# Hi-Viz / reflective - pros & cons.



## simongt (31 Jan 2016)

This should really get some folk going - !
Prompted by a member's letter to the latest issue of the CTC magazine which asks about the wisdom of the recent popularity of black as the colour of choice for cycling tops. I had actually asked an Altura rep who was in my LCS why this is and he said it was in ' response ' to customers wanting cycle wear that didn't make them look like a cyclist off the bike ( but then why just black and not say, purple, burgundy red, navy blue, mid green etc. - ? ). In the response to the reader's letter, it stated that there has never been any real research to illustrate the benefits or drawbacks of wearing bright colour cycle clothing. However, it said that research does suggest that retroflective material, especially if it's moving, i.e., anklebands does help catch driver's attention. Now, strips of retroflective material is often seen on black cycle tops, but two issues here; one it doesn't really move much and secondly, if the conditions are ones of poor light / overcast which doesn't justify vehicles having their lights on, then said material isn't much use. 
On my daily commute in both urban and rural settings, which include going along past tree lined city roads, high hedgerows and also open fields, most of the cyclists I see wear bright yellow or orange tops ( and bash hats are almost universal - ! ) and are thus visible for some distance ahead. Even the occasional joggers I see tend to wear bright yellow. Red doesn't stand out well along the high hedgerow sections and dark colours, be it black, grey or navy blue blends in too well with the surroundings during daylight hours - see above observation.
The qualification to this discussion is that colour perception is a very personal thing and some will see certain colours as being brighter / duller than others, especially among men who have a higher chance of being colourblind, something that is very rare among women.


----------



## Accy cyclist (31 Jan 2016)

Wear some if not lots of high viz and reflective material. Be seen be safe!


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2016)

Your point about different colours is one of the main issues.

In Autumn , or if you have Rape fields locally, yellows fade in, but darker colours can stand out

You really need to carry a full wardrobe of different colours and change then according to the local environment


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> Wear some if not lots of high viz and reflective material. Be seen be safe!




I live in Gosport, and have lived / trained or worked in a number of military towns

A large number of cyclists wear camouflage on their bikes, yet this does not seem to reflect in the statistics.


----------



## winjim (31 Jan 2016)

Even if the reflective itself does not move, the brightness of it changes as the illuminating headlight beam moves across it. This, I find, draws attention to it and is part of the reason I prefer reflectors to lights.


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Jan 2016)

I suspect plenty of lemon yellow cyclists get knocked off because it's the driver not paying attention rather than the cyclist not being 'visible' enough. I wear either a black or grey jacket this time of year. Not very visible but I'm certainly not invisible. I do wear a pale coloured cap as opposed to one of my darker caps, purely for reasons of visibility.


----------



## outlash (31 Jan 2016)

I would imagine having decent lights negates most, if not all 'problems' related to clothing on a bike. Of course, you can't legistlate for people who seem to think their phone is more important than looking at the road...


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (31 Jan 2016)

The report I saw last year was done in Australia and the conclusions were that hi vis made no discernable difference to being seen on a bike, if it was in a built up enviroment, in fact they found that a one colour jacket of white or vlack was often better,d depending on the road and conditions. In low light a hi vis jacket is no better than any other colour, reflective material is needed. The thing that worked best was light reflective bands on the ankles. Apparently the human brain only sees the movement of the reflective strips and can immediately interpret that specific movement as a cyclist.
The problem is that sometimes it does not matter if you had a neon sign above you, if people do not look they will not see you,


----------



## Lonestar (31 Jan 2016)

Martin Archer said:


> The problem is that sometimes it does not matter if you had a neon sign above you, if people do not look they will not see you,



Tell me about it.


----------



## Mrs M (31 Jan 2016)

In nicer weather if you cycle naked everyone will notice you.
But you may get "nicked".


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2016)

... and the old question of car visibility

Why do we allow black cars?

Black, dark blue and grey cars are the most common in accidents

What hasn't been explained yet is why white was not the safest colour, as whilst grey had an increased risk of accidents, Silver cars have half as many as white


So it appears that Silver is a safe colour


PS,,, Red and blue cars are more likely to be stolen!


----------



## Lonestar (31 Jan 2016)

Possibly though something you can't see you tend to track more like that cyclist I followed last night with no lights dressed all in black.I wouldn't say a lot of my concentration being taken up on one road user is such a good thing.Especially after a long job which involves me concentrating a lot of the time.All I could see is a dark outline and that was it.


----------



## summerdays (31 Jan 2016)

Make your own mind up, I look at cyclists on the road and see what attracted my attention.... In heavy traffic in the gloaming, it's flashing lights, they don't get lost in amongst the host of other lights, especially if you are filtering. A bright day I wear what ever I like. Me personally I don't like being head to toe in dark clothes and so I will break it up with a light coloured gillet.


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Jan 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> ... and the old question of car visibility
> 
> Why do we allow black cars?
> 
> ...



for the very same reason we 'allow' black coats.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> for the very same reason we 'allow' black coats.



Seems OK for God...... otherwise why would he dress all his officials in black


----------



## User33236 (31 Jan 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> I suspect plenty of lemon yellow cyclists get knocked off because it's the driver not paying attention rather than the cyclist not being 'visible' enough.


I would agree with you there as I was wearing this:-






And this:-






When the driver pulled out into the side of me in April last year.


----------



## Drago (31 Jan 2016)

Pros. Er... none.

Cons. Er... none.

Many studies ranging from casualty numbers among highway workers through to police officers and school children show no link to the accident rate and the wearing of such garments. It can seem as "obvious" and "common sense" as you like, but that does not alter the fact there is exactly zero evidence to demonstrate that they make you any safer. The only reason i bother at night or in dull weather is to immediately shut-down that avenue of escape if someone has me off the bike their their insurers fancy a spot of victim blaming. Ditto lids.


----------



## derrick (31 Jan 2016)

It makes no difference what you wear, If the driver does not see you they don't see you, I know this because my wife was lit up like a christmas tree and still got hit,
Hi viz helmet, Hi viz jacket Hi viz shoes flashing arm bands, a good flashing front light one of the biggest flashing rear lights. There was no more room on her for anything else hi vis. The ******* idiot women driver in her 4x4 still managed to knock my wife of. So in my eyes Hi vis is a complete wast of money. If they are not looking they ain't going to see you.


----------



## Drago (31 Jan 2016)

derrick said:


> It makes no difference what you wear, If the driver does not bother to look properly they don't see you, I know this because my wife was lit up like a christmas tree and still got hit,


Fixed that for you.

Sorry to hear about the Missus.


----------



## Ajax Bay (31 Jan 2016)

It makes sense, as a vulnerable road user, to increase the *chance* of other (motorised) road users seeing you by adopting measures such as lighter clothing with (tasteful) reflective bits, fitting and using flashing lights, and by choice, wearing a 'not a dull' helmet. Some items are most sensibly kept black/dark eg bottoms, but tights/legwarmers can have some reflective stripes or logos on and shoes/boots/overboots can do too.

There may be no evidence that this will reduce the chances of an RTI but as @Drago has said above, it helps shut down the 'he/she hadn't made the effort to be seen' argument by observers/witnesses on site and third hand, and loved ones. You may say we shouldn't need to but we cycle in the real world. Most of us have driven up behind a cyclist and thought 'he (it's invariably a 'he') does himself no favours by dressing all in black'.

I'm saying 'chances' here: we've tragically read about cyclists who have been cleared even after they've made every effort to be visible - very hard luck: @User33236 and @derrick 's bh. But that doesn't mean it's not worth it at all. After all the suggestion is: use brighter coloured cycle clothing. If a top/gilet is dark I won't get it. If tights/legwarmers/shoes/boots/overboots have sensible reflective stripes or logos on I'm more likely to buy and use them, with the flashing red light by day (maybe two) (except when in a group).


----------



## summerdays (31 Jan 2016)

It is about thinking about the conditions that day and changing to suit them, I see a bloke who wears one of those bright yellow shower cap every day over his helmet.... The thing is I've passed him multiple times and he cycles at least 5 miles on the cycle path away from traffic, and he still wears the fluoro helmet cover and jacket in all weathers all year (including really sunny afternoons). He isn't actually thinking about wearing something suitable for the conditions.... I will sometimes stop to make changes as the weather changes, or where I'm riding, if I think I need to or that I no longer need the rear light on really bright etc.


----------



## winjim (31 Jan 2016)

summerdays said:


> It is about thinking about the conditions that day and changing to suit them, I see a bloke who wears one of those bright yellow shower cap every day over his helmet.... The thing is I've passed him multiple times and he cycles at least 5 miles on the cycle path away from traffic, and he still wears the fluoro helmet cover and jacket in all weathers all year (including really sunny afternoons). He isn't actually thinking about wearing something suitable for the conditions.... I will sometimes stop to make changes as the weather changes, or where I'm riding, if I think I need to or that I no longer need the rear light on really bright etc.


