# Tips to Make Yourself Visible



## united4ever (24 Nov 2017)

Not just at night but generally things that will get drivers to see you in a low sun or coming down the road. Hi viz obviously, flashing lights even on a bright day? got knocked off last month at a roundabout because the driver couldn't see me in the low sun. ordered a new bike today but trying to think of ways to mitigate the risk. Going to try to get more accessories in yellow or orange and have my lights flashing day or night. Anything else without turning myself into blackpool illuminations


----------



## Apollonius (24 Nov 2017)

it doesn't make any difference. All the while drivers readily go into places where they cannot see - and they do, you will have no chance if you are there. The only option is not to be in those situations through awareness.


----------



## ianrauk (24 Nov 2017)

I got hit even though I had 2 very bright Hope Vision 1's. Lights don't make a blind bit of difference if the driver isn't paying attention, low sun or not.


----------



## Profpointy (24 Nov 2017)

I genuinely believe in all my near misses and indeed my actual being hit I had been seen perfectly well but driver misjudged or in one case drove at me.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (24 Nov 2017)

Take the lane, ride in primary, assume they have not looked and ride accordingly. Hiviz is the worst thing against the sun, it is the same colour!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (24 Nov 2017)

Wear black, don't use lights, ride no-handed, ride 3 abreast, don't wear a helmet - every fecker sees you and shouts stuff telling you that you are not using/wearing/doing things they think you should/shouldn't


----------



## iancity (24 Nov 2017)

Few years back driving my car I nearly pulled out on a cyclist...it was only the very brief flash of his light at the last minute that made me stop (this was in bright daylight). Completely my fault but ever since I have always had a flashing front light on. From experience, it DOES make a difference


----------



## united4ever (24 Nov 2017)

yeah....thats the trouble...even if you cycle perfectly you have no control over other drivers.

Probably the best step I will take is to extend the off road portion of my ride which is on a canal towpath. There are still a few dodgy roads to get onto it that cannot avoid though


----------



## united4ever (24 Nov 2017)

gonna use the flash on my light every day too.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Nov 2017)

Whether walking or cycling, I am not invisible.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (24 Nov 2017)

I’ve been hit by 3 cars. Foik all to do with judicious driver error. Invisibility is quite obviously my super power. I just keep forgetting to switch it off. My bad.

Oh yeah: Invisibility and being able to whistle with a blade of grass.


----------



## Drago (24 Nov 2017)

Lights or hi vis won't help in a low sun scenario.


----------



## Banjo (24 Nov 2017)

A low sun and I get on the pavement.If I am struggling what hope for Mr Magoo behind a dirty windscreen.


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2017)

Profpointy said:


> I genuinely believe in all my near misses and indeed my actual being hit I had been seen perfectly well but driver misjudged or in one case drove at me.


I agree. This morning I made eye contact with a driver coming onto a roundabout I was preparing to exit, she just floored it and came on narrowly missing me and doing that thing they do trying desperately not to look at me but stare straight ahead with a death grip on the wheel. I think she also got flustered by the experience as she came on in the left hand lane and went right round the roundabout coming off in the fast lane.


----------



## Donger (24 Nov 2017)

Me at London to Brighton Overnight! (Pretty effective reflectives).





I didn't really care how I looked as long as I was seen, but the chequered helmet band may have been a step too far. Riding through Brixton after midnight was an experience. On a couple of separate occasions people shouted "Rozzer!" as I approached unruly crowds of drunks!


----------



## mustang1 (24 Nov 2017)

I've gotta say a hi viz jacket is more visible than flashing lights, at least from the rear. It's not that lights don't have enough intensity, it's that a jacket is very large compared to a light.


----------



## r04DiE (24 Nov 2017)

All you need are good lights, and to take your piece of the road. The hi-viz thing is nonsense.


----------



## boydj (24 Nov 2017)

The most important element of your visibility to motorists is your road positioning. Take a strong position in the lane, at least 4ft from the kerb where the road is wide enough to allow easy overtaking and take the middle of the lane through junctions - motorists emerging look down the middle of the road and easily miss cyclists who are too close to the kerb - and at road narrowings. At lights, stop in the middle of the lane and only move over once it is safe to do so. Good reflectives help in the dark, but you've got to be in a good position for them to be effective.


----------



## mjr (24 Nov 2017)

Drago said:


> Lights or hi vis won't help in a low sun scenario.


Worse than that, they reduce your contrast against the low sun.

As others said, take the lane, dark clothing, no H or H and plenty of motorists will let you know that they've seen you and don't much like sharing the road 

Best way to be visible? Exist. Everything else is just down to whether they bother to look properly.


----------



## Joffey (24 Nov 2017)

If it’s low sun you might be better wearing black, you’ll be a silhouette rather than your hi-vis blending into the sunlight.


----------



## Banjo (24 Nov 2017)

I change my route home from work when low sun lines up with the usual road I take. Seeing a car that had run into a skip and then claimed sun blindness prompted me to be wary.


----------



## snorri (24 Nov 2017)

united4ever said:


> driver couldn't see me in the low sun. ................... trying to think of ways to mitigate the risk.


Get off the road and walk, it's the only way, you can't compete against nature.
I'm reminded of the cartoon featuring a guy with a torch, but this was no normal torch, when the battery went flat this torch emitted darkness so that sunlit areas could be darkened. One day these will be available for cyclists everywhere, maybe.


----------



## mjr (25 Nov 2017)

And you'll need to be a long way off the road: 





source


----------



## summerdays (25 Nov 2017)

There are a couple of occasions when I've taken to the path due to being unable to see ahead myself. It tends to be first thing in the mid winter sun, after a wet night. If I'm struggling to see ahead and therefore going slower than normal then I assume the following car is (except they don't seem to slow down.)

Unfortunately my commute starts with half a mile directly into the low winter sun.


----------



## k_green (25 Nov 2017)

boydj said:


> The most important element of your visibility to motorists is your road positioning. Take a strong position in the lane, at least 4ft from the kerb where the road is wide enough to allow easy overtaking and take the middle of the lane through junctions - motorists emerging look down the middle of the road and easily miss cyclists who are too close to the kerb - and at road narrowings.


I think this is often underestimated as a be seen tactic.


----------



## ColinJ (25 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> And you'll need to be a long way off the road:
> View attachment 384565
> 
> source


My family knew a local driver who killed a grandfather and grandson in a country lane and then his car went through a hedge and ended up like that!

He had form ... He killed a cyclist in a separate 'accident'.


----------



## Banjo (25 Nov 2017)

The very worse thing you can do is constantly keep moving into and out of gaps between parked cars.


----------



## PaulSB (26 Nov 2017)

Solid colour kit can help. I believe the research shows the colour of kit, other than black, doesn’t make much difference but one single block of colour does. 

I have to confess my club kit, while very bright doesn’t conform to this, but if I was buying jerseys I would chose blue or red. For me red stands out above all colours.

It is though impossible to ignore drivers simply don’t see us. Three weeks ago in bright daylight I was 15-20 yards from our road, indicated I would turn left, when my wife pulled up at the junction, stopped, looked and pulled out. I waved at her before and while she pulled out. 

Later she got home and the conversation went like this:

W: “What time did you get home?”
ME: “Same time as you were leaving. I waved at you at the top of the road”
W: “I didn’t see you. Obviously your shirt isn’t bright enough”

I couldn’t believe what I’d heard.

Really you can’t win. For years I’ve been pointing out to my wife how to spot cyclists and how to approach them safely.


----------



## LeetleGreyCells (26 Nov 2017)

I have flashing lights front and back for use during daylight but set on non-flashing at night. A yellow hi-viz jacket and a black helmet for contrast. I also have two reflective bands around each of my calves (just above ankles) as I figure a constantly moving reflector is more noticeable than a stationary one. 

I also treat every other road user like a complete idiot where you never know what they are going to do. *Constant Vigilance!* (and yes, guilty, that is a quote from the Harry Potter books!).


----------



## Katherine (26 Nov 2017)

I think it is important, not only to make your bike stand out with lights and reflective surfaces, but also you as a person, so making your person stand out too makes it easier for other road users to judge your distance and pace. 

A reflective Sam Browne belt is simple addition to make yourself stand out as a cyclist. 

Flashing lights are good to mark out that there is something coming but I can't judge cyclists coming towards me on a shared path if I can't see them or the bike with a solid light or piece of reflective clothing for my lights to catch.


----------



## snorri (26 Nov 2017)

Only yesterday I came across a photo on the 'net of a broken shop window, smashed by a car driven into it. It was a shop selling Workwear and the window display was entirely made of of hi-viz jackets.


----------



## cyberknight (26 Nov 2017)

ianrauk said:


> I got hit even though I had 2 very bright Hope Vision 1's. Lights don't make a blind bit of difference if the driver isn't paying attention, low sun or not.


Indeed
I had my lights on in day time on a white bike, white gilet, white helmet, reflectives,
Driver told the police i should wear more bright stuff.


----------



## theclaud (26 Nov 2017)

I've long hated the visibility arms race, but a few things are converging to make it especially urgent that we halt this madness and start to rein in the Space Lemon™ tendency - firstly the insane brightness of many of the lights now available to commuting cyclists, and secondly the likelihood that the rise of autonomous vehicles will take the form of attempting to create an even more highly-controlled road environment. Retro-reflectives look set to be a big part of this - I liked them at first because they seemed to me to be bucking the yellow high-vis trend and placing the responsibility for seeing what's in one's path on the person charging around with the glaring headlights. I've even got a Pro-Viz 360 jacket, which I liked because it's silvery and inconspicuous except under the lights of approaching vehicles, when it retorts 'Don't even think about pretending not to see me, m**********r.' However I'm going to ditch it once the current winter is out and become more resolutely ninja and lighting-minimalist again. As @mjr says, it's about existing, and demanding that the operators of more dangerous on-road machinery acknowledge your existence.


----------



## alicat (26 Nov 2017)

Cycle with no clothes on. That should get you noticed.

I'll get me cloak of invisibility.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Nov 2017)

cyberknight said:


> Indeed
> I had my lights on in day time on a white bike, white gilet, white helmet, reflectives,
> Driver told the police i should wear more bright stuff.



Did you tell the police the driver should have gone to Specsavers? Maybe an eyesight plus observation test should be compulsory for any driver involved in a crash?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Nov 2017)

united4ever said:


> Not just at night but generally things that will get drivers to see you in a low sun or coming down the road. Hi viz obviously, flashing lights even on a bright day? got knocked off last month at a roundabout because the driver couldn't see me in the low sun. ordered a new bike today but trying to think of ways to mitigate the risk. Going to try to get more accessories in yellow or orange and have my lights flashing day or night. Anything else without turning myself into blackpool illuminations


Hi viz doth offend mine eye


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Nov 2017)

Waste of time.

If they are looking they will see you, therefore your space lemon and lights are wasted.
If they aren't looking they won't see you, no matter how vibrant your space lemon and how bright your lights.


----------



## ianrauk (26 Nov 2017)

On my ride today I passed a group of cyclists, about 7 or 8 of them, everyone of them covered in yellow custard clothing.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Nov 2017)

theclaud said:


> I've long hated the visibility arms race, but a few things are converging to make it especially urgent that we halt this madness and start to rein in the Space Lemon™ tendency - firstly the insane brightness of many of the lights now available to commuting cyclists, and secondly the likelihood that the rise of autonomous vehicles will take the form of attempting to create an even more highly-controlled road environment. Retro-reflectives look set to be a big part of this - I liked them at first because they seemed to me to be bucking the yellow high-vis trend and placing the responsibility for seeing what's in one's path on the person charging around with the glaring headlights. I've even got a Pro-Viz 360 jacket, which I liked because it's silvery and inconspicuous except under the lights of approaching vehicles, when it retorts 'Don't even think about pretending not to see me, m**********r.' However I'm going to ditch it once the current winter is out and become more resolutely ninja and lighting-minimalist again. As @mjr says, it's about existing, and demanding that the operators of more dangerous on-road machinery acknowledge your existence.


I refuse to compromise and act as it somehow it is my responsibility to protect myself from the knobjockey drivers who aren't looking.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Nov 2017)

ianrauk said:


> On my ride today I passed a group of cyclists, about 7 or 8 of them, everyone of them covered in yellow custard clothing.


But how else would you have seen them? I mean it was broad day light, right?


----------



## ianrauk (26 Nov 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> But how else would you have seen them? I mean it was broad day light, right?




It was one big custardly blob...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Nov 2017)

You should have asked them where Rhubarb was.


----------



## Slick (26 Nov 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I refuse to compromise and act as it somehow it is my responsibility to protect myself from the knobjockey drivers who aren't looking.


Yeah, it's everyone else's, right? 

With all the moderating that's currently going on, why is "knobjockey" not on the list of banned words?


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Nov 2017)

Apollonius said:


> it doesn't make any difference.


+1


----------



## jefmcg (26 Nov 2017)

united4ever said:


> couldn't see me in the low sun. [..] Going to try to get more accessories in* yellow or orange*


I'm not sure the best way to deal with the low sun is to dress in sunset camouflage colours 



PaulSB said:


> *I believe* the research shows the colour of kit, other than black, doesn’t make much difference but one single block of colour does.



As this is a safety issue and people might take action based on what they read here, I think we should take responsibility to only quote research we are certain exists. 


RealLeeHimself said:


> I also have two reflective bands around each of my calves (just above ankles) as I figure a constantly moving reflector is more noticeable than a stationary one



There is research to back this idea up. 

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/r...ne-like-a-beacon-at-night-20101016-16odw.html


----------



## oldstrath (26 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> Yeah, it's everyone else's, right?


It's the drivers responsibility to look.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5056593, member: 9609"]after experimenting with a few ideas I also thing a solid block of colour is more visible, below are two images my dash cam picked up as I set off, they were different days so slightly different light but the distance and camera are the same - for me one stands out much better than the other
View attachment 384814
[/QUOTE]

You can easily se a cyclist in both pictures. So in this case no difference.


----------



## Slick (26 Nov 2017)

oldstrath said:


> It's the drivers responsibility to look.


Yeah, I know but I wouldn't bet my life on it.


----------



## snorri (26 Nov 2017)

ianrauk said:


> On my ride today I passed a group of cyclists, about 7 or 8 of them, everyone of them covered in yellow custard clothing.


That type never get a wave from me.
Sorry, off topic.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> Yeah, I know but I wouldn't bet my life on it.


You bet your life on it every time you ride a bike. If you want to kid yourself that dressing up makes a difference to the odds I'll sell you my lucky rabbits foot.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> Yeah, it's everyone else's, right?


Damn right it is everyone else's responsibility, if everyone else is operating a tonne plus of heavy machinery around more vulnerable people. That's why they have be licensed and pass a test whereas cyclists and pedestrians use the roads as of right.


----------



## Slick (26 Nov 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You bet your life on it every time you ride a bike. If you want to kid yourself that dressing up makes a difference to the odds I'll sell you my lucky rabbits foot.


I don't dress up, I just have a different view of risk assessment.


----------



## Slick (26 Nov 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Damn right it is everyone else's responsibility, if everyone else is operating a tonne plus of heavy machinery around more vulnerable people. That's why they have be licensed and pass a test whereas cyclists and pedestrians use the roads as of right.


Wow.


----------



## Slick (26 Nov 2017)

snorri said:


> That type never get a wave from me.
> Sorry, off topic.


Don't do that, the mod squad are on patrol.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> Wow.


Nope. Just facts


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> I don't dress up, I just have a different view of risk assessment.


Any evidence base to back up the view that space lemon and bright lights makes any odds?

Nope. Thought not.

But it's common sense innit?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5056728, member: 9609"]you certainly do, but *you can stack the odds in your favour by how you look* and how you ride.[/QUOTE]
Any evidence other than anecdata?


----------



## Slick (26 Nov 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Any evidence base to back up the view that space lemon and bright lights makes any odds?
> 
> Nope. Thought not.
> 
> But it's common sense innit?


Which part of I don't dress up did you not get?


----------



## classic33 (26 Nov 2017)

alicat said:


> Cycle with no clothes on. That should get you noticed.
> 
> I'll get me cloak of invisibility.


Caused one woman to drop her cup!


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2017)

You think wearing stuff that's close to dazzle camo makes you more likely to be seen?


----------



## Andy_R (26 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5056750, member: 9609"]do you have any evidence that it doesnt?

its a bit like the global warming deniers, virtually every scientist in the world says its happening but an occasional loon pops up and says it isnt. Same with health and safety, 99.9% say hi-viz and hi-reflective improves your chances of being seen, and I believe them.

If your going to go against the overwhelming weight of opinion of the experts then please show us your evidence.[/QUOTE]
What about the experts that recommend the use of good road positioning instead of relying on hi-viz. You know, the people who wrote the National standard....If you're riding in the gutter - which the vast majority still do - in the blind spot created by the A pillar then you could be lit up light a christmas tree on acid, and still not be seen.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Nov 2017)

Have a read of this.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/transport-institute/pdfs/glen-koorey.pdf

Plus this

https://can.org.nz/canpolicy/high-visibility-clothing-provisional


----------



## bladesman73 (26 Nov 2017)

united4ever said:


> Not just at night but generally things that will get drivers to see you in a low sun or coming down the road. Hi viz obviously, flashing lights even on a bright day? got knocked off last month at a roundabout because the driver couldn't see me in the low sun. ordered a new bike today but trying to think of ways to mitigate the risk. Going to try to get more accessories in yellow or orange and have my lights flashing day or night. Anything else without turning myself into blackpool illuminations


The day they deck out black cars in hiz viz is the day i will wear it. Lights are sufficient


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> Wear black, don't use lights, ride no-handed, ride 3 abreast, don't wear a helmet - every fecker sees you and shouts stuff telling you that you are not using/wearing/doing things they think you should/shouldn't



This could be expanded to be a bit like train spotting but call it cyclist spotting.


----------



## theclaud (26 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5056913, member: 9609"] it most certainly has its uses and benefits[/QUOTE]
Such as?


----------



## BoldonLad (26 Nov 2017)

AnotherCyclist



__ BoldonLad
__ 19 Nov 2017






Low winter sun.


----------



## Levo-Lon (26 Nov 2017)

Post something political...you'll be seen soon enough


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2017)

theclaud said:


> Such as?


Well, if you're out of toilet paper...


----------



## NorthernDave (26 Nov 2017)

As I've posted over in the "Your ride today" thread, I suffered an unusually high number of close passes today - far, far more than I'd normally expect on that route.

What was different about today? All I can think is that I normally wear dark coloured cycling tops, but today I was wearing a hi-viz orange windproof jacket in an attempt to keep warm...


----------



## Lonestar (26 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5056918, member: 9609"]here be one I spotted a while back

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-5hrg0P84o[/QUOTE]

I see.A ninja cyclist.


----------



## Slick (26 Nov 2017)

Conclusive then.


----------



## Ajax Bay (26 Nov 2017)

@GrumpyGregry said "Any evidence other than anecdata?"

[QUOTE 5056750, member: 9609"]do you have any evidence that* [you can't stack the odds in your favour by how you look* and how you ride]
its a bit like the global warming deniers, virtually every scientist in the world says its happening but an occasional loon pops up and says it isnt. Same with health and safety, 99.9% say hi-viz and hi-reflective improves your chances of being seen, and I believe them.
If your going to go against the overwhelming weight of opinion of the experts then please show us your evidence.[/QUOTE]
With respect, how about quoting or referring to the "overwhelming weight of opinion of the experts" who say that "hi-viz and hi-reflective improves your chances of being seen" - ie show us the evidence. Then maybe we can look at and make comment on that. You have to make the case first rather than say to someone "where's your evidence that what I say is wrong?". If the body of opinion (hopefully evidence based) is at "99.99%" then you should have little trouble finding material to back up your proposal.
Every time I see 99.99% I'm reminded of the Royal Marines Commando advert "99.99% need not apply".
The difference with this versus global warming is that there's a large majority which support the concern about global warming and they back that up with good science.


----------



## smutchin (26 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5057049, member: 9609"]The overwhelming pointer that it works is virtually every one in the world of health and safety says it does[/QUOTE]

Citation needed


----------



## Drago (27 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5057049, member: 9609"]No, I think it is up to those who say hi-viz, Hi-reflec is of no use to put forward their proof. It is the standard throughout Industry and all of the emergency services throughout Europe and possibly the world. If anyone thinks it is complete bunkum then lets see the evidence. The overwhelming pointer that it works is virtually every one in the world of health and safety says it does - are they all wrong?

I have posted two videos in this thread that show a clear difference between hi-reflec and dressing as a ninja, if you don't feel one is more visible than the other than fair enough, do what you feel is best for yourself, I have put a fair bit of time and consideration into what I think works best for my type of cycling and for me hi-reflec at night is an absolute must, I'm not telling anyone else they should wear it, non of my business really.

I completely agree other road users should be seeing you no matter what you wear, and I admire the optimism in those who believe other road users will always see you, sadly I think I share the road with utter morons and I am not even 100% convinced they will always see me with all my lights and reflective stuff, but I do believe they are more likely to see me if I am wearing it.[/QUOTE]

One may well be more visible than another. One may be more consipuous than another. However, there's little evidence of any link to casualty reduction in any area of activity, which would suggest that the problem is something other than one of conspicuity. The TRL's own research into the matter on behalf of the government found no firm safety link. The Home Office Centre for Applied Science and Technology did some more recent research, and the results were ambiguous, so far below the statistical noise level they failed to prove the point the H.O. were hoping to make, so was never published.

Hit Google and you'll find more about sightings of Lord Lucan than you will of even mediocre evidence linking hi vis clothing to casualty reduction.


----------



## PaulSB (27 Nov 2017)

Drago said:


> One may well be more visible than another. One may be more consipuous than another. However, there's little evidence of any link to casualty reduction in any area of activity, which would suggest that the problem is something other than one of conspicuity. The TRL's own research into the matter on behalf of the government found no firm safety link. The Home Office Centre for Applied Science and Technology did some more recent research, and the results were ambiguous, so far below the statistical noise level they failed to prove the point the H.O. were hoping to make, so was never published.
> 
> Hit Google and you'll find more about sightings of Lord Lucan than you will of even mediocre evidence linking hi vis clothing to casualty reduction.



You're quite correct in this point, it's something I've googled on more than one occasion and most recently in relation to this thread. It's a very strange situation when one considers the vast amount of hi viz worn in so many different industries and situations. One would imagine there there would be definitive piece of work to demonstrate the link between clothing colour and casualty rates as I can't imagine industry investing millions in clothing without evidence to support this.

Possibly there is research to demonstrate some colours are more conspicuous than others and it is worthwhile making people more visible in many situations in order to prevent accidents which does reduce casualty rates. It's accident prevention and not casualty rate that needs proving. If that makes sense?

Where I struggle with the arguments against hi viz or other bright clothing is this. As cyclists I believe we are more aware of our surroundings than drivers, I feel this carries over to my driving, I hope I'm not alone in this, and expect my anticipation or observation of less visible objects to be higher than the average - I can't prove this. It's my experience it is more difficult to see pedestrians and cyclists if they are wearing dark clothing and/or are unlit. I cannot statistically prove it but it's something I encounter on a daily basis. I frequently find myself cursing people who run across the road at dusk, cyclists or POBs without lights and dressed in dark clothing.

I do think many cyclists don't help themselves through their very poor use of lights, the errors are almost to numerous to list. Too many, too few, underpowered, overpowered, flashing, still, wrong colour, badly positioned etc. For me the best way to be more visible is a single quality light, front and rear, flashing in daylight and solid in low light. Possibly rear flashing is better, my personal jury is out on that one. Again I can't prove it but it is what I observe.

In truly low sun conditions nothing helps - the last two or three weeks when I've been riding seem to have been especially difficult. In winter leaving our village one is driving uphill directly towards the sun. There is a stretch of perhaps 2-300 yards during which if one has a dirty or misted up windscreen it is impossible to see anything. As a local driver I know I have to fully demist my windscreen before setting off in the morning but non locals?????


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5056593, member: 9609"]after experimenting with a few ideas I also thing a solid block of colour is more visible, below are two images my dash cam picked up as I set off, they were different days so slightly different light but the distance and camera are the same - for me one stands out much better than the other
View attachment 384814
[/QUOTE]
I see no one as I'm updating facebook on my phone.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5056750, member: 9609"]do you have any evidence that it doesnt?

its a bit like the global warming deniers, virtually every scientist in the world says its happening but an occasional loon pops up and says it isnt. Same with health and safety, 99.9% say hi-viz and hi-reflective improves your chances of being seen, and I believe them.

If your going to go against the overwhelming weight of opinion of the experts then please show us your evidence.[/QUOTE]
What overwhelming weight of which experts?

Show me the 99.9% of experts stating that cyclists wearing hi-viz and reflectives* can stack the odds in their favour by how they look.
*
Please. I'm happy to be educated.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5056913, member: 9609"]I would entirely agree road positioning is more important than hi-viz / hi-reflec, but *I see no reason not to combine the two*. I certainly don't think hi-viz is the only game in town by a long shot and I totally accept it is overused over relied on and used inappropriately. But it most certainly has its uses and benefits[/QUOTE]
Conflating the two in a thread entitled tips to make yourself visible is a bit tenuous.


----------



## Ajax Bay (27 Nov 2017)

I think it would be useful to restrict the discussion/argument in this thread to reflectives (worn or on the bike) and hi-viz clothing and the like. Although lighting and positioning are both interesting topics, they are diversions which makes focus difficult.
The wearing of hi-viz clothing might be widespread in industry and the services, and some sections of the cycling community, but the evidence of its effectiveness (in improving conspicuity) to reduce incidents seems weak. I, too, would be keen to read the evidence. Why are cars not encouraged to be painted yellow or orange or pink, or need reflective stripes down the side or in front, to make them easier to see? Why are lamp posts not painted a fancy colour with a reflective band highlight? Perhaps because neither would make a difference? Or would it?
I habitually wear an orange-backed gilet with a reflective stripe. It is a functional item of clothing which fits well and keeps me warm, and 'goes' with my various tops (semi-transparent front). My boots and shoes all have reflective material on their heels and my tights and leg warmers have reflective material front and rear.
As others have posted above, I ride on the basis that I can't predict the safe performance of drivers so treat them all, to a greater or lesser degree. as a possible threat. I also recognise that if I'm riding into a low sun, then so are drivers on the road I'm on and this increases the risk. I therefore take additional 'control' measures (positioning and demonstrable looking behind) and also design my routes to avoid heading towards the (low) sun where possible. None of this stops me enjoying my ride.
And btw I don't think it's useful to descend to pejoratives like 'loons' in discussion.


----------



## Spinney (27 Nov 2017)

To take just one point - lamp-posts and other street furniture are not so decorated because they are usually placed where drivers are not expected to go - i.e. on the pavement. Street furniture in the middle of the road is illuminated (e.g. the keep left bollards).

Cars - cars have lights that have to meet certain standards, and so should not need hi-viz colouring.

Having said that, in the low-sun situation an oncoming car with its headlights on could be _less_ visible than one without its lights on (active optical camouflage, making the object closer to the colouring/illumination level of the background).


----------



## smutchin (27 Nov 2017)

PaulSB said:


> It's a very strange situation when one considers the vast amount of hi viz worn in so many *different* industries and situations. One would imagine there there would be definitive piece of work to demonstrate the link between clothing colour and casualty rates as I can't imagine industry investing millions in clothing without evidence to support this.



I’ve highlighted the key word here. You don’t just have to show that hi-viz is effective, you have to show that hi-viz is effective FOR CYCLISTS. What works on eg a building site may not necessarily apply on the road.


----------



## PaulSB (27 Nov 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> I think it would be useful to restrict the discussion/argument in this thread to reflectives (worn or on the bike) and hi-viz clothing and the like. Although lighting and positioning are both interesting topics, they are diversions which makes focus difficult.



To counter this point in a thread titled "Tips to Make Yourself Visible" how can lighting be a diversion? I would suggest lighting is the best way to make oneself visible either day or night. I'd agree getting in to the specifics of lighting might not help but please lets not suggest lights are a diversion from or irrelevant to topic discussing being more visible.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5057203, member: 9609"]getting yourself seen is the overwhelming advice given by virtually everybody involved in health and safety, in many work places it is the rule, it is even the advivce given in the highway code. If you feel they are all wrong please show me the evidence, you are the one railing against widespread and popular beliefs - it is up to you to provide the evidence that hi-viz / hi-reflec clothing has no benefits.[/QUOTE]
That's not the way it should work. The Space Lemon advocates should show evidence that their preferred clothes work before we micturate away lots of government safety and cycling budgets and cyclists' own money (not to mention legislative time, lobbying effort and bits of training courses) on something that doesn't work.

It's also much more difficult to prove definitively that something doesn't work. That's why snake oil sells so well.


----------



## Spinney (27 Nov 2017)

*Mod note*: can we just agree to be polite from this point on? Rather than going back to look at who said what, or continuing to use perjorative terms like 'Space Lemon' in place of Hi-vis? And 'wasting' would do perfectly well to describe spending money when there is no demonstrated benefit for cyclists.


----------



## Colin_P (27 Nov 2017)

Pedal reflectors in my opinion are the single most "ooooo..... that's a bike" thing you can have on your bike in the dark.

Hi-vis, meh, it is everywhere, on everything and therefore no longer effective as drivers don't expect it to be moving, you are probably safer dressed like a Ninja.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

Spinney said:


> To take just one point - lamp-posts and other street furniture are not so decorated because they are usually placed where drivers are not expected to go - i.e. on the pavement. Street furniture in the middle of the road is illuminated (e.g. the keep left bollards).


Not universally, or at least not by anything else than the street lights, especially when there aren't pavements. I even know streets with black lampposts in the middle of the road with no kerbs or anything around them, replaced ten or fifteen years ago like for like. Not without their critics, of course, but it's a conservation area and so on, so they've survived the hi vis zealots so far.



> Cars - cars have lights that have to meet certain standards, and so should not need hi-viz colouring.


Bikes - bikes have lights that have to meet certain standards, and so should not need hi vis colouring.

Same reservation about low sun, though.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

Spinney said:


> *Mod note*: can we just agree to be polite from this point on? Rather than going back to look at who said what, or continuing to use perjorative terms like 'Space Lemon' in place of Hi-vis? And 'wasting' would do perfectly well to describe spending money when there is no demonstrated benefit for cyclists.


Eta: Wasting doesn't convey the competitive aspect of this spending IMO. Promoting hi vis has elements of asserting power, controlling what people do, making them do things for their own good, despite the lack of evidence, plus denying or reducing the money available to do other things preferred by other people.

Most of what people advocate is not strictly hi vis (fluorescent main colour with two hoops and two vertical over the shoulder bars, as seen on @Donger's jacket on page 1, plus a specific pattern of hoops and bars on the sleeves and trousers) and the term ninja has been thrown at people who don't wear it. Can I ask mods to be even handed and also clamp down on the widespread insults of cycling in plain clothes?


----------



## BoldonLad (27 Nov 2017)

Since colour would appear to make little, or no, difference to an object's visibility, why does nature (and the armed forces etc) put so much effort into camouflage?


----------



## PaulSB (27 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> I’ve highlighted the key word here. You don’t just have to show that hi-viz is effective, you have to show that hi-viz is effective FOR CYCLISTS. What works on eg a building site may not necessarily apply on the road.



Before I continue I should make it clear I no longer wear hi viz. During my winter commutes I did. I don't wear hi viz today because my riding is always in daylight, my kit is very bright and I carry lights. My main point in the thread was I think solid colour shirts are the most visible and my experience, no data to prove this, is red is the most visible.

I disagree with the view one needs to prove hi viz is effective for cyclists. There may or may not be statistical data to prove hi viz is effective. The huge amount used in industry would suggest there is a benefit. The only evidence I can offer to support this is in my 40+ years of working I never encountered a company which spent money for the sake of it. For me this is sufficient to indicate there is a benefit in most areas and as every road worker wears hi viz I feel it's believed to be useful in this particular one. Yes, clearly cyclists are a moving target and road workers are not.

Surely this is ultimately down to personal choice and there is no need to prove the point? If a rider feels more visible and so safer wearing hi viz I would argue that cyclist will be more confident and with confidence, or lack of nervousness, he/she may become more assertive in taking positions, avoiding the gutter etc.

Possibly in low sun conditions some colours are more difficult to discern than others but there is evidence to prove as light conditions vary in many different situations no one colour can be proven to be better or worse. Sadly we are not chameleons.

https://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22062342 

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0018720811427033


----------



## Spinney (27 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> Most of what people advocate is not strictly hi vis (fluorescent main colour with two hoops and two vertical over the shoulder bars, as seen on @Donger's jacket on page 1, plus a specific pattern of hoops and bars on the sleeves and trousers) and the term ninja has been thrown at people who don't wear it. Can I ask mods to be even handed and also clamp down on the widespread insults of cycling in plain clothes?


I wasn't clamping down, just requesting that from this point on people try not to denigrate others or their clothing/whatever by their choise of language. That is all.


----------



## Blue Hills (27 Nov 2017)

Colin_P said:


> Pedal reflectors in my opinion are the single most "ooooo..... that's a bike" thing you can have on your bike in the dark.
> ]


Ah, thanks for that. I got some shimano ones in an end of line sale for a pound or two and fitted them to a pair of touring pedals. Should have bought a couple more pairs as the full price is barmy.

Spose its the distinctive up and down, so the alternative is a flashing ankle strap.


----------



## Spinney (27 Nov 2017)

Blue Hills said:


> Ah, thanks for that. I got some shimano ones in an end of line sale for a pound or two and fitted them to a pair of touring pedals. Should have bought a couple more pairs as the full price is barmy.
> 
> Spose its the distinctive up and down, so the alternative is a flashing ankle strap.


Yes, when driving at night, it's always been the moving bits that attract my attention first to a cyclist ahead, especially on a road with other cars, where a red rear light can sometimes get lost among the other tail lights.


----------



## smutchin (27 Nov 2017)

PaulSB said:


> The only evidence I can offer to support this is in my 40+ years of working I never encountered a company which spent money for the sake of it.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5057227, member: 9609"]I would disagree with this too, I have found vehicles coming out of the sun with their lights on are easier to spot.

I'm beginning to wonder if there is something odd about my eyes. I also find reflective clothing much easier to see whilst driving after dark, and I find bright reds and space lemon clothing make cyclists very obvious during the day. 

It would be very interesting to know what other people actual see, this thread is making me wonder.[/QUOTE]
My eyes are supersensitive to contrast, so I find car headlights unhelpful in detecting cars against low sun and chartreuse yellow difficult to see against typical countryside greens and yellows, but I can see the merest hint of a reflective surface from silly distances at night. That's useful for reading road signs when driving but no help with cyclists because I pass even the unlit ones wide. If anything, it's sometimes slightly distracting from things nearer to me that I need to deal with first.

I think the problem is with drivers who don't look properly and this doesn't help enough, so it's basically a no change for safety, so a distraction from policies more likely to help, such as education, policing and infrastructure changes.


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2017)

Spinney said:


> *Mod note*: can we just agree to be polite from this point on? Rather than going back to look at who said what, or continuing to use perjorative terms like 'Space Lemon' in place of Hi-vis? And 'wasting' would do perfectly well to describe spending money when there is no demonstrated benefit for cyclists.


I honestly don't know how posts like this pass the mirror test. Are you on a personal mission to blandify every discussion? There's a history to the term Space Lemon, which was coined by Ravenbait (formerly OTP) in the context of a very eloquent article about the risks to vulnerable road users of the (then burgeoning) hi-viz culture. What has happened since (crocodiles of schoolchildren in luminous custard tabards, anyone?) bears out her observations about the direction in which are heading. The term isn't pejorative towards any person - it is quite deliberately emphasising the negative (and absurd) aspects of something that is accepted unquestioningly by many. Stop micro-managing everyone's language. It's patronising and insulting, and damaging to healthy conversation.


----------



## Spinney (27 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> Not universally, or at least not by anything else than the street lights, especially when there aren't pavements. I even know streets with black lampposts in the middle of the road with no kerbs or anything around them, replaced ten or fifteen years ago like for like. Not without their critics, of course, but it's a conservation area and so on, so they've survived the hi vis zealots so far.
> 
> 
> Bikes - bikes have lights that have to meet certain standards, and so should not need hi vis colouring.
> ...


OK, I stand corrected - I don't think I've encountered lamp-posts like the ones you describe.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2017)

theclaud said:


> I honestly don't know how posts like this pass the mirror test. Are you on a personal mission to blandify every discussion? There's a history to the term Space Lemon, which was coined by Ravenbait (formerly OTP) in the context of a very eloquent article about the risks to vulnerable road users of the (then burgeoning) hi-viz culture. What has happened since (crocodiles of schoolchildren in luminous custard tabards, anyone?) bears out her observations about the direction in which are heading. The term isn't pejorative towards any person - it is quite deliberately emphasising the negative (and absurd) aspects of something that is accepted unquestioningly by many. Stop micro-managing everyone's language. It's patronising and insulting, and damaging to healthy conversation.


My running club make the wearing of a Space Lemon tabard mandatory for taking part in night runs. I don't take part in their night runs.

The problem in our motor-centric culture is that nearly everyone drives. And nearly EVERYONE who drives THINKS LIKE A DRIVER nearly ALL THE TIME, i.e. it is other more vulnerable road users' responsibility to make themselves more visible to me, NOT it is my task, as a driver, to not drive like an eejit.

That cyclists are suggesting in a cycling forum that other cyclists would be well advised to wear PPE, and, furthermore, conclude that the wearing of such PPE will make them significantly safer aka "stack the odds in their favour" is understandable given our motor-centricity. But nonetheless deplorable.

I saw space lemon twice in Scandi. both times on a Brit. Fair bit more cycling in Scandi than in UK.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

Spinney said:


> OK, I stand corrected - I don't think I've encountered lamp-posts like the ones you describe.


New installations are mostly as you describe, but unmarked lights and other objects in the carriageway aren't that unusual in low motor traffic streets.

Special mention for the street lights that I think are on Headington Hill in Oxford, painted dark green IIRC and planted in the substandardly narrow cycle lanes on both sides of a much busier road than others I know with lights in the carriageway.


----------



## Spinney (27 Nov 2017)

theclaud said:


> There's a history to the term Space Lemon, which was coined by Ravenbait (formerly OTP) in the context of a very eloquent article about the risks to vulnerable road users of the (then burgeoning) hi-viz culture. What has happened since (crocodiles of schoolchildren in luminous custard tabards, anyone?) bears out her observations about the direction in which are heading. The term isn't pejorative towards any person - it is quite deliberately emphasising the negative (and absurd) aspects of something that is accepted unquestioningly by many.


Thanks for the info - a bit of background I was clearly unaware of. Are there any links to the articles you refer to? I have had a quick search on CC, but the search function only turns up recent uses of the term.


----------



## Ajax Bay (27 Nov 2017)

It's raining (down here in Devon) otherwise I would be out cycling. On the plus side the forecast is good (sunny if a bit 'fresh') for tomorrow and Wednesday.


PaulSB said:


> I disagree with the view one needs to prove hi viz is effective for cyclists. There may or may not be statistical data to prove hi viz is effective. The huge amount used in industry would suggest there is a benefit. The only evidence I can offer to support this is in my 40+ years of working I never encountered a company which spent money for the sake of it. For me this is sufficient


Do you disagree with the view that one needs to prove hi viz is not effective for cyclists?
Don't you think that if there were data to prove hi viz is effective for cyclists that this would be easy to find? Think of the commercial benefit to the hi-viz industry.
I'd suggest that the reason why industry uses hi-viz clothing is not for 'operational' reasons but to mitigate the risk/effect of litigation, rather than because its use has proved to offer a 'real' benefit (reduction of accidents). This is the basis of their 'business case': they are not spending money "for the sake of it". In the Risk Management 'bow-tie' this is dealing with the consequence of the 'event' rather than minimising the risk of such an event happening - a measure of interest to a company concerned with the effect on reputation (however unfounded) and litigation. The 'consequence' issue is the reason (warning - off topic - please do not pursue - for illustration only) I wear a h****t: because I don't want my BH and others to say/think (after the event) 'if only'?
In an industrial setting where items may fall from height (eg oil rigs, refineries ime) or where height in passages is restricted it makes sense to mandate the use of a hard hat: good research has shown that the protection such a head cover offers reduces the damage to the worker wearing it.


----------



## Ajax Bay (27 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> chartreuse yellow





theclaud said:


> luminous custard


----------



## Johnno260 (27 Nov 2017)

People don’t even notice me while driving my wife’s S-Max with the DRL’s and lights up. 

On the bike I have an Endura hi vis jacket with a light in the butt, 2 rear lights, my UT800 in the front and led Snap on wrist lights and the obnoxious still miss me.


----------



## Ajax Bay (27 Nov 2017)

Johnno260 said:


> On the bike I have an Endura hi vis jacket with a light in the butt, 2 rear lights, my UT800 in the front and led Snap on wrist lights and the obnoxious still miss me.


Why? What about reflective ankle straps?


----------



## Apollonius (27 Nov 2017)

I am at risk of repeating myself, but the key issue in being seen is awareness. This is massively the responsibility of operators of powered vehicles, or at least used to be. I recall a public safety advert (or I think I do - getting old!) that showed a "good driver" noticing a kid's feet behind a parked car and expecting that child to run into the road. That sort of notion of responsibility seems to have gone - replaced by a Clarksonist sense of entitlement to tear about at high speed all the time and mow down whatever is in the way. 
Nevertheless, a rider needs awareness too. Part of a regular ride I do involves a stretch of single-carriageway high-speed road (which I hate, but can't avoid). Early in the morning, with low sun, a rider is almost invisible in the deep shadow of the high hedge. Thus, I ride on the lit part of the road - yes, the middle - moving over only when I am sure the overtaking vehicle has seen me. Surprisingly, I rarely get hooted for this, but at least a hoot means I have been seen. 
One last thought about colours. Industrial high-viz is designed to stand out in an urban, man-made environment. Most of the background to my personal riding (my choice) is nature or agriculture. Yellow clothing does not work for me when I am riding past oilseed rape, or even spring green leaves. For this reason, I mostly wear black and white. It might be interesting to consider the journey made by the RAF when choosing a colour to make their training aircraft as visible as possible in the natural environment. They have moved from yellow (1930s and 40s) to orange 1950s and 60s, and now use black.


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2017)

Spinney said:


> Thanks for the info - a bit of background I was clearly unaware of. Are there any links to the articles you refer to? I have had a quick search on CC, but the search function only turns up recent uses of the term.


A rather good argument against the Year Zero approach to textual history that has prevailed for a while now. Here's a perceptive post which employs the term.


----------



## Ajax Bay (27 Nov 2017)

And the last post from that thread is worth repeating on this one.


gazza_d said:


> The research on relationship of distance of close passing to clothing worn was by Ian Walker, who did find that hiviz did bugger all. A polite jacket was worse, but a blond wig got more space and slower passes. You can google for it if you are interested.
> One of the tops I have is an "urban camouflage" design, and weirdly I do seem to get slightly more consideration with that than some of my other bright plain tops. none of which are the "classic flouro green" as that's so prevalent it is subconsciously ignored these days


One of those 'skeleton' tops might have similar 'attention grab'.


----------



## simongt (27 Nov 2017)

Playing devil's advocate on this very diversely opinioned subject, if whilst wearing a hi-viz top, in clear view and you were knocked off and said driver gave the usual response of 'SMIDSY' ( or in Scotland, SPIDSY ), I wonder how that would stack up in court / an insurance claim - ?


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5057321, member: 9609"]I very much agree with this - it should be 100% the drivers responsibility not to crash into other road users, but* in the bizarre world of driving many think it is 90%+ the responsibility of the more vulnerable road user to take care of themselves.* I hate it but feel the need to comply.

And the situation is not helped by the courts who too often side with the motorist, take this case, driver blinded by low sun runs over lollypop man helping pregnant woman crossing the road.[/QUOTE]

The point is, how do we resist this dangerous way of thinking rather than encouraging it by compliance?


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2017)

simongt said:


> 'SMIDSY' ( or in Scotland, SPIDSY )


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5057321, member: 9609"]I very much agree with this - it should be 100% the drivers responsibility not to crash into other road users, but in the bizarre world of driving many think it is 90%+ the responsibility of the more vulnerable road user to take care of themselves. I hate it but feel the need to comply.

And the situation is not helped by the courts who too often side with the motorist, take this case, driver blinded by low sun runs over lollypop man helping pregnant woman crossing the road.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...-killed-82-year-old-lollipop-man-8933201.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27982163[/QUOTE]
As that exemplifies, complying with the "hi-vis everything" expectation still doesn't even ensure that the motorist gets punished appropriately after they hit you, let alone reduce casualty rates, so why comply?

Personally, it's made me feel the need to campaign for Road Justice, to promote Road Danger Reduction instead of the failed road safety "common sense" at the Casualty Reduction Partnership (alongside others from other Cyclenation, CUK and BC groups, plus local bike shops, the IAM and others) which I'm pretty sure was instrumental in persuading Norfolk Constabulary to start accepting bike/dashcam reports and doing Operation Close Pass here.

However, the motoring lobby and their well-intentioned fellow travellers are still out there, handing reflective yellow stars (edit: to be clear, this is not only a pejorative - I kid you not, last year some of the reflective stickers handed out locally were actually star-shaped, handed to kids as a "gold star" - this year so far, I've only seen circles, so I suspect they've noticed the own-goal) to cyclists, schoolchildren, dog walkers and so on, telling them it's their fault if they don't "be safe be seen" despite us still not even having an eyeball magnet that we can use on motorists. You can't force someone to look at you and if you did, then what about the people they don't look at as much, as a result? If it worked, it would be a great example of Beggar Thy Neighbour, or more likely, Injure Thy Neighbour. Maybe those promoting hi vis don't care about their neighbours but I like mine! If it worked, "look at me" would be the ultimate anti-social approach to road safety when really, if there's lots of people for motorists to look at in an area, we should be focusing on getting drivers to slow the fark down so they have time to look and drive appropriately and punishing them if they do not - but good luck selling that to society when there's so many happy to hand out stab vests instead of disarm the knifers.</rant>


----------



## classic33 (27 Nov 2017)

simongt said:


> Playing devil's advocate on this very diversely opinioned subject, if whilst wearing a hi-viz top, in clear view and you were knocked off and said driver gave the usual response of 'SMIDSY' ( or in Scotland, SPIDSY ), I wonder how that would stack up in court / an insurance claim - ?


 One from Ireland.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

simongt said:


> Playing devil's advocate on this very diversely opinioned subject, if whilst wearing a hi-viz top, in clear view and you were knocked off and said driver gave the usual response of 'SMIDSY' ( or in Scotland, SPIDSY ), I wonder how that would stack up in court / an insurance claim - ?


I think @fossyant had lights but I don't know about hi vis or how the insurance claim has stacked up so far. I expect there are many others hit while using hi vis. Maybe @Mm87 too? The search on this site doesn't seem great with short words but maybe I'm using it wrong today.


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5057412, member: 9609"]
out of self preservation I'm complying [/QUOTE]
The yellow (high-vis?) face thingy would indicate that compliance isn't making you happy. So let's look at it another way. How do we make you happy, Reiver? How do we change the  to a ?


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2017)

In related news, Cub leaders are being asked to help indoctrinate small children about drivers not being expected to look where they are going, in a campaign revealingly entitled _Be Bright Be Seen - Out of My Way_...


----------



## derrick (27 Nov 2017)

The only thing that would stop you getting hit, would be a big blue flashing light on your helmet, that's the helmet that sits on your head. Nothing else works. Hi viz is a waste of time. If people are not looking how do you expect them to see you.


----------



## Colin_P (27 Nov 2017)

No doubt coming soon....

Also doubles as crash protection as you are literally a walking (cycling) airbag.

If I saw one, I'd slow down and give it a wide berth.

I think the red one is pondering if it would be a good idea to also fashion a great big massive inflatable head piece. The green one is demonstrating the ease of movement by voguing like Madonna and the purple one is modelling a childs version.

I'd have a red one.


----------



## classic33 (27 Nov 2017)

Colin_P said:


> No doubt coming soon....
> 
> Also doubles as crash protection as you are literally a walking (cycling) airbag.
> 
> ...



View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rQr8YkzEEWQ


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2017)

simongt said:


> Playing devil's advocate on this very diversely opinioned subject, if whilst wearing a hi-viz top, in clear view and you were knocked off and said driver gave the usual response of 'SMIDSY' ( or in Scotland, SPIDSY ), I wonder how that would stack up in court / an insurance claim - ?



These days SMIDSY seems to be generally accepted as a defence that most jury members will identify with and fall for, regardless of how implausible the circumstances.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2017)

derrick said:


> The only thing that would stop you getting hit, would be a big blue flashing light on your helmet, that's the helmet that sits on your head.



