Cheap high-visibility vest for cyclists.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 19:29:22 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 24/12/2010 19:24, Tony Raven wrote:

In terms of visibility, the peak sensitivity of the human eye is
at 555nm in daylight which is green. Yellow is 570-580nm.

Don't believe everything you find on the web.

You *can* get green (and even pink) hi-viz, can't you?

Probably not. Not, that is, if you define 'hi vis' as complying with
any useful part of any relevant standard. You can get saturn yellow
(clasic roadworker), orange (railway on-or-near-the-line worker) and
red (not generally used in the UK) hi-vis. Anything else will not be
high-visibility clothing to a defined standard.

I don't think you can usefully describe anything that doesn't meet the
EN for high visibility clothing as being hi-vis.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Derek C wrote:

On Dec 27, 11:19*am, "Paul - xxx" wrote:


Did you read what I wrote? *I'm not saying it isn't easy to see, but
that it's sometimes too easy to see! *What I mean is that a full
hi-vis jacket or vest can mask your outline and make it hard to
distinguish and tell quickly that the 'yellow blob' you see is a
cyclist and is moving and can make it hard to determine speed and
direction, simply 'cos it's such high contrast that it can blot out
stuff around it.

Don't get me wrong, I wear some reflectives and Hi-vis, but I can
see why some people disagree that it's a panacea that will cure the
myopia of some road users.

To suggest it's wrong not to wear it or that it should be made law
to wear Hi-Vis needs far more research into it. There are far more
views on it than a simple yes it's good, no it's not. *In some
situations it's a boon and a positive benefit, but in some
situations it's not.

--
Paul - xxx- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now let me see. According to the psycholists:

1) Helmets do not protect their heads.

Where does anyone say that?

2) Lights do not make them any easier to see at night.

Where does anyone say that?

3) Hi-viz/reflective jackets do not make them easier to see at any
time of day.

Where does anyone say that?

4) All red traffic lights and other road signs do not apply to
cyclists.

Where does anyone say that?

5) In is necessary to ride in the middle of the traffic lane, so as to
cause maximum disruption to drivers. Then they complain about drivers
passing too closely to them!

It is necessary to ride in the middle of the lane in some situations,
like pinch points etc. I don't know any cyclists, other than CM
****wits, who want to cause disruption.

Sound like the arguments for not having enough lifeboats on the
Titanic to me!

You draw strange analogies.

--
Paul - xxx

Derek C wrote:

On Dec 27, 1:42*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 27/12/2010 12:01, Derek C wrote:





Now let me see. According to the psycholists:

1) Helmets do not protect their heads.

2) Lights do not make them any easier to see at night.

3) Hi-viz/reflective jackets do not make them easier to see at any
time of day.

4) All red traffic lights and other road signs do not apply to
cyclists.

5) In is necessary to ride in the middle of the traffic lane, so
as to cause maximum disruption to drivers. Then they complain
about drivers passing too closely to them!

Sound like the arguments for not having enough lifeboats on the
Titanic to me!

So what you are saying is that by your definition, no "psycholist"
posts regularly (or as far as I can tell at all) to this group.


A few do, including yourself, Paul, Marc and Ravin. If you look in
urcm there are lots of them, taking it in turns to tell each other how
clever they are because they follow the ideas and actions I listed
above.

Are you saying I'm a psycholist? Have you read any of my posts,
especially those in the cycling groups?

--
Paul - xxx

On Dec 27, 7:14*pm, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 19:29:22 +0000, JNugent wrote:
*On 24/12/2010 19:24, Tony Raven wrote:

In terms of visibility, the peak sensitivity of the human eye is
at 555nm in daylight which is green. Yellow is 570-580nm.

Don't believe everything you find on the web.

*You *can* get green (and even pink) hi-viz, can't you?

Probably not. *Not, that is, if you define 'hi vis' as complying with
any useful part of any relevant standard. *You can get saturn yellow
(clasic roadworker), orange (railway on-or-near-the-line worker) and
red (not generally used in the UK) hi-vis.

Red is used in fog, but orange I think suffices.

*Anything else will not be
high-visibility clothing to a defined standard.

Vile green a purilent pink are considered flourescent. Particularly
disturbing when put together as stripes. They appear to make
movement, perhaps the basis for free energy, the light drive.


I don't think you can usefully describe anything that doesn't meet the
EN for high visibility clothing as being hi-vis.