There seem to be a lot of cyclists who lack confidence in traffic, so will wear hi viz and a helmet and ride on cyclepaths or pavements, or in the gutter when they do venture onto the road. Hi viz worn on a cycle path makes for a very sad sight imo.


----------



## BalkanExpress (31 Jan 2016)

I am a great believer in quoting studies which support my personal bias, 

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2013/11/26/overtaking-cyclists/


----------



## derrick (31 Jan 2016)

It has nothing to do with conditions, If people are looking they will see you.


----------



## growingvegetables (31 Jan 2016)

As a *driver*, I've had my fair share of seeing cyclists in black. Some have scared the carp out of me. I've thought ... "You bloody Ninja fool!" That's a very polite translation. I've "thought" why the f*** are you risking your life like that!

Fact remains - I've seen them. And been able to drive appropriately around them. Like thousands of drivers, alert to the roads and their users.

By contrast, *riding my bike* ...

1. I've had my fair share of numpties in motors who have used my wearing hi-viz to *"improve their aim"*. And come as close as they dare, to try and scare the **** out of me.

2. Worse - the number of times I've been wearing hi-viz, and been subjected to a brown-trouser close-pass, only to see the ******* in the motor pull OUT to give the unlit Ninja in front of me LOADS of space. That p****s me off. Countless times.


Bottom line - I assess the risk. 

Personally, I do not wear hi-viz. I prefer to trust the competence of the majority of drivers. I prefer NOT to help the minority of dangerous (and occasionally malicious) numpties aim better. My choice. My risk assessment. Others will assess differently, and I respect their choices.


Sadly - the same could be said of lights, at least in urban areas with their street lights. However, lights are a legal requirement.


----------



## Smokin Joe (31 Jan 2016)

In normal daylight I find black to be one of the most visible colours.


----------



## BorderReiver (31 Jan 2016)

The RAF have painted their training aircraft black for a number of years (previously they went for a rather snappy red and white scheme which I always thought would look good on a bike, but I digress). I believe this is because they find black shows up well against a constant changing background- like the one cyclists tend to find themselves in front off. As ever, I stand to be corrected if I'm talking total rubbish. Again.


----------



## Hip Priest (31 Jan 2016)

It stands to reason that wearing brightly coloured clothing makes you more visible. But often things that stand to reason are wrong.


----------



## RoubaixCube (31 Jan 2016)

Doesnt matter - drivers with bad road awareness or just bad drivers in general wont see you as they are either looking the wrong way or not using their mirrors as they should be. A momentary laps of concentration can be disastrous or even fatal for other road users.

Im certainly a 'ninja' when commuting but to balance things out I make sure that my clothing has reflecting patches or piping in the right places and that i have an extra tail light fixed onto my backpack or the back of my helmet to make sure I catch any careful drivers attention. They might pass me closely but rather that then being completely rear-ended or hit from the side and ending up in A&E.


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2016)

Smokin Joe said:


> In normal daylight I find black to be one of the most visible colours.


It's also the highest contrast choice under modern blue-white LED streetlights. "Hi viz" appears a dull grey as the fluorescence doesn't happen.


----------



## Drago (31 Jan 2016)

Technically black is not a colour.


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> In Autumn , or if you have Rape fields locally, yellows fade in, but darker colours can stand out


The daffodils are coming out now. There are fields of yellow most of the year. Whoever promotes hi viz yellow must be a townie. And then it makes our historic townscapes fugly, so they must be from a brutalist town somewhere. Cyclists for the Prevention of Cruelty to Views, anyone? 

Could it be that motorists realise the days of their ugly cars mucking up nice scenery are numbered so they want to make cycling uglier to get it banned from conservation areas and listed landscapes too?


----------



## SeanM (31 Jan 2016)

I bought some reflective tape a few years ago that i cut into strips and have stapled onto the dangly bits of my rucksack. Never been knocked over from behind, so i can claim with absolutely no certainty at all, it may have helped.


----------



## Hacienda71 (31 Jan 2016)

If it is overcast I just put my rear light on.


----------



## winjim (31 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> It's also the highest contrast choice under modern blue-white LED streetlights. "Hi viz" appears a dull grey as the fluorescence doesn't happen.


It seems to work fine and dandy under the newfangled streetlights round here. Even if it doesn't fluoresce, it's still bright orange or yellow or whatever. It's the old style orange sodium lights which are the problematic ones.


----------



## djmc (31 Jan 2016)

Whether or not you personally favour hi-vis, one should be aware that in France it is mandatory for cyclists to wear it in the dark. This is by no means always done but one should be aware of this if riding in France. It is also obligatory to carry in in ones vehicle when driving. As a general point I think that while one may be hit even if one is lit up like a Christmas tree, nevertheless it is a good idea to be as noticeable as possible, and wearing day-glo yellow with reflective flashes helps in this. In cases of the gloomy half-light which is quite common round here in winter, but also in Britain, I find that such jackets show up much better than lights.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Jan 2016)

Ponder the fact that the countries where cyclists wear the least hi vis are the safest countries to cycle in.


----------



## Spinney (31 Jan 2016)

Ah, but which is cause and which is effect?

The country is safe to cycle in, so cyclists don't feel as much need to wear hi-vis.

Or

Not wearing hi-vis keeps you safer.


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2016)

Spinney said:


> Ah, but which is cause and which is effect?
> 
> The country is safe to cycle in, so cyclists don't feel as much need to wear hi-vis.
> 
> ...


Cover both bases: tell people not to wear hi viz and push to make the country safer to cycle in!


----------



## steveindenmark (31 Jan 2016)

This is as personal as helmets and we will never agree on this between ourselves.

I wear a viz vest on my bike and on my motorbike because I want to. I think they do help and they keep me warmer.

Put someone in a viz vest 500m away and you will notice them quicker than the person on the other side of the road not wearing one. If people disagree with that they are in denial and there is no point in discussing it with them.

This is of course only a starting point in the discussion.


----------



## Drago (31 Jan 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Put someone in a viz vest 500m away and you will notice them quicker than the person on the other side of the road not wearing one.


sorry, that is not the case. ALSAR are participating in data gathering on this very topic in order to this national policy on their use for the UKSAR member groups, and were not finding any evidence that hi vis garments make you any more conspicuous than regular clothing. Indeed, we've discovered that in good light yellow high vis makes it harder for an observer to acquire someone against a rural background, especially trees in leaf. Orange hi vis at least doesn't suffer this particular handicap, but otherwise is still not proving any more conspicuous than normal clothing. Experiments with the Northumbrian Rain Dance show that wearers of such gear become invisible at the same distance as conventional clothing.


----------



## Banjo (31 Jan 2016)

Not scientific but waiting for 2 other riders in light drizzle I saw the one with an orange jacket muchearlier than the one in grey.


----------



## classic33 (31 Jan 2016)

Isn't contrast better than bright colours alone?


----------



## Drago (31 Jan 2016)

We're finding movement is the biggest factor in spotting our personnel, just like a T-Rex!


----------



## User33236 (31 Jan 2016)

I find my choice of bike lighting has more affect on drivers perception that what I wear... even in the daytime. I have everything from white through to back clothing including the hi-viz and reflective stuff in-between.


----------



## newfhouse (31 Jan 2016)

Drago said:


> Technically black is not a colour.


Technically, black is cool.


----------



## newfhouse (31 Jan 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> If people disagree with that they are in denial and there is no point in discussing it with them.
> 
> This is of course only a starting point in the discussion.


Doesn't strike me as much of a starting point.


----------



## steveindenmark (31 Jan 2016)

newfhouse said:


> Technically, black is cool.


You should tell that to the woman in black who walks her black dog a 5 am in a village near me.

If she carries on doing it she will be so cool. In a fridge. 

I cant understand people who put vanity before safety.

Its a starting point because people may agree that someone in a viz vest will be seen first. But they may have other reasons why they refuse to wear on.


----------



## newfhouse (31 Jan 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> You should tell that to the woman in black who walks her black dog a 5 am in a village near me.
> 
> If she carries on doing it she will be so cool. In a fridge.



You sound a bit like the people in the helmet thread who appear to wish ill on non helmeted riders and say they've got it coming to them. I hope I've misunderstood your tone.

What colour would you like the dog to be?


----------



## classic33 (31 Jan 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> You should tell that to the woman in black who walks her black dog a 5 am in a village near me.
> 
> If she carries on doing it she will be so cool. In a fridge.
> 
> ...


The UV light required for Hi-Vis to work properly isn't there at night or under artificial lighting.
At night the reflective strips fitted are relied on more, for detection by the eye.


----------



## steveindenmark (31 Jan 2016)

Wear black if you want. I really dont care. Wear a helmet if you want, its your head.


----------



## Accy cyclist (31 Jan 2016)

derrick said:


> It makes no difference what you wear, If the driver does not see you they don't see you, I know this because my wife was lit up like a christmas tree and still got hit,
> Hi viz helmet, Hi viz jacket Hi viz shoes flashing arm bands, a good flashing front light one of the biggest flashing rear lights. There was no more room on her for anything else hi vis. The ******* idiot women driver in her 4x4 still managed to knock my wife of. So in my eyes Hi vis is a complete wast of money. If they are not looking they ain't going to see you.




