# Hi Viz



## ComedyPilot (24 Jan 2014)

Had a mildy 'snappy' argument/discussion at work with a colleague who although reasonably eloquent was almost frothing at the mouth with anger when I suggested cyclists should not have to wear hi-viz.

His main point - 'Why wouldn't you want to make yourself visible?'

A point he stuck to and wouldn't accept alternative views. (bit like me)

I stated that I couldn't answer for other cyclists, but my bike more than complies with lighting requirements (which another colleague confirmed I was VERY visible).

I pointed out how far in front I look when I'm driving, and I anticipate having to stop, and if it's clear, then all good and well.

"Why should car drivers get held up just because you want to ride on the road. You should be charged tax for being on the road. If you want exercise go to a gym. I don't play football on the road...."

I said why not dress trees, walls, fences and any other roadside furniture up in dayglo yellow that motorists seem keen to hit with their cars?

"You're being stupid - you could get killed, but trees/walls don't have a family that will mourn them, and regret their stupidity/stubbourness"

I pointed out it's not just cyclists that vehicles get driven into, they also hit other vehicles, and maybe all cars should be bright yellow?

Some people REALLY do not like/get/understand cycling......


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Jan 2014)

But at least you saw them......


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> ... when I suggested cyclists should not have to wear hi-viz....


 
We don't.

GC


----------



## Kies (24 Jan 2014)

ask your neanderthal work colleague if pedestrians should also wear high vis as they use the roads, and what about dogs on walks?
i am seeing more and more emphasis being placed on the riders, rather than the drivers


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Jan 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> We don't.
> 
> GC


I know, but like........shhh....[looks around]....._helmets_.... a gradually increasing number of non-cycling members of pubic are voicing this opinion both to me, online, in newspaper comment columns, on the TV......

Call me paranoid, but it's getting more and more widespread.....

As an aside, another colleague is quite up on H&S at work, so I asked both him and the 'frothy-mouthed' colleague if they would classify hi-viz as PPE.

"Yes"

So, in a risk assessment of a work place is PPE the first consideration to implement........?

"No, of course not, you would look at the practice first, look at alternate methods, machinery, guarding....PPE would be last"

Then why is it the first thing you think of when looking at a cyclist on a road?

I'm off home now, to leave you to think about it.......


----------



## uclown2002 (24 Jan 2014)

Is he fat as well as ignorant?


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Jan 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> Is he fat as well as ignorant?


ha ha......

No, but like a LOT of drivers, he really believes cyclists have NO place on the road.

And in a factory canteen where it is one cyclist against 40 car drivers it does get a little weary.


----------



## inkd (24 Jan 2014)

As a night cyclist the fluorescent hi-viz is useless but the reflective strips are very visible therefore my Altura night vision is a must for me, Although given the choice again I would`nt of got the bright yellow one.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Jan 2014)

I had one of these at work, until I filmed him performing a left hook through the red light on the entrance road...... next time he complined about cyclists, put the video on, and he has been quiet ever since


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> I know, but like........shhh....[looks around]....._helmets_.... a gradually increasing number of non-cycling members of pubic are voicing this opinion both to me, online, in newspaper comment columns, on the TV......
> 
> Call me paranoid, but it's getting more and more widespread.....
> 
> ...




Ask him whether he wears one when he goes to the Supermarket?

After all there is a formal Health and Safety requirement making it legally compulsory for staff when they cross the car park?


----------



## Jon George (24 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> Then why is it the first thing you think of when looking at a cyclist on a road?


Oh, how I wish you'd had a camera to capture their expressions!


----------



## Frood42 (24 Jan 2014)

inkd said:


> As a night cyclist the fluorescent hi-viz is useless but the reflective strips are very visible therefore my Altura night vision is a must for me, Although given the choice again I would`nt of got the bright yellow one.



I got the red one


----------



## Accy cyclist (25 Jan 2014)

I prefer to wear high viz when cycling, and "power walking". I like to be seen on the road and i know it works as i judge motorists reactions as they approach. I like to be seen when out power walking as some pavements are very narrow making me walk only a few feet from the road or even in the road. From my own point of view when i'm out driving i like to see a cyclist or pedestrain way before i reach them not just before i reach them!


----------



## Herbie (25 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> Had a mildy 'snappy' argument/discussion at work with a colleague who although reasonably eloquent was almost frothing at the mouth with anger when I suggested cyclists should not have to wear hi-viz.
> 
> His main point - 'Why wouldn't you want to make yourself visible?'
> 
> ...


 





I'd hate to work alongside that guy....how can you stand it ?


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)

Herbie said:


> I'd hate to work alongside that guy....how can you stand it ?


There's about 40 of them....he's not the only one with such attitude.

Slowly though, every year 1 or 2 more start riding a bike, either commuting or socially...

I take that as a consolation.


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)

To see an object, light hits it and reflects back into your eyes.

Now, the faster you travel towards that object, the less time you are giving yourself to see it, react to it, slow down and not hit it......

What we have is an already very dangerous, careless, incompetent, reckelss, selfish, risk taking, responsibility-avoiding motoring public that thinks the answer is cyclists must wear hi viz.....when the answer (as @Adrian points out above) is for them to slow down and give themsleves time to look, see and drive SAFELY.

I have YET to have ANY driver answer me why their journey is worth more than the life of another road user.....


----------



## Globalti (25 Jan 2014)

Traditional superstition:







Modern superstition:


----------



## summerdays (25 Jan 2014)

I even had a discussion/disagreement with my daughter this week about wearing hi-viz. it's not even that I don't wear it - I do at times but I want to choose those times not be dictated to. But I think your arguments were better!


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2014)

SLightly OT, but makes a point

In the US there is a rash of "Take it and Make it" campaigns
Pedestrian crosings now have pedestrian flags:






(Note: the compulsory use of dodgy stats comparing 10 years without flags and a few months with)

WHich you now use when crossing the road


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2014)

Some people however are simply not taking this seriously enough!


----------



## steveindenmark (25 Jan 2014)

summerdays said:


> I even had a discussion/disagreement with my daughter this week about wearing hi-viz. it's not even that I don't wear it - I do at times but I want to choose those times not be dictated to. But I think your arguments were better!




I think you have hit the nail right on the head.

It's the same for helmets and earphones. I have helmets and vis vests and wear them sometimes. I am pretty sure a helmet would do me more good than bad in the case of an accident and I am certain that I am more visible in a vis vest.

But like a lot of cyclists I get quite pixxed off when people try to tell me that you MUST wear a helmet or you look a total prat in a vis vest. These comments have never been put to me in person but appear on forums like this all the time.

We just don't like being dictated to. Maybe one day the penny will drop that we are allowed to have personal choices.

Steve


----------



## MarkF (25 Jan 2014)

The kids from the nursery opposite my house all wear hi-viz vests when they go for a walk, they have to hold (link) hands too. They walk along a quiet pavement and into the woods, they don't even cross a road. 

My daughter was told off at school for not wearing a hi-viz vest on her morning commute. Then she was banned from the "cycling day" activities for refusing to wearing a helmet, bizarre, as she is the only girl pupil that cycled to school, before or after "cycling day". 

Each to their own, I don't wear hi-viz, primarily (I'll admit it) because it looks terrible. But, they are now so ubiquitious, I don't believe that they carry any significant safety advantage.


----------



## gavgav (25 Jan 2014)

No one HAS to wear helmets or hi viz. It's personal choice and so I wear a helmet as I believe it at least gives me a better chance of surviving a head impact and wear hi-viz as I believe it makes me easier to see


----------



## jdtate101 (25 Jan 2014)

I only own 1 bit of Hi-Viz, which was sent to me my my mate (who owns Capo). I don't wear it in winter as it's a bitch to keep clean, but in summer it's great, especially when matched to a pair of FLO Bont Vaypors:


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)




----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)




----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)




----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)




----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)




----------



## MarkF (25 Jan 2014)

JDtate101, I said hi-viz looks terrible but of course, I meant the ubiquitious vests, they do. But that Capo jersey is very nice indeed.


----------



## anothersam (25 Jan 2014)

Wear what you like I say, which is why I often don pince-nez, if only to keep the bridge of my nose from feeling the draft. As for Hi Viz, out cycling the other day I witnessed a gentleman walking his tiny dog. Following the example of his master, the dog was in tiny Hi Viz. It startled me such that if I was of a nervous disposition I might have jogged the handlebars and hit him, thus defeating the purpose.


----------



## 400bhp (25 Jan 2014)

I remember someone on here saying kids in a school group wear hi viz so they are easy to spot if they wander off.

Seems sensible and perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to judge the why's and wherefors.

Comedy pilot-you do come across as emotive about the subject (which is fine) but people will pick up on that and wind you up\take the pish.

Fwiw I get really positive comments about me cycling to work-the negative stuff is more aimed at the surprise when I say I cycle in every day (just gotta wear the right clothes is my usual reply)


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)

2890954 said:


> I could link the song on you tube but the picture is dull, so i'll just link this BBC article instead.



Hmmm....



> If you're a parent, you know it's dark in the winter at 4:30 in the evening when your kids are walking home



The clue is in 'DAYGLO' it only work's in daylight, thicko....

Not you @Adrian but the people who believe dressing like this at night helps.


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)

@400bhp I am emotive about this because I ride on the UK roads most days of the year, so the chance of me being hit/killed (whilst cycling*) are higher than my non-cycling chums.

Also, I post on most if not all the RIP cyclist down threads, both as a mark of respect, to think about a kindred spirit, and perhaps (selfishly) as a thankful relief it wasn't me.

I drive, and accept slow traffic, cyclists, horses, peds as what they are, vulnerable, and that my (quicker) mode of transport MUST give them priority.

I am sick to the back teeth of the Top Gear/ Petrolheads mentality holding our country to ransom, and wish no more for my country than the out and out pleasure cycling can offer, such as in the Netherlands.

*Edit for @400bhp


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)

2890974 said:


> In that instance, they may well be good purpose. When the purpose is to shift responsibility from people who have the capacity to cause injury and death to the potential victims on the other hand, no not good.



Post of the year for me


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)

2890974 said:


> In that instance, they may well be good purpose. When the purpose is to shift responsibility from people who have the capacity to cause injury and death to the potential victims on the other hand, no not good.



I read something similar in another thread....


> as roads are only “dangerous” by virtue of being filled with heavy fast moving motor vehicles, by far the greatest burden of responsibility for avoiding crashes, deaths and injury on the roads should lie with the motorist


----------



## Venod (25 Jan 2014)

Some of the lads (old blokes) I run with insist on wearing hi viz vests even though we only run on footpaths in well let areas, H&S is getting ridiculous, I was riding down a quite very open country round, there was a surveyor with one of them measuring wheels, he had an hard hat on


----------



## 400bhp (25 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> @400bhp I am emotive about this because I ride on the UK roads most days of the year, so the chance of me being hit/killed are higher than my non-cycling chums.
> 
> Also, I post on most if not all the RIP cyclist down threads, both as a mark of respect, to think about a kindred spirit, and perhaps (selfishly) as a thankful relief it wasn't me.
> 
> ...



You don't need to explain, I understand your viewpoint, but some people like to wind others up when they know something is close yo their heart. An unfortunate trait of human nature.

And, I'm not sure the chance of you being hit/killed is higher than your non-cycling counterparts? KSI per mile I thought was lower for cyclists than vehicles?


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


>




How refreshing, fun and it really looks as if they are enjoying themselves. IS it any wonder that there are more women on bikes in the Netherlands? irresponsible


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2014)

I always smile when someone pulls a stupid overtake and then a few seconds later gets to sit in a line of other cars that hold them up even more!


----------



## 400bhp (25 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> I always smile when someone pulls a stupid overtake and then a few seconds later gets to sit in a line of other cars that hold them up even more!



Was sooo tempted to kick a car on my way home today after trying to force his way past, then gettig caught 1/4m up the road in heavy traffic. Would have been easy for me to boot his rear quarter/door then just cycle off before he'd realised what happened. Thankfully, sense kicked in.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2014)

400bhp said:


> Was sooo tempted to kick a car on my way home today after trying to force his way past, then gettig caught 1/4m up the road in heavy traffic. Would have been easy for me to boot his rear quarter/door then just cycle off before he'd realised what happened. Thankfully, sense kicked in.




I find a regal wave as you sail past is rewarding enough for me!


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


>



How refreshing, fun and it really looks as if they are enjoying themselves. IS it any wonder that there are more women on bikes in the Netherlands? irresponsible


----------



## Glow worm (25 Jan 2014)

Afnug said:


> H&S is getting ridiculous, I was riding down a quite very open country round, there was a surveyor with one of them measuring wheels, he had an hard hat on



You never know when a meteorite might strike I guess!


----------



## Accy cyclist (25 Jan 2014)

2890759 said:


> Drive slower then



Believe me i drive below not above the speed limit.


anothersam said:


> Wear what you like I say, which is why I often don pince-nez, if only to keep the bridge of my nose from feeling the draft. As for Hi Viz, out cycling the other day I witnessed a gentleman walking his tiny dog. Following the example of his master, the dog was in tiny Hi Viz. It startled me such that if I was of a nervous disposition I might have jogged the handlebars and hit him, thus defeating the purpose.




Was it similar to this? http://www.therange.co.uk/rosewood-reflective-padded-dog-harness/dogs/The-Range/fcp-product/91009 My little dog wears one and i wear an Altura night vision fluorescent orange jacket when we're out walking!


----------



## summerdays (25 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


>


She was the one that started the arguments with my daughter! And her stupid registration vest!


----------



## summerdays (25 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> I always smile when someone pulls a stupid overtake and then a few seconds later gets to sit in a line of other cars that hold them up even more!


That happened yesterday, I signalled and wanted a gap, instead the motorist sped up ... So I moved out afterwards and looked at her now parked at the back of a queue of cars for temporary traffic lights. Unfortunately she didn't notice me passing her because she was busy tapping away on her phone Making me crosser!


----------



## ianrauk (25 Jan 2014)

Hi-Viz just looks crap...


----------



## green1 (25 Jan 2014)

My boss at my last place of employment tried to make me wear hi viz and a helmet when I commuted by bike in the summer that was an interesting 2 hour 'disscussion'. needless to say he buckled before I did.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2014)

ianrauk said:


> Hi-Viz just looks crap...



is brown Hi-Viz?


----------



## ianrauk (25 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> is brown Hi-Viz?




Gordon?


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2014)

Flash?


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Flash?


Aha


----------



## 400bhp (25 Jan 2014)

Morten Harket?


----------



## Cuchilo (25 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> @400bhp I am emotive about this because I ride on the UK roads most days of the year, so the chance of me being hit/killed (whilst cycling*) are higher than my non-cycling chums.



Really ? I don't know the facts but surely more car drivers are killed in RTA's per year than cyclists .


----------



## 400bhp (25 Jan 2014)

2892102 said:


> Are we going to measure probability per km travelled or per hour of activity?



Do we have the per hour? That would be more of a leveller (I think).


----------



## 400bhp (25 Jan 2014)

It's too controversial to collect I suppose.

I mean a 5 mile car journey these days takes an hour, whereas it takes 20 minutes on a bike.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Jan 2014)

Hi-viz doth offend mine eye.

Assuming the OP's mouth-breathing colleague can read I suggest he is bought a copy of "The Invisible Gorilla" http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/ He only has to read the first four or five chapters. But I'll summarise....

_If they ain't lookin' they won't see you no matter what you wear or how many or bright your lights.
If they are lookin' there's still no guarantee 30% of 'em are seein' no matter what you wear or how many or bright your lights.
If they are lookin' and they are seein' but aren't drivin' right, your lights and hi-viz won't protect you.
If they are lookin', and they are seein', and they are drivin' appropriately for the road and road conditions, then you can dress like a ninja and still ride in near perfect safety._

Hi-viz. The St. Christopher Medal of the 21st C.


----------



## Globalti (26 Jan 2014)

Hi-viz jackets do have one extremely good use: for helping me to spot the guys holding the "£5.00 Parking" signs when I'm looking for somewhere to park my car before a concert.


----------



## Leodis (26 Jan 2014)

I use one of the Hump rucksack covers, mainly to keep the wife happy but on a weekend run I don't have any HiViz. I had a women at work tell me I should get the hiviz gloves so drivers can then see my turning signals...


----------



## stu9000 (26 Jan 2014)

I hate being preached at. I accept the points made about safe cyclists seemly becoming the cyclists responsibility while car drivers remain relatively unchallenged. 

But, when I'm in the car I see some cyclists wearing what can only be described as camouflage. Fashionable I'm sure and no doubt breathable and comfortable but much harder to see than bright colours. 

For me its a no brainer.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Jan 2014)

stu9000 said:


> I hate being preached at. I accept the points made about safe cyclists seemly becoming the cyclists responsibility while car drivers remain relatively unchallenged.
> 
> But, when I'm in the car I see some cyclists wearing what can only be described as camouflage. Fashionable I'm sure and no doubt breathable and comfortable but much harder to see than bright colours.
> 
> For me its a no brainer.



Camouflage is an interesting one.....

Gosport and other Military towns have high numbers of cyclists who actually wear real camouflage, yet do not seem to have the higher numbers of causalities that wold be expected.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Jan 2014)

The need to drive at speed (rather than sensibly with a stopping distance linked to sight) and consequently see things further ahed is producing some weird campaigns.

In spain the "Ladies of the night" now have to wear HiViz!







In the New Forest there are campaigns for all of the ponies to wear HiViz!



In Wales they have gone even further and now expect sheep and cattle to wear HiViz!

,, and perhaps the most ludicrous yet.... chickens!


----------



## Pat "5mph" (26 Jan 2014)

2891359 said:


> To be fair to the bloke, if he took it off he would then have to carry it.


