# Common sense



## Justinslow (14 Nov 2019)

Popped up on my Facebook feed, I’ll just leave it here.


----------



## Drago (14 Nov 2019)

It's that why firefighters day uniform is dark blue polo shirts and black trousers?

In any case, the "without" photo has clearly been doctored, or the subject has covered her face and legs in cam cream. You'd think they'd check before blindly tweeting a photoshopped picture.


----------



## dave r (14 Nov 2019)

That came up on my feed as well


----------



## tom73 (14 Nov 2019)

They appear to have just found some random online junk . It's clearly not even from the UK.


----------



## Drago (14 Nov 2019)

Why don't they show an un-doctored image of the woman waiting there in normal clothes so we can compare and decide for ourselves? Why this constant need to spin the subject, to deceive the public?


----------



## Ajax Bay (14 Nov 2019)

The Buckingham Fire Station would add value to this message (have they a role in promoting conspicuity btw) if they sourced an image of an English street and 'zebra' crossing. What about that black car in the shade?


----------



## Drago (14 Nov 2019)

Everything else shows up in both images without any assistance from hi vis, so why have they blacked out the woman in the second image but not everything else that can be plainly seen? The worrying thing is that people see stuff like this and believe it as gospel.

Indeed, looking at the vehicles the photo is at least 3 decades old. That being the case, the hi vis clothing is itself probably a photoshop.

So considering the clear falseness of the images, im curious as to where does the common sense come it?


----------



## sleuthey (14 Nov 2019)

They are either wearing a balaclava or posing as a living statue.


----------



## Drago (14 Nov 2019)

They've blacked themselves up - it's probably Justin Trudeau on his way to a party.


----------



## tom73 (14 Nov 2019)

Are they tram lines on that road as well ? As for hi vis look's more like an old style water proof either that or it's from Dicky Mint's holiday snaps.


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Nov 2019)

Drago said:


> It's that why firefighters day uniform is dark blue polo shirts and black trousers?
> 
> In any case, the "without" photo has clearly been doctored, or the subject has covered her face and legs in cam cream. You'd think they'd check before blindly tweeting a photoshopped picture.


You have a very valid point about the photoshopping on these pictures. They are trying to put across a no brainer of an idea and have managed to totally cock it up. Wearing brighter gear, will get you seen earlier. That is unless you subscribe to the fact that 99% of the time, drivers are not looking. Personally, I ride around looking like technicolour dream. I have made a new drybag this morning 😁


----------



## MichaelW2 (14 Nov 2019)

This is my kind of public information film. Classic


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1MFuSMz1zh0


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2019)

Same post appeared in my feed and got ripped a new one for the blacking-up. #BeSafeDontBlackUp and so on

The reason they use doctored images is because it turns out that most non-ninjas are pretty easy to see and most of the problem is incompetent drivers, whether phoney, drunk/drugged, distracted or simply not wearing their glasses or not clearing their windscreen. But it's easier to spread the message that the children or parents are to blame.

And recent research suggests being seen earlier can lead to SMIFAY (Sorry Mate I Forgot About You - rather than SMIDSY) although few admit that directly because it's not as accepted as SMIDSY (yet?).



MichaelW2 said:


> This is my kind of public information film. Classic
> 
> 
> View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1MFuSMz1zh0



The 1970s called and wants its government-funded victim-blaming back.


----------



## Drago (14 Nov 2019)

Fair point. Get yourself seen, wear hi vis, put lights on your bike...why do we never see such campaigns promoting "motorists - look where you're bleeding well going"?

A campaign exhorting females not to go out at night or not to wear short skirts would meet with outrage and derision, and quite rightly so, yet it's still acceptable to treat potential victims of road crime in that manner.


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2019)

Drago said:


> Fair point. Get yourself seen, wear hi vis, put lights on your bike...why do we never see such campaigns promoting "motorists - look where you're bleeding well going"?


Because they're a bit shoot and take a bizarrely soft approach to the perpetrator and a hard line with the victims. I think this is the latest government film against phoney driving. It tells people not to look at their phones more than it tells them to look at the road. I bet no-one will be posting this in 40 years like the cyclist blaming ugly mac one above.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LLh1oZ6JbvA


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Nov 2019)

Sure thing.

Safety is less to do with being dressed as an aircraft marshal at Heathrow and more to do with how drivers observe their surroundings and then how they negotiate vulnerable users. 

Hi-vis is no guarantee that a driver won't still risk your life by driving badly around you.


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Nov 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Sure thing.
> 
> Safety is less to do with being dressed as an aircraft marshal at Heathrow and more to do with how drivers observe their surroundings and then how they negotiate vulnerable users.
> 
> ...


You are right. If they are driving like a twonker it makes no difference what you are wearing. But high viz and reflective gear does get you seen earlier by those not driving like a twonker. As a cyclist I have no control over how people drive But I can make it as easier for drivers to see me.


----------



## Drago (14 Nov 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Sure thing.
> 
> Safety is less to do with being dressed as an aircraft marshal at Heathrow and more to do with how drivers observe their surroundings and then how they negotiate vulnerable users.
> 
> ...


Indeed. According to the DoT's own numbers there is no casualty reduction among road workers that correlates to the mandatory use of fluorries. 

They're not killing road workers because they can't see them.


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> You are right. If they are driving like a twonker it makes no difference what you are wearing. But high viz and reflective gear does get you seen earlier by those not driving like a twonker. As a cyclist I have no control over how people drive But I can make it as easier for drivers to see me.


And I can stop wasting my time on stuff that doesn't seem to help (at best) and challenge people encouraging such time-wasting. Put decent lights and reflectives on your bike, then push for motorist education and regulation long before faffing with ugly clothes and bags.


----------



## swansonj (14 Nov 2019)

Drago said:


> ....
> They're not killing road workers because they can't see them.


A fascinating sentence. It means exactly what you meant it to, but simultaneously something very different...


----------



## Threevok (14 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> Popped up on my Facebook feed, I’ll just leave it here.
> 
> View attachment 492862
> 
> ...



If i was the parent of that second child, I wouldn't be letting them near any drains with a paper boat


----------



## twentysix by twentyfive (14 Nov 2019)

Drago said:


> They're not killing road workers because they can't see them.





swansonj said:


> A fascinating sentence. It means exactly what you meant it to, but simultaneously something very different...



Indeed - the twonks are not looking or engaging the soft grey stuff


----------



## Justinslow (14 Nov 2019)

I think we’re all twonks deep down even if you don’t believe you are. Everyone will at some point in their life be a “twonk” even if you don’t intend to unfortunately, just like cyclists who ride into people because they weren’t looking. Human nature.


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> I think we’re all twonks deep down even if you don’t believe you are. Everyone will at some point in their life be a “twonk” even if you don’t intend to unfortunately, just like cyclists who ride into people because they weren’t looking. Human nature.


I don't believe that it's human nature to operate lethal machinery recklessly or carelessly and hope I never do it. Honest mistakes happen but a driver not looking out the big glass rectangle in front of them is negligence, not an honest mistake.

Resharing an obviously doctored image to blame some children and parents for child road deaths is more likely to be an honest mistake, but I'm not even sure that is!


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Nov 2019)

Drago said:


> Indeed. According to the DoT's own numbers there is no casualty reduction among road workers that correlates to the mandatory use of fluorries.
> 
> They're not killing road workers because they can't see them.


I dont know how they worked that out. Did they decide that half the roadworkers wore dark clothing and the other half wore high viz. Then they waited to see who got run over first.