Yes but what if they are looking but they can't/don't see you because you're wearing clothes the same colour as the road. I always look out for cyclists but if they make themselves hard to see then it could result in a collision.


----------



## biggs682 (31 Jan 2016)

Anything that helps you be seen cant be bad


----------



## Accy cyclist (31 Jan 2016)

User said:


> If you cannot see a person on the road, are you fit to drive?


 
So you have to be able to make out hard to see objects or what might not be objects such as shadows etc,then pull out hoping that another hard to see object isn't coming your way? Why make life harder for yourself and that legally driving but not quite alert as they used to be driver?


----------



## Accy cyclist (31 Jan 2016)

User said:


> Yes, that seems a reasonable standard to demand of people taking to our roads in any powered vehicle.




Well demand all you like,but many drivers aren't capable of analysing everything on the road as they go along.


----------



## Accy cyclist (31 Jan 2016)

Imagine someone on a bike coming at you wearing that jacket in those conditions!"Oh it's right to pull out, nothing's coming".


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2016)

If they can't see a six foot guy on a lit and reflectored bike because they're wearing the "wrong" coloured jacket, then no, they must be removed from motoring before they crash into a school or something.


----------



## classic33 (31 Jan 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Wear black if you want. I really dont care. Wear a helmet if you want, its your head.


Wearing Hi-Vis when hit. But I tend to rely on contrasting colours more than one bright colour that now seems to have become a fashion colour. Worn the following, in additition to a simple Saturn Yellow vest over the years. Also a Horse Rider's Sam Browne.







Non seemed to work as well as lighting, either on me or the bike. Best two lights, not fitted to the bike, were a glow stick and a strobe light, as seen on many alarm boxes. Visible from over two miles away, at night on unlit roads.


----------



## derrick (31 Jan 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> Yes but what if they are looking but they can't/don't see you because you're wearing clothes the same colour as the road. I always look out for cyclists but if they make themselves hard to see then it could result in a collision.


As said before if they are looking they will see you, if they are not looking they will hit you. simple.


----------



## Accy cyclist (31 Jan 2016)

User said:


> No it is not all right. You can see the conditions are poor, so it is right to look more carefully.




But even then,careful looking and done with good intent might still mean the driver has trouble spotting the grey cyclist. Why not just wear something to make that driver's job a little easier? While the driver is analysing/looking carefully he's not looking elsewhere, which reduces his all round vision


----------



## classic33 (1 Feb 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> But even then,careful looking and done with good intent might still mean the driver has trouble spotting the grey cyclist. Why not just wear something to make that driver's job a little easier? While the driver is analysing/looking carefully he's not looking elsewhere, which reduces his all round vision


Do you go for contrast or a bright colour though?


----------



## derrick (1 Feb 2016)

Are you lot not reading what is being posted


----------



## Accy cyclist (1 Feb 2016)

classic33 said:


> Do you go for contrast or a bright colour though?




Yes i find fluoro yellow and red or fluoro yellow and black are easier to see when i'm driving. I'm not saying all fluorescent is best. A black or any dark coloured top with fluorescent marking to me works just as well if not better.


----------



## growingvegetables (1 Feb 2016)

biggs682 said:


> Anything that helps you be seen cant be bad


Sorry - but yes, it can. There is a tiny (how tiny?) minority who will use your improved visibility to "improve" their close-pass technique.


----------



## biggs682 (1 Feb 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Sorry - but yes, it can. There is a tiny (how tiny?) minority who will use your improved visibility to "improve" their close-pass technique.



you are right no matter how lit up you are some dum ass drivers still like to scrape the skin of your elbow


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Feb 2016)

It would i


Hacienda71 said:


> If it is overcast I just put my rear light on.



Mine is on the bike


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Feb 2016)

If drivers can see yellow more easily and from a distance ... Why can't they see double yellow lines when they park?


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Feb 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> But even then,careful looking and done with good intent might still mean the driver has trouble spotting the grey cyclist. Why not just wear something to make that driver's job a little easier? While the driver is analysing/looking carefully he's not looking elsewhere, which reduces his all round vision




I do..... It is called a GoPro

You will be surprised how more visible you are, and how driving improves when they see they are being recorde


----------



## Ajax Bay (1 Feb 2016)

_


derrick said:



As said before if they are looking they will see you, if they are not looking they will hit you. simple.

Click to expand...




derrick said:



Are you lot not reading what is being posted

Click to expand...


@derrick Second _part - you are right "_if they are not looking they will hit you_" but most drivers *are* 'looking' nearly all the time. So "if they are looking" they will see you *earlier* if you're wearing clothing which increases your visibility. And this thread surely seeks to explore whether there are optimal ways of doing that using hi-viz or reflective clothing and peripherally otherwise, and the extent to which cyclists should adopt such an approach - the pros and cons.

_"if they are not looking they will hit you_" that is a fatalistic approach as you cannot influence this, other than lobbying for greater society/community efforts to eradicate use by drivers of mobile communications devices, to improve other driving quality thresholds, and to design roads with cyclists in mind (list by no means complete or exclusive). One could add to make the use of (dipped) car headlights a legal requirement at all time: this would make the cyclists' reflective option more effective in daytime.

Why things are seen (with the most important last):
Shape - Shadow - Shine (texture) - Spacing - Silhouette - Movement


----------



## steveindenmark (1 Feb 2016)

When you look at how many tens of thousands of cycle rides are taken each day and how many accidents involving cyclists happen each day, the percentage is very small.

So this old chestnut that most drivers are not looking out for cyclists just does not make any sense but it is an something people come up with time and time again because they cannot think of anything else.

I am sure there are more car/car accidents than car / bike accidents. Does that mean they are not looking out for cars either. Or lorries, or buses?

Ajax are you an old military man :0)


----------



## Drago (1 Feb 2016)

It's an old chestnut, mainly because It's true. Drivers, like the rest of us suffer human frailties at best, are lazy at worst. It doesn't take long behind the wheel before driver lapse into a kind of autopilot and look without actually seeing. This is why advanced driving teaches drills that force the driver to look properly and register what they are seeing and not just go through the motions.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Feb 2016)

In many cases it s not whether you are seen(or not) but the drivers inappropriate response

The classic is a "left hook" where the driver moves out to overtake and then turns across your path

Nothing is going to prevent these types of stupidity


----------



## Arjimlad (1 Feb 2016)

Part of my reasoning for putting on some bright clothing or a Sam Browne belt, is not wishing to give any negligent drivers an easy cop-out if I should be unfortunate enough to come a cropper.

I don't have any illusions that it will make me stand out to those who don't look properly.


----------



## Ajax Bay (1 Feb 2016)

@User "if", "could" "give and take". If you had a teenager who sought your advice (maybe your child or another's), would you recommend that they dress themselves generally in dull drab coloured clothing (let's allow black to be a colour for this purpose) or would you recommend that they consider and wear a brighter top and socks (say). Would you recommend that they avoid buying hi-viz items and/or clothing with reflective 'stripes' or logos on? Would your advice vary if the weather is bright or dull? Why? Because you don't like 'giving in' to the threat posed by careless drivers or because it's not aesthetic? I understand your argument: "nature of taking responsibility for cyclists' safety on our roads. Anything we give is taken as a norm" but I don't think wearing 'ninja invisibility' kit is going to help make the case. But I do think that, on the balance of probability and rationality, that the less visible cyclists are generally the more will get hit, because the hazard is not going away. The risk can be mitigated in a number of ways: clothing and lights are just two (the first being subject of this thread). @Accy cyclist and @biggs682 express this with admirable brevity.


----------



## Drago (1 Feb 2016)

There's a difference between everyday clothing in common colours, and wearing colours or tones that could be construed as camouflage. This is in much the same way there's a difference between a pink T shirt and 'hi vis' clothing.

I can't recommend hi vis on the basis that it works, but that doesn't mean that I - and others - recommend wearing clothes that could function as camouflage in the riding environment. In this case there's a fairly large middle ground, and not wanting to be at the hi vis end of the argument does not automatically mean we support the camouflage end of the subject.


----------



## Origamist (1 Feb 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> @User "if", "could" "give and take". If you had a teenager who sought your advice (maybe your child or another's), would you recommend that they dress themselves generally in dull drab coloured clothing (let's allow black to be a colour for this purpose) or would you recommend that they consider and wear a brighter top and socks (say). Would you recommend that they avoid buying hi-viz items and/or clothing with reflective 'stripes' or logos on? Would your advice vary if the weather is bright or dull? Why? Because you don't like 'giving in' to the threat posed by careless drivers or because it's not aesthetic? I understand your argument: "nature of taking responsibility for cyclists' safety on our roads. Anything we give is taken as a norm" but I don't think wearing 'ninja invisibility' kit is going to help make the case. *But I do think that, on the balance of probability and rationality, that the less visible cyclists are generally the more will get hit, because the hazard is not going away.* The risk can be mitigated in a number of ways: clothing and lights are just two (the first being subject of this thread). @Accy cyclist and @biggs682 express this with admirable brevity.



