# Visibility



## Alex321 (7 Dec 2021)

To avoid hijacking the thread where this was posted even more, I'll copy the quotes here into a new thread.


Richard A Thackeray said:


> In York again, as l type (@15:38)
> It’s cloudy, raining, almost every vehicle has lights on &… I’ve just seen on the A19, between the ‘ring-road’ & Clifton Green, a lass;
> Black (or navy coat), black bike, black rucksack,
> No lights…
> ...





Milkfloat said:


> Bolded the relevant bit for you.





Alex321 said:


> That was the least relevant part of his post.
> 
> The fact that as another cyclist, he saw her is completely irrelevant to the point that (illegally) riding without lights or even reflective clothing is just plain stupid.
> 
> Whether you might believe that a motorist travelling at the speed limit *should* see her doesn't really matter if she is dead because she wasn't seen.





Milkfloat said:


> Why *should* they? The onus is on the driver not to run over cyclists, pedestrians or even trees no matter what they are wearing. All talk of anything else is just diverting the problem away from those who need to be taking care.



They *should* because it is stupid not to.

There is a reason automatic car lights come on not just when it get5s dark, but also when the wipers come on. Visibility is significantly reduced in those circumstances, and any road user *should* do what they reasonably can to make themselves more visible to others.

In the conditions described, I would most certainly have my lights on (probably in flashing mode), and I would expect any cyclist with the least sense of self preservation to do the same. I would also most certainly have my car lights on if driving, even if they weren't automatic.



Milkfloat said:


> Do you think women should not to wear a short skirt in case they get raped?


Of course not. And why you think that could conceivably be relevant I have absolutely no idea.


----------



## cougie uk (8 Dec 2021)

In an Ideal world cyclists wouldn't need to be visible but we don't live in an ideal world. 

My Sunday rides start with me riding to meet my mate and him riding towards me. 

One dull Winter day I didn't see him and was surprised when he eventually caught me up. 

He was all in black and in the shade of the trees and no light. I didn't see the guy and I was looking for him like I'd done for years. 

Next week he had a fluo gilet and lights.


----------



## classic33 (8 Dec 2021)

cougie uk said:


> *In an Ideal world cyclists wouldn't need to be visible but we don't live in an ideal world. *
> 
> My Sunday rides start with me riding to meet my mate and him riding towards me.
> 
> ...


It'd be helpful though, fewer true SMIDSY's.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2021)

The oft-used rather unpleasant comparison to short skirts is relevant because that is victim-blaming that people have learned not to do, whereas hi-vis and extra lights is victim-blaming that people have yet to learn not to do.

The three bottom lines are:

1. we are visible. If you think otherwise, please tell me how to be invisible. There are some road layouts which I would like to change without risking being seen and fined. So far, the best tactic for being ignored seems to be to wear a council hi-vis jacket and hard hat... which makes you wonder about the claim that cyclists should wear them to get noticed!

2. Drivers are required by the licence to drive so that we can stop safely within what we can see to be clear. As CTC correctly warned in the 1930s/40s, requiring road users (not even just cyclists) to show red rear lights has encouraged a move towards instead driving so you can stop within what you can't see to be occupied, which is very different and far more dangerous. We should have no part of enabling such shoot driving. Sadly, CUK now support the "be seen" BS campaigns of the motoring lobby, but that doesn't mean we have to!

3. we cannot ensure that we "be seen" unless someone has invented a remote control for motorists' eyeballs that hasn't been publicised. All we can do is make sure we are looking and acting as needed.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> The oft-used rather unpleasant comparison to short skirts is relevant because that is victim-blaming that people have learned not to do, whereas hi-vis and extra lights is victim-blaming that people have yet to learn not to do.



Utter rubbish. There is no similarity.

One is as you say victim blaming. In that case, the consequences for the victim are the result of deliberate and conscious action by a deliberate criminal.

The other is not blaming anybody. It is merely saying that for the sake of safety, we should all do whatever we reasonably can to increase the chances of being seen.

This is not a "cyclists v motorists" thing. We should *ALL* take reasonable steps to improve the chances of being seen. It is a [b[requirement[/b] after dark to have lights on both cars and bicycles. It is common sense to do so in situations where visibility is poor, even when maybe not absolutely legally required..



> The three bottom lines are:
> 
> 1. we are visible. If you think otherwise, please tell me how to be invisible.


If you are wearing dark clothing, with no skin or reflective items exposed, in the dark, then you are very nearly invisible.



> There are some road layouts which I would like to change without risking being seen and fined. So far, the best tactic for being ignored seems to be to wear a council hi-vis jacket and hard hat... which makes you wonder about the claim that cyclists should wear them to get noticed!


Yeah, that claim is not really a good one. In an urban environment, they tend to easily be confused with the background. In a non-urban environment, even dim lights will be seen much more readily.



> 2. Drivers are required by the licence to drive so that we can stop safely within what we can see to be clear.


Can you cite the part of the licence which says that?



> As CTC correctly warned in the 1930s/40s, requiring road users (not even just cyclists) to show red rear lights has encouraged a move towards instead driving so you can stop within what you can't see to be occupied, which is very different and far more dangerous.


While I am sure there is some truth in that, it would be *far* more dangerous overall to not have those lights.



> We should have no part of enabling such shoot driving. Sadly, CUK now support the "be seen" BS campaigns of the motoring lobby, but that doesn't mean we have to!


Only a suicidal idiot will go along with that ridiculous view.

We have to live in the world as it is. Getting ourselves killed for a point of principle will not change driving habits, nor will it change the law in this respect - unless it gets changed to require lights at all times.

I do not believe for one moment that you are stupid enough to ride after dark in dark unreflective clothing with no lights. So why are you suggesting it is Ok for others to be that stupid?





