# Is black cycling gear dangerous?



## Accy cyclist (31 May 2012)

Hello, this is only my 3rd post and first week of reading all the many threads and posts on Cycle Chat so i don't know if it's been asked but does anyone agree with me that dark cycle clothing(not counting shorts)..black, grey etc is dangerous to wear?
I drive to and from work in daylight and dark and i see many cyclists wearing black. Some even have no, or poor lights and some don't have any reflection on their clothing. As a cyclist i look out for other cyclists but some i don't see until i'm 20 yards or less away because they just aren't bright enough. I have many jerseys, plain and team ones, but i only wear flourescent ones, i want to be seen and i don't want to give some of those horrible motorists out there an excuse if they hit me that "he was wearing dark clothes, i couldn't see him"etc.
I want to be seen hundreds of yards down the road, not at the last few seconds where it might be too late. So to those who wear black, why do you want to be the same colour as the road?


----------



## MontyVeda (31 May 2012)

no more dangerous than a black car IMO... and aren't the roads more a grey colour?


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 May 2012)

This is a fairly uncontroversial topic. 

I imagine the thread will die out after a couple of readers have added their approval and agreement.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 May 2012)

I was talking recently to a Police Driver who had someone pull out on him when he was in a Police Car with full headlights, blue / red strobes flashing and a siren

The problem is not what you are wearing or how visible you are,but whether the other person looks, sees and acts appropriately


----------



## Sittingduck (31 May 2012)

The answer is no.


----------



## Darren862 (31 May 2012)

I don't think the colour you wear really makes much difference with some drivers. I was on my motorbike, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so I could turn right. There was a guy waiting to turn right from the road I wanted to join. I was parked right in front of him. Now, I'm a big bloke on a big motorbike wearing a bright yellow jacket but, I knew he hadn't seen me so I chose I slightly smaller gap than normal to exit my road. I'm glad I did because he chose the same gap! He spun his wheels coming out of the junction. He then saw me and panicked. He kept his foot on the throttle but turned the wheels to avoid me (and he did avoid me). He drove straight into a wall. Thankfully there were no pedestrians on the path he mounted. So I don't think it's how visible you are so much as its how blind some other road users are. 

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ianrauk (31 May 2012)

Sittingduck said:


> The answer is no.


 

And twice no


----------



## MattHB (31 May 2012)

No, but it does make you go faster!  but not as fast as red.. Obviously


----------



## potsy (31 May 2012)

Extremely dangerous, Hi viz should be worn at all times


----------



## redcard (31 May 2012)

The real reason cyclists like black is because of the slimming effect.


----------



## Sittingduck (31 May 2012)

I don't see the need for a motorist to have to see you from several hundred yards away. What roads are so straight and clear for the line of sight to be in existence anyway? Driving at a reasonable speed and paying a reasonable amount of attention, they should be able to avoid randomly crashing into you, regardless if you are wearing a high-viz pantomime cow outfit or a plain black t shirt.

Yes I know cows aren't high-viz, it's just an example or an eye catching bit of clobber.


----------



## smutchin (31 May 2012)

I often think when I read these stories of motorists crashing into trees that the tree really ought to have been wearing hi-viz.

Probably didn't have lights either.

d.


----------



## derrick (31 May 2012)

I am the man in black,


----------



## Paul J (31 May 2012)

My wife swears wearing black makes you look thinner


----------



## Recycler (31 May 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> clip clip , why do you want to be the same colour as the road?


 
I don't think that black is dangerous as such, but I'm convinced that it isn't as visible as hi viz or bright colours. However, you'll find that this has been discussed once or twice before!!

Many don't like Hi Viz. They think that it doesn't look "cool".
Many don't like Hi Viz. They don't want to be told what to do by "them"
Many don't like Hi Viz. They believe that it is seen so often on our roads that it is a kind of "urban camouflage".
Many don't like Hi Viz. They point out that, at night, it is no more visible than any other colour.
Many don't like Hi Viz. They believe that "real" cyclists don't wear it.
Many don't like Hi Viz. They point out that, if you are driven into, the driver should have been looking and their broken bones are the fault of someone else.

All the above, and other reasons, are given. It is fair enough, there is no obligation to wear Hi viz and it is up to the individual. Do what suits you.

This post may attract a few comments, but this is only an internet forum.


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (31 May 2012)

Cos you're not a car they don't see you anyway!
Regardless I always wear hi-vis or bright colours.


----------



## Andy_R (31 May 2012)

Black cycling gear is incredibly dangerous........but only when worn by ninjas


----------



## Ethan (31 May 2012)

MattHB said:


> No, but it does make you go faster!  but not as fast as red.. Obviously


 
I have red and black. It even says 'rosso corsa' on it.
How fast am I?


----------



## raindog (31 May 2012)

Black is the new white.


----------



## Hacienda71 (31 May 2012)

Well I am knackered my bike is black as well.........


----------



## ianrauk (31 May 2012)

I will wear black as it look so friggin cool.
Fek wanting to look like a bag of custard... but each to his own and all that.


----------



## 172traindriver (31 May 2012)

Black cycling kit is currently very popular, but personally I steer welll clear of it and I am not a fan of it, instead prefreing to wear brighter colours.
It is up to the individual as to what you feel happiest in and as many others have pointed out, but the problem lies with the drivers of vehicles. You could be dressed up as a giant flashing bill board and would still fail to be noticed by some drivers.
The problem is with the drivers, and probably a lack of knowledge and experience of how to deal with things such as cyclists and horse riders or the fact they are just impatient and bad mannered and probably act in a similar manner at work or in the supermarket.
If I am driving and come across a cyclist and it might be a bit difficult to pass them I will wait for an opportunity rather than trying go get past a squeeze back in, thus cutting them up. It is an education thing and when learning more emphasis should be put on acquiring road skills and positioning.


----------



## Recycler (31 May 2012)

ianrauk said:


> I will wear black as it look so friggin cool.


 
.........says the man with a white T shirt in his avatar!


----------



## Psycolist (31 May 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> Hello, this is only my 3rd post and first week of reading all the many threads and posts on Cycle Chat so i don't know if it's been asked but does anyone agree with me that dark cycle clothing(not counting shorts)..black, grey etc is dangerous to wear?
> I drive to and from work in daylight and dark and i see many cyclists wearing black. Some even have no, or poor lights and some don't have any reflection on their clothing. As a cyclist i look out for other cyclists but some i don't see until i'm 20 yards or less away because they just aren't bright enough. I have many jerseys, plain and team ones, but i only wear flourescent ones, i want to be seen and i don't want to give some of those horrible motorists out there an excuse if they hit me that "he was wearing dark clothes, i couldn't see him"etc.
> I want to be seen hundreds of yards down the road, not at the last few seconds where it might be too late. So to those who wear black, why do you want to be the same colour as the road?


 hear hear ! or is it here here ? Woteva, good thoughts


----------



## ianrauk (31 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> .........says the man with a white T shirt in his avatar!


 

damn......


----------



## 172traindriver (31 May 2012)

ianrauk said:


> damn......


 
Oops!!


----------



## Psycolist (31 May 2012)

Paul J said:


> My wife swears wearing black makes you look thinner


 Are you sure she dosnt mean you wearing back makes her look thinner


----------



## Recycler (31 May 2012)

Psycolist said:


> hear hear ! or is it here here ?


 
Hear, Hear.

As in "Hear what this man is saying" (slightly olde worlde English)
As in "Listen to what this man is saying (What we would say today)

with apologies for being gender specific


----------



## palinurus (31 May 2012)

Some years back when I first joined a cycling club there was always a bit of chatter on the club runs about other cycling clubs in the area and for some reason which I can't remember (but may have something to do with not having stuffed enough food into my jersey) I got the idea that the Icknield Road Club were a fearsome bunch of grizzled hard men who wore plain black lycra. I imagined that if riding alone there was a chance I'd be overtaken by a whole pack of them, they'd eyeball me as they passed, their cold deep-set eyes looking out from under their black cycling caps, perhaps one of them would push me into a ditch and others would dismount their bikes, leap in and give me a shoeing.

Anyway, it turns out that the Icknield Road club don't look like that at all. They aren't even a bit dangerous, and they don't wear black. Not uniformly anyway.

Disappointing.


----------



## doctornige (31 May 2012)

As a hypothesis, this is full of so many confounding variables, it is impossible to state from observation alone that black clothing is dangerous.

Variables include:

Popularity of black
Age of wearer
Sex of wearer
Experience of wearer
Time of day
Weather

and probably many more. What would be more fun for this group would be to try to imagine how we might design a study that eliminated these variables. The fun part is deciding whether we ought to use surrogate or genuine endpoints, where genuine would mean death or serious injury, and surrogate would be 'being called a self-gratification artist'.

N.


----------



## Ian Cooper (31 May 2012)

Black clothing is not dangerous to wear on a bike unless you're actively trying to camouflage yourself. Just last night I saw a cyclist dressed all in black with no lights in the dark, yet he was fairly easy to spot because the streetlights lit him up fairly nicely against the grey road. Of course, in a dark alley, he would have blended in quite suicidally.

If you want to be seen, wear a reflective vest and make sure your front and rear lights are working. As long as you have those, you can't be faulted (even in the court of anti-cyclist public opinion) for anything else you wear.

As for cycling in the dark, I avoid it. Birds don't fly in the dark, and I think they might be onto something..


----------



## Recycler (31 May 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> . Birds don't fly in the dark, and I think they might be onto something..


 
To be pedantic....some birds, particularly Owls, do fly at night. I frequently see them when I'm on a night run.


----------



## HovR (31 May 2012)

Black clothes won't suddenly camouflage you during the day, and at night if they can't see any of the 4 to 6 lights I have on my bike, they weren't going to see me no matter what I was wearing.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (31 May 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> As for cycling in the dark, I avoid it. Birds don't fly in the dark, and I think they might be onto something..


 
It's dark 90% of the time here!


----------



## ufkacbln (31 May 2012)

Andy_R said:


> Black cycling gear is incredibly dangerous........


 
My cycling gears is black!


----------



## Crankarm (31 May 2012)

Hi-Viz is so yesterday. Anyway why would you want to make yourself into a highly visible target for motons to aim at? Black is far safer.


----------



## Crankarm (31 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> My cycling gears is black!


 

Show off ..................... .


----------



## Doseone (31 May 2012)

I didn't know yellow wasn't cool

I just ordered a Gore gilet, it came in white and looked really nice but was too big. I sent it back and got another one but they didn't have the size I wanted in white, so I got yellow 'coz I thought it looks good and I will be more visible. Kind of a win win. But from reading the above I gather it doesn't look cool so it's more of a lose win.


----------



## Hacienda71 (31 May 2012)

Your clothes should match the colour of your bike. It's the law.


----------



## Recycler (31 May 2012)

Doseone said:


> I didn't know yellow wasn't cool.