I have to wear a hi-viz gilet sometimes at work (building up catering points in exhibition halls where fork trucks are in operation) could take the thing off on exiting for other duties, but it's easier to just keep it on.
Me wearing full PPE while shifting some stock before the opening of the new Hydro arena. We did not have enough PPE to go round, so I was wearing a pair of safety boots 2 sizes too big, thus making me at risk of trip hazards 


I do wear bright colours on the bike in winter, because I like bright colours and most waterproofs come in hi-viz anyway. My bike lights are more than enough for visibility.
In summer, I wear whatever is comfortable and a bit more trendy


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Jan 2014)

Leodis said:


> ... I had a women at work tell me I should get the hiviz gloves so drivers can then see my turning signals...



I stuck some reflective strips to my winter gloves to help drivers see my 'signals'...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Jan 2014)

Leodis said:


> I use one of the Hump rucksack covers, mainly to keep the wife happy but on a weekend run I don't have any HiViz. I had a women at work tell me I should get the hiviz gloves so drivers can then see my turning signals...


I use reflective wristbands when commuting at night for just that reason. But if they ain't lookin' or not seeing'....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Jan 2014)

stu9000 said:


> I hate being preached at. I accept the points made about safe cyclists seemly becoming the cyclists responsibility while car drivers remain relatively unchallenged.
> 
> But,* when I'm in the car I see some cyclists* w*earing what can only be described as camouflage*. Fashionable I'm sure and no doubt breathable and comfortable but much harder to see than bright colours.
> 
> For me its a no brainer.


Doh!

So, in fact, you see them then? So, the camo, if you want to call it that, ain't workin' too well at renderin' 'em invisible to you.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Jan 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> I stuck some reflective strips to my winter gloves to help drivers see my 'signals'...
> 
> View attachment 36933


Love 'em. But I'd only put full length reflectives on the middle finger of my right hand for when I need to make certain "signals".


----------



## snorri (26 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> How refreshing, fun and it really looks as if they are enjoying themselves. IS it any wonder that there are more women on bikes in the Netherlands? irresponsible


 The 'criminality' is compounded by the lack of brake levers on the 'bars


----------



## 400bhp (26 Jan 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> I stuck some reflective strips to my winter gloves to help drivers see my 'signals'...
> 
> View attachment 36933



Yeahbutt, they can't see your arms


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Jan 2014)

....my scythe stands out a bit though.


----------



## stu9000 (26 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Doh!
> 
> So, in fact, you see them then? So, the camo, if you want to call it that, ain't workin' too well at renderin' 'em invisible to you.



Yes I see them.
I would like to think that every sensible driver would see a cyclist even in camo.
But not all drivers are sensible.
Maybe that means that they might not see me whatever I wear.
But I don't believe that.
I cycled from Kingston to Waterloo bridge today.
I defo felt safer having on my hi vis and various lights.
Its about maximising the odds.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Jan 2014)

stu9000 said:


> Yes I see them.
> I would like to think that every sensible driver would see a cyclist even in camo.
> But not all drivers are sensible.
> Maybe that means that they might not see me whatever I wear.
> ...



Don't cycle then?


----------



## Accy cyclist (26 Jan 2014)

If high viz isn't easier to see than black how come the emergency services and their vehicles,road workers,coalminers, lollypop ladies/men to name but a few wear high viz?!


----------



## 400bhp (26 Jan 2014)

Accy cyclist said:


> If high viz isn't easier to see than black how come the emergency services and their vehicles,road workers,coalminers, lollypop ladies/men to name but a few wear high viz?!



Coalminers....

what....the....

Just in case a rogue vehicle takes a detour down a mineshaft?


----------



## Accy cyclist (27 Jan 2014)

400bhp said:


> Coalminers....
> 
> what....the....
> 
> Just in case a rogue vehicle takes a detour down a mineshaft?




If i remember rightly miners wore bright orange boilersuits when employed by the NCB.


----------



## Jon George (27 Jan 2014)

I don't wear Hi-Viz while cycling, but my lycra has a fair amount of reflective brand advertising that I'd prefer was just plain reflective strips. The biggest difference I have noticed recently to my general sense of confidence is the subtle adjustment of my riding style which primary position has given - after following links about the subject on here. The number of cars accelerating to overtake me and then braking at a traffic island, for instance, may increased but, so far, no irate hooting. It's my contention that this sort of assertive attitude to cycling far out-ways any kneejerk political remedy to cycling injuries/fatalities.


----------



## classic33 (27 Jan 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Some people however are simply not taking this seriously enough!



I thought he'd been done/told off for carrying he's children on that bike!


----------



## classic33 (27 Jan 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> ....my scythe stands out a bit though.


Blade needs edging, looking a bit blunt, to me!


----------



## Hitchington (27 Jan 2014)

I accept that most on here won't agree with me but in the winter I feel that wearing a hi-viz jacket or vest makes me more visible to other road users and sends a message that I want to be noticed . I don't feel daft for wearing one.


----------



## summerdays (27 Jan 2014)

Hitchington said:


> I accept that most on here won't agree with me but in the winter I feel that wearing a hi-viz jacket or vest makes me more visible to other road users and sends a message that I want to be noticed . I don't feel daft for wearing one.


I don't have a problem about wearing hi-vis, it is being told to wear it. I think in some situations it will help, but not all the time. But I choose to wear a bright coat rather than the ubictuous yellow vest and rarely bother in summertime.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jan 2014)

stu9000 said:


> Yes I see them.
> I would like to think that every sensible driver would see a cyclist even in camo.
> But not all drivers are sensible.
> Maybe that means that they might not see me whatever I wear.
> ...


it has nothing, not a jot, not a bean to with being a driver being sensible. NOTHING. Go read the book referenced earlier in the thread,

I can claim I feel safer with a rabbits foot on my key ring. Does that MAKE me safer? No.

If we stopped listening to our own mistaken intuition and our beliefs, which are based on nothing but faith, and started taking note of what behavioural psychologists and other scientists can tell us about driver behaviour we'd realise that hi-viz doesn't shift the odds enough in our favour to make it worth buying.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jan 2014)

Hitchington said:


> I accept that most on here won't agree with me but in the winter I feel that wearing a hi-viz jacket or vest makes me more visible to other road users and sends a message that I want to be noticed . I don't feel daft for wearing one.