> 3. we cannot ensure that we "be seen" unless someone has invented a remote control for motorists' eyeballs that hasn't been publicised. All we can do is make sure we are looking and acting as needed.



Incorrect. The other thing we can do is increase the chance of being seen by making ourselves more obvious.


----------



## Oldhippy (8 Dec 2021)

The onus has for too long been on those who do not use a motor vehicle to be seen. It is high time to stop designing the world around cars! In the dark or bad light put lights on. Otherwise no. Make drivers responsible for the mobile living room they choose to roll around in.


----------



## Mo1959 (8 Dec 2021)

While I fully agree that it is a driver’s responsibility to look out for other road users, I also think hi viz makes a huge difference. The amount of times I have been behind a pair of cyclists or runners out in gloomy conditions where one is in darker clothing and the other is wearing high viz is startling from a distance. The dark runner/rider seems to disappear from view while the other remains visible for much longer so I am convinced it helps.


----------



## PaulSB (8 Dec 2021)

Visibility? In my experience pedestrians, cyclists and drivers are all guilty of failing to make themselves visible and to take appropriate care at all times. This does not mean anyone makes themselves responsible for the failures of others who don't see us it's simply self preservation.

I don't wear or advocate hi viz but do wear brightly coloured clothing usually in block colours as I believe a solid block of colour stands out better than multi-coloured clothing. I wouldn't wear all black, never a black jersey or jacket, and while I have many friends who do I feel wearing black is foolish. My cycling buddies are well aware of this.


----------



## Time Waster (8 Dec 2021)

Do all motorists go out with the intention to hit cyclists? Isn't that kind of the idea that a violent person is intentionally violent but the majority of motorists aren't intentionally going out to hit cyclists. It likely puts a real dent in your day and car!

Operator error is often the cause of motoring accidents but I cannot change that. What can I change as a cyclist? Should I be principled and refuse increased visibility products?

As a motorist I can change the risks for myself and cyclists I might encounter. I cannot see what I can do as a cyclist other than reflectors, lights, higher visibility clothing and safe road position/safe riding techniques.

I wonder at what point of visibility it's right to stop at? Just lights? Lights and reflectors? Lights, reflectors and hi viz? Perhaps the ultimate progression of this is that we should all be completely stealthy in black, black bike, etc as motorists should be driving at a speed they can see us. Should we campaign against the regulations about bike lights too.

This is such a confusing topic not helped by entrenched views. I very much doubt we as cyclists, and most likely drivers too, can agree on an approach to what is acceptable wrt visibility enhancing products like lights, reflectors and hi viz.

Ps aren't lights hi viz too in that they give us a higher level of visibility?


----------



## Oldhippy (8 Dec 2021)

Where do we stop? Knee pads, inflatable bump suits, cycles only in yellow, no cycling after dark just in case?


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2021)

Some car manufacturer has decided that cars need to put on inappropriately bright lights on unnecessary occasions so now as a cyclist I need to put on inappropriately bright and flashing lights?

Under streetlights they're not needed and without streetlights, reflectors do a fine job. Bright lights are dazzling and distracting, I'd happily take a sledgehammer to the lot of them. Bike lights should be calibrated to the brightness of a single 1980s Ever Ready and no more.


----------



## vickster (8 Dec 2021)

Oldhippy said:


> Where do we stop? Knee pads, inflatable bump suits, cycles only in yellow, no cycling after dark just in case?


Do you cycle after dark without lights then?


----------



## PaulSB (8 Dec 2021)

I can see where this thread is going!

It's common sense. Wear something bright and use lights. Alternatively run the risk of being severely injured or killed for your principles. A simple choice really.


----------



## PaulSB (8 Dec 2021)

And as for the cyclists who run an incorrectly aligned mobile strobe light on the front? Give me strength.

There's a guy who rides with us ocassionally who has a front light so bright if he's behind me and I shoulder check I cannot see anything. Idiot and I've told him so.


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2021)

PaulSB said:


> I can see where this thread is going!
> 
> It's common sense. Wear something bright and use lights. Alternatively run the risk of being severely injured or killed for your principles. A simple choice really.


Yes, turning the roads into an overstimulating sensory nightmare makes it safer for everybody.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Dec 2021)

Oldhippy said:


> Where do we stop? Knee pads, inflatable bump suits, cycles only in yellow, no cycling after dark just in case?


We stop where common sense dictates.

If the conditions are such that most motor vehicles are driving with lights on, then we should be putting them on when cycling as well.

If your personal common sense says it is better to have them on all the time, by all means do so, although I think they make little difference in clear daylight conditions.

If you feel you are likely to frequently come in contact with the ground, then knee pads may well be a good idea for you - most mountain bikers do wear them, most road cyclists don't see the need.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Dec 2021)

winjim said:


> Some car manufacturer has decided that cars need to put on inappropriately bright lights on unnecessary occasions so now as a cyclist I need to put on inappropriately bright and flashing lights?


I am not aware of any car manufacturer which has done that. Which one are you talking about?



> Under streetlights they're not needed and without streetlights, reflectors do a fine job. Bright lights are dazzling and distracting, I'd happily take a sledgehammer to the lot of them. Bike lights should be calibrated to the brightness of a single 1980s Ever Ready and no more.


How very silly that would be.

As well as (rightly) illegal.


----------



## PaulSB (8 Dec 2021)

winjim said:


> Yes, turning the roads into an overstimulating sensory nightmare makes it safer for everybody.


That is not what I posted. My point is to be visible and as you'll see from my later post I'm against cyclists, and motorists, who think it necessary to use a mobile searchlight.

