Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by timax
And why pray tell, do more not wear Hi-Viz jackets for Day & Night use ($6 @ K-Mart) cheap insurance at twice the price & should be at least mandatory. Seems too many do not even have any light coloured clothing or attachments of any sort when to be seen & safer is so inexpensive.
Do they not even consider their own family or do they not wish to be seen as Dorks with no balls?
I find any LED lights head , tail, indicator & stop very bright at night . I think it is because LED lights give a direct light were normal bulbs the light is spread & rely on the reflector behind the light. I also find LED stop & indicator lights hard to see when the sun shins on them.:eek2:
High viz jackets are pointless when you have bright lights. I am seen front or back based on my lights way before a high viz jacket would allow me to be seen. I have a reflective backpack and lights are seen first.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4bee
Legislating highviz for cyclists will only serve to increase the coffers if whichever state and won't actually increase safety. Increasing rider safety through legislation of cyclists doesn't work, legislating through road rules like safe passing distance also doesn't work based on the fact less than 10 people have been fined for the offence in NSW if I recall correctly (it hasn't changed behaviour let me tell you).
The only way to change the situation is a cultural shift and a change in attitudes of drivers towards cyclists. Granted there are some good drivers out there that are courteous, and there are some absolute dickhead riders but I would wager money on the ratio of dickhead to good is higher on the driver side of the equation.
And of the riders I know that ride in the middle of the lane on some roads are usually doing it in response to continual unsafe behaviour by drivers, which then leaves a rider with little option but to ride defensively in response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arch
All of that is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by timax
There was certainly no problem with these cyclists being seen. :)
One of my reasons for asking if it was common was that I wondered if there was something about the stretch of road or my own eyesight and judgement that was the main factor.
It is certainly more difficult to judge approach speeds on dead straight road. I believe that is one reason why motorways, freeways or high speed highways tend to be a series of sweeping curves rather than straight stretches.
I agree that bright lights increase the chances of the cyclist being seen, but I also wondered if once the light gets above a certain brightness, an unintended problem arises. I would have had no trouble seeing these lights if they had been a quarter or maybe even a tenth as bright. I still can't get over how bright they were. :)
You may be right about the size being an issue, except that because they were so bright and possibly because of the rapid pulsing, I wasn't conscious of the size. The dazzle effect just seemed to overpower any awareness of size.
They are... and not the $6 versions but the $400 full reflective jackets and vests from the bike shops. But you lost me at "Do they" because its really us - we are all road users and need behave appropriately on our roads.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4bee
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeFriend
Well, you are entitled to your opinion but it's better than being dead.
Maybe I didn't explain that very well but I had in mind daytime & dusk when objects tend to merge into each other.
I have even seen a **** on a hills road wearing a Cammo Jacket FFS!
Deeeeeeeerrrrrr.[bigsad]
We will probably find the current bright light tech has peaked for cyclists on the roads. The mountain bike community will want brighter lights but they tend to stay in the forests. The roadies however like the current range of 600 to 1000 lumen lights are adequate for the road. I do agree that they are difficult to judge the distance on straight roads but its easy enough to cover you brake pedal when you unsure.Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
They nature of cyclists movement too is also an indicator - when the light is mounted on the handlebar it tends to move side to side... this is more so when the light is mounted on the helmet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arch
Agreed. Vehicle drivers do not normally need to wear Hi-viz unless one is with Emergency Services & then you have Blues & Twos to help protect you.
$400 still seems to be worth a life saved but 400! I didn't realise they are now Gold plated.[smilebigeye]
The K- mart job is more than adequate at long distances.
Still, as they say, "It's a free world & you pays your money & makes your choice."
There are enough studies out there to prove that high viz and yellow jackets make cyclists easier to spot, so not arguing there.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4bee
The point all of them make is that idiots still make unsafe passes and/or don't care about the safety of the cyclist due to some perceived thought of them being ridiculously inconvenienced. Until we fix that, you aren't actually fixing any issues at all.
Would be keen to see the camo kit, and whether it is an actual cycling kit or normal camo. Wouldn't wear camo on the road, but would for mountain biking!
To me the problem arises not when a cyclist is alone on the road. You can see them without too much of a problem but...if your waiting to pull out into traffic and somewhere amongst all of the lights there is a cyclist , the lights had best be very noticable. On my motorbike i have someone hit me head on while i was stationary waiting to turn right. Their excuse for cutting the corner so much and hitting me was they didnt see me. This is daytime with lights on. So imagine on a pushy at night and then imagine the same with the double reflections of a wet road with you with your side window up and wet. Man thats not looking good for the cyclist is it. Vests wont be seen in this situation at all. Personally i use 2 lights , both blinking. 1 is on my helmet so i can turn by head toward a motorist to make sure im seen. Lights on a pushy around where i live a not about seeing but instead about being seen.