 
It's pretty cool to wear a yellow jersey in a certain French cycle race.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (31 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> My cycling gears is black!


 
Too funny!


----------



## Pat "5mph" (31 May 2012)

I like bright red. In winter time, my colleagues call me Santa. My staffing manager cannot look at my tomato red waterproofs without laughing. Wonder why


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 May 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> Your clothes should match the colour of your bike. It's the law.


 
Then the Law is clearly a fool.

Even the rest of my bicycle doesn't match the colour of my bicycle. My clothing certainly doesn't.

If I thought it might, I'd keep getting changed until it didn't.

As to what is cool, I think that may depend on age and outlook.

I tell my sons it isn't cool to come home from school with drawing on their hands and arms. I am clearly wrong.

I told my daughter (when I looked closely while Skyping) that it is not cool to have a nose ring. I am clearly wrong.

I think three days of stubble on a slightly podgy chin looks cool. I am clearly wrong.


----------



## musa (31 May 2012)

The gear is only as dangerous as the wearer


----------



## totallyfixed (31 May 2012)

I remember reading that bright multicoloured clothing can act as camouflage when riding in dappled sunlight, ie under trees. I saw a video of this a few years back and it shouldn't have come as any surprise to me when the rider merged into the background when viewed from a following car.
I have a black waterproof because it was the only colour it came in but it does have reflective bits on it, however if it is a wet dull day I would have a very bright rear light on anyway and if I didn't than I deserve to be deselected under Natural Selection.


----------



## Recycler (31 May 2012)

We've also seen it argued that Hi Viz acts as camouflage against a crop of flowering oil seed rape and I'm sure that an argument can be made for any colour against certain backgrounds. The real question should be, overall, which is the best colour?

Either that, or we change clothing every few hundred yards!

We all need to make up our own minds and live, or not (!), with the consequences.


----------



## Recycler (31 May 2012)

musa said:


> The gear is only as dangerous as the wearer


 
Decidedly not so! Other road users have an impact (literally!) on our safety.


----------



## Norm (31 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> The real question should be, overall, which is the best colour?


IMO, any single solid block of colour is best. We are attuned to recognise shapes by their outlines and a single block of any colour will identify a cyclist as such. Whilst dark or muted colours might be less easy to instantly pick out in shadows or at night, compared to hi-viz, they will, in general, not camouflage us in the same way that kit with vertical stripes does.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jun 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Show off ..................... .


This is showing off!


















I have 5 Rohloff machines..

Birdy Grey, Thorn Raven Tour, Thorn Nomad, Catrike Expedition and a HPVelotechnik Gekko!


----------



## Accy cyclist (1 Jun 2012)

If i felt safe wearing black i'd buy this. http://www.prendas.co.uk/details.asp?ID=2761


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jun 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> If i felt safe wearing black


 
Which is the point abut all of this.

Motorists too lazy to look want you to wear HiViz, helmets etc because they are too lazy to actually look properly, and to many people have bought in to this "need" to protect themselves form the stupidity and negligence of the other road users

Cycling is and should be an activity that is simply not as dangerous as some would have us believe and does not really "need" specialist clothing and equipment.

People don't feel safe because they are misled by the claims of danger


----------



## Dan_h (1 Jun 2012)

I have to say that when I am driving I have never noticed a cyclist more because they are wearing a high vis jacket. I seem to spot cyclists the same distance away whatever they are wearing, even in the dark or bad weather.

The one exception was a guy riding along a country lane in the morning with the sunlight dappling through the trees. He was on a mountain bike and dressed head to toe in camoflage gear - that stuff works really well!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Jun 2012)

No matter what you wear, if they ain't lookin' they won't see you. The one's who are lookin' will see you no matter what you wear. QED, albeit based on anecdata, what you wear makes no difference to your safety. That's just the way the pothole crumbles.

I wear black, mostly. But not always. Dark brown, dark green, deep red, light blue, dark blue, white and grey all feature in my cycling wardrobe. I even have some old Audax UK tops in white, hiviz green and purple that I bought in a moment of weakness because they were ridiculously cheap.

I avoid hi-viz like the plague for aesthetic reasons, because hi-viz doth offend mine eye.


----------



## Nihal (1 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> My cycling gears is black!


So are most peoples..................


----------



## Nihal (1 Jun 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I like bright red. In winter time, my colleagues call me Santa. My staffing manager cannot look at my tomato red waterproofs without laughing. Wonder why


Are we all sure he is'nt laughing at ................................ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm






















You


----------



## sidevalve (1 Jun 2012)

Surely the point is not just to the rider but to everyone else too. Ignoring vehicles for a bit, in an urban area on a dull day you are quiet, you are black, you are ninja, and the muppet crossing the road and taking a quick glance looking for cars wont see you, it requires a bit of old fashioned common sense. As above black is NOT dangerous unless taken to silly levels or at silly times, I find it is movement that catches the eye, a black rider with a bright light wil stand out well.


----------



## Recycler (1 Jun 2012)

Cobbling said:


> Which is the point abut all of this.
> 
> Motorists too lazy to look want you to wear Hi Viz, helmets etc because they are too lazy to actually look properly, and to many people have bought in to this "need" to protect themselves form the stupidity and negligence of the other road users
> 
> ...


 
You seem to be contradicting yourself there.

either cycling is safe and there is no need to worry about visibility
or cycling is not safe and we therefore need to be concerned about visibility.

You seem to be saying that cycling is not safe because of idiotic drivers, but that it shouldn't be like that. 
In a sense you are right, but in reality we will never live in Utopia and therefore we need to act accordingly.
Personally, I don't care what other cyclists wear and I can understand people saying that they don't like the look of it but, beyond that, I think that some of the arguements against the use of Hi Viz gear a little bizarre.


----------



## Dragonwight (1 Jun 2012)

palinurus said:


> Some years back when I first joined a cycling club there was always a bit of chatter on the club runs about other cycling clubs in the area and for some reason which I can't remember (but may have something to do with not having stuffed enough food into my jersey) I got the idea that the Icknield Road Club were a fearsome bunch of grizzled hard men who wore plain black lycra. I imagined that if riding alone there was a chance I'd be overtaken by a whole pack of them, they'd eyeball me as they passed, their cold deep-set eyes looking out from under their black cycling caps, perhaps one of them would push me into a ditch and others would dismount their bikes, leap in and give me a shoeing.
> 
> Anyway, it turns out that the Icknield Road club don't look like that at all. They aren't even a bit dangerous, and they don't wear black. Not uniformly anyway.
> 
> Disappointing.


 
Were they wearing these?

http://www.dealbyethan.com/bmz_cache/4/46d8fe2109e47ae13273332f3d3cad37.image.500x463.jpg


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jun 2012)

What I am saying is simple.....wear normal clothing

The numpty that will knock you off will not see you if you were naked, wearing HiViz or a Spiderman outfit ofr a dress.


----------



## HLaB (1 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> What I am saying is simple.....wear normal clothing
> 
> The numpty that will knock you off will not see you if you were naked, wearing HiViz or a Spiderman outfit ofr a dress.


Not that I'm looking forward to being knocked off but I 100% agree.


----------



## Pauluk (1 Jun 2012)

Wonder if they would see me if I were naked. I'd look like I was wearing a blue body stocking in this weather


----------



## gaz (1 Jun 2012)

When temperatures really drop in the winter months I wear all black, absolutely everything from shoes, leggings, top and gloves.

Funnily enough I've never had any issues with this kind of clothing. But then I don run bright lights all year round, a bright light is a better indication of a road user than a bright colour, which could be a a bin man or a vehicle recovery man walking down the road.


----------



## HLaB (1 Jun 2012)

A bit anecdotal, but I bought a black Giordana Jersey in the Wiggle sale it has got a white panel and zips and red tapering round the top of the pockets, it seems like drivers are more observant when I'm wearing that. Like Cunno says though, it doesn't matter what you are wearing if the driver isn't looking properly!


----------



## Pat "5mph" (1 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I have 5 Rohloff machines..
> Birdy Grey, Thorn Raven Tour, Thorn Nomad, Catrike Expedition and a HPVelotechnik Gekko!


 
When you have an argument with your wife, instead of telling you to sleep on the sofa, she tells you "go sleep in one of the bikes"?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (1 Jun 2012)

Nihal said:


> Are we all sure he is'nt laughing at ................................ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. at me wearing the trousers


----------



## smutchin (1 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> You seem to be contradicting yourself there.
> 
> either cycling is safe and there is no need to worry about visibility
> or cycling is not safe and we therefore need to be concerned about visibility.



Alternatively, visibility isn't the real issue in cycling safety, hmm?

d.


----------



## Nihal (2 Jun 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> When you have an argument with your wife, instead of telling you to sleep on the sofa, she tells you "go sleep in one of the bikes"?


He really could,You know.Unless ofcourse it was raining or snowing?


----------



## Andrew_Culture (2 Jun 2012)

The biggest danger with garish lycra is that you might be mistaken for a member of Poison circa 1986, and that would naturally lead to getting a higher than usual level of verbal abuse from motorists, other cyclists, MTV video DJs and crusaders against false metal.

Argument solved?


----------



## Nihal (2 Jun 2012)

Hmmmm...i'm not sure if these people want to stop or not.They'll end up changing their avatars to all the lycras,shirts,Hi Viz jackets,(gloves and helmets too maybe?) they got and after they've had their share of "ooo,they look good" or rude sounding noises(excluding farts) and only then will they RIP.Till then


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Jun 2012)

Just to lower the tone of the thread...









> If you’re moving to Els Alamus, Spain, to further your career as a walking sexual gratification specialist, heads up: you’re required to wear a high visibility reflective vest to improve traffic safety. The town, near Barcelona, passed the ordinance back in 2004, specifically to reduce the number of pedestrian – motor vehicle accidents involving prostitutes. Fines for non-compliance start at around $56 per occurrence, and often lead to additional fines for things like ‘creating a danger on a public highway’.


----------



## Nihal (2 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Just to lower the tone of the thread...


I think there is a seperate thread about this topic,saw it this morning........................


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Jun 2012)

Nihal said:


> I think there is a seperate thread about this topic,saw it this morning........................


 
Cheek!


----------



## Nihal (2 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Cheek!


Just saying,if you don't see,not my problem


----------



## Recycler (2 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> Alternatively, visibility isn't the real issue in cycling safety, hmm?.


 
I don't think that anyone has said that it is the real issue. However, many are of the view that it certainly is an issue....i.e. one of many safety related issue. For anybody to deny that it is an issue strikes me as ridiculous.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Jun 2012)

The problem is the "victim blaming" that is endemic in road safety.

A cyclist (or pedestrian) gets hit and it is not the rresponsibility of the driver to look, but the victim to be seen!

A cyclist (or pedestrian) gets hit, and it is their responsibility to reduce the level of injury incurred!

