# High-viz jackets.



## allen-uk (13 Jan 2009)

Hello.

I've been looking for a lightweight very large high-viz jacket, and most of the ones with 'cycling' in the name seem to be silly prices.

However, I've found this:

http://www.cycle-clothing.co.uk/Products/134/speg-360hv-dwr-cycle-jacket-high-visibility.aspx

which seems to tick all the boxes. Anyone tried cycle-clothing.co, or Speg jackets? Advice welcomed.


Allen, London.


----------



## snapper_37 (13 Jan 2009)

allen-uk said:


> Anyone tried cycle-clothing.co, or Speg jackets?



No and no but they look like a nice bit of kit and a decent price. Give it a go.


----------



## 1LegRikk (13 Jan 2009)

Might be worth poking your nose into a local halfords or two, I went last night to pickup a hi-vis strip and they had loads of stuff to clear including hi-vis jackets.


----------



## redjedi (13 Jan 2009)

allen-uk said:


> Hello.
> 
> I've been looking for a lightweight very large high-viz jacket, and most of the ones with 'cycling' in the name seem to be silly prices.
> 
> ...



Some of the Speg stuff looks quite good, and well priced.

It's just a shame they're called SPEG. It just conjours images of


----------



## silverbow (13 Jan 2009)

Hi Allen-uk,

I use the jacket below. It costs a little more than the jacket but I can fully endorse it.

The one you linked to looks ok though.

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/Cycle/7/Altura_Night_Vision_Waterproof_Jacket/5360029726/


----------



## J4CKO (13 Jan 2009)

Another vote for the Altura night vision, just be careful if you are buyign via the web, there is a windproof version (as opposed to waterproof) as well and you really need to try one on as they are snug, I tried X Large and it wasnt big enough so had to go XX Large and I am not that massive by any stretch, its got spare space in sure but I wanted to be able to wear it over a fleece should I need to.


----------



## yenrod (13 Jan 2009)

http://www.cycle-clothing.co.uk

Thats what I like about this place - you get some fantastic sites suggested like that one


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 Jan 2009)

I bought some shorts on cycle-clothing - good quality and the price was cheap enough. 
Lots of stuff on offer at the moment. I got a nice Endura jacket for a good price last year....well it was nice untill I scraped it down the road after falling off on the ice!


----------



## MacB (13 Jan 2009)

Another vote for the Altura Night Vision, I'm sure plenty of other tops are very good but was sold on this as it is nice and loose and so helps me not to overheat.


----------



## allen-uk (13 Jan 2009)

Thanks for all the help.

I googled Altura Night Vision and came up with one for an almost unbelievable £37.99 on 

http://www.discountcyclesdirect.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=6574

Trouble is, there is some doubt over whether or not they do the 3XL version, which I am checking, but obviously a site worth bearing in mind.


I shall report back.


Allen.


----------



## silverbow (13 Jan 2009)

silverbow said:


> Hi Allen-uk,
> 
> I use the jacket below. It costs a little more than the jacket but I can fully endorse it.
> 
> ...



The discount cycles direct jacket is the windproof version. Follow the link above, this is the waterproof one.


----------



## allen-uk (13 Jan 2009)

Sodding minefield, ain't it. Oh, and the range of chest sizes defined as 3XL is quite amazing, too! Maybe I should go on a diet instead.


A.


----------



## silverbow (13 Jan 2009)

I'm not sure if this helps, but my suit jackets are 42" chest and I purchased a XL Altura. This has room to fit a thick fleece under it.


----------



## MacB (13 Jan 2009)

Allen, I have the 3XL version, I'm 6ft1 and 17.5 stone and I can wear it comfortably loose over 3 layers.....Al


----------



## allen-uk (13 Jan 2009)

Thanks for the info. 

MacBludgeon, you sound as if you're built a bit like me. Do you get mistaken for a rugby forward, too? Well, I did in my youth, anyway. And Rikk, yes I will pop in to my local Halfords, but that 3XL usually rules out the chain-stores.

Discount Cycles Direct say they don't do a 3XL, windproof/waterproof or any other.

A.


----------



## stevevw (13 Jan 2009)

I bought my wife the Speg jacket. very nice it is too and is waterproof, well worth the money. It also packs in to the rear pocket and has a belt so you can carry it like a bum bag when you get too hot or the rain stops.

I have a Madison pursuit in xxl not quite as well made as the SMEG but very good and a bit cheaper too. they are on ebay.


----------



## Jake (13 Jan 2009)

i got mine from the market in canning town, 2 for £5. builder type ones, but reflective and good


----------



## Niall McL (13 Jan 2009)

Fully endorse the Altura Night Vision jacket. Used it some horrendous weather in Glasgow last week and stayed completely dry.


----------



## Maz (13 Jan 2009)

Aldi do some very lightweight hi-viz jackets from time to time. I bought one a few months back and it's pretty good.


----------



## dudi (13 Jan 2009)

i use some SPEG stuff... infact i was using a paid of their shorts today. I find them to be pretty good quality (obviously not the best), but very good value for money and cycle-clothing are a good company to do business with.

Can't vouch for the jacket though. but it does look good to me.


----------



## allen-uk (14 Jan 2009)

Thanks for the information, particularly about SPEG. 

Jake: my current one is a police-type full-length jacket. Great for being seen, but even with the lining cut out it is SO hot! Good when it's cold, but when the sun comes out, it turns into a sauna.

Allen.


----------



## allen-uk (14 Jan 2009)

http://www.discountcyclesdirect.co.uk/

So, finally made up my mind and went for the Altura from discountcycles (this one WAS the higher spec. version, i.e. the Nightvision Waterproof), for ten quid cheaper than Wiggles, (free delivery), so another site worth watching.


Allen.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2009)

Of course the other option is not to wear hiviz, and instead make sure you have a decent light front and rear, and legal bike reflectors, and put the remainder towards a copy of cyclecraft.


----------



## allen-uk (14 Jan 2009)

It's a point, Mikey, but as a car driver (mainly, although working on it), who takes great care to drive safely and slowly, I would argue that cyclists who are dressed up in high-viz gear do stand out far more than those with just lights.

Cycling today I saw another cyclist with a flashing white front light which DID look good, mind. Are they the sort of thing you'd recommend?

Allen.


----------



## 1LegRikk (14 Jan 2009)

When on the road I have a front and rear light on and flashing no matter what time i go out, although the whole lot only comes out at night when noone can see my face


----------



## Eat MY Dust (14 Jan 2009)

allen-uk said:


> It's a point, Mikey, but as a car driver (mainly, although working on it), who takes great care to drive safely and slowly, I would argue that cyclists who are dressed up in high-viz gear do stand out far more than those with just lights.



Oh dear, 7 posts in and your challenging BM to a hi-viz gear debate. You sir are very brave!!


----------



## Arch (14 Jan 2009)

If you are hot in your jacket, it might be worth looking for a hi-vis waistcoat such as you see builders wear, which is sleeveless, and can be bunged over any coat, or tee-shirt, whatever the season. If you have a pound shop nearby, keep an eye out - they sometimes have them, and they tend to be quite big, I think (they are all vast on me, but I'm quite little....)

The advantage of these is not just the bright yellowness, but the wide bands of reflective strip... Worth keeping one or two in the boot of your car too, in case of breaking down at night etc...


----------



## ChrisKH (14 Jan 2009)

Arch said:


> If you are hot in your jacket, it might be worth looking for a hi-vis waistcoat such as you see builders wear, which is sleeveless, and can be bunged over any coat, or tee-shirt, whatever the season. If you have a pound shop nearby, keep an eye out - they sometimes have them, and they tend to be quite big, I think (they are all vast on me, but I'm quite little....)
> 
> The advantage of these is not just the bright yellowness, but the wide bands of reflective strip... Worth keeping one or two in the boot of your car too, in case of breaking down at night etc...



Especially in France. 

I have used a waistcoat until now. The material on my existing one keeps sticking to the velcro on my Creative Reflectives rucksack cover. So am looking for non-sticky alternatives. Otherwise will have to adopt Altura route.


----------



## Arch (14 Jan 2009)

ChrisKH said:


> Especially in France.
> 
> I have used a waistcoat until now. The material on my existing one keeps sticking to the velcro on my Creative Reflectives rucksack cover. So am looking for non-sticky alternatives. Otherwise will have to adopt Altura route.



Unpick the velcro, and sew on a few poppers, or hooks and eyes? Easy to get at any haberdashery or craft type shop.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2009)

Eat MY Dust said:


> Oh dear, 7 posts in and your challenging BM to a hi-viz gear debate. You sir are very brave!!




LOL!!


----------



## allen-uk (14 Jan 2009)

I didn't realise BentMikey carried a health warning. Not brave, just an innocent.

A.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2009)

Good point about the flashing light - I've started a new topic to see what others' strategies are.

EMD's comment is because I'm not a hiviz believer - I don't think it adds anything significant to our safety on the roads. The problem for us as cyclists is not being seen, but having drivers look in the first place, notice and actually give a toss. Hopefully you won't feel "head-bitten-off".


----------



## allen-uk (14 Jan 2009)

Yes, I got the picture!

I do stand by my comments to this extent: I am a car driver who cares about safety (passed my IAM just to show my intentions in that direction).

