GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
You see what the pedestrians of Nevada need is a stack of these by the side of the road.
Not ruddy flags. Pick one up, aim it at the oncoming cars, cross.
I bet then they could then cross in perfect safety.
dark cycle kit!!
- Thread starter bianchi1
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Not ruddy flags. Pick one up, aim it at the oncoming cars, cross.
I bet then they could then cross in perfect safety.
Rob3rt
Man or Moose!
- Location
- Manchester
If anyone's eyesight provides visual feedback equivalent to that photograph, they need to see an optician! If you are going to post a picture to strengthen your point, please make sure it is in focus else we may as well be debating eyesight and driving/cycling with/without glasses!
Arch
Married to Night Train
- Location
- Salford, UK
I had the opportunity for an experiment on my ride home tonight. I turn right out of a side road onto Lawrence Street, which is one of the main roads out of the city, a single carriageway road with average street lighting, some trees, a mix of houses, shops and garages - just a regular urban main road. It is fully dark at this time of the afternoon.
Traffic at that time of the day is fairly constant - gaps for turning out are usually created by traffic lights further down the road. I can get halfway and wait in the hatching for a pedestrian refuge, so when I pull up to the give way line I am prioritising looking to the right.
Today, I saw that there was a considerable amount of oncoming traffic, so I settled to wait. Soon, I spotted a cyclist approaching from my right. They were sillouetted by the lights of cars coming in the same direction, and riding in barely-secondary, as many do. When I first spotted them, as an entirely black shape, based on landmarks, BikeHike tells me they were 120m away. I watched them approach, and at 70m away I could make out the glow of an old-time Cateye light (incandescent bulb, yellowish light), and a hint of something lighter on the body. It was only at 50m away that I could see that it was a lady, wearing an orange hi-vis vest over her black coat.
If she'd had a brighter light, no doubt I'd have seen it sooner, but no amount of hi-vis was going to show up before it did. And my first view of her was simply as a black shape.
It's my thought that one of the more dangerous situations for cyclists in town is people pulling out of side roads, because the car's headlights are pointing across the main road, not towards the cyclist, the cyclist is end on (narrow target), and the lights of cars behind them may be very bright. Also, people are often fixated on looking for gaps, as opposed to things.
I rarely feel that a driver behind me hasn't seen me - they may pass like prats, but they know I'm there. However I'm rarely as confident about drivers waiting in sideroads and driveways. In that situation however, it seems that hi-vis is certainly not the first thing a driver would see!
Traffic at that time of the day is fairly constant - gaps for turning out are usually created by traffic lights further down the road. I can get halfway and wait in the hatching for a pedestrian refuge, so when I pull up to the give way line I am prioritising looking to the right.
Today, I saw that there was a considerable amount of oncoming traffic, so I settled to wait. Soon, I spotted a cyclist approaching from my right. They were sillouetted by the lights of cars coming in the same direction, and riding in barely-secondary, as many do. When I first spotted them, as an entirely black shape, based on landmarks, BikeHike tells me they were 120m away. I watched them approach, and at 70m away I could make out the glow of an old-time Cateye light (incandescent bulb, yellowish light), and a hint of something lighter on the body. It was only at 50m away that I could see that it was a lady, wearing an orange hi-vis vest over her black coat.
If she'd had a brighter light, no doubt I'd have seen it sooner, but no amount of hi-vis was going to show up before it did. And my first view of her was simply as a black shape.
It's my thought that one of the more dangerous situations for cyclists in town is people pulling out of side roads, because the car's headlights are pointing across the main road, not towards the cyclist, the cyclist is end on (narrow target), and the lights of cars behind them may be very bright. Also, people are often fixated on looking for gaps, as opposed to things.
I rarely feel that a driver behind me hasn't seen me - they may pass like prats, but they know I'm there. However I'm rarely as confident about drivers waiting in sideroads and driveways. In that situation however, it seems that hi-vis is certainly not the first thing a driver would see!
And yet despite the poor quality of the picture and conditions everyone can make out the high viz and yet not the jogger...strange that! It's almost as if one is more visible than the other!!
Marshmallow_Fluff
Guest
- Location
- Beds
Blimey! I can't see neither!! (or anything else for that matter.. well, apart from a snickers wrapping.. lucky buggar! 
)
Rob3rt
Man or Moose!
- Location
- Manchester
That argument is flawed beyond belief!
Marshmallow_Fluff
Guest
- Location
- Beds
Also seen this same thing in the town of Sisters, OR.
Wot Rob3rt said. Your picture demonstrates precisely nothing, except a failure to understand what constitutes evidence.
Why? Are you saying that in these conditions both individuals are equally as visible. I understand the quality isn't great, what with the driving rain and rolling mist, but surely the lense of my camera was only undergoing the same treatment a motorcyclist looking through a visor or even a cyclist wearing glasses would expect. It is clear that in this instance one individual is more visible than the other.
Did you see the jogger?
Rob3rt
Man or Moose!
- Location
- Manchester
It is also clear that both are not equidistant from the camera and the focus is so far off that both objects are in focal planes that are not equivalent thus you can not make the comparison. Go and place a black object and a high vis object on an equivalent background (ideally a range of backgrounds ranging from black, through white, taking in greys, oranges, purples, pinks, greens and blues, i.e. typical background colours of the road, sky and foliage at different times of day - you can be more thorough and test a load of other colours in order to test for every eventuality of background that may be in sight, eg a lime green VW beetle if you like) and on the same focal plane with identical lighting and camera settings, take some pictures and then come back!
No - what I saw when I looked at your picture was that you imagined you had set a cunning trap of some kind. I'm surprised someone as sharp as User482 would be the one to ruin my wait-and-make-him-tell-us strategy, even if he did do it in style. You post a poor-quality picture with no apparent subject and no ostensible thought for composition on a thread on which you have been getting yourself in a bit of a tizz, point out the figure in hi-viz, and wait for the response.Puh-lease.
No - what I saw when I looked at your picture was that you imagined you had set a cunning trap of some kind. I'm surprised someone as sharp as User482 would be the one to ruin my wait-and-make-him-tell-us strategy, even if he did do it in style. You post a poor-quality picture with no apparent subject and no ostensible thought for composition on a thread on which you have been getting yourself in a bit of a tizz, point out the figure in hi-viz, and wait for the response.Puh-lease.
Yep, couldn't believe that anyone would go for it either.
