# Hi-Vis OR Lights



## classic33 (20 Jul 2011)

Should hi-vis ever be used as a replacement/instead of lights for night time cycling. Is there any possible argument that due to street lighting, lights are not required?


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

NO!
Lights are what make you look like a vehicle and are only a good thing. Lights are also a legal requirement when cycling in darkness, where as you are not required to wear Hiviz
I personally think hiViz in cities is pointless as every Tom dick and Harry has it and you don't stand out.
My 3 front lights and 4 rear lights are working for me.


----------



## Keith Oates (20 Jul 2011)

I don't think that Hi Vis should be used as a replacement for lights but I do feel it's good additional protection to have. Out here a lot (almost all) of bikes do not have lights but they do have some Hi Viz and this is very good, particularly on moving parts like pedals, legs and wheels!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## classic33 (20 Jul 2011)

The person that got me asking the question feels that because he's wearing a hi-vis vest & the street lighting means he doesn't need lights. He passed me on his way to work about an hour ago, doing over 30, downhill, approaching roadworks.

Tried telling him, but he's of the opinion the vest is sufficient.


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

The reflective tape only reflects light from a certain angle, basically the light you shine at it is only shined back in the same plane it came from. So street lights don't reflect their lights to car drivers behind or in front of him.

So his real problem is with a car pulling out from a side road in front of him they will not get any benefit from the reflective material as their headlights are not shining on him. It will result in him having s collision and one he will have to accept part fault as he will have no lights.
He is a silly cyclist!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jul 2011)

Absolutely not. You might be seen if you're lucky - I passed an unlit cyclist on the A6 near Kettering last night (the bit without streetlights) around midnight, and I only spotted him because of his rear reflector and hi viz top - but you need to SHOUT your presence on the road. Good lights mean you stand out: a driver's attention is actively drawn to them, even if the driver is concentrating on the traffic approaching the side road 30 yards away, or whatever. Hi vis and reflectors rely on the driver happening to look in the right place.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jul 2011)




----------



## ClichéGuevara (20 Jul 2011)

What does he have against lights?


----------



## summerdays (20 Jul 2011)

Mind you it might depend on the light/state of the batteries ... some people I wonder why they bother attaching something that glows so dimly. I'm not saying that you need to have the most powerful light possible in cities - but that it should have a reasonable output and replace the batteries before they fade. I think they both have their place but if I was going to have one ... it would have to be a decent light.


----------



## downfader (20 Jul 2011)

The simple fact of the matter is that at night people LOOK for lights. They dont look for people.


----------



## PpPete (20 Jul 2011)

classic33 said:


> The person that got me asking the question feels that because he's wearing a hi-vis vest & the street lighting means he doesn't need lights. He passed me on his way to work about an hour ago, doing over 30, downhill, approaching roadworks.
> 
> Tried telling him, but he's of the opinion the vest is sufficient.



Muppetry of the highest order - can't help feeling that only (the almost inevitable) collision might be the only thing that knocks some sense into this person. Just hope he isn't too badly hurt in the process.


----------



## lit (20 Jul 2011)

Lights for me though I believe there are some benefits to hi viz but not when you have a high concentrate of it such as in London for example, it just tends to blend in.


----------



## pshore (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> I personally think hiViz in cities is pointless as every Tom dick and Harry has it and you don't stand out.



I know we were talking in the context of night time, but if you meant daytime, I disagree.

In towns or cities, HiViz works well during the day. On my motorcycle I get SMIDSY'd a lot more than on the bicycle, and when I put on HiViz the number of SMIDSY's is reduced significantly. Note, my m/c has lights on permanently - there is no off switch.

As a driver and cyclist around cities, again during the day, I have a few times not noticed a cyclist hidden behind car until the last second even though I am very used to looking for cycles. Hi Viz really helps here as it can be seen through windows, and sometimes just a glimpse of an elbow or shoulder in hi-viz is enough to get seen. It is about breaking up the outline of the car and standing out against that object, not other cyclists.

At night though, I agree, the _colour_ doesn't work.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (20 Jul 2011)

classic33 said:


> Should hi-vis ever be used as a replacement/instead of lights for night time cycling. Is there any possible argument that due to street lighting, lights are not required?



No and No

What use is hi-vis when you encounter a dozy driver who forgot to turn THEIR lights on - they are shining no light on you to be reflected back.


----------



## downfader (20 Jul 2011)

PpPete said:


> Muppetry of the highest order - can't help feeling that only (the almost inevitable) collision might be the only thing that knocks some sense into this person. Just hope he isn't too badly hurt in the process.



No. They'll probably give up cycling, concluding that its "too dangerous" completely failing to understand the given situation. 



pshore said:


> I know we were talking in the context of night time, but if you meant daytime, I disagree.
> 
> In towns or cities, HiViz works well during the day. On my motorcycle I get SMIDSY'd a lot more than on the bicycle, and when I put on HiViz the number of SMIDSY's is reduced significantly. Note, my m/c has lights on permanently - there is no off switch.
> 
> ...




I went the other way. I have up on the hiviz I'd been wearing since around 2000-01 and switched about 3 years back to just bright colours day and night (reflective strips in jacket, etc, but mostly rely on good lights at night and a few reflective bands on the bike).

I get less smidsy now than I did before.


----------



## tyred (20 Jul 2011)

I would use both but without a doubt, lights are the most important.


----------



## ianrauk (20 Jul 2011)

Hi Viz is not that effective at night anyway. Under sodium street lighting it just get's washed out just as normal colours do.
If he thinks he's safe cycling at night without lights then he's heading for a Darwin award.


----------



## I like Skol (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> The reflective tape only reflects light from a certain angle, basically the light you shine at it is only shined back in the same plane it came from. So street lights don't reflect their lights to car drivers behind or in front of him.




^^^^^^^ this is the right and scientific answer^^^^^^^^^

When I began commuting by bicycle I ordered an expensive hi-vis water proof with reflective strips as the nights began to draw in. To test it I pranced around my poorly lit street while my wife sat in our car watching. As suspected, she couldn't really see me very well until the reflective strips were directly within the lights beam pattern (which, considering properly adjusted headlights should shine no higher than hip level, isn't very good) and hi-viz is only hi-viz in broad daylight, something to do with using the UV element of daylight to enhance the brightness I think. At night under typical artificial light those bright yellow hi-vis garments are no more use than any other light coloured clothing.

I quickly returned my expensive cycle jacket and decided to stick with bright flashing lights to get noticed. Hi-vis is good during the day and reflectives are only good when they are in a direct light beam coming from the same direction as the viewers point of view.

Tell your mate he is an A1, 1st class, fully paid up, prize winning muppet!


----------



## jonny jeez (20 Jul 2011)

I only ever wear Hi viz in the rain or the dark. I accept that in the dark the soduim lights do wash everything with the same orage tint, but under car lights a high viz jacket does stand out. For that small reason, I opt to play the odds in my favour a little.

During the day (when some will say High viz works best) I opt not to wear it. 

I dont really know why.

My lights never come off the bike and I happily switch them on during the day if it gets a little overcast, starts to rain or the road becomes very empty and fast.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jul 2011)

There is a hiviz vest behind the white light on the right, and it has a similarly powerful light pointed at it:








This photo shows the same reflective jacket with illumination only from ambient light and the car at the t-junction. It's a fail:


----------



## Kestevan (20 Jul 2011)

classic33 said:


> Should hi-vis ever be used as a replacement/instead of lights for night time cycling. Is there any possible argument that due to street lighting, lights are not required?




The only possible argument for it is that it will eventually act as chlorine in the gene pool, and remove an idiot from the species.


----------



## jonny jeez (20 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> There is a hiviz vest behind the white light on the right, and it has a similarly powerful light pointed at it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You need to shine a headlight at that jacket to give a true comparrison. I do understand the chap that "feels" he stands out more in a hiviz jacket...as BM's shots show, the option with a light seems to add to the general light pollution (in a photo...not a moving light/image) and, at a junction could be dismissed as something else. That said, at a junction the car driver would not get the effect of hi viz as their lights would not be pointing in the right direction.

Self illumination is the key!...I tried it...looked a total plonker but got a few comments and tons of strange looks


----------



## GrasB (20 Jul 2011)

I'd concur with what jonny jeez said. Really we need 3, possibly 4 shots:
Hi-vis without a light directed at it
Hi-vis with light directed at it
Hi-vis with light directed at it plus a decent light.
No hi-vis with a decent light


----------



## PpPete (20 Jul 2011)

Kestevan said:


> The only possible argument for it is that it will eventually act as chlorine in the gene pool, and remove an idiot from the species.



My point exactly - just a little more forcefully put.


----------



## PpPete (20 Jul 2011)

GrasB said:


> I'd concur with what jonny jeez said. Really we need 3, possibly 4 shots:
> Hi-vis without a light directed at it
> Hi-vis with light directed at it
> Hi-vis with light directed at it plus a decent light.
> No hi-vis with a decent light





Define "decent light"


----------



## John the Monkey (20 Jul 2011)

classic33 said:


> The person that got me asking the question feels that because he's wearing a hi-vis vest & the street lighting means he doesn't need lights. He passed me on his way to work about an hour ago, doing over 30, downhill, approaching roadworks.
> 
> Tried telling him, but he's of the opinion the vest is sufficient.



Under streetlight, Hi Viz just looks sort of grey. Reflectives help some, but lights are better.

Hi Viz works nicely when the weather is murky (fog, mist) or daylight is still present but dim.


----------



## Jezston (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> NO!
> Lights are what make you look like a vehicle and are only a good thing. Lights are also a legal requirement when cycling in darkness, where as you are not required to wear Hiviz
> I personally think hiViz in cities is pointless as every Tom dick and Harry has it and you don't stand out.
> My 3 front lights and 4 rear lights are working for me.



While I agree that the bloke is a muppet (why does he refuse to use lights anyway? Does he have a phobia of them or something?) I disagree strongly about hivis being pointless.

Maybe on certain commuter routes in london the roads are awash with dayglo yellow, but in daylight - and particularly early morning or late evening where there is still daylight to catch the yellow but not dark enough to let lights really be visible, dayglo stands out like a beacon.

Another area where Gaz (and I believe BentMikey) and I disagree is the 'looking like a cyclist' thing. Hivis reflector panels give you a greater definition at night and make it clearer to other road users that you are a cyclist, and I feel this would mean them behaving more appropriately around you. I'm not keen on the 'wtf is that avoid it' approach as I fear that confusing other road users would lead to unpredictable and potentially dangerous behaviour.


----------



## tyred (20 Jul 2011)

I won't comment too much on urban areas but as a rural dweller who often drives/walks/cycles on pitch black roads, there is no doubt in my mind that hi-vis jacket makes people a lot more visible than they would otherwise be. But I consider it just more than that. It gives the person a shape as a human being. Something like the rear mudguard reflector on a bike caught in the car headlights can be very bright in the right set of circumstances, even if it's a fair distance away, but apart from telling you that there is something there, it gives little information as to what. It could be many things. A lot of people around here put red reflectors on the pillars at the end of their driveways. But if the cyclist is wearing a jacket with reflective strips, it instantly tells the driver that there is a person on the road.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jul 2011)

jonny jeez said:


> You need to shine a headlight at that jacket to give a true comparrison. I do understand the chap that "feels" he stands out more in a hiviz jacket...as BM's shots show, the option with a light seems to add to the general light pollution (in a photo...not a moving light/image) and, at a junction could be dismissed as something else. That said, at a junction the car driver would not get the effect of hi viz as their lights would not be pointing in the right direction.
> 
> Self illumination is the key!...I tried it...looked a total plonker but got a few comments and tons of strange looks



I am shining a headlight at that jacket in the picture with mboy shining the bright white light back at me. That first picture is designed to show how highviz (or rather the reflective portion) is mostly invisible behind a decent light.

That light would never be mistaken for general light pollution. It's often mistaken for a motorcycle, which can be slightly embarassing as a driver waits at a t-junction for ages when I'm approaching slowly uphill.


Here's one with only the high-vis jacket, and my shining the bright headlight towards it. It's decently visible now, but this is the best possible viewing of a high-vis jacket.


----------



## Davidc (20 Jul 2011)

When driving at night I've never had a near miss with a cyclist using properly working lights. I've had them with bikes with no lights or very poor lights. That applies with and without street lights. Hi-Viz (i.e. reflectives) helps in pitch darkness but in street lighting not much. Lights don't need to be very bright to be seen by a driver who's paying attention.

Like Gaz I use lots of lights, and they're bright. Only 3 at the back though, and usually only 2 at the front. I also wear reflective clothing and loads of 3M reflective products on the bike. If anyone hits me in the dark it's because they're blind/ asleep/ looking at something else/ on the phone.

The dynamo ones have negligible running costs, the battery ones (which I also use a lot in daylight) cost an estimated 1p per month to run the rechargeable batteries. If just one driver avoids hitting me during my lifetime because they've seen my lights then going to the trouble of lighting up the bike will have been worth it.

The suggestion in the OP is IMO insane.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jul 2011)

...and here's the shot with nothing other than ambient light. Neither of us has lights switched on and pointing towards each other.


----------



## HLaB (20 Jul 2011)

Hi vis is a perfect substitute for lights if the cyclists has a death wish and wants to expose other innocent folk to the trauma, muppet is about all that be said (nicely) about the bloke the OP talked to.


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

Jezston said:


> While I agree that the bloke is a muppet (why does he refuse to use lights anyway? Does he have a phobia of them or something?) I disagree strongly about hivis being pointless.
> 
> Maybe on certain commuter routes in london the roads are awash with dayglo yellow, but in daylight - and particularly early morning or late evening where there is still daylight to catch the yellow but not dark enough to let lights really be visible, dayglo stands out like a beacon.
> 
> Another area where Gaz (and I believe BentMikey) and I disagree is the 'looking like a cyclist' thing. Hivis reflector panels give you a greater definition at night and make it clearer to other road users that you are a cyclist, and I feel this would mean them behaving more appropriately around you. I'm not keen on the 'wtf is that avoid it' approach as I fear that confusing other road users would lead to unpredictable and potentially dangerous behaviour.


The bicycle makes you look like a cyclist. Not Hiviz.

I won't commet on the rest as my statement was about the topic at hand, the effectiveness of Hiviz at nightime.


----------



## TheBoyBilly (20 Jul 2011)

ClichéGuevara said:


> What does he have against lights?



It seems to me the two reasons for not using lights is a) it is seen by some as cool as not to, and b) the cost of the lights themselves.
Regardless of the legal arguments, it's NOT cool (quite the reverse as people look chavvish riding without 'em IMHO) and light's don't have to cost the earth - a £20 set will be easily good enough in town, and even a £10 set could save your life.
I got a set of Smart lights with my last bike purchase and can't believe how good they are for the RRP.
Anyone riding without lights is a numpty

Bill


----------



## gambatte (20 Jul 2011)

As has been said, lights are a legal requirement. Imagine the 1st time this guys knocked off his bike and he tries to claim damages against the car drivers insurance.....<*Insurance companies 'get out clause No 1' will be?*>

I don't tend to wear Hi viz. Not a conscious thing. I just don't really have anything. However the bike has 2 front and 2 rear lights. The bike also has 3M diamond grade reflective tape attached full length of the seat stays.

The 1st time I commuted with the tape I had a 'regular' catch me at the lights and comment about how far back he'd been able to see me.

TBH, I always think back to doing training for my motorbike test and the instructor saying to generally use the headlight all the time. Think about what you look like to someone coming out of a junction and what you can sensibly do to highlight your presence. 'Rights' are one thing, self preservation another.


----------



## jonny jeez (20 Jul 2011)

gambatte said:


> As has been said, lights are a legal requirement. Imagine the 1st time this guys knocked off his bike and he tries to claim damages against the car drivers insurance.....<*Insurance companies 'get out clause No 1' will be?*>



I've read stories on this forum of riders being "blamed" for collisions as they were not wearing high viz. The inference was that it was their fault that the driver didnt see them, as apposed to being the drivers thought for not looking properly.

So if the insurance is an argument then we should all wear high viz, have lights, reflectors on our wheels, helmets, fat tyres, reflective armbands and never ride more than 6" from the gutter.