There are far too many cyclists riding around with utterly ridiculous and dangerously high levels of lighting, usually on the front. I'd place those riders the same category as drivers who think high intensity lights help everyone. They don't.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Dec 2021)

winjim said:


> Yes, turning the roads into an overstimulating sensory nightmare makes it safer for everybody.



I have seen nobody suggesting that should happen.


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2021)

PaulSB said:


> That is not what I posted. My point is to be visible and as you'll see from my later post I'm against cyclists, and motorists, who think it necessary to use a mobile searchlight.
> 
> There are far too many cyclists riding around with utterly ridiculous and dangerously high levels of lighting, usually on the front. I'd place those riders the same category as drivers who think high intensity lights help everyone. They don't.


The trouble is, one follows from the other. We see many threads saying that cyclists need two or more of the very brightest lights they can find. Encouraging use of lights leads to use of inappropriate lights, including misaligned front lights with ridiculous dazzling beam patterns.

I don't think we are in disagreement on this.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Dec 2021)

winjim said:


> The trouble is, one follows from the other. *We see many threads saying that cyclists need two or more of the very brightest lights they can find.*


Do we?

I know I haven't been here all that long, but I have never seen such a thread.

You do need a *reasonably* bright front light if you are riding on unlit rural roads, and want to be able to ride at speeds not *too* far below what you would do in daylight. I have a 1600 lumen front light for precisely that reason.

But other than that, moderately bright lights are absolutely fine, preferably flashing when they are for purposes of increasing your visibility. My rear light is only 25 lumens, and I am confident that is plenty to be seen by.



> Encouraging use of lights leads to use of inappropriate lights, including misaligned front lights with ridiculous dazzling beam patterns.
> 
> I don't think we are in disagreement on this.



I don't agree that it "encourages" it. I do agree that there are certainly some (both on bikes and motor vehicles) whose lights are far brighter than necessary and/or misaligned to cause dazzle to other road users. I do not believe that the fact some get it badly wrong is a reason to discourage the use of lights though.


----------



## PaulSB (8 Dec 2021)

winjim said:


> The trouble is, one follows from the other. We see many threads saying that cyclists need two or more of the very brightest lights they can find. Encouraging use of lights leads to use of inappropriate lights, including misaligned front lights with ridiculous dazzling beam patterns.
> 
> I don't think we are in disagreement on this.


You're right we aren't in disagreement and on second reading I realised I had misunderstood you. Apologies for being a touch brisk in my reply.

Mainly I ride for leisure in daylight but I have commuted in urban and rural unlit areas. To my mind all that is required is correctly aligned lights of reasonable intensity. My front light of choice will light up the road in the same way as dipped car headlights. Nothing more is needed.

The suggestions I read for more powerful lighting, multiple lights running at the same time etc. make me despair.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Dec 2021)

PaulSB said:


> You're right we aren't in disagreement and on second reading I realised I had misunderstood you. Apologies for being a touch brisk in my reply.
> 
> Mainly I ride for leisure in daylight but I have commuted in urban and rural unlit areas. To my mind all that is required is correctly aligned lights of reasonable intensity. My front light of choice will light up the road in the same way as dipped car headlights. Nothing more is needed.


Agreed. Mine is slightly less than a modern car's dipped headlights. Fairly similar to what some older cars will have. And that is enough for me to be comfortable at 20-25mph,l or a bit more on a road I know fairly well.



> The suggestions I read for more powerful lighting, multiple lights running at the same time etc. make me despair.



They would me, though as I say above, I haven't seen much suggestion of that.


----------



## T4tomo (8 Dec 2021)

PaulSB said:


> Visibility? In my experience pedestrians, cyclists and drivers are all guilty of failing to make themselves visible and to take appropriate care at all times. This does not mean anyone makes themselves responsible for the failures of others who don't see us it's simply self preservation.
> 
> I don't wear or advocate hi viz but do wear brightly coloured clothing usually in block colours as I believe a solid block of colour stands out better than multi-coloured clothing. I wouldn't wear all black, never a black jersey or jacket, and while I have many friends who do I feel wearing black is foolish. My cycling buddies are well aware of this.





PaulSB said:


> There are far too many cyclists riding around with utterly ridiculous and dangerously high levels of lighting, usually on the front. I'd place those riders the same category as drivers who think high intensity lights help everyone. They don't.


I'm in the same camp as PaulSB. 
Common sense. pretty much all my cycling tops are quite bright, it part "fashion" choice but defo a nod to "be seen". My go to Winter jersey when visibility is more of an issue on gloomy days on country lanes is a La Vie Clare one. Similarly I will run a small blinker light set on gloomy days.

There are two types of lights:

*Be seen* lights - which absolutely do not need to be the wattage of the moon. in a "busy" town centre with a lot of other lights then your light being flashing or moving (light or reflector on spokes or tyre valve etc) is helpful in same manner as pedal reflectors 
*See* lights - unlit country lanes etc you do need a bright light to see pot holes etc. But they should be pointed down at the road and not be flashing, otherwise its very tricky to judge where the cyclist is and what speed they are moving at.
It used to annoy the heck out of me cycling in London with muppets with a 2000 lumen flashing front light pointing into fellow cyclist faces.


----------



## vickster (8 Dec 2021)

T4tomo said:


> It used to annoy the heck out of me cycling in London with muppets with a 2000 lumen flashing front light pointing into fellow cyclist faces.


Plenty of those still, plus the muppets with super bright lights on their helmets! Who still don’t get the message when you have to shield your eyes and tell them to turn their farking lights down!


----------



## DaveReading (8 Dec 2021)

Either there is a correlation between taking measures to ensure (or improve) your visibility and the likelihood of being hit in a SMIDSY, or there isn't.