When the evidence is unequivocal that drivers are failing to take basic measures, and then when they do failing to act appropriately on the information, surely we should be spending the money on driver education rather than a piece of cloth that will probably make no difference whatsoever


----------



## Pat "5mph" (2 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Just to lower the tone of the thread...


Nooooo Wayyyyyyyyyy!!!!!! ( No wonder you have to sleep on the bikes ....)


----------



## Recycler (2 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The problem is the "victim blaming" that is endemic in road safety.
> 
> A cyclist (or pedestrian) gets hit and it is not the rresponsibility of the driver to look, but the victim to be seen!
> 
> ...


 
I don't think that anyone here is saying that it is the responsibility of cyclists to prevent themselves from being run over.

However, drivers do make mistakes. It is part of the human condition that we get things wrong....and no amount of "education" will eliminate human error. For that matter, cyclists also get things wrong and a very high proportion of hospital admissions are for accidents where no car was involved.

I also doubt that many drivers really don't care. I suspect that the vast majority would be very upset if they ran anyone over.

Nobody is saying that improved visibility will prevent all Smidsy's either.
But if it helps to reduce some accidents?


----------



## Accy cyclist (3 Jun 2012)

I've read all the arguments for against and not too sure, about black. I still think, and probably always will that you are much more visible to lorries, cars and wagons etc if you're in bright clothing rather than wearing black.
If black is "so cool" how come it's never seen in "The world's biggest bike race"?


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jun 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> If black is "so cool" how come it's never seen in "The world's biggest bike race"?


Let's think about that one......

Advertising perhaps?


----------



## lulubel (3 Jun 2012)

Since it's summer, I often ride in a strappy black top, and a very short pair of black, lightweight tri shorts.

Not only do I find that drivers notice me, I also find that they pass me very slowly. It's lovely


----------



## Banjo (3 Jun 2012)

Riding in the brecon Beacons on a drizzly day with 2 mates one in black one had an orange waterproof top. They got ahead of me and I could still see the orange top long after the black gear was invisible.


----------



## Recycler (3 Jun 2012)

Banjo said:


> I could still see the orange top long after the black gear was invisible.


 
+1 Exactly.

We've all seen the evidence with our own eyes and some of the reasons for given against the use of Hi Viz are a bit contrived.
Hi Viz is more visible than dull/dark colours. If people don't want to use it because of style/fashion/vanity etc. etc. then fine, but to pretend that it has no place in our safety aresenal seems to be more an act of denial than objective reasoning. It's true that it some, probably rare, daytime occasions other colours may be better but, overall, Hi Viz improves conspicuity.


----------



## Boris Bajic (3 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> +1 Exactly.
> 
> We've all seen the evidence with our own eyes and some of the reasons for given against the use of Hi Viz are a bit contrived.
> Hi Viz is more visible than dull/dark colours. If people don't want to use it because of style/fashion/vanity etc. etc. then fine, but to pretend that it has no place in our safety aresenal seems to be more an act of denial than objective reasoning. It's true that it some, probably rare, daytime occasions other colours may be better but, overall, Hi Viz improves conspicuity.


 
The above post wins the argument for the following reasons:

1. The views expressed are broadly in line with mine.

2. It includes the word 'conspicuity' in an online-forum debate.

(This with the caveat that in bright, snowy conditions, dark colours can be helpful - with the further caveat that this was not a good thing for Penal Battalions of the Red Army in the forties, where conspicuity was not conducive to longevity).


----------



## smutchin (3 Jun 2012)

Banjo said:


> Riding in the brecon Beacons on a drizzly day with 2 mates one in black one had an orange waterproof top. They got ahead of me and I could still see the orange top long after the black gear was invisible.


 
How on earth did you manage to avoid knocking the ones in black off their bikes?



Recycler said:


> We've all seen the evidence with our own eyes


 
That's not evidence, it's anecdote.

d.


----------



## Blurb (3 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> That's not evidence, it's anecdote.
> 
> d.


 
Empirical\anecdotal evidence is evidence wouldn't you agree? It may possibly be more open to error than proper scientific study, but that's no reason to discount it completely.


----------



## Recycler (3 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> That's not evidence, it's anecdote.d.


 
Of course it's anecdotal. That's why I said the "evidence of our own eyes".
The amusing thing is that every " anti" Hi Viz comment on this thread has also been anecdotal but you havn't felt felt the need to mention that. 

Can you really deny that Hi Viz is not more visible in daylight conditions? What non-anecdotal evidence do you have?


----------



## Recycler (3 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> 2. It includes the word 'conspicuity' in an online-forum debate.


 
Forgive me Boris for I have sinned. 

My excuse is that it was an everyday word in my job when I worked for a road marking company. The link between road safety and conspicuity (Damm, slipped again ) is so widely accepted that I am surprised when I see people arguing against it.


----------



## oldroadman (3 Jun 2012)

No colour is of itself "dangerous". Some are simply more easily seen than others. Cycling is not a "dangerous" activity, although some of the antics by "cyclists" are an invitation to get hurt.
Conclusion, you takes your choice, and behave sensibly, then fate takes over.
Personally the only black I wear is shorts or leg warmers/tights, just simply because no club or team I ever rode with had black as a colour, and so there is a good deal of kit in various colours still kicking around in the cupboard.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jun 2012)

Anecdata is simply not evidence in any form.

I know several people whose "experience" is that cyclists slow them up, the activity is dangerous as cyclists are not protected and they should not be on the roads...
Is that equally valid "anecdote" evidence that we should not be cycling on roads?


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Of course it's anecdotal. That's why I said the "evidence of our own eyes".
> The amusing thing is that every " anti" Hi Viz comment on this thread has also been anecdotal but you havn't felt felt the need to mention that.
> 
> Can you really deny that Hi Viz is not more visible in daylight conditions? What non-anecdotal evidence do you have?


 
The problem is not whether HiViz works or not, simply the way it is promoted s an alternative to real road safety measures.

In any other form of Health and Safety assessment there is a hierarchy of controls and PPE (such as HiViz) should be a last resort.

Instead we have it as the primary response.

As proven so many times, it is the lack of observation by drivers and the inability / unwillingness to act on the information that is the issue.


----------



## smutchin (3 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Can you really deny that Hi Viz is not more visible in daylight conditions? What non-anecdotal evidence do you have?


 
I'm not the one making claims about the effectiveness of hi-viz. I have made no claims either way.

d.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jun 2012)

PS the "greater distance myth" for HiViz is bizarrely only shown in interviews with cyclists. Car drivers do not have the same opinion



> A divergence in attitudes was also apparent in terms of attribution of responsibility in cyclist-vehicle conflicts on the road. While the use of visibility aids was advocated by cyclists, this was not reflected in self-reported wearing patterns, and cyclists reported that the distance at which they would be first recognised by a driver was twice that estimated by the drivers.


 
Also interestingly a 2009 study in Australia showed that :


> ..... fluorescent vests were not a significant improvement on black clothing at night, and that retro-reflective strips were more effective when attached to knees and ankles than on a more or less static jacket.


----------



## Recycler (3 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The problem is not whether HiViz works or not, .


& smutchin !

Can we tackle that issue first, before we go onto the H&S side of the question.
Simple question. Do you accept that Hi Viz generally offers greater visibility to the wearer in day light conditions?

PS May I ask that when you give quotes to support your argument that you also provide a link and/or quote the source?


----------



## lulubel (3 Jun 2012)

Despite my flippant earlier comment, I do agree with wearing hiviz in poor visibility. When I cycled to work, I had to wear a hiviz vest on arrival on the premises, so I tended to wear either the vest or my own hiviz jacket for the whole ride. Now, for the rare days when visibility is poor here, I have a choice of 2 different weights of hiviz jacket to wear.

On a bright, sunny day, I don't think they're at all necessary, although I don't tend to wear all-black tights and long sleeved top without a brightly coloured gilet on top. I figure there's no point in giving drivers that excuse to claim they didn't see me. I do recall one occasion when I was running on the coast path near Lands End in my hiviz windproof jacket, and 2 walkers ignored their dog while it ran after me and jumped all over me. Their excuse was, "Sorry, we didn't see you."

When I rode in the dark, which I don't do any more because I don't have to, I didn't worry particularly much about what I was wearing, but my bike was lit up like a Christmas tree. If a car coming the other way flashed its lights at me (presumably to tell me I hadn't dipped mine) I took that as a good indication that they were bright enough.


----------



## Recycler (3 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> PS the "greater distance myth" for Hi Viz is bizarrely only shown in interviews with cyclists. Car drivers do not have the same opinion:


 
You give a highly selective part of that quote to make your case. The full Australian abstract http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29579/ reads:



> This study explored the beliefs and attitudes of cyclists and drivers regarding cyclist visibility, use of visibility aids and crashes involving cyclists and motorists. Data are presented for 1460 participants (622 drivers and 838 cyclists) and demonstrate that there are high rates of cyclist–vehicle crashes, many of which were reported to be due to the driver not seeing the cyclist in time to avoid a collision_. A divergence in attitudes was also apparent in terms of attribution of responsibility in cyclist–vehicle conflicts on the road. While the use of visibility aids was advocated by cyclists, this was not reflected in self-reported wearing patterns, and cyclists reported that the distance at which they would be first recognised by a driver was twice that estimated by the drivers. _Collectively, these results suggest that *interventions should target cyclists’ use of visibility aids*, *which is less than optimal in this population**,* as well as re-educating both groups regarding visibility issues"_._


_ (my underline & bold)_

In other words they were saying that cyclists generally believe that Hi Viz improves visibility even though they don't always practise what they preach. It also suggest that intervention (i.e. education) should be aimed at cyclists as well as drivers. Put another way, the very quote you are giving is from a report which recommends that more needs to be done to encourage cyclists to wear Hi Viz!




Cunobelin said:


> Also interestingly a 2009 study in Australia showed that :


 
Nobody has suggested that Hi viz offers much at night. It won't. The fluorescence in Hi Viz only works in daylight because of the ultra violet which comes from sun light. It may be a little brighter in a cars headlights than, say, black but that will only be because of the yellow/orange colour rather than the fluorescence.
At night reflective strips take over in the visibility stakes.


----------



## smutchin (3 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Do you accept that Hi Viz generally offers greater visibility to the wearer in day light conditions?



No. 

d.


----------



## Poacher (3 Jun 2012)

I usually wear relatively hi-vis tops, not just because I feel it makes me slightly safer, but mainly because if the worst happens, a SMIDSY argument would fail spectacularly in any reasonable court.