Insurance companies are just looking for reasons not to pay out, they are not interested in your safety (assume the same rule for polititians)


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

jonny jeez said:


> I've read stories on this forum of riders being "blamed" for collisions as they were not wearing high viz. The inference was that it was their fault that the driver didnt see them, as apposed to being the drivers thought for not looking properly.
> 
> So if the insurance is an argument then we should all wear high viz, have lights, reflectors on our wheels, helmets, fat tyres, reflective armbands and never ride more than 6" from the gutter.
> 
> Insurance companies are just looking for reasons not to pay out, they are not interested in your safety (assume the same rule for polititians)


Insurance companies will dO what ever they can to get out of paying you. How ever as Hiviz is not a legal requirement that should not place any blame on the cyclist if a driver failed to see them.
I could quite easily push away an insurance company from that alone, threaten then with small claims court and they will pay up


----------



## GrasB (20 Jul 2011)

PpPete said:


> Define "decent light"


an LED light that that runs on AA or AAA rather than CR2332 button battery or similar.


----------



## rowan 46 (20 Jul 2011)

I use both. There's no doubt in my mind that lights at night are a sensible requirement. For years I used one set of lights 1 night the rear packed up on me and I never noticed at least until a few cars started giving me near misses. I have 2 sets now. I still get the occasional close shave from idiot drivers but not as many as I had that night, I think from that experience that drivers did not have the time to prepare adequately for me. As for Hi-Vis it does little at night the reflective strips help a little but not much. During the day is when Hi-Vis comes into its own


----------



## gambatte (20 Jul 2011)

Aviva etc might have problems citing responsibility for not wearing hi viz. However, my point was, I don't think they'd have too much trouble apportioning some level of blame for not having working lights, which is a legal requirement at night


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jul 2011)

GrasB said:


> an LED light that that runs on AA or AAA rather than CR2332 button battery or similar.



I think our definition would have to be more specific. Some of the older LED lights powered by AA or AAA are so dim as to be virtually useless.


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

In a city environment you need something bright as well!
There is so much light coming from every road user, street lights and shops that you really need something bright to stand out from the crowd.


----------



## marinyork (20 Jul 2011)

Well at least he wears a vest, even if it is of very limited use. I work with a ninja master who doesn't even do that. At least for him he works in daylight hours at the moment which is not the case in the middle of winter . I suppose depending on what city or town it is might drag the risk down a bit at midnight, but it's not particularly hopeful.


----------



## Bristol Dave (20 Jul 2011)

One of my best investments was a little Knogg Frog light that I attach to my helmet. It points where I'm looking and can be easily seen over parked cars. I believe it has saved me several times from accidents. Buy your mate one!

BD


----------



## davefb (20 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> ...and here's the shot with nothing other than ambient light. Neither of us has lights switched on and pointing towards each other.



arent cameras amazing,,, i'm guessing those wierd glowing lights look nothing like that!

[edit]
esp compared to the first photo with the light shining at it, the keep lefts still glow utterly unnaturally, but you can make out the actual blue sign....


----------



## 4F (20 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> ...and here's the shot with nothing other than ambient light. Neither of us has lights switched on and pointing towards each other.



If it wasn't for his hi viz jacket I would never have spotted him


----------



## subaqua (20 Jul 2011)

solid and flashing front and rear ( ta for that idea Gaz) and a hi viz ruck sack cover. was gutted that i needed them earlier this week in the day as it was so dull.


----------



## subaqua (20 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I am shining a headlight at that jacket in the picture with mboy shining the bright white light back at me. That first picture is designed to show how highviz (or rather the reflective portion) is mostly invisible behind a decent light.
> 
> That light would never be mistaken for general light pollution. It's often mistaken for a motorcycle, which can be slightly embarassing as a driver waits at a t-junction for ages when I'm approaching slowly uphill.
> 
> ...




that just looks like a lit bollard in the distance. the best one is the bright light pointing at you , you know its a "vehicle"


----------



## Holdsworth (20 Jul 2011)

Exactly what light is used in those photos, I want one whatever it is!


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jul 2011)

Holdsworth, it's an Exposure MaXx-D. Not their most powerful light any longer mind.

Davefb, the lights weren't ridculously different in real life, as it was a damp and misty winter evening. We all know that cameras change how an image looks, but I'd say that's a fair representation of what was actually there on the night.

LOL @ 4F! 
It's a point, it stands out a bit against the dark foliage. Consider a cyclist though, who would be on the road we hope, where that colour would blend in perfectly against the orange-coloured tarmac due to the street lighting.


----------



## davefb (20 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Holdsworth, it's an Exposure MaXx-D. Not their most powerful light any longer mind.
> 
> Davefb, the lights weren't ridculously different in real life, as it was a damp and misty winter evening. We all know that cameras change how an image looks, but I'd say that's a fair representation of what was actually there on the night.
> 
> ...





its the keep left signs that show the effect up mostly... and the difference between the image with the headlight where you can see the blue signs but the one with just the hivis, its just a big glow...


just saying, when unlit the "just hi vis" would be even more 'invisible'

when driving, you tend to be seeing brake lights or headlights all the time, and eyes dont do 'overbright'/'glow' as well as cameras.


----------



## GrasB (20 Jul 2011)

davefb said:


> its the keep left signs that show the effect up mostly... and the difference between the image with the headlight where you can see the blue signs but the one with just the hivis, its just a big glow...
> 
> 
> just saying, when unlit the "just hi vis" would be even more 'invisible'
> ...


Might be worth doing the same thing with a manually set exposure consistent across all of the photos.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jul 2011)

davefb said:


> its the keep left signs that show the effect up mostly... and the difference between the image with the headlight where you can see the blue signs but the one with just the hivis, its just a big glow...
> 
> 
> just saying, when unlit the "just hi vis" would be even more 'invisible'
> ...



I'm not sure what you're saying? I find eyes can usually see more than cameras when it comes to the end ranges of dark and light. Anyway, it's immaterial - the points made by the pictures are the same as seen by myself in real life:

There's no reflection from the reflectives on the highviz from ambient street lighting, or from the car at the side road.
The yellow flou gets washed out and is the same colour as the road surface under sodium street lighting.
There's a decent retro-return from the reflectives on the vest with light aimed from my eyes towards the vest.
A good light completely hides the reflectives. I imagine a cheap and weak light won't do so, but I didn't test this.

I'm not going to bother arguing detail or splitting hairs on this further. I'd say that despite minor differences, the pictures show reasonably accurately what I observed in real life.


----------



## marinyork (20 Jul 2011)

GrasB said:


> Might be worth doing the same thing with a manually set exposure consistent across all of the photos.



It's hard to simulate properly as often the edges of windscreens distort things a bit vs being a cyclist. Generally it's an interesting exercise. Ultimately I would say it is subjective. I would say the cyclist is visible with just the hi-viz on in the directly lit and lit one, just I'd give it a score of something like 5, 10 and 70 respectively.


----------



## davefb (20 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying? I find eyes can usually see more than cameras when it comes to the end ranges of dark and light. Anyway, it's immaterial - the points made by the pictures are the same as seen by myself in real life:
> 
> There's no reflection from the reflectives on the highviz from ambient street lighting, or from the car at the side road.
> The yellow flou gets washed out and is the same colour as the road surface under sodium street lighting.
> ...



sorry, just saying whilst the pictures show lights are needed, I'd say it's actually worse than what the pictures are showing because the last photo is overexposed.. 

eyes can't overexpose so if they were adjusted for seeing the lights , that unlit hiviz would be very invisible..

but yeah, splitting at hairs


----------



## summerdays (20 Jul 2011)

I think the best of reflectives is when it is moving ... so an ankle snap band rotating in a pedalling motion does catch the eye of a motorist or those narrow 3m spoke reflectives when seen side on.


----------



## jonny jeez (20 Jul 2011)

summerdays said:


> I think the best of reflectives is when it is moving ... so an ankle snap band rotating in a pedalling motion does catch the eye of a motorist or those narrow 3m spoke reflectives when seen side on.



Now you mention this, I agree.

Thinking about it, the one thing that I instantly recognise as a cyclist in the dark is a reflective leg band moving up and down. Its someting that no other vehicle/traveller replicates. perhaps they should make small flares (the lights not the trousers) for the back of pedals, where the reflectors sit... the rotating movement would really make them stand out and they wouldn't be as "trendy" as the wheel flares.


----------



## tyred (20 Jul 2011)

summerdays said:


> I think the best of reflectives is when it is moving ... so an ankle snap band rotating in a pedalling motion does catch the eye of a motorist or those narrow 3m spoke reflectives when seen side on.



I agree and it is exactly why I have often felt like buying a set of these for research purposes. I should think they should make any (upright) cyclist visible.


----------



## Davidc (20 Jul 2011)

tyred said:


> I agree and it is exactly why I have often felt like buying a set of these for research purposes. I should think they should make any (upright) cyclist visible.



