absolutely no difference to the criminality of the act, but it is used to somehow suggest that the victim was partialy to blame.
    Now in my opinion, wearing or not wearing a fluorescent jacket/waistcoat (or indeed a h****t,) should be *absolutely* up to the individual, I also hold that the advice should be that you "may" wear Hi-vi (or h****t) precisely because the word "should" allows the sort of nonsense I describe above, it offends me in the same way as when girls are told they shouldn't wear short skirts going home after dark "for their safety".

    Most of the time it's just another cop out for the guilty ("otherwise law abiding... etc")

    Posted 12 years ago #

  24. Dave
    Member

    Survivors' justice.

    There was an awful case of a woman who had headphones on killed by a left-turning HGV. The suggestion seemed to be that nobody could notice a 44 ton, 60 foot juggernaut cutting them up using only their eyes, so it was her fault that she only saw the lorry, didn't hear it (?). Presumably it's believed that the power of hearing lets you jump railings / punch through the side of artic trailers, but I'll believe it when I see it.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  25. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Quite topical, and shocking....
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17621921

    Posted 12 years ago #

  26. Claggy Cog
    Member

    @baldcyclist - what was also very worrying was the fact that they thought their lack of knowledge was amusing/funny. I am sure some of them were laughing with embarrassment but the fact is that these people drive around in what are potentially lethal weapons...my driving instructor asked me what the most important road sign was...the answer was the one you have just gone past, and someone on this answered that they would ignore it and hope for the best, that is if they even noticed it at all!!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  27. Arellcat
    Moderator

    I remember, during my cycling proficiency test when I was 10, looking forward to the bit where the policeman would ask me about road signs, because I knew them all.

    I even remember Tupperware back in the day making a child's lunchbox with road signs moulded into the back. Probably followed Sir Jim's Clunk-Click campaign. Nothing like catching them while they're young!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  28. Dave
    Member

    To be fair, there are a huge number of signs, many of them pointless. Who the hell doesn't know what a no right turn sign is though? I expected it to be like 'migratory frog crossing', 'cycle lane ahead' etc.

    I didn't know what the sign was for 'two lane traffic crosses one way road' nor can I think of a valid use for it. The actual sign I recognize as "you aren't on a one-way road any more" / "go either direction".

    Posted 12 years ago #

  29. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "nor can I think of a valid use for it"

    Presumably where a two-lane road crosses a one-way road? The sign you mention as 'not one way anymore' is really for when you're 'leaving' the one-way system altogether. Presumably the two-lane crossing sign is when that 'crosses' a one-way street which is continuing and means that those driving on the one-way road will know to look both ways on the intersecting road, rather than assuming it is one way and only look in the one direction they expect rtaffic may come from?

    I'd imagine limited application, but there may be cities with more extensive one-way systems where this happens.

    @arellcat - that's a blast from the past! I had a lunchbox like that as well!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  30. Arellcat
    Moderator

    @anth:


    VINTAGE LUNCH BOX ROAD SIGNS - TUPPERWARE - MADE IN PORTUGAL by AnaKelme, on Flickr

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1234

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin