# Reflective Paint



## galaxy1 (10 Jan 2008)

Recently during these winter months I find myself getting more and more angry at motorists who take liberties and then say that they didn't see me .I've almost been hit a few times which is quite disheartening and I was wearing a high viz vest and sporting some pretty bright lights.
Anyway ,I've been thinking about painting my bike...with reflective paint!!! Hopefully this will make my bike light up every time a car aproaches.Has anyone tryed this and is there a paint that will effectively do this?


----------



## domtyler (10 Jan 2008)

Hi Galaxy 1, you might be able to get this although I haven't seen it myself. you can definitely buy an A4 sticky sheet that you can cut to your own shapes or designs.

Can you tell me where about's in the road you tend to cycle?


----------



## biking_fox (10 Jan 2008)

I'm afraid if you've got hi vis and decent lights on, no amount of additional visiability will help if the motorist doesn't look properly in the first place. However as dom's about to hint, riding wider so that you are in their line of sight when they flick a gaze briefly looking for headlights, might.


----------



## Tynan (10 Jan 2008)

there's hi viz and high viz

ad positioning of lights

sounds like something is wrong somewhere


----------



## fossyant (10 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> Can you tell me where about's in the road you tend to cycle?



On it I hope.........

Other than watching your position and maybe adding reflective stickers and anti vehicle missiles.....you are stuffed...good brakes help....and ESP ........ extra sensory powers not Electronic Stability Program


----------



## Iceniner (10 Jan 2008)

3M do reflective tape, ive ordered my self some of their grey looking reflective tape to stick around the frame of my bike, hopefully that will help with side visibility a bit, but im not relying on it.


----------



## galaxy1 (10 Jan 2008)

I ride from York to just outside of it via Stockton Lane which is 8 or 9 miles each way. I do usually tend to ride somewhere near the middle of my side of the road so I should be seen .ESP or heightened awareness at junctions can help a little but it never ceases to amaze me how stupid and unaware some people can be when they're in control of a motorised vehicle.
I had a look on tinterweb and it seems there is reflective paint available but its quite expensive.Maybe tape is a more cost effective option.I like the idea of my whole bike glowing brightly like something out of close encounters


----------



## Iceniner (10 Jan 2008)

You could always try and put some LED tubes in your wheels and under you bottom tube of your bike neon bikes! Ive seen some people on youtube showing these off, they look pretty nice at night, your wheel basically becomes a disc of light. 

or maybe you could ask the big fella upstairs to put a spot light on you when you cycle so people can spot you


----------



## threefingerjoe (11 Jan 2008)

I've added 3M "Conspicuity Tape" to various parts of my bike. This is the red and white alternating bars tape that is used for visibility on heavy vehicles. I cut it into pieces, and put some of the red on my rear mudguard and around the rear rack supports. I put bands of the white around the front fork, stem, and down-tube. One guy at work thinks I'm crazy for doing this...says it's "overkill." But, I had to ask him, "At what point does the bike become TOO visible? What parts of the bike do you think should be invisible in the dark?" I just want to LIVE. My next tyres will have the reflective sidewalls, that are now available.

Joe


----------



## bianco (11 Jan 2008)

threefingerjoe said:


> I've added 3M "Conspicuity Tape" to various parts of my bike. This is the red and white alternating bars tape that is used for visibility on heavy vehicles. I cut it into pieces, and put some of the red on my rear mudguard and around the rear rack supports. I put bands of the white around the front fork, stem, and down-tube. One guy at work thinks I'm crazy for doing this...says it's "overkill." But, I had to ask him, "At what point does the bike become TOO visible? What parts of the bike do you think should be invisible in the dark?" I just want to LIVE. My next tyres will have the reflective sidewalls, that are now available.
> 
> Joe



I bought a vintage carlton that somebody had done this to. Upon removing because it had faded it left the paint in a miserable state 

My advice is to remove unless you want a shoddy paint job.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jan 2008)

This sort of topic is one reason why I have a problem with HiViz. There will always be people who see you and go anyway because you're just a bloody pushbike (sic), and people who just don't look at all and go anyway, even in front of a bus. HiViz isn't going to change their actions.

The remainder, the majority luckily, are people who look, see you, and stop because it's right. HiViz isn't going to change their actions.


----------



## andygates (11 Jan 2008)

Black Diamond is available from bike shops, it's blacky-grey and reflects white. Nice for rims or people with any sense of taste. Otherwise tape is the way to go. Reflective paint does exist, but it's pretty niche and not necessarily good on bikes.

http://www.komatsuprocess.co.jp/en/product/coat/01/index.html


----------



## Morrisette (11 Jan 2008)

I've just bought some reflective stars from Wiggle. Not sure what they'll be like. They are more to put on my bags etc than the actual bike itself, though. Hopefully they will look cool


----------



## Arch (11 Jan 2008)

bianco said:


> I bought a vintage carlton that somebody had done this to. Upon removing because it had faded it left the paint in a miserable state
> 
> My advice is to remove unless you want a shoddy paint job.



Maybe joe cares more about his safety than the paint on his bike? I think I would. Unless it's a vintage museum piece, a bike is there to be useful, not pretty. If it can be both, fine, but if you have to choose, I think useful wins out....

Mikey, I appreciate that there are some drivers who just don't give a shoot. But there's not harm in extra hi-vis as long _as you continue to cycle in the most aware and sensible way you can_. Sounds like galaxy1 has good road positioning and ESP, and will still do so after putting the tape on his bike...

Hey Galaxy, where in York are you? Do you have to negociate that really stupid roundabout on Stockton Lane (I think it's there), the one with the crazy painted cyclelanes all round the edge? I must say, Stockton Lane is probably not one of my favourite roads, but then I don't use it much, so I'm not so familiar with it.

In the latest Velovision, there's a review of some clip on spoke reflectors you might like - little tubes of scotchlight that clip around your spokes. They light up very effectively in headlights and so on - not so much from in front or behind of course, but good at catching oblique lights.

Link here to a German site, I'll have to look up in the mag for UK dealers. 
http://www.roseversand.de/output/controller.aspx?cid=156&detail=10&detail2=10181

You get 72 in a pack, and although they recommend one on each spoke, in fact you get a good effect with half or a third of that number....


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jan 2008)

There is, however, potential harm in wearing HiViz when so many cyclists clearly expect it to make them visible to drivers, and are shocked/surprised when not all drivers see them. This topic is a classic example of that.


----------



## User482 (11 Jan 2008)

I have a hi viz coat, reflective stickers on my bike, and decent lights. Drivers still claim that they didn't see me. I don't think there's any more I can reasonably do.


----------



## tdr1nka (11 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> I have a hi viz coat, reflective stickers on my bike, and decent lights. Drivers still claim that they didn't see me. I don't think there's any more I can reasonably do.



I agree, I work on the principle that if I am potentially more visable, then all the better.
Should(and fingers crossed I won't)I be involved in an accident that was a drivers fault, I imagine that Police would be more sympathetic to a cyclist(like myself)dressed like a Christmas Tree, than one wearing all black and carrying a few single lights.

T x


----------



## Maz (11 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> This sort of topic is one reason why I have a problem with HiViz. There will always be people who see you and go anyway because you're just a bloody pushbike (sic), and people who just don't look at all and go anyway, even in front of a bus. HiViz isn't going to change their actions.
> 
> The remainder, the majority luckily, are people who look, see you, and stop because it's right. HiViz isn't going to change their actions.


I don't think it's hi-viz/reflective that you have a problem with - it's (like me) the reactions of inconsiderate or careless drivers.

hi-viz works as it gets you seen.


----------



## galaxy1 (11 Jan 2008)

If The entire bike is glow in the dark hi viz and if the oncoming car has their lights on then there really is no excuse for drivers to say "oh sorry mate,didnt see you"


----------



## Tynan (11 Jan 2008)

ffs

the hi viz might help someone see me that wouldn't have otherwise yeah?

and as long as I ride as usual, as if I wasn't wearing hi viz it can't be a bad thing and it might indeed help surely? given the constant complaint is that drivers don;t see cyclists?

the anti safety argument amazes me every time

helmets and hi viz eh? it's a wonder that there's anyone left alive wearing either

I wear the nightvision jacker and two full on rear lights and it's very apparent how much better and earlier most other road users see me now


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jan 2008)

Tynan, did you ever consider that my argument is actually pro-safety? Because it is, though I'm not suggesting that makes you anti-safety.


----------



## Maz (11 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Tynan, did you ever consider that my argument is actually pro-safety? Because it is, though I'm not suggesting that makes you anti-safety.


I don't undestand how your argument is pro-safety. You're arguing that NOT wearing hi-viz/reflective is a good thing safetywise? If it is, I just don't get it. Not trying to be funny or anything, but can you explain, please?


----------



## andygates (11 Jan 2008)

I hate to say it, but painting a bike hi-viz will probably serve merely to sharpen up the chip on your shoulder... when you next get SMIDSY'd (and you will, because eventually they just don't look or their eyes aren't connected to their brain) there will be a bitterness and bile detonation sufficient to wipe out all vertebrate life in Europe. 

They don't see because they don't see, not because you're not visible. It's a numbers game, a simple lottery we play every time we ride in traffic. A hi-viz paint job is really just a dashboard Madonna: a prayer to good fortune on the roads.


----------



## Tynan (11 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Tynan, did you ever consider that my argument is actually pro-safety? Because it is, though I'm not suggesting that makes you anti-safety.



Lets disagree then Mikey, I'm reading you as saying that Hi Viz is or can be less safe than not using it, just like the anti helmet brigade saying that they're useless at best, that they're safer without one

People can break their own skulls and kill themselves with my blessing but it hacks me off to see them post it and maybe convince others that don't really want to wear helmets or hi viz because it's not 'cool'


----------



## Amanda P (11 Jan 2008)

Arch said:


> I must say, Stockton Lane is probably not one of my favourite roads



Nor mine. Mrs Uncle Phil almost got wiped out on the bridge over the A64. The driver of a council lorry tried to pass her as he approached the summit of the bridge. Guess which way he swerved when he met the oncoming car?

Seriously, watch that bridge, however visible you are, especially approaching York from Stockton on't' Forest; I've had near misses there too.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jan 2008)

The problem specifically with HiViz is that it doesn't do much for your visibility, and yet it brings on risk compensation. That will tend to either make the safety benefit nil, or make it slightly more dangerous through your own actions. And as Andy says, it'll up your anger when you get another SMIDSY.

It's nothing to do with coolness, it's all about misplaced effort towards safety. There's a reason it's known as urban camouflage.


----------



## Maz (11 Jan 2008)

Thanks for the explanation Mikey. I couldn't disagree more, but I'll leave it at that.
I'd say my hi-viz definitely gets me seen esp. important when I'm on the 70 dual carriageways on my commute.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jan 2008)

That's one of the few situations where I think the safety equation might swing positive for hiviz, due to the very high closing speed of drivers.

If you really want to be seen, ride a recumbent. It's far more effective than Hiviz, but perhaps only because there are so very few recumbent riders.


----------



## Tynan (11 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The problem specifically with HiViz is that it doesn't do much for your visibility, and yet it brings on risk compensation. That will tend to either make the safety benefit nil, or make it slightly more dangerous through your own actions. And as Andy says, it'll up your anger when you get another SMIDSY.
> 
> It's nothing to do with coolness, it's all about misplaced effort towards safety. There's a reason it's known as urban camouflage.



wow, go on then, show any sort of proof at all for any of those statements, I don't agree with any of them at all

hi viz doesn't do anything for visibility?

it sounds exactly like a sophist argument for people that don't want o wear hi viz

and people wearing regular kit are less angry when they're knocked off their bike for no fault of their own?


----------



## Plax (12 Jan 2008)

From my "car driver" opinion, I'm all for hi viz, much easier to see at a distance (in daylight of course!) and therefore you can compensate for speed and road positioning etc much further in advance. Same goes for a well lit and reflective cyclist at night- spotted much earlier. 

I personally don't agree that Hi-Viz can make you more lax in your approach to your own safety. Certainly not for me anyways. If you've made the effort to wear hi-viz and get kitted out with proper lights, then your probably the type that takes your safety very seriously and is on the look out for trouble. I'm always on the defensive and always anticipate that a car is going to pull out in front of me, or cross over right in front of me etc. It's a nice change for when they don't!

As always it's the minority that spoil it for the majority. There is always going to be that car driver that doesn't see the cyclist lit up like a christmas tree, or the cyclist that will take unnecessary risks with theor own safety (more out of ignorance than anything else I think. There are a lot if ignorant people about).