----------



## AndyRM (14 Nov 2019)

Seems like an appropriate thread to share this: twitter.com/but_cyclists


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> I dont know how they worked that out. Did they decide that half the roadworkers wore dark clothing and the other half wore high viz. Then they waited to see who got run over first.


I don't know either but I suspect there was some date before which roadworkers didn't have to dress like oompa-loompas and the casualty trend shows no step change at the date of introduction. Or they may have compared different country practices to see what factors may explain any differences. There are loads of ways to test it without the ethically-questionable step of deliberately sending half the workforce out with what some believe to be less protection (which half would depend on whether you believe it helps or hinders).


----------



## Justinslow (14 Nov 2019)

AndyRM said:


> Seems like an appropriate thread to share this: twitter.com/but_cyclists


Yeah that’s interesting, think I might start following it.


----------



## Justinslow (14 Nov 2019)

mjr said:


> I don't believe that it's human nature to operate lethal machinery recklessly or carelessly and hope I never do it. Honest mistakes happen but a driver not looking out the big glass rectangle in front of them is negligence, not an honest mistake.
> 
> Resharing an obviously doctored image to blame some children and parents for child road deaths is more likely to be an honest mistake, but I'm not even sure that is!


Define “honest mistake”?


----------



## Drago (14 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> Define “honest mistake”?


Only when you ask Buckingham Trumpton to define "obviously photoshopped".


----------



## Justinslow (14 Nov 2019)

Drago said:


> Only when you ask Buckingham Trumpton to define "obviously photoshopped".


Isn’t everything on t’internet these days?


----------



## boydj (14 Nov 2019)

Doesn't matter what you wear when you are cycling, as long as you are legal with lights and reflectives at night. If drivers aren't looking properly, then you are in danger. The best aid to your visibility is your road positioning - i.e. ride where drivers are looking - well out from the edge and even further out approaching junctions.


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> Define “honest mistake”?


Web search engines banned you again? No dictionaries in the house? Anyway, an honest mistake could be defined as one not hiding some intentional malice or recklessness. Alternatively, https://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/an-honest-mistake


----------



## Justinslow (14 Nov 2019)

mjr said:


> Web search engines banned you again? No dictionaries in the house? Anyway, an honest mistake could be defined as one not hiding some intentional malice or recklessness. Alternatively, https://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/an-honest-mistake


So you are saying people are deliberately smashing into cyclists in all cases?
If you smash into someone on your bike or in your vehicle and they get injured or worse because you made an “honest mistake”, the result is the same as if you were negligent, what’s the difference?

To me, this is what is missing in today’s world, a modicum of common sense from all parties including realising that every one of us could one day be at fault of causing or suffering from an “honest mistake” or negligence. 
Wearing contrasting colourful clothing is not a bad thing just as all drivers should remain attentive at all times, but as we know, some drivers are not attentive just like some pedestrians aren’t or cyclists. I don’t think blaming one section of society - vehicle drivers, helps.
For what it’s worth I think the picture I linked is exaggerated massively but the general message is sound.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Nov 2019)

They've basically cloned the shadow from the right onto where the child is in the other photo. What a load of rubbish. Are they suggesting all pedestrians including those in cars wear yellow?


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> So you are saying people are deliberately smashing into cyclists in all cases?


 How did you leap to that conclusion? No, I'm saying most are knowingly reckless!



Justinslow said:


> If you smash into someone on your bike or in your vehicle and they get injured or worse because you made an “honest mistake”, the result is the same as if you were negligent, what’s the difference?


The honest mistakes are rarer.



Justinslow said:


> To me, this is what is missing in today’s world, a modicum of common sense from all parties including realising that every one of us could one day be at fault of causing or suffering from an “honest mistake” or negligence.


All of us could make an honest mistake, but if anyone thinks you could be at fault of negligence, then please, for the love of humanity, don't drive until you sort out the cause!



Justinslow said:


> Wearing contrasting colourful clothing is not a bad thing just as all drivers should remain attentive at all times, but as we know, some drivers are not attentive just like some pedestrians aren’t or cyclists. I don’t think blaming one section of society - vehicle drivers, helps.


What next? Wearing stab vests is not a bad thing just as all knife users should remain peaceful at all times, but as we know, some knife users are not peaceful just like some pedestrians aren't or cyclists. I don't think blaming one section of society - knife-using murderers, helps?



Justinslow said:


> For what it’s worth I think the picture I linked is exaggerated massively but the general message is sound.


It really is not and that's why they have to exaggerate like weaselly toads.


----------



## Drago (15 Nov 2019)

Indeed. If the message were sound then why the need for photoshop sneaky tactics?


----------



## theclaud (15 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> I don’t think blaming one section of society - vehicle drivers, helps.


They're the ones killing and maiming people. Small children standing by trees in vintage photos... not so much.


----------



## Pale Rider (15 Nov 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Sure thing.
> 
> Safety is less to do with being dressed as an aircraft marshal at Heathrow and more to do with how drivers observe their surroundings and then how they negotiate vulnerable users.
> 
> ...



Reminds me of an exchange in a death by dangerous court case in which a lorry driver killed two road workers who were putting out cones.

The lorry driver said something about 'not seeing' the cone vehicle, to which the prosecutor said:

"The vehicle had an illuminated keep right sign approximately eight feet in diameter, the sign had a row of beacons above it.
"It had hazard flashers, two red lights, and four beacons, one at each corner, each approximately the size of a dinner plate.
"Yet you still didn't see it?"

The driver was convicted and got four years.

The going rate at the time for 'accidental' cases was about two years for each death.

Might get a bit longer now.


----------



## recumbentpanda (15 Nov 2019)

The trouble with ‘common sense’ is that it’s not very common, and often makes no sense at all.


----------



## Tail End Charlie (15 Nov 2019)

recumbentpanda said:


> The trouble with ‘common sense’ is that it’s not very common, and often makes no sense at all.


The other trouble with common sense is that everyone thinks they have it, and everyone else doesn't! I've never heard anyone say "I've no common sense" and mean it.


----------



## Phil Fouracre (15 Nov 2019)

Trouble is, it seems like a vague concept to so many people! Straying away from cycling/driving slightly, I’ve come across some seriously frightening examples of a complete lack of it in everyday life. Through work, being involved in gas and electrical faults it scares the hell out of me that otherwise ‘intelligent’ people show scant regard for seriously life threatening situations.


----------



## mjr (15 Nov 2019)

Hi-vis is the new urban camo, innit? https://road.cc/content/news/268709-cycling-phone-thieves-blending-wearing-hi-vis


----------



## Drago (15 Nov 2019)

It becomes clutterflage when the roads are that busy.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Nov 2019)

By being in hiviz you don't stand out and get noticed. You just blend into the every day and get forgotten. Many drivers have stories of so called ninja cyclists but not hiviz ones, the latter barely noticed .


----------



## steveindenmark (15 Nov 2019)

boydj said:


> Doesn't matter what you wear when you are cycling, as long as you are legal with lights and reflectives at night. If drivers aren't looking properly, then you are in danger.


Thats not correct. of course it matters what you are wearing. There is no point in laying under the wheels of a car and with your dying breath saying "Its not my job to make it easier for him to see me". 
I consider myself to be a safe experienced driver. But even with bright, clean lights and screen and travelling at well under the speed limit. At 4.30am it can still be difficult to see the dog walker dressed in black walking his black dog out in the countryside. Or the cyclist with no lights who I passed last week. Lights and reflectors are the bare minimum to be legal on the road. As cyclists we need to take responsibility of our own safety and not leave it soley in the hands of motorists. That means having extra lights and making ourselves more visible. This old chestnut of drivers not paying attention is nonesense. Of course it happens. But some people just use it as an arguement to put their point over.