Agree with both about the up-down motion.

I use trouser clips with yellow reflective surfaces or a slap-wrap for the same job.

Not sure the colours on the pedal light are legal but who cares? problem is that the pedal itself wouldn't meet my needs.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jul 2011)

tyred said:


> I won't comment too much on urban areas but as a rural dweller who often drives/walks/cycles on pitch black roads, there is no doubt in my mind that hi-vis jacket makes people a lot more visible than they would otherwise be. But I consider it just more than that. It gives the person a shape as a human being. Something like the rear mudguard reflector on a bike caught in the car headlights can be very bright in the right set of circumstances, even if it's a fair distance away, but apart from telling you that there is something there, it gives little information as to what. It could be many things. A lot of people around here put red reflectors on the pillars at the end of their driveways. But if the cyclist is wearing a jacket with reflective strips, it instantly tells the driver that there is a person on the road.



This is spot on. Hi vis (by which I mean a fluoro tabard with reflective strips, like road workers wear) is excellent for defining a person in the road ahead. Single lights - even very good, very bright ones - can easily be misinterpreted. Hi vis on its own is no good.


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

summerdays said:


> I think the best of reflectives is when it is moving ... so an ankle snap band rotating in a pedalling motion does catch the eye of a motorist or those narrow 3m spoke reflectives when seen side on.


Reflective material on the legs also has the added bonus of being in the stream of light that comes from car headlights.


----------



## Bicycle (20 Jul 2011)

I usually ride in a bright long-sleeved race top (Giro Pink or TdF Yellow) with 2 rear and 2 front lights.

I usually switch on only one light each end; the other is a spare or for rain/mist etc when I'll use everything I have.

My helmet (when I wear it) is a light, bright colour. I sometimes wear a hi-vis gilet (but normally for the cold, not visibility...)

I base my after-dark precautions on what I see working or not working on other cyclists when I'm driving.

I do think vi-vis is a good thing (like other posters).

I drive past many, many cyclists with one front and one rear light who are almost invisible but clearly think otherwise. 

Dark clothing just seems to suck away the visibility of even a modestly illuminated rider. I have no idea why.

Be very visible. Be as visible as you can be. You'll never know how many times it has done you a favour.  

My only caveat here is that I wouldn't put front lights on flash mode.. as a driver I find myself distracted and iriitated by that and it's often right at driver's-eye level. I'll put my rear/s on flash, but never my front/s.


----------



## cyberknight (20 Jul 2011)

GrasB said:


> an LED light that that runs on AA or AAA rather than CR2332 button battery or similar.



Or even better 18650 powered lights for the front on unlit roads.

On the back i run at least 3 superflash lights and the front is either 2 cree (p4 ?) torches or a cree torch and a MS p7

I think everything else has been covered in this thread, you need to have a combination of hi-viz,reflectives and good lights to cover all options.


----------



## joebingo (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> NO!
> Lights are what make you look like a vehicle and are only a good thing. Lights are also a legal requirement when cycling in darkness, where as you are not required to wear Hiviz
> I personally think hiViz in cities is pointless as every Tom dick and Harry has it and you don't stand out.
> My 3 front lights and 4 rear lights are working for me.



/Thread (well, should have been)

In London, I'm using some generic front light and a cateye LD-1100 at the rear (+panniers with reflective panels). I don't bother with hi-viz, I do wear white lycra though...


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jul 2011)

cyberknight said:


> I think everything else has been covered in this thread, you need to have a combination of hi-viz,reflectives and good lights to cover all options.



See pictures - with good lights you may as well not have hiviz, as it's essentially invisible behind the lights.


----------



## cloggsy (20 Jul 2011)

Why not use both; be safe, be seen!


----------



## PoliceMadAd (20 Jul 2011)

I use 3 rear lights, top and bottom flash and middle is constant, and 2 front, both flashing in urban or 1 flash 1 constant in darker areas. And a very light yellow/green jacket, and a fluro backpack. And STILL people fail to take notice of me (or just don't care for my safety).


----------



## Jezston (20 Jul 2011)

PoliceMadAd said:


> I use 3 rear lights, top and bottom flash and middle is constant, and 2 front, both flashing in urban or 1 flash 1 constant in darker areas. And a very light yellow/green jacket, and a fluro backpack. And STILL people fail to take notice of me (or just don't care for my safety).



This is something I often wonder: Surely if you have ONE half decent pair of lights - if someone doesn't see them, is it that they just aren't looking, and any more won't make a difference?


----------



## PoliceMadAd (20 Jul 2011)

I don't really know myself, some drivers give me more time and room, others act as if i'm invisible. I think they just think 'oh it's just a cyclist'


----------



## 400bhp (20 Jul 2011)

classic33 said:


> The person that got me asking the question feels that because he's wearing a hi-vis vest & the street lighting means he doesn't need lights. He passed me on his way to work about an hour ago, doing over 30, downhill, approaching roadworks.
> 
> Tried telling him, but he's of the opinion the vest is sufficient.



Darwin will catch up with him soon.


----------



## Davidc (20 Jul 2011)

Jezston said:


> This is something I often wonder: Surely if you have ONE half decent pair of lights - if someone doesn't see them, is it that they just aren't looking, and any more won't make a difference?



Some of it is diversity in case of failure, some that a mix of steady and flashing is better than either on its own, especially on the back. I'm another with 3 at the back and 2 at the front most of the time, 3 at the front sometimes.

As I've already said, if someone doesn't see me they're blind or not looking.


----------



## marinyork (20 Jul 2011)

Davidc said:


> Some of it is diversity in case of failure, some that a mix of steady and flashing is better than either on its own, especially on the back. I'm another with 3 at the back and 2 at the front most of the time, 3 at the front sometimes.
> 
> As I've already said, if someone doesn't see me they're blind or not looking.



It's also what the eye can resolve. In theory set the right distance apart someone's eyes will see two lights as one big light (not as bright as some supermassive one) under certain conditions. This is not a bad strategy.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jul 2011)

PoliceMadAd said:


> I don't really know myself, some drivers give me more time and room, others act as if i'm invisible. I think they just think 'oh it's just a cyclist'



*Exactly*. This is one reason it's good not to look like a cyclist to other road users. When they don't know what you are they treat you with much more caution and they give you far more space than when they know you're a cyclist.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jul 2011)

cloggsy said:


> Why not use both; be safe, be seen!



Puzzled. Can't even see my bike's reflectors behind those lights. How does adding more invisible stuff make you more visible?


----------



## Norm (20 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Puzzled. Can't even see my bike's reflectors behind those lights. How does adding more invisible stuff make you more visible?


 A very specific set of circumstances, BM, with the other light to be pointing straight at you. 

I ride with my lights on the road 10-30 feet in front of me and I have seen reflectives from cyclists heading towards me when I'm in the car. Reflectives also give 360 degree coverage.


----------



## gaz (21 Jul 2011)

Norm said:


> Reflectives also give 360 degree coverage.


only if they go all the way round.


----------



## classic33 (21 Jul 2011)

Saw him again tonight/last night. Bike has neither lights or reflectors. Took a much closer look this time as he went past. As for what he has against lights, I'm not certain. Possible that he feels his vest will protect him.

Raining, so the road is wet & part of it, bottom of the hill at a pinch point, is being relaid this week. His route also has two blind bends, both with junctions & a small climb, vertical height about 10-12 foot, where the road narrows.

Eye V camera. Isn't the human eye capable of seeing a match struck at over a mile. Not certain if any camera, in a usable size, can match it.

Maybe I should point this thread to him.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (21 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Puzzled. Can't even see my bike's reflectors behind those lights. How does adding more invisible stuff make you more visible?



You can't see the reflectives behind the light in your photos, I agree. This is partly because, no matter how good your camera is, it ain't as good as the human eye.
I find hi vis helps, from my point of view as a driver. I don't especially care whether you use it or not - I'm not campaigning for it to be compulsory, or anything - but I wouldn't want people to leave this thread thinking that your photos are the be all and end all of the hi vis debate. 
What I think we can agree on is that hi vis without lights is no good. I passed the same cyclist I referred to earlier again tonight, just outside Finedon on an unlit, national speed limit stretch of the A6. I'm thinking of opening a book at work on how long it is before I or another lorry driver flattens him without even feeling the bump.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jul 2011)

That's the thing - in this photo the camera is as good as the eye, and the eye couldn't see it either. Most collisions are going to happen from the front or the rear, so it's not a limited circumstance, but the most common one.

I'm not convinced that side-on visibility is massively important either.


----------



## the_mikey (21 Jul 2011)

GrasB said:


> an LED light that that runs on AA or AAA rather than CR2332 button battery or similar.




I use 'knog frog strobe' lights when riding during the day (they run on a pair of CR2332 cells), especially when the weather is particularly overcast or cycling under heavy tree cover, I see no problem with these lights for that purpose. Their flash mode is brighter than some more expensive led lamps that run on AA batteries.


----------



## summerdays (21 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> That's the thing - in this photo the camera is as good as the eye, and the eye couldn't see it either. Most collisions are going to happen from the front or the rear, so it's not a limited circumstance, but the most common one.
> 
> I'm not convinced that side-on visibility is massively important either.



No the camera is nothing like the eye - which constantly adjusts to where you are focusing on and has a much greater range than the camera can record, then add in the movement element too.

I've seen some stats on which type of collision is most common, but I'm not sure whether I've seen night specific stats - does anyone have some?


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jul 2011)

summerdays said:


> No the camera is nothing like the eye - which constantly adjusts to where you are focusing on and has a much greater range than the camera can record, then add in the movement element too.



Whilst that is true generally, in these specific photos the performance of the lights and hiviz shown by the camera is very close to what my human eye saw. I did specify in these photos only...

Did I point out that I got my helper to hold the light with straight arms down at below waist height, to maximise the chance of some retro return from his hiviz coat? That's close to what you'd see on an upright bicycle.


----------



## Allirog (21 Jul 2011)

classic33 said:


> Saw him again tonight/last night. Bike has neither lights or reflectors. Took a much closer look this time as he went past. As for what he has against lights, I'm not certain. Possible that he feels his vest will protect him.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I should point this thread to him.



You should; he's definitely living on borrowed time.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jul 2011)

Allirog said:


> You should; he's definitely living on borrowed time.



+1

...and point out Silly Cyclists on YouTube to him.


----------



## Jezston (21 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> *Exactly*. This is one reason it's good not to look like a cyclist to other road users. When they don't know what you are they treat you with much more caution and they give you far more space than when they know you're a cyclist.




I'd have thought most road users wouldn't know what you are anyway?


----------



## Jezston (21 Jul 2011)

classic33 said:


> Maybe I should point this thread to him.



Maybe you should let his tyres down.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jul 2011)

Jezston said:


> I'd have thought most road users wouldn't know what you are anyway?






Too true, and it gets me waaay more space most of the time. OTOH we're talking about night-time visibility here, and at night I'm just another vehicle with lights. There's no chance drivers in an overtaking car or a car waiting at a junction can tell what I am or see the bike past my lights.


----------



## Arch (21 Jul 2011)

tyred said:


> I agree and it is exactly why I have often felt like buying a set of these for research purposes. I should think they should make any (upright) cyclist visible.



I have a pair of LEDALS on my winter bike, and have been complimented on them by other cyclists. It's hard to tell of course, how much they add to my visibility because I'm always running at least two other rear lights, one dynamo, one LED back up. And some drivers see you and still don't care about how close they come. But the more lights the merrier, I reckon, and I don't have to remember to put them on and take them off. I wouldn't ever use them as sole lighting, except perhaps in the event of all my other lights failing, and even then, unless I was miles from home I'd probably get off and walk anyway. They do show red to rear and white to front (whichever way up they are), but I'm not sure of their legality as sole lights.

Incidentally on the CR2032/AAA debate, I have various AAA lights, and also a pair of Skullies, which run on two CR2032s each (one with white LEDs, one with Red - the colour of the casing is immaterial). They are very bright and piercing and fit to pretty much any diameter of tube easily using rubber 'arms' so can go on any bike (or helmet, trailer etc). Also, they are skulls, so they are cool.

My cycling jacket is hi-vis, in that it's yellow, but it's a very old and faded yellow now, so probably works more on the basis of a block of colour than on flourescence. But for me, lights are priority, and if I'm not wearing that coat for some reaosn, I don't feel the need to wear a vest or anything.


----------



## pshore (21 Jul 2011)

PoliceMadAd said:


> I use 3 rear lights, top and bottom flash and middle is constant, and 2 front, both flashing in urban or 1 flash 1 constant in darker areas. And a very light yellow/green jacket, and a fluro backpack. And STILL people fail to take notice of me (or just don't care for my safety).



Flashing lights do have a down side. 

Some of the flashing patterns have a hypnotic effect on drivers. They also, along with extremely bright rear lights, can prevent a driver from seeing past you. This is my own experience whilst following cyclists in a car. I can believe that it is _possible_ that over doing the lighting might cause somebody to drive badly near that cyclist.

Personally, I think that on dark rural roads you need something that gives a driver an early warning that a cyclist is ahead so they have plenty of time to slow down and plan an overtake. A single stead light doesn't do that job because you can be mistaken for another fast moving vehicle. You need something more, like a flasher, reflective vest or sam browne belt, ankle or pedal reflectors that shout cyclist.


----------



## cyberknight (21 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> See pictures - with good lights you may as well not have hiviz, as it's essentially invisible behind the lights.




Even if you have good lights surely it is good practice to cover all the bases to make your self as visible as possible .



Depends on the roads you ride, on the unlit country roads i use when it is completely pitch black in winter the reflectives stand out a lot even with good lights.
Combining reflectives with good rear lights to present a large "target" of emitted and reflected light to make other road users aware of you is my main concern, all of your photos as far as i can see were from the front of the bike rather than testing reflectives with rear lights from another road users perspective.


----------



## marinyork (21 Jul 2011)

cyberknight said:


> Depends on the roads you ride, on the unlit country roads i use when it is completely pitch black in winter the reflectives stand out a lot even with good lights.
> Combining reflectives with good rear lights to present a large "target" of emitted and reflected light to make other road users aware of you is my main concern, all of your photos as far as i can see were from the front of the bike rather than testing reflectives with rear lights from another road users perspective.



I don't think anyone is denying they work well in clean light conditions. Or that rears sometimes work better with hi-viz.


----------



## cyberknight (21 Jul 2011)

marinyork said:


> I don't think anyone is denying they work well in clean light conditions. Or that rears sometimes work better with hi-viz.



Its ok BM kinda misquoted me i felt , saying that you may as well not wear hi viz when i was trying to point out that i think you should try to have all 3 rather than just relying on good lights because they hide reflectives in the situations he described.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jul 2011)

No, no, even in the complete dark those lights will still completely hide reflectives behind them, and the situations shown in the photos cover most of the visibility needs of riding at night.

I don't mind if you want to wear hiviz, but remember, it's not a legal requirement for good reasons. It's not required because lights and on-bike reflectors are far more than enough. It's time people stop thinking of hiviz as anything more than a rabbit's foot to stroke lovingly in the vain hopes it'll save you a collision.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jul 2011)

p.s. I didn't bother to do rear light comparisons, but I feel quite sure that the result would be the same.

If you have somewhat older or weaker LED lights, then the reflectives might become visible again, but I don't choose to ride with lights like that.


----------



## cyberknight (21 Jul 2011)

I have 3 smart super flashes .

The point was that you are saying that you need not bother wearing reflectives, if your lights blank them out .

Surely it is best to make yourself as visible as possible for all eventualities rather than relying on one method ?


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jul 2011)

You have three smart super flashers, and you want to make yourself more visible? :shakes head:


----------



## cyberknight (21 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> You have three smart super flashers, and you want to make yourself more visible? :shakes head:



lol 

When cars are doing 60-70 mph past you then you want to make yourself stand out as much as possible


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jul 2011)

Are you not afraid of becoming a victim of target fixation?

It's not as though you can tow a huge hydraulic crash bumper along behind you like the highway maintenance vehicles carrying mobile lit signs, for example.


----------



## marinyork (21 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> No, no, even in the complete dark those lights will still completely hide reflectives behind them, and the situations shown in the photos cover most of the visibility needs of riding at night.



On the rear they won't completely hide reflectives at all (unless you're using a dinotte). Usually people have lights on the front that are much more likely to drown out the hi viz than on the rear. It's really the same principle as really a driver should even be able to spot a ninja from behind (in theory).


----------



## cyberknight (21 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Are you not afraid of becoming a victim of target fixation?
> 
> It's not as though you can tow a huge hydraulic crash bumper along behind you like the highway maintenance vehicles carrying mobile lit signs, for example.