----------



## BentMikey (12 Jan 2008)

On the contrary Tynan, the onus is on you to prove that HiViz is necessary and improves safety. It's easy to see a cyclist without HiViz, and almost no-one on the continent wears it, so why here in the UK?


----------



## Brock (12 Jan 2008)

Although I'd like to agree with Mikey here I think I probably lean towards the pro Hi-viz camp. It's a close run thing though.
I hate the idea that I should modify my behaviour to allow for driver's inattention, and in doing so actually perpetuate such lax driving. The more a driver expects cyclists to be lit up like Christmas trees in day-glo fluorescents the less he'll be looking for those in 'normal' clothes.
The onus should not be on cyclists to make themselves 'safer' in an environment of bad driving, it should be on drivers to concentrate on the road.
If I am less safe on the road in normal clothing, who's at fault? And who's behaviour should be addressed?

That said, from a purely selfish point of view I think my personal safety is probably slightly increased by wearing some reflective and hi-viz clothing, it might just make my presence known to some speeding chav a second before he looks down to fiddle with his mobile phone.


----------



## Piemaster (12 Jan 2008)

My cycling clothing is all dark or black, with reflective seams here and there, and from what I remember most of the other kit on the shelves was as well.
Don't like the idea of riding at night like that and as I'll have a backpack on anyway bought a hi-viz hump. Reckon it should make me reasonably visible day/night, apart from the idiots who wouldn't notice me anyway. Flashy string seems reasonably bright and as it's blue hope it gets the "What is that?" attention from cars, something to catch the eye.
As its on the backpack and thus don't have it on every time I go out, I tend to forget its there anyway, so can't say it brings on any 'risk compensation'. It ain't body armour.

The wire is available here. How about it wrapped around the frame instead of reflective tape? Could even get a certain type of person out of their Novas and onto cycles the 'Chav' biker :-)


----------



## Tynan (12 Jan 2008)

so you make bold statements and refuse to back them at all mikey? bravo, are you serious?

everyone complains about drivers not seeing them, you might think hi viz has come about to try and alleviate that mightn't you?

you might think fluorescent reflective gear might be eye catching mightn't you?

do you think lights after dark aren't safer than not?

all that gear in blues and blacks and greys with minimal reflectives is designed to appeal to buyers that want to look cool

whatever, really


----------



## BentMikey (13 Jan 2008)

So that means you can't prove that HiViz actually works for cycling safety!!!! Almost no-one in the Netherlands or Denmark uses hiviz, and yet they have far better cycling safety than we do. That implies hiviz does not have a measurable effect on cycling safety.

As we all know some drivers don't see cyclists with lights and hiviz, or indeed even buses. That's because they're either not looking, or do look, and go anyway because it's just a bike. Hiviz isn't going to fix that, and it isn't going to do anything for the majority of drivers that do see us and drive just fine around us.

I'm a light user and believer, as you know. I don't think I want my lights to make it immediately obvious I'm on a bike. I'd rather other road users saw my lights and thought "vehicle" and not be sure exactly what vehicle I was.


----------



## summerdays (13 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> So that means you can't prove that HiViz actually works for cycling safety!!!! Almost no-one in the Netherlands or Denmark uses hiviz, and yet they have far better cycling safety than we do. That implies hiviz does not have a measurable effect on cycling safety.



Surely you can't link HiViz and cycle safety in the Netherlands, they have a totally different cycle culture, where the laws are different, more people cycle so are more aware of what cyclists need on the road - space etc. 

I have to wear Hi-Viz for work ... so my employers must believe that it is benificial to my safety.


----------



## magnatom (13 Jan 2008)

Bentmikey,

I do often agree with what you say on here, but on the subject of Hi-viz I can't find much common ground. 

I have never really bought the safety compensation argument. Once I am riding my bike I completely forget what I am wearing and I concentrate on the road. I cycle no different with or without hi-viz. 

Cycling on the continent is very different to cycling here. As summerdays has said the culture is very different. Cyclists are actually respected and often have specific segregated lanes to cycle on away from traffic. Where the do interact with vehicles cyclists often have priority. That is certainly not the case here.

It is a fact (I don't have the references and I don't really have the time to search for them) that contrasting colours improve perception of objects, especially in peripheral vision and when the contrasting object is moving. Would you agree Mike that it is possible that wearing a hi-viz in some situation would increase the likelyhood of drivers seeing you compared to not wearing it? 

I also don't understand the attitude of not wanting to appear as a bike. I am a bike and I demand respect and the space that a cyclist requires. When I drive a car I expect cars to be capable of certain manouvers. I expect cyclists to be capable of a different set of manouvers. Trying to appear as a car could lead to confusion and possibly the risk of the driver misreading a situation and leading to an accident.

I'm not big into hi-viz, I don't think you need much. but a small amount of hi-viz could help catch an eye at the most vital moment. I can't see how wearing it could harm anyone.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Jan 2008)

I don't see that. If visibility is good, then any cyclist is easy to see. If it's not so good, then what will it add over having a good set of lights switched on? My own bikes already have legal reflectors, minus pedal reflectors though. In both cases I don't need to be more visible or distracting.

As for not wanting to be seen as a bike, I see what you're saying, but think of it this way. So many cars pull out on us over the thousands of miles of cycling because they see bike, and think slow, and then are shocked when we're on them in seconds. Being seen as some other vehicle type prevents many of these incidents. I can't really think of too many incidents when overall safety would be reduced by being seen as another faster vehicle type. Perhaps one is a fast A road as someone else pointed out in a previous discussion where it *might* help drivers to realise that they're going to come up on you fast.

Bear in mind though, that behind hit from behind is one of the least common accident types. Most accidents happen at junctions, hence my wanting strong lights that don't make them think bike.


----------



## magnatom (13 Jan 2008)

Mike,

The situation I am talking about with the hi-viz is in a situation where a driver doesn't look properly. (shock horror it does happen!  ) They may have glanced in your general direction, but not looked properly. In this situation I am certain that a bright yellow against gray blob (or reflective blob) would be more likely to be registered (just enough to cause a hesitation and possibly a second look) more than a black against gray blob. It could just be enough to make a split second difference.

I think being like a vehicle is fine for experienced cyclists like yourself Mike. You probably do act as a vehicle. However, for the masses this probably doesn't help. They are more likely to wobble or veer off to one side or another in a way that a car wouldn't be able to do. If they appeared as a car then this could completely take other drivers by surprise. 

I suppose I also don't want to have to blend in. I want to be seen as a cyclist. I am after all proud of the fact that I ditched the car for my commutes! I want others to see me and others cycling in and think, hey, I can do that. Maybe I need a big hi-viz sign attached to my back saying something like 'This is fun, honest!!' 

Of course all of this is hypothetical and supposition. In the end I am happy so long as people make an informed choice. At least that indicates that they are thinking 'safety'. That's why I like debates like this, even if it means I think your a nutter to not be wearing some form of hi-viz....


----------



## BentMikey (13 Jan 2008)

I see what you're saying, but I really doubt the hiviz will have any effect in that situation. Even if it causes a second thought and I really doubt it will, the driver will already have gone and or assumed you're a workman. I think road position will have one or two orders of magnitude more effect than hiviz. You need to be inside the drivers' narrow field of vision where very little is missed. Outside that tunnel, and you could be a bus for all the difference it will make.

On the lights and looking like a vehicle, I don't understand your point, there's no disadvantage shown.


----------



## magnatom (13 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Outside that tunnel, and you could be a bus for all the difference it will make.



It doesn't matter what they think you are. So long as they notice that you are moving and require further attention. 
I'm not a vision expert, but I am fairly certain that peripheral vision is fairly good at detecting high contrast moving objects. Much better to increase your chances of being detected in this way than to reduce your chances, IMO.



> On the lights and looking like a vehicle, I don't understand your point, there's no disadvantage shown.



My point is that if you look like a vehicle then it is safest to act like a vehicle. If you do something that a vehicle couldn't do i.e. sudden swerve to the right, then it could catch a following driver out, i.e. overtaking where they assumed that there was little chance of swerving. Obviously we know that cyclists shouldn't be unpredictable, but they often are in a manor that a car could not be. So it is advantageous for a cyclist to look like a cyclist so that drivers can be prepared for the more erratic behaviour that can sometimes occur.


----------



## domtyler (13 Jan 2008)

I lean more towards Mikey's stance on high-viz, I really don't think it achieves anything more than making you look like a geeky cyclist dork. Reflectives I am covered with, check. Good lights, check. Great road positioning, check. Good awareness of what's going on around me and danger points, check. 

Day glo yellow vests, sorry don't wanna look a tw@t.


----------



## magnatom (13 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> I lean more towards Mikey's stance on high-viz, I really don't think it achieves anything more than making you look like a geeky cyclist dork. Reflectives I am covered with, check. Good lights, check. Great road positioning, check. Good awareness of what's going on around me and danger points, check.
> 
> Day glo yellow vests, sorry don't wanna look a tw@t.





I'd rather look a twat, than go splat (that could be a campaign slogan!)

Of course I rather think I carry it off well....


----------



## gambatte (13 Jan 2008)

Another one with Dom and BM as regards the bright yellow. Got lots of relectives and lights. Only yellow I have is the rain jacket. Thats because its a Ronhill I got for jogging


----------



## domtyler (13 Jan 2008)

I'm pretty sure that wearing hi viz does serve to wind up and provoke hostile bullying behaviour from a certain sub section of the road using community too.

I really don't feel the need to be any more visible than I can make myself without it. 

I almost forgot the piece of kit that guarantees to get you noticed every time and that is the good ol' AirZound. A hundred times more effective than any day glo vest will ever be.


----------



## Tynan (13 Jan 2008)

people coming up behind you notice you because you've go an airzound?

the thing you can learn on here ...


----------



## domtyler (13 Jan 2008)

Tynan said:


> people coming up behind you notice you because you've go an airzound?
> 
> the thing you can learn on here ...



And you've been hit from behind how many times?


----------



## col (13 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> I'm pretty sure that wearing hi viz does serve to wind up and provoke hostile bullying behaviour from a certain sub section of the road using community too.
> 
> I really don't feel the need to be any more visible than I can make myself without it.
> 
> I almost forgot the piece of kit that guarantees to get you noticed every time and that is the good ol' AirZound. A hundred times more effective than any day glo vest will ever be.




I cant see it(excuse)I think the hostile bullying from a sub section,is because its a bike anyway,not because of vizvests.


----------



## domtyler (13 Jan 2008)

col said:


> I cant see it(excuse)I think the hostile bullying from a sub section,is because its a bike anyway,not because of vizvests.



True, but by making a loud statement like that you open yourself up to it a lot more!


----------



## col (13 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> True, but by making a loud statement like that you open yourself up to it a lot more!




Possibly ? but is the risk of getting bullied more than the risk of not being seen?


----------



## domtyler (13 Jan 2008)

col said:


> Possibly ? but is the risk of getting bullied more than the risk of not being seen?



If you want to get seen on a bike just ride in primary position, it works every time. Ride out of this position and you'll be blatantly ignored not seen whatever you're wearing. That's the simple truth folks.


----------



## col (13 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> If you want to get seen on a bike just ride in primary position, it works every time. Ride out of this position and you'll be blatantly ignored not seen whatever you're wearing. That's the simple truth folks.




True,but that could also be the reason a minority bully too,they think they are needlessly getting held up.And before someone says it,no i dont think that .


----------



## domtyler (13 Jan 2008)

col said:


> True,but that could also be the reason a minority bully too,they think they are needlessly getting held up.And before someone says it,no i dont think that .



I regularly get beeped, tail-gated, shouted at and threatened, subjected to the most dangerous overtaking manoeuvres possible because I choose to position myself in the middle of the lane. On the other hand, you will only very rarely hear me complain that I wasn't seen by a motorist. And this has nothing to do with wearing a dayglo yellow vest.


----------



## col (13 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> I regularly get beeped, tail-gated, shouted at and threatened, subjected to the most dangerous overtaking manoeuvres possible because I choose to position myself in the middle of the lane. On the other hand, you will only very rarely hear me complain that I wasn't seen by a motorist. And this has nothing to do with wearing a dayglo yellow vest.



But with a vest on,the same thing would happen?But as long as they see you


----------



## domtyler (13 Jan 2008)

col said:


> But with a vest on,the same thing would happen?But as long as they see you



At which point I suggest you re-read the OP.


----------



## Tynan (13 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> If you want to get seen on a bike just ride in primary position, it works every time. Ride out of this position and you'll be blatantly ignored not seen whatever you're wearing. That's the simple truth folks.



and primary is always an option is it?

I was in primary for my last accident, I presume that he didn't see me, and no I wasn't wearing hi viz

so much for the simple truth


----------



## domtyler (13 Jan 2008)

Tynan said:


> and primary is always an option is it?
> 
> I was in primary for my last accident, I presume that he didn't see me, and no I wasn't wearing hi viz
> 
> so much for the simple truth



Give us the details of the last accident then, including what you were wearing.


----------



## col (13 Jan 2008)

This isnt going to be a disection is it?


----------



## domtyler (13 Jan 2008)

col said:


> This isnt going to be a disection is it?



I've already PM'ed cab mate!


----------



## col (13 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> I've already PM'ed cab mate!




Im off


----------



## BentMikey (13 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> It doesn't matter what they think you are. So long as they notice that you are moving and require further attention.
> I'm not a vision expert, but I am fairly certain that peripheral vision is fairly good at detecting high contrast moving objects. Much better to increase your chances of being detected in this way than to reduce your chances, IMO.



How will anyone notice movement in the quick glance you gave as the situation where hiviz might help? Exactly, they can't.



magnatom said:


> My point is that if you look like a vehicle then it is safest to act like a vehicle. If you do something that a vehicle couldn't do i.e. sudden swerve to the right, then it could catch a following driver out, i.e. overtaking where they assumed that there was little chance of swerving. Obviously we know that cyclists shouldn't be unpredictable, but they often are in a manor that a car could not be. So it is advantageous for a cyclist to look like a cyclist so that drivers can be prepared for the more erratic behaviour that can sometimes occur.



Sorry, but this isn't showing any disadvantage of not looking like a bike. A bicycle is already a vehicle, and many vehicles can swerve just as quick as a bike. Bikes just do it more often. I think your point might be best argued by presenting specific situations.


----------



## DLB (13 Jan 2008)

not sure if someone else has mentioned these helmet lights but they look good...

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDeta...5360032560&n=BLT LID-LED Helmet Mounted Light


----------



## col (13 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> How will anyone notice movement in the quick glance you gave as the situation where hiviz might help? Exactly, they can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this isn't showing any disadvantage of not looking like a bike. A bicycle is already a vehicle, and many vehicles can swerve just as quick as a bike. Bikes just do it more often. I think your point might be best argued by presenting specific situations.




Yellow being the last colour we see with deteriating eyesight,is probably why its the main colour for viz vests,and being that colour,a glance is more likely to be noticed with it than not.A glance at something with dark colours is less likely to be noticed.


----------



## Maz (13 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> I lean more towards Mikey's stance on high-viz, I really don't think it achieves anything more than making you look like a geeky cyclist dork. *Reflectives I am covered with*, check. Good lights, check. Great road positioning, check. Good awareness of what's going on around me and danger points, check.
> 
> Day glo yellow vests, sorry don't wanna look a tw@t.


Hang on. I've always thought of hi-viz as referring to BOTH your fluoro-yellows AND your 3M reflectives. The former being hi-viz for daytime, the latter hi-viz for night.

Who else thinks this? 
or who thinks hi-viz just means bright yellows etc?


----------



## col (13 Jan 2008)

Maz said:


> Hang on. I've always thought of hi-viz as referring to BOTH your fluoro-yellows AND your 3M reflectives. The former being hi-viz for daytime, the latter hi-viz for night.
> 
> Who else thinks this?
> or who thinks hi-viz just means bright yellows etc?



Iv always took it to mean both.


----------



## Brock (13 Jan 2008)

It's probably worth defining our terms before this discussion continues.

I propose the 'Hi-Viz' to mean lurid coloured garments designed to be seen during the day, possibly not including primary blues and reds, but definitely encompassing 'day-glo' greens and yellows. These should be considered seperately from 'reflectives' which can refer to any coloured object that has particularly high reflective properties such as 3M scotchlite etc.

Those in favour say aye?


----------



## gambatte (13 Jan 2008)

aye


----------



## BentMikey (13 Jan 2008)

Maz said:


> Hang on. I've always thought of hi-viz as referring to BOTH your fluoro-yellows AND your 3M reflectives. The former being hi-viz for daytime, the latter hi-viz for night.
> 
> Who else thinks this?
> or who thinks hi-viz just means bright yellows etc?



Same here - and I suspect Dom also. I think the reflectors on our bikes are already enough.


----------



## Tynan (13 Jan 2008)

is there a point at which the reflectors would be too small to be effective?

is bigger better?

or is there an optimum size?


----------



## col (14 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Same here - and I suspect Dom also. I think the reflectors on our bikes are already enough.




What makes you think the small reflectors on your bike,are more affective than big reflective scotchlite stripes across your body?


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2008)

Oh I'm not saying my bike reflectors are *more* effective than the scotchlite stripes, but only that they are more than effective enough. Going OTT with hiviz might increase the reflectives, but won't have any additional safety benefit.


----------



## magnatom (14 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Same here - and I suspect Dom also. I think the reflectors on our bikes are already enough.



I really don't think reflectors are enough. They rely on a light source to be pointing directly at them and are almost completely useless during daylight and when light is fading (and drivers haven't switched their lights on). 

Imagine it is dusk and a car is waiting to pull out from a junction. You are cycling along the main road with no other cars. The driver glances in your direction, but doesn't look properly. Your lights are on, but due to the angle they are not pointing directly at the car and although visible are only a small point of light approaching from the distance which could be missed. 

The cyclist wearing grey/black with reflectives or similar would only have the light to rely on to be seen (as the reflectives would be useless as no light was falling on them). It is possible that the glance did not pick that up and the driver would pull out.

The cyclist with the yellow jacket might still be missed, however, there is a better chance of being spotted, as against the dark background there is large yellow blob moving on their peripheral vision. It is more likely in this scenario that the driver would think twice, have a second look or actually register the cyclist. Do you agree with this? (I believe that peripheral vision is particularly good at at spotting moving high contrast images)

I should point out that I only wear yellow during the winter when light conditions are poorer. In complete dark it is useless of course. But with street lighting, or in dusk conditions I am certain that it affords me a little more visibility. Anything I can do to improve my safety is a good thing.

Oh and I really don't buy that there is such a thing as the anti hi-viz brigade. I have had lots and lots of abuse (just look at my youtube videos - m4arkmckay!!) but I have never heard anything mentioned about wearing hi-viz. I have however heard a lot of drivers complain about cyclists wearing dark clothes.


----------



## domtyler (14 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> I really don't think reflectors are enough. They rely on a light source to be pointing directly at them and are almost completely useless during daylight and when light is fading (and drivers haven't switched their lights on).
> 
> Imagine it is dusk and a car is waiting to pull out from a junction. You are cycling along the main road with no other cars. The driver glances in your direction, but doesn't look properly. Your lights are on, but due to the angle they are not pointing directly at the car and although visible are only a small point of light approaching from the distance which could be missed.
> 
> ...



Oh I'm glad that you chose this scenario! 

Of course this is EXACTLY the time when the luridly clad cyclists get clattered. They almost always assume that the driver MUST have seen them and carry on under that assumption. Next thing you know they are making their first post on Bike Radar asking for advise about which solicitor to go to. "Can't believe dozy car driver didn't see me, How could he not when I was in all my day glo gear? "

The correct and *safe* way to proceed is to slow, make eye contact with the driver (giving a preemptive blast on the AirZound if he/she does not give it). All the while preparing yourself for the driver to pull out on you.

This is Cycle Craft folks and this is what keeps you alive on the roads, not wearing day-glo pink vests and knickers.


----------



## Terminator (14 Jan 2008)

Im more likely to listen to my motorist friends than domtyler.

My motorist friends at work always complain about cyclists with no lights/hard to see and RLJers.

So I will continue to wear Hi-Viz as it gives me half a chance with motorists.

Peds on the other hand im usually invisible to.Which keeps me on the alert.


----------



## domtyler (14 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Same here - and I suspect Dom also. I think the reflectors on our bikes are already enough.



I have always taken Hi-Viz to refer to the fluorescent yellow and pink clothing, whereas reflectives are the retro-reflective materials like Scotch 3M.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> I should point out that I only wear yellow during the winter when light conditions are poorer. In complete dark it is useless of course. But with street lighting, or in dusk conditions I am certain that it affords me a little more visibility. Anything I can do to improve my safety is a good thing.



You do realise that the fluo part of the hiviz is completely useless when there's no UV about? It's only designed to work in daylight, and is drab and largely unnoticeable otherwise. The reflective part of std hiviz takes over at this point.

With the reflectors, I'm sure we all appreciate that they are only of use when there is a light source close to the observer's sight line pointing towards the reflector. They won't work at all in your junction example since the driver has no light source shining towards the cyclist, and neither will the fluo part of the hiviz because it's dark. Bike lights, on the other hand, are just the thing since they are extremely bright and shining almost directly at the driver.

Your comments regarding bike lights being "not very visible" are just disingenuous. Well, unless you're thinking about the dim green front light brigade. Going by the light topics, I think nearly all of us on here have proper bright lights.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> I have always taken Hi-Viz to refer to the fluorescent yellow and pink clothing, whereas reflectives are the retro-reflective materials like Scotch 3M.



Oh, sorry Dom, I guessed wrongly there. Hiviz is in fact the combination of the fluo part for daytime use when reflectives don't work, and the reflective part for night time when the fluo doesn't work.


----------



## Maz (14 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> Oh I'm glad that you chose this scenario!
> 
> Of course this is EXACTLY the time when the luridly clad cyclists get clattered. They almost always assume that the driver MUST have seen them and carry on under that assumption. Next thing you know they are making their first post on Bike Radar asking for advise about which solicitor to go to. "Can't believe dozy car driver didn't see me, How could he not when I was in all my day glo gear? "
> 
> ...


It is indeed Cyclecraft. 
Hi-viz helps to get me seen by other road users which can only be a good thing. I'm under no illusion that it is somehow a substitute for good road positioning, eye contact etc.


----------



## domtyler (14 Jan 2008)

Terminator said:


> Im more likely to listen to my motorist friends than domtyler.
> 
> My motorist friends at work always complain about cyclists with no lights/hard to see and RLJers.
> 
> ...



They probably complain about cyclists being too far away from the kerb, not being allowed to use their mobile and too many speed cameras too.
Cock


----------



## magnatom (14 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You do realise that the fluo part of the hiviz is completely useless when there's no UV about? It's only designed to work in daylight, and is drab and largely unnoticeable otherwise.



Of course, but it also tends to be a bright colour, i.e. yellow, as opposed to gray/black/dark blue and so functions better than these colours under reduced, but not very low, light conditions.




> Your comments regarding bike lights being "not very visible" are just disingenuous. Well, unless you're thinking about the dim green front light brigade. Going by the light topics, I think nearly all of us on here have proper bright lights.



You are right that lights should be bright enough to be visible from angles. My nice bright Busch and Muller was bought with this in mind, however, it still is a point of light. On the road (and close by) there are points of light everywhere, street lighting, cars, traffic lights, house lights, garden lights, the moon, the light shinning out of my ar%$ . It would be easy in a glance for a driver to dismiss a point of light if they could not see what it was associated with. Wearing a bright colour/hi-viz brings the light into context and provides a greater chance of recognition that this is an object approaching that probably shouldn't be hit.

Of course there are also those who have bothered to get lights but have only spent £3.99 on the light


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> Of course, but it also tends to be a bright colour, i.e. yellow, as opposed to gray/black/dark blue and so functions better than these colours under reduced, but not very low, light conditions.



The fluo part really doesn't work at all in the conditions you specified. There must be UV around, otherwise it's a dull and drab colour that doesn't stand out in the way you imply at all. Under streetlights, it's pretty much invisible. Surely you must have noticed this?

You can't seriously argue that it comes anywhere close to a set of lights. Not even in daylight. Doh!!!


----------



## domtyler (14 Jan 2008)

So Mikey, do you advocate the use of reflectives or not?


----------



## magnatom (14 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The fluo part really doesn't work at all in the conditions you specified. There must be UV around, otherwise it's a dull and drab colour that doesn't stand out in the way you imply at all. Under streetlights, it's pretty much invisible. Surely you must have noticed this?
> 
> You can't seriously argue that it comes anywhere close to a set of lights. Not even in daylight. Doh!!!



Come on Mike, would you agree that a bright yellow jacket would be more visible than a dark gray/black/dark blue jacket under typical street lighting conditions and at dusk?

If so would you not agree that it would improve you visibility under certain circumstances?


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> So Mikey, do you advocate the use of reflectives or not?



Just the standard ones on the bike for legal night riding. I don't see the need for additional reflectives as on a hiviz jacket.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> Come on Mike, would you agree that a bright yellow jacket would be more visible than a dark gray/black/dark blue jacket under typical street lighting conditions and at dusk?
> 
> If so would you not agree that it would improve you visibility under certain circumstances?



Actually, I think the darker jacket is more likely to be visible under street lighting as it has greater contrast, whilst the yellow jacket tends to turn the same colour as most other things under the streetlighting. At dusk the flou won't be working either, so it's still not going to help your visibility.

Are you ready yet to admit that proper cycle lights are more visible than a hiviz jacket under street lighting? What about in daylight?


----------



## domtyler (14 Jan 2008)

Terminator said:


> Im more likely to listen to my motorist friends than domtyler.
> 
> My motorist friends at work always complain about cyclists with no lights/hard to see and RLJers.
> 
> ...



When are you gonna post a picture of this new bike of yours anyway?


----------



## magnatom (14 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Actually, I think the darker jacket is more likely to be visible under street lighting as it has greater contrast, whilst the yellow jacket tends to turn the same colour as most other things under the streetlighting. At dusk the flou won't be working either, so it's still not going to help your visibility.
> 
> Are you ready yet to admit that proper cycle lights are more visible than a hiviz jacket under street lighting? What about in daylight?




I think we will have to agree to disagree on the jacket colour! 

Mike I would never suggest that a hi-viz jacket could replace ior is better than proper cycle lights. I have never said that! (Are you going a little cab'esc on me ) Of course a jacket is supplementary to good lighting. The vast majority of your visibility will obviously result from good lighting. However, that doesn't mean there aren't other ways of improving on your visibility. 

During daylight, I think the advantage of wearing a hi-viz jacket diminishes as there is much better general contrast available. It is therefore easier to discern grays/blacks etc against the background. However, I do still generally wear brightish colours just because it probably does improve my visibility if only slightly. Thats my own personal preference.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2008)

That's good enough for me, because my impression is that hiviz is at least an order of magnitude less noticeable and visible than bright cycle lights.

Please do me a favour though, just take some time to watch other cyclists with hiviz jackets at night, and then post back here. I find I'm only able to see the reflective parts of their jackets at night, and then only if my lights are pointing at them.


----------



## Amanda P (14 Jan 2008)

I wonder whether some of the disagreement is down to the different environments we're riding in?

There's a world of difference between cycling in a cluttered urban environment, where there are lights and reflective things everywhere. A road user then has to pick out the ones to worry about. Anything not lit up and/or moving is likely to be missed if you're in a hurry or not concentrating. 

In these conditions, I can see BentMikey's point of view: there's so much clutter that high viz or reflectives are unlikely to help much. Road positioning would be much more important.

At the other extreme is much of my ride to work. There's a couple of miles of fast single-carriageway A road with no streetlighting. Some days the traffic's belting along at 70 mph plus. Closing speed is scary. When I'm driving and I pass a cyclist on this road, I see him a hell of a lot sooner when he's wearing reflectives than I do if he has only a rear light - because he's the only object in my visual field that is reflective.

I know it's a bike I'm catching up with: the moving pedal reflectors are particularly effective at this. But even without them, the high viz/reflective jacket tells me "there's a person in the road".


----------



## col (14 Jan 2008)

Im getting confused.It seems the argument is ,that bright colours and reflectives ,make no difference to us being seen by drivers,and dark colours and the reflectors that are already on bikes are sufficient,in conjunction with front and back lights?


----------



## magnatom (14 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> That's good enough for me, because my impression is that hiviz is at least an order of magnitude less noticeable and visible than bright cycle lights.
> 
> Please do me a favour though, just take some time to watch other cyclists with hiviz jackets at night, and then post back here. I find I'm only able to see the reflective parts of their jackets at night, and then only if my lights are pointing at them.



Absolutely in the vast majority of circumstances. But there could be situations (some of them possibly dangerous) where a bright jacket might just make the difference. I'd rather look a bit daft and avoid an accident, than look trendy under a bendy! (Damn that's a good end to that sentence! )

I will look. Uncle Phil may have a point, although in my situation it may be the lights that are at issue. A lot of my commute is under white lighting, rather than the sodium yellow lights. Maybe that makes a difference. Although as the light fades and there are no streetlights on at all I am sure that a bright yellow jacket is more visible than gray.

An interesting discussion anyway Mike. I'd like to disagree with you more as you are a good chap to have a discussion with (although everyone else is probably bored to death!)


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2008)

Uncle Phil, my commute is partly rural, and partly London central as I live in Biggin Hill. My A road is not quite as extreme as yours though.


----------



## gambatte (14 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> An interesting discussion anyway Mike. I'd like to disagree with you more as you are a good chap to have a discussion with (although everyone else is probably bored to death!)



ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzz.........


----------



## magnatom (14 Jan 2008)

gambatte said:


> ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzz.........



Hey, maybe we could bottle it and sell it.

The ULTIMATE cure for insomia: A discussion about hi-vis clothing
Ingredients: Bentmikey, Magnatom, and a pinch of Dom (just to spice things up!)


----------



## gambatte (14 Jan 2008)

Who'd be the one pinching Dom??


----------



## magnatom (14 Jan 2008)

gambatte said:


> Who'd be the one pinching Dom??



I think sometimes he needs to pinch himself....


----------



## domtyler (14 Jan 2008)

A good point by Mr Phil, I am only really thinking in terms of (sub) Urban and Extra Urban. If I were spending time cycling on very fast A roads every day I may introduce more fluorescent items to my cycling wardrobe. Although I have to say I would never get one of those awful vests.

Reflective stuff I have plenty of, it is on my Ortlieb panniers, my bib-longs, my gloves, my hat, my overshoes, my shoes, etc. I know for a fact that this stuff is picked out really well from a long way away in the car headlights. I saw someone on a bike as I was driving over the weekend and it enabled me to prepare to safely overtake him from a long way back. As someone who likes to go out of their way to be considerate to cyclists I found it helped me to do this.


----------



## Iceniner (20 Jan 2008)

Slightly off topic with this but i was out cycling today and was coming up to a road that leads to an underpass where people walk and cyclists go. I came over a hill (some what cautiously like normaly as its pretty blind) and i was greated by a sea of hi-viz yellow! My gosh that stuff hit me!

there were about 20 odd cyclists stopped in the shelter of this underpass covering the entire width of this road!!! It was quite amusing when i came over with my friend behind me as they all scrambled like mice to move themselves and their bikes B)

Whilst i saw the high viz, that much was a little distracting and hard for me to pick up a safe route as all i could see was yellow!

I love my trusty disc brakes!


----------



## magnatom (20 Jan 2008)

Any idea why they were there Iceniner.

Not wanting to drag the whole discussion up again, (but it probably will). I have been actively looking at the difference in visibility of cyclists wearing bright coloured jackets and those wearing dark coloured jackets. IMO the hi-vis cyclists are far easier to see than the non-hi-viz cyclists.

Obviously lighting is the most important aid to visibility however the choice of jacket does make a difference. This was most notable when the cyclists lights were in my opinion in-adequate. 

One chap (who was clad in a dark top) was difficult to see. He had a front flasher, but it was one of those yellow, not particularly bright flashers. He was coming towards me and I was not sure at first if the flashing was a light on a bike or just reflections of street lighting off of car mirrors/ windows/ etc. I am certain that this chap would have been significantly more visible if he had a yellow jacket on. Of course a better light would be a much better initial investment, but I think for best visibility the combination is best.

I should point out the above cyclist was cycling under street lighting (although not the brightest) and the lighting was yellow sodium.

Just my 2p worth.


----------



## Iceniner (20 Jan 2008)

It seemed like one person there was an instructor or something he was talking to the entire group. If it was a cycling course it was a tad silly to have stopped covering the entire lane! 

I wasnt wearing a high viz jacket, but i did have all my lights and helmet light on. There seemed to be half of Cardiff out on their bikes today, the route i was cycling which, is normally quiet was pretty packed!

Out of the people i have seen cycling i have noticed their high viz and its helped me personally, to see them. As im new to cycling im still developing my observation skills to extend to places that i wouldnt have looked at before. 

On another note i tend to notice people with red helmets before i notice their high viz jacket if they are wearing one during the day. Is this just me?


----------



## 515mm (20 Jan 2008)

must be all that cold weather we've bin having


----------



## magnatom (20 Jan 2008)

515mm said:


> must be all that cold weather we've bin having



B)


----------



## 515mm (20 Jan 2008)

On a more serious note, I have only one piece of flouro clothing, my (excellent) montaine stormrider waterproof jacket. Why did I buy it? I noticed that in the rain, in my car, during daylight but especially dawn/dusk, my vision is considerably reduced. Therefore, I reasoned that when I'm on my bike, in similar conditions, I am less visible to everyone else. Back in the Summer, I spotted a cyclist in a fluro yellow jersey from about three quarters of a mile away whilst I was driving us back to Llanelli from Brechfa forest. It was about 7:30 in the evening and I couldn't believe how far away he was when I first saw him.

It convinced me (and Mrs515mm) I can only speak from personal experience. Oh and I have the brightest fekk off lights that I could find and afford.


----------



## Wolf04 (20 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I see what you're saying, but I really doubt the hiviz will have any effect in that situation. Even if it causes a second thought and I really doubt it will, the driver will already have gone and or assumed you're a workman. I think road position will have one or two orders of magnitude more effect than hiviz. You need to be inside the drivers' narrow field of vision where very little is missed. Outside that tunnel, and you could be a bus for all the difference it will make.
> 
> On the lights and looking like a vehicle, I don't understand your point, there's no disadvantage shown.


My feeling on Hi-Viz/reflective clothing is this, it doesn't protect you against other road users who are not looking. It does however make you more visible to those trying to drive safely. I remember an incident last autumn when I was on my normal commute, on a long stretch of residential road I could see another cyclist a few hundred yards ahead, their fluorescent yellow jacket standing out against the grey background. When I eventually caught up I was surprised to discover there were two cyclists, the other not wearing hi-viz. Is this conclusive evidence? Of course not, but its good enough for me to wear a hi-viz waistcoat as well as good lights and tyreflies to aid with visibility.
Pete


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jan 2008)

Is there any point in seeing a cyclist from 3/4 of a mile away? Very little I think.


----------



## Maz (20 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Is there any point in seeing a cyclist from 3/4 of a mile away? Very little I think.


At what distance _is _there a point in seeing a cyclist? half a mile? 300 metres? 50 metres? The sooner the better, IMO. Hi-viz does that.


----------



## LLB (20 Jan 2008)

I am amazed that it took 8 pages before Magnatom came forth with the reason why there are so many smidsys with drivers pulling out from side turnings = the cyclist is not illuminated unless the cars headlights are on them, and as the car is pointing at the kerb on the opposite side of the road, and the drivers eyes are acclimatised to viewing the road before them under the brightness of either Halogen or HID headlights, most else outside this vanishes into darkness.

If reflective or high viz are being used, it needs to be illuminated to be of any value, and if you cannot rely upon a car pulling out to do this, then there is nothing to say you cannot provide this light source yourself - yet another clever British invention  












http://www.lightrider.co.uk/


----------



## Wolf04 (20 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Is there any point in seeing a cyclist from 3/4 of a mile away? Very little I think.


Sorry while I have great respect for your opinion Mike, I'm truly baffled by the above comment. What could possibly be wrong with being able to see a cyclist from 3/4 mile? What is the alternative? To be invisible? A cyclist wearing Hi-viz is more visible period! Does that make them safer..probably.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jan 2008)

OK, let's take it to an extreme that's effectively no different. Is there any point in seeing a cyclist from 50 miles away?


----------



## magnatom (21 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> OK, let's take it to an extreme that's effectively no different. Is there any point in seeing a cyclist from 50 miles away?



Yes you could say hi to other cyclechat members if you could see that far (not so difficult in London of course!)

Talking about how far away you can see them is a slight red herring. What is important is when the cyclist is off axis and in the drivers peripheral vision. Yellow is much more visible than black!

Another situation that I noticed this morning, was where a cyclist was in front of a car coming towards me. He had good lights, but the car behind had better and to some extent it would be possible to miss the cyclists lights in the glare of the cars. Cars in general tend to be grey/black/blue. The cyclist today had a yellow jacket on and so was visible to me. If he had black on he would not have been as visible. This could be important where a car wants to cut across approaching traffic thinks he sees a gap only to find that a hidden cyclist is there. 

It shouldn't happen, but it could.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jan 2008)

The point being that cyclists are already more than visible enough. Wearing hiviz or wearing black makes no difference to the rate of smidsy's I experience.


----------



## Arch (21 Jan 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> I am amazed that it took 8 pages before Magnatom came forth with the reason why there are so many smidsys with drivers pulling out from side turnings = the cyclist is not illuminated unless the cars headlights are on them, and as the car is pointing at the kerb on the opposite side of the road, and the drivers eyes are acclimatised to viewing the road before them under the brightness of either Halogen or HID headlights, most else outside this vanishes into darkness.
> 
> If reflective or high viz are being used, it needs to be illuminated to be of any value, and if you cannot rely upon a car pulling out to do this, then there is nothing to say you cannot provide this light source yourself - yet another clever British invention
> 
> ...




I suggested this a while back and was met with a wall of derision. I was suggesting carrying an extra light on the bars, shining back on myself, rather than buying the special one. A few people said they reckoned it would make no difference, and said it wouldn't highlight reflectives because of the angle. I seem to remember BM was one of them, although as he's done in this thread he seemed to be arguing that it wouldn't be as useful as good lights, whereas of course, like the folk in this thread, I was suggesting it AS WELL AS, not INSTEAD OF...

I did try it out, and a couple of friends said it was a little more visible than without from the front, but I was only using a small single LED to shine back on myself. Alongside two foreward facing lights, two rear lights, a helmet rear light, reflectors and a hi-vis vest. Also, it was in fairly brightly street lit conditions, and I think would be more effective on a dark road.

BM, if you really can't see the point of seeing a cyclist (or any other road user) as soon as possible, I start to wonder about your sanity.


----------



## col (21 Jan 2008)

Bright colours are generally better seen than dark,i dont understand the argument against this


----------



## Tynan (21 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The point being that cyclists are already more than visible enough. Wearing hiviz or wearing black makes no difference to the rate of smidsy's I experience.



erm yeah, ok

people that don't look don't look, granted but what about the people that do, the people that don;t look properly

do you use lights? and if so do you do so because they make you more visible


----------



## Maz (21 Jan 2008)

col said:


> Bright colours are generally better seen than dark,i dont understand the argument against this


As I understand it (maybe I'm wrong), the anti-hiviz argument is that hi-viz wearers like me put too much faith in our hiviz garments for keeping us safe on the roads. This argument is flawed in that it assumes we somehow forget or dismiss the importance of road positioning, eye contact etc (i.e. cyclecraft). IMHO Hi-viz is a supplement to good road sense, not a substitute.


----------



## magnatom (21 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The point being that cyclists are already more than visible enough. Wearing hiviz or wearing black makes no difference to the rate of smidsy's I experience.



How do you know? How many SMIDSY's wouldn't be a SMIDSY if you were wearing bright yellow. How could you measure that. There may have been numerous occasions where a driver has seen me because of my yellow jacket when they otherwise wouldn't. They would therefore react accordingly and I wouldn't notice that I was almost SMIDSY'ed. 

Yellow is more visible than black under poor light conditions in urban areas. From my experience and taking into account the small amount of science I know of in this area, I think it is a fact that yellow is more visible than black/blue/grey in poor urban light conditions.


(of course I am defining SMIDSY here as accidental)


----------



## col (21 Jan 2008)

Maz said:


> As I understand it (maybe I'm wrong), the anti-hiviz argument is that hi-viz wearers like me put too much faith in our hiviz garments for keeping us safe on the roads. This argument is flawed in that it assumes we somehow forget or dismiss the importance of road positioning, eye contact etc (i.e. cyclecraft). IMHO Hi-viz is a supplement to good road sense, not a substitute.




This is another confusion .Cylists are very vulnerable and easily damaged,we dont have the protection of an outer shell,ie a cars body,so for me,it doesnt matter how bright i think i am,ill still be very carefull,and watchful,it doesnt change how i cycle.


----------



## LLB (21 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The point being that cyclists are already more than visible enough. Wearing hiviz or wearing black makes no difference to the rate of smidsy's I experience.



Some are, most aren't. Many commuters regard themselves as 2 wheeled pedestrians (no lights, or crap green LEDs, on the pavement at junctions etc RLJ etc), and those of use who do take a responsible approach to cycling end up being treated with the same contempt which they deserve


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jan 2008)

Col, you may think you're not guilty of risk compensation, but you are. Simply cycling and wearing your hiviz makes you a risk compensator.

Both helmets and hiviz are red herrings from a safety point of view, and I believe both are harmful to cycling's public image as they help to encourage the perception of cycling being dangerous. That means fewer cyclists on the road, and THAT has a huge effect on our collective safety. There's a further negative effect on safety from both via risk compensation, and I think that both these effects slightly outweigh the positives overall.

Just look how many topics there are of cyclists complaining that drivers didn't see them and they were wearing HiViz. Hiviz doesn't help this cyclist at all:



In the end, long debates about helmets and hiviz are a waste of effort. It's not going to make much difference whether you do or don't wear them in your cycling. If we all spent the effort instead on making sure our cycle craft was good via lessons and video review on here, the collective improvement in safety would be several orders of magnitude greater than you could possibly achieve with helmets and hiviz together, even working at their assumed very best possible.


----------



## magnatom (21 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Col, you may think you're not guilty of risk compensation, but you are. Simply cycling and wearing your hiviz makes you a risk compensator.



I'm not guilty of risk compensation. Can you prove that I am?

How can you say this conversation is a wasted effort? Visibility is a priority in cycling and is right up there with road position and cyclecraft. As others have pointed out we are vulnerable, we don't have a cage around us, so we need all the help we can get to avoid collisions. Visibility plays a part in that. So discussions like this are very relevant. 

Part of my job is running functional MRI research, where we want to answer questions about how the brain functions. A lot of this work is clinically based, however, I do work with psychologists as well. I am tempted to chat with some of the visual perception psychologists to see if they would be interested in doing a project in hazard perception in peripheral vision of cyclists with and without hi-viz jackets. If I had the time that is.

My feeling would be that on a conscience level where a driver can tell you he has seen a cyclist there would be little or no difference in brain activation, and in the way the driver would react. However, where a cyclist appears in the peripheral vision and the driver couldn't tell you if they had seen a cyclist or not. I would hypothesis that recognition areas would be active more where the cyclist was wearing yellow compared to grey/black. 

Now it might be suggested that detecting something unconsciously would not affect a drivers actions. However, from what I know of psychology (not a huge amount) this is not the case. It might spur the driver to hesitate, or to look again. Any psychologists on here?

Anyway thats the science out of the way. 

If you want to be seen (better) wear bright colours (i.e. yellow) not grey!


----------



## spindrift (21 Jan 2008)

**** me.


----------



## magnatom (21 Jan 2008)

spindrift said:


> **** me.




It was shocking driving wasn't it. But I think we can safely say that the cyclist was nice and visible. The cyclist didn't help though with his poor road position. 

What are you trying to say here spindrift (apart from testing the swearing filter )


----------



## spindrift (21 Jan 2008)

I was trying to say with economy of speech that the driver deserves a kicking. The cyclist seemed to treat the incident with an equanimity I would be unable to match.


----------



## LLB (21 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> I'm not guilty of risk compensation. Can you prove that I am?
> 
> How can you say this conversation is a wasted effort? Visibility is a priority in cycling and is right up there with road position and cyclecraft. As others have pointed out we are vulnerable, we don't have a cage around us, so we need all the help we can get to avoid collisions. Visibility plays a part in that. So discussions like this are very relevant.
> 
> ...



High viz under sodium lighting has no better impact than white clothing and reflective clothing appears dark unless lit which makes it mostly inefficient.

With a drivers hat on, I can understand why the smidsy happens even with high vis on the cyclist.


----------



## LLB (21 Jan 2008)

spindrift said:


> **** me.




The driver saw the cyclist, but he either underestimated their progress, or was just chancing it and treated them with contempt. 

A shocking piece of driving which deserves at the very least an 'undue care and attention' conviction with a decent sized fine IMO


----------



## Maz (21 Jan 2008)

spindrift said:


> I was trying to say with economy of speech that the driver deserves a kicking. The cyclist seemed to treat the incident with an equanimity I would be unable to match.


Equanimity - good word, that. Thanks.
Can't see the vid from work - I'll watch it later.


----------



## magnatom (21 Jan 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> High viz under sodium lighting has no better impact than white clothing and reflective clothing appears dark unless lit which makes it mostly inefficient.
> 
> With a drivers hat on, I can understand why the smidsy happens even with high vis on the cyclist.



This may be true (although I'm not sure that is the case), but under white lighting the hi-viz becomes more visible than just white. So why not wear something that is as good as or often is better than just plain white.

Also I am sure you agree that under sodium lighting white or hi-viz would be more visible than grey/black/dark blue.

I can also understand why SMIDSYs happen. Drivers just don't look for us, they don't expect us, they just misjudge our speed etc.

Wearing hi-viz will not guarantee you will be seen, but it will help. That's all I am saying.


----------



## magnatom (21 Jan 2008)

spindrift said:


> I was trying to say with economy of speech that the driver deserves a kicking. The cyclist seemed to treat the incident with an equanimity I would be unable to match.




Ah, I thought you were just stirring . 

I think the cyclist was completely oblivious to what had happened. That's partly why I had to double take!

Road position, cyclecraft and visibility. Surely they are all equally important.


----------



## Tynan (21 Jan 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> High viz under sodium lighting has no better impact than white clothing and reflective clothing appears dark unless lit which makes it mostly inefficient.
> 
> With a drivers hat on, I can understand why the smidsy happens even with high vis on the cyclist.



I can't accept that at all

under sodium lighting alone, perhaps to a point, but in urban traffic there's plenty of light around, and particularly from the vehicle driving towards a cyclist

there's no excuse for smidsy, it happens because people don't look for cyclists/motorbikes/anything

by all means make an argument but discounting it is nonsense, worse case it makes no difference, in all other cases it makes a difference to some degree, it can;t make things worse, please don't trot out the over confidence argument


----------



## LLB (21 Jan 2008)

Tynan said:


> I can't accept that at all
> 
> under sodium lighting alone, perhaps to a point, but in urban traffic there's plenty of light around, and particularly from the vehicle driving towards a cyclist
> 
> ...



I also ride a motorcycle (600 supersports, was out on it yesterday) so I am well aware of my mortality regarding these bikes also. 
I'm not mitigating the fact that (some) people in cars don't look for smaller vehicles, just to try and offer a better understanding of the reasons why.


----------



## Tynan (21 Jan 2008)

I don't mind the discussion, I get irritated by people suggesting and even asserting that Hi Viz is useless, ditto helmets

not saying you did either


----------



## Arch (21 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Col, you may think you're not guilty of risk compensation, but you are. Simply cycling and wearing your hiviz makes you a risk compensator.



And now you know every single one of us to be able to say this sort of thing? Rubbish. I wear hi-vis, but I'm also one of the most cautious people I know. I ride in a suitable road position, I don't make a move until I am very sure I can do so safely, I frequently check over my shoulder, use my hearing, carry lights (more than one of each type), I never assume that someone has seen me, and I always try to ride in a way that allows me to stop in an emergency. I sound very boring, I know, but I really don't believe that wearing a yellow coat affects my riding style adversely in any way.

If someone isn't going to look, then I could be wearing one of the Jodrell bank telescopes painted yellow on my head and they wouldn't see me. But if all they are going to do is give me a quick glance, I really do think I am more likely to catch their eye in light coat, with reflectives etc...


----------



## magnatom (21 Jan 2008)

Arch said:


> If someone isn't going to look, then I could be wearing one of the Jodrell bank telescopes painted yellow on my head and they wouldn't see me. But if all they are going to do is give me a quick glance, I really do think I am more likely to catch their eye in light coat, with reflectives etc...



If you were wearing one of those telescopes on your head, all you would have to do is lower your head and you would take out all of the traffic on the road. So I put it to you, that you would indeed be very safe wearing a Jodrell Bank telescope!


----------



## Arch (21 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> If you were wearing one of those telescopes on your head, all you would have to do is lower your head and you would take out all of the traffic on the road. So I put it to you, that you would indeed be very safe wearing a Jodrell Bank telescope!



Might have a sore neck though....


----------



## magnatom (21 Jan 2008)

Arch said:


> Might have a sore neck though....



Your probably right. It probably wouldn't fit too well down the narrow street of York either.....