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> Thats not correct. of course it matters what you are wearing. There is no point in laying under the wheels of a car and with your dying breath saying "Its not my job to make it easier for him to see me".
> I consider myself to be a safe experienced driver. But even with bright, clean lights and screen and travelling at well under the speed limit. At 4.30am it can still be difficult to see the dog walker dressed in black walking his black dog out in the countryside. Or the cyclist with no lights who I passed last week. Lights and reflectors are the bare minimum to be legal on the road. As cyclists we need to take responsibility of our own safety and not leave it soley in the hands of motorists. That means having extra lights and making ourselves more visible. This old chestnut of drivers not paying attention is nonesense. Of course it happens. But some people just use it as an arguement to put their point over.


Emotional nonsense that keeps slipping into more and more responsibility for people who are no risk to others. Just get a grip. If you are throwing a tonne or two of metal around, you need to make sure you don't hit people with it. End of.


----------



## Justinslow (16 Nov 2019)

theclaud said:


> Emotional nonsense that keeps slipping into more and more responsibility for people who are no risk to others. Just get a grip. If you are throwing a tonne or two of metal around, you need to make sure you don't hit people with it. End of.


Let’s just ask the pedestrians out there or infact anyone who’s ever been ridden into by a cyclist if the perpetrators were “no risk to others”
You seem to live in a very one dimensional world, very “them and us”.
It does seem a very stubborn view - “I’m going to wear dark clothes on my bike as it’s not my responsibility to be seen by other road users”.


----------



## newfhouse (16 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> I’m going to wear dark clothes on my bike


Me too. Black is cool.


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> Let’s just ask the pedestrians out there or infact anyone who’s ever been ridden into by a cyclist if the perpetrators were “no risk to others”
> You seem to live in a very one dimensional world, very “them and us”.
> It does seem a very stubborn view - “I’m going to wear dark clothes on my bike as it’s not my responsibility to be seen by other road users”.


Your OP has nothing to do with the (extremely rare) cases of cyclists injuring pedestrians. It's just part of the traditional winter victim-blaming ritual we perform for the benefit of motorists as they enter peak killing season. Maybe you should start another thread?


----------



## Drago (16 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> Let’s just ask the pedestrians out there or infact anyone who’s ever been ridden into by a cyclist if the perpetrators were “no risk to others”
> You seem to live in a very one dimensional world, very “them and us”.
> It does seem a very stubborn view - “I’m going to wear dark clothes on my bike as it’s not my responsibility to be seen by other road users”.


More pedestrians are killed by cattle than by cyclists - if you asked pedestrians though which of the two is the most dangerous, they'll inevitably say cyclists, despite that demonstrably not being the case. 

Perception and reality rarely coincide, which is why one should rely on science to guide you when making a safety related decision, not "common sense", or photoshopped images. In this case science tells us that there is little link between conspicuity and road safety - people are being killed through poor observation, not poor visibility. What little actual research that has been done shows the rate at which hi vis wearers get killed or seriously injured is much the same as for those in regular street attire, and the largest authoritative study in the UK shows no link whatsoever.

The other problem with "common sense" is that it can actually be counter intuitive. It was proven as long ago as the 1980s that over bright lights in normal day time conditions - such as dipped beam headlamps - actually makes one more likely to become involved in an accident, as it deprives the observers brain of the required datum necessary to accurately calculate speed. Yet how may riders do you see riding round in broad daylight with stupid bright lights on in the name of "safety"?

Unless something has been proven to have a road safety benefit, assime it does not - that's the best way to stay alive. Statistically, a rabbits foot in your pocket is as likely to keep you alive as a hi vis. I teach advanced road skills to cyclists and anyone wearing a fluorescent with the "they can see me" attitude will be out on their ear - a rider in normal colours with the "have they seen me?" attitude is the far safer of the two.


----------



## Justinslow (16 Nov 2019)

Drago said:


> More pedestrians are killed by cattle than by cyclists - if you asked pedestrians though which of the two is the most dangerous, they'll inevitably say cyclists, despite that demonstrably not being the case.
> 
> Perception and reality rarely coincide, which is why one should rely on science to guide you when making a safety related decision, not "common sense", or photoshopped images. In this case science tells us that there is little link between conspicuity and road safety - people are being killed through poor observation, not poor visibility. What little actual research that has been done shows the rate at which hi vis wearers get killed or seriously injured is much the same as for those in regular street attire, and the largest authoritative study in the UK shows no link whatsoever.
> 
> ...


I don’t think it’s a “they can see me” attitude, more a holistic approach.


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Nov 2019)

Drago said:


> More pedestrians are killed by cattle than by cyclists - if you asked pedestrians though which of the two is the most dangerous, they'll inevitably say cyclists, despite that demonstrably not being the case.
> 
> Perception and reality rarely coincide, which is why one should rely on science to guide you when making a safety related decision, not "common sense", or photoshopped images. In this case science tells us that there is little link between conspicuity and road safety - people are being killed through poor observation, not poor visibility. What little actual research that has been done shows the rate at which hi vis wearers get killed or seriously injured is much the same as for those in regular street attire, and the largest authoritative study in the UK shows no link whatsoever.
> 
> ...



You raise some interesting points. The main one is dont wear this jersey when cycling. It can only lead to a bad end.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> Popped up on my Facebook feed, I’ll just leave it here.
> 
> 
> View attachment 492862



This was my retort when it appeared on my FB feed...


I'd rather whoever's driving that car doesn't mount the pavement... the child in both pictures is perfectly safe where they are, and once they're crossing the road, they'll be just as visible as those trees and everything else that isn't lemon coloured. Sorry, but if people can drive black cars, I can wear a black coat. This is just transferring responsibility away from those who really should be paying attention to their surroundings, those being the folks driving huge dangerous hunks of metal around.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> You are right. If they are driving like a twonker it makes no difference what you are wearing. *But high viz and reflective gear does get you seen earlier by those not driving like a twonker. *As a cyclist I have no control over how people drive But I can make it as easier for drivers to see me.


isn't it around this time of year we get all the '_just seen a cyclist dressed all in black with no lights_' posts?


----------



## Justinslow (16 Nov 2019)

An interesting aside...
My local club now enforces both front and rear lights must be fitted and working to be allowed to compete in the clubs TT events (these events are not held in darkness) no one seems to have a problem with this.
Bright clothing/sninsuits are recommended but not yet mandatory, although dark attire is very much frowned apon.


----------



## Poacher (16 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> An interesting aside...
> My local club now enforces both front and rear lights must be fitted and working to be allowed to compete in the clubs TT events (these events are not held in darkness) no one seems to have a problem with this.
> Bright clothing/sninsuits are recommended but not yet mandatory, although dark attire is very much frowned apon.


I bet they insist on helmets as well.


----------



## Justinslow (16 Nov 2019)

Poacher said:


> I bet they insist on helmets as well.


Surprisingly I don’t think they do, but that’s for another thread....


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Nov 2019)

MontyVeda said:


> isn't it around this time of year we get all the '_just seen a cyclist dressed all in black with no lights_' posts?


No I post them throughout the year. But I ride in the dark more than most.


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> An interesting aside...
> My local club now enforces both front and rear lights must be fitted and working to be allowed to compete in the clubs TT events (these events are not held in darkness) no one seems to have a problem with this.
> Bright clothing/sninsuits are recommended but not yet mandatory, although *dark attire is very much frowned apon*.



How deeply uncool.

I've been working late a lot recently and the moon has been full and bright for my ride home. I've been turning my front light off for the ride along the seafront to enjoy it. There are no streetlights. I can see everything much better than when I'm coming home at a busy commuting time with oncoming cyclists' and runners way-too-bright headlights in my face. Lighting levels need to come down.


----------



## Justinslow (16 Nov 2019)

theclaud said:


> How deeply uncool.
> 
> I've been working late a lot recently and the moon has been full and bright for my ride home. I've been turning my front light off for the ride along the seafront to enjoy it. There are no streetlights. I can see everything much better than when I'm coming home at a busy commuting time with oncoming cyclists' and runners way-too-bright headlights in my face. Lighting levels need to come down.


Yeah let’s just get everybody to turn their lights off, brilliant idea.


----------



## theclaud (16 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> Yeah let’s just get everybody to turn their lights off, brilliant idea.


Actually, it _is _pretty good - thanks. Neither pedestrians nor cyclists can win a lighting arms race with motor vehicles.


----------



## newfhouse (16 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> Yeah let’s just get everybody to turn their lights off, brilliant idea.


And slow down too. Win, win.


----------



## snorri (16 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> I consider myself to be a safe experienced driver.


If we got all the drivers who see themselves in that light off the roads, there wouldn't be any crashes at all.


----------



## srw (16 Nov 2019)

theclaud said:


> Actually, it _is _pretty good - thanks. Neither pedestrians nor cyclists can win a lighting arms race with motor vehicles.


My observation bimbling around London would be that some cyclists already have - but it's not doing anyone any favours. Least of all the cyclists who are dazzling the drivers they're sharing the road with.


----------



## Justinslow (16 Nov 2019)

newfhouse said:


> And slow down too. Win, win.


Yep I’d agree with that, everybody could do with slowing down.


----------



## mjr (16 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> An interesting aside...
> My local club now enforces both front and rear lights must be fitted and working to be allowed to compete in the clubs TT events (these events are not held in darkness) no one seems to have a problem with this.
> Bright clothing/sninsuits are recommended but not yet mandatory, although dark attire is very much frowned apon.


I didn't think clubs were allowed to introduce extra equipment requirements to CTT accredited time trials. Or are these unofficial ones run under some more clueless insurance?

If it's anything like TTs around here, most are held on some of the dodgiest roads around where you're unlikely to see another cyclist, but many of the cyclists will be moving fairly fast and I suspect most of the reason for the fairly low injury rate is the eye-catching temporary "cycle event" warning signs posted at entrances to the TT route!


----------



## swansonj (16 Nov 2019)

theclaud said:


> Actually, it _is _pretty good - thanks. Neither pedestrians nor cyclists can win a lighting arms race with motor vehicles.


Neither, for that matter, does it benefit motorists in many circumstances.... On a busy road, all you can see is the glare of the lights, with little chance of picking out any detail behind them. The lighting arms race is a retrograde trend dressed up as progress. A bit like plastic packaging, on which, all of a sudden, majority opinion has switched - so there's hope for our roads yet.


----------



## Justinslow (16 Nov 2019)

mjr said:


> I didn't think clubs were allowed to introduce extra equipment requirements to CTT accredited time trials. Or are these unofficial ones run under some more clueless insurance?
> 
> If it's anything like TTs around here, most are held on some of the dodgiest roads around where you're unlikely to see another cyclist, but many of the cyclists will be moving fairly fast and I suspect most of the reason for the fairly low injury rate is the eye-catching temporary "cycle event" warning signs posted at entrances to the TT route!


Would they be the bright yellow signs?
Yeah nobody even sees those.


----------



## mjr (16 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> Would they be the bright yellow signs?
> Yeah nobody even sees those.


Ones I've seen have been the usual red triangle with a black bicycle on white inside it. Sort of pop up metal frame grey rectangle holder things. If your local is using some sort of yellow things, maybe you could suggest they switch to the standard warning sign.


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Nov 2019)

snorri said:


> If we got all the drivers who see themselves in that light off the roads, there wouldn't be any crashes at all.


I used to be an ADI (Approved driving instructor). I had my own driving school for 8 years. I am a member of the Institute advanced motorists. I was a police patrol driver for 6 years. I have held my LGV 1 licence for over forty years and my motorcycle licence for 35 years. I have been in one motorcycle accident, not of my making. 

I think I am not overstepping the mark when I say I am a safe and experienced driver.


----------



## snorri (17 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> I say I am a safe and experienced driver.


I've never met a driver who claimed to be anything other!


----------



## newfhouse (17 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> I was a police patrol driver for 6 years.


I had to remonstrate with a Met ARV driver who carelessly pulled out in front of me in Streatham last week. “Sorry, didn’t see you.” I think my anecdote neutralises yours, doesn’t it?


----------



## bianchi1 (17 Nov 2019)

mjr said:


> Ones I've seen have been the usual red triangle with a black bicycle on white inside it. Sort of pop up metal frame grey rectangle holder things. If your local is using some sort of yellow things, maybe you could suggest they switch to the standard warning sign.



My garage is full of these, and the yellow background is an important feature. Not just for enhanced visibility but " it emphasises that you should pay particular attention to the warning information the sign is trying to convey, it also means that the sign in its normal state didn’t do its job."








If your local is just using red signs maybe you could suggest they change to the more appropriate sign.

It's also used in lots of other signs where it has been shown the standard ones haven't done the job.


----------



## mjr (17 Nov 2019)

bianchi1 said:


> My garage is full of these, and the yellow background is an important feature. Not just for enhanced visibility but " it emphasises that you should pay particular attention to the warning information the sign is trying to convey, it also means that the sign in its normal state didn’t do its job."


Who or what are you quoting there, please?




> If your local is just using red signs maybe you could suggest they change to the more appropriate sign.


No, I'm not keen to suggest they use a version with lower contrast and that conceals the distinctive warning triangle shape to boot!

Also, it looks like they need to cut the hedge from over the lights on that school sign!


----------



## hatler (17 Nov 2019)

swansonj said:


> Neither, for that matter, does it benefit motorists in many circumstances.... On a busy road, all you can see is the glare of the lights, with little chance of picking out any detail behind them. The lighting arms race is a retrograde trend dressed up as progress. A bit like plastic packaging, on which, all of a sudden, majority opinion has switched - so there's hope for our roads yet.


I'd say it's a retrograde trend dressed up as fashion.

The manufacturers are creaming themselves over their vehicles' 'distinctive LED signatures'.

I find them hugely disruptive in a daylight setting, it's like they suck out of view everything that's behind them. A truly backward step in holistic safety.


----------



## bianchi1 (17 Nov 2019)

On roads where the speed of traffic approaching the lower limit is particularly high or where there are a large proportion of drivers exceeding the speed limit,there may be a need to make the speed limit signs especially conspicuous. The use of new speed limit signs with yellow backing boards shall be restricted to such locations or those where there is a history of injury accidents


mjr said:


> Who or what are you quoting there, please?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its all driven by accident statistics; 

"If the accident record suggests that drivers are failing to notice the warning, or seeing it too late to take the necessary action, the next larger size can be used. _Conspicuity can also be increased by the use of yellow backing boards_ (see 1.12). These are environmentally intrusive and should only be used sparingly, not as a matter of course". https://tsrgd.co.uk/documents/traffic-signs-manual


I would argue that when running an occasional cycle event the signs should be environmentally intrusive. They are temporary after all! 


Locally to me (Malvern) the advice is the same;

"Backboards ; you should not use backboards unless it can be demonstrated that they are essential. Clean retro-reflective signs show up well against most backdrops. Backboards may be necessary in exceptional cases where justified by accident statistics"

It is worth mentioning that the main argument with yellow backed signs is that they are _too_ conspicuous and therefore ruin the natural environment!