Interestingly, a recent study in the UK found the opposite. I have quoted the abstract's conclusion:



> This study was designed to assess the effect of conspicuity aid use on the risk of crash for commuter and utility cyclists. A slightly greater proportion of cases than controls reported using conspicuity aids. There was therefore a raised odds ratio of collision crash involvement for those using conspicuity aids even after adjustment for a large number of important confounders. The study results do not demonstrate a protective effect as expected given previous work testing the effects of such aids on drivers’ awareness of cyclists and pedestrians. This study demonstrates the importance of understanding why many cyclists remain at risk of collision crash resulting in injury despite the use of conspicuity aids.



*The use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and the risk of crashes involving other road users: a population based case-control study*

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/


----------



## mjr (1 Feb 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> Yes i find fluoro yellow and red or fluoro yellow and black are easier to see when i'm driving.


And when was your last eye test?



Cunobelin said:


> You will be surprised how more visible you are, and how driving improves when they see they are being recorde


Yes. I don't often ride with a camera but I've noticed motorists stop at red lights after looking at my new more-obvious handlebar camera when I'm pretty sure from the manner they approached that it wasn't their original intention!  There are a couple of sets of lights where cross-traffic is limited to cycles and sometimes buses and RLJing is rife when there is no bus.



Ajax Bay said:


> So "if they are looking" they will see you *earlier* if you're wearing clothing which increases your visibility.


And so by the time they get to you, they've forgotten they need to do anything, whereas if they'd seen you at the same time as the surrounding environment, they can decide their appropriate action all at once.



Cunobelin said:


> The classic is a "left hook" where the driver moves out to overtake and then turns across your path
> 
> Nothing is going to prevent these types of stupidity


I thought primary position prevents left hooks? 



Arjimlad said:


> Part of my reasoning for putting on some bright clothing or a Sam Browne belt, is not wishing to give any negligent drivers an easy cop-out if I should be unfortunate enough to come a cropper.


Yet, you're comfortable with helping to give any negligent drivers an easy copy-out if ANYONE ELSE is unfortunate enough to come a cropper? 



Ajax Bay said:


> If you had a teenager who sought your advice (maybe your child or another's), would you recommend that they dress themselves generally in dull drab coloured clothing (let's allow black to be a colour for this purpose) or would you recommend that they consider and wear a brighter top and socks (say).



Rather than burden them with complicated DOs and DON'Ts and keeping a wardrobe of special-purpose clothes, I'd recommend that they just get on their bikes and ride.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmdqAfmTlzo




Ajax Bay said:


> But I do think that, on the balance of probability and rationality, that the less visible cyclists are generally the more will get hit


Any evidence for that? We certainly seem to be regaled with plenty of stories of cyclists wearing hi-viz and Christmas decorations who have been hit - could it be some motorists think "ah, they're an experienced cyclist, they'll be used to avoiding motorists" whereas they wouldn't chance it with the stereotypical hoodie ninja kerb-hopper on a beat-up BMX?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Feb 2016)

Hi-Viz pro's? None - if they aren't looking they won't see you and you only need to worry about the ones who aren't looking cos the ones who are looking will see you, even if you are a ninja (NO. It does not increase the odds of an inattentive driver seeing you. Nothing does)
Hi-Viz con's? Loads - normalisation of PPE equipment for riding a bike; a nonsense. You look like a space lemon; a nonsense. You increase the perception that cycling is a dangerous activity undertaken by eccentric people in eccentric clothing; an utter nonsense. Et cetera.

Hi-Viz doth offend mine eye.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Feb 2016)

and it is getting worse. Nearly a year in 'sunny' Scandinavia and the only people in hi-viz on bikes are British Ex-pat Hi-viz fetishists.

mind you space lemon torso and arms is a popular look with runners hereabouts. I prefer all black, but can roll with a sky blue with fluorescent zips/details if I must, when on two legs.


----------



## Tim Hall (1 Feb 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Hi-Viz pro's? None - if they aren't looking they won't see you and you only need to worry about the ones who aren't looking cos the ones who are looking will see you, even if you are a ninja (NO. It does not increase the odds of an inattentive driver seeing you. Nothing does)
> Hi-Viz con's? Loads - normalisation of PPE equipment for riding a bike; a nonsense. You look like a space lemon; a nonsense. You increase the perception that cycling is a dangerous activity undertaken by eccentric people in eccentric clothing; an utter nonsense. Et cetera.
> 
> Hi-Viz doth offend mine eye.


El Grumpo has it nailed.


----------



## growingvegetables (1 Feb 2016)

Origamist said:


> Interestingly, a recent study in the UK found the opposite. I have quoted the abstract's conclusion:
> 
> *The use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and the risk of crashes involving other road users: a population based case-control study*


Thank you - if frightening in its backing for this anecdotal. 

Assess your risks in your environment. Which is the greater risk? 

- *Not being seen early*, by competent and courteous drivers (the huge majority), who will give the space you need, even when they see you a bit later?
- *Being seen by nobbers;* being thought of as "protected" and "safe"; and therefore a "fair target" for a well-aimed close pass?


----------



## Smokin Joe (1 Feb 2016)

So many people are wearing high viz now that any use it may have had has long passed, it has become just another visual item people are so used to coming across that it fades into the general surroundings. Rather like daytime running lights should their use ever become widespread.


----------



## biggs682 (1 Feb 2016)

biggs682 said:


> you are right no matter how lit up you are some dum ass drivers still like to scrape the skin of your elbow



this is the hi viz i wear complete with lights

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/J2X-Fitne...Top-Hi-/171923511437?var=&hash=item6d9fe37c9b


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Feb 2016)

Smokin Joe said:


> So many people are wearing high viz now that any use it may have had has long passed, it has become just another visual item people are so used to coming across that it fades into the general surroundings. Rather like daytime running lights should their use ever become widespread.


Urban camouflage?


----------



## jonny jeez (1 Feb 2016)

User said:


> Which is all well and good, until not wearing one is seen as negligence


i suspect, unofficially, we are already there.


----------



## jonny jeez (1 Feb 2016)

Smokin Joe said:


> So many people are wearing high viz now that any use it may have had has long passed, it has become just another visual item people are so used to coming across that it fades into the general surroundings. Rather like daytime running lights should their use ever become widespread.


I hear that a fair bit but dont actually think its true. In the dark its useless but in the rain or that magic light early in the morning (opposite of twighlight) it really stands out. even in town ...at the above times...it stands out well.


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Feb 2016)

mjray said:


> And when was your last eye test?




People like you have this notion that if you have poor or restricted eye sight you either shouldn't be driving, or people with bad eye sight don't exist.


----------



## mjr (2 Feb 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> People like you have this notion that if you have poor or restricted eye sight you either shouldn't be driving, or people with bad eye sight don't exist.


Well they shouldn't! I know people with poor eyesight exist because I can't see well enough to drive without glasses. It is rightly a requirement to be able to see well enough to drive and we should disqualify those who can't, including those who won't wear their prescribed glasses, not make everyone else dress funny.

I noticed you didn't answer when your last eye test was...


----------



## Brandane (2 Feb 2016)

mjray said:


> It is rightly a requirement to be able to see well enough to drive and we should disqualify those who can't


The legal eyesight standard for driving is a joke. 
I went for my latest sight test last October, and according to the Optician, my eyesight WITHOUT glasses is ok for driving. I found that incredible as I wouldn't dream of going out on the road without corrected vision.
My contact lenses are +2.25 for the left eye, and +1.75 for the right. That sounds like bad eyesight to me, but apparently I can legally go out on public roads in a 44 tonne lorry without glasses or contacts!


----------



## Drago (3 Feb 2016)

It is possible to have tunnel vision that is so bad that you'd be clinically classified as blind and still pass the number plate test.

My Missus is blind in one eye and still drives. Hell, you can legally fly a Jumbo jet with only one working eye. Her insurance didn't go up, the accident stats don't evidence any greater risk.


----------



## RoubaixCube (3 Feb 2016)

User said:


> I got a set of the Ortlieb Hi Viz panniers... in black.
> 
> But wait until it's dark and a light hits them - they are *very* visible.



they also cost £142 just for *one*. Personally I would rather just get cheaper panniers and either try to attach more lighting or reflective strips to them.

but fair play to you if you prefer the quality of Ortlieb's


----------



## Accy cyclist (3 Feb 2016)

mjray said:


> Well they shouldn't! I know people with poor eyesight exist because I can't see well enough to drive without glasses. It is rightly a requirement to be able to see well enough to drive and we should disqualify those who can't, including those who won't wear their prescribed glasses, not make everyone else dress funny.
> 
> I noticed you didn't answer when your last eye test was...



My last eye test was about 10 months ago. I mentioned restricted eye sight because i can't see out my right eye, yet i'm perfectly legal to drive. Man in black or grey coming at me from the right stands less chance than fluoro man. I'm presuming you thought i was on about those who wont wear glasses out of vanity or something?