----------



## Recycler (3 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> No..


 
In that case I see little point in continuing with you on this thread. You said earlier that 


> I'm not the one making claims about the effectiveness of hi-viz. I have made no claims either way


and you have now contradicted that. It's pointless trying to have a serious discussion whilst trying to nail jelly to a wall.
Bye.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> You give a highly selective part of that quote to make your case. The full Australian abstract http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29579/ reads:
> 
> _ (my underline & bold)_
> 
> In other words they were saying that cyclists generally believe that Hi Viz improves visibility even though they don't always practise what they preach. It also suggest that intervention (i.e. education) should be aimed at cyclists as well as drivers. Put another way, the very quote you are giving is from a report which recommends that more needs to be done to encourage cyclists to wear Hi Viz!


 

Not at all.

The anecdata quoted previously was that HiViz makes you more visible at a distance to motorists, I simply replied to that (speific) statement that drivers do not agree with this.

The unequivocal point is that there is an overestimation by cyclist of the increased visibility afforded by HIViz - or did you miss that?



> _While the use of visibility aids was advocated by cyclists, this was not reflected in self-reported wearing patterns, and _*cyclists reported that the distance at which they would be first recognised by a driver was twice that estimated by the drivers.*


 
Nothing selective, underhand or devious. Just a sim0le point disproving anecdata offered.



Recycler said:


> Nobody has suggested that Hi viz offers much at night. It won't. The fluorescence in Hi Viz only works in daylight because of the ultra violet which comes from sun light. It may be a little brighter in a cars headlights than, say, black but that will only be because of the yellow/orange colour rather than the fluorescence.
> At night reflective strips take over in the visibility stakes.


 

Your assumpton is also flawed if you read the article.



> Data are presented for 1460 participants (622 drivers and 838 cyclists) and demonstrate that there are high rates of cyclist–vehicle crashes, many of which _*were reported*_ to be due to the driver not seeing the cyclist in time to avoid a collision_._


 
It is consistently proven by other studies that not looking, not seeing and failing to react appropriately is more likely to be the cause of accidents. Any claim that HIViz would have helped is not necessarily supported.
Another study backs this up....

Although again coming out is suppport of HIViz, thay recognised the failings..


> Trials of driver recognition have shown that cyclist and pedestrian use of fluorescent colors increases detection and recognition time by drivers,but, to our knowledge, *no observational or experimental studies have previously shown a reduction in rate of bicycle crashes.*


 
They also concluded that other effects and measures were of similar importance



> On the basis of these results, combined with the well-established phenomenon of “safety in numbers”, we suggest that a common mechanism of collisions may be the failure of motorists to perceive and respond to cyclists. Cyclists able to “mimic” cars—by virtue of increased speed and size—may be more likely to be recognized by motorists and therefore avoided. Use of fluorescent colors may “shock” drivers’ perceptual systems into seeing cyclists who would have been missed otherwise. If this is true, transport planning that seeks to integrate, as much as possible, motor vehicles and bicycles, and hence increase the familiarity of cyclists to car drivers, may have a beneficial effect on the risk of a crash and injury.


 
Road positioning, size of rider and speed were all of importance iwth a large fast rider acting "assertively" also increased the visibility.


----------



## Recycler (3 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> .


 
Would you give either a link or state the source of those quotes?


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jun 2012)

*Conspicuity and bicycle crashes: preliminary findings of the Taupo Bicycle Study*


http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/14/1/11.full


----------



## Recycler (3 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/14/1/11.full


 


> The key finding of this study is the strong link found between cyclist conspicuity and bicycle crashes. An eightfold reduction in days absent from work was observed between “never” and “always” wearers of fluorescent colors. Greater average speed and increased body mass index, exposures that may relate to conspicuity, were also associated with reduced rate of injury outcomes.
> *Key points*
> 
> 
> ...


Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?
If we are we can then move onto the question of H&S assessments which you raised earlier.


----------



## smutchin (3 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> you have now contradicted that.



Oh no I haven't!

I haven't made any claims about hi-viz myself. All I've said is that I reject your claims on the basis of a lack of compelling evidence. I'm a sceptic, that's all. 



> It's pointless trying to have a serious discussion whilst trying to nail jelly to a wall.
> Bye.



Yay! I win!

d.


----------



## smutchin (3 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> *Conspicuity and bicycle crashes: preliminary findings of the Taupo Bicycle Study*
> 
> 
> http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/14/1/11.full



I'm no Ben Goldacre but that triggers a few alarm bells - most significantly, the fact that it's a web survey of a self-selecting group of respondents...

They also seem to be a little vague about their definition of "crash" - as far as I can tell from a superficial reading, they don't specify that they mean incidents where a cyclist was knocked off by a motorist who claimed not to have seen them. For all I know, their definition of "crash" may well include incidents where no motor vehicle was involved at all. 

d.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?


 
The simple and incontrovertible fact is that HiViz is not the complete answer




> If we are we can then move onto the question of H&S assessments which you raised earlier.


 
..... As before, ASDA's H&S assessment is tha their staff need to wear HiViz in the car park... should shoppers?

Cyclists are individuals with the right to decide for themselves.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> I'm no Ben Goldacre but that triggers a few alarm bells - most significantly, the fact that it's a web survey of a self-selecting group of respondents...
> 
> They also seem to be a little vague about their definition of "crash" - as far as I can tell from a superficial reading, they don't specify that they mean incidents where a cyclist was knocked off by a motorist who claimed not to have seen them. For all I know, their definition of "crash" may well include incidents where no motor vehicle was involved at all.
> 
> d.


 
As I pointed out above, most of these studies simply assume tha ALL incidents would be prevented by HiViz when it is not the case.

The other flaw in the Tapau study is to fail to link the cyclist skill and cycle usage with HiViz. If all those weraing HiVIZ "always" are non-confident, intermittent , fair weather, casual users and those who "never wear" are dedicated all year rounders then that alone could explain the difference


----------



## Banjo (3 Jun 2012)

When that nutter in the lake district was going round shooting people fortunately the cyclist he tried to shoot was all in black and he missed.Which proves that wearing black is safer.

Or at least it would be in that situation.


----------



## smutchin (3 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?.



Their conclusion is that cyclists who wear hi-viz spend fewer days off work due to cycling related injuries but it's hard to see where they have established a causal link between those facts. 

There also seems to be a rather dubious assumption about conspicuity being a causal factor in the reported incidents. (ETA: as per Cunobelin's comments.)

d.


----------



## Recycler (3 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The simple and incontrovertible fact is that HiViz is not the complete answer.


 
Nobody has even hinted that it is the complete answer. It has, however, been suggested that it is part of the answer.

My question was "Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?"
The two reports that you have raised suggest that it is but I am trying to establish if you are able to concede that point.

Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?
Yes or No?


----------



## smutchin (3 Jun 2012)

Using a bigger hammer won't make the jelly stick. 

d.


----------



## Banjo (3 Jun 2012)

All joking aside when you refer to High Viz does that neccecarilly mean commercial type stuff as worn on building sites etc or just any light brightly coloured clothing?

I would hate to go round disguised as Bob the builder but usually opt for light bright colours for cycling tops.


----------



## Recycler (3 Jun 2012)

Banjo said:


> All joking aside when you refer to High Viz does that neccecarilly mean commercial type stuff as worn on building sites etc or just any light brightly coloured clothing?.


 
Hi Viz is usually taken to mean that it is flourescent.(i.e. it fluoresces in UV light)

Bob the builder usually has yellow, but it can be orange or red. It may be possible to have other colours but, IIRC blue does not work very well. AFAIK green usually ends up as a lime green rather than a a deep British Racing Green. Strictly speaking Hi Viz will mean that it is both flourescent and that it has reflective material on it. I hope that nobody is saying that reflective material is ineffective.

FWIW The Highway Code recomends light coloured or flourescent clothing. My personal preference is flourescent but. No, I don't wear Bob the builder jackets when I'm on the bike. There's plenty of proper cycling gear available which does the job and seems fine to me; though I fully accept that it is a matter of personal taste.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Nobody has even hinted that it is the complete answer. It has, however, been suggested that it is part of the answer.
> 
> My question was "Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?"
> The two reports that you have raised suggest that it is but I am trying to establish if you are able to concede that point.
> ...


 
Lets rephrase that...

Do you agree that as part of a holistic approach to cyclist safety including awareness training for drivers, and training for cyclists to allow them to ride more safely, then HIViz may offer a safety benefit to cyclists.


----------



## Recycler (3 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Lets rephrase that...
> 
> Do you agree that as part of a holistic approach to cyclist safety including awareness training for drivers, and training for cyclists to allow them to ride more safely, then HIViz may offer a safety benefit to cyclists.


 
OK. Rephrase accepted.
Can you accept that, on that basis, it is probably better that cyclists wear Hi Viz than something else?


----------



## Banjo (3 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Hi Viz is usually taken to mean that it is flourescent.(i.e. it fluoresces in UV light)
> 
> Bob the builder usually has yellow, but it can be orange or red. It may be possible to have other colours but, IIRC blue does not work very well. AFAIK green usually ends up as a lime green rather than a a deep British Racing Green. Strictly speaking Hi Viz will mean that it is both flourescent and that it has reflective material on it. I hope that nobody is saying that reflective material is ineffective.
> 
> FWIW The Highway Code recomends light coloured or flourescent clothing. My personal preference is flourescent but. No, I don't wear Bob the builder jackets when I'm on the bike. There's plenty of proper cycling gear available which does the job and seems fine to me; though I fully accept that it is a matter of personal taste.


 
Thanks for that.


----------



## Norm (3 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> No, I don't wear Bob the builder jackets when I'm on the bike.


More anecdata, when I wear a "builder's vest" on the bike, I _believe_ that I get more room from WVM and goods vehicles.

I don't know why this is, of course, but my guess is that's because they see someone wearing that sort of hi-viz as "one of us who happens to be on a bike", whereas someone wearing a hi-viz cycling jacket is "one of them".


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> OK. Rephrase accepted.
> Can you accept that, on that basis, it is probably better that cyclists wear Hi Viz than something else?


 
I can accept that idf someone feels that their training, experience and road skills reduce their risk then they achieve a similar reduction in risk.

A novice might benefit from HIViz, but they could also benefit from a whole range of other interventions.

I still stand that cyling should not and does not "need" specialist clothing.


----------



## Norm (3 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I still stand that cyling should not and does not "need" specialist clothing.


+1. And also, looping back to the original question, black gear is not, IMO, dangerous.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jun 2012)

The "omnipotent" power of HiViz is overestimated. Even the Metropolitan Police recognise this...



> If a person wearing the most highly rated hi-viz apparel walks under a streetlight, reflection from the stripes will be virtually unseen by people at ground level. The streetlight will obviously illuminate the person, but the reflective stripes won’t reflect back the light. The observation angle far exceeds 3 degrees. While demonstrating this phenomenon, the one thing that can often be seen reflecting back at ground level are the shiny surfaces of an officer’s metal badge!
> 
> A person standing in a dark, shadowy area while wearing a hi-viz vest would appear nearly as dark as his surroundings.