----------



## boydj (18 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> Thats not correct. of course it matters what you are wearing. There is no point in laying under the wheels of a car and with your dying breath saying "Its not my job to make it easier for him to see me".
> I consider myself to be a safe experienced driver. But even with bright, clean lights and screen and travelling at well under the speed limit. At 4.30am it can still be difficult to see the dog walker dressed in black walking his black dog out in the countryside. Or the cyclist with no lights who I passed last week. Lights and reflectors are the bare minimum to be legal on the road. As cyclists we need to take responsibility of our own safety and not leave it soley in the hands of motorists. That means having extra lights and making ourselves more visible. This old chestnut of drivers not paying attention is nonesense. Of course it happens. But some people just use it as an arguement to put their point over.



You take a small part of what I said and misinterpret it. 

I've had two major offs while commuting, both entirely the fault of drivers. In the first, early morning, not quite light, I was wearing bright clothes, lots of reflectives, two lights at the front and three at the back - SMIDSY by a guy turning across me. In the second, nice bright afternoon, riding in the middle of lane one on a 30mph dual carriageway, sideswiped by a lady changing lanes - I was wearing a bright white jacket - she simply forgot I was there, even though she had moved out to overtake me initially. Drivers are often on autopilot, with their attention only partly on their driving and not fully registering what's going on in the road in front of them. Their brains are programmed to register the actions of other motor vehicles, but not that of cyclists or pedestrians. That's why you need to ride in such a way that they do notice you and register your presence - and even that does not always work.

I've never said that cyclists don't have a responsibility to be visible - self preservation dictates that necessity. But how you ride is far more important in that regard than the clothes you wear. And there are plenty of drivers out there not fully paying attention who will eventually negate all the precautions that you take.


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Nov 2019)

boydj said:


> You take a small part of what I said and misinterpret it.
> 
> I've had two major offs while commuting, both entirely the fault of drivers. In the first, early morning, not quite light, I was wearing bright clothes, lots of reflectives, two lights at the front and three at the back - SMIDSY by a guy turning across me. In the second, nice bright afternoon, riding in the middle of lane one on a 30mph dual carriageway, sideswiped by a lady changing lanes - I was wearing a bright white jacket - she simply forgot I was there, even though she had moved out to overtake me initially. Drivers are often on autopilot, with their attention only partly on their driving and not fully registering what's going on in the road in front of them. Their brains are programmed to register the actions of other motor vehicles, but not that of cyclists or pedestrians. That's why you need to ride in such a way that they do notice you and register your presence - and even that does not always work.
> 
> I've never said that cyclists don't have a responsibility to be visible - self preservation dictates that necessity. But how you ride is far more important in that regard than the clothes you wear. And there are plenty of drivers out there not fully paying attention who will eventually negate all the precautions that you take.


_Doesn't matter what you wear when you are cycling, as long as you are legal with lights and reflectives at night _

I took a part of what you said but I dont think I misinterpreted it. It is very clear what you said.

I agree with the points you are making about road positioning. But cycling safety comes in a package and imo clothing is part of the package.


----------



## MarkF (19 Nov 2019)

I am not wearing any "safety" clothing ever, it all looks cack and I like to look good, I don't have any motorcycle safety clothing and have managed to get to 56 after 40 years on m/bikes by being on "high alert", I trust that more than safety clothing, I'd like car drivers to be on that too.


----------



## Justinslow (20 Nov 2019)

MarkF said:


> I am not wearing any "safety" clothing ever, it all looks cack and I like to look good, I don't have any motorcycle safety clothing and have managed to get to 56 after 40 years on m/bikes by being on "high alert", I trust that more than safety clothing, I'd like car drivers to be on that too.


Fair play not riding with a motorcycle helmet, leathers, gloves or boots for that long.


----------



## MarkF (20 Nov 2019)

Justinslow said:


> Fair play not riding with a motorcycle helmet, leathers, gloves or boots for that long.


Well, I do have a helmet as I am forced to wear one, but that is not "clothing". It's an open face one, wouldn't be seen dead in a full one.


----------



## Justinslow (21 Nov 2019)

MarkF said:


> Well, I do have a helmet as I am forced to wear one, but that is not "clothing". It's an open face one, wouldn't be seen dead in a full one.


Out of interest what do you ride?


----------



## Drago (22 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> But cycling safety comes in a package and imo clothing is part of the package.


A lot of too and fro here which I've largely stayed out of. Nevertheless, there a bold statement, and bold statements require bold evidence.

What evidence do you have that clothing vis a vis its optical properties contributes to safety? Indeed, what evidence do you have that the problem is one of conspicuity, and not one of observation? Is that simply your own gut call, which as is your right is fair play, or is it a considered opinion based upon evidence? If there is no evidence, then you may as well rely on witchcraft or reading tea leaves.

Evidence. Otherwise, what's the point?

We should never do anything in the name of safety without evidence to support it - well intentioned but unproven efforts can, and have over the years, actually prove contrary to that aim.


----------



## steveindenmark (22 Nov 2019)

Drago said:


> A lot of too and fro here which I've largely stayed out of. Nevertheless, there a bold statement, and bold statements require bold evidence.
> 
> What evidence do you have that clothing vis a vis its optical properties contributes to safety? Indeed, what evidence do you have that the problem is one of conspicuity, and not one of observation? Is that simply your own gut call, which as is your right is fair play, or is it a considered opinion based upon evidence? If there is no evidence, then you may as well rely on witchcraft or reading tea leaves.
> 
> ...


Its my opinion based on 50 years of riding all over europe both on bikes and motorbikes. A very simple test would be to stand 2 people an equal distance away from you in varying light conditions. One in dark clothes and one high viz colours and see which one you see first. I know what I think and it works for me.


----------



## confusedcyclist (22 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> You are right. If they are driving like a twonker it makes no difference what you are wearing. But high viz and reflective gear does get you seen earlier by those not driving like a twonker. As a cyclist I have no control over how people drive But I can make it as easier for drivers to see me.


Where is the evidence it makes us safer though? The problem with doing something, because doing something is oft percieved as better than doing nothing has been debunked many times before. If people want to dress up as flashy lemons I'm all for that personal freedom, but for goodness sake, can we at least agree that we will demand something that actually makes us quantitatively safer?


----------



## steveindenmark (22 Nov 2019)

confusedcyclist said:


> Where is the evidence it makes us safer though? The problem with doing something, because doing something is oft percieved as better than doing nothing has been debunked many times before. If people want to dress up as flashy lemons I'm all for that personal freedom, but for goodness sake, can we at least agree that we will demand something that actually makes us quantitatively safer?


So if it is not proved to be safer, then its not safer. Is that your train of thought? 
Just by experience I find that drivers give me more room and appear to see me sooner if I wear high viz. I have no thesis to prove it. But I dont need one.


----------



## Milkfloat (22 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> Its my opinion based on 50 years of riding all over europe both on bikes and motorbikes. A very simple test would be to stand 2 people an equal distance away from you in varying light conditions. One in dark clothes and one high viz colours and see which one you see first. I know what I think and it works for me.
> View attachment 493776
> 
> 
> View attachment 493777


I think I would be more likely to hit you due to the tears of laughter in my eyes.


----------



## classic33 (22 Nov 2019)

https://www.shponline.co.uk/blog/hi-viz-blindness-is-it-time-to-rethink-our-approach-to-ppe/

https://www.eta.co.uk/2017/10/20/the-british-curse-of-high-vis/


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> it works for me.



Until you encounter the crap driver who doesn't care how you're dressed (and I sincerely hope you never do).