----------



## Katherine (3 Feb 2016)

As said above, it's not just about being seen, it's being seen early enough to give the driver time to process and react. I wear a mixture of bright colours with some reflective additions. I've been told that when I wear my Sam Brown belt, people see me a lot earlier. 
Still had a few close calls and near misses but always in the daytime.


----------



## Levo-Lon (3 Feb 2016)

My mother still drives after loseing one eye to cancer..its the left , the left side of her car has parking damage ,i dont think she should drive..my eyesight is poor withought glasses..i would struggle to drive at night without specs ..

pet hate of mine is unlit cyclists and pedestrians in dark clothing..give us half a chance to see you ffs


----------



## Julia9054 (3 Feb 2016)

Brandane said:


> The legal eyesight standard for driving is a joke.
> I went for my latest sight test last October, and according to the Optician, my eyesight WITHOUT glasses is ok for driving. I found that incredible as I wouldn't dream of going out on the road without corrected vision.
> My contact lenses are +2.25 for the left eye, and +1.75 for the right. That sounds like bad eyesight to me, but apparently I can legally go out on public roads in a 44 tonne lorry without glasses or contacts!


Me too. (+2.25 &+1.00) Terrifying, isn't it!


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Feb 2016)

Smokin Joe said:


> So many people are wearing high viz now that any use it may have had has long passed, it has become just another visual item people are so used to coming across that it fades into the general surroundings. Rather like daytime running lights should their use ever become widespread.



That is so easy to disprove but is another one of those anti viz vest lines that is thrown out all the time as part of an arguement without any thought.

If they "fade into the general surroundings" how do you know they are there? With that reasoning people may have stopped using them and you wouldnt know.

In reality, people who dont wear them blend into the general surroundings.

But it is their free choice to wear them or not. Neither group should be critisised for their choice.


----------



## Sara_H (3 Feb 2016)

It's very simple. There is no evidence that high viz increases cyclists safety. There is anecdotal evidence that in some circimstances (low lying sun) it can make cyclists less safe.
There is some evidence that retro reflectives can improve cyclist visibility.

With this in mind - make your choice. I don't wear hi viz because I tend to dress for the destination rather than the journey. I have a retro reflective thing in my pannier that I can slip on over my clothing if I foind myself cycling in dark clothing at night.


----------



## Drago (3 Feb 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> But it is their free choice to wear them or not. Neither group should be critisised for their choice.


This is true. I would not criticise someone for simply making a choice.

However, when someone makes a choice based upon a particular belief, and all attempts to try and prove or uphold that belief have been scientific failures, then that belief becomes akin to Sun worship, or a Flat Earth, then I think we're similarly entitled to point out to people that they're simply wrong. 

Not everyone is as well balanced as you Stevie, and many will put blind faith in hi vis in the belief it makes the safer. That is simply a faulty premise, and reliance on such a belief to keep themselves safe could actually further endanger the person, so it's actually in their best interests that we inform them.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2016)

Katherine said:


> As said above, it's not just about being seen, it's being seen early enough to give the driver time to process and react. I wear a mixture of bright colours with some reflective additions. I've been told that when I wear my Sam Brown belt, people see me a lot earlier.
> Still had a few close calls and near misses but always in the daytime.


QED. Attentive drivers who are looking see you, regardless of what you wear. Inattentive drivers who are not looking don't see you, regardless of what you wear.

Who needs to change their behaviour? The cyclists who don't wear space lemon or the inattentive drivers who can't be arsed to look.

And as to the 'early enough to process and react' , that logic is so flawed in the real world as to be a matter of 'oi way!'


----------



## mjr (3 Feb 2016)

Brandane said:


> The legal eyesight standard for driving is a joke.


It is very weak and I think it should be tightened but I remember from my brief spell in that range that I could still identify a person whether or not they were wearing a hi-viz Yellow Star.



Accy cyclist said:


> Man in black or grey coming at me from the right stands less chance than fluoro man.


But still enough chance?



Accy cyclist said:


> I'm presuming you thought i was on about those who wont wear glasses out of vanity or something?


No, I don't much care why someone's eyesight falls below the required standard.



Katherine said:


> As said above, it's not just about being seen, it's being seen early enough to give the driver time to process and react.


Early enough, but not so early that they process you before they can process enough the surrounding environment, else when they process that, they may dismiss you as already-dealt-with and their adjustment to deal with what else they noticed may put you back at risk.



Katherine said:


> I wear a mixture of bright colours with some reflective additions. I've been told that when I wear my Sam Brown belt, people see me a lot earlier.
> Still had a few close calls and near misses but always in the daytime.


Which is consistent with reflectives helping a bit at night (but I still feel you can put enough on the cycle) but not in the daytime and bright colours never helping!



meta lon said:


> pet hate of mine is unlit cyclists and pedestrians in dark clothing..give us half a chance to see you ffs


Do you rant about all those black/grey lampposts, dull brick buildings, kerbstones, roads, trees, fences, hedges? Would you really like to see http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2007/12/...council-paint-everything-else-luminous-green/ become reality? 



steveindenmark said:


> But it is their free choice to wear them or not. Neither group should be critisised for their choice.


You mean not post trash like:


steveindenmark said:


> You should tell that to the woman in black who walks her black dog a 5 am in a village near me.
> 
> If she carries on doing it she will be so cool. In a fridge.
> 
> I cant understand people who put vanity before safety.



?

But I don't really agree. I think the lemons should be criticised for their deeds supporting the motoring lobby in their quest to transfer responsibility to EVERYTHING ELSE for the death and destruction that substandard motorists inflict on our country every single day. Stop being complicit in their externalisation: just dress in ordinary clothes and push for motoring to be modified to address its problems.

Act now, before wearing ordinary clothes is seen as a radical protest


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2016)

mjray said:


> But I don't really agree. I think the lemons should be criticised for their deeds supporting the motoring lobby in their quest to transfer responsibility to EVERYTHING ELSE for the death and destruction that substandard motorists inflict on our country every single day. Stop being complicit in their externalisation: just dress in ordinary clothes and push for motoring to be modified to address its problems.
> 
> Act now, before wearing ordinary clothes is seen as a radical protest


^This.


----------



## RoubaixCube (3 Feb 2016)

User said:


> Not sure where you're looking but they're £142 per pair on Wiggle. You can get them cheaper via Amazon.



My bad - I was looking around for a price - saw a picture of two but thought it was only for illustrative purposes. I didnt actually realise they came in a pair. £142 for a pair is too expensive but for £100 its within the average price imo. my Altura Urban 20's cost me somewhere between £35-45 each. I think i bought the first one for £35 on sale then more for a second one was i was prepping for a long ride that never happened.


----------



## summerdays (3 Feb 2016)

RoubaixCube said:


> My bad - I was looking around for a price - saw a picture of two but thought it was only for illustrative purposes. I didnt actually realise they came in a pair. £142 for a pair is too expensive but for £100 its within the average price imo. my Altura Urban 20's cost me somewhere between £35-45 each. I think i bought the first one for £35 on sale then more for a second one was i was prepping for a long ride that never happened.


For me I spent £40 one a basic not fancy name pannier set when I first returned to cycling 8 years ago, which lasted a year. Then I paid about £80 for a pair of Ortliebs which are still going strong all those years later.... Based on number of days usage they are the cheaper pair!


----------



## Levo-Lon (3 Feb 2016)

Do you rant about all those black/grey lampposts, dull brick buildings, kerbstones, roads, trees, fences, hedges? Would you really like to see http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2007/12/...council-paint-everything-else-luminous-green/ become reality? 

It wasnt a rant..i just think dark unlit road and no lights or anything refective..
i dont care if they don want to be seen but they ruin the car when you kill them..
If i ever see a house lamp post tree or fooking kerb wandering in the road ill let you know..


----------



## Sara_H (3 Feb 2016)

meta lon said:


> My mother still drives after loseing one eye to cancer..its the left , the left side of her car has parking damage ,i dont think she should drive..my eyesight is poor withought glasses..i would struggle to drive at night without specs ..
> 
> pet hate of mine is unlit cyclists and pedestrians in dark clothing..give us half a chance to see you ffs


Are you allowed to drive with only one eye? Has she notified the DVLA?


----------



## Drago (3 Feb 2016)

Yes, you can drive with one eye. My Missus does, all declared, checked by a dvla appointed doctor and legal. She actually has 2 eyes, but only one functions. As aforementioned by myself, her insurance didn't rise, so the insurers don't regard it as an elevated "risk", though she was a police Advanced, response, pursuit, and TPAC driver in heyday, so she's better qualified than most advanced driver trainers.


----------



## summerdays (3 Feb 2016)

Sara_H said:


> Are you allowed to drive with only one eye? Has she notified the DVLA?


Yes my friend lost his to cancer many years ago, and was allowed to drive subsequently until he lost the big battle. He found his depth perception wasn't as good but that his brain adapted to help.