You say that, yet...

https://www.dorset.police.uk/news-i...oach-driver-banned-from-the-road-after-crash/


----------



## Lonestar (27 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> These days SMIDSY seems to be generally accepted as a defence that most jury members will identify with and fall for, regardless of how implausible the circumstances.



Well as a pedestrian today coming up against yet another ignorant motorist I really do think the saying "The car is king" really does fit.


----------



## Johnno260 (27 Nov 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> Why? What about reflective ankle straps?



That's certainly a possibility, I do use bright coloured overshoes in the winter with reflective piping though already, but more lights is certainly possible.

I just think in some instances people are rushing and not looking, I have been on well lit roads in my wife's car and people exit their drive and literally never once look right, they just pull out their drive and play Russian roulette that nothing is on the road.

I have seen some truly horrific driving the past few weeks and as a motorist and cyclist it's worrying, worst was someone following another car into a right hand turn, the car behind overtook and cut the corner badly, to me driving standards seem at an all time low, couple this with very busy roads it's not great.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5057321, member: 9609"]

And the situation is not helped by the courts who too often side with the motorist, take this case, driver blinded by low sun runs over lollypop man helping pregnant woman crossing the road.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...-killed-82-year-old-lollipop-man-8933201.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27982163[/QUOTE]

It's worth highlighting these references to the ineffectiveness of hi-vis in that case:

"Mr Lawson (prosecuting) said an accident investigator, who visited the crash scene, experienced how the bright sun had the effect of "blending in" with the colour of a colleague's high visibility jacket similar to that worn by Mr Elsmore at the time of the accident."

"A jury was told the combination of the glare from the sun and the bright yellow, orange and silver uniform may have made lollipop man Ray Elsmore difficult to see.
The evidence was read out at Southampton Crown Court from a statement by Dr Martin Langham, who specialises in the effect of glare on drivers."


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> Why? What about reflective ankle straps?


The sharp-eyed may have noticed a reflective yellow ankle clip visible on my avatar. I do have black, white and blue ones, too, but the yellow get used more because they outnumber the other colours two-to-one (some were gifts, as were the white ones) and they're usually easier to spot where I've hung them up among black coats - viewed from the back, they're less visible than the pedal reflectors IMO. The other thing about my avatar you might like to consider is how visible a jacket that yellow wouldn't be against the cream wall behind me in the picture... or worse, a yellow jacket with greyish-white reflective bands.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> "[...] The evidence was read out at Southampton Crown Court from a statement by Dr Martin Langham, who specialises in the effect of glare on drivers."


Previously covered at https://www.cyclechat.net/posts/4541030 if anyone would like it.

I think Dr Martin Langham has appeared in other cases where drivers were let off, but I didn't find them now.


----------



## derrick (27 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> You say that, yet...
> 
> https://www.dorset.police.uk/news-i...oach-driver-banned-from-the-road-after-crash/
> 
> View attachment 384923


That's it we are f****d.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> Previously covered at https://www.cyclechat.net/posts/4541030 if anyone would like it.
> 
> I think Dr Martin Langham has appeared in other cases where drivers were let off, but I didn't find them now.



Thanks.

I've been looking for, and failing to find, an old discussion on hi-vis where research suggested that to accommodate the variety of backgrounds and lighting situations encountered in a typical commute that we'd need to carry about a dozen (?) or so different coloured jackets. Do you remember it?


----------



## Johnno260 (27 Nov 2017)

Someone invent a chameleon jacket please!!


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I've been looking for, and failing to find, an old discussion on hi-vis where research suggested that to accommodate the variety of backgrounds and lighting situations encountered in a typical commute that we'd need to carry about a dozen (?) or so different coloured jackets. Do you remember it?


Wasn't this one, was it?


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I've been looking for, and failing to find, an old discussion on hi-vis where research suggested that to accommodate the variety of backgrounds and lighting situations encountered in a typical commute that we'd need to carry about a dozen (?) or so different coloured jackets. Do you remember it?


https://www.cyclechat.net/posts/4137568 by @User cites the notorious study concluding that motorcyclists should wear "an appropriate rider's outfit that distinguishes him/her from the background scenery [...] by taking into account the driving route" rather than noting that the result means picking clothes to "be seen" in all conditions is probably an impossible task.


----------



## jefmcg (27 Nov 2017)

BoldonLad said:


> Since colour would appear to make little, or no, difference to an object's visibility, why does [..] the armed forces [..] put so much effort into camouflage?


I was told, in a formal briefing by an Army Captain or Major, that the reason they put soldiers in camo is to make them _feel _safer. He asserted that if a particular camouflage worked at say 500m, it would not work at 1000m etc. So basically, it doesn't work. He further said as proof that the best colour to hide a tank in the desert is pink, but they don't paint them pink for ... obvious reasons**. At that point a wag in audience chimed in "the pink panzer"

**obvious reason being it would be totally gay. He also said during the same briefing that they _unfortunately _ couldn't fire civilians for being homosexual. It was a different time.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5057321, member: 9609"]I very much agree with this - it should be 100% the drivers responsibility not to crash into other road users, but *in the bizarre world of driving many think it is 90%+ the responsibility of the more vulnerable road user to take care of themselves*. I hate it but feel the need to comply.

And the situation is not helped by the courts who too often side with the motorist, take this case, driver blinded by low sun runs over lollypop man helping pregnant woman crossing the road.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...-killed-82-year-old-lollipop-man-8933201.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27982163[/QUOTE]
And I, for my meagre, part REFUSE to collude with that thinking by dressing the part of a court jester.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2017)

Cubist said:


> A left-field colour scheme and way-out appearance creates a personality that may or may not bleed into the image of the person riding it. That purple hardtail with green tyres says far more about the rider than your run of the mill black framed hybrid, and so the association with a fellow human being is reinforced.


My purple ss has had green tyres. When it did I was told I was a cant, or somesuch, for riding such a bike by the passenger in a car, who then threw an empty plastic coke bottle at me. But I think the bottle was for not wearing a pelmet.


----------



## BoldonLad (27 Nov 2017)

Johnno260 said:


> Someone invent a chameleon jacket please!!



Doesn't the Chameleon change colour in order to be less visible?

or

do they simply own lots of handbags?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2017)

User said:


> O rly?
> 
> View attachment 384936
> View attachment 384937


Yes, very good.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> But I think the bottle was for not wearing a pelmet.


The like is for the inverted h


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> And I, for my meagre, part REFUSE to collude with that thinking by dressing the part of a court jester.


Not least because I don't want people looking at me and being put off cycling as an obviously dangerous activity that requires PPE.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2017)

theclaud said:


> Wasn't this one, was it?



Flippin' 'eck, that was 495 posts I had to wade through!
Unfortunately the information I was after isn't in that thread.


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Flippin' 'eck, that was 495 posts I had to wade through!
> Unfortunately the information I was after isn't in that thread.


Hahahahaha. Sorry.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Flippin' 'eck, that was 495 posts I had to wade through!
> Unfortunately the information I was after isn't in that thread.


You may like the thread tickbox in the on-page search...


----------



## MontyVeda (27 Nov 2017)

I'm a big fan of pedal reflectors, although i don't have any. Years ago i was a passenger in my dad's car. It was night time and the lanes were unlit. The only source of light was Dad's headlights in the distance i noticed something small, bright and bouncy... I wondered what it was. It was only as we got closer did the little red rear light become visible and identified the cyclist. The fact that the pedal reflector stood out long before the cyclist's rear light impressed me, so in spite of not having any pedal reflectors, i do wear a reflective ankle strap/trouser clip (it's actually a velcro arm band from the pound shop aimed at joggers). 

Other than the ankle strap, i have two bright rear lights but only use both if it's raining heavily or i'm on unlit roads, and i wear a pale coloured hat... that's it. 

I used to have a lemon yellow jacket but it was more breathable than waterproof so got rid and bought a better waterproof, which happened to be black. I was a little concerned at first but after a decade of not being rammed off the road because i wasn't visible enough, i reckon my reflective ankle strap, rear light and pale hat is plenty visible enough.


----------



## smutchin (27 Nov 2017)

I was following another rider through an unlit section of the uni campus on Friday evening. He had no lights and was wearing all black, but he did have pedal reflectors, which lit up very nicely in the beam of my Luxos dynamo light.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> I was following another rider through an unlit section of the uni campus on Friday evening. He had no lights and was wearing all black, but he did have pedal reflectors, which lit up very nicely in the beam of my Luxos dynamo light.


I love a pedal reflector when riding in the dark.

However if the following driver who runs me down is sending a tweet, drunk, unwrapping a prawn sandwich, half asleep, reading bookface, still pished from the night before, on drugs, in a rage having had a row with his other half, engaging in a really important mobile phone call or any one one of the other hundreds of reasons* I've read in my local paper as reasons why drivers have killed, maimed and injured folk or themselves hereabouts, then some shiny plastic won't really help. 

*my most recent fave is "studying the satnav" such that they failed to make a turn and ended up in someone's garden.


----------



## jefmcg (27 Nov 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I saw a copy of the Sunday times yesterday. There was an article in it about hi vis & cycling. I didn't read it, and it will probably be behind a paywall.
> 
> Even by my standards, that's a pretty pointless and unhelpful post.


The headline is pretty interesting, though. Note: you have to log in, but you don't have to pay to read this article.

*Cycle safety in a spin as study warns hi-vis gear may increase injury risk*

The subheading is confusing, though "Research suggests riders who believe they are conspicuous to drivers may adopt more exposed positions on the road"

More exposed? That's where we are safest.

From the text



The Times said:


> But a study of 76 accidents by academics at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and Nottingham University published in the Journal of Transport & Health found “no evidence” that those who wore reflective clothing “were at reduced risk”. Instead it found “increased odds of a collision crash” among cyclists in reflective clothing.
> 
> It suggested cyclists wearing safety clothing “may have adopted more exposed road positions . . . in the belief that they were relatively conspicuous”.
> 
> The scientists, however, said the results “should be treated with caution” because it was based on a small group of volunteers and a larger study was needed.


----------



## jefmcg (27 Nov 2017)

here's the study

It's the study this thread has been looking for

*Highlights*

There is conflicting evidence as to whether use of conspicuity aids is associated with a reduced risk of a crash in cyclists.
This matched case-control study included cases attending an emergency department following a cycling collision crash.
There was no evidence of a reduced risk of a crash associated with use of conspicuity aids and some evidence of an increased risk, but this may reflect biases and residual confounding.
Further research is needed to evaluate bicycle crash prevention measures.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2017)

Pick a journey and try this out, preferably during the hours of darkness. As you drive along look out for a normally dressed (a.k.a. ninja) pedestrian or cyclist ahead, then count the seconds until you reach that point. You might not be surprised to learn that normally dressed people are visible from a considerable distance.


----------



## BoldonLad (27 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Pick a journey and try this out, preferably during the hours of darkness. As you drive along look out for a normally dressed (a.k.a. ninja) pedestrian or cyclist ahead, then count the seconds until you reach that point. You might not be surprised to learn that normally dressed people are visible from a considerable distance.



If you have eyesight within the standards for driving, and, are driving with well adjusted headlights, at a speed such that you can stop, within the range you can see, I would have to agree 100%.

Perhaps, the tile of the thread should be "Tips to make yourself more visible", or, "Tips to make yourself visible earlier".


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2017)

BoldonLad said:


> If you have eyesight within the standards for driving, and, are driving with well adjusted headlights, at a speed such that you can stop, within the range you can see, I would have to agree 100%.
> 
> Perhaps, the tile of the thread should be "Tips to make yourself more visible", or, "Tips to make yourself visible earlier".



If you do this in a built-up area with street lights you don't even need the caveat of using headlamps. Too many use headlamps where they're simply not needed, obscuring unlit pedestrians or more weakly lit cyclists from view.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> The headline is pretty interesting, though. Note: you have to log in, but you don't have to pay to read this article.
> 
> *Cycle safety in a spin as study warns hi-vis gear may increase injury risk*
> 
> ...


It depends what they mean by "more exposed" - the primary position sense which you seem to mean, or the gutter-crawling that is thought to be more exposed to danger? As in, riders might think they're visible enough anyway so don't have to worry about positioning themselves in the drivers' usual line of sight.



jefmcg said:


> From the text


It sounds like an updated analysis of http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/ (the authors overlap) which I've been referring to for years.



Dogtrousers said:


> You know, practically every study on anything to do with cycling and safety ends like this. Hats, lights, shiny stripes, bike lanes, you name it


Well, yes. It's a sensible thing to note in a scientific paper. Saying stuff like "X may be a factor" is showing researchers who follow later what the authors might think are sensible future avenues of research to attempt to find an explanation for what was unexplained by their work.


----------



## BoldonLad (27 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> If you do this in a built-up area with street lights you don't even need the caveat of using headlamps. Too many use headlamps where they're simply not needed, obscuring unlit pedestrians or more weakly lit cyclists from view.



I don't disagree with you, but, some conflicting rules / suggestions in Highway Code

113
You *MUST*

ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified
115
You should also

use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen
Personally, I am all for ensuring I can be seen, when driving or cycling. Like the rest of us, I have no control over the extent to which other road users are actually looking


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

BoldonLad said:


> Perhaps, the tile of the thread should be "Tips to make yourself more visible", or, "Tips to make yourself visible earlier".


"More visible" seems like BS, sorry. Visible earlier, perhaps, but I'm not convinced that giving the nobbers enough time to forget about us and start treating us as street ornaments is always a good thing.


----------



## Johnno260 (27 Nov 2017)

BoldonLad said:


> Doesn't the Chameleon change colour in order to be less visible?
> 
> or
> 
> do they simply own lots of handbags?



HAHA good point, so anti chameleon?


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

BoldonLad said:


> Personally, I am all for ensuring I can be seen, when driving or cycling. Like the rest of us, I have no control over the extent to which other road users are actually looking


So, given that, how do you ensure that you can be seen, then?

Relatedly, I would like to absolutely not be seen sometimes because it would make it easier to, er, repair some infrastructure.  How can I achieve this, please?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2017)

BoldonLad said:


> I don't disagree with you, but, some conflicting rules / suggestions in Highway Code
> 
> 113
> You *MUST*
> ...



There's no conflict, both rules amount to the same outcome: you don't need to use headlamps on those roads at night.

On my urban commute through built-up areas of Glasgow I can see several hundred metres ahead at night, well beyond the range of a headlamp so they're unnecessary and only add to the daft ever-brighter lights competition.


----------



## SteveF (27 Nov 2017)

No one seems to have conclusive evidence one way or another regards the subject, yet people are arguing as if they know better than anyone else, the mind boggles.

Wear want you want, what you think is right for you.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

SteveF said:


> No one seems to have conclusive evidence one way or another regards the subject, yet people are arguing as if they know better than anyone else, the mind boggles.


That's great except that it's wrong in that there are at least three pieces of conclusive evidence: 1. people are already visible so there's no need to make yourself visible; 2. hi vis clothing allows you to be seen from further away in certain situations; 3. almost nothing suggests hi vis clothing makes any difference in casualty rates for cycling in general (only a few flawed self-selected surveys).



SteveF said:


> Wear want you want, what you think is right for you.


Sure, but is hi vis ever right for anyone not forced to wear it?


----------



## Ajax Bay (27 Nov 2017)

theclaud said:


> Cub leaders are being asked to help indoctrinate small children about drivers not being expected to look where they are going, in a campaign revealingly entitled _Be Bright Be Seen - Out of My Way_...


I think that your characterisation (as indoctrination) of the Cub Scout activity sheet to which you link is unfair. The worst element is actually the second part of the title, which has no link in the sheet itself.


BoldonLad said:


> Perhaps, the tile of the thread should be "Tips to make yourself more visible", or, "Tips to make yourself visible earlier".


Why do you want to be seen earlier. We want drivers to be able to 'see' cyclists in good time. If they look, they can. Cars manage to miss (unlit, not hi-viz, no reflectives) hedges defining a bend in the road nearly all the time. Do these hedges need to be seen earlier?


SteveF said:


> people are arguing


But only for 12 pages so far. The thread [edit] @theclaud found (well done) managed 33 pages. Way to go.


----------



## jefmcg (27 Nov 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> But only for 12 pages so far. The thread @jefmcg found (well done) managed 33 pages. Way to go.


Are you confusing me with @theclaud? https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/tips-to-make-yourself-visible.227149/post-5057527


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> I think that your characterisation (as indoctrination) of the Cub Scout activity sheet to which you link is unfair. The worst element is actually the second part of the title, which has no link in the sheet itself.


There's an argument that all organised education is a form of indoctrination, but looking at that specific activity sheet, as well as the "out of my way" headline:

 it's sponsored by a motoring group with nice whooshing car and van graphics on the top - speed is sexy even when subliminal, OK?
 it shows a cartoon character saluting "road safety heroes" - you know, the exponents of the failed methodology which has produced the dystopian scenes on our roads of chickens wearing little hi vis jackets...





 the first aim is "To recognise that if you are unable to see traffic, the drivers of vehicles cannot see you" - well, that's blind people farked then!
 the second aim is "To recognise how to make the best choices to be seen" - we've discussed the flaws in the idea that the potential victims are responsible for being seen a lot already;
 Cubs are told to "put your hood down when crossing the road" - yeah, because rain running into your eyes is so helpful for seeing clearly(!) It would be far better to make sure they secure their hood around their face properly and make sure they turn their head enough when looking around, which would help when they've not got hoods up. This advice must have been written by someone who doesn't walk in a hood much.
 the exercise involves "move towards the props in silence (place a boundary) as if they were a driver" - in other words, get the cubs fantasising about driving. Recruit 'em young!
 "draw a street scene with street furniture (obstructions) that may cause them not to be seen i.e. lampposts, post boxes, trees, vegetation etc." - er, no. Those things don't "cause them not to be seen". They may obstruct the driver's view, but what causes them not to be seen is the driver, driving into a space which they cannot see to be clear when they will arrive, failing to treat things like vegetation up against the road as the blind corner it forms. If an area has an obstructed view, the driver should slow down.
 "use dedicated pedestrian crossings, look all around for road safety hazards, and keep to a well-lit area and dress brightly to be seen" - oh goodie, demonising crossing the road and a triple helping of victim-blaming(!) 
 "Talk about how driveways can be particularly hazardous, especially if they emerge from between buildings, or have high fences or hedges on either side, meaning the driver cannot see who is crossing and the pedestrian cannot see the driver or the vehicle." - Now the children are to blame if they're walking along the pavement and a nobber driver blasts out of their driveway? Are we heading for http://yehudamoon.com/comic/2009-10-22/ ?




 "Cubs should move to an area where they are able to see clearly and should avoid crossing a road near big vehicles like vans, buses or lorries, or bends in roads." - Telling the children they should move home if they want to walk?!?!
I despair if anyone doesn't see this as RAC-sponsored indoctrination of children...


----------



## Julia9054 (27 Nov 2017)

This is a jacket I picked up in the clearance section of TK Maxx a few years ago. It had a battery in it and you could make the blue stripes flash. It was cool and sci fi and made me look like Tron!
Unfortunately it was also as sweaty as a very sweaty thing in a sweat factory.
The last straw was getting my keys jammed in the pocket and having to attack it with a knife. Sadly, consigned to the bin


----------



## oldstrath (27 Nov 2017)

I always s wonder whether retro reflective jackets are even visible - surely if the car lights are as well controlled as my STVZO bike light there's minimal light falling on the jacket to be reflected?

Since i don't drive i really don't know the answer.


----------



## SteveF (27 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> That's great except that it's wrong in that there are at least three pieces of conclusive evidence: 1. people are already visible so there's no need to make yourself visible; 2. hi vis clothing allows you to be seen from further away in certain situations; 3. almost nothing suggests hi vis clothing makes any difference in casualty rates for cycling in general (only a few flawed self-selected surveys).
> 
> 
> Sure, but is hi vis ever right for anyone not forced to wear it?



Your points seem to contradict each other,.

As I said, if people want to wear it then wear it, if they don't then don't, advocating either way without conclusive evidence is pointless, more about the agenda of the person who's advocating than anything else.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

oldstrath said:


> I always s wonder whether retro reflective jackets are even visible - surely if the car lights are as well controlled as my STVZO bike light there's minimal light falling on the jacket to be reflected?
> 
> Since i don't drive i really don't know the answer.


On a car light, as on most (all?) StVZO bike lights, there is a small amount of above-the-horizon spillover light which is what reflects off road signs and will also reflect off a jacket. If you're higher up than a road sign, that's one heck of a tall bike!

However, one problem mentioned earlier is that many retro reflective jacket patterns are designed to follow standards or fashion rather than function to form an identifiable human shape from various angles, so could lead to a cyclist being mistaken for a part-obscured road sign at first.



SteveF said:


> Your points seem to contradict each other,.


No, they really don't. There are subtle differences between them. Personally, I mostly care about aspect 3.



SteveF said:


> As I said, if people want to wear it then wear it, if they don't then don't, advocating either way without conclusive evidence is pointless, more about the agenda of the person who's advocating than anything else.


I agree, but we have some conclusive evidence which the promoters deny.


----------



## classic33 (27 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Flippin' 'eck, that was 495 posts I had to wade through!
> Unfortunately the information I was after isn't in that thread.


Low Sun Warning, last year?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2017)

classic33 said:


> Low Sun Warning, last year?



No, research on the many variations of conspicuity clothing required for all commuting scenarios.


----------



## classic33 (27 Nov 2017)

https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/25/3/517/2398658


----------



## Slick (27 Nov 2017)

classic33 said:


> One from Ireland.



Wow, how sad was reading that story. Obviously you would never know how you would react unless it happened to you, but I suspect this guy is a much better man than I am.


----------



## classic33 (27 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> Wow, how sad was reading that story. Obviously you would never know how you would react unless it happened to you, but I suspect this guy is a much better man than I am.


She had done everything to be visible.
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/s...-cyclist-left-unable-to-speak-or-walk.218116/


----------



## BoldonLad (27 Nov 2017)

classic33 said:


> She had done everything to be visible.
> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/s...-cyclist-left-unable-to-speak-or-walk.218116/



Very sad.

I may have miss-read the article, but, my understanding, after reading the article is that the cyclist turned right, across the path of the inadequately lit, approaching, car.

I may be wrong.... it has been known

Either way, there are most certainly no winners.....


----------



## Slick (27 Nov 2017)

classic33 said:


> She had done everything to be visible.
> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/s...-cyclist-left-unable-to-speak-or-walk.218116/


I didn't read the entire thread, but I can't believe that is what you get for such an offence. Really disgusting.


----------



## raleighnut (27 Nov 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> And the last post from that thread is worth repeating on this one.
> 
> One of those 'skeleton' tops might have similar 'attention grab'.


They do, mind you I must be the only skeleton with a beer-gut.


----------



## PaulSB (27 Nov 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> It's raining (down here in Devon) otherwise I would be out cycling. On the plus side the forecast is good (sunny if a bit 'fresh') for tomorrow and Wednesday.
> 
> Do you disagree with the view that one needs to prove hi viz is not effective for cyclists?



I'm struggling with what you mean here. Are you suggesting hi viz may be a danger to cyclists?



> Don't you think that if there were data to prove hi viz is effective for cyclists that this would be easy to find? Think of the commercial benefit to the hi-viz industry.



Yes I think it very odd it is so difficult to find ANY real data to prove the value or effectiveness on colour and/or hi viz in relation to safety for cyclists and in every other situation. Clearly there is a huge financial benefit to proving the effectiveness of both in financial and safety terms. I presume from this your view is the concern would be evidence might prove hi viz is a danger to cyclists?



> I'd suggest that the reason why industry uses hi-viz clothing is not for 'operational' reasons but to mitigate the risk/effect of litigation, rather than because its use has proved to offer a 'real' benefit (reduction of accidents). This is the basis of their 'business case': they are not spending money "for the sake of it". In the Risk Management 'bow-tie' this is dealing with the consequence of the 'event' rather than minimising the risk of such an event happening - a measure of interest to a company concerned with the effect on reputation (however unfounded) and litigation. The 'consequence' issue is the reason (warning - off topic - please do not pursue - for illustration only) I wear a h****t: because I don't want my BH and others to say/think (after the event) 'if only'?
> In an industrial setting where items may fall from height (eg oil rigs, refineries ime) or where height in passages is restricted it makes sense to mandate the use of a hard hat: good research has shown that the protection such a head cover offers reduces the damage to the worker wearing it.



Absolutely. I didn't suggest industry was spending money for the sake of it. Every company I worked with as a supplier would have some form of "accreditation" manual - a set of rules, guidelines, etc. with which suppliers were expected to comply. Every word in these manuals had one purpose only - to avoid the consequence of accident, product quality, danger to the public etc. The only consequence any of these companies were interested in was £££££s. I used to work in horticulture and there was a period when the "peat issue" was a very hot topic revolving around the extraction of peat from SSSIs. I've never forgotten the day a buyer looked me in the eye and said "I don't care where you get your peat so long as you have invoices to prove it's not from an SSSI" I'm not offering an opinion one or another on industry in this discussion but yes it's entirely clear the use of hi viz is driven by £££££.

Following this through I suggest industry is sufficiently convinced there is a benefit to wearing hi viz which is literally too expensive to ignore. The balance is simple will a company spend more on hi viz than it will lose in compensation ££££s? That is what drives the decision.


----------



## Slick (27 Nov 2017)

The thing with industry, they rarely set anything in stone preferring the risk assessment approach making it easier for the executive to bring a successful prosecution should anything go wrong. This is their take on high viz.


http://www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/factsheets/clothing.htm


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5057975, member: 9609"]No it wouldn't.

On dark unlit country roads hi-reflective is the very very very best thing to wear to be seen by the occasion car that may come along, as a driver you can pick up on it half a mile away easily, and it soon becomes very clear if it is a cyclist, walker, horserider - even for those not concentrating they have so much longer to see it and it is often way brighter than the rear lights.[/QUOTE]
They only have longer to see it on straightish roads and if anyone sees the standard hi vis pattern of two white lines like | | on top of white lines like = and thinks "ah, that's a cyclist" then they've got problems IMO!

As I've mentioned before, a decent tail light is visible much more than half a mile away, so that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. Even a flipping standlight is visible almost that far at first.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

PaulSB said:


> Following this through I suggest industry is sufficiently convinced there is a benefit to wearing hi viz which is literally too expensive to ignore. The balance is simple will a company spend more on hi viz than it will lose in compensation ££££s? That is what drives the decision.


Follow it further: will they lose ££££s because hi viz works or merely because enough people are convinced it works that they risk losing court cases if they don't have due regard to that view?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2017)

classic33 said:


> https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/25/3/517/2398658


Thanks but that's not it. It was a description of the different colours suited to the many different backgrounds and lighting situations that showed that any one colour of hi-vis jacket would be ineffective most of the time.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Thanks but that's not it. It was a description of the different colours suited to the many different backgrounds and lighting situations that showed that any one colour of hi-vis jacket would be ineffective most of the time.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22062342 "Attention and search conspicuity of motorcycles as a function of their visual context"


----------



## 400bhp (27 Nov 2017)

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...vis-clothing-makes-you-a-safer-cyclist-358674


----------



## 400bhp (27 Nov 2017)

Interesting reading a little on saccadic masking, which basically explains how we as humans struggle to see everything.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIF3FRwbG6Y


----------



## 400bhp (27 Nov 2017)

https://www.keithmichaels.co.uk/news/saccadic-masking-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-affect-my-driving/


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 Nov 2017)

Industry rightly puts PPE including hiviz at the bottom of the things to use to manage the risks to their workers. Indeed a worker not wearing hiviz will not exonerate a company from blame. Hiviz and PPE is the less effective measure


----------



## 400bhp (27 Nov 2017)

What all this is saying to me is that the risk factors surrounding bike safety is extremely complex. We can mitigate some risks ourselves but some of them are ones we have no control over. I think driverless cars will eventually be a beneficial thing for cyclists but there's a way to go until we get to that point. 

Personally I wear a helmet, don't wear hi viz from choice (I do have hi viz kit but that's because it was genenrally cheaper), use reflective bands and clothing, use lights, choose the roads I cycle on and aim to use road positioning to mitigate those risks.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (27 Nov 2017)

A lot of SMIDSY incidents could be avoided or reduced in severity if some cyclists slowed down a bit and took more care. Some of the idiots I see in London seem to think they're competing in the Tour de France and are clearly road racing against fellow cyclists. It's not just cars vs bikes either - I've witnessed SMIDSY collisions where all the parties involved were cyclists; one idiot pulling out of a junction without looking, and the other idiots tearing along in a heads-down position at excessive speed so unable to swerve or stop in time.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> A lot of SMIDSY incidents ....*; one idiot pulling out of a junction without looking, and the other idiots tearing along in a heads-down position at excessive speed so unable to swerve or stop in time*.


So one idiot failing to look, to exercise an appropriate degree of care, to give way to another road user and other non idiots getting a spot of victim-blame for riding a bike fairly normally then....?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 Nov 2017)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> A lot of SMIDSY incidents could be avoided or reduced in severity if some cyclists slowed down a bit and took more care. Some of the idiots I see in London seem to think they're competing in the Tour de France and are clearly road racing against fellow cyclists. It's not just cars vs bikes either - I've witnessed SMIDSY collisions where all the parties involved were cyclists; one idiot pulling out of a junction without looking, and the other idiots tearing along in a heads-down position at excessive speed so unable to swerve or stop in time.



It only seems like Tour de France speeds because your average speed in a vehicle is now below 7mph.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22062342 "Attention and search conspicuity of motorcycles as a function of their visual context"



That's good but it's not right.
Jeez, I think I'm turning into Roy Walker here...


----------



## classic33 (28 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That's good but it's not right.
> Jeez, I think I'm turning into Roy Walker here...


Did it get linked on here? Say what you saw.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Nov 2017)

classic33 said:


> Did it get linked on here? Say what you saw.



Can't describe it much better than I already have in previous posts. It was, if I remember correctly, a quote from research - can't recall if it linked to the source.


----------



## PaulSB (29 Nov 2017)

I was driving tonight on an unlit section of road with pavement on the opposite side of the road. The local running club were out in force using the pavement. All were wearing white lights of a good but not blinding intensity, no flashing or strobe effect.

As I got closer I could see all were wearing orange or yellow jackets.

I saw the lights from a long way off, I was almost level with them before I saw the jackets. 

As I posted earlier lights, properly used, are without doubt the best way to be visible


----------



## Ajax Bay (30 Nov 2017)

Use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and risk of crashes involving other road users: Population based case-control study
*Conclusion *(my emboldening)
This study found *no evidence* that cyclists using conspicuity aids were at *reduced risk* of a collision crash compared to non-users after adjustment for confounding, but there was *some evidence of an increase in risk*. Bias and residual confounding from differing route selection and cycling behaviours in users of conspicuity aids are possible explanations for these findings. *Conspicuity aids may not be effective in reducing collision crash risk for cyclists* in [cities] highly-motorised environments when used in the absence of other bicycle crash prevention measures such as increased segregation or lower motor vehicle speeds.

Also this:
The influence of a bicycle commuter's appearance on drivers’ overtaking proximities: An on-road test of bicyclist stereotypes, high-visibility clothing and safety aids in the United Kingdom


----------



## jefmcg (30 Nov 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> Use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and risk of crashes involving other road users: Population based case-control study
> *Conclusion *(my emboldening)
> This study found *no evidence* that cyclists using conspicuity aids were at *reduced risk* of a collision crash compared to non-users after adjustment for confounding, but there was *some evidence of an increase in risk*. Bias and residual confounding from differing route selection and cycling behaviours in users of conspicuity aids are possible explanations for these findings. *Conspicuity aids may not be effective in reducing collision crash risk for cyclists* in [cities] highly-motorised environments when used in the absence of other bicycle crash prevention measures such as increased segregation or lower motor vehicle speeds.


Ahem



jefmcg said:


> here's the study
> 
> It's the study this thread has been looking for
> 
> ...


----------



## PaulSB (1 Dec 2017)

I’m far from an expert in how to understand these studies. I find it impossible to understand how a highly visible cyclist is just as likely to be hit by a driver as one almost invisible by dressing all in black at night without lights.

Logic says if something is more visible one is more likely to see it. Now that may not change driver behaviour but it must give out some sort of valuable warning?

Sometimes I feel it’s possible to prove anything! Surely there are too many variables and unquantifiable influences to reach such conclusions by analysing accidents and comparing these with non accidents? Or is this just a case of statistics proving something when commonsense would offer the opposite conclusion?