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I can accept that idf someone feels that their training, experience and road skills reduce their risk then they achieve a similar reduction in risk.
> 
> A novice might benefit from HIViz, but they could also benefit from a whole range of other interventions.
> 
> I still stand that cycling should not and does not "need" specialist clothing.


 
That strikes me as a somewhat patronising view of novices but I have read similar comments elsewhere to the effect that Hi Viz = Novice. Frankly, I think it is nonsense which appears to just be based on a dislike of the aesthetics more than anything else.

I also think that it is naive to suggest that experience, road skills and training alone will be enough to save a cyclist from a driver who is not observing things as diligently as he should. Those things will, of course, help but road craft alone will not increase conspicuity as much as road craft + Hi Viz. To claim otherwise is simply ignoring the results of the very research that you were quoting earlier........an 8 times reduction in days of work amongst the wearers of Hi Viz.

I agree that cycling does not "need" specialist clothing. It doesn't need lycra, it doesn't "need" special shoes, jerseys, glasses, jerseys, jackets or gloves.....but they can all be useful. Funnily enough though, basic Hi viz is available for just a very few pounds.... far less than many on this site will spend on a jersey.

I stand by my view that Hi Viz has an important part to play in improving our safety. I would also argue, as you raised the subject earlier, that any properly conducted risk assessment by a cyclist would come to the conclusion that Hi Viz can only improve their safety. It is a "win-win" argument.

You are, of course, entitled to your view. My only concern is that others reading your comments may think that, if they wear Hi Viz, then they are identifying themselves as novices and are therefore not "real" cyclists. That is arrant nonsense.


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The "omnipotent" power of HiViz is overestimated. Even the Metropolitan Police recognise this...


 
Once more you are misrepresenting unattributed quotes. (Incidently, are you sure that it comes from the Metropolitan Police Force? It looks to me to come from Hendon Publishing in Illinois, USA. http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=207033)

Nobody has suggested that the fluorescent part of Hi Viz gear has any effect at night.

And, No, reflective strips will have no effect in the situation which is described in that quote. However, that is all but irrelevant for the safety of cyclists. Reflective strips, or more correctly retro-reflective strips, work by reflecting light back in the direction from whence it came. In other words, if your car headlights pick up the retro-reflective strips on a cyclist, then that light is reflected back at you. It is the same principle which is used on number plates, street signs, cats-eyes or even white lines on the road.

If a cyclist is lurking in a doorway and is being observed from across the road then he will be no more visible than if he was wearing an old trench coat. But, if the cyclist, as is more likely, is on the road then, when a cars headlights shine on him the reflective strips on his clothing will highlight his presence to the car driver. You must have seen this when you have been in a car.

If you want to understand how reflective strips work then I'll happily go into more detail tomorrow.....I earned my living with the stuff for many years.

I'm off to bed now. Good Night.


----------



## marzjennings (4 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> OK. Rephrase accepted.
> Can you accept that, on that basis, it is probably better that cyclists wear Hi Viz than something else?


No not at all. Hi Viz may make your presence made earlier to the observant driver, but the observant driver is going to see you anyway. It's the unobservant driver, not paying attention, texting or on the phone who needs to be made aware of the cyclist on the road and for them Hi Viz is not going to help. 
Plus given the fact that most collisions with cyclist happen in the short distance, at junctions, sharp bends, drive ways where the cyclist may only appear in the driver's peripheral field of view and where most of us are unable discern colour, then wearing something orange, yellow, red or black doesn't make any difference.
The best thing is flashing white and red lights front and rear to hopefully identify your position on the road or ride with the knowledge you're invisible to most drivers.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

marzjennings said:


> The best thing is flashing white and red lights front and rear to hopefully identify your position on the road or ride with the knowledge you're invisible to most drivers.


 
This is why HiViz is so laughable.

I have 3,000 lumens of lights atthe front of the trike, and 300 at the back.

If they can't see those (and some don't) then HiViz is pointless


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Once more you are misrepresenting unattributed quotes. (Incidently, are you sure that it comes from the Metropolitan Police Force? It looks to me to come from Hendon Publishing in Illinois, USA. http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=207033)
> 
> Nobody has suggested that the fluorescent part of Hi Viz gear has any effect at night.
> 
> ...


 



...and yes it was the Met. In 2010-2011 there were changes to the regulations that apply to HiViz and the US experience was one of those quoted as being pertinent to the decisions. The same arguments existed along with the slightly different concerns over an increasingly paramilitary style of uniform

However once again the stated limitations on efficiency of HiViz are unequivocal. Dismiss it as "misrpresentation" if you find it easier than recognising the facts, but it won't make it any more visible in dark areas no matter how much you wish it to be so, and will not help your narrow agenda.



(By the way will you be adding biomobilty to your explanation of refectives and how studies have shown that ankle and wrist reflectives are more efficient than HiViz jackets?)


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

marzjennings said:


> No not at all. Hi Viz may make your presence made earlier to the observant driver, but the observant driver is going to see you anyway. It's the unobservant driver, not paying attention, texting or on the phone who needs to be made aware of the cyclist on the road and for them Hi Viz is not going to help.
> Plus given the fact that most collisions with cyclist happen in the short distance, at junctions, sharp bends, drive ways where the cyclist may only appear in the driver's peripheral field of view and where most of us are unable discern colour, then wearing something orange, yellow, red or black doesn't make any difference.
> The best thing is flashing white and red lights front and rear to hopefully identify your position on the road or ride with the knowledge you're invisible to most drivers.


 
Yes, we've seen those arguments several times already but we are trying to support our different views with research, hard statistics and real evidence in this thread.

Can you provide the evidence to support your assertions?


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> ...and yes it was the Met. In 2010-2011


Do you have either a reference or the link to that? I'm interested to see what the change in regulations was.




Cunobelin said:


> (By the way will you be adding biomobilty to your explanation of refectives and how studies have shown that ankle and wrist reflectives are more efficient than HiViz jackets?)


Yes, biomobility aids conspicuity but I think it is probably muddying the water to add yet another aspect to a discussion which is mainly about the pro's and con's of Hi Viz per se.. I'm not sure that it is specifically more efficient than jackets, rather than a useful addition. Which studies are you referring to?

FWIW Biomobility is not necessarily on just ankles and wrists. Wrists provide little biomobility (except in the important case when hand signals are being made). Biomobility is also achieved by the reflectors on pedals.....which is probably why it is compulsory on new bikes.

But I do agree. Biomobility is a useful benefit of the Hi Viz provided by reflectors at night.



Cunobelin said:


> but it won't make it any more visible in dark areas no matter how much you wish it to be so, and will not help your narrow agenda.


Do you understand how the interaction between car headlights and reflective materials works? I suspect from that comment that you simply don't understand it.


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> This is why HiViz is so laughable.
> 
> I have 3,000 lumens of lights atthe front of the trike, and 300 at the back.
> 
> If they can't see those (and some don't) then HiViz is pointless


 
So you are arguing that we need do nothing to improve our visibility because the problem is that drivers simply don't look properly but at the same time you light yourself up like a christmas tree so that they can see you?.
Do you see the contradiction?

Perhaps you just don't like Hi Viz and are trying to rationalise that belief? There's nothing wrong with that other than the fact that you may persuade others to not wear Hi Viz when perhaps they would benefit by using it.


----------



## RAYMOND (4 Jun 2012)

Yes if your cycling in the dark.

No if your cycling during the daylight hours.
If a vehicle driver can't see a object (cyclist) in front of them then they shouldn't be on the road with there eyesight.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

We could try the Dft and their work..

38% of accidents involving vehicles had failing to look as a contributory factor and 17% failing to correctly assess speed or path, followed by another 8% where the driver was too close.

How does HiViz help in this 63% of incidents?


----------



## Alun (4 Jun 2012)

RAYMOND said:


> If a vehicle driver can't see a object (cyclist) in front of them then they shouldn't be on the road with there eyesight.


 No they shouldn't, but they are, so you have to act accordingly.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> So you are arguing that we need do nothing to improve our visibility because the problem is that drivers simply don't look properly but at the same time you light yourself up like a christmas tree so that they can see you?.
> Do you see the contradiction?
> 
> Perhaps you just don't like Hi Viz and are trying to rationalise that belief? There's nothing wrong with that other than the fact that you may persuade others to not wear Hi Viz when perhaps they would benefit by using it.


 
You are again making what is posted fit your own agenda

Let me make this really really simples.

The reason I use lights on my bike, incredible though it may seem is to see the roads and paths ahead of me!!!!!!!!!

Your fixation is becoming tedious.

HiViz does not work in the majority of situations where driver complacency, misjudgement or failure to take simple steps is involved.As for the ridiculous statement:



> Perhaps you just don't like Hi Viz and are trying to rationalise that belief? There's nothing wrong with that other than the fact that you may persuade others to not wear Hi Viz when perhaps they would benefit by using it.


 
It is called informed choice and is only an anathema to those who are so entrenched in an unproven and unprovable case.


----------



## Alun (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> We could try the Dft and their work..
> 
> 38% of accidents involving vehicles had failing to look as a contributory factor and 17% failing to correctly assess speed or path, followed by another 8% where the driver was too close.
> 
> How does HiViz help in this 63% of incidents?


Are you referring to table 7-6 of that document?


----------



## captain nemo1701 (4 Jun 2012)

Cycle clothing obviously follows the philosophy of Mr Ford and the saying that 'you can have any colour you like as long as it's black'. Still, Nightvision kit is pretty visible.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> Are you referring to table 7-6 of that document?


Yes.

There are some flaws in the compilation and whether reporting is complete, but it is an interesting analysis of the contributory factors when the vehicle is "at fault"


----------



## PK99 (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> We could try the Dft and their work..
> 
> 38% of accidents involving vehicles had failing to look as a contributory factor and 17% failing to correctly assess speed or path, followed by another 8% where the driver was too close.
> 
> *How does HiViz help in this 63% of incidents?*


 
38% of accidents involving vehicles had failing to look as a contributory factor : Hi viz may be more likely to be seen in peripheral vision

17% failing to correctly assess speed or path : The more visible a potential hazard the easier it is to track

8% where the driver was too close : when passing, cyclist is out of the forward cone of optimum vision and in peripheral vision, Hi viz may make the cyclists distance more apparent


----------



## psmiffy (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> This is why HiViz is so laughable.
> 
> I have 3,000 lumens of lights atthe front of the trike, and 300 at the back.
> 
> If they can't see those (and some don't) then HiViz is pointless


 
Anecdote time – I was driving along a very busy wide single carriageway in the dark the other morning and came across a cyclist with the most wonderful array of mutli lux lights (very bright rear lights - head and saddle height) – trouble is he was wearing black – it was impossible to distinguish his lights or him from the stream of traffic until the car immediately in front of me cleared him – being a good chap there was a very good gap between me and the vehicles in front so it was not a problem – however, most drivers do not leave that sort of gap.