----------



## Drago (3 Feb 2016)

Depth perception, and the missus finds she "whites out" more in heavy rain, fog, snow etc, so she won't risk driving in poor conditions.


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Feb 2016)

Sara_H said:


> Are you allowed to drive with only one eye? Has she notified the DVLA?


BiL has only had sight in one eye since he was born and drives ok. I think you learn to compensate and he has never hit a cyclist, unlike some of those tits with 20/20 vision.


----------



## mjr (3 Feb 2016)

meta lon said:


> If i ever see a house lamp post tree or fooking kerb wandering in the road ill let you know..


Been quite a few trees and at least one lamppost wandering into the road during the last few weeks around here...


----------



## Drago (3 Feb 2016)

I like it when it snows and the ditches in the local forest jump out at the Bimmer drivers. I charge a tenner a go to tow them out, proceeds to charidee.


----------



## Levo-Lon (3 Feb 2016)

mjray said:


> Been quite a few trees and at least one lamppost wandering into the road during the last few weeks around here...




I know lol


----------



## Tim Hall (3 Feb 2016)

Brandane said:


> The legal eyesight standard for driving is a joke.
> I went for my latest sight test last October, and according to the Optician, my eyesight WITHOUT glasses is ok for driving. I found that incredible as I wouldn't dream of going out on the road without corrected vision.
> My contact lenses are +2.25 for the left eye, and +1.75 for the right. That sounds like bad eyesight to me, but apparently I can legally go out on public roads in a 44 tonne lorry without glasses or contacts!





Julia9054 said:


> Me too. (+2.25 &+1.00) Terrifying, isn't it!



But doesn't having a positive number on your prescription mean that you're farsighted, so seeing things in the distance (eg other road users) won't be a problem without glasses, it's seeing things close up (speedeometer for example) where it gets tricky. I'm short sighted, so can see my dashboard but not beyond the end of the bonnet.


----------



## Julia9054 (3 Feb 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> But doesn't having a positive number on your prescription mean that you're farsighted, so seeing things in the distance (eg other road users) won't be a problem without glasses, it's seeing things close up (speedeometer for example) where it gets tricky. I'm short sighted, so can see my dashboard but not beyond the end of the bonnet.


You are right. I meant to write minus. I have been short sighted since I was a child.
Unfortunately I am starting now to become farsighted as well.


----------



## Tim Hall (3 Feb 2016)

Julia9054 said:


> You are right. I meant to write minus. I have been short sighted since I was a child.
> *Unfortunately I am starting now to become farsighted* as well.


Same here. I think you mean your arms are becoming too short.


----------



## Ajax Bay (3 Feb 2016)

User said:


> Disprove the peer reviewed academic research... and that's just one paper that questions the effectiveness of hi viz in many settings.


Looking at the abstract conclusions (pasted below, thanks for the link), the thrust is that riders should consider the environment they are riding in (crowded urban/inter urban/rural) if they seek to increase their 'conspicuity'. I agree with that, but you then jump to suggesting that it "questions the effectiveness of hi viz in many settings" whereas my take is that the study can be used to support some brightly coloured clothing and some reflective logos and stripes to help cyclist conspicuity in many settings. The paper also suggests that if drivers are expecting cyclists/bikers (what is a PTW? btw) then they'll see them better. No; really?

*"CONCLUSIONS: *
"The conspicuity of a PTW can be increased by using an appropriate rider's outfit that distinguishes him/her from the background scenery. Thus, PTW riders can actively increase their conspicuity by taking into account the driving route (crowded urban/inter urban), eventually increasing the probability of being detected by the other road users. In addition, increasing the alertness and expectancy of drivers to the presence of PTWs can increase their search conspicuity."


----------



## Brandane (3 Feb 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> But doesn't having a positive number on your prescription mean that you're farsighted, so seeing things in the distance (eg other road users) won't be a problem without glasses, it's seeing things close up (speedeometer for example) where it gets tricky. I'm short sighted, so can see my dashboard but not beyond the end of the bonnet.


I need glasses for both! Originally it was just for reading, but now need them for driving too, especially at night. What a difference ten years makes; I used to have great sight - then I discovered computer screens .


----------



## mjr (4 Feb 2016)

PTW is powered two wheeler, aka motorcycle.


----------



## Tin Pot (4 Feb 2016)

The colour of your clothing does not make one ounce of difference to your safety.


----------



## Ajax Bay (4 Feb 2016)

Is safety measured in 'ounces'? What about the hue (ie light/dark) of one's clothing? Surely you've driven up behind someone in poor light conditions and thought "he/she's a bit dark - some lighter hue clothing would have allowed me to see him/her more easily/earlier".


----------



## mjr (4 Feb 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Surely you've driven up behind someone in poor light conditions and thought "he/she's a bit dark - some lighter hue clothing would have allowed me to see him/her more easily/earlier".


No, but rather than blaming others, I have sometimes thought "ah, time to put my headlights on"


----------



## Drago (4 Feb 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Is safety measured in 'ounces'? What about the hue (ie light/dark) of one's clothing? Surely you've driven up behind someone in poor light conditions and thought "he/she's a bit dark - some lighter hue clothing would have allowed me to see him/her more easily/earlier".


unfortunately, science has failed to prove this. What seems "common sense" does not translate to numbers, and regardless of what anyone may "think" that is the bottom line.

Obviously, avoid tones and patterns that could act camouflage in the riding environment, but beyond that you're no safer in a high visibility garment than you are in, say, a Led Zeppelin T shirt, a tweed jacket and deer stalker, or a sequined ball gown. 

Despite many, many studies to try and prove the link, zero correlation between user safety and high vis garments has been discovered. That seems simple enough for me.


----------



## Ajax Bay (4 Feb 2016)

mjray said:


> I have sometimes thought "ah, time to put my headlights on



I run with headlights on all the time, not to see by but to be seen. This is/was standard practice (even required by law, not sure) in Norway and Sweden. And it allows other motorists and cyclists to see you "more easily/earlier" - recognise the phrase?. On my bike I can 'see' cars behind earlier if they have their lights on as my front wheel rim (with a bit of polish) reflects the headlights up to my line of sight.


----------



## Drago (4 Feb 2016)

There is evidence from several studies (the most notable by Suzuki, who were looking into motorcycle safety) that driving with headlamps on in good visibility actually makes you more likely to have a smack, as it breaks up your outline to incoming observers, which deprives their brains of the datum required to calculate your speed. Therefore, only use your headlights when you require them to see by, which is their function after all.

There is also no evidence that DRLs have any positive impact upon accident rates anywhere in Europe apart from the northern Scandinavian countries.

Again, what seems like a great idea for safety just doesn't work in practice. I'm all for safety gadgets, gizmos and practices, where there is proper information to reasonably suggest they actually work, and that they don't have any detrimental side effects like daytime headlight usage does.


----------



## mjr (4 Feb 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> I run with headlights on all the time, not to see by but to be seen. This is/was standard practice (even required by law, not sure) in Norway and Sweden. And it allows other motorists and cyclists to see you "more easily/earlier" - recognise the phrase?


I recognise the phrase... as the last resort of a motoring lobby fellow-traveller, appealing to mistaken intuition despite the evidence to which @Drago alludes. I put my lights on when they help me to see and I don't have any illusion that they can make me "be seen" (which is a silly concept, if you stop to think about it).


----------



## Levo-Lon (4 Feb 2016)

motorcycle twin front lights can look like a car in the distance in a rear view mirror at night..drivers just have a quick glance and assume or think its a car..
then its right behind them after changing lane..
i do think the single headlight low beam is safer at night until the bulb blows lol


----------



## Tin Pot (4 Feb 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Is safety measured in 'ounces'? What about the hue (ie light/dark) of one's clothing? Surely you've driven up behind someone in poor light conditions and thought "he/she's a bit dark - some lighter hue clothing would have allowed me to see him/her more easily/earlier".



It doesn't make any difference at all.

Not one ounce, gramme, bit, iota, atom.

Forget your "common sense" and "intuition" and rely on facts.


----------



## Ajax Bay (4 Feb 2016)

Facts are, as we've seen, in rather short supply. The various studies quoted are relatively inconclusive and seem to be enlisted, on this forum, in favour of the 'do nothing, some drivers don't look anyway, let's just hope, if too many people wear hi-viz they'll make it law' chapter (see example contributors above). I can't help thinking that those who think it's worth trying to be more visible on a bike have given up on this thread because they know that 'you' are not going to give up repeating your mantras. But after yesterday's 110km (wearing a black and white rain jacket, reflective stripes on my bib tights and overboots and dispalying a flashing rear light), I'm inspired to have one more effort.

Do you also think that it's a waste of time trying to increase one's conspicuity by displaying a rear flashing red light? Why have cars got brake lights? In dull conditions one can see a car from behind more easily if their rear lights are on. Or do you think that's not true either? Does one not see the rear of emergency and highway maintenance vehicles more easily by their general adoption of yellow/orange/red diagonal stripes?

