CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Arguing with the Tufty Club

(18 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. fimm
    Member

    To quote myself from the "Rubbish walking" thread:
    "Pedestrians should wear something light at night" - really? even if they're walking on the pavement in a well lit area?

    Not having a go at you personally, Kirst, but rather at the general "everything brighter than everything else" mentality which leads to my triathlon club mates turning up in high vis to run round Inverleath Park...

    I just feel that hi-vis is one of those things that de-normalises cyclists and at least appears to put the responsibility for road safely onto the more vulnerable. Do children really need to wear hi-vis to walk on the pavement in broad daylight? If so, why? Would the roads be any safer if every car was done up in reflectives like a police car?

    OK, rant over. I suspect this may have been covered before, but I'm new... of course there's context; an unlit, pavement-less road is not the same as Princes Street. But it is urban environments I'm mostly thinking about here.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Thign is (and I've said this a lot but no-one on teh internets seems to agree) the issue with hi-viz is not black and white (or indeed bright yellow)).

    At night I reckon you can stuff hi-viz - bright lights and reflectives, that's what you need.

    And in broad daylight people should be seeing antyone on the road.

    Many who dislike hi-viz can point to photos where the dark silhouette is actually more visible, which is certainly true in the circumstances in which that photo was taken. There are other circumstances, where hi-viz is definitely more noticeable (Monday morning I was walking through the fogbound Meadows and two blue meanies walking towards me were WAAAAAAAAAAY more visible in their hi-viz than everyone else around.

    All of that said, I just think hi-viz is ugly. I've got a nice white jacket that serves in low-viz situations; big and multiple lights; and reflective bits for when it gets properly dark. I also, and this bit is often overlooked, ride in suh a way as to try and make myself as visible as possible (not just limited to primary where required).

    The upshot is much the same as my view of helmets. Better in some situations; not better in some situations; do whatever the hell you like, I don't really care...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. chdot
    Admin

    I think the Tufty club has been mentioned once or twice - mostly nostalgically.

    Plenty discussion about hi viz/normality, but it's clearly the time of year where it's relevant.

    We are back in the 'personal choice' territory.

    I seldom wear any hiviz - dark rainy nights, maybe.

    I do have a grey cycling jacket with lots of reflective bits - so, usually, a 'normal' cyclist.

    I seldom cycle at night away from street lights.

    I think it's still an unknown about whether hiviz wearers make things more difficult for others, but any further excuses for SMIDSY are obviously unwelcome.

    We've also had discussions about the business of any cycling attire putting 'non/cyclists' off (further).

    Not simple!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. Kim
    Member

    Hi-viz like helmets is a distraction from the real issue of dealing with the potential source of the harm at source. The way to make the roads safer is to slow motor vehicles down (and reduce their numbers) in places where they are likely to encounter more vulnerable road users. The only roads where hi-viz should be necessary is the hard shoulder of motorways. That is if we want to make the roads safer...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. Kirst
    Member

    I wasn't talking about hi-viz particularly. The Tufty Club certainly wasn't. It's more about not walking along an unlit canal path or the Innocent, for example, or an unlit road with no pavement, in black trousers, black shoes, with a long black overcoat, a black briefcase and walking a black dog with a black collar. Mr Badger (who, to be fair, had white stripes on his face) made sure than all his family had a white carrier bag or newspaper or something which made them much easier to see in an unlit area in the dark.

    I don't always or even often wear hi-viz, but I always have lights on my bike at night. If I was walking along the Innocent at night, I might wear a Sam Browne belt, or carry something white, so that cyclists could see me.

    That's all I'm saying. The Tufty Club is always right.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    "That's all I'm saying. The Tufty Club is always right."

    Ah, the nostalgia of simple certainties.