Not long afterwards on the same piece of road I came across a hi-viz ninja – it was easy to pick him in the gaps in the traffic ahead of me due to the retro reflective nature of his hi – viz.

Hi-viz does work and so do lights – common sense is that in certain circumstances a combination of both is prudent. 

Personally unless visibility conditions are bad I do not wear hi viz in the daytime or for general urban cycling after dark - however if the visibility is marginal or the traffic is nasty then I do not hesitate to deploy it - certainly in the daytime in preference to lights – and after dark in conjunction with lights. Its horses for courses - not all situations or lighting conditions are the same.

And as an aside your comment that hi-viz is “laughable” decries both your intelligence – and that of the many cyclists and non-cyclists that know categorically that good quality hi-viz is an important tool in being safe on the roads.


----------



## Alun (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Yes.
> 
> There are some flaws in the compilation and whether reporting is complete, but it is an interesting analysis of the contributory factors when the vehicle is "at fault"


You have quoted the column headed fatal collisions/cars. The figures appear worse if you include other vehicles and/or non fatal collisions, however as the columns don't add up to 100 it is not so easy to see. I presume this is because there are sometimes more than 1 contributory factor.
In table 7-4 it shows" Cyclist wearing dark clothing at night" as a contributory factor in 10% of fatal accidents, I wondered what your take on that was?


----------



## Alun (4 Jun 2012)

1876034 said:


> Which is how? Remove yourself from the road?


I was thinking more along the lines of "defensive cycling" about which there are a number of articles on the web


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> We could try the Dft and their work..
> 
> 38% of accidents involving vehicles had failing to look as a contributory factor and 17% failing to correctly assess speed or path, followed by another 8% where the driver was too close.
> 
> How does HiViz help in this 63% of incidents?


 
As far as I can see, there is no measure in those stats about how many of those accidents were with cyclist who were/were not wearing Hi Viz. It may be that all those accidents were with people who wern't wearing Hi viz.......(.though I doubt I would be able to find such a convenient statistic!  ). I could even argue that around 63% of cyclists don't wear Hi viz....though that would be a disingenuous argument.

In this case, that report simply takes us no further as it doesn't really address the issue of Hi Viz..

It does however say that;


> the wearing of Hi Viz/reflective clothing may help reduce the risk of such accidents in the dark...


....but "may" doesn't help us much either.

I am intrigued that you seem so determined to diss Hi Viz, yet you tell us that you have lots of lumens on your bike. Do you use your lights in daylight. If so, why?

You still haven't been able to provide a reference or link to support your claim that your earlier quote really did come from the Metropolitan Police.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jun 2012)

When I ride in bright clothing, I am repeatedly not hit by countless other road users.

Last Thursday was my record. More motorists didn't hit me more times than on any equivalent ride (ceteris paribus) in similar conditions and in something not unlike the same visibility (inclement weather and/or precipitation notwithstanding).

In purely empirical terms, this is surely the proof of all proofs. 17% of the cars that failed to hit me were up to or at least German, if not more.

With my point now proved, it remains only for me to remember what my point was.

I challenge anyone to find a weakness in my argument that will alter my thinking.


----------



## Alun (4 Jun 2012)

1876088 said:


> All well and good but it doesn't help with the situation where the person just doesn't look.


What would you suggest then?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jun 2012)

Pristine Hi-Viz, brand new hybrid, wheel reflectors, helmet, riding on the pavement or on a segregated cycle path....

Certainly screams novice to me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> What would you suggest then?


a variety of approaches, from improved operator training, re-certification, through to machine confiscation via, for severe backsliders, cattle prods to the groin, designed to encourage the operators of dangerous machinery to take more care when doing so in shared public spaces....


----------



## Alun (4 Jun 2012)

1876102 said:


> Adopting HiViz is accepting the responsibility that correctly belongs with the driver, the dangerous party in the whole affair.


I don't disagree with you, I think it might be partly the reason for opposition to Hi-Viz amongst some here. Same could be said for the thing some cyclists wear on their heads.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jun 2012)

GregCollins said:


> a variety of approaches, from improved operator training, re-certification, through to machine confiscation via, for severe backsliders, cattle prods to the groin, designed to encourage the operators of dangerous machinery to take more care when doing so in shared public spaces....


 
I think this is unhelpfully harsh towards the cyclists it would affect. Many are quite attached to their cycles and would resent having them confiscated.


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The reason I use lights on my bike, incredible though it may seem is to see the roads and paths ahead of me.!!!!!!!!!


 
Really? I use my lights for that too.
...............I also use my front light so that people can see me coming, and my rear light so that they can see me going. I believe that being visible to other road users is helpful.



Cunobelin said:


> Your fixation is becoming tedious..


It would be better if you don't get into the realm of being personal in this discussion, so I will say no more on your comment than let's try to keep this civilised.



Cunobelin said:


> Hi Viz does not work in the majority of situations where driver complacency, misjudgement or failure to take simple steps is involved.As for the ridiculous statement:
> 
> It is called informed choice and is only an anathema to those who are so entrenched in an unproven and unprovable case.


 
I can only repeat that every single report which you have come up with has both recognised the need for, and suggested the promotion of Hi Viz. Nobody has said that it is the be-all and end-all. nobody has said that it will prevent all accidents. But I do believe that it is an important part the arsenal that we can deploy to make the sport safer for ourselves.

When, or if, we can come to an agreement on the effectiveness of Hi Viz then we can move onto the question of Risk Assessments which you raised earlier.


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> I presume this is because there are sometimes more than 1 contributory factor.


 
Yes, near the top of the column it says "Average CF's per driver" which it gives as 1.62 for that column.
I find that these reports can be heavy going on a Bank Holiday Monday.


----------



## Alun (4 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Yes, near the top of the column it says "Average CF's per driver" which it gives as 1.62 for that column.
> I find that these reports can be heavy going on a Bank Holiday Monday.


Yes, I'll be driving the BBQ this afternoon, so I might not have time to analyse them fully today.
Is Hi-Viz fire retardant?


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of "defensive cycling"


 I fully agree with that, but it won't surprise you when I say that Hi Viz can also be part of my defence mechanisms.


----------



## smutchin (4 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> To claim otherwise is simply ignoring the results of the very research that you were quoting earlier........an 8 times reduction in days of work amongst the wearers of Hi Viz.



Are you able to address my concerns about how that study was carried out? If not, its findings are not to be trusted. 



> I stand by my view that Hi Viz has an important part to play in improving our safety.



You are, of course, entitled to your view. My only concern is that others reading your comments may think that they are based on genuine scientific evidence. That is arrant nonsense. 

d.


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> Is Hi-Viz fire retardant?


 
It must be. Firefighters always wear it when they are working on the roads and, as it doesn't do anything for their visibility, they must wear it for some reason.


----------



## smutchin (4 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> With my point now proved, it remains only for me to remember what my point was.



"Studies have shown that people called Boris are less likely to be involved in road traffic accidents."

d.


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> Are you able to address my concerns about how that study was carried out? If not, its findings are not to be trusted. .


 
Sorry, I'm beginning to lose track of this thread. Which of your posts was that in?




smutchin said:


> You are, of course, entitled to your view. My only concern is that others reading your comments may think that they are based on genuine scientific evidence. That is arrant nonsense. d.


 
Ummm. At risk of repeating it


> The key finding of this study is the strong link found between cyclist conspicuity and bicycle crashes. An eightfold reduction in days absent from work was observed between “never” and “always” wearers of fluorescent colors. Greater average speed and increased body mass index, exposures that may relate to conspicuity, were also associated with reduced rate of injury outcomes.​*Key points*​​
> Low cyclist conspicuity may increase the rate of crash-related injury.
> Increased use of high-visibility clothing by cyclists is likely to reduce injury.
> Low average cyclist speed and low body mass index may also increase the rate of crashes.
> Days off work due to a bicycle crash injury may provide a useful outcome for assessing risk factors for bicycle crashes that involve motor vehicles.


I'm just surprised that you seem unwilling to accept the findings of one of the very reports which you brought to the table.

_Edit. Sorry. Just realised that it wasn't you that raised that research. But the point remains. It does seem to provide some sort of properly researched support of Hi viz. Don't you think?_


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1876189, member: 45"]Rear and flashing front lights?[/quote]
Trouble maker!

In my view, very helpful, with the proviso that flashing headlights on rural roads at night are probably not a good idea. Nothing to support that, but FWIW it is my view. But let's keep lights out of this thread, my poor brain can't take it all!

Which part of North Somerset are you? I'm near Frome.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> You have quoted the column headed fatal collisions/cars. The figures appear worse if you include other vehicles and/or non fatal collisions, however as the columns don't add up to 100 it is not so easy to see. I presume this is because there are sometimes more than 1 contributory factor.


 
I was keeping it simple... 63% makes my point.



> In table 7-4 it shows" Cyclist wearing dark clothing at night" as a contributory factor in 10% of fatal accidents, I wondered what your take on that was?


 
A culmination of factors including education. HiViz may improve cycle safety, but as in the previous evidence, rider position and actions are as important. I would be more worried about the ones entering the road from the pavement, or other factors. HiViz as a single, one stop panacea does not work, and the wider issues MUST be addressed.


----------



## PK99 (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> . HiViz as a single, one stop panacea does not work, and the wider issues MUST be addressed.


 

Has anyone suggested that this is the case? - It seems to me you are arguing against a straw man of your own invention


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

PK99 said:


> 38% of accidents involving vehicles had failing to look as a contributory factor : Hi viz may be more likely to be seen in peripheral vision
> 
> 17% failing to correctly assess speed or path : The more visible a potential hazard the easier it is to track
> 
> 8% where the driver was too close : when passing, cyclist is out of the forward cone of optimum vision and in peripheral vision, Hi viz may make the cyclists distance more apparent


 
Absoulutely love this..... now lets look at the contributory factors where the cyclist was "to blame"

Failure to look is at 31%, is the remedy therefore HIViz cars to improve this, after all the cars would be more visible in peripheral vision if they were HiViz?

Failing to judge speed or path is at 15%, once again is HiViz for cars the answer, as a really bright car would be easier to track?

Surely if (as a road user) it is up to the cyclist to improve their visibility to prevent these incidents then the same responsibility must be on all road users?


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

PK99 said:


> Has anyone suggested that this is the case? - It seems to me you are arguing against a straw man of your own invention


 
You asked my opinion on a particular circumstance. I replied... any claims you wish to make about that are your own.


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Absoulutely love this..... now lets look at the contributory factors where the cyclist was "to blame"
> 
> Failure to look is at 31%, is the remedy therefore HIViz cars to improve this, after all the cars would be more visible in peripheral vision if they were HiViz?
> 
> ...