Feel?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jan 2014)

Accy cyclist said:


> If high viz isn't easier to see than black how come the emergency services and their vehicles,road workers,coalminers, lollypop ladies/men to name but a few wear high viz?!


How far up the hierarchy of safe working practise in dangerous environments do you think hi-viz kit comes?

And can you cite any study upon which the decision to clad lollypop people in hi-viz was based? Thought not.

Like it or not but an awful lot that our intuition tells us is right is wrong.


----------



## Hitchington (27 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Feel?


 That's right, I don't feel daft.


----------



## oldstrath (27 Jan 2014)

summerdays said:


> That happened yesterday, I signalled and wanted a gap, instead the motorist sped up ... So I moved out afterwards and looked at her now parked at the back of a queue of cars for temporary traffic lights. Unfortunately she didn't notice me passing her because she was busy tapping away on her phone Making me crosser!


Presume your reported her?


----------



## youngoldbloke (27 Jan 2014)

Just as running a car with dipped headlights enhances its visibilty to other road users, the wearing of light coloured or 'hi vis' clothing by pedestrians and cyclists, as recommended by the highway code, helps make them visible _earlier_ than they would otherwise be to other road users. It is not a question of 'not seeing'.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jan 2014)

Hitchington said:


> That's right, I don't feel daft.


But you feel it makes you more safe?


youngoldbloke said:


> Just as running a car with dipped headlights enhances its visibilty to other road users, the wearing of light coloured or 'hi vis' clothing by pedestrians and cyclists, as recommended by the highway code, helps make them visible _earlier_ than they would otherwise be to other road users. It is not a question of 'not seeing'.


Got any science to back up that intuition? And having seen you earlier how do you know that will make any difference to the drivers behaviour?

It is almost entirely a question of 'not seeing' so your intuition is wrong there too.


----------



## Tim Hall (27 Jan 2014)

Found this:

http://knightstemplarmtc.com/reviews/iconmilspechivizvest/

A Hi Vis vest that......



> Somewhere in/on the jacket Icon have sown in a St Christopher Medallion (the patron Saint of travellers),



What do I win?


----------



## summerdays (27 Jan 2014)

oldstrath said:


> Presume your reported her?


Wouldn't do any good if I did. I think it's only in London that you can?


----------



## youngoldbloke (27 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Got any science to back up that intuition? And having seen you earlier how do you know that will make any difference to the drivers behaviour?
> 
> It is almost entirely a question of 'not seeing' so your intuition is wrong there too.


No science, no intuition, just real, everyday, experience. I said _earlier_. OK - lets have the references re. 'not seeing' .


----------



## oldstrath (27 Jan 2014)

summerdays said:


> Wouldn't do any good if I did. I think it's only in London that you can?


I reported someone doing this to our local station, and she was fined (mind you, our local coppers are properly local, and do a good job of looking out for cyclists).


----------



## Leodis (27 Jan 2014)

High vis clothing doesn't make cars pass you more safely, says new study


----------



## MontyVeda (27 Jan 2014)

i tend to wear a white/cream baseball cap when it's dark instead of one of my green, blue or brown ones... that's hi-viz innit.


----------



## Tim Hall (27 Jan 2014)

2894756 said:


> Our admiration and affection.


That makes it all worthwhile.


----------



## bianchi1 (27 Jan 2014)

Leodis said:


> High vis clothing doesn't make cars pass you more safely, says new study



I do wish people would read this study before using it to back up their arguments. 

The tests took place in daylight and good visibility, it did not try to look at whether these devices made cyclists more visible at intersections or at night.

The researcher is not simply saying wearing high viz makes no difference, he is saying that drivers "do not adjust overtaking proximity as a function of a rider’s perceived experience".

He draws no conclusions about the effects of high viz clothing making cyclists more or less conspicuous.

And finally the author clearly states "anything cyclists can do to make themselves more visible to drivers - such as wearing reflectives and lights, especially in the dark - is an advantage for them"


----------



## Leodis (27 Jan 2014)

Give over, have you noticed how careful drivers are around you whilst head to toe in your HiViz clown outfit? Drivers not looking will still not be looking no matter what you are wearing in my experience.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jan 2014)

youngoldbloke said:


> No science, no intuition, just real, everyday, experience. I said _earlier_. OK - lets have the references re. 'not seeing' .


The Invisible Gorilla. At a good bookshop near you.

and your real experience is anecdata.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jan 2014)

bianchi1 said:


> I do wish people would read this study before using it to back up their arguments.
> 
> The tests took place in daylight and good visibility, it did not try to look at whether these devices made cyclists more visible at intersections or at night.
> 
> ...


So the study says that hi-viz does not make drivers pass a cyclist more safely in the opinion of cyclists then?


----------



## mickle (27 Jan 2014)

Sorry, can i just clarify, are we talking about fluorescents or reflectives?


----------



## youngoldbloke (27 Jan 2014)

Sorry I must be thick, but when I shine my torch down my garden path at night and the beam falls on next doors pale tabby he is much more readily visible than when the beam lights up the black cat from a few doors away . I am not consciously looking for either of them. Why is this?


----------



## theclaud (27 Jan 2014)

youngoldbloke said:


> Sorry I must be thick, but when I shine my torch down my garden path at night and the beam falls on next doors pale tabby he is much more readily visible than when the beam lights up the black cat from a few doors away . I am not consciously looking for either of them. Why is this?



It's cos of dis ting dat is in de air, called science. Innit.


----------



## ComedyPilot (27 Jan 2014)

Meanwhile in the Netherlands, the widespread implementation of hi-viz goes on unabated.......


----------



## ComedyPilot (27 Jan 2014)

Another Dutch cyclist....hard to spot, but she's the one in black.....


----------



## ComedyPilot (27 Jan 2014)

What we have over 6 pages is the luminous green camp and their 'appease the motorist at all costs' approach. That is foiled at every turn by the 'wear what the bloody hell I like' brigade and their 'the motorist should be watching where the hell they're going given they're propelling a ton of metal on OUR streets' manifesto.....