Can anyone point to a rigorous study that illuminates (sorry!) the debate?


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2021)

DaveReading said:


> Either there is a correlation between taking measures to ensure (or improve) your visibility and the likelihood of being hit in a SMIDSY, or there isn't.
> 
> Can anyone point to a rigorous study that illuminates (sorry!) the debate?


Common sense innit.


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> Do we?
> 
> I know I haven't been here all that long, but I have never seen such a thread.
> 
> ...


Again I'm not sure we are entirely in disagreement but your op came across as extremely combative, boldly telling people what they should and shouldn't do. Possibly because I have autistic sensory issues but I find bright and flashing lights overwhelming at times which obviously doesn't improve the safety of my riding or driving so I have very strong opinions on this subject.

I mention pedal reflectors as you brought up illegality. They are a legal requirement at night, however lights in poor visibility due to foul weather are not, which is a situation in which automatic vehicle lights will activate.


----------



## ianrauk (8 Dec 2021)

vickster said:


> Plenty of those still, plus the muppets with super bright lights on their helmets! Who still don’t get the message when you have to shield your eyes and tell them to turn their farking lights down!


I remember telling one plonker at a set of lights with a silly bright helmet light that he was blinding people and no need for urban riding. His reply... you're not the first person to say that.


----------



## T4tomo (8 Dec 2021)

ianrauk said:


> I remember telling one plonker at a set of lights with a silly bright helmet light that he was blinding people and no need for urban riding. His reply... you're not the first person to say that.


I don't ever really advocate punching the terminally stupid, but he'd push me close....


----------



## ianrauk (8 Dec 2021)

T4tomo said:


> I don't ever really advocate punching the terminally stupid, but he'd push me close....


Something like that did cross my mind.


----------



## BoldonLad (8 Dec 2021)

winjim said:


> Some car manufacturer has decided that cars need to put on inappropriately bright lights on unnecessary occasions so now as a cyclist I need to put on inappropriately bright and flashing lights?
> 
> Under streetlights they're not needed and without streetlights, reflectors do a fine job. Bright lights are dazzling and distracting, I'd happily take a sledgehammer to the lot of them. Bike lights should be calibrated to the brightness of a single 1980s Ever Ready and no more.



I don’t think it was a car manufacturer who decided to have lights on, more a Government ((or EU) directive.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (8 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> I don’t think it was a car manufacturer who decided to have lights on, more a Government ((or EU) directive.


I feel like Volvo (maybe others) were offering DRLs at this point already, however it was an Eu directive from Feb 2011


----------



## Alex321 (8 Dec 2021)

winjim said:


> Again I'm not sure we are entirely in disagreement but your op came across as extremely combative, boldly telling people what they should and shouldn't do.


Sorry about that. I was continuing a discussion from another thread which wasn't really appropriate for that thread.



> Possibly because I have autistic sensory issues but I find bright and flashing lights overwhelming at times which obviously doesn't improve the safety of my riding or driving so I have very strong opinions on this subject.


I can see that could be an issue for you. But what studies there have been show a definite reduction in collisions when lights are showing. So overall, it is safer, even though for some people it may not be.




> I mention pedal reflectors as you brought up illegality. They are a legal requirement at night, however lights in poor visibility due to foul weather are not, which is a situation in which automatic vehicle lights will activate.



True. I believe that they *should* be a legal requirement in poor visibility conditions, but the issue then is how you define "poor visibility". Night has a definition (from 30 minutes after sunset) which is simple, but poor visibility is more a case of "I can recognise it when I am in it" than having an easy way to define it.


----------



## BoldonLad (8 Dec 2021)

The main thrust so far, appears to be the popular car vs cyclist line. Don’t cyclists have a responsibility to other vulnerable road / path users?, ie other cyclists a pedestrians. Last week, my 72 year old pal was knocked over by a black clad cyclist, no lights. It was 19:00, dark and raining, in a town centre side street. There were a group of four of us, walking, none of us saw the cyclist, as we crossed the road. Fortunately, no injuries, except dented pride.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> The main thrust so far, appears to be the popular car vs cyclist line. Don’t cyclists have a responsibility to other vulnerable road / path users?, ie other cyclists a pedestrians. Last week, my 72 year old pal was knocked over by a black clad cyclist, no lights. It was 19:00, dark and raining, in a town centre side street. There were a group of four of us, walking, none of us saw the cyclist, as we crossed the road. Fortunately, no injuries, except dented pride.


Absolutely.

It shouldn't be car v cyclist, or anything v anything else. As I have already said in this thread, we *ALL* have a responsibility to give ourselves the best chance of being seen. That is true whether you are a pedestrian, a cyclist, a horse rider, a car drive, or any other road user I have missed.

I believe a large number of road collisions occur because somebody didn't see/notice something in time to react appropriately. This may well have been down to poor observational skills on their part, but that doesn't help you much if you are dead or injured as a result. Anything we can reaonsably do to increase the chance of being seen early enough is beneficial IMV. Regardless of what type of road user you are.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> True. I believe that they should be a legal requirement in poor visibility conditions, but the issue then is how you define "poor visibility". Night has a definition (from 30 minutes after sunset) which is simple, [...]


Yes, but that definition has not been used for the lighting requirement for at least 31 years and the requirement is to be lit "between sunset and sunrise" as well as "in seriously reduced visibility", in part (1) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/24/made

Are you sure you know the vehicle lighting laws?


----------



## cougie uk (8 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> The main thrust so far, appears to be the popular car vs cyclist line. Don’t cyclists have a responsibility to other vulnerable road / path users?, ie other cyclists a pedestrians. Last week, my 72 year old pal was knocked over by a black clad cyclist, no lights. It was 19:00, dark and raining, in a town centre side street. There were a group of four of us, walking, none of us saw the cyclist, as we crossed the road. Fortunately, no injuries, except dented pride.