And I don't think that when I'm cycling and wearing my high-visibility jacket that I'm particularly safe but I think it's better than wearing all black. Everybody who uses the roads has a responsibility to try and make them safer, even if most car drivers are idiots.

Head still in place, so far...


A


----------



## hackbike 666 (14 Jan 2009)

Agree with allen and I have asked many motorists what they prefer.

I do tend to talk to motorists at work.Then again if you are motorist you know what you prefer and what looks invisible.

Fortunately for BentMikey he has super night time vision.Something Im not blessed with.



> It's a point, Mikey, but as a car driver (mainly, although working on it), who takes great care to drive safely and slowly, I would argue that cyclists who are dressed up in high-viz gear do stand out far more than those with just lights.



How many times have I heard this from wise old motons?

Lots of times that's how many.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2009)

I rode up behind a cyclist the other night, with a single flashing rear light, and hiviz. The hiviz was almost unnoticeable by comparison with his rear light. I'm not sure what the light was, but it was about as bright as a Cateye TL-LD600 (the 5 LED jobbie). Even the jacket reflectives weren't particularly visible in the shine back from my Fenix on 120 lumen mode, and in that from the cars passing us by.

Hiviz is a rabbit's foot - it might make you feel better, but if you have decent legal lights and bike reflectors, it's a waste of time for improving your safety. Spend the effort instead on cycle craft, lessons if need be, and you'll get 100 times the improvement in safety.

Pity my video ran out of batteries.


----------



## hackbike 666 (14 Jan 2009)

I saw a cyclist last night dressed all in black with two front lights one flashing which became invisible once he was in traffic.

*it might make you feel better, but if you have decent legal lights and bike reflectors, it's a waste of time for improving your safety. Spend the effort instead on cycle craft, lessons if need be, and you'll get 100 times the improvement in safety.

*How the hell does it make me feel better?

It keeps me warm in this weather granted but apart from that half the time im not even aware I am wearing it.I think on the odd occasion i've forgotten to put it on.It's just an extra measure a bit like putting an etra lock on your front door.

Also stop telling me what to do.I don't tell you how to cycle and it's getting nauseating now.


----------



## hackbike 666 (14 Jan 2009)

Read my above comment.

Are you two taking me as a real mug because that is the way it is coming across on here.


----------



## purplepolly (14 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I rode up behind a cyclist the other night, with a single flashing rear light, and hiviz. The hiviz was almost unnoticeable by comparison with his rear light. I'm not sure what the light was, but it was about as bright as a Cateye TL-LD600 (the 5 LED jobbie). Even the jacket reflectives weren't particularly visible in the shine back from my Fenix on 120 lumen mode, and in that from the cars passing us by.
> .



On my way home the other night there was a cyclist about 20 meters ahead with two good rear lights (he'd turned in front of me earlier when I was waiting at lights) he was fairly visible, but far more immediately noticeable was the reflective strips of a pedestrians hiviz jacket on the opposite pavement.


----------



## purplepolly (14 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> The thing with hi-vis is it is only noticed when light reflects of it. Seen as how lights on a car are directed towards the road it has very little effect imo.
> .



In my previous post, there were no cars about, my bike light was on the other side of the road and the very visible hi-viz pedestrian was on an unlit pavement. Yet the reflective strips were bright white. Some must be more efficient at picking up light than others.


----------



## hackbike 666 (14 Jan 2009)

Ironically tonight I passed quite close to some ped lights and it shocked me that there were two peds there dressed in black who I hadn't seen till I was very close and it shocked me a bit.

Granted they weren't wearing lights though.

Also at Bow Church the cars stopped by a bus at a bus stop and I didn't know why so I waited with the cars and a ped bolted from the other side of the road to catch the bus.He was probably more visible than the two peds earlier though.He was wearing a sort of sheepskin jacket thingy.Good on the cars.

*In my previous post, there were no cars about, my bike light was on the other side of the road and the very visible hi-viz pedestrian was on an unlit pavement. Yet the reflective strips were bright white. Some must be more efficient at picking up light than others.*

I know what lee means about all this light source stuff but I see absolutely no harm in wearing hi-viz stuff if it turns me on.

Also on the railway it's a railway safety requirement to wear hi-viz stuff when walking on the track although it wasn't till about 1990.


----------



## allen-uk (15 Jan 2009)

I just don't see it as an *either/or* question, which is what it always seems to degenerate into.

To repeat, ALL road users have a social responsibility to improve road safety. In the case of cyclists and pedestrians, this means making themselves visible (whether by lights or clothing), and being aware of the difficulties of other road users travelling at much greater speeds.

In the case of motorists, it means being on constant guard for others, whether on many wheels or none.

If every road user took to the streets with a positive, helpful attitude, then this oft-rehearsed debate would not take place.


A.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2009)

Careful Hackers, or I'll tell you to stand on the naughty step!



More seriously, HiViz is one of those peculiar cultural things in the UK. If it's necessary here, why isn't it necessary in the Netherlands?


----------



## HF2300 (15 Jan 2009)

+1 for Allen's comment - though I'd add that motorists should also take care to be visible, and to be aware of cyclists' difficulties.



BentMikey said:


> ... I don't think it adds anything significant to our safety on the roads. The problem for us as cyclists is not being seen...





BentMikey said:


> ... if you have decent legal lights and bike reflectors, it's a waste of time for improving your safety....



I'm really unconvinced by this argument. Certainly you can point to individual cases where high vis is poor, but perhaps it's been washed a million times, or is some nasty pound shop special.

Research into high vis in 'real life' situations consistently reports that visibility of wearers is increased by significant amounts. More importantly, it can change the distance at which someone is visible from *less* than a vehicle's braking distance to several times its braking distance.

Personally I also think visibility from the side is important, and front and rear lights often do little or nothing to help that.



BentMikey said:


> ...The problem for us as cyclists is not being seen, but having drivers look in the first place, notice and actually give a toss...



Hmmm... Should we take that as an irrational outburst, or an inflammatory statement - or just as being deliberately controversial, perhaps with a bit of tongue in cheek?! 

It seems to me that the difference between a lot of (the better) cycling high vis and PPE-type high vis is (obviously) that the cycling stuff is often designed specifically with cycling in mind, so it'll be made of waterproof breathable fabrics, have windproof fronts, etc. etc. Things like Police jackets are often hot when active because they're not breathable. If you've already got a decent top layer I can't see a problem with using one of the thin vest / waistcoat / over-jacket type things (though some of the snobs on here will say it makes you look like a POB!).

Having said that, there's also the cyclists' mark-up; I've seen cycling high vis vests on sale at £12 - £15 which are identical or worse than ones from industrial suppliers at £2.99.

If you do go for an industrial type vest / overjacket or similar, I'd always get something that complies with BS EN 471, preferably Class 3. There are several different standards out there for professional vs. non-professional wear, and a lot of the pound shop type stuff doesn't comply with any of them anyway!

Mikey, I've been meaning to ask, what's the source of the 'urban camouflage' quote you had as your sig?


----------



## Jake (15 Jan 2009)

allen-uk said:


> Thanks for the information, particularly about SPEG.
> 
> Jake: my current one is a police-type full-length jacket. Great for being seen, but even with the lining cut out it is SO hot! Good when it's cold, but when the sun comes out, it turns into a sauna.
> 
> Allen.




yikes thats not too good, i didnt mean mine was like, but just a high-vis vest which most people seem to be wearing. i didnt see the point os paying £20 or so on one just because it came from Evans


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2009)

Oh come on HF2300 - do you really mean to suggest that at night Hiviz is better than decent lights?

There's no way hiviz can possibly perform as well as lights at night, because it's passive, and it doesn't always work - eg the fluo doesn't work at night, and the reflectives won't in a side-road example. Any time visibility is reduced, our lights should be on as per the highway code. Given that only the reflectives are useful at night, then the on-bike reflectors are plenty. Lights are much more effective, and if your lights have no side-on visibility, that's a failing you should be fixing asap. OTOH I don't think side-on visibility plays much part in collision prevention, at least nothing by comparison with most collision types.

Hiviz in the daytime - if visibility is good, then it's easy to see a cyclist. You don't need hiviz to be visible. It might add visibility, but when that's unnecessary visibility, there's no effect on your safety.


----------



## ChrisKH (15 Jan 2009)

Arch said:


> Unpick the velcro, and sew on a few poppers, or hooks and eyes? Easy to get at any haberdashery or craft type shop.



That would involve work, Arch. 

You're right of course. Alternatively I could just get a few strips of velcro hooks/eyes and cover it up


----------



## Eat MY Dust (15 Jan 2009)

I'm with BM. I find that wearing hi-viz has no benefit when riding. When I say no benefit I mean that drivers don't give you any more room. A lot of the time I wear all black clothing and this has never resulted in more "near" misses etc. Saying that I would never argue _against_ wearing hi-viz as I do wear my Nathan running vest some of the times on my bike.


----------



## HF2300 (15 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Oh come on HF2300 - do you really mean to suggest that at night Hiviz is better than decent lights?



But that implies seeing high vis as an alternative. I don't think anyone pro-visibility would suggest high vis is an alternative to decent lights. Equally, I'm sure that's not what I said. Perhaps I misread the intent of your original comments. I'm convinced, though, that high-vis is a useful addition to good lights, bike reflectors, etc.