----------



## Arch (21 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> Your probably right. It probably wouldn't fit too well down the narrow street of York either.....



As a matter of fact, a member of staff here is involved with a project studying the history of Jodrell Bank. I'll ask him, next time he's visiting, to bring me one back...


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> I'm not guilty of risk compensation. Can you prove that I am?



You and the others on here have proved that you're risk compensating - you've admitted you're not keen to cycle without wearing hiviz. Ergo risk compensation.



magnatom said:


> How can you say this conversation is a wasted effort? Visibility is a priority in cycling and is right up there with road position and cyclecraft.



Visibility, yes, but that's achieved by road positioning, using lights and std reflectors when appropriate. Hiviz doesn't add significantly to that.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> Road position, cyclecraft and visibility. Surely they are all equally important.



Road positioning and cycle craft (part of the same thing really) are several orders of magnitude more important than hiviz clothing. I put to you that you're being a little bit disingenuous by changing your tack from hiviz to visibility, or maybe that's just your way of moving towards my point of view?

Your left hook video is a great example of hiviz not working. It's like that nearly all the time because drivers see us just fine and don't give a toss. It's only a tiny percentage that don't look, and they wouldn't have seen a bus.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jan 2008)

Oh, I went into Bromley on the bus today, and counted 8 workmen wearing hiviz, and only one cyclist. There were 3 other cyclists not wearing hiviz. My bet is that any driver is just as likely to assume workman and not think cyclist if he were to catch a glimpse out of the corner of his eye, that is if he were to think at all.

Just like the driver in Magnatom's video, seeing cyclist wearing hiviz doesn't mean anything to a driver because we're no threat to them. Most don't think we're actually moving, and wouldn't care anyway.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jan 2008)

Tynan said:


> I don't mind the discussion, I get irritated by people suggesting and even asserting that Hi Viz is useless, ditto helmets
> 
> not saying you did either



Sometimes I don't like inconvenient facts either, but eventually I can't stop ignoring them. I used to be very pro-helmet, and was convinced by the evidence and against my will that they were largely a waste of money.

I really can't understand why helmets and hiviz get so much attention, and proper riding so little when the safety equipment has a negligible effect on safety by comparison with good cycle craft. One good thing is that with all the helmet cameras around, the message about cyclecraft is hopefully being spread much better than before. Particular props to Magnatom for being so active in this.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (21 Jan 2008)

I am going to put something else in here, that I have only seen vuagely touched on by Magnatom , where he calls Mikey an experienced rider. 

Speed.

I am a very fit, experienced cyclist who rides a painstakingly maintained and tuned roadbike. I ride very fast, and in a busy town / city situation this speed keeps overtaking cars at bay, lets me take a very dominant road position, and I am comfortable wearing my (what I think) is stylish black and red kit, relying on my lights alone.

I get noticed and feel very safe - safer in fact cycling through central London than I do driving through it.

Out here, where the speed limit is 60mph in most places, the roads are wide and treated like racetracks, the kind of position I hold in town is suicide. There is no other word to describe how terminally stupid cycling in the middle of the road is. 

I think it is all about closing speed. 

When riding alone on the busy roads out of town I wear a reflective yellow Sam Browne, it is unobtrusive and personal testing has led me to conclude that out of town it has a beneficial effect, especially since it contrasts so strongly with my black jersey. 

In town there is no discernable difference.

When cycling in town with my gf, who is less experienced, and is weighed down with a ton of steel mtb, a HiVi jacket or Sam Browne makes a huge difference. 

_A cyclist riding fast in heavy traffic is easy for cagers to spot because they are in vision for a relatively long time as closing speed is low. The higher the closing speed, the more that HiVi makes a difference as it grabs attention from the background by being unusual. _

I think this is where urban camo arguments fall down, as the speed of the vehicle is not taken into account. At low closing speed, a moving blob of HiVi is not any use, because compared to the approaching driver, it is moving little, and once registered becomes redundant as the whole cyclist is in view for the whole approach. 

At high closing speed, the HiVi blob that registers makes perople think "What's that?" and serves as a reference that they are going to be approaching something that is either stationary / as good as staionary compared to the approaching vehicle.

So I think HiVi has a place for slow city riders, and any rider out on fast roads.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jan 2008)

That's quite a good point JRG, and not too far from my own feelings. Fast A-roads are one of the few situations that hiviz might be more useful. As for the urban camo description, that doesn't really apply there, since the situation is no longer urban. OTOH, since being hit from behind is one of the least common accident types, hiviz or no hiviz options are going to have an even smaller effect on safety.

Since being safe would seem to be a fairly common goal for all of us, it might be better to look at what the most common accident types are, and whether hiviz might help in those situations.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (21 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> > That's quite a good point JRG
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think this is the approach that should be taken, personally. 

Most _accidents_ are caused by the cyclist losing control of their bike, and crashing all by themselves, with no 'help'. HiVi isn't going to stop you chucking it down the road because you take a corner too fast, or brake hard on a wet manhole cover etc

Most collisions happen at junctions, non-traffic light controlled ones (if I remember my TfL data!) and involve another vehicle pulling out into, or directly into the path of a bike. Causing a collision. 

Here I think that HiVi can be useful, if the cyclist is moving sedately, as the careless driver gets the chance to change their mind about pulling out. HiVi on a fast moving cyclist is perhaps less useful as they have already been hit by the time the driver choses not to go. Hence most bike into car collisions happen with the car stationary - the driver pulls out whilst slowly computing the blur that came towards them, then just before the "smack" of human into metal they finally reach the "oh f*ck! Its a bike" conclusion and jump on the brakes. The bike hits the stationary car and everyone says that the cyclist appeared from nowhere, because the car was stopped, so there would be no reason for anyone but a reckless individual to ride into the side of it.

So I refine my feelings on HiVi - it works when the car is closing the bike down fast, but not the other way round as they still don't work out what the rushing shape is, HiVi or not.

The only adequate risk reduction at junctions IMO is to move to primary, cover the brakes, and prepare for an emergency stop.


----------



## LLB (21 Jan 2008)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> I think this is the approach that should be taken, personally.
> 
> Most _accidents_ are caused by the cyclist losing control of their bike, and crashing all by themselves, with no 'help'. HiVi isn't going to stop you chucking it down the road because you take a corner too fast, or brake hard on a wet manhole cover etc
> 
> ...



Do you not feel that the smaller focal point of the approaching cyclist has any contribution to this (IE small headlight unit projecting equally small headlight beam) as opposed to a large vehicle with big bright headlights approaching at the same speed ?


----------



## Tynan (21 Jan 2008)

offs

hi viz doesn't cause accidents and can't make things worse, of course it doesn't help in some situations, so what? no-ones calling it some sort of panacea 

as for urban camo, how can you get more camo than muted colours blending in with the surrounding colours

if you don't want to wear it don't, but please don;t pretend that it's a bad thing for cyclists to wear if they want to


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jan 2008)

Tynan said:


> hi viz doesn't cause accidents and can't make things worse



That's quite an assumption to be making! I'd agree it doesn't cause accidents, but to say it can't make things worse is wrong. *Points to the number of people indignantly posting about a driver not seeing them whilst they were wearing hiviz*. There's a tendency to replace responsibility for good cycle craft with wearing hiviz instead.


----------



## Tynan (21 Jan 2008)

you can post that last point as much as you like, no agrees with it do they, it's nonsense, people stop trying when they put on a hi viz coat?

and not being seen with hi viz proves that hi viz makes you invisible does it? dear god!

sometimes you can have a brass band on the rack and be letting off fireworks and they still won't see, that's the nature of it

I read the helmets website that argues they're not helpful, and even make things worse, what utter dross arguments on there too, very disappointing, the same arse about reverse logic


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jan 2008)

That's just your bias showing up. Several of the people writing that website are ardent helmet wearers.


----------



## magnatom (22 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You and the others on here have proved that you're risk compensating - you've admitted you're not keen to cycle without wearing hiviz. Ergo risk compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> Visibility, yes, but that's achieved by road positioning, using lights and std reflectors when appropriate. Hiviz doesn't add significantly to that.



I'm just on for a short while today, but I had to reply to this! 

So what your saying is that because I wear hiviz I am risk compensating .

I think the word you are looking for here is risk reducing. Please explain in what way am I compensating?

You are saying my point of view is changing. No. Visibility is aided by what you wear _as well as_ the lights you have and the reflectors you have. I have always stated that hi-viz is complementary.

In fact I could be a little pedantic here and suggest that you are coming to my view. By saying _Hiviz doesn't add significantly to that_ you are now admitting that wearing hi-viz adds to visibility. You have previously stated otherwise (from memory, as I am not going to go back over the posts).


----------



## magnatom (22 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> *Points to the number of people indignantly posting about a driver not seeing them whilst they were wearing hiviz*.



...and where have they suggested that this was a result of wearing hi-viz. I'll say it again.... SMIDSY's will happen (when they don't look at all), but when a driver gives a short glance, wearing a hi-viz can help. Your quoting anecdotes which can always be used to support any argument.


----------



## magnatom (22 Jan 2008)

Jacomus,

Your post is long and my time tonight is short. I will read it tomorrow and get back to you!


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jan 2008)

You're compensating because you don't want to ride a bike without your hiviz. You're taking part in a perceived higher-risk behaviour, but only with use of safety gear. It's the safety gear that lets you feel that you can do something slightly more dangerous than you might otherwise. Risk compensation. I do it, you do it, we all do it.

Nope, I've not changed my view on hiviz. Previously I also said that hiviz increases your visibility, but it does so in such a way that it's basically pointless for improving your safety. We're all already far more visible than we need to be, given that we're all sensible cyclists on here with proper riding technique and good lights.

As for your post about SMIDSYs and people complaining that they were wearing hiviz, that just shows how the cyclists were to some degree relying on the hiviz helping, and it didn't. That shows how risk compensation can increase your chances of having an accident. You can't make the conclusion that the driver didn't look, because a lot of the time they do look and just go anyway.


----------



## Terminator (22 Jan 2008)

I don't rely on HI-VIZ* because im normally concentrating on what the car is doing and his road positioning which can tell me what he is going to do next.If I dont catch a motorists eye when cycling near at a junction then I assume they may not have seen me.(Not looking properly)

Pedestrians normally keep me on my toes anyway as HI-VIZ doesn't apply to them as they rely on engine sound and not vision half the time.

Oh and fitting two electronic horns has been magic and effective against wandering peds in fact more successful than I thought they would be.Also effective against idiot motorists as they have no clue they are being tooted by a bike.


*=I still wear HI-VIZ every day though.


----------



## LLB (22 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You're compensating because you don't want to ride a bike without your hiviz. You're taking part in a perceived higher-risk behaviour, but only with use of safety gear. It's the safety gear that lets you feel that you can do something slightly more dangerous than you might otherwise. Risk compensation. I do it, you do it, we all do it.
> 
> Nope, I've not changed my view on hiviz. Previously I also said that hiviz increases your visibility, but it does so in such a way that it's basically pointless for improving your safety. We're all already far more visible than we need to be, given that we're all sensible cyclists on here with proper riding technique and good lights.
> 
> As for your post about SMIDSYs and people complaining that they were wearing hiviz, that just shows how the cyclists were to some degree relying on the hiviz helping, and it didn't. That shows how risk compensation can increase your chances of having an accident. You can't make the conclusion that the driver didn't look, because a lot of the time they do look and just go anyway.



So to summarise, hi vis is for the benefit for cyclists in the vicinity of the drivers who give a toss, and for cyclist around those who don't, are iin just as much danger anyway !

This means that they do actually have some value


----------



## Terminator (22 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> That's just your bias showing up. Several of the people writing that website are ardent helmet wearers.




Yes there are a few bias's for/against aren't there?


----------



## summerdays (23 Jan 2008)

OK Mikey - what's you stance on kids wearing Hi-Viz? 

For example when my kids walk from school to the swimming pool - they all wear Hi-Viz (and so do any teachers and adult helpers).
View attachment 382

Photo taken of them walking wearing their Hi-Viz in the bad weather.

A few children cycle to school (normally about 6 on an average winter day), and some of them occasionally wear Hi-Viz. I only get my 6 y.o. son wear it on really miserable days. (I also bought him a pale grey coloured coat rather than a black one as I'm sure light coloured clothing is more visible than dark). One kid wears a Hi-Viz coat to school walking each day. I have to admit I normally notice him, not his parents, when I'm cycling by.

What about kids learning to cycle on the road? Should they avoid Hi-Viz as they might think it keeps them safe (some do think that).