We still have drivers killing people who can be expected to be found in predictable locations, dressed head to foot in hi-vis and carrying a large road sign. They are being killed in broad daylight.
School crossing attendant killed as he guided pedestrian across the road (just one of many)

We still have drivers ramming into the back of brightly coloured highway support vehicles with enormous light arrays flashing on them.
We still have drivers ramming into stationary police vehicles with their blue & red strobes activated.

As I pointed out further up this thread, it's less about the hi-vis and more about people driving like dicks around vulnerable road users.


----------



## steveindenmark (22 Nov 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Until you encounter the crap driver who doesn't care how you're dressed (and I sincerely hope you never do).
> 
> We still have drivers killing people who can be expected to be found in predictable locations, dressed head to foot in hi-vis and carrying a large road sign. They are being killed in broad daylight.
> School crossing attendant killed as he guided pedestrian across the road (just one of many)
> ...


I have been riding for over 50 years. Maybe I have just been lucky. Possibly there might be something in what I am saying.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> I have been riding for over 50 years. Maybe I have just been lucky. Possibly there might be something in what I am saying.


I've been riding for almost 50 years. Maybe I've just been lucky. Possibly there might be nothing in what you're saying.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> Just by experience I find that drivers give me more room and appear to see me sooner if I wear high viz.





steveindenmark said:


> I have been riding for over 50 years. Maybe I have just been lucky. Possibly there might be something in what I am saying.



And possibly not.

I've been riding bikes and motorbikes for as long as you have.

A few years ago I experimented with varying my clothing over a few months, in two-week spells, and found that what I was wearing had no bearing on the behaviour of drivers around me. The close passes, the SMIDSYs at junctions, the left hooks and right hooks, they all occurred with the same frequency. Even when I dressed similarly to you and wore a helmet with a light on it, I'd still get some dunderheids saying they didn't see me, so I'd definitely agree with the view that you've just been lucky. (Long may that continue!)


----------



## confusedcyclist (22 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> So if it is not proved to be safer, then its not safer. Is that your train of thought?
> Just by experience I find that drivers give me more room and appear to see me sooner if I wear high viz. I have no thesis to prove it. But I dont need one.


No Steve, that's an incorrect assumption of my train of thought. As I already stated, people dressing up as flashy lemons is fine by me, I'm all for personal freedoms, do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else*. As others have said, it has been proven that high-vis safety gear does not reduce the incidence of KSI figures in all sorts of settings, including cycling. Take from that what you will. Being visible is very different to being safe. I as others before me have pointed out that, a 'common sense' response of doing something (unproven) rather than doing nothing at all, can backfire spectacularly. If you willingly overstate the positive benefits (or fabricate them entirely), at the same time as disregarding the possible negative effects, you'll expose yourself to the phenomenon of unintended consequences.

For example, the brighter is better mantra, seems plausible right? Nope, the ensuing lighting arms race resulting in temporarily blinded motorists careering down the road at high speeds, clearly it will not be doing anyone any favours. Flashing lights? Eye-catching right? Being seen is important right? Actually, some studies have demonstrated blinky lights make judging speed and distance harder. Day-time running lights? Drivers de-sensitised the the presence of cyclists at night time. We can go on and on. The thing is. The actual downsides might be slight, but if the positives are overstated, then the negatives can more easily be overlooked, but what if the unintended consequences detract more than the actual equivalent of the overstated benefit? What if the culimation of all these safety tips, turns our roads into a modern day battle ground, where the simple act of cycling, is not longer safe or practical, and that put people off.
This plays out at a societal level, as well as the individual. What if to the layman, the high-vis clad road cyclists makes cycling feel more dangerous to them than that it actually is? What if that means less cycling overall and a public health crisis, what if number of cyclists on the roads fall, so local govt. can't/won't justify the funding to install actual meaningful safe infra? What if the victim isn't wearing high vis? Can the careless driver now get away with it because the victim didn't do everything in their power (wearing unproven safety gear) to protect themselves, despite the carelessness and mixing of modes which are separated by an order in magnitude in terms of mass being the root of the problem.

As others have said, I too hope that you won't experience a serious collision with a motorist, but if you do, you'll soon realise that being seen isn't the issue. It's being safe, and that means out of harm's way. I have lost count of the times I got SMIDSY's, despite it being a glorious clear day with a high sun. I wasn't invisible, I wasn't safe. I was at the mercy of my own reactions to incompetent driving. My clothing had no bearing on my safety. That's what the research tells us too.

*Actually, wearing high-vis, and advocating its use may actually harm the cycling safety agenda on a societal scale, as it distracts many from what can be done for very little money, if only there were the political will and less dead ends to lead well meaning blokes like you.


----------



## steveindenmark (22 Nov 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> And possibly not.
> 
> I've been riding bikes and motorbikes for as long as you have.
> 
> A few years ago I experimented with varying my clothing over a few months, in two-week spells, and found that what I was wearing had no bearing on the behaviour of drivers around me. The close passes, the SMIDSYs at junctions, the left hooks and right hooks, they all occurred with the same frequency. Even when I dressed similarly to you and wore a helmet with a light on it, I'd still get some dunderheids saying they didn't see me, so I'd definitely agree with the view that you've just been lucky. (Long may that continue!)


I have taken on board what everyone has said and the general concensus seems to be is that its not my dayglo jacket that has kept me safe. Its my luck. 
So to test this I have been shopping and bought this ticket. But if I win the big money, I dont know how to tell you how lucky I am because I will be disowning you all 😁 But if I do come back, I will still be dressed as a lemon. 😁


----------



## icowden (22 Nov 2019)

confusedcyclist said:


> As others have said, it has been proven that high-vis safety gear does not reduce the incidence of KSI figures in all sorts of settings, including cycling.



Has it been proven that it makes things worse?

The issue with "proof" is that it doesn't have to exists for something to be a good idea.
For example, we cannot conclusively "prove" that climate change is being created by manmade phenomena and that reducing greenhouse gasses and moving to eco-friendly energy generation will make a difference.

Or in the words of a cartoon I saw a while ago... "Yes - but what if we have made the world a better place to live in FOR NOTHING?!!!". 

I can't prove that a cycle helmet is going to protect me in any given situation. I can understand though that it provides some padding and protection. On the balance of probability it seems like a good idea, and since I fractured my nose, it seems like a better idea. I have gathered my own personal evidence that a helmet would have helped if I had been wearing one.

Similarly, as a driver, there are some lanes around me that are extremely dark. It is much easier for me to see a cyclist if they have lights. It is likely I will see them if they are wearing something reflective. However, dark clothing, on a dark bike in the dark is much, much harder to see until the last second. Someone picked the argument before, "if you can see someone without lights or refelctive gear when you are on a bike, then why can't you when you are in a car"?
Simple answer. A car is going *much* faster. It is approaching the bike at much greater speed. There may be oncoming headlights making it harder to see,. There could be rain. 

If I'm on a bike it's unlikely I am going to catch up with that person at great speed - the differential is <10mph probably rather than say 30mph. I don't need anywhere near as much room to go around them if I am faster. The fresh air in my eyes and my own vulnerabilty as a cyclist means that I am riding with heightened awareness. In a car you are comfy, warm, have pleasant music or chat from the radio. It's an environment we have made more and more like sitting in the living room.

Of course you can go over the top with reflectors and helmets, but until you can "prove" that they make things worse, I'll continue to wear my shiny white helmet and my fluorescent backpack, my fluorescent "see my indication" gloves, and use my powerful front and back lights,


----------



## confusedcyclist (22 Nov 2019)

Well you can prove these things beyond reasonable doubt, it just takes a carefully designed study, but there are not enough of them. The issue is, we are dealing with compex systems. Most of the so called research is done by those with a vested interest in the outcome. The benefits are overstated in the real world, because the studies are designed to test a certain application, within tight constraints. Laymen see the claims, and parrot them endlessly. This thread starts with a example. There is not enough independent research, but it does exist. My point was that sometimes doing something (unproven) is worse than doing nothing, and that gets little attention in these debates.