BentMikey said:


> There's no way hiviz can possibly perform as well as lights at night, because it's passive



If we're talking the brightness the viewer will perceive, I'm not sure that's the case. It will depend on the luminance of the reflective material, the power of the light shining on it, angle of incidence etc. vs. the brightness and beam pattern of the light - but that's probably a fairly esoteric debate.



BentMikey said:


> ...and it doesn't always work - eg the fluo doesn't work at night, and the reflectives won't in a side-road example.



Agreed with the fluorescent, though it's still better than black / dark. I don't see why the reflectives won't work in a side-road example, though perhaps we're thinking of different types of high vis or different examples. 



BentMikey said:


> Any time visibility is reduced, our lights should be on as per the highway code.



Oh, absolutely, but have I said they shouldn't? Or perhaps that's just a general comment.



BentMikey said:


> Given that only the reflectives are useful at night, then the on-bike reflectors are plenty. Lights are much more effective, and if your lights have no side-on visibility, that's a failing you should be fixing asap. OTOH I don't think side-on visibility plays much part in collision prevention, at least nothing by comparison with most collision types.



Again, I think we see things differently (I haven't got the patented Bent Mikey supervision (TM)!) Yes, that's why the bike reflectors are there, but I don't think they're plenty and I think a good bit of high vis is a useful adjunct. Side on visibility - well, OK, most decent rear lights work to the sides, but I'm not so sure many of the front lights do from what I see, and even the rear lights IME tend to be focused and much more visible to the rear.



BentMikey said:


> ...but having drivers look in the first place, notice...



Just to go back to this a minute, yes, in an ideal world, everybody (cyclists and drivers) would observe fully and act on what they've observed. In the real world for a million reasons it ain't like that. If I get noticed because a half asleep driver's caught a flash of yellow or reflective in the corner of his eye I'll take that, thanks.

Sh1t, I seem to have rushed in where EMD and others fear to tread and taken on BM in a high vis debate. Oh well...


----------



## Maz (15 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Hiviz is a rabbit's foot - it might make you feel better, but if you have decent legal lights and bike reflectors, it's a waste of time for improving your safety. Spend the effort instead on cycle craft, lessons if need be, and you'll get 100 times the improvement in safety.


You seem to be suggesting that wearing hi-viz and using the sound advice offered by cyclecraft are mutually exclusive.

I think there's no substitute for good road sense, whether you choose to wear hi-viz or not.


----------



## MacB (15 Jan 2009)

HF2300 said:


> Just to go back to this a minute, yes, in an ideal world, everybody (cyclists and drivers) would observe fully and act on what they've observed. In the real world for a million reasons it ain't like that. If I get noticed because a half asleep driver's caught a flash of yellow or reflective in the corner of his eye I'll take that, thanks.quote]
> 
> That's enough for me, I'll stick to the hi viz plus my lights, I agree it shouldn't be needed but.....just in case......


----------



## Arch (15 Jan 2009)

ChrisKH said:


> That would involve work, Arch.
> 
> You're right of course. Alternatively I could just get a few strips of velcro hooks/eyes and cover it up



Ah, I've re-read your post, anyway, and realised I had the problem wrong in my head - it's the material sticking to some other velcro, not the fastening of the waistcoat you have trouble with.

I was almost ready to offer to do the velcro removal and replacement for a small fee! But your idea of masking it with velcro strip is probably better....


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2009)

Maz said:


> You seem to be suggesting that wearing hi-viz and using the sound advice offered by cyclecraft are mutually exclusive.
> 
> *I think there's no substitute for good road sense, whether you choose to wear hi-viz or not.*



I think we both agree on that - it's at least 100 times more effective and important.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2009)

HF2300, the side road issue is this:

Driver at minor side road, you travelling down major road. Driver won't see any reflection from any of your retro-reflectives because there is no light shining from where he is towards you. That's why hiviz provides unreliable visibility, and why you really only need good lights and legal reflectors.

Whilst hiviz fluo might give good contrast some of the time, so does black clothing some other times, it all depends on the background. Sometimes the yellow fluo of hiviz has very little contrast at all - such as in daylight against yellowed grass, or at night against urban street lighting.

Maybe now you can see why I *roll eyes* when someone comes on moaning about black clothing on cyclists? Bad or no lights, sure, but then that is both sensible and a legal requirement.


----------



## purplepolly (15 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> HF2300, the side road issue is this:
> 
> Driver at minor side road, you travelling down major road. Driver won't see any reflection from any of your retro-reflectives because there is no light shining from where he is towards you. .



Cyclist turning left out of side road, both rear and front lights angled away from oncoming traffic, hi-viz perfectly visible in the beam of my distant bike light

Turning on bike lights at works cycle parking, the indirect light of the hope vision beam lit up the hiviz jacket of a pedestrian (parcel force van driver) about 10 meters to my right and 20 meters ahead


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2009)

That cyclist must have properly crap cycle lights then, if you can't see them when he's waiting at a side road.

Then again, in that situation, it's him that needs to see you, and much less so you him.


----------



## pwh91 (15 Jan 2009)

The issue of hi-viz or not - for me - is most important during dusk when the *fluorescent* properties of hi-viz material actually add to the visible light seen by other road users. So not sure I can agree with the logic of BM unless he rides completely in pitch black conditions, when I'd agree a mix of reflective material and good lights are the only important factors. So the question is - "why not Hi-viz?" - which I can only put down to concern over self-image on the bike. If that's the reason then all well and good, since we all make our own judgments on safety... just I'd prefer if that was the reasoning, we could be more honest about it.

So, 
Hi-viz / reflective for me
2x decent but not blinding lights each end 

Pete


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2009)

Dusk - there's no UV around then, so the fluorescent part won't be working. In urban riding, once the streetlights come on the yellow is washed out to a dull orange that's very similar to the road.


----------



## pwh91 (15 Jan 2009)

Without wanting to go and split hairs on the details of UV levels against solar elevation (assuming you have, for a minute) I think everyone will be aware of the significant value of fluorescent material in low light conditions common in the UK for 2/3rds of the year. The point stands.


----------



## pwh91 (15 Jan 2009)

My points are simple
- Hi-Viz increases visibility in some - not all - light conditions, over dark kit. But rarely does is do *worse* than dark kit.
- Drivers can't avoid you if they can't see you
- All other points made by Lee and BM are valid, I salute them... cyclecraft, lights, the lot.... but they are additiive to the Hi-viz question
- I have to wear some type of jacket or top to commute in, unless I was a naturist...
... so why not wear something Hi-viz...?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (15 Jan 2009)

I would have thought it comes down, more, to the skill of the motorist and there ain't many with skill. After all, no motorists - no cyclists getting knocked off.
A high-viz jacket is more visible than a black one - and if you don't see you can't react.
Lee is spot on with lane positioning and confidence, wobble about in the gutter and you're for it but I can't see anything wrong with doing whatever you can to make yourself be seen.


----------



## pwh91 (15 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I have nothing against people that wear hi-vis, if you want to wear it that's fine. But just don't assume or put any emphasis on drivers ''seeing'' you if you are wearing hi-vis. Not saying that you do or will but that is the general feeling I am getting from some folk who have been posting in this thread and others.



It's a game of statistics. So irrespective of the Hi-viz question for a moment (let's take the example of bright lights vs. dim lights), if 

- 99.95% of passing motorists see the "bright" cyclist
- and 99.90% of passing motorists see the "dim" cyclist

then over days and days of cycling - and thousands of cars passing the cyclists - on average the "dim light" cyclist has a doubled chance of a collision caused specifically by those drivers at the extreme end of the attention-lost / poor-vision / reckless scale. And there are *plenty* of drivers out there whose vision is substandard (a scary thought...) especially those who are compromised under low-sun and low light conditions, due to conditions such as cataracts.

My concern on visibility - which is why I'm sticking to this thread longer than I meant to - is that I also suspect that the kind of injuries possible through "not being seen" are likely to be worse than those due to misjudgement - since a car unaware of a cyclist may still be travelling at it's full speed at the moment of impact.

Anyway Lee, with respect to your posting: it's *exactly* what I'm saying - that if have improved my %age visibility to drivers, I'll be pushing up the statistics in my favour, whether it's due to lights, Hi-Viz or reflective material.

Just to be clear - If you guys have great lights, good cyclecraft etc then I'm certainly not saying that you are unsafe not to wear Hi-Viz. Just that it's a game of statistics, with factors that vary depending on road and light conditions, and I'd be concerned if inexperienced riders left this thread thinking that Hi-Viz was a waste of time. It's just another factor when weighing up your risks, no more, no less. Personally if was an inexperienced rider, I'd be wanting Hi-Viz (and the rest..) and then judge the risks as I got more experience.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2009)

pwh91 said:


> My points are simple
> - Hi-Viz increases visibility in some - not all - light conditions, over dark kit. But rarely does is do *worse* than dark kit.
> - Drivers can't avoid you if they can't see you
> - All other points made by Lee and BM are valid, I salute them... cyclecraft, lights, the lot.... but they are additiive to the Hi-viz question
> ...



Some of your points are wrong:

Contrast is what counts - hiviz sometimes has good contrast, and black sometimes has good contrast. It all depends on the background. Hiviz does not intrinsically have an advantage.