Give them as much opportunity as you can to see you is my way of looking at it .If you end up being hit and you are in court then do you think you will fair better if you have taken all the precautions you can or would you rely on the Judge saying " Oh well he had good lights ..."

All i know is that at night i do not get close passes so something must be working


----------



## gaz (21 Jul 2011)

cyberknight said:


> All i know is that at night i do not get close passes so something must be working


does that mean that Hiviz doesn't work during the day?


----------



## cyberknight (21 Jul 2011)

Did i say that?

All i said was that a combination of hi-viz , reflective and lights is the way i have found to address visibility in the dark.

I think we are straying to far from the OP .

And according to studies hi - viz does not work in the day as drivers are so used to seeing them on builders, cyclists, etc etc that it gets blanked out .......


----------



## classic33 (21 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Are you not afraid of becoming a victim of target fixation?
> 
> It's not as though you can tow a huge hydraulic crash bumper along behind you like the highway maintenance vehicles carrying mobile lit signs, for example.




Going off topic slightly, but when returning a set of traffic lights, abandoned, found at the roadside driver of following vehicle never saw the red light. Nor me for that matter on the brox.

Back on subject. 
There are arguments for both sides. However I thought I'd ask the question simply because the person in question seems to have a preference for a hi-vis vest rather than lights, when cycling at night. Good to see that no-one else has come out on the hi-vis only side.


----------



## gaz (21 Jul 2011)

cyberknight said:


> Did i say that?
> 
> All i said was that a combination of hi-viz , reflective and lights is the way i have found to address visibility in the dark.
> 
> ...


Lol no, it was meant to be a joke but I left a smiley out


----------



## HLaB (21 Jul 2011)

Slightly OT, has there been any reports to what effect (if any) the French laws on Hi Viz are having? I believe in France now if you are outside an urban area in the dark the cyclist has to wear hi viz.


----------



## cyberknight (22 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> Lol no, it was meant to be a joke but I left a smiley out





And what you doing up?

I have just got up early to watch last nights TDF as SWMBO wanted to watch some other B*ll**ks , epic stage !!!


----------



## Riding in Circles (22 Jul 2011)

marinyork said:


> On the rear they won't completely hide reflectives at all (unless you're using a dinotte). Usually people have lights on the front that are much more likely to drown out the hi viz than on the rear. It's really the same principle as really a driver should even be able to spot a ninja from behind (in theory).



To be fair BM rides a bent so his back is obscured by the seat anyway, anyone who rides at night without lights should have their bicycle taken away from them.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jul 2011)

Yeah, but I'm not taking the bent as an excuse, I'm assuming normal bike usage and seating position. Perhaps I'm hypocritical though, because as we both know a bent is more visible than any upright, by an order of magnitude, and they scare most drivers far away from us.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (22 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Are you not afraid of becoming a victim of target fixation?



Well, that's one area where hi vis can help. As I've said before, what hi vis does is help to give definition to the area behind the lights (yes, yes, yes I've seen your photos). This helps a driver judge distance much better than a simple single light will, no matter how bright it is.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jul 2011)

If you've seen the photos, then why are you suggesting that hiviz can be seen behind decent lights? Poorer quality lights, sure, but that's an argument for getting better lights, not for wearing hiviz.

Lights don't have the same gaping vulnerabilities to turning invisible that hiviz has, and yet people like the OP's mate rely on the hiviz above lights. That's what I have a problem with - it's stupid un-safety.


----------



## downfader (22 Jul 2011)

Where bright clothing may make a slight difference is side-on. Think roundabouts and passing junctions or bends in the road.


----------



## Norm (22 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> If you've seen the photos, then why are you suggesting that hiviz can be seen behind decent lights? Poorer quality lights, sure, but that's an argument for getting better lights, not for wearing hiviz.


 As I said, your photos are a very specific set of circumstances and don't reflect (groan) that many people have their front lights shining at the road surface in front of their tyres rather than some chap standing 100m away. 

Also, as I've said many times, I can and have seen reflectives behind a front cycle light at night. I didn't take photos, I wish I had, but I was driving at the time. The point remains that I have experienced reflectives helping me to identify a cyclist at night



BentMikey said:


> Lights don't have the same gaping vulnerabilities to turning invisible that hiviz has, and yet people like the OP's mate rely on the hiviz above lights. That's what I have a problem with - it's stupid un-safety.


 Assuming you mean reflectives where you say hiviz, I don't think that any here are arguing for solely using hiviz. My concerns are that some are arguing against using it at all.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jul 2011)

Not at night mate as in the OP. We've shown why there's no retro return under those sorts of circumstances. Besides, any good lights will have excellent side-on visibility.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jul 2011)

I love how you guys dismiss evidence that doesn't agree with your POV.


----------



## Norm (22 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I love how you guys dismiss evidence that doesn't agree with your POV.


Any chance you could point out where anyone has done that?


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jul 2011)

You've dismissed the photos, when they clearly show reality. Pointing the light down isn't going to make any difference as it has a very wide beam, and it's pointed exactly as I ride with it anyway. All you've offered is opinion, and it's wrong here IMO. Hiviz is the combo of fluo and reflectives - I thought we'd moved past that a long time ago.

Anyway, it's all fairly immaterial, as nobody on this topic has suggested hiviz instead of lights, as per the original question. That shows you all know that lights are the thing that's really important, that hiviz can't be relied upon at all times, and I suspect that deep down you know that hiviz is nothing more than a rabbit's foot for luck and hope.


----------



## Norm (22 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> You've dismissed the photos, when they clearly show reality.


 This is your first mistake. I have not dismissed the photo in any way, shape or form, although distorting what is in front of you like that is not too surprising. 

I have said that the photos show one reality. I have given you another reality from my experience which, ironically, you are dismissing without even recognising it.



BentMikey said:


> Hiviz is the combo of fluo and reflectives - I thought we'd moved past that a long time ago.


 Indeed... which is why I was confirming that the two are used interchangeably for those who might be more recent. 



BentMikey said:


> I suspect that deep down you know that hiviz is nothing more than a rabbit's foot for luck and hope.


And this is your second mistake, not quite up to the level of the previous poster who said "we dismiss hiviz because _we see_ it everywhere" but I know that, riding home this very evening, I saw someone in hi-viz from about 1/2 mile away but neither I nor the car I was following saw the ninja (this was at about 7pm heading westwards) until it was very nearly too late.

As I said, nobody is condoning or suggesting the use of hiviz alone. That thinking, along with the rabbit foot BS, is the preserve of those more blinkered souls.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (23 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I love how you guys dismiss evidence that doesn't agree with your POV.



AROOGA! AROOGA! IRONY ALERT! 

With the greatest respect, no one's presented evidence. You've posted, what, three photos, taken on a relatively cheap camera (bearing in mind that even something like a Nikon D3 falls some way short of the abilities of the human eye) of a particular circumstance. As if that's not enough, you've taken them with the sole purpose of backing up a preconception of yours, viz. (ho ho) hi vis is no use. 
My experience - which is, though you may not like it, just as valid as your snaps - is different. When I'm approaching a cyclist from behind, I find it easier to work out what they are earlier if they're wearing a hi vis tabard, no matter how bright their lights. When I see someone on the pavement wearing hi vis (I'm thinking of a particular group of joggers whom I see quite frequently), I find that I often see their reflective stripes before I see them, even though my headlights aren't pointing directly at them. And when I see a cyclist coming towards me on the other side of the road, there's nearly always some light reflected back at me if they're wearing a hi vis tabard. 
You may not wear it yourself, and that's fair enough - as I said, I'm not campaigning to make it compulsory or anything - but you shouldn't dismiss it on the basis of three snapshots. It certainly doesn't make anyone less visible.


----------



## cyberknight (23 Jul 2011)

Norm said:


> And this is your second mistake, not quite up to the level of the previous poster who said "we dismiss hiviz because _we see_ it everywhere" but I know that, riding home this very evening, I saw someone in hi-viz from about 1/2 mile away but neither I nor the car I was following saw the ninja (this was at about 7pm heading westwards) until it was very nearly too late.



Come on norm , if you are going to take a poke at me .The way that comes across is a bit condescending.

The hi viz blindness was based on bits and bobs i had read like ..

http://bentsocietybl...now-we-are.html

Do i believe? personally no but some do.