Perhaps if a few million motorists swopped (sic) their 'precious' cars for humble bicycles and felt what it's like to be driven at, attacked, sworn at, rammed off the road, abused, endangered and generally treated as a hindrance to (frankly) non-essential motoring, then perhaps we might actually get somewhere?

Till then the enlightened few can enjoy self-propelled, energetic, (relatively) cheap, approachable, friendly, green travel.

Or we can do as the drivers want us to do, dress up like a bloomin' lemon and accept responsibility for THEIR near-total abdication of observation whilst driving.


----------



## mickle (27 Jan 2014)

Hear hear!


----------



## Cuchilo (27 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> Another Dutch cyclist....hard to spot, but she's the one in black.....


This has just made me think . Although most street lights etc are now grey around my area of London they are black . Are they painted that way to give drivers comedy moments when people walk into them ?
I notice the face of the lights and the low level parts of the poles have black on them . Whats the reason for that ?


----------



## Dogtrousers (27 Jan 2014)

Tim Hall said:


> Found this:
> 
> http://knightstemplarmtc.com/reviews/iconmilspechivizvest/
> 
> ...



I wonder what, if anything, will germinate?


----------



## Accy cyclist (27 Jan 2014)

Leodis said:


> Give over, have you noticed how careful drivers are around you whilst head to toe in your HiViz clown outfit? Drivers not looking will still not be looking no matter what you are wearing in my experience.



Yes but the ones who are looking need a little help sometimes! Ok the ones who will not see, we have to pray they don't do us harm,but the ones who wish us no harm have a harder job seeing mr or mrs dressed in black on a dimly lit road on a dark night than they would if we shone up with reflectives like a beacon!
Bright cycle clothing isn't always "clown outfit" stuff just as all dark clothing isn't either! I bet you wouldn't turn this little number down if offered to you?!http://www.prendas.co.uk/details.asp?imgID=8029


----------



## Tim Hall (28 Jan 2014)

mickle said:


> Sorry, can i just clarify, are we talking about fluorescents or reflectives?


IME "Hi Viz" is usually a fluorescent waistcoat/jacket with reflective bits.


----------



## ComedyPilot (28 Jan 2014)

^^^ Wot @Adrian said sums it up.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jan 2014)

He omitted sexual partner from his fiddling list.

A more common cause of loss of control than you might think....


----------



## Dogtrousers (28 Jan 2014)

Yebbut, while Adrian speaks good sense - is the problem he outlines sufficient reason for an individual to spurn hi-vis, which may potentially give them some small advantage, in order to kick against the spread of the hi-vis wearing meme and thus potentially make some small contribution to the greater good? A kind of tragedy of the commons thingy.

The problem comes when these memes spread from the individual to the corporate. It's fine, dandy and harmless for Fred Bloggs to decide that a high vis vest with gurt big reflectives can't do him any harm, may do some good so he'll wear it. That's his business and his alone. On the other hand it's un-fine, un-dandy and un-harmless for an organisation with some power to decree that all cyclists should follow Fred's example at all times and those who don't should be in some way censured. That becomes everyone's business.

It's the helmet debate all over again, but the arguments are easier to see because they are orange with reflective stripes.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jan 2014)

youngoldbloke said:


> Sorry I must be thick, but when I shine my torch down my garden path at night and the beam falls on next doors pale tabby he is much more readily visible than when the beam lights up the black cat from a few doors away . I am not consciously looking for either of them. Why is this?


If you can't see the black cat how do you know it is there?

No. Wait. Hang on a mo'.

Oh. I see. You _can_ see the black cat by torchlight. You have no difficulty identifying that the black cat is there. In the dark. With a torch. Without consciously looking for it. How very excellent.

Thank you for making my point for me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jan 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> Yebbut, while Adrian speaks good sense - is the problem he outlines sufficient reason for an individual to spurn hi-vis, which may potentially give them some small advantage, in order to kick against the spread of the hi-vis wearing meme and thus potentially make some small contribution to the greater good? A kind of tragedy of the commons thingy.
> 
> The problem comes when these memes spread from the individual to the corporate. It's fine, dandy and harmless for Fred Bloggs to decide that a high vis vest with gurt big reflectives can't do him any harm, may do some good so he'll wear it. That's his business and his alone. On the other hand it's un-fine, un-dandy and un-harmless for an organisation with some power to decree that all cyclists should follow Fred's example at all times and those who don't should be in some way censored. That becomes everyone's business.
> 
> It's the helmet debate all over again, but the arguments are easier to see because they are orange with reflective stripes.


On behalf of the St Christopher party I have to interject.

Our party would argue wearing a St Christopher medal may potentially give the wearer some small advantage.

Why is there not a vocal group of nobber-drivers a la CP's work colleague protesting the lack of St Christophers?

I will happily consider the wearing of hi-viz (flouro + reflectives) tabards when the British Standards for such garments for cyclists includes printing the words

*Drivers! *
*Slow the fark down!*
*&*
*Move the fark over!*​
in large scotchlite letters on the back.

Arguments based on an unproven potentiality are fraught with danger. I am potentially safer if I walk the streets of the Lundhun in a stab proof vest. But surely the problem is the knife carriers not their victims?


----------



## youngoldbloke (28 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If you can't see the black cat how do you know it is there?
> 
> No. Wait. Hang on a mo'.
> 
> ...


You know exactly what I mean. I am not promoting the wearing of hi viz clothing, and certainly do not favour compulsory wearing of it. I use dipped headlights on a car in poor light conditions so that I might be more easily seen seen, I use lights on a bike in poor light conditions so that I might be more easily seen. I wear light coloured clothing on the road in poor light conditions for the same reason. You can do as you wish - I really don't care .... I'm out.


----------



## Dogtrousers (28 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> On behalf of the St Christopher party I have to interject.
> 
> Our party would argue wearing a St Christopher medal may potentially give the wearer some small advantage.
> 
> ...


 
And, as an individual, you are entirely free to wear a stab vest in London if you so wish. I don't see how that would be "fraught with danger". I don't see any danger at all. Nor do I see it as incompatible with recognising the problem of kife carriers. Nor do I see any danger accruing to the individual from the wearing of St Christopher medals, should they so wish.