Cyclecraft, lights, the lot aren't additive to hiviz. Hiviz is pretty useless by comparison with cyclecraft and lights. It has perhaps two orders of magnitude less effect on your safety, it is a stupid thing to concentrate on if your real concern is your own cycling safety. Sure, it's possible to add hiviz to first sorting out cycle craft and lights, but when the improvement is so tiny by comparison, why bother? Sometimes it seems that all we ever see in London are the wobblers in their helmets and hiviz, often with poor lights, lights under their jackets who no doubt think they are doing all they can to be safe, when in fact they are doing everything wrong. Hiviz contributes to this problem, because it takes focus away from what cyclists should really be working on.

For that matter, cycling is roughly as safe as walking - I assume you wear your hiviz when you walk to the shops.

Your point on hiviz working at dusk is wrong - there's simply not enough UV around any more, so it stops flourescing. You get this under street lighting:







I'll say it again - hiviz is a rabbit's foot against the fear of other traffic. Nothing more.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2009)

Oh, I've just thought of another point - I got far more SMIDSYs [1] when wearing hiviz. Why? I'm not sure, but one likely cause is that drivers see hiviz and either assume it's a workman, so pull out, or know it's only a cyclist, and still pull out anyway.

A confident position, and no hiviz screams out that you own the road/are in charge for that moment. That's what makes drivers wait, IME.

[1] Sorry Mate I Didn't See You. Usually used when they did see you, but to excuse their error.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (15 Jan 2009)

Mikey's point there could almost be self-defeating ie 'drivers see hiviz' and the [1] Usually when they did seeyou but excuse their error. You've been seen on both occasions.
I think Lee and Mikey are right when they state that a confident riding position is the main thing but what's the harm in backing that up with a bright yellow jacket.


----------



## pwh91 (15 Jan 2009)

BM , Lee - we're going to have to agree to differ - or at least I will. I'm not going to re-pick your agument, everyone else can read and decide what they think since I've written enough, my post stands as-is. Alen-UK, sorry to hijack your thread BTW!

Pete


----------



## hackbike 666 (15 Jan 2009)

My advice is watch other cyclists when you are a ped and you can pick up tips.

Im always watching cyclists when I am out and who are the easiest to see and why.As I said I saw a ninja with lights and notice how when his lights were blocked out by a car he became invisible for a few seconds.

I wasn't looking for faults I always assess cyclists when im out to see if there is any useful tips I can pick up.

*
BM , Lee - we're going to have to agree to differ*

I do/have/always will.

Every time I ask serious non bike using motorists I get the same answer.

I will ask the ultimate anti cyclist motorist at work tommorow.


----------



## hackbike 666 (15 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Ultimately it comes down to the skill of the rider. You can be lit like a Christmas with all the hi-viz to boot but if your lane positioning is crap and you lack the confidence at junctions, then you will have an accident at some point.
> 
> Why have some much hi-vis anyway? So other motorists can see you? Seeing and reacting are two seperate things. I would react more to a cyclist dressed in black with a flashing LED on the back of his bike who is holding a good road positioning rather then somone who has x amount of lights on the rear of his bike and is in full high vis gear but riding in the gutter.



I ride in cycle lanes,im a defensive cyclist and if things look dodgy I won't take chances.I wear Hi-Viz but generally I don't really think about it when im out and about on the road.Which is why im lit up like a Christmas tree rearside.I had a taxi driver remark on this once.

I have 3 flashing lights on my bag plus one steady standlight on my bike and have probably realised today why the driving is so appalling on the Mile End Road at certain times of the night like it was yesterday.

I haven't got the most powerful front lights but I get by.I haven't had a SMIDSY in the last 5 years at least.(Touchwood)

Im surprised how effective my Hi-Viz is for this reason as apparently my road positioning is crap.


----------



## allen-uk (16 Jan 2009)

I don't know why high-viz discussions divide people into Believers and Non-believers. I still can't see any point in that (perhaps arguments should be in fluorescent yellow).

Nor (_BentMikey: hiviz is a rabbit's foot against the fear of other traffic. Nothing more_) do I believe in such good-luck charms. I have lights on my bike and I wouldn't describe them as rabbit's feet, either. And I'm not frightened of other traffic, any more than I live in fear of knife-carriers in dark alleys. But I do try to avoid them.

There IS an argument to be had about the psychology of protection, e.g. car seat-belts, bike helmets, high-viz, flashing cycle lights, and so on, and how their users do have an element of rabbit's-foot-type belief, but I really don't think it detracts from this central point: sensible bike riders will do all they can to be safe, which might well mean having high-viz clothing AND bright lights!

It is not an *either/or* argument.

Allen.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jan 2009)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Mikey's point there could almost be self-defeating ie 'drivers see hiviz' and the [1] Usually when they did seeyou but excuse their error. You've been seen on both occasions.
> I think Lee and Mikey are right when they state that a confident riding position is the main thing but what's the harm in backing that up with a bright yellow jacket.



Yes, I see what you mean. I probably didn't explain my thinking well enough there.

A good road position is assertive, and this sort of confident positioning tends to encourage people to back down from doing something they know they probably shouldn't. It's not just being seen, but owning the bit of road you're currently using and need for your own safety.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> I haven't got the most powerful front lights but I get by.I haven't had a SMIDSY in the last 5 years at least.(Touchwood)



*Ahem* - those pedestrians you hit, and the numerous other close calls you've posted about? I think you've had quite a few SMIDSYs the way I'd define it.

Now I'm not suggesting in the slightest that you're a bad rider, in fact far from it, just that you, like everyone else on here, has SMIDSYs on a regular basis. Most of the time you successfully correct for their mistakes, just like I do.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jan 2009)

Here's quite a good example of a spectacular hiviz fail:






Quest rider - 4x4 driver pulls out on Lee. Result a written off quest and a £5k insurance claim. I bet the driver and insurance company winced when they found out how much they were going to pay.


----------



## MacB (16 Jan 2009)

Well, due to exhaustion and sleeping late I got a lift to the station this morning. I decided to look closely at any cyclist we passed and saw 6 in total.

Lights - all 6 had lights in various combinations, some were better than others but all seemed to meet the legal requirements. Personally I found the ones with only one light front and back were less visible. Especially where they were both on flash mode. This makes me happier re my decision to go with steady and flash both front and back.

Cyclecraft - 4 of the 6 were very much in secondary and closer in than I would have been comfortable cycling. They must have been hitting every drain, pothole etc, ignoring the safety aspect that must be pretty uncomfortable. The other 2 were much more prominent and appeared more confident in their styles(hard to really assess in the snapshot you see as you pass).

Highviz - 4 had the full jacket or the waistcoat, this included the 2 more confident riders. One was a schoolboy in a dark uniform and the other was a guy in dark green with a dark rucksack.

Visibility to cars, the prominent cycling position with the high viz, followed by secondary in high viz and finally the secondary in dark clothing. I accept that light conditions vary through the day etc but I was surpirsed by how late I saw the 2 cyclists in darker clothing. Accepted their lights could have been significantly better but any occlusion of said lights left them almost invisible, which was not the case with the high viz riders. Pity there wasn't a prominently placed rider in dark clothes to compare against.

My conclusion, lights and road position are paramount but the high viz definitely further enhanced my awareness of the riders.


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> *Ahem* - those pedestrians you hit, and the numerous other close calls you've posted about? I think you've had quite a few SMIDSYs the way I'd define it.
> 
> Now I'm not suggesting in the slightest that you're a bad rider, in fact far from it, just that you, like everyone else on here, has SMIDSYs on a regular basis. Most of the time you successfully correct for their mistakes, just like I do.



Not by motor vehicles and those three peds run from the other side of the road to stop right in front of me and now you are talking bo55ox.I have not had numerous near misses.Come on bring up these 'numerous' near misses when you have probably had as many or more than me.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jan 2009)

I'm sure our number of near misses isn't radically different - and I'm not criticising your riding.

I do think that it's a bit rich to try and claim you haven't had a SMIDSY in 5 years. SMIDSY doesn't mean collision, just that someone went when they shouldn't have. Sometimes it's not looking, and sometimes it's not giving a darn.


----------



## allen-uk (16 Jan 2009)

Just out of interest, and reverting for a moment to the original point...

I got an Altura Nightvision etc., and went out this morning in the cold and damp. Smashing jacket, although at 3XL I'm pushing the size limits. I like it, so thanks for the recommendations.


Allen.


----------



## stevevw (16 Jan 2009)




----------



## MacB (16 Jan 2009)

allen-uk said:


> Just out of interest, and reverting for a moment to the original point...
> 
> I got an Altura Nightvision etc., and went out this morning in the cold and damp. Smashing jacket, although at 3XL I'm pushing the size limits. I like it, so thanks for the recommendations.
> 
> ...



Same as mine then, but mine's loose, so I make no comment on your size

I get the feeling Mike stalks Hack, or vice versa, on the forum, but deep down they probably love each other


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jan 2009)

Of course I love Hackers!


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jan 2009)

p.s. 3XL? That must be hiviz even without the colours and reflectives!!




j/k...


----------



## threebikesmcginty (16 Jan 2009)

3XL?! - that's a high-viz marquee, no offence!!!