    NOT a dig at Kirst.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. minus six
    Member

    Look out, Tufty, look out!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. stiltskin
    Member

    The first rule of tufty club is.....you do not talk about tufty club

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. Kirst
    Member

    Other things I learned from the Tufty Club
    - how to cross the road safely
    - not to ride a mini pedal fire engine along the main road (this was particulaly useful because it explained how drivers in high cabs can't see what's right in front of the vehicle - blind spots explained to pre-schoolers, what's not to like?)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. Roibeard
    Member

    <grin>

    Maybe it's the country bumpkin in me, but our beasts never wore high-viz and could easily be on the country road after dark. Quite frankly if you came haring round a corner on a country road and hit one of our black, Holstein-Friesian cows, few vehicles would survive (think Northern Irish Elk test, if you wish!).

    I'm not quite so strong on high-viz (fluorescent, reflective) for pedestrians, bar the motorway example given. On the motorway, one doesn't expect pedestrians. On a shared use path, one should probably expect pedestrians, lit or otherwise. And on country roads, one should anticipate animals...

    Of course, I'm also hypocritical given the way I dress for cycling in town! One too many SMIDSY moments there - perhaps if I had too many SMIDSY whilst walking, I might get dressed for a stroll too.

    Robert

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. Uberuce
    Member

    Two pals are out camping in the woods, and as they get ready to sleep one of them puts on a pair of fellrunning shoes...

    "Why on earth are you doing that?"

    "In case there's a bear."

    "Bears are fast, you'll never outrun one even in those."

    "Oh come on, everyone knows the punchline here."

    "Well, yes, but I'm just amazed we made it this far into a joke about two men camping together without Uberuce making a reference to Brokeback Mountain."

    "I'm a woman."

    "Oh. Sorry."

    And that's why I've put my hi-viz back on. I reckon there's enough riders in lo-viz and low/no light that drivers still have to put enough mental effort into looking for them, thus making me a doddle to spot. If everyone wore good lights and reflectives, then this effect would be lost, so I'm selfishly glad there's no legal requirement and plenty of voluntary ninjas.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. gembo
    Member

    Some stonkingly bright front lights in the fog yesterday made sense. Pretty much everything else up for debate. Yellow cars in fewer accidents than red or black cars. But might not be to do with visibility, might be to do with who buys red or black cars. Low freq of yellow motors etc, silver cars alo lower accidents but not so visible?

    I have several jackets. Stems from my quest to find a waterproof that keeps me dry or will dry itself before Home time. Some are more visible than others. The Altura night vision has clever reflective stripes when headlights are shone on it the visibility is very strong. This wont prevent all accidents as some drivers are blind. Drivers should cut their speed for sure but stealth ninjas in black clothing on black bikes without lights at night are well open to SMIDSY

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. crowriver
    Member

    Nearly ran into a bike ninja on Elgin Terrace this evening. No lights, dark clothes, even his 'courier style' MTB was black. Saw him just in time to take evasive action.

    Muppet / Stupid Donkey !

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. Min
    Member

    I think there is a big difference between "something light" and "hi-viz".

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    "
    APPCG (@allpartycycling)
    25/10/2012 09:12
    Boardman: “Stop talking about hi-viz and helmets”

    "

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. neddie
    Member

    Wearing black or dark clothing at night while cycling is very risky IMO. Motorists see your body before any lights*, and reflective gear is useless when the headlights are not shining directly on it i.e motorists exiting side roads etc.

    * Remember that motorists are expecting to see car headlights, not bike lights. It takes a few seconds for the brain to engage and equate a cycle light with an actual cyclist (and not just some other random light in the streetscape).

    Just as bad is folk that wear a hi-viz jacket, then cover it up with a black backpack!

    I think it is essential to wear light coloured clothing while cycling at night, even in the city, where the streetlights are often obscured e.g by trees (Try watching on Melville Drive at night and see how difficult it is to spot cyclists in dark clothing)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. Kirst
    Member

    I think there is a big difference between "something light" and "hi-viz".
    Well, exactly. I've never said everyone should wear hi-viz if they're cycling or walking at night. I'm saying if you're out on a bike or on your feet and it's dark and unlit, it is helpful and safer for yourself and others to make yourself more visible by wearing or carrying something light. That might be a hi-vi Christmas tree costume with inbuilt LEDs, or it might be a copy of the Metro in your hand.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. neddie
    Member


    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin