From the Hi-Viz Won't Save You Files...

[Scott_C]

Crossing Guard struck by Perth Driver:
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/freman ... b88995295z

A TRAFFIC warden remains in hospital after being hit by a vehicle while helping kids cross a road on Tuesday.

Traffic Enforcement Group officers said the 74-year-old was carrying out his duties near the intersection of Ord and Ellen streets about 3.10pm when he stepped out onto the road and was hit.

Just to demonstrate that a vulnerable road user can wear as much hi-viz as they want are there will still be some drivers that "didn't see" them.

[Nobody]

Totally agree.
But for those car drivers who might be glancing around when not looking at their phones, why make it harder for them by wearing all black on a black bike? I personally see black or dark grey cars later than others. I think of the 80 year olds out there still driving who are like me and it keeps me favouring high-vis or conspicuous clothing. I have even selected my vehicles favouring conspicuous colours. On a bicycle flashing lights are going to get noticed more than what colour clothes you are wearing. We should be happy we can run flashing lights on a bicycle in daylight. They are illegal on a motorcycle.

The below link goes into the science of why we don't get seen. Regardless of what one wears, we should expect not to be seen and keep a strategy in mind to cope with how we are going to respond in each situation when a car doesn't give way. A strategy to avoid getting hit from behind is difficult. That is why I prefer to ride in back streets where few cars are going to pass me during my ride. Like many events on the road, the probability of an accident is also largely a numbers game.

https://scienceofbeingseen.wordpress.co ... e-failure/

[AdelaidePeter]

Totally agree.
But for those car drivers who might be glancing around when not looking at their phones, why make it harder for them by wearing all black on a black bike?

I agree. Obviously the simple act of wearing hi-viz doesn't eliminate the possibility of being hit, otherwise that'd be a simple way to reduce the pedestrian and bicycle road tolls to zero. The real question is, does it reduce the probability of being hit?

I cycle in a hi-viz shirt, and this year I've also taken to riding with flashing front and back lights all the time, for the simple reason that it can't hurt and it might help.

[rolandp]

Ord St has 20kph speed humps, Ellen St is 40kph school zone. Will make interesting reading when the driver gives their version of the event.

Heal quickly traffic warden.

[Nobody]

The real question is, does it reduce the probability of being hit?

The link I posted said basically no. There are usually other factors at play with becoming invisible. But that was for motorcycles. I suspect it would be similar for bicycles.

I cycle in a hi-viz shirt, and this year I've also taken to riding with flashing front and back lights all the time, for the simple reason that it can't hurt and it might help.

I've got a high-vis helmet and matching jersey on the bicycle. A high-vis helmet on the motorcycle, with cream and black coloured riding gear. Which was the lightest option I had for the type of gear I wanted. It's better to have one solid colour as one's background can be multi-coloured, so multi-coloured clothing becomes invisible. I've seen the problem myself while driving. I was late to spot a cyclist turning right with a multi-coloured jersey, due to the matching background.

[Mububban]

I cycle in a hi-viz shirt, and this year I've also taken to riding with flashing front and back lights all the time, for the simple reason that it can't hurt and it might help.

Same. No victim blaming, I just want to increase my visibility, even if it's +10% with the flashing lights front and rear and the fluoro socks, I'll take it

[Thoglette]

But for those car drivers who might be glancing around when not looking at their phones, why make it harder for them by wearing all black on a black bike?

Crock of smelly stuff.

Which, as written, exhibits a complete failure to understand the actual problem; demonstrates failure to understand the way risk management works; and exonerates the guilty party by blaming the victims.

All while signalling your virtue as clearly as saying "won't someone think of the children"

I cycle in a hi-viz shirt, and this year I've also taken to riding with flashing front and back lights all the time, for the simple reason that it can't hurt and it might help.

Same. No victim blaming, I just want to increase my visibility, even if it's +10% with the flashing lights front and rear and the fluoro socks, I'll take it

Except it probably won't (outside very specific conditions). It sure as crap ain't 10%.

To explain my objections to Nobody's choice of words, HiViz has a role in low-light conditions and long exposure times. (This is one of the reasons bicycles supposedly are equipped with reflectors ) Certainly, if one is going for a long ride in dull conditions and one is already wearing silly shoes then throwing on a reflective gillet is not a bad idea. But a decent broad-and-bright steady red light is way more effective

However, as the OP points out, the problem is that certain drivers DGAF. No amount of HiViz is going to help there. (Somewhere I have a Swedish study which "discovered" this while testing the effectiveness of HiViz markings)

for the simple reason that it can't hurt

I wish that were so. But it's quite clear that it does hurt: a perception that it is necessary both reduces cyclist numbers ; dulls the skills of drivers who should driving to conditions and paying attention; and results in magistrates blaming cyclists for "contributing" to the accident.

[fat and old]

But for those car drivers who might be glancing around when not looking at their phones, why make it harder for them by wearing all black on a black bike?

Crock of smelly stuff.

Which, as written, exhibits a complete failure to understand the actual problem; demonstrates failure to understand the way risk management works; and exonerates the guilty party by blaming the victims.

All while signalling your virtue as clearly as saying "won't someone think of the children"

I cycle in a hi-viz shirt, and this year I've also taken to riding with flashing front and back lights all the time, for the simple reason that it can't hurt and it might help.

Same. No victim blaming, I just want to increase my visibility, even if it's +10% with the flashing lights front and rear and the fluoro socks, I'll take it

Except it probably won't (outside very specific conditions). It sure as crap ain't 10%.

To explain my objections to Nobody's choice of words, HiViz has a role in low-light conditions and long exposure times. (This is one of the reasons bicycles supposedly are equipped with reflectors ) Certainly, if one is going for a long ride in dull conditions and one is already wearing silly shoes then throwing on a reflective gillet is not a bad idea. But a decent broad-and-bright steady red light is way more effective

However, as the OP points out, the problem is that certain drivers DGAF. No amount of HiViz is going to help there. (Somewhere I have a Swedish study which "discovered" this while testing the effectiveness of HiViz markings)

for the simple reason that it can't hurt

I wish that were so. But it's quite clear that it does hurt: a perception that it is necessary both reduces cyclist numbers ; dulls the skills of drivers who should driving to conditions and paying attention; and results in magistrates blaming cyclists for "contributing" to the accident.

Strange, on the page I only see your reply to Nobody's quote, and nothing else. When quoting, this whole thing appears. Did you put a hi-viz top on the rest?

Aye? Now it's all there? Maybe you edited/added to post while I was quoting? Or did you take the vest off?

[Thoglette]

Strange, on the page I only see your reply to Nobody's quote, and nothing else. When quoting, this whole thing appears. Did you put a hi-viz top on the rest?

Aye? Now it's all there? Maybe you edited/added to post while I was quoting? Or did you take the vest off?

I think it was a reflection from the moon, m'lud.

Mulling it over, there's two things that perhaps underlie my response.

One. This is how MHLs started. A useful bit of PPE for specific risks being mandated for all cases.

Two. HiViz shouldn't be necessary. Other than emergency vehicles or construction* works, no "normal" road user would think them worthwhile.

*construction is a funny place - the LVs have hiviz on them (well, funny little flags on the roofs) so the HVs don't run into them run into them less. What I don't understand is why the HVs need hi-viz?

[AdelaidePeter]

for the simple reason that it can't hurt

I wish that were so. But it's quite clear that it does hurt: a perception that it is necessary both reduces cyclist numbers ; dulls the skills of drivers who should driving to conditions and paying attention; and results in magistrates blaming cyclists for "contributing" to the accident.

It is far from "quite clear" that it does hurt. Instead of dulling the skills of drivers, it could be doing the opposite: making them more aware that riders are present. Flashing lights certainly make me more aware of riders when I'm driving.

Anyway, my aim is to get home safely; and I'm not going compromise that due to supposed (and unproven) societal consequences.

[fat and old]

Strange, on the page I only see your reply to Nobody's quote, and nothing else. When quoting, this whole thing appears. Did you put a hi-viz top on the rest?

Aye? Now it's all there? Maybe you edited/added to post while I was quoting? Or did you take the vest off?

I think it was a reflection from the moon, m'lud.

Mulling it over, there's two things that perhaps underlie my response.

One. This is how MHLs started. A useful bit of PPE for specific risks being mandated for all cases.

Two. HiViz shouldn't be necessary. Other than emergency vehicles or construction* works, no "normal" road user would think them worthwhile.

*construction is a funny place - the LVs have hiviz on them (well, funny little flags on the roofs) so the HVs don't run into them run into them less. What I don't understand is why the HVs need hi-viz?

I'm convinced that the vast majority of people who denounce hi-viz have #1 in mind. The fear of being told what to do. I cannot understand otherwise why so many otherwise intelligent people make such ill informed and/or stupid comments about it.


#2 is spot on. Unfortunately castration shouldn't be necessary either, yet it is. AP has it right, imo. It's no good asserting your rights from beneath a car with two silly girls posting their latest "oops" on Facebook in it.


HV's need hi-vis for either the really H/V's, or for people to see them. It works. I've spent enough time on stinking greenfield sites to know that. Proximity sensors linked to ignition/controls are even better. 10m exclusion zones around any working plant is better again, but near impossible on suburban sites.


And FWIW.....two pro cyclists riding home across the heartland of cycling have made a twitter thing

https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/TheF ... htag_click

Check the pics.

[human909]

It is far from "quite clear" that it does hurt. Instead of dulling the skills of drivers, it could be doing the opposite: making them more aware that riders are present.

So by that logic should all pedestrians be wearing hi-vis?

It might not be clear to you but the prolific use of hi-vis does make other object less noticeable. You are training people to be alert for one thing and as a result your brain will be less alert to others. No different to motorists who are only looking for other motor vehicles and not cyclists.


Encouraging hi-vis use for cyclists is admitting defeat and making the roads less safe for cyclists not wearing hi-vis. At a cycling community level it is not something we want to see pushed. At and individual level wearing head to toe hi-vis with christmas lights will almost certainly improve your chances of being seen and increase your safety.

[fat and old]

So by that logic should all pedestrians be wearing hi-vis?

Whataboutism or tu quoque logical fallacy.

You can do better.

[human909]

So by that logic should all pedestrians be wearing hi-vis?

Whataboutism or tu quoque logical fallacy.

You can do better.

Not really.

There are many more pedestrian deaths on our roads than cyclists. Why would the same logic not extend to hi-vis for pedestrians?

[AUbicycles]

High Vis can work, but it doesn't always work and should never be the solution for bike rider safety. The danger is that High Vis becomes regulated/required and is pushed a complete solution - like the mandatory helmet laws.

Cycling advocates have to be careful with this topic because it is cheaper and easier for politicians to say they care and put in a new law rather than taking genuine action and using education and infrastructure as they should to increase safety.

Politicians: "we made bike riders wear helmets and high vis so now they are safe".


For practical purposes my approach has evolved over years and I encourage visibility (but not specifically high vis).

High vis can be a part of this. For example if I am riding to work and a back pack would block a high vis jacket (which may also be inappropriate for the weather) then it is clearly of little use. But I make sure I have a bright flashing rear light, front light and 3M reflectors.

On the road bike during the day it can change - I can help visibility with bright colours, but these can be lost in certain environments. I can use lights as well but again the environment and conditions will mean that it changes as to which 'things' help make you visible.

[BJL]

I'm one that is against compulsory hi-vis laws.

However, if the pitchfork mob is to get their way, then it has to be in conjunction with strict liability laws. I'm not one for strict liability laws either but if cyclists have to wear hi-vis clothing, then motorists should not be allowed to use the 'Sorry mate, I didn't see you' excuse in court. Hit a cyclist complying with hi-vis clothing laws, and they should get charged with dangerous driving and/or manslaughter with compulsory minimum sentences, NO ifs or buts.

[fat and old]

That’s pretty fair. Very fair actually. Would you go the other way....agree to hi vis if they said we’d intro strict liability if you agree ( there’s a diff there I’m pretty sure you see)?

[fat and old]

So by that logic should all pedestrians be wearing hi-vis?

Whataboutism or tu quoque logical fallacy.

You can do better.

Not really.

There are many more pedestrian deaths on our roads than cyclists. Why would the same logic not extend to hi-vis for pedestrians?

The subject is cyclists. If you’re happy broadening the issue to general safety then let’s go to the logical conclusion. Eliminate the problem. Take cyclists off the road, just the same as pedestrians.

That’s why you don’t conflate the two. A child could point out the differences in their respective environments.

[BJL]

That’s pretty fair. Very fair actually. Would you go the other way....agree to hi vis if they said we’d intro strict liability if you agree ( there’s a diff there I’m pretty sure you see)?

Nope because I can't trust them. They would introduce hi-vis laws for cyclists at a moments notice but then claim it'll take months to come up with the strict liability laws, and then it'll never happen and swept under the carpet ever so quietly because by the time they 'get around to it', motorists would have forgotten the cyclist hi vis stuff and whinge left, right and centre about how unfair it is.

I'll put it to you in a different context regarding a local issue in my area - The fabulous new suburb of 'Kinley' near Lilydale. In my book, this should be completely shelved until they've built the Healesville Freeway (FREEWAY, not TOLLWAY) all the way to Coldstream and duplication of the railway from Mooroolbark to Lilydale including new station(s) in between to cater for the 3200 dog boxes they want to build. In fact, the North East link, Option D should be built in its entirety before any of this goes ahead. Edit - And the Hull Rd/Birmingham Road corridor duplicated to Mt Evelyn as well.

But no, if put to them in this fashion, they'll promise to do all this stuff sometime in the next 1000 years, AFTER they've filled their pockets from selling off and developing the land.

Corrupt pricks.

[AUbicycles]

NO ifs or buts.

But....

It's an interesting hypothetical and the reality is that it would fail as the rule would be put into place but there still would not be any accountability.... as soon as a rider is in front of a big high vis truck or building the scenario is unworkable and would again be one-sided and in effect, another way of discouraging cycling.

----

On another line of thought, there would also be a legal mess. Think about the fairly big industry of cycle wear... if every rider has to wear fluero, then this will kill-off Australian businesses who rely on their Australian customers. It would take a heap of cyclewear brands out of Australia. It would affect how groups ride - eg. in every charity bike ride, bike riders look the same.

Beyond encouraging visibility... basic logic suggests that this could never become a law but then again, politics is not about logic.

--

Mod Side Note: Remember to be nice to one another, tackle the topic, not the person... it's a good debate

[BJL]

NO ifs or buts.

But....

I fully understand what you're saying but my 'but' only applies if they want to introduce compulsory hi-vis laws for cyclists. How they compensate cyclists for the cycling clothing they already own is also a concern. It's not cheap these days.

I'll point to you a similar issue. Headlights on motorbikes. Made compulsory so that car drivers can see them if they are looking. It works as the headlights on the motorbikes are in contrast to their surroundings. But now with cars being equipped with 'gaytime' running lights, this contrast is being steadily reduced to the point where motorbikes are no more noticeable than before. So what was the whole point of the exercise again?

And as often encountered lately, gaytime driving lights on cars are in some cases 'wrapped' around other critical lights such as indicators rendering them useless as you can't see them. A clear case of form above function and how the ADR's concerning motor vehicles are either very much outdated or corrupted. I suspect the latter.

[fat and old]

I’ve never seen a hi vis truck or building besides which what diff would that make? Strict liability is the law. Cut and dried. Hit bike you’re responsible.

Basically you’ll pass on strict liability to maintain what? Your choice of colours? The lack of trust I can see, but this is hypothetical and as such the law WILL be introduced. No ifs, no buts. Are you still saying no, or introducing new obstructions?

Oh, I quite agree on the headlight thing. Stupid and dangerous.

[BJL]

Basically you’ll pass on strict liability to maintain what? Your choice of colours? The lack of trust I can see, but this is hypothetical and as such the law WILL be introduced. No ifs, no buts. Are you still saying no, or introducing new obstructions?

If you're responding to me regarding lack of trust, it's hardly hypothetical. Rowville railway line? Doncaster railway line along the Eastern Fwy? If you dare (and can find it, I'll post a link later if I can), check out (I think) page 11 or 13 of the 1965 VicRoads freeway proposals. If even a quarter of it was done, we'd be far better off. But no. Let's bow down to property developers (And this has been going on for a LOT longer than even I realized but hey, I was born in 1973), build a bunch of ghettos (a nice enough name for what I truly think) and we'll promise to build all the infrastructure later on. NOT!

Do you even realize that ALL of the road projects they're promoting over in western side of Melbourne (Tarneit for example), should have been built BEFORE they built thousands of homes?

But no, let's close the gate after the horse has bolted. As long as the property developers (MP's friends and probably close family) get their share, who cares? Besides the poor plebs who have to live there? And the same thing will happen in Lilydale with Kinley. They simply couldn't give a stuff. Yarra Ranges local council, the Victorian State government and the Federal Australian Government.

Corrupt bastards the lot of 'em.

[fat and old]

There are still major roads in Doncaster that don’t have kerbs ....this is nothing new. Suburbs are always built without the actual roads connecting them being appropriate. But that’s not what I was getting at.

The proposal to have Strict liability in exchange is a hypothetical, so yes, you will have the law (my hypothetical my rules). Would you make the trade?

Edit. Here you go, design plans for the Outer Ring Rd, complete with rail corridor. Good fun

Oops ..... linky

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/plannin ... esign-maps

[human909]

The subject is cyclists. If you’re happy broadening the issue to general safety then let’s go to the logical conclusion. Eliminate the problem. Take cyclists off the road, just the same as pedestrians.

Um. But pedestrians aren't taken off the road. Hence the problem isn't eliminated and hence hundreds of pedestrians die.

Collisions between motor vehicles and vulnerable road users still occur with sepparated infrastructure, because it generally isn't sepparated at intersections.