----------



## BentMikey (23 Jan 2008)

Wearing hiviz whilst walking? I hope you make him wear a helmet for walking too!!! I don't make my boy wear either one when he's walking, or cycling for that matter.


----------



## summerdays (23 Jan 2008)

No I only get my son to wear it when cycling in poor weather conditions (he only walks to school about 3 times a year). Its another kid that wears the HiViz coat to school walking - like I say I notice him and I imagine the motorists do as well. And in my photo I think the HiViz helps the kids to show up when they are walking.

(I ought to get him to wear helmet, and knee and elbow pads when walking, he has far more accidents than on the bike).


----------



## LLB (23 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Wearing hiviz whilst walking? I hope you make him wear a helmet for walking too!!! I don't make my boy wear either one when he's walking, or cycling for that matter.



So bright colours should be avoided by skiers as well mikey ?


----------



## BentMikey (23 Jan 2008)

LOL, sorry summerdays, I did read your post properly, I was just being difficult.

If the conditions were as in your photo, I'd be cycling with lights on myself. If I or miniMikey were walking in them, I still wouldn't bother with Hiviz.


----------



## Wolf04 (23 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You're compensating because you don't want to ride a bike without your hiviz. You're taking part in a perceived higher-risk behaviour, but only with use of safety gear. It's the safety gear that lets you feel that you can do something slightly more dangerous than you might otherwise. Risk compensation. I do it, you do it, we all do it.
> 
> Nope, I've not changed my view on hiviz. Previously I also said that hiviz increases your visibility, but it does so in such a way that it's basically pointless for improving your safety. We're all already far more visible than we need to be, given that we're all sensible cyclists on here with proper riding technique and good lights.
> 
> As for your post about SMIDSYs and people complaining that they were wearing hiviz, that just shows how the cyclists were to some degree relying on the hiviz helping, and it didn't. That shows how risk compensation can increase your chances of having an accident. You can't make the conclusion that the driver didn't look, because a lot of the time they do look and just go anyway.



A rational argument Mike but I disagree. I would accept risk compensation if for example we were discussing motorbikes and all day headlights, where the rider may assume he is more visible and therefore put themselves in situations they normally wouldn't but the majority of the comments on this thread would suggest that the wearing of Hi-Vis is risk neutral, cyclists wearing it as an aid to visibility rather than assuming it makes one visible. As for complaints that "the driver didn't see me and I was wearing Hi-vis", I have to agree that Hi-vis is no substitute for good cyclecraft. Having said that though all the evidence we are using is anecdotal at best so there is little proof whether Hi-Vis decreases any form of accicent or not, my point is that as long as we don't rely. on it, it may be of benifit in certain conditions.
Pete


----------



## tdr1nka (23 Jan 2008)

I tend to think that even if I was dressed as a giant Banana, a smidsy would still be a smidsy. Some drivers are just not vigilant behind the wheel and accidents will still happen. It takes no extra time or effort to put on a lid and hi-viz and in certain circumstances they are effective.

I wouldn't take Ms tdr1nka on the tandem without either, it doesn't make me any less vigilant or cautious in my riding. All our Hi-Vis have the 3M reflectors and it is proven that at impacts around 30mph wearing a well fitting lid can seriously limit potential damage to the skull.

Maybe I'm just erring on the side of caution but I would never let my guard down just because I choose to wear these items.


T x


----------



## Wolf04 (23 Jan 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> and it is proven that at impacts around 30mph wearing a well fitting lid can seriously limit potential damage to the skull.
> T x


No I'm not going there one safety discussion at a time I think!!!


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

Bear with me here. A thought experiment:

I wear a hi-viz jacket in the winter. What would happen if I took it off and didn't wear it. I'll try and be honest here.

For the first few days (maybe even the first couple of weeks) I might actually be concerned about not wearing my jacket at night. I might try cycling more conservatively, i.e. more submissively. As time progresses, however, I would get used to not wearing the hi-viz and I would probably forget what it was like to wear it. At this point I would expect that my cycling would return to normal, i.e. I would cycle the same way I did with the hi-viz on. This would be because I would no longer think about what I was or was not wearing as I would be getting on with the job of cycling and enjoying it.

I would suggest that the time I would be in greatest danger would be during the transition, where I would be riding more submissively. I probably would not take my road position as I should etc because I was worried about my visibility. 

However, this effect would be temporary. 

Going the other way it is possible for a short while that someone might feel safer for a couple of weeks because of wearing a jacket. But, similar to my example this effect would disappear once it became the norm. 

In fact it could be the case that changing either way is just as dangerous, and it would be the change itself that would be dangerous and not the fact that you were moving to hi-viz that was the problem


So in conclusion changing may cause transitory reduction in safety, but in the long term no effect.

So if you conclude (as I do) that hi-viz improves your visibility under certain circumstances then I suggest that long term safety is improved at the expense of a short term reduction in safety. Of course if you are just starting cycling the transitory period would not matter as the major risks of learning a new skill would result in far greater risks (so long as you wore hi-viz at the start).


Discuss.....


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> No I'm not going there one safety discussion at a time I think!!!



Yes best to leave helmets for another thread. The justifications for and against wearing a helmet are very different to those of hi-viz.


----------



## domtyler (23 Jan 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> I tend to think that even if I was dressed as a giant Banana, a smidsy would still be a smidsy. Some drivers are just not vigilant behind the wheel and accidents will still happen. It takes no extra time or effort to put on a lid and hi-viz and in certain circumstances they are effective.
> 
> I wouldn't take Ms tdr1nka on the tandem without either, it doesn't make me any less vigilant or cautious in my riding. All our Hi-Vis have the 3M reflectors and *it is proven that at impacts around 30mph wearing a well fitting lid can seriously limit potential damage to the skull*.
> 
> ...



Interesting. Can you show me where you got this fact from tdr1nka?


----------



## Cab (23 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> For the first few days (maybe even the first couple of weeks) I might actually be concerned about not wearing my jacket at night. I might try cycling more conservatively, i.e. more submissively.



I think your analysis falls down right here at the start. If you're concerned that you're less visible, surely that means you'll take a more assertive road position to make sure that you're visible? Its what I do when I have such a concern.


----------



## summerdays (23 Jan 2008)

I don't see why you also think HiViz = work men, surely the first thing to think of in a road situation is one of the emergency services (particulary police if you are a motorist with a phone glued to your ear). And our cycling beat bobby wears HiViz too.

I know that yesterday I noticed (whilst standing next to the road with my HiViz jacket) a motorist smiling, looking apologetic and pulling on his seat beat - I'm assuming he thought I was someone else.


----------



## Wolf04 (23 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> Bear with me here. A thought experiment:
> 
> I wear a hi-viz jacket in the winter. What would happen if I took it off and didn't wear it. I'll try and be honest here.
> 
> ...



You seem to be effectively reiterating BentMickey's point about risk compensation. My feeling would be that if I stopped wearing Hi-Viz my cycling wouldn't change in either the short or long term and didn't when I started to wear it.
Pete


----------



## LLB (23 Jan 2008)

The biggest problem is not just based on your road position in a genuine smidsy (not 'I don't give a toss'), it is the drivers ability to see you before they pull out. The only way you can influence their decision making process behind the wheel is to make sure that they see you long before your paths cross.

It really is that simple !


----------



## domtyler (23 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> Bear with me here. A thought experiment:
> 
> Pointless drivel snipped
> 
> Discuss.....



It's been a while since I read a bigger load of crap than this. Thanks Magna, you've made my day.


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> I think this is where urban camo arguments fall down, as the speed of the vehicle is not taken into account. At low closing speed, a moving blob of HiVi is not any use, because compared to the approaching driver, it is moving little, and once registered becomes redundant as the whole cyclist is in view for the whole approach.
> 
> At high closing speed, the HiVi blob that registers makes perople think "What's that?" and serves as a reference that they are going to be approaching something that is either stationary / as good as staionary compared to the approaching vehicle.



I see where you are coming from for this, and you are right that a stationery blob is less visible than a moving blob.

However, where a cyclist is moving across the path of a car, i.e. at a junction, their speed (even if they are traveling relatively slowly) will be fast compared to the driver, because they will be moving across the drivers field of vision. Therefore, I would suggest that a yellow moving blob would be detected very well in this situation.


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> It's been a while since I read a bigger load of crap than this. Thanks Magna, you've made my day.



Come on Dom, you can't just say that. Where do you think I am talking crap?

Oh and don't just say all of it!


----------



## summerdays (23 Jan 2008)

And I cycled the second half my route this morning without my HiViz. I wanted maximum visibility for the first part on the really busy road (Muller Rd) with queueing traffic, but after the M32 motorway roundabout I took it off. I didn't notice any difference in the way I cycled (other than I was cooler). I don't use HiViz in summer either so do I stop risk compensating then?


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

Cab said:


> I think your analysis falls down right here at the start. If you're concerned that you're less visible, surely that means you'll take a more assertive road position to make sure that you're visible? Its what I do when I have such a concern.



Maybe I would. But shouldn't I already be cycling in the optimum road position anyway. What I am trying to say is that it is possible that I would ride differently for a short while (and this could increase my risk). However, over time this would cancel out and the overall effect would be zero.

What I am trying to say is that I think risk compensation is always transitory and never permanent.


----------



## domtyler (23 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> Come on Dom, you can't just say that. Where do you think I am talking crap?
> 
> Oh and don't just say all of it!



You claim to be a skilled and cycle-crafty cyclist and yet you admit that getting rid of your day-glo 'safety' vest would see you cycling in the gutter. What's that about?


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> You seem to be effectively reiterating BentMickey's point about risk compensation. My feeling would be that if I stopped wearing Hi-Viz my cycling wouldn't change in either the short or long term and didn't when I started to wear it.
> Pete



Not really, I am saying that at most the effect of risk compensation is temporary. I might not do what I described above, but I think the worst case scenario is what I described.


----------



## tdr1nka (23 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> Interesting. Can you show me where you got this fact from tdr1nka?



I was told this by a friend who was an A & E nurse at the time, just figured that someone who was both a cyclist and on the recieving end of RTA's might have known their onions. If I am mistaken, forgive me.
anyway, as has been said this is the subject for a whole other thread.

T x


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> You claim to be a skilled and cycle-crafty cyclist and yet you admit that getting rid of your day-glo 'safety' vest would see you cycling in the gutter. What's that about?




I've never claimed to be skilled, your assumption I think . I'd like to think I am fairly clued up though and I do try and cycle as best I can to be safe.

I'm not claiming I would suddenly cycle in the gutter, but I might subconsciously be a little more wary at the trouble spots in my commute. I might subconsciously wonder if, for example, a following car has seen my signal, has that car over there actually seen me etc.

Yes this would probably be unjustified (most of the time) but I am after all human  and it is possible that _feeling_ more vulnerable would affect my riding. I'm just trying to be honest. However, as I have said this would be transitory at most.


----------



## Cab (23 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> Maybe I would. But shouldn't I already be cycling in the optimum road position anyway. What I am trying to say is that it is possible that I would ride differently for a short while (and this could increase my risk). However, over time this would cancel out and the overall effect would be zero.
> 
> What I am trying to say is that I think risk compensation is always transitory and never permanent.



You should of course be riding where you're visible regardless of whether you're in high-viz, but you seem to be saying that you think you might stop doing this if you're not wearing high viz. My response is that, intuitively, I think that if you change your behaviour if not wearing high viz then surely you'd be takiong different risks instead, you'd be riding maybe further out, you'd be in primary position even more often. There may be some risk compensation going on, only I don't agree that you'd be acting more timidly when you should, to compensate for that risk, be acting more assertively.


----------



## domtyler (23 Jan 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> I was told this by a friend who was an A & E nurse at the time, just figured that someone who was both a cyclist and on the recieving end of RTA's might have known their onions. If I am mistaken, forgive me.
> anyway, as has been said this is the subject for a whole other thread.
> 
> T x



"it is proven that at impacts around 30mph wearing a well fitting lid can seriously limit potential damage to the skull"

So basically, it is NOT proven that impacts around 30mph wearing a well fitting lid can seriously limit potential damage to the skull then?


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

Cab said:


> You should of course be riding where you're visible regardless of whether you're in high-viz, but you seem to be saying that you think you might stop doing this if you're not wearing high viz. My response is that, intuitively, I think that if you change your behaviour if not wearing high viz then surely you'd be takiong different risks instead, you'd be riding maybe further out, you'd be in primary position even more often. There may be some risk compensation going on, only I don't agree that you'd be acting more timidly when you should, to compensate for that risk, be acting more assertively.