Cyclist definitely should have had lights on. You still get drivers not putting lights on at night or in bad weather in daytime. 

Personally as a cyclist - I'd not want to get mown down by a car either - so lights for me.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> The main thrust so far, appears to be the popular car vs cyclist line. Don’t cyclists have a responsibility to other vulnerable road / path users?, ie other cyclists a pedestrians. Last week, my 72 year old pal was knocked over by a black clad cyclist, no lights. It was 19:00, dark and raining, in a town centre side street. There were a group of four of us, walking, none of us saw the cyclist, as we crossed the road. Fortunately, no injuries, except dented pride.


Yes, of course, cyclists have a responsibility to other road users, but how exactly would seeing them coming help if they knock you over? It sounds like the problem is the cyclist failing to yield to other road users, not whether the walker could see them and dive out of the way.

Also, I don't think anyone much is arguing against headlights so much as noting the drawbacks of the lighting arms race and how it's still unfolding just as CTC and others predicted.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> The other is not blaming anybody. It is merely saying that for the sake of safety, we should all do whatever we reasonably can to increase the chances of being seen.


How is that not putting the responsibility on the potential victim in a similar way?



> This is not a "cyclists v motorists" thing. We should *ALL* take reasonable steps to improve the chances of being seen. It is a [b[requirement[/b] after dark to have lights on both cars and bicycles. It is common sense to do so in situations where visibility is poor, even when maybe not absolutely legally required..


As I mentioned in another post, it is absolutely legally required in poor visibility.

I agree it's not a cyclists v motorists thing. I believe the law is unjust, but it's reasonable to comply with it. What's unreasonable is all the extra guff put on cyclists about wearing bright/reflective clothing that won't provoke potential attackers because it will allow incompetent or defective ones to see you a few milliseconds earlier.



> If you are wearing dark clothing, with no skin or reflective items exposed, in the dark, then you are very nearly invisible.


"very nearly invisible" still means visible. Tell me how to be invisible.



> Can you cite the part of the licence which says that?


Sure. Why can't you? Do you hold such a licence?

The old full paper licence said "The person named is hereby licensed to drive motor vehicles of groups [TYPEWRITTEN] all subject to reaching the minimum ages for driving specified overleaf and in accordance with the law." I'm not sure what the current equivalent is because I'm at work and only have my current photocard with me. I expect it's in amongst the paperwork that was sent with it, on file at home.

The law currently require drivers to meet the National Standard for Driving Cars and Light Vans (Category B), element 4.2.2 of which requires "you must be able to" "drive at such a speed that you can always stop safely in the distance you can see to be clear"



> While I am sure there is some truth in that, it would be *far* more dangerous overall to not have those lights.


Prove it. Or even show much evidence for it.



> We have to live in the world as it is. Getting ourselves killed for a point of principle will not change driving habits, nor will it change the law in this respect - unless it gets changed to require lights at all times.


"Utter rubbish" as you say. We do not have to meekly accept the car-dominated world. We can work to change driving habits and the laws. No, not by getting ourselves killed — even though as I mentioned, unlit riders are vastly underrepresented in casualty reports — but by campaigning and pushing back against this unreasonable blame-shifting.



> I do not believe for one moment that you are stupid enough to ride after dark in dark unreflective clothing with no lights. So why are you suggesting it is Ok for others to be that stupid?


I do have lights mainly because I live in a village with some unlit streets (some gravel) and I like to see where I'm going, and partly because I don't like being delayed and fined by the police once in a blue moon (which is deeply ironic because local police cyclists use Cateye shoot instead of legal lights)... but I suggest it's OK for others to be that stupid because they generally don't hurt anyone and we should all be looking out for unlit objects in our path anyway.

Sometimes I ride in dark clothing because I may be going to a business or government event where sober business dress is most appropriate, or maybe I'm wearing my big black trenchcoat. None of my suits have reflective bits: do yours?



> Incorrect. The other thing we can do is increase the chance of being seen by making ourselves more obvious.


What is more obvious? Over on another site, someone proudly posted a picture of themselves in hi-vis, but the reflectives on their back and the backs of their legs made an outlined white rectangle on top of two posts, accidentally making them look pretty much like a temporary road sign. The main thing that would alert a hurrying driver to them being a cyclist would be the movement. That's not obvious.

Also, I suggest that if we're going to ignore what should be and deal with the world as it is, then making ourselves look like obvious cyclists by using flashing lights and wearing too much reflective clothing makes us more likely to be ignored/dismissed and it's far better to make our bikes look more like motorcycles with a single nice big steady back light and maybe a yellow reflective square beneath it. All motorists are scared of hitting motorcycles if only because they damage their precious vehicles in a collision, whereas some simply don't care about cyclists.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Yes, but that definition has not been used for the lighting requirement for at least 31 years and the requirement is to be lit "between sunset and sunrise" as well as "in seriously reduced visibility", in part (1) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/24/made
> 
> Are you sure you know the vehicle lighting laws?



Not completely. There are rather a lot of provisions 

That definition is actually still used for when you need to use headlights though, as that is defined as "during the hours of darkness" (and in conditions of severely reduced visibility) in regulation 25. And "the hours of darkness" is defined in regulation 3 as being half an hour after sunset to half an hour before sunrise.

I accept I had forgotten that only applies to the use of headlights though, and that the rest of your lights must be illuminated between sunset and sunrise. Which is still an easy definition.