----------



## Tin Pot (1 Dec 2017)

PaulSB said:


> ILogic says ...



It’s the difference between science and logic.

Once you’ve grasped that, you’ll be fine.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2017)

PaulSB said:


> I’m far from an expert in how to understand these studies. I find it impossible to understand how a highly visible cyclist is just as likely to be hit by a driver as one almost invisible by dressing all in black at night without lights.
> 
> Logic says if something is more visible one is more likely to see it. Now that may not change driver behaviour but it must give out some sort of valuable warning?
> 
> Sometimes I feel it’s possible to prove anything! Surely there are too many variables and unquantifiable influences to reach such conclusions by analysing accidents and comparing these with non accidents? Or is this just a case of statistics proving something when commonsense would offer the opposite conclusion?


Yeah, it's obvious, common sense innit?


----------



## PaulSB (1 Dec 2017)

Well I half expected those remarks 

I’ve even googled the “difference between logic and science.” Living with a health professional I’m more than familiar with the “show me the research” response when something she considers wrong comes up. I do appreciate science gives proper answers to measurable problems.

On the question of cyclists conspicuity I feel you might as well research how many people walk in to a table in a darkened room if they don’t turn the light on!!

Recently my wife failed to see me on a main road and pulled out in front of me. When I told her about this her response was “your shirt isn’t bright enough.” I know what she would say if I showed her this bit of research


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2017)

PaulSB said:


> Recently my wife failed to see me on a main road and pulled out in front of me. When I told her about this her response was “your shirt isn’t bright enough.” I know what she would say if I showed her this bit of research


That's her excuse not her reason.

She didn't see you because she wasn't looking. She wasn't looking because she probably drives/rides in a state of unconscious competence and evolution has wired her head up in such a way that half of us, well...

.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2017)

Don't know if this has been posted before http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/RS060062.pdf


----------



## Tin Pot (1 Dec 2017)

PaulSB said:


> On the question of cyclists conspicuity I feel you might as well research how many people walk in to a table in a darkened room if they don’t turn the light on!!



Science is more than just evidence of an answer, it’s about knowing how to ask the question. You’d be better off researching something that was similar to the problem at hand.


----------



## mjr (1 Dec 2017)

PaulSB said:


> On the question of cyclists conspicuity I feel you might as well research how many people walk in to a table in a darkened room if they don’t turn the light on!!


I suspect you're joking but there may be some similarities. Fewer than you may expect would walk into things because most people entering a dark room would move more slowly and cautiously, feeling their way ahead of them with arms (or in my case, my walking stick if I've got it).

Similarly, you may expect unlit cycling to be a factor in many collisions, but it's about 1 in 50, which may be because unlit riders are more cautious and don't assume careless drivers have seen them.



> Recently my wife failed to see me on a main road and pulled out in front of me. When I told her about this her response was “your shirt isn’t bright enough.” I know what she would say if I showed her this bit of research


Rationalising sucks sometimes  Has there been anything since that can give local riders confidence she won't do the same to some other cyclist wearing ordinary clothes?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (1 Dec 2017)

User said:


> That is a poor example though, as it is one object in a dark background. Our roads are complex by comparison and the issue we face is that we are competing for attention where insufficient resource is available for the task.



Agreed.
How about banning xenon headlights? On anything other than an absolute level road they're burning the retinas out of anyone within a mile coming the other way. Not only is the beam brighter, but it's been raised and widened to give a better impression of power - that now includes reaching the window level of other vehicles. It's a lighting arms race.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5062745, member: 9609"]where in that ageist and sexist aussy publication does it say 'making yourself more visible is not worth it' ?
.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't need to. There being no proof from anyone that making oneself more visible via lights and space lemon affects the issue of (drivers) looking-but-failing-to-see.

Sorry if that is counter to your intuition but feel free to read The Invisible Gorilla.

There are 1000's of RTC's every week caused by LBFS, and a couple of UK insurers are now looking to sponsor research I'm told.


----------



## theclaud (1 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5062799, member: 9609"]It is certainly highly complex, obviously better drivers, with good eyesight, paying more attention all of the time is the way forward, *but I dout we are going to have that eutopia anytime soon.*
[/QUOTE]
It's not utopia - it's easily achievable stuff, given the political will.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Dec 2017)

PaulSB said:


> W: “I didn’t see you. Obviously your shirt isn’t bright enough”



This is a common reaction from someone in a SMIDSY situation: blame the victim. And because this is so widespread (along with the 'stands to reason' argument about brighter = better) the myth becomes the accepted truth and we see it even permeate through to our police and court systems.

I've probably bored everyone silly with the picture I posted earlier  but it's always relevant in this type of thread where people fall back on the 'common sense' stance for promoting the idea that cyclists will be seen if they dress like a neon Christmas tree and fit eye-searing, pulsing lights. 'Be seen - be safe' and all that.


----------



## theclaud (1 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5062856, member: 9609"]*out of a scale of 0 - 100 where would you rate current politic will towards making the roads safer for cyclists?*

My Holyrood MSP only concern seems to be the pot holes are damaging peoples cars, and she has not seen a BUSINESS plan yet to convince her the proposed 20mph speed limit in scotlands built up areas is worth supporting. Obviously the SAFETY plan in reducing casualties is completely lost on her.[/QUOTE]

You're on the Advocacy & Cycling Safety board of a cycling forum, where it ought to be through the roof. Unfortunately even some of our fellow cyclists prefer to collude in a culture of driver-dominance by pretending that it's impossible, rather than just unpopular with drivers, to curb such drivers' freedom to intimidate, maim and kill.


----------



## mjr (1 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]I totally accept being more visible is no guarantee of not been seen, but it does improve your chances of been seen. And a driver seeing you is pretty important if they are going to avoid you.[/quote]
Something in that intuitive, common-sense chain doesn't seem to work because there's no data showing that riders using conspicuity aids have better injury outcomes! Personally, I suspect the whole concept of "more visible" and the "improve your chances of being seen" are both bascially complete Horlicks.

[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]visible clothing[/QUOTE]
Cool. I don't go out in invisible clothing - it's too cold for that just now.

[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]and lastly it is part of the highway code, we use this publication all the time to castigate drivers, we can't then say the bits we don't like are nonsense.[/QUOTE]
More often we use their disobediance of the law and failure to drive to the standard required to pass a test. Many of us have long said that there's bits in the Highway Code which are nonsense not backed by evidence which should never have been added to it and should be removed in the next update.

[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]As for the research into accident stats go, it is too complex to come to any conclusion. 20 cyclists in highly visible clothing amassing 100,000 miles a year. I ninja covering a 100 miles. If one of each group are in an accident it could be concluded from the hospital records that the risk is 50/50[/QUOTE]
Except that we have estimates of the proportions of ninjas and hi vis users and so on. We can wish for more robust estimates, but it would need to be pretty massive to overcome the surprisingly low ninja injury rate given how many of them I see! I was over in Norwich a few days ago and ninjas are very plentiful, outnumbering even the tits dazzling oncoming traffic with their lights, the people with tiny weak blinkies (probably batteries dying quickly in the cold this week) or those showing red lights to the front  - and yet, IIRC, ninjas are still a tiny fraction of casualties. I've got a Norfolk casualty reduction briefing somewhere around here and could find it and tell you the top factors if you want...

In a way, it's a good sign that people feel safe enough to cycle as ninjas, isn't it?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XypDTdd4qr0


----------



## mjr (1 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5062856, member: 9609"]out of a scale of 0 - 100 where would you rate current politic will towards making the roads safer for cyclists?[/QUOTE]
Somewhere near 15, sadly, even in an area with plenty of people cycling and some politicians who cycle, even some of them are reluctant to annoy the motoring lobby, even in the town centre wards where motorists are actually a minority. There are complex reasons for that, maybe best in another thread?

[QUOTE 5062856, member: 9609"]My Holyrood MSP only concern seems to be the pot holes are damaging peoples cars, and she has not seen a BUSINESS plan yet to convince her the proposed 20mph speed limit in scotlands built up areas is worth supporting. Obviously the SAFETY plan in reducing casualties is completely lost on her.[/QUOTE]
The safety plan is also a business plan. In Norfolk, population about 900,000, injuries while cycling cost £14.4m a year and most of that's an avoidable cost to the local economy, but the current cycling budget is well under £2m and most of that is central government grants restricted to the Norwich city district. Despite a couple of high-profile cockups discussed elsewhere on this site, the first phase of the main Norwich project still returned about £10m of benefits for £4m of spending (source). It's such a mind-bogglingly good business case, even for a place which wasn't awful before!


----------



## mjr (1 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5062901, member: 9609"]I am near the 100 but am I wrong to say that I think most drivers are less than 5 ? and then build my cycling around their uncaring idiotic driving ?[/QUOTE]
Oh hang on, rather than the politicians, do you mean the public will for improving cycling conditions? The recent Sustrans BikeLife survey estimated it at something like 78% in favour, but that's just one estimate.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5062799, member: 9609"]It is certainly highly complex, obviously better drivers, with good eyesight, paying more attention all of the time is the way forward, but I dout we are going to have that eutopia anytime soon.

Even in my little world of quiet unlit country roads there is no perfect one off solution, what works best in good light is not the best choice in the twighlight. Some sort of inverse Chameleon approach is what is needed.[/QUOTE]
But if they look-and-fail-to-see any approach is futile. And too many of them look-and-fail-to-see.


----------



## mjr (1 Dec 2017)

User said:


> All that happens is that, how ever much the cyclist takes appropriate steps, more and more excuses are made for them.


We moved to inappropriate steps in about 1968, when the first rule about light-coloured clothing (for walkers) was added, the word "suitable" was omitted from in front of "cycle path" in the rule telling you to use it and the 1959 edition's "These mistakes, which take lives, are made because in most cases we simply do not realize[sic] what we are doing until it is too late" style preamble was replaced with the inane "This is a new and bigger Highway Code. It has been completely revised and re-written. We've tried to make it easy to read and understand."

In 1954, the preamble included "we can so easily come to grief ourselves or, still worse, kill or maim somebody else. We can in a split second do something which we will regret all our lives."  2015? "Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share. The Highway Code can help us discharge that responsibility."


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]I totally accept being more visible is no guarantee of not been seen, but it does improve your chances of been seen. And a driver seeing you is pretty important if they are going to avoid you.[/QUOTE]
Nay, nay, and thrice nay.

If they look-but-don't-see nothing you do improves your chances of being seen.
If they look-and-do-see you don't need to do anything to improve your chances.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2017)

I love this one.

http://road.cc/content/news/231075-video-sorry-mate-i-didnt-see-you-day

As soon as you see what car is approaching you _know_ how it will go down.


----------



## mjr (1 Dec 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I love this one.
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/231075-video-sorry-mate-i-didnt-see-you-day
> 
> As soon as you see what car is approaching you _know_ how it will go down.


Actually, I was expecting far worse. Well done to the rider for the emergency turn to the right minimising the impact despite having one hand off to signal and the road looking very wet and slippy!


----------



## Slick (1 Dec 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I love this one.
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/231075-video-sorry-mate-i-didnt-see-you-day
> 
> As soon as you see what car is approaching you _know_ how it will go down.


What a boot.


----------



## raleighnut (1 Dec 2017)

User said:


> The problem is that accepting more responsibility for our personal safety is a one way street. Back when cars were new, cyclists *didn't* need rear lights at all. First it was agreed that cyclists would have a white patch on their rear mudguard to show in headlights. Later it was agreed that they would have a red light, on a par with a glowworm. As time has gone by the perceived requirements have just got ramped up and up, but nothing comes back the other way. If we had an arrangement that, should a driver hit a lit cyclist, they would be prosecuted, that would show some intent towards reciprocity. All that happens is that, how ever much the cyclist takes appropriate steps, more and more excuses are made for them.


The white patch on the rear mudguard was a WW2 'Blackout' measure.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (1 Dec 2017)

Motorway users will know this one. You know those trucks with the big lit up arrow on the back? They have some whacking great strobe lights that totally obliterate all darkness for a radius of ten miles and make your brain go . Well I want a red version of one of those strobe lights to stick on my backpack.
Only the most ardent phone user will miss that!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Actually, I was expecting far worse. Well done to the rider for the emergency turn to the right minimising the impact despite having one hand off to signal and the road looking very wet and slippy!


The first time I got rear ended, three back lights, space lemon, reflectives, pelmet, pedal reflectors et al, et cetera, but sadly no camera the driver said "You came out of nowhere"

"Er, no you blinking blinker I was blinking stopped on the blinking give way line and you blinking well drove straight into me, you blinking blind blinked up can't. BLINK!"


----------



## mjr (1 Dec 2017)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Motorway users will know this one. You know those trucks with the big lit up arrow on the back? They have some whacking great strobe lights that totally obliterate all darkness for a radius of ten miles and make your brain go . Well I want a red version of one of those strobe lights to stick on my backpack.
> Only the most ardent phone user will miss that!


You wish!





(source)


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Dec 2017)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Motorway users will know this one. You know those trucks with the big lit up arrow on the back? They have some whacking great strobe lights that totally obliterate all darkness for a radius of ten miles and make your brain go . Well I want a red version of one of those strobe lights to stick on my backpack.
> Only the most ardent phone user will miss that!



Errrm...






Edited to remove errant text


----------



## jefmcg (1 Dec 2017)

PaulSB said:


> ’m far from an expert in how to understand these studies. I find it impossible to understand how a highly visible cyclist is just as likely to be hit by a driver as one almost invisible by dressing all in black at night without lights.



I think it's because being visible is a binary. You are either visible or you are not. The reason lights might not make a difference is because the driver actually sees both cyclists at around the same time, and either absorbs the knowledge they were there or filters them out like the gorilla. If your lower level brain processing doesn't regard cyclists as important, it won't relay them to your consciousness no matter how brightly they are dressed.


----------



## jefmcg (1 Dec 2017)

Aside: I once encountered a genuine smidsy - someone who was completely invisible. I was driving down a well let suburban street with headlights on. There was something white in the middle of the road. A plastic bag? A discarded newspaper? I was concentrating trying to work out what it was. I was going to drive over it, but thought better of it - what if it's a cat? - and manoeuvred around it. As I passed I realised it was a person talking to her friend, leaning in the driver's window. If she hadn't been wearing white shoes, I would have hit her a something close to 30 mph. And I really, really couldn't see her - except the shoes. But ninja cyclist are usually quite visible.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (1 Dec 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Errrm...
> 
> View attachment 385522
> 
> ...



Oh well, that's stuffed that idea


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (1 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> You wish!
> View attachment 385521
> 
> (source)



Another one! May as well wear black!


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (1 Dec 2017)

I see a guy regularly that has a security floodlight taped to the bars.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Dec 2017)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> I see a guy regularly that has a security floodlight taped to the bars.



But can you see anything else?!


----------



## boydj (1 Dec 2017)

I've posted this before, but it's relevant and an interesting read : http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/Big.html


----------



## Slick (2 Dec 2017)

boydj said:


> I've posted this before, but it's relevant and an interesting read : http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/Big.html


I'm not sure if it's just me but I get a site can't be reached message.


----------



## classic33 (2 Dec 2017)

Slick said:


> I'm not sure if it's just me but I get a site can't be reached message.


"The theory of big"

It's just you!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Dec 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I think it's because being visible is a binary. You are either visible or you are not. The reason lights might not make a difference is because the driver actually sees both cyclists at around the same time, and either absorbs the knowledge they were there or filters them out like gorilla. If your lower level brain processing doesn't regard cyclists as important, it won't relay them to your consciousness no matter how brightly they are dressed.


The authors of The Invisible Gorilla cite examples where folk look but don't see even when we might assume their lower brain processing does regard the object they look at as important.


----------



## Katherine (2 Dec 2017)

400bhp said:


> https://www.keithmichaels.co.uk/news/saccadic-masking-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-affect-my-driving/



That's really interesting.


----------



## theclaud (3 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5066143, member: 9609"]we are where we are though, it is not a situation I like, [/QUOTE]
And how did we get there?


----------



## mjr (4 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5066143, member: 9609"]we are where we are though, it is not a situation I like, I wish drivers would concentrate more and I wish the justice system would compel them to take more care, but sadly as you say it has went the other way. In the mean time I think making myself as visible as possible is a very good idea, may be dressing as a ninja in hope it will cause drivers to concentrate more is the way forward but don't fancy it my self.[/QUOTE]
That's not the counter argument, but hey, keep on inventing your own demons if it makes you happy.