This study has shown that light clothing and reflectives can reduce the chance of injury by 37 %
http://bentsocietybl...now-we-are.html


----------



## biggs682 (23 Jul 2011)

i use a flashing hi viz as soon as it starts getting dark around 5 pm ish with a set of lights as well


----------



## Norm (23 Jul 2011)

cyberknight said:


> Come on norm , if you are going to take a poke at me .The way that comes across is a bit condescending.


 Sorry, CK, you are probably right. Cider on a Friday night can do that to me. 

I must admit that I do laugh whenever someone (and you are by no means the first) says hi viz doesn't work because 'we see it' everywhere. Not only is there inherent irony in the sentence but the report appears to be based on a very blinkered city-based viewpoint. It's been a while since I've seen a professional in hi viz whereas I would have been very grateful if the cyclist who was nearly flattened by the car in front of me last night had been wearing it or running a rear light.


----------



## cyberknight (23 Jul 2011)

Norm said:


> Sorry, CK, you are probably right. Cider on a Friday night can do that to me.
> 
> I must admit that I do laugh whenever someone (and you are by no means the first) says hi viz doesn't work because 'we see it' everywhere. Not only is there inherent irony in the sentence but the report appears to be based on a very blinkered city-based viewpoint. It's been a while since I've seen a professional in hi viz whereas I would have been very grateful if the cyclist who was nearly flattened by the car in front of me last night had been wearing it or running a rear light.



Please read my posts norm i did not say i believed it , i said that some studies do .


----------



## Norm (23 Jul 2011)

cyberknight said:


> Please read my posts norm i did not say i believed it , i said that some studies do .


 Whoa there, CK, I didn't say or suggest that you did believe it so there is no need to recommend such things.  

I just said that I laughed whenever I saw it written.


----------



## cyberknight (23 Jul 2011)

Just the way it reads 

I laugh etc and you are no means the first ..

If you did not mean that then i take it back , i think the lack of emotion and intonation that text puts across can sometimes lead to misunderstanding .


----------



## Norm (23 Jul 2011)

cyberknight said:


> If you did not mean that then i take it back


I think this was pretty clear. 


cyberknight said:


> Do i believe? personally no but some do.


Now, do I still need to re-read all of your posts?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (24 Jul 2011)

Norm said:


> Sorry, CK, you are probably right. Cider on a Friday night can do that to me.
> 
> I must admit that I do laugh whenever someone (and you are by no means the first) says hi viz doesn't work because 'we see it' everywhere. Not only is there inherent irony in the sentence but the report appears to be based on a very blinkered city-based viewpoint. It's been a while since I've seen a professional in hi viz whereas I would have been very grateful if the cyclist who was nearly flattened by the car in front of me last night had been wearing it or running a rear light.



One thing that may not make you laugh is the thought about who wears Hiviz, and who is perceived to wear it. Hiviz wear is stipulated in many industries to be used by pedestrians. Pedestrians , by definition move at < 4 mph (and very often if wearing Hiviz may not be moving at all) a cyclist may well be moving at twice , three , four, five or even six times that speed. I don't wear Hi viz because I don't want to be misstaken for a slow moving pedestrian , I wear cycling specific items to mark me out as a fast moving object.


----------



## Norm (24 Jul 2011)

Can I refer you to my "_very blinkered city-based viewpoint_", which you highlighted so well there, as there aren't many (any?) pedestrians on the rural NSL roads that I ride.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jul 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> One thing that may not make you laugh is the thought about who wears Hiviz, and who is perceived to wear it. Hiviz wear is stipulated in many industries to be used by pedestrians. Pedestrians , by definition move at < 4 mph (and very often if wearing Hiviz may not be moving at all) a cyclist may well be moving at twice , three , four, five or even six times that speed. I don't wear Hi viz because I don't want to be misstaken for a slow moving pedestrian , I wear cycling specific items to mark me out as a fast moving object.




This is a very good point. Even when you do see hiviz, most are road workers/pedestrians. Even being seen as a cyclist will result in drivers assuming low speed/stationary objects, and result in more risk taking by them around you.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jul 2011)

So here's a question for you all:

Do you get more space at night when being overtaken? Why do you think this is?


----------



## gaz (25 Jul 2011)

I get the same sh!t at night as i do doing the day, i also get that same crap if i wear hiviz.
All formed from my own experiences


----------



## Bicycle (25 Jul 2011)

I get the same high level of courtesy and consideration from most other road users in the dark and in daylight.

Likewise in rain, mist or sunshine.

I wear bright colours and usually have one (sometimes two) lamps each end of my bicycle. 

The occasional driver, cyclist or pedestrian fails to see me. Most apologise.

Over the years, some have hit me or caused me to swerve and fall.

Most are very decent about accepting responsinbility.


----------



## Norm (25 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> This is a very good point. Even when you do see hiviz, most are road workers/pedestrians. Even being seen as a cyclist will result in drivers assuming low speed/stationary objects, and result in more risk taking by them around you.


No, it is still a city-blinkered viewpoint, just as it was yesterday morning.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jul 2011)

No, even in the countryside most hiviz wearers are not cyclists IME.


----------



## Davidc (25 Jul 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> One thing that may not make you laugh is the thought about who wears Hiviz, and who is perceived to wear it. Hiviz wear is stipulated in many industries to be used by pedestrians. Pedestrians , by definition move at < 4 mph (and very often if wearing Hiviz may not be moving at all) a cyclist may well be moving at twice , three , four, five or even six times that speed. I don't wear Hi viz because I don't want to be misstaken for a slow moving pedestrian , I wear cycling specific items to mark me out as a fast moving object.



Not to mention a lot of motorcyclists who occasionally also travel at < 4mph!

As Norm has said, leave the town/ city and the street lights behind and hi-viz becomes a different game. (It's still only suitable as an addition to good lighting though, not as a substitute).

The fundamental problem for those of us cycling with good lights & maybe hi-viz is the same everywhere though, and it's that a small proportion of drivers just aren't looking where they're going.

Those cycling without lights - how do they expect to be seen, even with hi-viz?


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jul 2011)

Davidc said:


> Those cycling without lights - how do they expect to be seen, even with hi-viz?



As much as we all love to complain about them, I've not yet had any problems spotting ninjas or nearly crashed into any. The ones I saw, at least.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (25 Jul 2011)

Norm said:


> No, it is still a city-blinkered viewpoint, just as it was yesterday morning.




Really?

cf31 4ns

Find the city. 


Just because you live in the country, and have an opinion, doesn't mean that those that have a deeper understanding ,and disagree with you have to live in a city.


----------



## 400bhp (25 Jul 2011)

Is he dead yet?


----------



## Norm (25 Jul 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> ...that those that have a deeper understanding ,and disagree with you have to live in a city.


 OK, then, let's assume "deeper understanding" doesn't mean "greater condescension".



Little yellow Brompton said:


> One thing that may not make you laugh is the thought about who wears Hiviz, and who is perceived to wear it. Hiviz wear is stipulated in many industries to be used by pedestrians. Pedestrians , by definition move at < 4 mph (and very often if wearing Hiviz may not be moving at all) a cyclist may well be moving at twice , three , four, five or even six times that speed. I don't wear Hi viz because I don't want to be misstaken for a slow moving pedestrian , I wear cycling specific items to mark me out as a fast moving object.


I can't remember seeing a pedestrian in hi viz. What sort of ratio do you get of cyclists to pedestrians in hi viz?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (25 Jul 2011)

Norm said:


> OK, then, let's assume "deeper understanding" doesn't mean "greater condescension".
> 
> I can't remember seeing a pedestrian in hi viz. What sort of ratio do you get of cyclists to pedestrians in hi viz?



Found that city yet?


If you can't remember seeing a pedestrian in hi viz you either have a crap memory, terrible observation skills or are being disengenous.


Today I saw two policemen ( or the plastic copies) on the way to work, , on the way home I passed one workman wearing a vest, during the day I saw about 20 people in the yard wearing Hi Viz, of those 20 at least 15 were van/lorry drivers. As I left for the day the postman arrived to collect the parcels , he was wearing a Hi viz vest. I saw 0 cyclists today wearing Hi Viz. Of those 15 van/ lorry drivers, do you think they associate hi viz with cyclists or pedestrains ,considering that they wear Hi Viz every time they get out of their vehicle and walk?

HiViz may get you "seen" but it won't get you recognised.


----------



## Norm (25 Jul 2011)

Hmm... ok, I guess that I wouldn't see any of those as "pedestrians", nor would I see any of them on what was my regular commute on rural NSL roads, which was the point I was making. 

