Hi-Vis

[classic33]

Questioning a cyclist on the fact that he had no lights on his lightweight road bike, got the reponse that he was wearing Hi-Vis so didn't require lights. Also that lights would add weight to the bike. Clothing doesn't.

This was early morning with the street lights still on & a slight mist.

 

[twowheeler]

This would work fine assuming everyone else on the road used shiney lights to light up the hi vis. I think I'd
feel safer using conventional lights fore and aft!

Gordon

 

[buggi]

no, it's against the law to not have lights on in the dark isn't it??? or have i missed something?

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

Hi-Vis as well as lights. Always.

Plus it is illegal to ride without lights - and the required reflectors. Hi-Vis isn't legally necessary.

 

[rusky]

Hi-viz is a retrepreflective & relies on light being reflected towards the eye. If it's dark there won't be much light to reflect.

I would say that he's being a bit silly relying on hi-viz alone & the police will feel the same!

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Hi viz is a useful addition to lights, but it's not a replacement for them.

 

[fossyant]

Let the moron complain when he get's knocked off.

Doesn't wash in a RTC. That's the main reason to abide by the law - cover your ar$e.

 

[Bman]

Lights not only make others aware of your presence, but your direction of travel. Hi-Vis does not.


Lights are a must, Hi-Vis, an optional extra.

 

[buggi]

Let the moron complain when he get's knocked off.

Doesn't wash in a RTC. That's the main reason to abide by the law - cover your ar$e.

+1

I think we all agree it doesn't matter how visible you are, our chances aren't good. In fact, so many motons complain about ninja cyclists and i sometimes wonder if you're more visible when you don't have lights. those ninja's always seem to get seen.

But whatever your view, you should always light yourself up like a Christmas tree so the moton has no excuse and the insurance company has no excuse not to pay out.

 

[GrasB]

Effective be-seen distance of a 1W LED light at dusk without any additional light sources is approximately 1.2km, Hi-viz is more like 0.5km assuming clear uncluttered line of sight. When the line of sight is cluttered hiviz effectiveness is often dramatically reduced where as a lights will be seen to 'blink' & tends to draw your attention to it.

 

[fossyant]

+1

I think we all agree it doesn't matter how visible you are, our chances aren't good. In fact, so many motons complain about ninja cyclists and i sometimes wonder if you're more visible when you don't have lights. those ninja's always seem to get seen.

But whatever your view, you should always light yourself up like a Christmas tree so the moton has no excuse and the insurance company has no excuse not to pay out.

Exactly Buggi.

When I was off'ed over 2 years ago, I had three front lights, three rears, and four little flashers on my rucksack sides...still the driver didn't see me. My lights were used as evidence (photo's etc.) - I even pointed to my bike on the road, with all lights still on (surprisingly) and said "you didn't see that lot"...... Fortunately the driver admitted liability straight away..... unfortunately the case contines as the damage goes on.....

I've since gone major paranoid with lighting power.....

 

[Arch]

Questioning a cyclist on the fact that he had no lights on his lightweight road bike, got the reponse that he was wearing Hi-Vis so didn't require lights. Also that lights would add weight to the bike. Clothing doesn't.

This was early morning with the street lights still on & a slight mist.

Ah, yes, that's so important. If the weight of a pair of lights is so important, he should have a kidney and a lung removed too, save a bit more...

Prat.

 

[meenaghman]

He's not a car driver then. I used to think a few reflectors and some white clothing were ok at night in lieu of lights but when I started driving I realised its bloody difficult to see an unit road user.

 

[gbb]

Questioning a cyclist on the fact that he had no lights on his lightweight road bike, got the reponse that he was wearing Hi-Vis so didn't require lights. Also that lights would add weight to the bike. Clothing doesn't.

This was early morning with the street lights still on & a slight mist.

Just goes to show...i assume anyone on a roadbike can 'generally' be assumed to be an enthusiast, and accordingly takes a bit more care than the 'great unwashed' (inserted tongue in cheek after the other weeks use of that term). But apparently not. Thats a pathetic excuse / justification from the rider.

There's a funny (or not so funny) trait some people have...the failure to accept they can be wrong, or to admit they are wrong. If it had been me and maybe thought i'd manage without for half an hour (just theoretically) before sun up...if someone said anything to me, i'd reply..'yeah i know, took a chance..i'm a tw@t '
But to justify it with blatant cr@p ?

 

[potsy]

Saw one today near Sharston RAB, no lights at all but dressed entirely in yellow Hi-Viz, jacket and trousers.
Prick. Not a young kid either, I would guess 40's.