 
You seem to be ignoring the generally accepted SMIDSY phenomom that particulalry applies to both cyclists and motorbikes. Yes, it applies to cars as well, but less so. It is, however, a very, very real issue for us, which is why visibility is important for cyclists.
I hope that we can agree that SMIDSY's are of particular concern to cyclist. If we can't agree on that then there is no point in continuing.


----------



## Alun (4 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> I fully agree with that, but it won't surprise you when I say that Hi Viz can also be part of my defence mechanisms.


"Being seen" is mentioned in a lot of advice on cycling safety, so it doesn't surprise me at all.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (4 Jun 2012)

Ahem!, Here goes - 

<rantmode>

Trees, walls and street furniture don't have hi-viz, yet most people manage to not hit them.

When the overwhelming need of the newly qualified motorist isn't to lower the seat, fit a farty exhaust and drive one-handed while booming out the stereo, or put a big "I'm a butch businessman" fist at 12 o'clock and floor it, I'll believe that the guy on the bike is making a difference in road safety. If you had a neon sign with a big arrow saying "Hello? Can you see me in my pink dayglo feathered jockstrap??" half of these arses would still not see you through their incompetence/ego tinted glasses.

It's time for law enforcement, it's time to get draconian.

</rantmode>

Thankyou


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> You seem to be ignoring the generally accepted SMIDSY phenomom that particulalry applies to both cyclists and motorbikes. Yes, it applies to cars as well, but less so. It is, however, a very, very real issue for us, which is why visibility is important for cyclists.
> I hope that we can agree that SMIDSY's are of particular concern to cyclist. If we can't agree on that then there is no point in continuing.


 

SMIDSY is a misnomer is all too often really a case on SMIDGAF

No-one is ignoring anything.......

If a driver fails to look they will not see or act... HiViz does not and cannot address that issue!


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Ahem!, Here goes -
> 
> <rantmode>
> 
> ...


 
In the New Forest they are campaigning for the Ponies to wear HiViz... you could not make it up!


----------



## PK99 (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> SMIDSY is a misnomer is all too often really a case on SMIDGAF
> 
> !


 
not true - I'm a cyclist and do GAF but almost hit a motorcyclist a few years ago. I'm coming out of an urban t junction, all legs fully parked. suddenly i see approaching me from the right a guy on an old black scooter, wearing a black helmet and a long military/khaki greatcoat


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> In the New Forest they are campaigning for the Ponies to wear HiViz... you could not make it up!


 
Go on. I'll bite.
Let's see the reference.


----------



## psmiffy (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> In the New Forest they are campaigning for the Ponies to wear HiViz... you could not make it up!


 
Any good reasons for the ponies not to wear hi-viz - it is well proven that hi-viz reduces fatalities in quadrupeds


----------



## PK99 (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> In the New Forest they are campaigning for the Ponies to wear HiViz... you could not make it up!


 
you mean reflective neck collars to make the pony visible on unlit roads at night? = http://www.new-forest-national-park.com/new-forest-roads.html


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Trees, walls and street furniture don't have hi-viz, yet most people manage to not hit them.


 
Ahem!
In 2009 there were 2268 hospital admission of cyclists who had been injured in accidents with cars. In the same period there were 4682 admissions of cyclist who had been injured in accidents which involved no vehicles. ( Source: Table 6a; DfT Reported Road Casualties Great britain 2009. Office of National Statistics)

(As an aside; for some reason the figures also seem to indicate that if a cyclist comes off his bike on his own, then he is less likely to call plod!)

Nobody is saying that Hi Viz is needed on trees and walls, but the figures indicate that, as cyclists, we aren't always doing ourselves a favour.


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

psmiffy said:


> Any good reasons for the ponies not to wear hi-viz - it is well proven that hi-viz reduces fatalities in quadrupeds


 
Yes, it's worked for Cats for years.
The first use of Hi Viz was named after mogy's eyes!


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

Of course there is always the local experience......

Gosport has a fairly high cycling rate (used the be the third highest in the UK )

Yet we do not have the highest accident rate, despite a late part of the population cycling in camouflage!


----------



## PK99 (4 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Of course there is always the local experience......
> 
> Gosport has a fairly high cycling rate (used the be the third highest in the UK )
> 
> Yet we do not have the highest accident rate, despite a late part of the population cycling in camouflage!


 
as oft used in a different cycling debate : Anecdote is not evidence


----------



## Recycler (4 Jun 2012)

PK99 said:


> as oft used in a different cycling debate : Anecdote is not evidence


 
Yup! We've gone a full circle.


Cunobelin said:


> Anecdata is simply not evidence in any form.


 
I'm going for a ride!


----------



## MacB (4 Jun 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> I drive to and from work in daylight and dark and i see many cyclists wearing black. Some even have no, or poor lights and some don't have any reflection on their clothing.


 
While I'll concede that poor/absent lighting is unwise I'm unsure as to what your overall issue is here.

If you're able to see the cyclists well enough to complain about them then you can see them well enough to not hit them.


----------



## PK99 (4 Jun 2012)

MacB said:


> While I'll concede that poor/absent lighting is unwise I'm unsure as to what your overall issue is here.
> 
> *If you're able to see the cyclists well enough to complain about them then you can see them well enough to not hit them*.


 

he has seen some of the ninja cyclists but no one knows if he has seen them all


----------



## MacB (4 Jun 2012)

PK99 said:


> he has seen some of the ninja cyclists but no one knows if he has seen them all


 
It is bizarre as broken down this argument can amount to:-

the rest of the world needs to follow a strict code of behaviour at all times so that I can drive with as little attention as possible


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

PK99 said:


> as oft used in a different cycling debate : Anecdote is not evidence


 
In which case the post has achieved it's purpose.

We can dismiss all the anecdotes?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I think this is unhelpfully harsh towards the cyclists it would affect. Many are quite attached to their cycles and would resent having them confiscated.


In a word; tough.

If operators can't operate their equipment safely in a public space then the powers that be should take it off 'em.


----------



## mickle (4 Jun 2012)

You never see dutch or german cyclists in hiviz.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jun 2012)

mickle said:


> You never see dutch or german cyclists in hiviz.


 
No... you just never see Dutch or German cyclists.

How can you? They're not wearing Hi-Viz!

Do you see what I did there?

Sorry.... I'll just leave.


----------



## mickle (4 Jun 2012)

Earlier the strap of my Birkenstocks caught on the ankle loop of my winter leggings which are stored under the bed, nearly tripping me. I might easily have smashed my brains out on the bedstead. And died. 

The colour of my leggings?

Yes, you guessed it, 

Black.


----------



## Crackle (4 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> No... you just never see Dutch or German cyclists.
> 
> How can you? They're not wearing Hi-Viz!
> 
> ...


 
Until you can pluck the HiViz argument from the thread, Grasshopper, you can't leave....


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> No... you just never see Dutch or German cyclists.
> 
> How can you? They're not wearing Hi-Viz!
> 
> ...


 

Very dangerous though...


----------



## sonssu (7 Jun 2012)

I'd wear black and white (and preferrably some other color added like this) rather than all-black..


----------



## defy-one (7 Jun 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Very dangerous though...



Beautiful!

Sent from my GT-I9100


----------



## Randonneur (30 May 2017)

Ian Cooper said:


> Black clothing is not dangerous to wear on a bike unless you're actively trying to camouflage yourself. Just last night I saw a cyclist dressed all in black with no lights in the dark, yet he was fairly easy to spot because the streetlights lit him up fairly nicely against the grey road. Of course, in a dark alley, he would have blended in quite suicidally.
> 
> If you want to be seen, wear a reflective vest and make sure your front and rear lights are working. As long as you have those, you can't be faulted (even in the court of anti-cyclist public opinion) for anything else you wear.
> 
> As for cycling in the dark, I avoid it. Birds don't fly in the dark, and I think they might be onto something..



The clothing for cycling has developed over the years to become florescent yellow or bright colours. The National Cycle Training Scheme requires cyclists to wear bright colours. In addition to all this in the event of an accident one thing the police consider is was the cyclist wearing bright clothing. 
Why then does anyone 1. consider that they look cooler on a bike by wearing black. 2. wear black.
When I am driving the cyclist with bright clothing is seen, and the ones wearing grey/black etc. are usually merged into the background greys of the road, trees etc.
Don't know why anyone chooses to wear black when on a bike, its such a stupid choice, too late to claim the motorist should have seen me.


----------



## Inertia (31 May 2017)

Zombie thread. Is there any evidence that the colour of clothing makes any difference?


----------



## ufkacbln (31 May 2017)

Inertia said:


> Zombie thread. Is they any evidence that the colour of clothing makes any difference?


Indirectly?

There is evidence that many accidents are caused by the failure to "See" (as in looking, but not registering what is there) and even when seen the actions are inappropriate.

In this large sample of accidents, Colour would have no effect


----------



## Drago (31 May 2017)

The SAS go into an embassy wearing black, yet they're the only ones that come out alive. Good enuff for me.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 May 2017)

Drago said:


> The SAS go into an embassy wearing black, yet they're the only ones that come out alive. Good enuff for me.



But they iz proper NInja's ... like?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (31 May 2017)

Team Sky race in black and they've always been invisible. Froome was felt to have such an unfair stealth advantage they made him wear a yellow jersey in the last Tour de France.


----------



## Drago (31 May 2017)

All the good people who wear black:

Ozzy Osbourne.

The SAS.

Satan.

All the dodgy people who wear clothing with colour:

Dale Winton.

Jeremy Corblimey.

Rolf Harris.

Case closed, Your Honour.


----------



## subaqua (31 May 2017)

User said:


> Sounds like you need to stop driving.



we should ban black cars as well then . if black is such a dangerous "absence of colour"


----------



## jefmcg (31 May 2017)

subaqua said:


> we should ban black cars as well then . if black is such a dangerous "absence of colour"


No, ban those silver ones that are everywhere. They are nearly the same colour as the road, and really do blend in during a rain storm.


----------



## Bollo (31 May 2017)

I wear black on the outside because black is how I feel on the inside.


----------



## Jody (31 May 2017)

Randonneur said:


> ......too late to claim the motorist should have seen me.



Pedestrians wear black. Its not a legitimate defence for a motorist if they hit a person crossing the road.


----------



## Sixmile (31 May 2017)

'AH Ted, I've heard about these cults. People running around dressing in black, telling everyone what to do'
'No Dougal, that's us'

Sorry, but this is what came into my head reading this! I've a black Vulpine Hoy jersey that I've yet to debut but I generally wear red or yellow up top.


----------



## Jody (31 May 2017)

User said:


> What makes a person log on to a forum they only ever posted in once before four years ago, and resurrect a five year old thread?



Probably a motorist who bears a grudge decding they want to troll the cyclists for a bit of amusement.


----------



## jefmcg (31 May 2017)

User said:


> What makes a person log on to a forum they only ever posted in once before four years ago, and resurrect a five year old thread?