The danger would come, as I said, if and when the meme is transferred from the individual to the corporate - and some organisation or other decrees that everyone should wear a St Christopher, and those who do not should be censured. Then it becomes everyone's business.

In fact, it's not at all clear to me what, if any, point you are making. Indeed, it's not clear if you are disagreeing with me at all. But as I said, this looks to me as being like the helmet debate all over again, and it seems that this is the way such debates go.

I believe that it's now traditional for me to angrily demand that you back up your assertions with reference to peer reveiwed research, so here goes: Would the drivers be able to read your Scotchlite letters? Can you cite a study on the readability of sweary scotchlite messages on cycling apparel?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jan 2014)

youngoldbloke said:


> You know exactly what I mean. I am not promoting the wearing of hi viz clothing, and certainly do not favour compulsory wearing of it. I use dipped headlights on a car in poor light conditions so that I might be more easily seen seen, I use lights on a bike in poor light conditions so that I might be more easily seen. I wear light coloured clothing on the road in poor light conditions for the same reason. You can do as you wish - I really don't care .... I'm out.


Yes. I know exactly what you mean. Cyclists, like cats, are not _actually _invisible and have no need of hi-viz.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jan 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> And, *as an individual, you are entirely free to wear a stab vest in London if you so wish. I don't see how that would be "fraught with danger"*. I don't see any danger at all. Nor do I see it as incompatible with recognising the problem of kife carriers. Nor do I see any danger accruing to the individual from the wearing of St Christopher medals, should they so wish.





GrumpyGregry said:


> *Arguments based on an unproven potentiality are fraught with danger. *I am potentially safer if I walk the streets of the Lundhun in a stab proof vest. But surely the problem is the knife carriers not their victims?


Arguments not actions DT.


----------



## Markymark (28 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Yes. I know exactly what you mean. Cyclists, like cats, are not _actually _invisible and have no need of hi-viz.


Not from cars with lights, but what about other road users who don't have torches (pedestrains, other cyclists, horse riders, etc)?


----------



## Dogtrousers (28 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Arguments not actions DT.


 
I knew what you meant. I was just having a go at being mischevious and argumentative. I'm not very good at it to be honest. I'm too nice.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jan 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Not from cars with lights, but what about other road users who don't have torches (pedestrains, other cyclists, horse riders, etc)?


Perhaps I misunderstand the question but how will said cyclist wearing hi-viz help those road users, with no light source to see by, other than the moon and stars. Flouro doesn't in the dark and even reflectives are useless unless lit by a light source. 

And how do the listed road users see where they are going without constantly colliding with trees, signs, kerbs none of which use Hi-Viz, and, for that matter, each other?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jan 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> I knew what you meant. I was just having a go at being mischevious and argumentative. I'm not very good at it to be honest. I'm too nice.


I think you made a good case about the individual vs corporate meme thingy - hence I ignored it entirely!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jan 2014)

2897009 said:


> How would the HiViz work there?


Brevity. I need to work on brevity.


----------



## Markymark (28 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Perhaps I misunderstand the question but how will said cyclist wearing hi-viz help those road users, with no light source to see by, other than the moon and stars. Flouro doesn't in the dark and even reflectives are useless unless lit by a light source.
> 
> And how do the listed road users see where they are going without constantly colliding with trees, signs, kerbs none of which use Hi-Viz, and, for that matter, each other?


Pedestrian crosses the road, street lights make cyclist with hi-viz easier to see. This is a good thing. Lights would be more important but hiviz will help the pedestrian

As for not colling with trees etc, they are static and certainly don't travel at 15+mph. If you don't see a tree until you are 10 feet away, you just walk aorud it. Don't see a cyclist trvelling at 15mph until 10 feet away, possible collision.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jan 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Pedestrian crosses the road,* street lights make cyclist with hi-viz easier to see*. This is a good thing. Lights would be more important but hiviz will help the pedestrian


It's that old intuition again. See @Adrian for details. This cyclist under streetlights without hi-viz, are they invisible to your pedestrian?



> As for not colling with trees etc, they are static and certainly don't travel at 15+mph. If you don't see a tree until you are 10 feet away, you just walk aorud it. Don't see a cyclist trvelling at 15mph until 10 feet away, possible collision.


Is the cyclist blind? Isn't the onus on them to avoid the more vulnerable you?


----------



## Markymark (28 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> It's that old intuition again. See @Adrian for details. This cyclist under streetlights without hi-viz, are they invisible to your pedestrian?
> 
> 
> Is the cyclist blind? Isn't the onus on them to avoid the more vulnerable you?


Where does all the reflected light from the streetlights go? Wouldn't some of it be reflected to the surrounding areas or does hi-viz not reflect at all?

I agree, the cyclist should watch out. A pedestrian looks across the road, does not see a cyclist and steps out in front of them. Cyclist, with the best will in the world can do nothing to avoid collision.


----------



## gaz (28 Jan 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Where does all the reflected light from the streetlights go? Wouldn't some of it be reflected to the surrounding areas or does hi-viz not reflect at all?
> 
> I agree, the cyclist should watch out. A pedestrian looks across the road, does not see a cyclist and steps out in front of them. Cyclist, with the best will in the world can do nothing to avoid collision.


The reflective strips on hi-viz reflect back to the source of the light with around a 20 degree spread (if my memory serves me right). People who are 90 degrees to the top of the lamp and the cyclist will not get any reflected light from the reflective material.


----------



## Markymark (28 Jan 2014)

gaz said:


> The reflective strips on hi-viz reflect back to the source of the light with around a 20 degree spread (if my memory serves me right). People who are 90 degrees to the top of the lamp and the cyclist will not get any reflected light from the reflective material.


But doesn't that assume it's hitting a perpendicular surface to the direction of light? Would it still be the same it the surface(jacket) is angled?


----------



## gaz (28 Jan 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> But doesn't that assume it's hitting a perpendicular surface to the direction of light? Would it still be the same it the surface(jacket) is angled?


no. they use retroreflectors. They always send light back to the source.