The reason not to waste money on s stuff that doesn't work is to spend more on stuff that does or seems more likely to, like better lighting systems, training and even Road Justice campaigning or helping get more newcomers cycling instead of driving.


----------



## simongt (4 Dec 2017)

There are three things that are GUARANTEED to get you into an argument with a man; politics / his ability 'in the bedroom' / his ability as a driver. 
Nuff said - !


----------



## simongt (5 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5067813, member: 9609"]it is only the last one that will really hurt his feelings deep down though[/QUOTE]

Oh yes; after all, most of us are a right little Jenson Button when we get behind the wheel of a car aren't we - ? !


----------



## raleighnut (6 Dec 2017)

simongt said:


> Oh yes; after all, most of us are a right little Jenson Button when we get behind the wheel of a car aren't we - ? !


I'd say more were right James Hunt's behind the wheel


----------



## oldstrath (6 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> That's not the counter argument, but hey, keep on inventing your own demons if it makes you happy.
> 
> The reason not to waste money on s stuff that doesn't work is to spend more on stuff that does or seems more likely to, like better lighting systems, training and even Road Justice campaigning or helping get more newcomers cycling instead of driving.


How is User9609 not spending money on hiviz or on lights you think are unnecessary going to improve driver training or law enforcement?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Dec 2017)

oldstrath said:


> How is User9609 not spending money on hiviz or on lights you think are unnecessary going to improve driver training or law enforcement?



The promotion of hi-vis by car companies and the government costs money. It's not cheap to indoctrinate the public from childhood and throughout their adult life so this is money that would be better spent elsewhere, tackling the problem of bad driving and getting drivers to take responsibility for the great danger they bring.

(I'm not suggesting I speak for @mjr with this reply)


----------



## oldstrath (6 Dec 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The promotion of hi-vis by car companies and the government costs money. It's not cheap to indoctrinate the public from childhood and throughout their adult life so this is money that would be better spent elsewhere, tackling the problem of bad driving and getting drivers to take responsibility for the great danger they bring.
> 
> (I'm not suggesting I speak for @mjr with this reply)


I completely agree about the costs of government promotion and desirability of alternative government action, but campaigns, however important, won't make the guy on an unlit back road be, or feel, any safer right now.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (6 Dec 2017)

What the fark is the point of hi viz, lights, reflectors and neon underpants when drivers even drive head on to each other when there's a ton of farking metal with headlights like lazer beams aimed at their retina coming the other way?
Visibility above the basics is just a money making scheme.


----------



## mjr (6 Dec 2017)

oldstrath said:


> I completely agree about the costs of government promotion and desirability of alternative government action, but campaigns, however important, won't make the guy on an unlit back road be, or feel, any safer right now.


They will if they succeed.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Dec 2017)

oldstrath said:


> I completely agree about the costs of government promotion and desirability of alternative government action, but campaigns, however important, won't make the guy on an unlit back road be, or feel, any safer right now.



I should have clarified that my vision of alternative action is widespread enforcement and proper punishment, not more of the 'share the road' bollox. If bad drivers feel there is a real prospect of being caught and losing the right to drive, it ought to result in better safety for everyone.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (6 Dec 2017)

But there can't be proper punishments with no policing. And no-one wants to pay for policing.
Did I hear right that all new coppers must have a degree? So that's an inbuilt 4 year delay even if investment is forthcoming.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5068620, member: 9609"]because most drivers are relatively careful and helping them out by getting yourself seen earlier is a nice way to thank them for their consideration. 
Then there is the group who are not so careful, poor eyesight / mobile phones / over complicated heating controls - - being big and bright is going to help in getting seen when they do glance forward. 
Then there are the speeders, 90mph is 40 metres per second, they are concentrating but you need to become recognisable as a cyclist 3 or 4 seconds out - can your lights and shape give then this info from a 140 metres?
Then they are the complete idiots like you mention, not really much you can do but get off the road out of the way.[/QUOTE]

As I rode down one of the rare pieces of segregated cycle route in Glasgow this morning, a pedestrian stepped in front of me without looking, causing me to stop. She wasn't wearing hi-vis but was dressed in dark winter coat & hat whereas I was on a bright white bike, with big white panniers and my smug-git B&M dynamo lights on. 

I avoided hitting her because I was keeping a lookout for normal people doing normal things while normally dressed.


----------



## mjr (6 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5068620, member: 9609"]because most drivers are relatively careful and helping them out by getting yourself seen earlier is a nice way to thank them for their consideration. 
Then there is the group who are not so careful, poor eyesight / mobile phones / over complicated heating controls - - being big and bright is going to help in getting seen when they do glance forward. 
Then there are the speeders, 90mph is 40 metres per second, they are concentrating but you need to become recognisable as a cyclist 3 or 4 seconds out - can your lights and shape give then this info from a 140 metres? 
Then they are the complete idiots like you mention, not really much you can do but get off the road out of the way.[/QUOTE]
If they're careful and responsible, they don't want your thanks. In fact, they would probably prefer you looked ordinary and not wear confusing reflective white stripes. I certainly would. Anyway, hi vis doesn't matter in this case because this group wouldn't've hit you anyway.

If they're not paying enough attention, if hi vis worked, then you'd be farking over the person cycling next to you by distracting the driver from them, possibly when they're closer. Is that the sort of selfish swine you want to be? So hi vis may well put others in more danger.

If they're doing 90, they're closing on other vehicles at 30-70mph, so they're going to lift off as soon as they see tail lights... unless they think it's something they can squeeze past, such as a cyclist. So hi vis may well put you in more danger.

And the rest, yes, not much can be done, but fortunately that's a tiny minority.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (6 Dec 2017)

And yet the only conclusion out of studies into hi is use by cyclists concluded they were hit more often than those without. Good drivers will see you several hundred meters ahead on a straight road, regardless of what you wear. What matters is whether they pay attention to you and any other vulnerable road users, moderate their driving and speed in the presence of vulnerable road users and continue to do that as they approach you, and are able to stop in the distance they see clear. Indeed being able to stop behind you should you be turning right etc.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (6 Dec 2017)

If drivers are not seeing vulnerable road users or obstructions early enough for them to react appropriately then the correct response is lower speed limits for that section of road.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5069196, member: 9609"]where are these conclusive studies ? think there have. But I think the problem here is some cyclists don't want to come out of the 60s and feel their safety is everyone else's responsibility.[/QUOTE]
The safety of other road users IS everyone else's responsibility.

And as wearing space lemon or having uber lights doesn't affect my safety one jot so far as I can tell (school of hard knocks) and none of the space lights and uber lemon advocates can put forward a shred of evidence (pelmets anyone?) that they do improve my safety I'll carry on insisting that drivers drive responsibly, and arguing with the lemonistas.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Dec 2017)

User said:


> If you have legal lights and reflectors it is someone else's responsibility. The question is why is that not being enforced?


Because an Englishman's car is his castle?


----------



## raleighnut (7 Dec 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Because an Englishman's car is his Codpiece?




FTFY.


----------



## jefmcg (7 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5069196, member: 9609"]where are these conclusive studies ? think there have been two put forward in this thread which are about as inconclusive as it gets.[/QUOTE]
Fine. If hi viz works, please produce the studies that show it prevents injuries and save lives.

[QUOTE 5066128, member: 9609"]the fact that these trucks only get hit once in a blue moon proves how effective it is[/QUOTE]

Do you know how often they get hit? Do you have any data to compare with the other stopped vehicles on the motorway?

I see a fair number of unlit cyclists. They are also rarely hit. Does shows how effective not being lit and wearing dark clothes is?

The apparent truth is that if a driver looks properly, they will see you, and if they don't they won't - and what you wear changes nothing.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5069750, member: 9609"]May be you mean it should be? becacause at the moment not many of them are thinking that way.[/QUOTE]
I mean it _is. _That people are not held accountable for failing in their responsibilities is

a) a separate debate
b) No reason to increase my burden of responsibility via visibilism, nor to insist or imply I'm accountable if I don't subscribe to the lemon way.




> I hope you continue to argue with the drivers, Im very much on your side - but think you're wrong to criticise those who are just trying to make the best of a bad situation.


I believe I am right, and somewhat entitled, to criticise anyone who, by their dress or specific equipment, portrays to non-cyclists that cycling is an unduly hazardous activity.

The benefits of cycling far outweigh the small risks involved, but the non-cyclist never knows that if riders either wear special sports clothes, indicating that only athletes need apply, or PPE, indicating that the riders health and safety are at significant risk whilst riding, or sport nuclear powered lights "to be seen".

On top of that I strongly feel that the "devolution" for road safety to the more vulnerable road users is an inherently motor-centric position, at best thoughtless, and worse, brainwashed, that needs to be constantly challenged. I can't abide the UK's motor-centrism.


----------



## Hitchington (7 Dec 2017)

keep a pasty complexion by avoiding going on holiday to sunny places.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5069839, member: 9609"]please produce the studies that show it does not.

with probably every health and safety body within europe if not the world advising that it is the best way to be seen, I think the onus is on you to show that it does not help.[/QUOTE]
PPE is at the bottom of the pyramid. Anyone who ascribes the reduction in H&S injuries and deaths to the use of PPE because it is "the best way to be seen" can reasonably expect to be challenged that they appear not to understand how that pyramid works.


----------



## mjr (7 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5069839, member: 9609"]please produce the studies that show it does not.

with probably every health and safety body within europe if not the world advising that it is the best way to be seen, I think the onus is on you to show that it does not help.[/QUOTE]
It is rarely possible to conclusively prove that something is definitely useless. It should be easy to show that something has a significant effect if it does, yet no-one can for hi-vis.

I think the claim about "probably every health and safety body within europe if not the world advising that it is the best way to be seen" might be misleading: the UK's HSE only advises use of hi-vis jackets for people who have stopped their vehicles in traffic, doesn't it? Or have I missed where they say people walking and cycling on the roads should wear it? It doesn't seem to be in the last Report of the Work-related Road Safety Task Group.


----------



## mjr (7 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5069899, member: 9609"]not really, you and others are going against the advice of the highway code, show me where the highway code is wrong[/QUOTE]
Easily shown: Rule 59 is wrong and was introduced without any evidence - I think in 1993, under another number.

[QUOTE 5069899, member: 9609"]I am not telling anyone to make themselves easier to be seen, but defending my right to follow the advice of the highway code and make an effort to be seen by other road users, why is that not OK with you ?[/QUOTE]
If you want to do it because you're blindly following the highway code, then that's OK - what's not OK is to pretend that Major's government introducing it or Blair's government keeping it in the last code edition necessarily means it's safer or backed by sound evidence.


----------



## mjr (7 Dec 2017)

User said:


> The highway code is wrong because it is written from a carcentric viewpoint.


Indeed! The Blair government initially only invited motoring organisations into the drafting process for the last revision. The cycling organisations had to do a lot of lobbying even to get cycling concerns heard and get the few changes they did - I think the rules about cycle facilities (61-63) initially lacked the "where practicable" and similar qualifications and were basically back to the 1940s highway code's "if there is a cycle track - use it". It's high time to rip it up and start again, putting humans first.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESy-Z8vqMrE


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5069899, member: 9609"]I am not telling anyone to make themselves easier to be seen, but defending my right to follow the advice of the highway code and make an effort to be seen by other road users, why is that not OK with you ?[/QUOTE]
It is entirely ok with me for you to defend your right to do as you please. Our debate, and this is by no means the first time this debate has featured on cc, will live on long after we've agreed to differ. Hence


GrumpyGregry said:


> I believe I am right, and somewhat entitled, to criticise anyone who, by their dress or specific equipment, portrays to non-cyclists that cycling is an unduly hazardous activity.



Why do I do that? Specifically in relation to dress and lights, because



GrumpyGregry said:


> The benefits of cycling far outweigh the small risks involved, but the non-cyclist never knows that if riders either wear special sports clothes, indicating that only athletes need apply, or PPE, indicating that the riders health and safety are at significant risk whilst riding, or sport nuclear powered lights "to be seen".



and, generally, in relation to cycling on UK roads, because


GrumpyGregry said:


> On top of that I strongly feel that the "devolution" for road safety to the more vulnerable road users is an inherently motor-centric position, at best thoughtless, and worse, brainwashed, that needs to be constantly challenged. I can't abide the UK's motor-centrism.


The Highway code contains motor-centric advice from a bunch of motor-centrists.


----------



## mjr (7 Dec 2017)

Before anyone claims that something must be safe to get into the highway code, please remember that http://highwaycode.info/rule/187 still to this day includes "give plenty of room to [...] cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Before anyone claims that something must be safe to get into the highway code, please remember that http://highwaycode.info/rule/187 still to this day includes "give plenty of room to [...] cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout"


Turing right at a roundabout from the left hand lane when driving has become the norm in these parts. A small amount of official sanction becomes an informal blanket arrangement.


----------



## theclaud (7 Dec 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Turing right at a roundabout from the left hand lane when driving has become the norm in these parts. A small amount of official sanction becomes an informal blanket arrangement.


It's also often encouraged by cycling infrastructure.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Dec 2017)

theclaud said:


> It's also often encouraged by cycling infrastructure.


It is 'kin' terrifying is what it is, esp. when coupled with the West Sussex indicator boycott.


----------



## theclaud (7 Dec 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> It is 'kin' terrifying is what it is, esp. when coupled with *the West Sussex indicator boycott.*


I don't think that is confined to W. Sussex!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Dec 2017)

theclaud said:


> I don't think that is confined to W. Sussex!


I have been told twice, once as a rider in conflict with a driver, and once as a passenger in a car, having one of "those" conversations with the driver, that indicators aren't needed when turning right from the left most lane as the filter markings make indicating redundant. In an ahead or turn right filter lane. What the actual!


----------



## stoatsngroats (7 Dec 2017)

united4ever said:


> Not just at night but generally things that will get drivers to see you in a low sun or coming down the road. Hi viz obviously, flashing lights even on a bright day? got knocked off last month at a roundabout because the driver couldn't see me in the low sun. ordered a new bike today but trying to think of ways to mitigate the risk. Going to try to get more accessories in yellow or orange and have my lights flashing day or night. Anything else without turning myself into blackpool illuminations


I think that road position is as important as lights and hi vis additions, but your incident could have occurred whilst wearing hi vis, and displaying lights, it’s not apparent what you had when you were hit from your post.
Road position will not _automatically _ mean you are guaranteed to be safe, it appears to make a difference when I cycle, because by taking a primary position, I aim to be visible. I use lights in the daytime, and occasionally hi vis, if I deem this necessary on my chosen route, and consider weather conditions and lighting too.
I think an increase in visible additions to be necessary at least some of the time, although in country lanes yellow can get a little lost in the view. 
Multi coloured clothing can help at times too.
Having driven a variety of HGVs, as well as cars and trains, hi vis is very effective generally, but not always. A man dressed in Cat 3 hi vis, if not standing in a visible place, may as well be hidden, and he needs to consider what will be in the background of driver approaching. This consideration should be paramount for us as cyclist as we traverse through our chosen routes.
Lights will always be a good addition, but, if the scenery blends with your chosen apparel, maybe best to get off and walk in a safe place for a few yards, rather than risk a possible close pass or worse.
Drivers, as we might all agree, have minds which wander sometimes, and it’s not always the careless, drunk, distracted or limited vision ones which cause accidents.
Be safe!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (9 Dec 2017)

Do not forget to wear black or dark colours to make yourself hi vis in the snow tomorrow


----------



## raleighnut (10 Dec 2017)

YukonBoy said:


> Do not forget to wear black or dark colours to make yourself hi vis in the snow tomorrow


----------



## User32269 (15 Dec 2017)

I attempted to be visible last night in a Nissan Micra. Lights on in a floodlit car park. A guy got into his car with a young lad and began to reverse, as he got closer and closer to my stationary car, I blasted the horn. He stopped briefly, then just reversed into me!
Thankfully, he had a reasonable explanation for hitting my illuminated car whilst I was blasting the horn to warn him of my presence. 
"Sorry mate, I was sort of looking the other way."

This has helped reinforce my long held belief that if I wrapped myself in Blackpool illuminations whilst towing a speaker on my bike blasting out AC-DC at 11 on the dial, some gobsh1te would SMIDSY me.


----------



## mjr (15 Dec 2017)

odav said:


> I attempted to be visible last night in a Nissan Micra. Lights on in a floodlit car park. A guy got into his car with a young lad and began to reverse, as he got closer and closer to my stationary car, I blasted the horn. He stopped briefly, then just reversed into me!