----------



## HF2300 (16 Jan 2009)

Hi Mikey, been AWOL from this thread because we lost internet for 24 hours - it seems to have moved on in the meanwhile. I started writing a detailed refutation of your arguments, but to be honest life's too short (especially if you're not wearing high vis! ).

I think you can pick situations in which high vis doesn't help - equally, I think you can pick situations where it does. As Allen and others have said, though, the 'anti' argument seems to rely on postulating an 'either high vis / or (cyclecraft, lights etc.)' situation, and that isn't the case.

Personally, I think that high vis is a useful adjunct to (and not a substitute for) good roadcraft and adequate lighting, and research and personal experience backs that up - and if it only helps 5% of the time, that 5% is worth having.


----------



## Neilwoo123 (16 Jan 2009)

F**k ME!!!!!!!!!!!

Guys, I think you are all having a fight over different things!

1, Hi Viz i.e bright yellow ect does not make any difference at night. FACT

2, Reflective materials (often found on hi Viz) make a world of difference. FACT

Don't confuse Hi Viz with Reflective 

Regards


----------



## fossyant (16 Jan 2009)

Well, as BM, pointed out, someone managed to pull out on a banana ...... high viz, lights, etc means nothing.

Keep your wits about you..... especially if you like to push the speed up....had three pull outs on me today...... one got a "WOW".... as I was 23-25 on the flat and the back end started sliding on braking...., it was a double sandwich - i.e. left right despite loads of lights on...... 

Shortly later a driver tried to turn from the oncoming lane - a "what" hand signal was enough - he stopped, and apologised....

Then shortly after, another side road - driver pulled 2 feet past the cycle lane....I'm belting along (in the lane)....... I leave braking until late by now (hissed off), slew the back end out, then glare at him as I pull out to ride past.... the ass then tries to drive into me...missed.ha..ha..

Be careful.....

PS anyone invented the missile launcher yet.....


----------



## MacB (16 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> p.s. 3XL? That must be hiviz even without the colours and reflectives!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Harsh but fair, harsh but fair


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Jan 2009)

allen-uk said:


> Just out of interest, and reverting for a moment to the original point...
> 
> I got an Altura Nightvision etc., and went out this morning in the cold and damp. Smashing jacket, although at 3XL I'm pushing the size limits. I like it, so thanks for the recommendations.
> 
> ...



Sorry to hijack your thread.


----------



## summerdays (17 Jan 2009)

I've said it before I don't see the need to wear hi-viz all year round. I vary it depending on the light levels. 

In winter time in poor daylight I find that yellow nightvision jacket or work provided ones are good, when going in and out of shadows cast by tall buildings. Lights don't really show up loads due to the car lights around at the same time, though they help.

Hi Vis is not an alternative to road craft/positioning, and lights, it is an optional addition.

Mikey - why do lots of folk have to wear Hi-Viz for their work: for example AA men (I think), police, railway staff, lollypop ladies etc. And for those organisations it has to meet certain specifications.


----------



## Cubist (17 Jan 2009)

summerdays said:


> I've said it before I don't see the need to wear hi-viz all year round. I vary it depending on the light levels.
> 
> In winter time in poor daylight I find that yellow nightvision jacket or work provided ones are good, when going in and out of shadows cast by tall buildings. Lights don't really show up loads due to the car lights around at the same time, though they help.
> 
> ...



Police and other hi-viz has an abundance of reflective scotchlite striping. It picks up car lights very well. Thus I think we need to differentiate between a jacket that is bright yellow or whether it has a lot of reflective trim. (You'll be entertained to know that one of the reasons police officers wear it is because it gets them noticed, thus apparently reassuring the public who ask for more police to be visible on the streets.)

Without wanting to inflame any debates or start any rows, think about the way insurance companies work. Whether or not hi-viz works to make you noticed, when all goes horribly wrong and a car takes you out, the question will be asked about whether you were wearing hi-viz. 

I read a tip somewhere on here or some other lighting thread, which suggested mounting a flashing led on the bars facing the rider, thus giving the reflective trim on your jacket something to reflect without relying on the angle of car headlights.


----------



## purplepolly (17 Jan 2009)

Cubist said:


> I read a tip somewhere on here or some other lighting thread, which suggested mounting a flashing led on the bars facing the rider, thus giving the reflective trim on your jacket something to reflect without relying on the angle of car headlights.



I still don't understand why people are so concerned about headlight angles. Since this thread has started I've been checking this on my way home and my bike lights (angled slightly left and slightly down) always light up reflectives on the other side of the road (even 4 lane roads) and more than a cars stopping distance away. Ok, a car waiting at a left hand side road won't light up the relfectives, but on a busy urban road, there's usually oncoming traffic to do the job.

I agree it's no replacement for good lights and sensible cycling, but jackets cover a large area that's higher up than most lights. Unless you're wearing lights all around your helmet, then this does make you more visible in heavy traffic. As car driver and a bus passenger I've often spotted hi-viz vests ahead at night when the bike lights are hidden by surrounding cars.


----------



## Origamist (17 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Why? When it is not a legal requirement to wear hi-vis. In an incident it is a question usually of who should have given way to who, not down to if you was wearing hi-vis.



The collision report film used by the police lists (under Impairment and Distraction):"Cyclist wearing dark clothing at night" as a contributory factor...

Cubist, I read an article that noted some criminals had now started to wear Hi Viz...!


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Jan 2009)

*Mikey - why do lots of folk have to wear Hi-Viz for their work: for example AA men (I think), police, railway staff, lollypop ladies etc. And for those organisations it has to meet certain specifications.*

I wear it all year round in my job because apparently it makes me invisible.


----------



## HF2300 (17 Jan 2009)

Cubist said:


> Police and other hi-viz has an abundance of reflective scotchlite striping. It picks up car lights very well. Thus I think we need to differentiate between a jacket that is bright yellow or whether it has a lot of reflective trim.



I'd only count reflectives as high vis - and not all reflectives at that, which is why my comment about BS EN 471 earlier. Anything without reflective tape is just bright clothing.

Incidentally, for the Altura Nightvision wearers, I've only ever seen photos of these from the front - have they got the same amount of reflective at the back?



Cubist said:


> Without wanting to inflame any debates or start any rows, think about the way insurance companies work. Whether or not hi-viz works to make you noticed, when all goes horribly wrong and a car takes you out, the question will be asked about whether you were wearing hi-viz.



I thought that was a bit of an urban myth now. Haven't the CTC got insurance companies out of that habit - or at least dismissed it as a reason not to pay out?



Cubist said:


> I read a tip somewhere on here or some other lighting thread, which suggested mounting a flashing led on the bars facing the rider, thus giving the reflective trim on your jacket something to reflect without relying on the angle of car headlights.


----------



## HF2300 (17 Jan 2009)

purplepolly said:


> I still don't understand why people are so concerned about headlight angles. Since this thread has started I've been checking this on my way home and my bike lights (angled slightly left and slightly down) always light up reflectives on the other side of the road (even 4 lane roads) and more than a cars stopping distance away. Ok, a car waiting at a left hand side road won't light up the relfectives, but on a busy urban road, there's usually oncoming traffic to do the job.
> 
> I agree it's no replacement for good lights and sensible cycling, but jackets cover a large area that's higher up than most lights. Unless you're wearing lights all around your helmet, then this does make you more visible in heavy traffic. As car driver and a bus passenger I've often spotted hi-viz vests ahead at night when the bike lights are hidden by surrounding cars.



+1. And car lights normally have much more spread and scatter.


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Jan 2009)

Of course this is all total crap.I may not drive a car but am capable of driving a train at 100mph and generally do so it is quite useful to know when there are track workers around as they may have 30 seconds or less to get out of the way.so if I can blow a warning at the quickest opportunity that does help.Hi-Viz during thje day and Hi-Viz with stripes during the night come in useful during the night come in useful for this purpose and believe me railway lines can tend to be a bit more darker than roads.

Oh by the way thread hi-jacked yet again as the general purpose of this thread at the start was to find the bestcheapest hi-viz not whether they were deemed as crap by the boards know it all and User3143.

*
Originally Posted by Cubist 

 
 Without wanting to inflame any debates or start any rows, think about the way insurance companies work. Whether or not hi-viz works to make you noticed, when all goes horribly wrong and a car takes you out, the question will be asked about whether you were wearing hi-viz.*

I was thinking this but sometimes I'd think a lawyer would find any loophole round anything.


----------



## purplepolly (17 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Oh by the way thread hi-jacked yet again as the general purpose of this thread at the start was to find the bestcheapest hi-viz not whether they were deemed as crap by the boards know it all and User3143.
> .


Uhm, hackbike, you didn't join the thread yourself until it got hijacked . Of which I'm also guilty of myself, but I don't think hijacking should be restricted only to people who agree with me, even when I am obviously right.


----------



## Origamist (17 Jan 2009)

I thought it was amazing that this thread managed to stay on topic for 22 posts.


----------



## summerdays (17 Jan 2009)

I would still like BentMikey to tell me why various jobs require hi-vis to be worn (usually being fluoresent and having a specific amount of reflective material of particular dimensions), if it doesn't help you to be more visiable.


----------



## HF2300 (17 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> ... the assumption that being lit up light a Christmas would guarentee your safety.