Well spotted.

I read the new post and my first reaction was "Welcome to CycleChat!". I was surprised to see he as an "active member"

Ah, this must be some new definition of active of which I was previously unaware.


----------



## Inertia (31 May 2017)

User said:


> What makes a person log on to a forum they only ever posted in once before four years ago, and resurrect a five year old thread?


Usually one of their other accounts is about to get banned


----------



## jefmcg (31 May 2017)

Inertia said:


> Usually one of their other accounts is about to get banned


No, the posting above reeks of a newbies first visit to CC. It's not someone who has been causing trouble before, it's someone who has been muttering to themselves "idiot" whenever they see another cyclist in black.


----------



## Inertia (31 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> No, the posting above reeks of a newbies first visit to CC. It's not someone who has been causing trouble before, it's someone who has been muttering to themselves "idiot" whenever they see another cyclist in black.


I wasn't being entirely serious but it wouldn't be the first a long term absentee came back and and their first post be... provocative


----------



## jefmcg (31 May 2017)

Inertia said:


> I wasn't being entirely serious but it wouldn't be the first a long term absentee came back and and their first post be... provocative


Yes, I know. I wasn't being serious either. But I feel it's not provocative, just ignorant of the prevailing attitude on here. I think someone who had spent enough time here to be banned would have found a subtler way to be annoying.

Or just take the nuclear option, and mention h*lm*ts


----------



## Jody (31 May 2017)

User said:


> Possible but their other post was promoting a ride.



Nothing to say they were a cyclist. Could just be someone promoting a ride for profit

As you say it just seems odd to resurrect a 5 year old thread to air their opinion when they posted once 4 years ago.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 May 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> Hello, this is only my 3rd post and first week of reading all the many threads and posts on Cycle Chat so i don't know if it's been asked but does anyone agree with me that dark cycle clothing(not counting shorts)..black, grey etc is dangerous to wear?
> I drive to and from work in daylight and dark and i see many cyclists wearing black. Some even have no, or poor lights and some don't have any reflection on their clothing. As a cyclist i look out for other cyclists but some i don't see until i'm 20 yards or less away because they just aren't bright enough. I have many jerseys, plain and team ones, but i only wear flourescent ones, i want to be seen and i don't want to give some of those horrible motorists out there an excuse if they hit me that "he was wearing dark clothes, i couldn't see him"etc.
> I want to be seen hundreds of yards down the road, not at the last few seconds where it might be too late. So to those who wear black, why do you want to be the same colour as the road?



No it's not dangerous.

Cars are dangerous.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (31 May 2017)

Ignorance is dangerous, and not paying attention while on a road is dangerous, but there's nothing inherently dangerous about black clothing.


----------



## derrick (31 May 2017)

Inertia said:


> Zombie thread. Is there any evidence that the colour of clothing makes any difference?


NO. 
When my wife was hit she was lit up like a Christmas tree, fluorescent top, shoes. flashing side lights. solid rear light and a flashing front light, if drivers are not looking it does not matter what you wear.


----------



## jefmcg (31 May 2017)

User said:


> Good point, I hadn't considered that.


Um, it was an audax. Oh, and it didn't even have a website, just a link to a PDF on drop box.


----------



## ianrauk (31 May 2017)

subaqua said:


> we should ban black cars as well then . if black is such a dangerous "absence of colour"




I never see those black cars at night... bloody nuisance that they are there and I keep running into them.


----------



## Ajax Bay (31 May 2017)

Jody said:


> Could just be someone promoting a ride for profit





jefmcg said:


> Um, it was an audax. . . . it didn't even have a website,


Don't think it was for profit. Event still going 4 years on (8 July): link in Audax UK calendar.
Doesn't say anything about obligatory hi-viz in details, and mudguards are optional.


----------



## Globalti (31 May 2017)

A black-clad person stands out against a well-lit chaotic background just as well as somebody in flouro. The only time I would agree that black clothing is dangerous is at night, when it needs to be supplemented by lights and reflective materials. Will somebody tell that to the muppets on knackered mountain bikes (not cyclists) who swan around my nearby city centre dressed in black, no lights, with an air of defiance as they shoot across the main road in front of cars? It's almost as if they are daring a driver to take issue with them.


----------



## winjim (31 May 2017)

One of these days I'll tell you my hi-vis anecdote.


----------



## J1888 (31 May 2017)

winjim said:


> One of these days I'll tell you my hi-vis anecdote.



Go on, illuminate us


----------



## Drago (31 May 2017)

He wants to reflect on it first.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (31 May 2017)

The answer is in your OP

I drive to and from work in daylight and dark and i see many cyclists wearing black.

Clearly it works, as you see many of them!


----------



## Biff600 (31 May 2017)

I often wear black cycling gear....like some cycling ninja !!


----------



## Nigeyy (31 May 2017)

Well if it isn't illegal.....

But I'll be the first to say I wear a hi viz when I commute (during the day). To each their own but if there is some small chance that a motorist might see me because of it then I'm happy to take that chance. FWIW anecdotally I feel like there have been occasions where I think a motorist has noticed me as I cycle up to a junction because of the hi viz. Can't prove it mind you, but I have to think a moving bright day-glo orange blob has to help at times. It does seem at times there is a little bias towards it being "uncool", personally I'm at an age where I just don't care and wear what I think is best for me.

Interestingly when I buy a h%^met, I always want one that is a bright colour for the same reason -I remember some years ago it seemed like brightly coloured ones had completely gone out of fashion. Mind you, I do have a black one, but that's for off roading.

But to answer the OPs question: is it dangerous? I'm not sure it's dangerous by itself but I'd say it's safer to ride in more _noticeable_ colours.


----------



## Blue Hills (31 May 2017)

The best way to be seen by twats likely to pull out is the tactical high speed (or apparently high speed) wobble. Accelerate towards them, or appear to. The colour is irrelevant. As irrelevant as the colour of their car.


----------



## User33236 (31 May 2017)

I rode home dressed in a black helmet, half finger gloves, jersey, socks and shorts on an all black bike (sorry @vickster ) this evening. Was the only reason I survived my yellow (and black) shoes?


----------



## Blue Hills (31 May 2017)

tempted to make a waspish comment.


----------



## The Essex Spurs (31 May 2017)

This isn't so mad a comment.I work late in the evening and the lights in our town are switched off in certain locations to make up for Tory Cuts!!!
Once or twice black clad cyclists with no lights appear from nowhere and although I haven't yet had to take evasive action as a car driver I have worried about their safety especially those with no helmets!!!


----------



## Blue Hills (31 May 2017)

well the key factor is no lights isn't it?

anyone over the age of 8 who rides without lights is a nit


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 May 2017)

The Essex Spurs said:


> This isn't so mad a comment.I work late in the evening and the lights in our town are switched off in certain locations to make up for Tory Cuts!!!
> Once or twice black clad cyclists with no lights appear from nowhere and although I haven't yet had to take evasive action as a car driver I have worried about their safety especially those with no helmets!!!


from nowhere?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (31 May 2017)

No..


----------



## Blue Hills (31 May 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> from nowhere?


if they have no lights and it's dark of course they are appearing from nowhere.
From the point of view of any cyclist/car driver.


----------



## Slick (31 May 2017)

I must admit to cycling home in black shoes, grey shorts and black shirt. Not sure how I made it.


----------



## Dan B (31 May 2017)

The Essex Spurs said:


> This isn't so mad a comment.I work late in the evening and the lights in our town are switched off in certain locations to make up for Tory Cuts!!!
> Once or twice black clad cyclists with no lights appear from nowhere and although I haven't yet had to take evasive action as a car driver I have worried about their safety especially those with no helmets!!!


Are black-clad cyclists more likely to fall off and hit their heads then?


----------



## ufkacbln (31 May 2017)

[QUOTE 4823824, member: 259"]I fell over in Chelmsford wearing black, but I'd had 8 pints of Bishop's Nipple. I don't know if I was wearing a helmet, but it bloody thumped the morning after.[/QUOTE]

There are "beer jackets".... the ones that allow young men and women to walk around with unsuitable clothing in cold weather and insulate them form the cold

In the.same way there might be a "beer helmet" that protects you whilst when drunk


----------



## Banjo (31 May 2017)

Theres a guy cycles around where I live in camouflage gear which seems a little bit silly as that really is designed to blend in with a rural environment .

Here in the town he would be safer from snipers wearing plain black.


----------



## Banjo (31 May 2017)

Cunobelin said:


> There are "beer jackets".... the ones that allow young men and women to walk around with unsuitable clothing in cold weather and insulate them form the cold
> 
> In the.same way there might be a "beer helmet" that protects you whilst when drunk



I know that beer goggles can get you into all sorts of troubles.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 May 2017)

Blue Hills said:


> if they have no lights and it's dark of course they are appearing from nowhere.
> From the point of view of any cyclist/car driver.


If they have no lights and it is dark how can a driver see them?


----------



## Blue Hills (31 May 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If they have no lights and it is dark how can a driver see them?


Sorry grumpy. Don't understand your point. For of course I agree with it.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 May 2017)

Banjo said:


> Theres a guy cycles around where I live in camouflage gear which seems a little bit silly as that really is designed to blend in with a rural environment .
> 
> Here in the town he would be safer from snipers wearing plain black.



Try riding in somewhere like Gosport.... Used to have one of the highest cycling rates outside Cambridge and a large number in camouflage..... yet the accident rate did not reflect that


----------



## winjim (31 May 2017)

It was simpler times back in 2012.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 May 2017)

Brilliant one in the jokes thread form @User33236 



User33236 said:


> View attachment 354856


----------



## The Essex Spurs (31 May 2017)

Don't take this so lightly ladies and gentlemen certain areas of Witham are pitch black at night so making light of it is a bit amateurish.


----------



## Drago (31 May 2017)

Some kind of bike lights would surely be in order then?


----------



## The Essex Spurs (31 May 2017)

making light of it....oh dear a pun!!!


----------



## Tim Hall (31 May 2017)

The Essex Spurs said:


> Don't take this so lightly ladies and gentlemen certain areas of Witham are pitch black at night so making light of it is a bit amateurish.


Thankfully you're an alert driver with good lights and are aware of just how dark it is, so driving your car into unlit obstacles isn't an issue.


----------



## jefmcg (31 May 2017)

Banjo said:


> Theres a guy cycles around where I live in camouflage gear which seems a little bit silly as that really is designed to blend in with a rural environment .


----------



## classic33 (1 Jun 2017)

Banjo said:


> Theres a guy cycles around where I live in camouflage gear which seems a little bit silly as that really is designed to blend in with a rural environment .
> 
> Here in the town he would be safer from snipers wearing plain black.


Urban camouflage 1 or 2?


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jun 2017)

The Essex Spurs said:


> making light of it....oh dear a pun!!!



Did brighten the thread


----------