Well, is your Micra hi-vis?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Dec 2017)

odav said:


> I attempted to be visible last night in a Nissan Micra. Lights on in a floodlit car park. A guy got into his car with a young lad and began to reverse, as he got closer and closer to my stationary car, I blasted the horn. He stopped briefly, then just reversed into me!
> Thankfully, he had a reasonable explanation for hitting my illuminated car whilst I was blasting the horn to warn him of my presence.
> "Sorry mate, I was sort of looking the other way."
> 
> This has helped reinforce my long held belief that if I wrapped myself in Blackpool illuminations whilst towing a speaker on my bike blasting out AC-DC at 11 on the dial, some gobsh1te would SMIDSY me.


You need to paint the car in space lemon. Obvs.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Dec 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You need to paint the car in space lemon. Obvs.


TMN @mjr


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Dec 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Turing right at a roundabout from the left hand lane when driving has become the norm in these parts. A small amount of official sanction becomes an informal blanket arrangement.
> View attachment 386254


tlh has asked me to remind everyone that on the roundabout above it is perfectly acceptable for traffic on the A264 coming from Dorking and turning towards Crawley to turn LEFT, at high-speed, from the right-hand lane of the DC especially as this then makes the exit route from the roundabout much more entertaining, in a very excellent "Oh Jayzus! FFS!" kind of a way, for anyone turning right from the left-hand lane in my original streetview shot.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Dec 2017)

odav said:


> I attempted to be visible last night in a Nissan Micra. Lights on in a floodlit car park. A guy got into his car with a young lad and began to reverse, as he got closer and closer to my stationary car, I blasted the horn. He stopped briefly, then just reversed into me!
> Thankfully, he had a reasonable explanation for hitting my illuminated car whilst I was blasting the horn to warn him of my presence.
> "Sorry mate, I was sort of looking the other way."
> 
> This has helped reinforce my long held belief that if I wrapped myself in Blackpool illuminations whilst towing a speaker on my bike blasting out AC-DC at 11 on the dial, some gobsh1te would SMIDSY me.


Also Scotchlite* on all leading edges, and roof mounted flashing lights at retina melting intensity. I would say "drive something bigger" but having watched a nobber drive into a bright orange Sainsburys' artic the other day, maybe not.


*other reflective tapes are available.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5080805, member: 9609"]The benefits of using brighter clothing, reflective strips, lights etc have been pretty obvious to me long before I took up cycling and that is the reason I think it is a good idea.[/QUOTE]
The benefits of using brighter clothing, reflective strips, lights etc were completely overestimated and misunderstood by me* long before I took up cycling again and the experience of their utter uselessness, plus some research into the science behind that, is the reason I think it is not a good idea.

*Good old motor-centric me from back in the day.


----------



## mjr (15 Dec 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> The benefits of using brighter clothing, reflective strips, lights etc were completely overestimated and misunderstood by me* long before I took up cycling again and the experience of their utter uselessness, plus some research into the science behind that, is the reason I think it is not a good idea.
> 
> *Good old motor-centric me from back in the day.


In god we trust. All others must bring data.

"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken.


----------



## sheddy (15 Dec 2017)

Don't ride in a straight line for too long.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Dec 2017)

sheddy said:


> Don't ride in a straight line for too long.


But if you swerve, do so randomly.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 Dec 2017)

sheddy said:


> Don't ride in a straight line for too long.



A properly executed newbie wobble can work wonders.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Dec 2017)

There we have it the best way to make yourself visible is to go to the pub first.


----------



## Ajax Bay (3 Apr 2018)

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


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Apr 2018)

The indiscriminate use of hi-vis clothing in all sorts of everyday situations has nothing to do with safety but everything to do with corporate arse-covering on the advice of lawyers! Companies dish out hi-vis jerkins like confetti, as do schools. It's ridiculous, but blame the lawyers for this culture. However, in situations where there is a real risk, such as in moving traffic, I always support the use of reflective clothing, especially at night. At the end of the day, if you venture on to the public highway used by vehicles at night and you deliberately choose not to wear reflective and therefore visible clothing, you're an idiot - regardless of who is at fault in the case of any accident.


----------



## classic33 (3 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> The indiscriminate use of hi-vis clothing in all sorts of everyday situations has nothing to do with safety but everything to do with corporate arse-covering on the advice of lawyers! Companies dish out hi-vis jerkins like confetti, as do schools. It's ridiculous, but blame the lawyers for this culture. However, in situations where there is a real risk, such as in moving traffic, I always support the use of reflective clothing, especially at night. At the end of the day,* if you venture on to the public highway used by vehicles at night and you deliberately choose not to wear reflective and therefore visible clothing, *you're an idiot - regardless of who is at fault in the case of any accident.


If another vehicle is involved, I'd be questioning their eyesight.

Something I did do after being hit.


----------



## classic33 (3 Apr 2018)

If Hi-Vis is as commonplace as made out, sould that be an excuse for not seeing someone?


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Apr 2018)

You can question whatever you like but the fact remains is that the more visible you are to other road users, the less chance there is of an accident occurring in the first place. Unlit roads and even lit roads where there are a lot of shadows cast can easily conceal any other road user who is not well lit up. You can choose to try to stand out from the shadows or you can choose to blend in and hope that all the motorists you encounter have super eyesight and levels of alertness and concentration. Personally I like to stack the odds in my favour, and if my dress makes me look like a builder who cares?


----------



## theclaud (3 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> The indiscriminate use of hi-vis clothing in all sorts of everyday situations has nothing to do with safety but everything to do with corporate arse-covering on the advice of lawyers! Companies dish out hi-vis jerkins like confetti, as do schools. It's ridiculous, but blame the lawyers for this culture. However, in situations where there is a real risk, such as in moving traffic, I always support the use of reflective clothing*, *especially at night. At the end of the day, if you venture on to the public highway used by vehicles at night and you deliberately choose not to wear reflective and therefore visible clothing, you're an idiot - regardless of who is at fault in the case of any accident.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (3 Apr 2018)

If car headlights are working they will illuminate someone in black equally well as someone in hiviz red.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Apr 2018)

If you don't dress to be visible, then you must be happy to be invisible, and not bothered if others can see you or not. Responsible use of the roads is a two-way street, you can't expect everyone else to do your share of the risk reduction, because for whatever reason you don't want to wear reflective garments. It's just as much your responsibility to help others see you as it is for them to be vigilant and look out for you. Blaming the failings of someone else for an accident because you may have technically been within the law won't make you any less dead.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Apr 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> If car headlights are working they will illuminate someone in black equally well as someone in hiviz red.



Yes, up close they will, but if someone is wearing reflective stripe garments they will be picked out sooner possibly hundreds of yards away - not within colliding distance. Their presence is alerted much sooner.


----------



## screenman (3 Apr 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> If car headlights are working they will illuminate someone in black equally well as someone in hiviz red.



Not sure about that. Black against a black background hides quite well.


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Apr 2018)

@SkipdiverJohn If you take a look at the evidence you will find that actually wearing hi-vis does not reduce your chances of being hit. You may be visible, but will you be seen?


----------



## theclaud (3 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> . It's just as much your responsibility to help others see you as it is for them to be vigilant and look out for you.


Nope.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (3 Apr 2018)

screenman said:


> Not sure about that. Black against a black background hides quite well.



The background is not black though is it? It can be green, it can be yellow, it can be white. It can be a whole mix of colours and usually is.


----------



## screenman (3 Apr 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> The background is not black though is it? It can be green, it canht be yellow, it might by white



I presumed that the use of headlights meant it was dark, and around these parts in the dark the background looks very black.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (3 Apr 2018)

screenman said:


> I presumed that the use of headlights meant it was dark, and around these parts in the dark the background looks very black.



Not when light falls on it doesn't. If light is not falling on your clothing does not matter what colour it is. If light falls on it, it reflects its usual light frequencies.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Yes, up close they will, but if someone is wearing reflective stripe garments they will be picked out sooner possibly hundreds of yards away - not within colliding distance. Their presence is alerted much sooner.



My closest, most frightening, passes have all taken place in daylight with sunshine and excellent visibility, while wearing a red jacket, and riding a white bike with big, fat, white Ortlieb panniers. Most visible of all would have been my milky-white Glasgwegian legs spinning away at 90rpm.

Now, I know I'm not invisible it's just that a lot drivers don't bother to look where they're farking going or, more likely, have seen me and simply don't give a shoot.

At night time I rely on my approved lighting and that seems to do the trick very well indeed, even in winter when I wear a black (OM Actual G!) gilet over my red jacket.

So why am I getting more dangerous behaviour during the day, when I am visible, compared to at night when I am 'invisible'?


----------



## mjr (3 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> You can question whatever you like but the fact remains is that the more visible you are to other road users, the less chance there is of an accident occurring in the first place.


That "fact" doesn't seem to be true in at least two ways.


----------



## classic33 (3 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> You can question whatever you like but the fact remains is that the more visible you are to other road users, the less chance there is of an accident occurring in the first place. Unlit roads and even lit roads where there are a lot of shadows cast can easily conceal any other road user who is not well lit up. You can choose to try to stand out from the shadows or you can choose to blend in and hope that all the motorists you encounter have super eyesight and levels of alertness and concentration. Personally I like to stack the odds in my favour, and if my dress makes me look like a builder who cares?


Your own argument against it was it's everywhere. 

We'd be lost in a sea of it, Hi-Vis. If that's the case is it really safer. We tend to not see things that are commonplace, or more likely they don't register, having been seen. Within the workplace you are advised to keep your eyes open, wear PPE as required and appropriate for where you are working. You also tend to be watching where you're going more at work. It still doesn't mean you can just wander willy nilly round a site because you're wearing it, "everyone can see me" doesn't hold true.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (4 Apr 2018)

You can only stack the odds more in your favour in respect of the things you CAN influence. I agree there is too much indiscriminate use of hi-vis during the day, in situations where in reality there is not much real danger. You can't force the brain of another human being to actually register and act on seeing you, but if they haven't even seen you to begin with then they won't register you regardless. Making yourself visible is stage 1 of being seen and acted on, the observer then taking appropriate action having actually seen you is stage 2. Stage 2 can't happen without stage 1, so the more times in every 100 you can actually make others aware of your presence the more chance you've got of them not taking you out.
There's nothing anyone can do in real time to influence the reckless brigade or the ones too busy looking at Facebook or sending a text instead of looking where they are going. But then I regularly see idiot cyclists texting and holding mobile phone conversations whilst on the move, so some of those are equally guilty of being irresponsible and not paying full attention to the road.


----------



## mjr (4 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Making yourself visible is stage 1 of being seen and acted on,


I am always visible, as far as I can tell. Please tell me how to make myself invisible. It could be quite useful in some situations.



> But then I regularly see idiot cyclists texting and holding mobile phone conversations whilst on the move, so some of those are equally guilty of being irresponsible and not paying full attention to the road.


I think it's clearly far far more irresponsible to be phoning while in charge of a heavier, larger, motor-powered vehicle. This seems like the same sort of nonsense as those ranting against people walking and talking instead of devoting all their attention to the motoring gods driving by.


----------



## jefmcg (4 Apr 2018)

mjr said:


> Please tell me how to make myself invisible.


The first lesson of not being seen is not to stand up.


----------



## snorri (4 Apr 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Yes, up close they will, but if someone is wearing reflective stripe garments they will be picked out sooner possibly hundreds of yards away - not within colliding distance. Their presence is alerted much sooner.


Drivers would be alerted much sooner if they drove at appropriate speeds for the conditions, but motor vehicle speed limits would probably have to be reduced to help achieve this.


----------



## winjim (4 Apr 2018)

mjr said:


> I am always visible, as far as I can tell. Please tell me how to make myself invisible. It could be quite useful in some situations.


Keep very very still and make sure you are only observed from a single vantage point.

View attachment 402945


Edit: Changed picture to a slightly more appropriate one.


----------



## Ajax Bay (4 Apr 2018)

The ETA article I linked to yesterday had a string of comments and one shared this link: https://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
which I recommend (be prepared not to agree with all of it).
Saccadic masking anyone?


----------



## mjr (4 Apr 2018)

Ajax Bay said:


> The ETA article I linked to yesterday had a string of comments and one shared this link: https://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
> which I recommend (be prepared not to agree with all of it).


Ideally, agree with almost none of it. You'll have to click "older comments" if you want to see why I think it's junk. It's a zombie article that just won't die.


----------



## snorri (4 Apr 2018)

Ajax Bay said:


> The ETA article I linked to yesterday had a string of comments and one shared this link: https://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
> which I recommend (be prepared not to agree with all of it).


The last sentence in the second from last paragraph holds the key to cyclist safety!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (4 Apr 2018)

From the article 

"how to use your eyesight to make sure drivers pay you attention..."

Yep I often use my eyesight to control drivers minds....


----------



## ADarkDraconis (6 Apr 2018)

I was passing a tow-truck driver the other evening coming home and couldn't help but admire his lovely bright reflective gear! I almost stopped to ask where his company got it, as he stepped out of the truck and under the streetlamp he was radiant! I want to be super shiny!!! Not only is it easier to be seen at night but I just like shiny things...


----------



## Tizme (6 Apr 2018)

I have a tip on how you can become invisible:

Ride a white touring bike with one red pannier on the right side of the bike, wear "normal"clothes, i.e. walking trousers and a blue long sleeved top, don't wear a helmet, ride uphill very slowly (only a month or so to the THR). Certainly worked for me, so many close passes I lost count, including the moron who decided to squeeze passed as we went through a traffic island - so close I ended up smacking the window (not something I normally do, but really, the road was empty just beyond the island). According to his passenger (he stopped to have a go at me- so he was in a real hurry) I deliberately swerved out at them, really? Who would come off worse in that situation? Unfortunately I get too angry to put forward a coherent argument at times like that and end up telling them they are morons and stop before I start swearing. Once they have gone I could quite eloquently argue my case! One day I will manage it, and probably be faced with a knuckle dragger who simple wants to run me over!

I am 5'6" tall and weigh around 9st, a lot of 13 year olds are bigger than me, it could easily have been a young, inexperienced rider and not a grumpy old git that they nearly struck! It's not surprising that most youngsters are reluctant to ride a bike.

A while back I watched in dismay as a driver berated a lad on his bike for "getting in the way", threatening to knock him over if he didn't move to the kerb- the lad must have been all of 10. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) the driver then floored it away (all in a 30mph limit at school finishing time) before I had the chance to say anything - again not quick witted enough to note his number plate.

Perhaps I need to put my camera back on the handlebars or helmet (when I wear one).


----------



## boydj (6 Apr 2018)

It's movement that catches the eye and gets noticed. I've had SMIDSY when well lit and brightly dressed many times, but been spotted 'swerving all over the road' when more soberly dressed almost as often.


----------



## natnatroswell22 (25 Apr 2018)

There are a lot of things to make you and your bike visible on the lane, Wearables and even accessories. I putted reflectors on my bike and spokelit led bike which is for the tires


----------



## ADarkDraconis (25 Apr 2018)

natnatroswell22 said:


> There are a lot of things to make you and your bike visible on the lane, Wearables and even accessories. I putted reflectors on my bike and spokelit led bike which is for the tires


I used reflective tape to add noticeability (is that a word? It is now, haha!) from the side view at night because most of my riding is at night. It is cheap, easy to use because you can put it anywhere, and very bright when lights hit it! I put it around my spokes and on my rims, and on my pedal arms so the motion catches people's attention. My brother has tires that have reflective sidewalls, which is really cool, too! High fives for nighttime visibility!


----------



## natnatroswell22 (27 Apr 2018)

It's the best we can do to keep us away from accidents which is becomming an issue each and everyday.


----------



## mjr (27 Apr 2018)

natnatroswell22 said:


> It's the best we can do to keep us away from accidents which is becomming an issue each and everyday.


Not even close to the best. Do some reputable training like Bikeability or at least make sure you can do emergency turns.


----------



## classic33 (27 Apr 2018)

mjr said:


> Not even close to the best. Do some reputable training like Bikeability or at least make sure you can do emergency turns.


How do they make you any more visible?


----------



## mjr (27 Apr 2018)

classic33 said:


> How do they make you any more visible?


"the best we can do to keep us away from accidents" but it'll probably help people to take primary position when that's more noticeable, if they don't already.


----------