"Seriously reduced visibility" has not been defined in the legislation. Though the highway code suggests it is when you cannot see more than 100 metres.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-hig...adverse-weather-conditions-226-to-237#rule226

And it does annoy me how many drivers ignore (or don't know) that it is illegal to have fog lights on except in conditions of severely reduced visibility.

As pointed out in this thread, over bright lights can be just as problematic as not enough lighting.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2021)

DaveReading said:


> Either there is a correlation between taking measures to ensure (or improve) your visibility and the likelihood of being hit in a SMIDSY, or there isn't.
> 
> Can anyone point to a rigorous study that illuminates (sorry!) the debate?


The famous Dr Ian Walker included hi-vis outfits in his study of clothing versus close-passing: http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/index.html "Bicyclists probably cannot prevent close overtakes by manipulating their appearance."

There is also a study by Phil Miller of the University of Nottingham "The use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and the risk of crashes involving other road users: a population based case-control study" which had the surprising conclusion "The results of this study show a non-significant increase in the odds of a crash for users compared to non-users of conspicuity aids" http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/

This was then echoed by Tin et al in 2015 looking at NZ (not great cycling country but it should at least remove any helmet effect...) "The role of conspicuity in preventing bicycle crashes involving a motor vehicle" which concluded "Conspicuity aids may not be effective in preventing bicycle–motor vehicle crashes in New Zealand" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4440447/

These and other studies were summarised in 2018 by Cycling UK at https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2018/06/1806_cyclinguk_hi-viz_brf.pdf and CamCycle at https://www.camcycle.org.uk/magazine/newsletter140/article23/

In the words of the last article's conclusion "Hi-viz is doing a lot of harm whenever it distracts politicians from supporting safer infrastructure." IMO any cyclists supporting this shoot need to rethink what they're doing.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> That definition is actually still used for when you need to use headlights though, as that is defined as "during the hours of darkness" (and in conditions of severely reduced visibility) in regulation 25. And "the hours of darkness" is defined in regulation 3 as being half an hour after sunset to half an hour before sunrise.


Which is all irrelevant to us because pedal cycles are not required to use headlights in the legal sense at all, but merely a "front position lamp", "rear position lamp", "rear retro reflector" and "pedal retro reflectors". (Schedule 1, Table III)



> And it does annoy me how many drivers ignore (or don't know) that it is illegal to have fog lights on except in conditions of severely reduced visibility.
> 
> As pointed out in this thread, over bright lights can be just as problematic as not enough lighting.


Indeed, but the few nobbers with unnecessary foglights on annoy me far less than the dozens of them every trip with incorrect lights (what looks like a wide approach from a motorcycle turns out to be a close pass by a car driver) or no lights (because the bright streetlights mean they don't notice they haven't moved the stalk enough, or they're driving in fog only on daytime running lights).


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> I don’t think it was a car manufacturer who decided to have lights on, more a Government ((or EU) directive.





T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> I feel like Volvo (maybe others) were offering DRLs at this point already, however it was an Eu directive from Feb 2011


I'm not talking about DRLs, which in any case have a special place in hell, I'm talking about automatic dim-dips.



BoldonLad said:


> The main thrust so far, appears to be the popular car vs cyclist line. Don’t cyclists have a responsibility to other vulnerable road / path users?, ie other cyclists a pedestrians. Last week, my 72 year old pal was knocked over by a black clad cyclist, no lights. It was 19:00, dark and raining, in a town centre side street. There were a group of four of us, walking, none of us saw the cyclist, as we crossed the road. Fortunately, no injuries, except dented pride.


Cyclists have a responsibility to obey the law and nothing more should be expected or demanded of them.


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Which is all irrelevant to use because pedal cycles are not legally required to use headlights in the legal sense at all, but merely a "front position lamp", "rear position lamp", "rear retro reflector" and "pedal retro reflectors"


Much of the time when cars have headlamps lit the legal requirement is only for position lamps. Built up areas with a 30 limit IIRC.

Personally I drive most of the time with sidelights on. In daytime to dowse the DRLs and in the evening usually until I see the streetlamps are lit.

Walking to work today most cars had dim-dips on in the rain, some with sidelights but again there's no legal requirement for bikes to be lit at that point.


----------



## classic33 (8 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Yes, but that definition has not been used for the lighting requirement for at least 31 years and* the requirement is to be lit "between sunset and sunrise"* as well as "in seriously reduced visibility", in part (1) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/24/made
> 
> Are you sure you know the vehicle lighting laws?


Amended a few times since then.

Is it not now "when the sun is below the horizon" when lights are required, not between "sunrise and sunset".


----------



## Baldy (8 Dec 2021)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> I feel like Volvo (maybe others) were offering DRLs at this point already, however it was an Eu directive from Feb 2011


I think it was a requirement for cars and bikes to have light long before anyone had even thought about forming the EU.


----------



## Mo1959 (8 Dec 2021)

Baldy said:


> I think it was a requirement for cars and bikes to have light long before anyone had even thought about forming the EU.


Do you remember as a kid if your parents had a car that sat parked in the street, they had to affix a light to the side that stayed on all night.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2021)

classic33 said:


> Amended a few times since then.
> 
> Is it not now "when the sun is below the horizon" when lights are required, not between "sunrise and sunset".


I think you mean "between sunset and sunrise" but not as far as I can tell. None of the amendments have changed that, but "sunset" and "sunrise" are not defined in the regulations. It might be that the courts define it as something to do with the sun and horizon, but I suspect they might just take whatever the Met Office publishes and, really, if you're in a situation where you're arguing about the few minutes between the sun touching the horizon and going below it, you're probably in trouble already.

Much of the time, I can't see the exact horizon for buildings, hedges, woods or sometimes hills, so I don't cut it too fine. I usually want the headlight to see before the sun is completely down anyway.