I'm not sure any of the pro high vis people on here assume that.


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Jan 2009)

*I think you need to calm down and take a step back. Me and 'know it all' have never said not to wear hi-vis only that having a more assertive position on the road would help more rather then the assumption that being lit up light a Christmas would guarentee your safety.*

Yawn.

*I would still like BentMikey to tell me why various jobs require hi-vis to be worn (usually being fluoresent and having a specific amount of reflective material of particular dimensions), if it doesn't help you to be more visiable.*

My job but I think it's a H+S requirement unlike the 'old' days when I firststarted when it wasn't required.



purplepolly said:


> Uhm, hackbike, you didn't join the thread yourself until it got hijacked . Of which I'm also guilty of myself, but I don't think hijacking should be restricted only to people who agree with me, even when I am obviously right.



I did actually notice the thread and may have browsed it but I didn't post originally because it was about buying a hi-vis vest of which im not an expert on although it became obvious that the thread became hijacked when it shouldn't have been.

You may notice I don't tend to post on threat of which the subject matter I know nothing about.HTH


----------



## HLaB (17 Jan 2009)

I had on a Hi Vis Gillet, it didn't stop SMIDSY in his Blacked out Range rover trying to run me down. Then again perhaps he spotted it at the last moment, perhaps he didn't. Good positioning was definately more important in keeping me alive but I also rather have had that Hi-Vis chance.


----------



## Maz (17 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> ...the assumption that being lit up light a Christmas would guarentee your safety.


Nobody is saying that.


----------



## allen-uk (17 Jan 2009)

Well, you gang have certainly taught me a couple of lessons.

1) Don't mention H-V.

2) Throw away all my H-V gear and go out in black, as I'll be just as safe.

Thanks for the education.


A.


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Jan 2009)

I have a confession to make.After yet another argument with BM yesterday I left for my commute and within 2 minutes up the Leyton High Road I had a car pull out on me.(By this time I had forgotten I was wearing Hi-Vis and so had he)I can't be bothered to explain the situation but another car was involved.The offender didn't bother to look and there was no sign of a SMIDSY comment although im not fu***** surprised he didn't see me as he didn't f****** look.I wouldn't have seen me if I wasn't looking.It was a kid anyway probably found the road situation to complicated for his young brain.Then a further 2 minutes up the road and I witnessed a car going through a red traffic signal.I really believe he/she didn't see it although I don't actually know what he/she was doing in his/her car.

Then on Waterloo rounderbout as I was coming off from Stamford St some tithead of a cab driver totally unpredictable with his road positioning came hairing round the rounderbout to cross in front of me and get stopped by a car standing at a red traffic light there.So I gave the tithead the look.Nice you saved two seconds to get absolutely nowhere you mug.



allen-uk said:


> Well, you gang have certainly taught me a couple of lessons.
> 
> 1) Don't mention H-V.
> 
> ...




Same here.In fact i'd better not mention anything.


*...the assumption that being lit up light a Christmas would guarentee your safety*

I have three on my bag.I have no idea what they are doing when I am going along and sometimes I have got home to find one or more not working.


----------



## purplepolly (17 Jan 2009)

allen-uk said:


> Don't mention H-V.



You could try h*lm*ts next


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Jan 2009)

purplepolly;549252][quote=allen-uk said:


> Don't mention H-V.
> 
> 
> 
> > You could try h*lm*ts next


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Jan 2009)

The thing that needs to be remembered, as with the helmet debate, is that there are extremes of opinion both for & against, neither of which are particularly conclusive.

Helmets & HiVi are there to lessen potential danger and neither can stop accidents or harm in every circumstance.

If your riding is assertive, positive and visable you 'shouldn't' need either, but both have their uses in certain conditions.

My choice is to wear a HiVi vest(with reflective strips)on dull, overcast days and at dawn/dusk, the rest of the time I wear black with reflective bits.
I only wear ankle reflectors at night on the road bike because I have double sided spd pedals without reflectors.
My crash helmet comes out on wet and windy days as the chances of me taking a spill are increased.
I also have uber lights which run bright in the day as well as at night.
At all times my riding keeps me visible.

Wearing a helmet or HiVi shouldn't make you feel safer or more confident, they are more parts of cycling kit that are a valid part of road safety, but only at certain times.

There will always be motorists that don't see you, whatever you wear, and it's only alert and positive riding will actually help you in this situation.


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Jan 2009)

*Wearing a helmet or HiVi shouldn't make you feel safer or more confident, they are more parts of cycling kit that are a valid part of road safety, but only at certain times.*

Wear all the time and I don't even think about the fact I am wearing either.

Let you into a little secret.I wear a helmet because im a bald twat.
I wear hi-viz because I like looking like a twat.HTH.

*There will always be motorists that don't see you, whatever you wear, and it's only alert and positive riding will actually help you in this situation.*

As yesterday proved and it probably proved to me that I don't rely on Hi-Viz which would probably go as I have to look out for crossing peds on my commute who won't 'see' me,a bit like yesterdays motorist who didn't look.I suppose a lot of the time I always expect something twattish.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Let you into a little secret.I wear a helmet because im a bald twat.
> I wear hi-viz because I like looking like a twat.HTH.



Now those are all the right reasons!

There's a guy who comes thru New Cross on a Brompton and he wears HiVi jacket and trousers, you're hard pushed to miss him.


----------



## purplepolly (17 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> Helmets & HiVi are there to lessen potential danger and neither can stop accidents or harm in every circumstance.
> 
> If your riding is assertive, positive and visable you 'shouldn't' need either, but both have their uses in certain conditions.
> .



I usually wear hi-viz because I like to ride assertively and look incompetent.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Jan 2009)

purplepolly said:


> I usually wear hi-viz because I like to ride assertively and look incompetent.



I like it! The old double bluff!.


----------



## fossyant (17 Jan 2009)

Drivers don't look...it's the 0.01% that cause the issues for cyclists and other motorists alike...it's just my roll cage is my bones.........


----------



## fossyant (17 Jan 2009)

Hi-viz makes you look like a slower cyclist..... start riding quick, the idiots don't realise a bike can go as fast as a car..........


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Jan 2009)

Eh? I am a slower cyclist.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Jan 2009)

Know your place!


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Jan 2009)

Age has got to me and it's so bloody annoying.Been off the booze for over a month now but im still no faster.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Jan 2009)

Off the booze but still on the pies?


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Jan 2009)

16 stone,is that the problem?

Hmmm yes im sure I was lighter than that.Im 6'2" and I don't know what I should weigh.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Jan 2009)

Depending on your build, 'ideally' you should be around 12.5 stone, we're the same height and I'm around 13.5(since Christmas*ahem*).


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Jan 2009)

Ouch.You must be built like a rake then.

Are you fast?


----------



## Tynan (17 Jan 2009)

I'm 6'1" and a bit and I was 13.5 stone when I was 17and playing Rugby (in the three quarters) and was fighting fit, I've been as low as 14st since then but really looked thin

it's about build as much as height


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Ouch.You must be built like a rake then.
> 
> Are you fast?



I used to be both!

My brother is 6' 4", 15.5 stone and he's in no way fat.
FWIW those body mass index thingies don't always equate.

Hang on, did you just challenge me to a race?


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Jan 2009)

I think im off form at the moment.

*I'm 6'1" and a bit and I was 13.5 stone when I was 17and playing Rugby (in the three quarters) and was fighting fit, I've been as low as 14st since then but really looked thin

it's about build as much as height*

Aye.




BentMikey said:


> Of course the other option is not to wear hiviz, and instead make sure you have a decent light front and rear, and legal bike reflectors, and put the remainder towards a copy of cyclecraft.




Why was this post necessary?

Started the whole hijack of thread didn't it?

I was also thinking about this and it reminded me of that incident last year.If that twat who had been cycling off of the pavement into the road with no lights had a bit of hi-viz and reflective stripes I may have seen him earlier and not almost crashed into him.

Also quite a few cyclists have one rear light which is badly positioned or the battery is running out which makes it insufficient while they are dressed in black again.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Jan 2009)

LOL, this one really runs!

Hackers, I reckon you have to wear hiviz at work so a train driver will see you if you're on the tracks, and be able to stop in time. Err, oh there's something wrong with that picture!


----------



## hackbike 666 (18 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> LOL, this one really runs!
> 
> Hackers, I reckon you have to wear hiviz at work so a train driver will see you if you're on the tracks, and be able to stop in time. Err, oh there's something wrong with that picture!



It's a thorny issue.


----------



## hackbike 666 (19 Jan 2009)

Are you trolling again? Now tell me something I dont know.


----------



## Sully (19 Jan 2009)

Well I recon Ive dropped one been onto discount cycles and ordered a Altura Nightvision only to realise Ive ordered the Windproof one instead of the waterproof, fool or what anyway Ive e-mailed em to see if I can pay the extra ? great price tho me thinks


----------



## hackbike 666 (19 Jan 2009)

ls it not hi~viz then?


----------



## BentMikey (19 Jan 2009)

Yeah, I agree with Lee actually. The reflectives are good, sometimes even very bright, and might be great if you're one of those cyclists with the dim green LED on the front, and a rear light covered by your jacket tailflap.