Do you think that females feel differently about this subject (effort to increase conspicuity), being daughters, mothers, wives and sisters, and therefore, perhaps, more sensitive to the "common sense and intuition", whether based on facts or not, of their loved ones?


----------



## Drago (4 Feb 2016)

Conspicuous by the display of lighting is a different scientific area of human behaviour, and is neither relevent or analogous to our discussion about hi vis garments.


----------



## mjr (4 Feb 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Do you also think that it's a waste of time trying to increase one's conspicuity by displaying a rear flashing red light?


Yes. CTC were right about rear red lights in the 1940s. Flashing rear reds are even more folly because they're not on at some times when a substandard motorist may glance towards you.



Ajax Bay said:


> Why have cars got brake lights?


To save their drivers from flapping their arm out the window.



Ajax Bay said:


> In dull conditions one can see a car from behind more easily if their rear lights are on. Or do you think that's not true either?


It depends but usually not in merely dull conditions (rather than darkness).



Ajax Bay said:


> Does one not see the rear of emergency and highway maintenance vehicles more easily by their general adoption of yellow/orange/red diagonal stripes?


No, the now-painfully-bright flashing blue/amber lights are far more the reason why they're seen, not the near-dazzle patterns they put on those vehicles now.



Ajax Bay said:


> Do you think that females feel differently about this subject (effort to increase conspicuity), being daughters, mothers, wives and sisters, and therefore, perhaps, more sensitive to the "common sense and intuition", whether based on facts or not, of their loved ones?


No. Some people seem more susceptible to social pressure to conform despite lack of evidence that it helps, though.


----------



## mustang1 (4 Feb 2016)

Gatso cameras went grey for a short time while the motoring industry backlashed. Now they are yellow are far more visible. 

Traffic police wear yellow.

That's good enough for me. If one doesn't want to look like a cyclist when off the bike (who does?) Then just take the jacket off and into a bag. I saw a YouTube video recently comparing different jackets and lights combo and the yellow stood out by a country mile.


----------



## Drago (4 Feb 2016)

But most interestingly, the police who deal with the most dangerous tactical road encounters wear black, and they haven't endured an elevated casualty rate as a consequence.

Regular dibble, lollipop ladies Gatsos all wear hi vis, but not because of any science that says they will be more easily noticed, but because "common sense" tells us so.

Prevailing wisdom also tells us that noise causes avalanches, that big people lose fights more easily (the harder they fall), and that red sky at night bodes good weather, yet none of these things are true.

If I choose to do something for the purposes of safety I do it because there is some science to prove it, not simply because everyone says so. It's attitudes like that which saw people sacrificing goats to the gods because the perceived wisdom at the time was that it worked, not because science said so. If you think a mediaeval mind set when approaching such matters is in anyway helpful then be my guest...


----------



## mjr (4 Feb 2016)

mustang1 said:


> Gatso cameras went grey for a short time while the motoring industry backlashed. Now they are yellow are far more visible.


Yet abroad, they paint them bright colours for the opposite reason:





mustang1 said:


> If one doesn't want to look like a cyclist when off the bike (who does?) Then just take the jacket off and into a bag.


Yeah, sure, I'll buy and wear special clothes and carry extra luggage to store it when not on the bike... right after motorists are made to do that with fireproof overalls, as that would save more lives.



mustang1 said:


> I saw a YouTube video recently comparing different jackets and lights combo and the yellow stood out by a country mile.


Wouldn't happen to have had some sort of financial interest in their sales, would it?


----------



## mjr (4 Feb 2016)

Drago said:


> But most interestingly, the police who deal with the most dangerous tactical road encounters wear black, and they haven't endured an elevated casualty rate as a consequence.


I think the crash scene I passed yesterday was attended by police in black (with some blue and white details), firemen in their customary mustard (with some yellow, white and red details) and only the paramedics wearing conventional-looking hi-viz.


----------



## Ajax Bay (4 Feb 2016)

@Drago has pointed out that lighting contributions to conspicuity (the state or quality of being readily visible, easily seen or noticed OR attracting special attention, as by outstanding qualities (eg lighting of cycles)) are off thread. But here goes.

@mjray CTC [said in the 1940s that] rear red lights did not help conspicuity [in daylight]. Consider power of the lights in those days cf today]. “Flashing rear reds are even more folly because they're not on at some times when a substandard motorist may glance towards you.” This seems to acknowledge that if a motorist glances towards you when the light is in the ‘flash’part of its cycle *they will see you better*. The dwell time of a driver’s vision at the road ahead is (imo) longer than the ‘off’ phase of a flashing rear light.

Why have cars got brake lights? “To save their drivers from flapping their arm out the window.” Suggest it’s to highlight to those following that the vehicle(s) (several or directly) ahead are braking/slowing down - this helps road safety. Cf cyclist action on a club run approaching a ‘give way’ junction: helps those behind.

Assertion: In dull conditions one can see a car from behind more easily if their rear lights are on. Or do you think that's not true either? “It depends but usually not in merely dull conditions (rather than darkness).” So you think rear lights on a vehicle are normally not worth using except during ‘lighting up time’.

Assertion: Does one not see the rear of emergency and highway maintenance vehicles more easily by their general adoption of yellow/orange/red diagonal stripes? “No”. So why do many (emergency) service providers paint their vehicles thus (suggestion: so they are more conspicuous when the (blue/orange) lights are not on.



Drago said:


> If I choose to do something for the purposes of safety I do it because there is some science to prove it, not simply because everyone says so.


I partially agree with this sentiment but life is not as black and white as that (well not for me and many others). If I get caught by a nasty smash while riding, I don't want some sets of friends/relatives/children thinking 'if only he'd been a bit more visible maybe he wouldn't have been hit in that incident'. And I do think that drivers see me more easily, so that makes me more comfortable and confident when riding.

I assume @Drago you choose not to wear a helmet using the same rationale.


----------



## Ajax Bay (4 Feb 2016)

I like Skol said:


> Indeed they do.....


----------



## mjr (4 Feb 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> CTC [said in the 1940s that] rear red lights did not help conspicuity *[in daylight]*


I love the sound of goalposts being moved...


Ajax Bay said:


> Do you also think that it's a waste of time trying to increase one's conspicuity by displaying a rear flashing red light?


I think it's a waste of time trying to discuss this with you if the reply is going to be a load of Aunt Sally and retconning the questions to change the meanings of the answers.



Ajax Bay said:


> If I get caught by a nasty smash while riding, I don't want some sets of friends/relatives/children thinking 'if only he'd been a bit more visible maybe he wouldn't have been hit in that incident'.


It's a shame you think your friends/relatives/children to be that stupid.



Ajax Bay said:


> And I do think that drivers see me more easily, so that makes me more comfortable and confident when riding.


Risk compensation in action


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> I partially agree with this sentiment but life is not as black and white as that (well not for me and many others). If I get caught by a nasty smash while riding, I don't want some sets of friends/relatives/children thinking 'if only he'd been a bit more visible maybe he wouldn't have been hit in that incident'. And I do think that drivers see me more easily, so that makes me more comfortable and confident when riding.


So why try to argue a rational case when the root of your decision to space lemon is an emotional one?
I have no problem with your emotional argument, I would have a problem with you applying it to others in an attempt to make them 'safer''.

As for me; I've educated tlh and all that love me that if I'm killed by a nobber driver, whilst unhelmeted and dressed in black merino, she is/they are not to entertain any sort of victim blaming thinking aka "if onlybollox" but to put the blame fairly and squarely on the person operating the heavy machinery in close proximity to a more vulnerable road user until such time as said nobber proves conclusively that either I was intent on suicide or they were driving at an acceptable standard.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (4 Feb 2016)

In broad daylight this morning I was driving with sidelights on a straight country road in my bright red car.
The young lady in the Clio coming the other way still smashed bits of my door mirror 50 yards.

If they don't look they don't see.


----------



## Ajax Bay (4 Feb 2016)

mjray said:


> I think it's a waste of time trying to discuss this with you if the reply is going to be a load of Aunt Sally and retconning the questions to change the meanings of the answers.


Well why are you discussing it then. 'Fraid do not recognise 'retconning' but will assume it's complementary.


mjray said:


> It's a shame you think your friends/relatives/children to be that stupid.


There's no shame in considering the feelings of relatives/friends and it's generally considered to be civilised to do so. Just because their understanding may not be backed up by established data/evidence doesn't equate to stupidity.

@GrumpyGregry Good to see your enduring 'space lemon' sound bite come out once again. I have not advocated hi-viz jackets but suggested that lighter, brighter upper clothing and reflective stripes are worth wearing in dull conditions, if one has a choice, and to consider such factors when buying clothing.
With regard to 'blame' whether you like it, even when there is 100% responsibility eg a driver rear ending you or pulling in on you when they've not made sure the road is clear, far enough to pass (had this by a coach only yesterday, I was doing 25 in a 40 limit approaching a village and a 30 sign - I caught him up and in the hearing of his passengers suggested he was not a credit to his company), many will attribute some albeit small part of the blame to the cyclist if they can, and "dressed in black merino" ninja invisibility clothing gives them a handle. Worth avoiding.
Nice view from the col of Slochd btw.