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> I think you mean "between sunset and sunrise" but not as far as I can tell. None of the amendments have changed that, but "sunset" and "sunrise" are not defined in the regulations. It might be that the courts define it as something to do with the sun and horizon, but I suspect they might just take whatever the Met Office publishes and, really, if you're in a situation where you're arguing about the few minutes between the sun touching the horizon and going below it, you're probably in trouble already.
> 
> Much of the time, I can't see the exact horizon for buildings, hedges, woods or sometimes hills, so I don't cut it too fine. I usually want the headlight to see before the sun is completely down anyway.


I think that due to light refraction the sun is already 'below' the horizon before we perceive it to be. I'll leave it for someone else to argue that in court. Might be the other way round even.


----------



## BoldonLad (8 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Yes, of course, cyclists have a responsibility to other road users, but how exactly would seeing them coming help if they knock you over? It sounds like the problem is the cyclist failing to yield to other road users, not whether the walker could see them and dive out of the way.
> 
> Also, I don't think anyone much is arguing against headlights so much as noting the drawbacks of the lighting arms race and how it's still unfolding just as CTC and others predicted.



I we had SEEN the cyclist, we would not have crossed in front of him. This was on the way TO the pub, not FROM the pub, incidentally.


----------



## BoldonLad (8 Dec 2021)

winjim said:


> I'm not talking about DRLs, which in any case have a special place in hell, I'm talking about automatic dip-dips.
> 
> 
> *Cyclists have a responsibility to obey the law and nothing more should be expected or demanded of them.*



Couldn't the same be said of drivers?


----------



## presta (8 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> please tell me how to be invisible


Like this. Evolution wouldn't have produced camouflage if it didn't work.

The national average reaction time for a stimulus that you’re poised waiting for is 300ms, and the Highway Code allows 667ms (because not all drivers are average), but the two second rule recognises that hazards occur unexpectedly when people are not expecting them. This is what would happen to the stopping distances in the Highway Code if it took 5s to spot a well camouflaged hazard:


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Dec 2021)

DaveReading said:


> Either there is a correlation between taking measures to ensure (or improve) your visibility and the likelihood of being hit in a SMIDSY, or there isn't.
> 
> Can anyone point to a rigorous study that illuminates (sorry!) the debate?




https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753518309871
Conclusion
"The attentional selection of a cyclist in the road environment during car driving depends partly on bottom-up processing (such as saliency related to colour contrast). *However, the yellow cyclist jacket proved to be insufficient as a visibility aid."*


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> Couldn't the same be said of drivers?


Well... I guess everybody _should_ be following the guidance in the highway code which isn't law, but as a cyclist I don't necessarily do that so I can't expect it of drivers.


----------



## Dolorous Edd (8 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753518309871
> Conclusion
> "The attentional selection of a cyclist in the road environment during car driving depends partly on bottom-up processing (such as saliency related to colour contrast). *However, the yellow cyclist jacket proved to be insufficient as a visibility aid."*



The authors' conclusion - but one that is, like their use of the word "insufficient", a tortured representation of the actual results of the study:



> Motorists detected cyclists wearing jackets at a greater distance, but only in those situations previously identified as being of high cyclist visibility.



In other words, it helps. Sometimes, but not always.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Dec 2021)

Dolorous Edd said:


> A conclusion, and use of the word "insufficient", that is a tortured representation of the actual results of the study:



It was written by the authors of the study.

They also observed: _" Motorists were able to estimate cyclist visibility correctly based on the type of situation, but were unable to evaluate the jacket’s effect on cyclist visibility. "_


----------



## Dolorous Edd (8 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It was written by the authors of the study.



I did not mean to imply otherwise - have edited my comment.


----------



## classic33 (8 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> I think you mean "between sunset and sunrise" but not as far as I can tell. None of the amendments have changed that, but "sunset" and "sunrise" are not defined in the regulations. It might be that the courts define it as something to do with the sun and horizon, but I suspect they might just take whatever the Met Office publishes and, really, if you're in a situation where you're arguing about the few minutes between the sun touching the horizon and going below it, you're probably in trouble already.
> 
> Much of the time, I can't see the exact horizon for buildings, hedges, woods or sometimes hills, so I don't cut it too fine. I usually want the headlight to see before the sun is completely down anyway.


No, I meant "when the sun is below the horizon". The last change/amendment to the regulations.

And if your bike was built before 1985, it doesn't require pedal reflectors, under the current regulations. I've one such bike.


----------



## BoldonLad (8 Dec 2021)

winjim said:


> Well... I guess everybody* should be following the guidance in the highway code* which isn't law, *but as a cyclist I don't necessarily do that so I can't expect it of drivers.*



Hmm. Are you selective in which sections you choose to not follow, or, accept that drivers do not follow? For example, the sections on overtaking cyclists.


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> Hmm. Are you selective in which sections you choose to not follow, or, accept that drivers do not follow? For example, the sections on overtaking cyclists.


What point exactly are you trying to make?


----------



## BoldonLad (8 Dec 2021)

winjim said:


> What point exactly are you trying to make?



I am puzzled that a cyclist would appear to support drivers not obeying the Highway Code? I accept that many people (pedestrians, cyclists, driver) do not obey the Highway Code, but, that is not to say such behaviour is acceptable or desirable ?


----------



## boydj (8 Dec 2021)

In dark or gloomy conditions good quality lights and plenty of reflectives are required for cyclists to stand out. When commuting in the dark I found reflective ankle bands to be particularly effective because the motion distinctively says 'cyclist'.