Maybe, but do you agree that risk compensation is temporary as I have described?


----------



## domtyler (23 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> Maybe, but do you agree that risk compensation is temporary as I have described?



I don't think anyone can argue this point, anyone with a working brain will adapt over time, it is called learning.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Jan 2008)

summerdays said:


> And I cycled the second half my route this morning without my HiViz. *I wanted maximum visibility for the first part on the really busy road (Muller Rd) with queueing traffic, but after the M32 motorway roundabout I took it off.* I didn't notice any difference in the way I cycled (other than I was cooler). I don't use HiViz in summer either so do I stop risk compensating then?



Isn't the bolded bit a near perfect example of risk compensation? The bit about not using it in summer might also be a good risk compensation example - perhaps you're only using it in winter because light conditions aren't as good?


----------



## BentMikey (23 Jan 2008)

Ah tdr1nka, 30mph? I think not, time to go read up on the various bicycle helmet tests at www.cyclehelmets.org


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Isn't the bolded bit a near perfect example of risk compensation? The bit about not using it in summer might also be a good risk compensation example - perhaps you're only using it in winter because light conditions aren't as good?



No. Risk reduction. Surely risk compensation is where, if when wearing the hi-viz/helmet etc he decided to cycle more recklessly?


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> I don't think anyone can argue this point, anyone with a working brain will adapt over time, it is called learning.



Indeed. Then I think you are suggesting that Mike doesn't have a brain (I have one, just look at my avatar ) As far as I am aware, Mike is suggesting that by wearing hi-viz we are more likely to cycle recklessly. I suggest that this at most is a temporary situation and Mike is suggesting that it is more permanent. Is this right Mike?


----------



## domtyler (23 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> Indeed. Then I think you are suggesting that Mike doesn't have a brain (I have one, just look at my avatar ) As far as I am aware, Mike is suggesting that by wearing hi-viz we are more likely to cycle recklessly. I suggest that this at most is a temporary situation and Mike is suggesting that it is more permanent. Is this right Mike?



I think that Mike Papa Mike is suggesting that after the bedding in period folk tend to cycle under more assumptions than they would do otherwise.


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> I think that Mike Papa Mike is suggesting that after the bedding in period folk tend to cycle under more assumptions than they would do otherwise.




i.e they risk compensate? I don't buy it. 

I should say that despite this disagreement I think Mike talks sense nearly all of the time . So no hard feelings, of course!

As for Dom though....


----------



## BentMikey (23 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> No. Risk reduction. Surely risk compensation is where, if when wearing the hi-viz/helmet etc he decided to cycle more recklessly?



The net effect is that behaviour is used to modify perceived risk towards an "acceptable" norm.

In this case the poster is happy to lose the safety equipment when he feels safer, and needs it for the perceived more dangerous environment. If we were to somehow make him cycle the bit he perceives as more dangerous without hiviz, he would almost certainly ride a tiny fraction more conservatively, bringing risk back to his own acceptance level.

As for adaptation to a situation, that's quite different to the hiviz and risk compensation discussion.


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The net effect is that behaviour is used to modify perceived risk towards an "acceptable" norm.
> 
> In this case the poster is happy to lose the safety equipment when he feels safer, and needs it for the perceived more dangerous environment. If we were to somehow make him cycle the bit he perceives as more dangerous without hiviz, he would almost certainly ride a tiny fraction more conservatively, bringing risk back to his own acceptance level.
> 
> As for adaptation to a situation, that's quite different to the hiviz and risk compensation discussion.




I still don't buy this. I don't wear my hi-viz jacket in the summer. The main reason is that it is too hot. I could buy a hi-viz wastecoat, but in the summer I perceive that the benifits of this reduce significantly, due to the improved contrast available from the additional light. 

The only way my cycling might change during the summer is that I ride faster due to less air friction!

It is not behaviour that is modified to reduce perceived risk to the norm, it is the use of safety aids such as a hi-viz jacket that is modified to reduce risk to the norm. 

I must admit if I have a jacket on for a ride I will keep it on for a ride. I see no point in faffing around putting stuff on, or taking it off, unless I get hot etc.


----------



## tdr1nka (23 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> "it is proven that at impacts around 30mph wearing a well fitting lid can seriously limit potential damage to the skull"
> 
> So basically, it is NOT proven that impacts around 30mph wearing a well fitting lid can seriously limit potential damage to the skull then?



Yeah, OK but with every respect Dom my friend had been privvy to medical stats and RTA data and had switched to wearing a lid immediately after reading them.

Anyway back to the reflective paint issue........*ahem*

T x


----------



## domtyler (23 Jan 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Yeah, OK but with every respect Dom my friend had been privvy to medical stats and RTA data and had switched to wearing a lid immediately after reading them.
> 
> Anyway back to the reflective paint issue........*ahem*
> 
> T x



I don't that information is classified, it is all out there. But, as you say, back to the reflective paint.


----------



## Terminator (23 Jan 2008)

Seems like you guys/gals have been busy on here while I have been working and commuting (with my hi-viz gear).


----------



## Terminator (23 Jan 2008)

*In this case the poster is happy to lose the safety equipment when he feels safer, and needs it for the perceived more dangerous environment.

*
Doesn't apply to me mikey I wear it all year round.


----------



## LOGAN 5 (23 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> If you want to get seen on a bike just ride in primary position, it works every time. Ride out of this position and you'll be blatantly ignored not seen whatever you're wearing. That's the simple truth folks.




I was. It didn't. Got ignored anyway. Not true then.


----------



## summerdays (23 Jan 2008)

summerdays said:


> And I cycled the second half my route this morning without my HiViz. *I wanted maximum visibility for the first part on the really busy road (Muller Rd) with queueing traffic, but after the M32 motorway roundabout I took it off.* I didn't notice any difference in the way I cycled (other than I was cooler). I don't use HiViz in summer either so do I stop risk compensating then?





BentMikey said:


> Isn't the bolded bit a near perfect example of risk compensation? The bit about not using it in summer might also be a good risk compensation example - perhaps you're only using it in winter because light conditions aren't as good?



Surely its a case of assessing the quality of light, and road conditions, and wearing the HiViz cos I want to maximise my visiablity. I do not go down the Muller Road in a daydream, the top is lovely and fast, but for the last mile it is almost stationary traffic, a bus depot, and a hill that forces me to go into secondary position. My speed and the cars is very different quite a bit of the time. 

Equally I don't use my lights in those conditions in summer - cos it is much lighter, and road conditions are better. I think motorists drive worse in winter time... whether its steamed up windows, lack of fresh air, dampness on the ground, and it is definately darker, even at midday.

If I had to use the lights in summer cos it was wet/stormy I would add the jacket too or a high vis vest.


----------



## Terminator (23 Jan 2008)

However I ride im not having too many problems with my HI-VIZ (touch wood) and long may it continue.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> ... in the summer I perceive that the benifits of this reduce significantly, due to the improved contrast available from the additional light.



Ergo you are risk compensating, as is summerdays. You perceive summer riding as less risky, so you feel it's acceptable to abandon the safety gear.


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Ergo you are risk compensating, as is summerdays. You perceive summer riding as less risky, so you feel it's acceptable to abandon the safety gear.



I'm sure you have changed your definition of risk compensating. From what I gathered previously this was the act of cycling in a more risky manor. For example cycling faster, weaving in and out of traffic more etc. This is what I would term as risk compensation, as a result of taking the jacket off. I don't understand how taking the jacket off can result in the risk compensation of..... taking the jacket off!?!?

If your using this definition, does this not mean that you risk compensate as well? Do you leave your lights on all of the time?


----------



## summerdays (23 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Ergo you are risk compensating, as is summerdays. You perceive summer riding as less risky, so you feel it's acceptable to abandon the safety gear.



Point is: "*it is less risky*" from a light levels point of view. 

And I wear my high viz cos of the reduced light levels. Summer = sun high in the sky so that even behind clouds the light levels tend to be higher.


----------



## Cab (23 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> Maybe, but do you agree that risk compensation is temporary as I have described?



I don't know. Intuitively I'd say yes, provided you're competent enough to re-learn how to ride well; how temporary it is would therefore depend very much on the competence of the rider.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (23 Jan 2008)

Why not do an experiment?

Magna and Mikey - both of you video your commutes. Video one, then swap your normal riding gear for the other one.

Mag goes ninja and Mike goes bananna.

Compare your "before" and "after" videos and see what kind of difference there is. Whack them on Youtube for us to look at. 

I dares ya!!



linfordlunchbox said:


> I also ride a motorcycle (600 supersports, was out on it yesterday) so I am well aware of my mortality regarding these bikes also.
> I'm not mitigating the fact that (some) people in cars don't look for smaller vehicles, just to try and offer a better understanding of the reasons why.




*drools* what is it what is it!


----------



## BentMikey (23 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> I'm sure you have changed your definition of risk compensating. From what I gathered previously this was the act of cycling in a more risky manor. For example cycling faster, weaving in and out of traffic more etc. This is what I would term as risk compensation, as a result of taking the jacket off. *I don't understand how taking the jacket off can result in the risk compensation of..... taking the jacket off!?!?*
> 
> If your using this definition, does this not mean that you risk compensate as well? Do you leave your lights on all of the time?



Nope, I haven't changed my definition at all. You're right, everybody risk compensates, me included. Risk compensation is not about changing just your cycling behaviour, but your overall behaviour to return risk towards your perception of what is acceptably safe.

The bolded bit seems to me like missing comprehension. You feel safer in the summer, so you're happy to take off the hiviz. It's all about what risks you yourself perceive, and how you adapt to them, and there's quite possibly only a limited link with real risk. You clearly perceive the hiviz as a significant factor on your own safety, and I don't believe that it is. In winter you're partly trusting your safety to something that probably has very little effect on it.

Remember the bomb dodgers after 7/7? They swapped very safe tube travel for much less safe cycling because they suddenly perceived cycling to be safer than using the tube, but that's clearly not true.

My problem with hiviz and helmets is that so many cyclists focus on their importance to the exclusion of more important things, and yet they have a tiny effect on real cycling safety. We can argue whether that effect is positive or negative, but the point remains that it's of tiny significance when compared with the other stuff such as lights at night and cyclecraft.

In fairness to you, we all know how important good cycling is to you, so this last bit isn't true of you, though it's true of this debate in general.


----------



## magnatom (23 Jan 2008)

I think it probably would come as no surprise that we aren't a million miles away from each other on this one. There are a couple of main differences; I think hi-viz helps more than you do. I have a slightly different definition or risk compensation than you do. We both try and cycle in a manner that is safe and we both realise that although we try our best, there is always room for improvement. 

I completely agree about human risk perception being very poor. As a species we always vastly overestimate risk. In that regard people often think cycling is much more dangerous than it really is. Thinking honestly, I would estimate that wearing a banana jacket (thanks Jacomus!) might stop a small number of accidents happening every year. Say for instance 5 (UK). That is probably a small proportion of accidents each year (which is probably small compared to all those cycling each year). However, despite the small advantage, I still see it as an advantage. The cost to me is maybe £40 every 2 or three years and a mild amount of derision for looking a twat. I think it is worth it. It is obviously up to everyone else to judge that one for themselves.


As for helmets, I know the arguments of both sides. I think the jury is still out on that one. I wear mine probably out of habit, probably because my wife likes me wearing it, and probably because it sets an example to my oldest boy (I think kids helmets are justified). 

Jacomus, that experiement probably wouldn't work. I would probably compensate for the fact that I knew my cycling was going to be scrutinised!

Anyway, its an interesting discussion....


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (23 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> <snip>
> I completely agree about human risk perception being very poor. As a species we always vastly overestimate risk. In that regard people often think cycling is much more dangerous than it really is. Thinking honestly, I would estimate that wearing a *banana jacket (thanks Jacomus!) *might stop a small number of accidents happening every year. Say for instance 5 (UK). That is probably a small proportion of accidents each year (which is probably small compared to all those cycling each year). However, despite the small advantage, I still see it as an advantage. The cost to me is maybe £40 every 2 or three years and a mild amount of derision for *looking a twat. *I think it is worth it. It is obviously up to everyone else to judge that one for themselves.
> <snip>



I think I am of a very small minority in thinking that banana jackets on cyclists actually look very cool, but I sweat so much in mine that it is totally impractical most of the time! I would wear it because I liked the colour rather than any HiVi aspect of it, if I could stand the drenching!


----------



## BentMikey (24 Jan 2008)

The biggest debates/arguments sometimes come from the smaller differences!


----------