If we want to tackle the issue of safety, instead of bickering who is at fault because the motorist (whom for some reason feels entitled to drive at speed in the rain) didn't see the cyclist. Shouldn't we spend our time thinking about why the motorist believes it's acceptable to travel at that speed differential in the rain in the presence of vulnerable road users. The scenario you suggest is one of the rarer situations that leads to an accident, more often than not, it's navigating junctions, but to humour you, the answer is not to blame the victim for their choice in clothing, it's to stop this game of chance being played by the motorist in the first place. Whether that means dropping the speed limit to a safe differential where special equipment is not required for a child to cycle along the road, or removing the cyclists from the path of the motorist entirely with a dedicated paved route that is convenient and practical. Lights, helmets, and reflectives may help in certain situations, but when it comes to getting catapulted by a motorist, the only thing that will keep you safe in that scenario is not being present in it at all. Vary rarely are cyclists not seen, they are simply disregarded. Not seeing cyclists is the excuse given by the driver who didn't react to the conditions of the road.

Unfortunately, high profile campaigns give credence to uproven safety gear meaning that certain careless drives are absolved of their blame, after all, who would ride on our dangerous road or fail take every precaution to protect themselves, all the whilst no one questions the habits of travelling at high speed differentials in inclement weather in the presence of non-motorists. Some might state that high-vis reduces your chance of being put in these situations in the first place, but the simple truth is that the KSI figures show no statistical significance between those hurt whilst wearing normal clothing vs special high vis 'safety' gear.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> I have taken on board what everyone has said and the general concensus seems to be is that its not my dayglo jacket that has kept me safe. Its my luck.
> ...


I'd hazard a guess that it's probably the road sense you've developed over the years. That's got to be of far more benefit than a colour, surely?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 Nov 2019)

MontyVeda said:


> I'd hazard a guess that it's probably the road sense you've developed over the years.



Dang, I was just about to say the same thing, what with Steve having been a police driver and an ADI too.
Still, I hope he remembers me when he wins that lottery. I always said he was a great guy...


----------



## si_c (22 Nov 2019)

The problem with advocating the use of hi-vis clothing is that a one size all approach doesn't work. There are too many variables.

Last year when commuting much further than I do now, most of my rides were in dawn or dusk and I was riding into the low sun. Most of my cycle clothing is black, largely due to personal preference, but I also find that a darker colour far more visible in the low light conditions in which a lot of my riding was done. The number of times I'd be riding and see a fellow cyclist all done out in high vis who was far less distinguishable against the sun because of the colours being worn.

I forget where, but I saw a study which implied that yellow is a terrible colour in low light - orange is better - and that in zero light conditions the colour is irrelevant but reflectives are important.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Nov 2019)

si_c said:


> The problem with advocating the use of hi-vis clothing is that a one size all approach doesn't work. There are too many variables.
> 
> Last year when commuting much further than I do now, most of my rides were in dawn or dusk and* I was riding into the low sun*. Most of my cycle clothing is black, largely due to personal preference, but I also find that a darker colour far more visible in the low light conditions in which a lot of my riding was done. The number of times I'd be riding and see a fellow cyclist all done out in high vis who was far less distinguishable against the sun because of the colours being worn.
> 
> I forget where, but I saw a study which implied that yellow is a terrible colour in low light - orange is better - and that in zero light conditions the colour is irrelevant but reflectives are important.


one former commute had a fearful section at a certain time of year... a long slow uphill with the rising sun on the brow of the hill directly ahead. Taking primary would have put me in the centre of the rising sun so I felt putting myself right in the gutter was the best place to be.


----------



## mjr (22 Nov 2019)

icowden said:


> I can't prove that a cycle helmet is going to protect me in any given situation. I can understand though that it provides some padding and protection. On the balance of probability it seems like a good idea, and since I fractured my nose, it seems like a better idea. I have gathered my own personal evidence that a helmet would have helped if I had been wearing one.


That's a different argument and there's a different thread for the specific item, so I will comment only on two aspects of the specific scientific method claim embodied in the above: first of all, you say "on the balance of probability it seems like a good idea" but I think you haven't actually estimated any probabilities there, let alone tried to balance them. For example, what's the probability of hitting the protective area rather than another body part? What's the probability that the impact speed will be less than 12mph? What's the increase in probability of an impact from the increased size and weight?

Secondly, there seem to be plenty of examples of broken noses and other facial damage from people who have been wearing them, so I hope you're wearing a full-face one.



icowden said:


> [...] Someone picked the argument before, "if you can see someone without lights or refelctive gear when you are on a bike, then why can't you when you are in a car"?
> Simple answer. A car is going *much* faster. It is approaching the bike at much greater speed. There may be oncoming headlights making it harder to see,. There could be rain.


Simple retort: if you can't see well enough to be doing 40mph, you must slow down. To do otherwise is to at best careless driving. Highway Code Rule 126.



icowden said:


> If I'm on a bike it's unlikely I am going to catch up with that person at great speed - the differential is <10mph probably rather than say 30mph. I don't need anywhere near as much room to go around them if I am faster.


I really hope I've misunderstood that and you're not suggesting that going faster means you can close-pass people!



icowden said:


> The fresh air in my eyes and my own vulnerabilty as a cyclist means that I am riding with heightened awareness. In a car you are comfy, warm, have pleasant music or chat from the radio. It's an environment we have made more and more like sitting in the living room.


Making the car environment like sitting in the living room is a personal choice. When not on a motorway, I turn the radio down/off and open the window a bit so I can hear more of what's going on, so I'm more present in the town or village I'm driving into. I would really like to see some Public Information Films advocating this sort of behaviour and for driving into a built-up area with the windows up and music blaring to become as socially scorned as cycling with headphones on, but first we've probably got bigger fish to fry, such as driving with headphones on and farking with phones and sat navs while in motion.



icowden said:


> Of course you can go over the top with reflectors and helmets, but until you can "prove" that they make things worse, I'll continue to wear my shiny white helmet and my fluorescent backpack, my fluorescent "see my indication" gloves, and use my powerful front and back lights,


By all means, continue to waste your time. Just don't encourage others to waste theirs, and definitely don't blame anyone else for not wasting theirs, please!


----------



## sheddy (22 Nov 2019)

Another reason (sadly) for wearing hi-viz is to avoid have damages reduced by a motocentric Judge.


----------



## confusedcyclist (22 Nov 2019)

sheddy said:


> Another reason (sadly) for wearing hi-viz is to avoid have damages reduced by a motocentric Judge.


Well that would depend on how good your lawyer is. But it's another good reason for debunking the myths.


----------



## Milkfloat (22 Nov 2019)

sheddy said:


> Another reason (sadly) for wearing hi-viz is to avoid have damages reduced by a motocentric Judge.


Has that ever happened?


----------



## confusedcyclist (22 Nov 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> Has that ever happened?


At least once that I can see, although it was a case of no lights, or reflectives, not no high vis alone.
Google: cyclist contributory negligence high visibility clothing. If it did happen to you, your lawyer might not be up to the job. The big one for damages is no helmet in the event of head injury, but again a good lawyer should be able to argue that they are only tested for efficacy with low speed and stationary impacts, not being shunted by a 30mph motor.