You could thpough describe it as disgusting, that's probably good
enough.

On Dec 27, 2:33*am, Jim Newman wrote:
On 24/12/2010 21:28, JMS wrote:



On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 19:24:24 +0000, Tony
wrote:

snip

That link is a load of rubbish and this "psycholist" does know better as
it turns out. More light is not reflected by bright colours. *Most light
is reflected by white objects and anything which is coloured is
reflecting less than that because it is absorbing the parts of the
spectrum.

In terms of visibility, the peak sensitivity of the human eye is at
555nm in daylight which is green. *Yellow is 570-580nm.

Don't believe everything you find on the web.

Tony

Yes of course Raving - we realise that *you* know so much more than
people like the person who owns the web site. *Have you written to
Professor *Morton and told her she is just wrong?

An assembly line worker is distracted by a brightly colored object
within her field of vision. She loses concentration and injures her hand.

Would YOU accept that the cause of the accident is the 'brightly
coloured object'?

Prof Morton does.

Probabili9ty : 0.8

On Dec 27, 4:53*pm, Derek C wrote:
On Dec 27, 4:37*pm, thirty-six wrote:



Or you could simply acknowledge the obvious truth, which is that you
were erecting straw men. Again.

- --

I helped to erect a snowman recently. Does that count?

Derek C

`You can get arrested for that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just copying Chapman's phrase about 'erecting straw men'.

Yeah but he's been getting away with it for donkeys. Don't ask about
the donkeys.

On Dec 27, 5:03*pm, Derek C wrote:
On Dec 27, 4:56*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"



wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 27/12/2010 16:53, Derek C wrote:

On Dec 27, 4:37 pm, thirty-six wrote:

Or you could simply acknowledge the obvious truth, which is that you
were erecting straw men. Again.

- --

I helped to erect a snowman recently. Does that count?

Derek C

`You can get arrested for that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just copying Chapman's phrase about 'erecting straw men'.

While demonstrating that you don't understand it. Par for the course, I
guess.

- --
Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

No, just taking the p!ss out of you!

Derek C

Youve stopped him now.

On Dec 27, 9:40*pm, "Paul - xxx" wrote:
Derek C wrote:
On Dec 27, 11:19 am, "Paul - xxx" wrote:

Did you read what I wrote? I'm not saying it isn't easy to see, but
that it's sometimes too easy to see! What I mean is that a full
hi-vis jacket or vest can mask your outline and make it hard to
distinguish and tell quickly that the 'yellow blob' you see is a
cyclist and is moving and can make it hard to determine speed and
direction, simply 'cos it's such high contrast that it can blot out
stuff around it.

Don't get me wrong, I wear some reflectives and Hi-vis, but I can
see why some people disagree that it's a panacea that will cure the
myopia of some road users.

To suggest it's wrong not to wear it or that it should be made law
to wear Hi-Vis needs far more research into it. There are far more
views on it than a simple yes it's good, no it's not. In some
situations it's a boon and a positive benefit, but in some
situations it's not.

--
Paul - xxx- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now let me see. According to the psycholists:

1) Helmets do not protect their heads.

Where does anyone say that?

2) Lights do not make them any easier to see at night.

Where does anyone say that?

3) Hi-viz/reflective jackets do not make them easier to see at any
time of day.

Where does anyone say that?

4) All red traffic lights and other road signs do not apply to
cyclists.

Where does anyone say that?

5) In is necessary to ride in the middle of the traffic lane, so as to
cause maximum disruption to drivers. Then they complain about drivers
passing too closely to them!

It is necessary to ride in the middle of the lane in some situations,
like pinch points etc. *I don't know any cyclists, other than CM
****wits, who want to cause disruption.

Sound like the arguments for not having enough lifeboats on the
Titanic to me!

You draw strange analogies.

wHAT DO YOU EXPECT WHEN FORCED TO USE blunted wax crayons.

--
Paul - xxx

On 27 Dec 2010 21:40:35 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

Derek C wrote:

On Dec 27, 11:19*am, "Paul - xxx" wrote:


Did you read what I wrote? *I'm not saying it isn't easy to see, but
that it's sometimes too easy to see! *What I mean is that a full
hi-vis jacket or vest can mask your outline and make it hard to
distinguish and tell quickly that the 'yellow blob' you see is a
cyclist and is moving and can make it hard to determine speed and
direction, simply 'cos it's such high contrast that it can blot out
stuff around it.