I still don't think they are as good as proper lights in terms of visibility, and the reflectives aren't reliable in the way a light is. Lights are always visible, reflectives don't always reflect back.

p.s. to the poster asking about what hiviz actually is, to me it's the combination of fluo for daylight visibility, and reflectives for night time. AFAIK that's the general usage of it.


----------



## HF2300 (20 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I still don't think they are as good as proper lights in terms of visibility, and the reflectives aren't reliable in the way a light is. Lights are always visible, reflectives don't always reflect back.



Perhaps it's the way you phrase it and I'm misunderstanding, but that still implies high vis as an alternative to lights rather than as a complement.

Maybe I noticed more because I had this thread in mind, but I saw two or three guys this morning who were visible because of their high vis when their lights (being lower down) were obscured by cars etc.


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> What's up with you? Think you need to calm Hackers, go and watch the film Trainspotting



Yet another boring train related unfunny joke.Stick to truck driving an trolling as comedian doesn't suit you.Thanks.Also agree with HF.


----------



## summerdays (20 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Yeah, I agree with Lee actually. The reflectives are good, sometimes even very bright, and might be great if you're one of those cyclists with the dim green LED on the front, and a rear light covered by your jacket tailflap.
> 
> I still don't think they are as good as proper lights in terms of visibility, and the reflectives aren't reliable in the way a light is. Lights are always visible, reflectives don't always reflect back.



Lights are good from the back/front, but from angles off to the side, that is when reflectives CAN come into play. Its all about giving motorists as many chances as possible to see you (position, lights, reflectives, fluoro (day)).


----------



## Sully (20 Jan 2009)

Well im not interested in fueling any disagreement but Ive gone for the black Altura and not the hi vis yellow.


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Jan 2009)

Nobody never said that Hi-Viz is an alternative to lights did they?
Funnily enough wearing black with no lights seems to be the popular thing nowadays as an alternative as I saw this morning.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jan 2009)

summerdays said:


> Lights are good from the back/front, but from angles off to the side, that is when reflectives CAN come into play. Its all about giving motorists as many chances as possible to see you (position, lights, reflectives, fluoro (day)).



Your lights should be visible from the side, so again hiviz doesn't have any useful addition to your safety.



hackbike 666 said:


> Nobody never said that Hi-Viz is an alternative to lights did they?
> Funnily enough wearing black with no lights seems to be the popular thing nowadays as an alternative as I saw this morning.



Yup, to me it's irrelevant whether hiviz is an addition or an "or" to lights. It's not reliable, and it doesn't increase safety usefully.

Nothing wrong with the black, but no lights in the dark? That's clearly stupid.


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Jan 2009)

Ok im convinced.I will never wear Hi-Viz again.


----------



## srw (20 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Your lights should be visible from the side, so again hiviz doesn't have any useful addition to your safety.
> 
> 
> Yup, to me it's irrelevant whether hiviz is an addition or an "or" to lights. It's not reliable, and it doesn't increase safety usefully.



As usual, Mike, you're wrong. Hiviz is more useful than reflectives in ordinary street lighting. It provides a large light-coloured patch of visibility from a decent distance - much further than reflectives, even if car headlights happen to pick them up. And hiviz is very useful in poor daylight, when lights don't work because it's too light and reflectives don't work because no-one has headlights on.

At this time of year in a city I would never be without it - it is a very useful addition to two sets of lights, and since my hiviz also has reflectives they will on occasion provide additional visibility.


----------



## MacB (20 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Your lights should be visible from the side, so again hiviz doesn't have any useful addition to your safety.
> 
> *Yup, to me it's irrelevant whether hiviz is an addition or an "or" to lights. It's not reliable, and it doesn't increase safety usefully.*
> 
> Nothing wrong with the black, but no lights in the dark? That's clearly stupid.



To me that comes across as describing safety properties in a statistical manner, which can be misleading. Many of us don't actually care about stats we care about what happens to us personally. That's why we'll cover as many bases as we can. No-one here is saying that they won't do their best to cycle correctly and we all support decent lighting. You feel that is enough, we feel we'd like the high viz as well, belt and braces type approach. For some reason you sneer at this, even when others indicate how much clearer they see cyclists in high viz. You also intimate that high viz is some sort of placebo and instils a false confidence. Your stock response is that they'd be even more visible with better cyclecraft. I'd like to see the evidence supporting these claims.

By the way I've continued studying other cyclists that I see and, lights are No1, especially at a distance. But high viz does stand out to me, particularly close up.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jan 2009)

Hahaha, still grinding that axe, srw?

I'm not sure your post actually makes sense, as you seem to be mixing up the parts of flou and retro-reflectives that together make a hiviz vest, and possibly retro-reflectives on bikes.

I'll say it again: You're wrong - the fluorescent part doesn't work well at all in urban streetlight conditions as there's no UV around to make it fluoresce:






There isn't much UV around at dusk either. You also completely ignore the fact that light garments don't always give more visibility. It depends on the background and the contrast - sometimes light colours are better, and sometimes dark colours.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jan 2009)

MacBludge, why would you assume I'm sneering at anyone for hiviz? That's not really fair, or close to the truth.

I simply want people to focus their efforts where they will have most effect on safety. That's by far down to cycle craft and road positioning, and then lights.


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Jan 2009)

Belt and Braces,a term used on the railway quite often.


----------



## allen-uk (20 Jan 2009)

Bentmikey says: *I'll say it again: You're wrong - the fluorescent part doesn't work well at all in urban streetlight conditions..
*
At risk of breaking some unwritten rule and speaking back to an Executive Member, that doesn't half sound like bo11ocks to me.

Scenario: An average driver is driving down an average shopping street in London, at dusk, and ten pedestrians are putting their lives and his at risk, dodging in and out from behind parked cars, crossing the road, all the usual. Nine of them are wearing the regulation Black Gear, being cool. One of them has a High-Visibility yellow jacket, being misguided.

Are you seriously telling me that they ALL have the same odds of being SEEN and AVOIDED, or vice versa, i.e. that they all have the same chance of being knocked down?

Allen
(Lights, yellow, reflective strips, and slow riding = my recipe for survival round here).


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jan 2009)

I guess that would depend on the background, wouldn't it? Hiviz isn't known as urban camoflage for nothing.

I'm a bit surprised that you could possibly think a pedestrian can put a driver's life at risk just by walking. Was he threatening to shoot the driver with a gun?


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Your lights should be visible from the side, so again hiviz doesn't have any useful addition to your safety.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's irrelevant now but earlier it was an alternative to lights.I reckon Hi Viz would have saved me from a very scary incident on a Gran Canaria rounderbout a few years ago.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (20 Jan 2009)

There still seams to be a misconception here that because you're more visible then drivers are going to be more aware/give you more room/not do a SMIDSY. Short of having flashing blue lights and a siren, the only thing that is guaranteeing a safe journey is your riding style and awareness.


----------



## summerdays (20 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Your lights should be visible from the side, so again hiviz doesn't have any useful addition to your safety.



My lights are visible from the side ... but not as bright as directly behind or infront. My reflectives are all the way around my body, and along my arm.



BentMikey said:


> I'm a bit surprised that you could possibly think a pedestrian can put a driver's life at risk just by walking. Was he threatening to shoot the driver with a gun?



I think he was talking about their lives not the drivers life.


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Jan 2009)

Eat MY Dust said:


> There still seams to be a misconception here that because you're more visible then drivers are going to be more aware/give you more room/not do a SMIDSY. Short of having flashing blue lights and a siren, the only thing that is guaranteeing a safe journey is your riding style and awareness.



Not quite,im also going by the basis of what many wise motorists tell me including my dad.

The purpose is to make myself visible and I do actually know it doesn't stop all incidents.doh.


----------



## allen-uk (20 Jan 2009)

Eat My Dust says: *There still seams to be a misconception here that because you're more visible then drivers are going to be more aware/give you more room/not do a SMIDSY.*

Not on my part, pal, at least not combining all those different notions. My only contention is that you stand more chance of being SEEN. If the buggers then decide to run you down, that's a different matter.

And summerdays (lovely name) who said: *I think he was talking about their lives not the drivers life.
*
No, I was talking about drivers' lives, on the basis that when the wayward non-drivers jump out in front of me wearing their Uber-Cool Black gear, I have to take evasive action which might mean braking/steering etc where I don't want to go.

But I get the impression that B Mikey knew that already, but 'likes a good argument'. I don't, at least not just for the sake of going round in ever-decreasings.

A


----------



## Eat MY Dust (20 Jan 2009)

Just to add a litlle something else. Do all the dafties out there who have no lights and no hi viz get run over/hit on a regular basis?


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Jan 2009)

Eat MY Dust said:


> Just to add a litlle something else. Do all the dafties out there who have no lights and no hi viz get run over/hit on a regular basis?



Got me banged to rights there.No I don't think so because twats like me manage to avoid them at the last second.


----------



## summerdays (20 Jan 2009)

Eat MY Dust said:


> Just to add a litlle something else. Do all the dafties out there who have no lights and no hi viz get run over/hit on a regular basis?



Somehow (luckily?) Darwinism fails. But not before usually giving someone a scare, and perhaps a grievience against cyclists.


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Jan 2009)

It's given me scares a few times and almost had some kid hit me because I stopped at traffic lights,then he had a go at me.