----------



## snorri (28 Jan 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Pedestrian crosses the road, street lights make cyclist with hi-viz easier to see. This is a good thing. Lights would be more important but hiviz will help the pedestrian.


... but as the drivers attention is focussed on the hi-viz wearing pedestrian he fails to observe the dark clothed mad axe man about to step off the pavement.


----------



## Markymark (28 Jan 2014)

gaz said:


> no. they use retroreflectors. They always send light back to the source.


 ah, ok


----------



## classic33 (28 Jan 2014)

youngoldbloke said:


> Just as running a car with dipped headlights enhances its visibilty to other road users, the wearing of light coloured or 'hi vis' clothing by pedestrians and cyclists, as recommended by the highway code, helps make them visible _earlier_ than they would otherwise be to other road users. It is not a question of 'not seeing'.


 How does a light colour against a light background stand out?


----------



## classic33 (28 Jan 2014)

snorri said:


> ... but as the drivers attention is focussed on the hi-viz wearing pedestrian he fails to observe the dark clothed mad axe man about to step off the pavement.


I've started leaving the axe at home.


----------



## tyred (28 Jan 2014)

Hi Viz and lights are so 20th century. If you want to get noticed, try this:


----------



## green1 (28 Jan 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Pedestrian crosses the road, street lights make cyclist with hi-viz easier to see.


Debatable. High Viz tends to wash out under sodium lights.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jan 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Where does all the reflected light from the streetlights go? Wouldn't some of it be reflected to the surrounding areas or does hi-viz not reflect at all?
> 
> I agree, the cyclist should watch out. A pedestrian looks across the road, does not see a cyclist and steps out in front of them. Cyclist, with the best will in the world can do nothing to avoid collision.


Under what circumstances at night in a street with street lighting would a cyclist be rendered invisible to a sighted pedestrian?


----------



## Leodis (28 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Under what circumstances at night in a street with street lighting would a cyclist be rendered invisible to a sighted pedestrian?



They are the living dead, they make moaning sounds, they cannot see.. They are...

*ZOMBIE PEDS





*


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jan 2014)

Leodis said:


> They are the living dead, they make moaning sounds, they cannot see.. They are...
> 
> *ZOMBIE PEDS
> 
> ...


I know the sort. But come World War Z riding butt naked and sporting a 12" erection painted purple means they won't see you so hi-viz is a waste of effort no?


----------



## Leodis (28 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I know the sort. But come World War Z* riding butt naked and sporting a 12" erection painted purple* means they won't see you so hi-viz is a waste of effort no?



Picture or it didnt happen?


----------



## Leodis (28 Jan 2014)

2897504 said:


> Did I sleep through WW Z?



The Sustrans stopped it.


----------



## Hitchington (29 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> But you feel it makes you more safe?



What makes me "feel more safe" is riding my bike in a responsible manner, i.e looking behind before signaling, riding in the primary position, using segregated and off road sections where available, not jumping red lights, respecting the right of way for other road users, being as predictable as possible for the benefit of other road users. Wearing a hi-viz jacket with reflective patches when cycling in London in the winter helps me be more visible to other road users. I would also wear some kind of reflective material if I was cycling down a country lane at 1am in the middle of summer. What other people choose to wear is up to them and I have no opinion on whether they are right or wrong. I stated in my original post that I don't feel daft for wearing a hi viz jacket, but other posters would feel like part of the "clown brigade" it seems, that's their prerogative. What is daft is people arguing about whether wearing hi viz is right or wrong. Who cares (apart from the cycling fashion police, obviously)?


----------



## summerdays (29 Jan 2014)

Hitchington said:


> What is daft is people arguing about whether wearing hi viz is right or wrong. Who cares (apart from the cycling fashion police, obviously)?


(As someone who sometimes wears hi vis, orange jacket with reflective bits and gloves with reflective bits), the problem has been shown clearly on many of the other threads today, when it is part of the reason that an advert is banned because the cyclist isn't wearing any "safety equipment". It has to be a choice, just the same as I can choose to wear a mini skirt if I wish, not what a cyclist has to wear to be considered safe.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Jan 2014)

Hitchington said:


> What makes me "feel more safe" is riding my bike in a responsible manner, i.e looking behind before signaling, riding in the primary position, using segregated and off road sections where available, not jumping red lights, respecting the right of way for other road users, being as predictable as possible for the benefit of other road users. Wearing a hi-viz jacket with reflective patches when cycling in London in the winter helps me be more visible to other road users. I would also wear some kind of reflective material if I was cycling down a country lane at 1am in the middle of summer. What other people choose to wear is up to them and I have no opinion on whether they are right or wrong. I stated in my original post that I don't feel daft for wearing a hi viz jacket, but other posters would feel like part of the "clown brigade" it seems, that's their prerogative. What is daft is people arguing about whether wearing hi viz is right or wrong. Who cares (apart from the cycling fashion police, obviously)?


I have never said Hi-viz is wrong.
I have often said

Hi-viz doth offend mine eye.

It is ugly. There is enough ugly in the world without the beautiful thing that is a person on a bike being voluntarily disfigured in a vain quest to improve their safety.

(And where is your data that it makes you more visible to others in London. Where every second chuffer wears it.)


----------



## theclaud (29 Jan 2014)

2900008 said:


> Before I left work this evening I went down the end of the building to wash up. A colleague in a room I passed certainly didn't escape my notice, wearing a hi viz jacket and matching helmet.


OT, but is that "wash up" in the American sense or the British?


----------



## theclaud (29 Jan 2014)

2900040 said:


> American's have a different meaning? Why am I not surprised?


"Have a wash" as opposed to "do the washing up".


----------



## theclaud (29 Jan 2014)

2900061 said:


> Right, for the clarification of any doubt, this was a small collection of mugs that I had used through the day.



Good to have that one cleared up.


----------



## theclaud (29 Jan 2014)

2900079 said:


> Yeah, shame it ruined the punchline of the story through.


Sorry.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Jan 2014)

2900061 said:


> Right, for the clarification of any doubt, this was a small collection of mugs that I had used through the day.


I'm confused.

How could you see the mugs if they weren't hi-viz mugs? 

Hi-viz mugs... geddit?


----------