Don't get me wrong, I wear some reflectives and Hi-vis, but I can
see why some people disagree that it's a panacea that will cure the
myopia of some road users.

To suggest it's wrong not to wear it or that it should be made law
to wear Hi-Vis needs far more research into it. There are far more
views on it than a simple yes it's good, no it's not. *In some
situations it's a boon and a positive benefit, but in some
situations it's not.

--
Paul - xxx- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now let me see. According to the psycholists:

1) Helmets do not protect their heads.

Where does anyone say that?

2) Lights do not make them any easier to see at night.

Where does anyone say that?

3) Hi-viz/reflective jackets do not make them easier to see at any
time of day.

Where does anyone say that?

4) All red traffic lights and other road signs do not apply to
cyclists.

Where does anyone say that?

5) In is necessary to ride in the middle of the traffic lane, so as to
cause maximum disruption to drivers. Then they complain about drivers
passing too closely to them!

It is necessary to ride in the middle of the lane in some situations,
like pinch points etc. I don't know any cyclists, other than CM
****wits, who want to cause disruption.

Sound like the arguments for not having enough lifeboats on the
Titanic to me!

You draw strange analogies.



Why not turn it round in order to make it easier from Ravin, Porky
Chapman and the other psycholists - let them answer the following
questions, and then there can be no mistakes.

1) Is a cycle helmet more likely to reduce the risk of head injury to
a cyclist involved in an accident - or increase that risk?

2) In most normal circumstances will lights on a cycle at night make
the cyclist more easily visible than one with no lights?

3) In normal circumstances will hi-viz jackets worn by cyclists make
them more visible to other road users - or less visible to other road
users?

4) Are there circumstances where cyclists should chose the traffic
laws they wish to follow - if so, please list them

5) Are there circumstances where cyclists should obstruct other road
users - if so please list them


--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

On Dec 27, 10:49*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Paul - xxx" considered 27 Dec 2010
11:19:29 GMT the perfect time to write:



Derek C wrote:

On Dec 27, 10:12*am, "Paul - xxx" wrote:
JMS wrote:
On 23 Dec 2010 12:51:17 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

Bull****. *That's your spin on what you think others are
thinking. *I doubt you can find a post from a cyclist that
explicity says "that any safety equipment or sensible road use
will increase your likelihood of having an accident". *Or that
any rider was "lulled into a false sense of security 'because
he was wearing a hi viz jacket'"

"I don't wear a high-viz vest - I do not wish
to wear something that makes it harder for drivers to recognise
shape and movement in daylight."
DavidR

Which seems to be completely different to increasing likelihood of
an accident or lulled into a false sense of security.

I read it as DR wants to be seen as a cyclist rather than as an
over-exposed amorphous blob ... which is how high-viz vests can be
seen. *The extra contrast can 'disguise' shapes and outlines quite
effectively in some situations, like the old 'dazzle' camouflage
employed in wartime on ships etc.

In aviation, yellow has been proven to be one of the easiest colours
to see. At night hi-viz vests also have reflective strips. Recently I
came up behing an unlit cyclist wearing dark clothes on a dark night,
and the only thing that made him show up at all were some little
reflective triangles on the heels of the shoes he was wearing.

Did you read what I wrote? *I'm not saying it isn't easy to see, but
that it's sometimes too easy to see! *What I mean is that a full hi-vis
jacket or vest can mask your outline and make it hard to distinguish
and tell quickly that the 'yellow blob' you see is a cyclist and is
moving and can make it hard to determine speed and direction, simply
'cos it's such high contrast that it can blot out stuff around it.

Don't get me wrong, I wear some reflectives and Hi-vis, but I can see
why some people disagree that it's a panacea that will cure the myopia
of some road users.

To suggest it's wrong not to wear it or that it should be made law to
wear Hi-Vis needs far more research into it. There are far more views
on it than a simple yes it's good, no it's not. *In some situations
it's a boon and a positive benefit, but in some situations it's not.

DerekC is providing evidence of another thing he clearly knows nothing
about.
He (as a glider pilot) should be aware that the RAF conducted research
on visibility, and subsequently repainted all their training aircraft
from bright yellow to black - to improve visibility.

Yes they dont want to see the bits on the runway after a 'quick'
landing.