----------



## Tin Pot (4 Feb 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Facts are, as we've seen, in rather short supply. The various studies quoted are relatively inconclusive and seem to be enlisted, on this forum, in favour of the 'do nothing, some drivers don't look anyway, let's just hope, if too many people wear hi-viz they'll make it law' chapter (see example contributors above). I can't help thinking that those who think it's worth trying to be more visible on a bike have given up on this thread because they know that 'you' are not going to give up repeating your mantras. But after yesterday's 110km (wearing a black and white rain jacket, reflective stripes on my bib tights and overboots and dispalying a flashing rear light), I'm inspired to have one more effort.
> 
> Do you also think that it's a waste of time trying to increase one's conspicuity by displaying a rear flashing red light? Why have cars got brake lights? In dull conditions one can see a car from behind more easily if their rear lights are on. Or do you think that's not true either? Does one not see the rear of emergency and highway maintenance vehicles more easily by their general adoption of yellow/orange/red diagonal stripes?
> 
> Do you think that females feel differently about this subject (effort to increase conspicuity), being daughters, mothers, wives and sisters, and therefore, perhaps, more sensitive to the "common sense and intuition", whether based on facts or not, of their loved ones?



Your post is a great example of everything I stand against. Take heart in that the masses agree with you.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Feb 2016)

mjray said:


> I think the crash scene I passed yesterday was attended by police in black (with some blue and white details), firemen in their customary mustard (with some yellow, white and red details) and only the paramedics wearing conventional-looking hi-viz.



Have you noticed how the plod always reach for their high viz jackets as they get out the car before approaching a crash scene? The "some yellow"on the fireman clothing is fluorescent yellow, with reflective strips on that fluoro yellow.


----------



## mjr (4 Feb 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> Have you noticed how the plod always reach for their high viz jackets as they get out the car before approaching a crash scene?


Well, they hadn't yesterday. They really were wearing the black that our local police usually wear, even on cycle patrol.



Accy cyclist said:


> The "some yellow"on the fireman clothing is fluorescent yellow, with reflective strips on that fluoro yellow.


I can't say if the white was reflective because it was about 3pm and the sun wasn't behind me, but if it was fluoro yellow then it had been washed so often it no longer fluoresced.

I had a quick browse of their website but it seems to show mostly firemen in black uniforms with white reflective strips, sometimes with hi-viz yellow or red jackets over that, but that definitely wasn't what they were wearing yesterday. I'm not sure if that's a new uniform they're just introducing or if it's stock photos from elsewhere in England, but they were definitely wearing mustard-colour uniforms yesterday.


----------



## Tim Hall (4 Feb 2016)

User said:


> And no one is allowed outside airside without a hi viz tabard at airports. What does this tell us?


The lemon yellow is a strong colour and can repel aircraft?


----------



## mustang1 (4 Feb 2016)

mjray said:


> Yet abroad, they paint them bright colours for the opposite reason:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those cameras abroad are not just painted in bright colours, but bright colours with a certain pattern. This mocked the ships in world war 2 which also had a similar pattern to aid camaflouge. 

I brought up the point about gatso cameras being in yellow to point out that they are far more visible than grey, not to say anything for or against motorists. 

Iirc, the YouTube video test was from GCN and quite informative!


----------



## growingvegetables (4 Feb 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Is safety measured in 'ounces'? What about the hue (ie light/dark) of one's clothing? Surely you've driven up behind someone in poor light conditions and thought "he/she's a bit dark - some lighter hue clothing would have allowed me to see him/her more easily/earlier".


Yes. You are thinking like a driver. A good driver. But I am not protecting myself against you.

Last night, I rode up York Road (Leeds) behind a guy with a failed rear light battery; dressed in black. And was thoroughly p*$$ed off at the numpties who fast-close-passed me (with GOOD rear lights, and high-vis) ........... while

... the ********s slowed for him. Pulled out for him. Gave him MILES of courteous and safe space.

WTF?*

I don't need to protect myself against good drivers. I DO need to protect myself against idiots who think high-vis confers some magical ability to bounce back from an impact, unhurt!


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Feb 2016)

The CTC stance on lighting and their statements against the introduction of compulsory lighting has often been misunderstood

The objection was the fact that there was a significant change in teh law and the repercussions of this change

The point was that until this point it was the responsibility of the following driver to see the cyclist.... the new legislation changed this completely with the responsibility of the cyclist to be seen


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Feb 2016)

User said:


> Well, I certainly wouldn't want to be run over by an Airbus without a hi viz tabard on.



Can you get a tabard for an AirBus?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> Your post is a great example of everything I stand against. Take heart in that the masses agree with you.


It is only rarely that the Tin Pot and I are in agreement. This is one such occasion.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Well why are you discussing it then. 'Fraid do not recognise 'retconning' but will assume it's complementary.
> 
> There's no shame in considering the feelings of relatives/friends and it's generally considered to be civilised to do so. Just because their understanding may not be backed up by established data/evidence doesn't equate to stupidity.
> 
> ...


Not my soundbite btw. Copyright @theclaud sfaik.

As to the worth avoiding point. Victim blaming. Worth avoiding.

Slochd? I love the downhill to Tomatin.


----------



## theclaud (4 Feb 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Not my soundbite btw. *Copyright @theclaud sfaik.*
> 
> As to the worth avoiding point. Victim blaming. Worth avoiding.
> 
> Slochd? I love the downhill to Tomatin.



Snaffled, in turn, from Ravenbait.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (8 Feb 2016)

Mrs M said:


> In nicer weather if you cycle naked everyone will notice you.
> But you may get "nicked".


Not on the W.N.B.R. 
The only time I have been knocked of my bike I was wearing hi-viz ect, with lights as it was dark, to date I have never been knocked off wearing Red/Green/Grey/Black with White panels ect...... though in winter I ride with spoke reflectors, one on alternate spokes, overshoes have reflective strip (mind you not worn them much this winter) reflective strips on luggage, and lights especially when light is poor and many car drivers don't have their lights on, though really they should.


----------



## classic33 (8 Feb 2016)

Nigelnaturist said:


> *Not on the W.N.B.R. *
> The only time I have been knocked of my bike I was wearing hi-viz ect, with lights as it was dark, to date I have never been knocked off wearing Red/Green/Grey/Black with White panels ect...... though in winter I ride with spoke reflectors, one on alternate spokes, overshoes have reflective strip (mind you not worn them much this winter) reflective strips on luggage, and lights especially when light is poor and many car drivers don't have their lights on, though really they should.


Some Hi-Vis worn on that one in York though.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (9 Feb 2016)

classic33 said:


> Some Hi-Vis worn on that one in York though.


Just looked through last years pics on flickr and counted only one, there may have been a couple more I guess, but none on the group picture.


----------



## EnPassant (7 Jun 2016)

Please forgive the thread necromancy, it's the latest date I can find on the topic.
Following my perusal of the h*lm*t debate (and conversion thereof!) I naturally enough sought this out as logically the next safety question. (Headphones/earphones due up next, though I rarely use them myself).

It seems to me that this debate follows a near identical path to the h*lm*t one by which I mean:
a) Everyone strives to be safer, an aim that is common from both sides
b) There appears to be a conflict between intuition/common sense and such statistical scientific data as exists
c) Emotions are apt to run high (though not as high as for h*lm*ts)
d) There is scope for victim blaming/transference of responsibility from motorist to cyclist
e) Some people somewhere have a vested (ha!) interest in flogging this stuff
e) Possible future compulsion (though less likely at this point than for h*lm*ts as far as i can tell)

I'm sure there is more, but on initial inspection that appears to cover the basics.

I confess, as I was with helmets (to heck with the asterisks), to originally basing my choices upon intuition and received wisdom i.e. the cops wear the stuff, the guys on bulding sites wear it and in some cases are compelled to do so, it looks bright, makes sense to wear it.

I further admit that thus far if my belief is that statistical data and evidence should overrule my basic intuition (it should, but like most I suspect, I still sometime struggle with this) the preponderance after 12 pages (phew, not 250...) is almost exactly the same as for helmets, there is no statiscal data supporting hi vis and much that says it makes no difference. I was wrong, for the right reasons, but wrong nonetheless.

Tangentially, but certainly interesting if one has not seen it is this:

Which is fun to watch regardless of your stance on hi-vis I'd imagine .


----------



## classic33 (7 Jun 2016)

EnPassant said:


> Please forgive the thread necromancy, it's the latest date I can find on the topic.
> Following my perusal of the h*lm*t debate (and conversion thereof!) I naturally enough sought this out as logically the next safety question. (Headphones/earphones due up next, though I rarely use them myself).
> 
> It seems to me that this debate follows a near identical path to the h*lm*t one by which I mean:
> ...



It's becoming too commonplace now, so its lost some of its visibility in the crowd.


----------