But I will acknowledge that "city-based" could be replaced with "urban-based".


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (25 Jul 2011)

Norm said:


> Hmm... ok, I guess that I wouldn't see any of those as "pedestrians", nor would I see any of them on what was my regular commute on rural NSL roads, which was the point I was making.
> 
> But I will acknowledge that "city-based" could be replaced with "urban-based".




You have another definition for "pedestrian" apart from a person on their feet (ped)?

Lets just hope that none of the lorry/van/drivers are city/urban based, and are all rural based, and so recognize your HiViz wearing as being a cyclist. What do you think the chances of that are?


----------



## Norm (25 Jul 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> What do you think the chances of that are?


 Given the number of cyclists and the lack of pedestrians, I'd say pretty close to 100%. 

BTW, I don't wear hi viz, I use lights to do the same thing. But I _see it_ on plenty of others.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (25 Jul 2011)

Norm said:


> Given the number of cyclists and the lack of pedestrians, I'd say pretty close to 100%.
> 
> BTW, I don't wear hi viz, I use lights to do the same thing. But I _see it_ on plenty of others.



You think that it's a 100% that the lorry/van/car drivers will be rural based?


----------



## hennbell (25 Jul 2011)

I ride both in the city and a rural setting, I also have to deal with blizzards. 

Both HiViz and lights (blinking and constant beam) play a role in lighting up my ride. Almost all of my cycling attire is trimmed with hiviz fittings (Shoes, jacket, tights, gloves,shoe covers, and messenger bag. 

But in the end HiViz is a supplement to lights only never to replace a good bright light. (Coloured blinking lights really help motorists notice me.) 

But what the hell do I know I once got a call from the local constabulary for riding my bike in blizzard.

Road bike 
Cross
MTB x 2
Cruiser


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (25 Jul 2011)

hennbell said:


> I ride both in the city and a rural setting, I also have to deal with blizzards.
> 
> Both HiViz and lights (blinking and constant beam) play a role in lighting up my ride. Almost all of my cycling attire is trimmed with hiviz fittings (Shoes, jacket, tights, gloves,shoe covers, and messenger bag.
> 
> ...




By HiViz I don't mean reflective items on cycling kit, but specifically the vests/tabards/coats PPE under EN471:2003

*
*


----------



## Norm (25 Jul 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> You think that it's a 100% that the lorry/van/car drivers will be rural based?


Erm... was that the question you asked? That's not how I read it that you asked whether they would "recognize your HiViz wearing as being a cyclist" rather than a lorry driver. And I would say that 100% of lorry drivers and postmen who see hi viz on a rural road would see them as being cyclists rather than other lorry drivers or postmen.



Little yellow Brompton said:


> By HiViz I don't mean reflective items on cycling kit, but specifically the vests/tabards/coats PPE under EN471:2003


 Oh, ok, then we aren't necessarily talking the same thing, as was said a few days ago...



BentMikey said:


> Hiviz is the combo of fluo and reflectives - I thought we'd moved past that a long time ago.


 If that is the case, there is, IMO, even less chance of a cyclist being mistaken for a lorry driver as, aside from the bike rather than the lorry, my hi viz has lots of yellow and reflective material only on the seams rather than the standard "rugby post" pattern of the PPE vests.


----------



## classic33 (25 Jul 2011)

400bhp said:


> Is he dead yet?



If you mean the person this started about, then its no. At least not yet. Seen him again tonight, on his way to work.

Norm "rugby type" hi-vis. I assume you mean the older, now outdated pattern of one horizontal & two vertical strips/stripes Replaced in 2003 by two horizontal & two vertical.

As for whats a pedestrian, I'd say anyone moving around from place to place on their feet. Building sites I' d not count because everyone should be wearing it, drivers included.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Jul 2011)

The important thing is that hi vis identifies the wearer as a person. As opposed to, say, a motorbike or perhaps a red traffic light in the distance. Both of which a driver can interpret a single steady light on a bicycle as.


----------



## gaz (26 Jul 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> The important thing is that hi vis identifies the wearer as a person. As opposed to, say, a motorbike or perhaps a red traffic light in the distance. Both of which a driver can interpret a single steady light on a bicycle as.


Indeed. This is why I've said there is little point to it in a city as drivers are never far away enough to be able to misjudge you for something else (unless you are cycling at 3am)


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> Indeed. This is why I've said there is little point to it in a city as drivers are never far away enough to be able to misjudge you for something else (*unless you are cycling at 3am*)



Funnily enough, that's often roughly the time at which I'm cycling through Gloucester on my way home from work.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Jul 2011)

We've covered the example of being taken for traffic or other lights already, and it's extremely unlikely. Even if it does happen, a red traffic light will make a driver stop.

As for being taken for a motorcycle. Bingo!!! That sort of uncertainly is exactly what I want. I'd be even happier if I was taken for an HGV trailer.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Jul 2011)

The point I'm trying to make is that if someone thinks you're a motorcycle in the distance (or a red traffic light in the distance), they'll behave as if you're, well, in the distance and pull out on you thinking you're far away. This is A Bad Thing if you're not actually in the distance. I grant you it may be less likely to happen with really bright lights, but not everyone uses these. 
And yes, it is very unlikely that someone will mistake a bike light for a distant red traffic light (or vice versa), but it does happen. I know, I've done it myself.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Jul 2011)

The reverse happens, in my experience. Drivers don't pull out on you when they think that you're a motorcycle. Sometimes it's embarrassing, especially when I'm sweating and puffing uphill like an overweight snail. When they can't see anything around my bright tailight, they don't usually pass as aggressively or as closely. I see much more patience and holding back.


----------



## Bicycle (26 Jul 2011)

I find this _'motorcycle or bicycle_' angle fascinating, but have nothing clever to add to it.

I am a very experienced former motorcyclist who is now too nervous to ride one.

I still ride bicycles (a lot) and suffer no fear apart from at the obvious times.

It's the speed of motorcycles that put me off - and the speed at which things go wrong if they do...

But getting back to the topic of the thread, I really think the trick is to look at other cyclists when driving and replicate where possible the dress, illumination and road position of those who appear most visible to car drivers.

I'm not sure that car drivers are often fooled by a cyclist who may appear motorcycle-like or vice versa. Some people seem to judge speed and distance poorly. I think it's that simple.

I've been hit by drivers who mis-judged my speed, but that wasn't because they thought I was a motorcycle or a jet-ski.... they just mis-judged the thing and then there was a bang.

A sensible combination of brightly coloured clothing and lights should keep the risk low. That's as good as it's ever going to get. The risk will always be there. 

And never ride after dark without lights.


----------



## Jezston (26 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> The reverse happens, in my experience. Drivers don't pull out on you when they think that you're a motorcycle. Sometimes it's embarrassing, especially when I'm sweating and puffing uphill like an overweight snail. When they can't see anything around my bright tailight, they don't usually pass as aggressively or as closely. I see much more patience and holding back.




While I'm sure there's a lot of truth in what you are saying, I still can't help feeling that confusing drivers as to what you are could cause potentially dangerous unpredictable behaviour. I'd rather be figuratively shouting "there's a guy on a bike here!" from as far away as possible and expect other road users to react to this in a safe and considerate fashion as prescribed by the highway code, but of course we know that doesn't always happen either.


Be nice to see some _serious_ study into all this. Seems such studies that have been brought up here before have been a bit limited and often flawed.


----------



## fossyant (26 Jul 2011)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  11 pages. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## BentMikey (26 Jul 2011)

I really really don't want to look like a cyclist. Uncertainty in drivers' minds never reduces safety, on the contrary it increases safety. Uncertainty means potential harm to the driver/the driver's vehicle, it means slow down and take more care. Certainty does the opposite, and it's much more likely to be bad and scary for the cyclist. There are lots of studies out there showing how naked streets, junctions with no traffic lights, no pedestrian railings, etc, all create uncertainty and also create safety, slower vehicle speeds, and more pleasant conditions for the more vulnerable road users.

Cyclists aren't as easily identifiable as cyclists at night, which is why so many people on here and other forums report how much better riding at night is, and how much further out drivers pass them.


----------



## classic33 (26 Jul 2011)

fossyant said:


> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  11 pages. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz



I wasn't expecting it to go on this long either. It was only a simple question based on what was seen!


----------



## fossyant (26 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I really really don't want to look like a cyclist.



You don't mate, deckchair on wheels innit !


----------