----------



## HF2300 (20 Jan 2009)

Eat MY Dust said:


> Just to add a litlle something else. Do all the dafties out there who have no lights and no hi viz get run over/hit on a regular basis?



DfT stats for contributory factors - 'cyclist wearing dark clothes at night' 100 KSI with 10 fatalities. Make of that what you will.


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Jan 2009)

It's like Russian Roulette isn't it?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Hiviz is a rabbit's foot - it might make you feel better, but if you have decent legal lights and bike reflectors, it's a waste of time for improving your safety. *Spend the effort instead on cycle craft*, lessons if need be, and you'll get 100 times the improvement in safety.



What effort?


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Jan 2009)

*and you'll get 100 times the improvement in safety.*

Christ I must be bad.


----------



## allen-uk (20 Jan 2009)

HackBike: was it something I said?

You used to sign off your messages with a quote from one of mine, plus one of those odd smiley things. Now you don't.

I am desolate.

A.


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Jan 2009)

allen-uk said:


> HackBike: was it something I said?
> 
> You used to sign off your messages with a quote from one of mine, plus one of those odd smiley things. Now you don't.
> 
> ...



I was taking the pee out of BM but the sig is stored don't worry.

Actually your signature has been quoted to me many times by hardened motorists and I tend to ask their opinion a lot.If I didn't think that Hi-Viz wasn't useful I wouldn't wear it.

While BM is away we will play havoc.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (21 Jan 2009)

Oooo is BM away?, havoc it is then. Let's keep the debate serious and adult though - 

High-viz good, high-viz good, high-viz good........ 

*fingers in ears* nah nah nah nah nah, etc.


----------



## allen-uk (21 Jan 2009)

Where's he gorn? 

New Middle-Eastern Peace envoy? Taking part in the Most Argumentative Man competition?

So, cry havoc and unleash etc.


A.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (21 Jan 2009)

OK, so I was wearing all black this morning. I've no doubt this guy was more visible than I was as you'll see from this video.


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fYAAiWbdCfs


----------



## hackbike 666 (21 Jan 2009)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Oooo is BM away?, havoc it is then. Let's keep the debate serious and adult though -
> 
> High-viz good, high-viz good, high-viz good........
> 
> *fingers in ears* nah nah nah nah nah, etc.





> New Middle-Eastern Peace envoy? Taking part in the Most Argumentative Man competition?





*OK, so I was wearing all black this morning. I've no doubt this guy was more visible than I was as you'll see from this video.*

I couldn't give a monkies whether you wear all black that's your choice and I wouldn't try to change it.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (21 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> I couldn't give a monkies whether you wear all black that's your choice and I wouldn't try to change it.



Oh don't worry. I just thought I'd stick the video in here as he was wearing Hi-Viz. I was just looking for a reaction.

I once threw a brick into a wasps nest for the same reason..........the wasps were not amused.


----------



## hackbike 666 (21 Jan 2009)

Eat MY Dust said:


> Oh don't worry. I just thought I'd stick the video in here as he was wearing Hi-Viz. I was just looking for a reaction.
> 
> *OIC,as I said no problemo
> *
> I once threw a brick into a wasps nest for the same reason..........the wasps were not amused.



I didn't.I know BentMikey.


----------



## allen-uk (21 Jan 2009)

The guy in your video, EatMyDust, was cycling badly, no matter what he was wearing. Scooting up the inside of a big moving wagon is asking for trouble.

And talking of cycling really badly, this adjacent video on YouTube caught my eye:


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CjR0iNT10kI&NR=1


The man on that bike should be locked up. Or perhaps he was, and is getting away.

A.


----------



## hackbike 666 (21 Jan 2009)

Looks like a normal commute to me.


----------



## pwh91 (21 Jan 2009)

allen-uk said:


> The guy in your video, EatMyDust, was cycling badly, no matter what he was wearing. Scooting up the inside of a big moving wagon is asking for trouble.
> 
> And talking of cycling really badly, this adjacent video on YouTube caught my eye:
> 
> ...




Anyone else develop a nervous tick while watching the NYC video???


----------



## hackbike 666 (21 Jan 2009)

No.Seen these sort of videos before.


----------



## TreorchyMark (24 Jan 2009)

Hey all,

I have just got my Altura night vision waterproof jacket and cant wait to try it out tomorrow.
Does anyone know what the flap under the collar at the back is for???
It has 2 snapper fasteners but I'll be danmed if I can work out what it's for.
Any ideas would be most welcome.

Cheers,
Mark.


----------



## hackbike 666 (24 Jan 2009)

1) Have you got a pic of it?
2) Don't tell BentMikey.


----------



## allen-uk (25 Jan 2009)

I had the same problem, Mark.

The cord seems to be for tightening up the collar, which would only make sense in really torrential rain - and I suppose they think you wear a helmet, hence the lack of hood.

But the poppers, damned if I could work it out. Maybe just a bit of 'style' nonsense, maybe for a (not supplied) hood.

Allen


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jan 2009)

Hey Hackers, I found you a pressie!!


----------



## 1LegRikk (25 Jan 2009)

The poppers may make up a little pocket for you to fold it up into itself...I think that makes sense 8)


----------



## summerdays (25 Jan 2009)

TreorchyMark said:


> Hey all,
> 
> I have just got my Altura night vision waterproof jacket and cant wait to try it out tomorrow.
> Does anyone know what the flap under the collar at the back is for???
> ...



The poppers are for joining on a hood - you can buy it for about £10. I did buy one but didn't use it that much (off the bike of course).


----------



## purplepolly (25 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Hey Hackers, I found you a pressie!!



well it would show up better than yellow on streets flooded with amber lighting!


----------



## Cking (25 Jan 2009)

The firm I work for gives us hiviz tabards with the company name on the back. There was an incident a few years ago when a cyclist wearing one was knocked off and proceeded to beat seven shades of c**p out of the offending driver. Who then complained to our firm! An edict came down telling us not to wear them outside of work. Fortunately the firms name is stuck onto the tabard not printed, so a little work with a sharp knife can remove it!!!!!

Rgds Cking


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Hey Hackers, I found you a pressie!!



Thanks BentMikey,thats got to be less embarrasing than wearing my SWT hi viz.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (25 Jan 2009)

If you want a cheap hi-viz vest, not you BM and Lee!, I was in Ikea - I know you've got to be nuts to go there - and they have vests starting at £2.19. Them crazy Swedes eh!


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jan 2009)

Lidl had some nice looking jackets in recently.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (25 Jan 2009)

I picked one up from Lidl BM - cost me a about tenner I think. What's not to like for that money?!


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Jan 2009)

I dont want cheap crap I want something better quality.Cheers.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jan 2009)

Lidl stuff isn't always cheap crap - sometimes it can be rather good.

One of my best buys there was a kids wooden balance bike, a bike with no pedals. miniMikey learnt to ride on it. When I got it, it was £29.99, a year or so later they had them in for a tenner, well made and good quality. Compare that to something like £140 for the cheapest Like-a-Bike equivalent.


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Jan 2009)

How about this BM?


----------



## chris667 (25 Jan 2009)

I bought a waterproof in Lidl, and I rather liked it. Not as good as goretex, but I could buy 12 of them for the same price as my Altura cycling jacket, and it ain't 12 times as good.


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Jan 2009)

Not sure I like pink though.

My hi-viz has two colours which seems to be effective.Why I don't know.

Suppose some people must be colour blind though so the orange and yellow hi-viz helps.


----------



## silverbow (27 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Not sure I like pink though.
> 
> My hi-viz has two colours which seems to be effective.Why I don't know.
> 
> Suppose some people must be colour blind though so the orange and yellow hi-viz helps.




The 2 colours is to do with differnet lighting. I beleive the Orange works better under sodium street lights.


----------



## ChrisKH (27 Jan 2009)

chris667 said:


> I bought a waterproof in Lidl, and I rather liked it. Not as good as goretex, but I could buy 12 of them for the same price as my Altura cycling jacket, and it ain't 12 times as good.



I would second that. My last two jackets are from Lidl or Aldi and have been very effective. Not as good as Goretex as you say but ok for a short commute. My latest Lidl jacket has given up the ghost (zip) and I'm in the market for a new waterproof one. So, any recommendations without the Hi-Viz flavour?


----------



## allen-uk (27 Jan 2009)

Hackbike: I take it that your comment "*I don't want cheap crap I want something better quality. Cheers*." was mainly to wind up bentmikey, in which case fair enough, but on a socio-political level I have to disagree. Expensive things are very often of no better quality than cheaper; they just have 'designer' labels attached to them to attract the gormless, but which have never cut any ice with me.

A.


----------



## HF2300 (27 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Not sure I like pink though.
> 
> My hi-viz has two colours which seems to be effective.Why I don't know.
> 
> Suppose some people must be colour blind though so the orange and yellow hi-viz helps.



It's a contrast thing; some research has shown two contrasting colours to be more effective in some circumstances. Plus as Silverbow says one colour works better in some places, the other in other places.



allen-uk said:


> Expensive things are very often of no better quality than cheaper; they just have 'designer' labels attached to them to attract the gormless, but which have never cut any ice with me.



Absolutely.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Jan 2009)

Thanks for the two colour agreement thing.Also I have been quite rightly told off.


----------