----------



## classic33 (22 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> I have taken on board what everyone has said and the general concensus seems to be is that its not my dayglo jacket that has kept me safe. Its my luck.
> So to test this I have been shopping and bought this ticket. But if I win the big money, I dont know how to tell you how lucky I am because I will be disowning you all 😁 But if I do come back, I will still be dressed as a lemon. 😁
> View attachment 493798


10, 18, 23, 25, 32


----------



## Milkfloat (22 Nov 2019)

confusedcyclist said:


> At least once that I can see, although it was a case of no lights, or reflectives, not no high vis alone.
> Google: cyclist contributory negligence high visibility clothing. If it did happen to you, your lawyer not up to the job. The big one for damages is no helmet in the event of head injury, but again a good lawyer should be able to argue that they are only tested for efficacy with low and slow impacts, not being shunted by a 30mph motor.



No lights and no reflectives is breaking the law (assuming post dusk), so I can see why payouts would be less. I would love to know about helmet/high vis examples.


----------



## confusedcyclist (22 Nov 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> No lights and no reflectives is breaking the law (assuming post dusk), so I can see why payouts would be less. I would love to know about helmet/high vis examples.


If the is lawyer worth their salt, they will counter an inevitable defence claim of contributory neg agianst the cyclist, by requesting specialist medical report from expert to state that the helmet would have made no difference. If it would have, expect reduced damages.


----------



## boydj (22 Nov 2019)

MontyVeda said:


> I've been riding for almost 50 years. Maybe I've just been lucky. Possibly there might be nothing in what you're saying.



You've been lucky. The first time I was wiped out I was hi-viz'd to the max.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Nov 2019)

boydj said:


> You've been lucky. The first time I was wiped out I was hi-viz'd to the max.


Did you intend to quote me or the post above it?


----------



## boydj (22 Nov 2019)

MontyVeda said:


> Did you intend to quote me or the post above it?



No - apologies.

EDIT :
No, I take that back. If you've been commuting on busy urban roads for many years and never been hit or come off as a result of a near miss, you've been very lucky. There are lots of careless and inattentive drivers out there and a few vindictive ones as well, who seem to dislike cyclists making progress in heavy traffic.


----------



## icowden (25 Nov 2019)

mjr said:


> That's a different argument and there's a different thread for the specific item, so I will comment only on two aspects of the specific scientific method claim embodied in the above: first of all, you say "on the balance of probability it seems like a good idea" but I think you haven't actually estimated any probabilities there, let alone tried to balance them. For example, what's the probability of hitting the protective area rather than another body part? What's the probability that the impact speed will be less than 12mph? What's the increase in probability of an impact from the increased size and weight?



Fair enough. Common sense tells me that something padded between by head and what my head is going to hit, will stop my head hitting it as hard. This seems to be borne out by anecdotal evidence from doctors who treat people who have been mashed up after coming of bicycles. It also seems to be supported by the use of helmets for motorcyclists, mountain climbers, skiiers, racing drivers, almost any outward bound activity for children, sky divers etc. They can't all be wearing them for fun.



> Simple retort: if you can't see well enough to be doing 40mph, you must slow down. To do otherwise is to at best careless driving. Highway Code Rule 126.



Simple response: I agree. However this is a binary argument again. Seeing well enough to be doing 40mph is not easily defined. It also does not correlate to your ability to see a non-reflective object easily, which is established by science. Physics tells is that dark objects reflect less light thus there is less information coming back to our retina when light is pointed toward a dark object than a highly reflective one. Hence the legal requirement to have working lights on a bicycle. There is always a risk however that your lights will stop working / fall off / become obscured and you won't be aware. It's definitely happened to me.



> I really hope I've misunderstood that and you're not suggesting that going faster means you can close-pass people!


Nope! What I meant to say was that when travelling at a faster speed you need more time and information to plan how to safely pass a much slower object



> Making the car environment like sitting in the living room is a personal choice


This is true. But most people having purchased a car, are going to choose to keep it snug, warm and comfortable. Very few are going to actively turn the radio off, dial down the heater and open the windows. Again, we are looking at "all cars" not the subset of "cars being driven well" or "cars where the driver is paying attention".



> By all means, continue to waste your time. Just don't encourage others to waste theirs, and definitely don't blame anyone else for not wasting theirs, please!



How about we agree that people should read the evidence for and against, and make up their own minds as to whether or not they should use reflective equipment, and accept that a positive discourse about those pros and cons is more useful than discouraging discussion? I leave you with a 2018 study (randomised controlled trial in Denmark) that found that the incidence of cycling accidents was reduced when wearing a hi-viz reflective jacket:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528

I have not found a single scientific study that has found that it is more dangerous to wear high viz or reflective clothing. There does seem to be a bit of anecdotal reporting that it might not do as much as you might think, dependent on environment, but even those reports said that at worst you were going to be no worse off generally wearing high-visibility clothing and possibly better off. That being the case, I personally endorse the "well it doesn't hurt to be seen" argument.

I look forward to your rebuttal supporting the argument that "high viz and reflectivity" is a waste of time when cycling, and look forward very much to analysing the supporting randomised controlled trials and studies.


----------



## MontyVeda (25 Nov 2019)

Why do skydivers wear helmets?


----------



## SteveF (25 Nov 2019)

MontyVeda said:


> Why do skydivers wear helmets?


Why do snipers wear camo and not hi viz..


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Nov 2019)

SteveF said:


> Why do snipers wear camo and not hi viz..



What a sniper wears in one environment would be hi-vis in another.


----------



## SteveF (25 Nov 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> What a sniper wears in one environment would be hi-vis in another.


True... A cyclist in a ghillie suit would probs stand out in Central London


----------



## roubaixtuesday (25 Nov 2019)

icowden said:


> They can't all be wearing them for fun.



Common sense tells me that cyclists head injuries would correlate to helmet use if they worked. 

They don't. 

Wear one by all means, but don't pretend they will make any appreciable difference to your well being.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Nov 2019)

roubaixtuesday said:


> Common sense tells me that cyclists head injuries would correlate to helmet use if they worked.
> 
> They don't.
> 
> Wear one by all means, but don't pretend they will make any appreciable difference to your well being.


----------



## MontyVeda (25 Nov 2019)

MontyVeda said:


> Why do skydivers wear helmets?


I fear my flippant remark might have sent this thread off topic... apologies


----------



## icowden (25 Nov 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> View attachment 494252



The first two paragraphs of the article quoted are:-



> *A helmet obligation for motorists and pedestrians could protect more lives: For every cyclist killed come 1.5 pedestrians and 4.5 motorists with fatal head injuries. A helmet is not constitutional and fights symptoms. Instead of discussing helmets, we should eliminate causes: reduce impact speeds, build safer bike paths or, for example, check the driving behavior of motor vehicle drivers more regularly.*
> 
> _The recent studies on the effect of helmet duty come to positive results: putting on a helmet helps, no question. But is not one-sided just looking at cyclists? And forget the causes? _




Of course the quote in the above graphic is deliberately taken out of context. The quote is the third paragraph discussing high speed collisions. The following paragraph reads:

_



But the same study also reveals causes: The severity and frequency of serious injuries and deaths clearly depends on the impact speed. 98.8% of these accidents occur at impact speeds of less than 22 km / h. The serious accidents, as with the most seriously injured and killed, on the other hand show differences of 30-50 km / h between motor vehicle and cyclist in the median mean value.

Click to expand...

_
The article agrees with the sentiment that more needs to be done regarding reducing speeds, rules compliance and safe cycling infrastructure. It does not support the argument posited in that graphic. Misquoting to support an unproven point is reductive and pointless. See Brexit for further details....


----------