In daylight I think road positioning is more important than clothing. By taking a prominent position in the road you're in a place where the driver is actually looking, particularly when approaching junctions where drivers may be scanning for oncoming traffic and can easily miss a kerb-hugging cyclist.


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> I am puzzled that a cyclist would appear to support drivers not obeying the Highway Code? I accept that many people (pedestrians, cyclists, driver) do not obey the Highway Code, but, that is not to say such behaviour is acceptable or desirable ?


The context is me, as a cyclist, not necessarily obeying the parts of the HC which aren't legal requirements. Although to be fair, I just looked at the cyclist bit and a fair amount is just information and only a small amount guidance, most of which I do sort of follow although not deliberately, as it were.


----------



## BoldonLad (8 Dec 2021)

winjim said:


> The context is me, as a cyclist, not necessarily obeying the parts of the HC which aren't legal requirements. Although to be fair, I just looked at the cyclist bit and a fair amount is just information and only a small amount guidance, most of which I do sort of follow although not deliberately, as it were.



OK, I thought your wording implied acceptance of drivers disregarding bits of the Highway Code, which they may personally think not relevant (ie, the rules don't apply to me approach). If that is not what you meant, fair enough.


----------



## Bike Tyson (8 Dec 2021)

Oldhippy said:


> inflatable bump suits



Tell me more!


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> OK, I thought your wording implied acceptance of drivers disregarding bits of the Highway Code, which they may personally think not relevant (ie, the rules don't apply to me approach). If that is not what you meant, fair enough.


Only the bits which are pick and chooseable, eg for cyclists things like wearing a helmet or using a bike lane. I think for motorists a lot of it might fall under careless driving or similar though, if it came to that.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Dec 2021)

classic33 said:


> No, I meant "when the sun is below the horizon". The last change/amendment to the regulations.


Can you give a link to that change, as I can't find it on the legislation site?


----------



## classic33 (8 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> Can you give a link to that change, as I can't find it on the legislation site?


I was given the wording by the CTC, in their "newsletter".


----------



## Alex321 (8 Dec 2021)

classic33 said:


> I was given the wording by the CTC, in their "newsletter".


I'd like to know where they got it from, or whether that is just their interpretation of sunset and sunrise.

There is just no reference to horizon in any lighting regulations I can find. Most of the uses of that word are in air navigation acts & regulations, plus some fishery regulations, and a few which are things like "New Horizons ..."


----------



## Alex321 (8 Dec 2021)

Ok, from a page on their website, it appears to be their interpretation of Sunset.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
"
*'Lighting-up time' and the 'Hours of Darkness'*
These commonplace phrases have meant many different things in the past and continue to cause confusion. However, for a cyclist, the only thing that matters is the sun; the moment it dips below the horizon, our lights are required to be turned on, even though there may be plenty of light to see by for another half hour or so on a clear evening. It's the rules. 

"


----------



## wafter (9 Dec 2021)

Typically my attitude to visibility has been "minimalist" - usually a single rear light and a head torch of decent brightness; with no specifically-chosen bright or reflective clothing to improve my visibility.

That said my riding at night used to be nearly all within the city (where there's usually additional lighting / generally better visibility and the traffic is slower) or on very quiet roads in good conditions outside of rush hour. 

Having recently begun to suffer my first winter in a long time as a car-based-commuter I'm frequently extremely concerned by the potential lack of visibility of cyclists on my route, and the very real danger of spotting a poorly-illuminated rider in less-than-favourable conditions - dark, narrow, potholed and poorly-sighted country roads with lots of vegetation that serves to break up / conceal shapes, the sensory overload of oncoming headlights / those in the rear view mirror (and how these dominate your attention and distract from less obvious hazards), the constant need to be aware of the poor conduct of other drivers for your own safety.. 

I can see so many opportunities for poorly-visible cyclists to be hit - from behind, when passing stationary / slow traffic at lights or attempting to filter in, being turned across at junctions.. and under the circumstances described above I can completely see the argument for going all-in to make yourself as visible as possible. 

Ultimately as a driver, under these conditions I can't say that I'd be able to identify and avoid a poorly visible cyclist 100% of the time.. and (as much as I'm the first to put the boot in when a motorist is at fault) as others have said this shouldn't be about blame / "us and them"; it's about sensible, responsible precautions for everyones safety.


----------



## cougie uk (9 Dec 2021)

wafter said:


> Typically my attitude to visibility has been "minimalist" - usually a single rear light and a head torch of decent brightness; with no specifically-chosen bright or reflective clothing to improve my visibility.
> 
> That said my riding at night used to be nearly all within the city (where there's usually additional lighting / generally better visibility and the traffic is slower) or on very quiet roads in good conditions outside of rush hour.
> 
> ...


 A head torch ???

So not legal lighting on the bike. Good luck if you get hit. And having a light on so high gives the impression of a bike further away. Unless you move your head and then nobody would take you as a bike anyway. 

Just get a standard bike on the bars please.


----------



## Alex321 (9 Dec 2021)

wafter said:


> Typically my attitude to visibility has been "minimalist" - usually a single rear light and a head torch of decent brightness; with no specifically-chosen bright or reflective clothing to improve my visibility.



A head torch as the sole front light is not legal for riding after sunset or before sunrise.

You must legally have both font and rear lights *attached to the bike* when riding at that time.

You can use a head torch as an *additional* lamp, but not as your only one.

It also isn't sensible, for the reasons outlined by cougie uk above.


----------



## tyred (9 Dec 2021)

80 lux dynamo headlamp and matching German standard taillamp all backed up with additional battery lights, high vis vest and new tyres with shiny new reflective sidewalls didn't stop someone pulling out from a junction and driving into the side of me and claiming he couldn't see me. 

I believe it helps to make myself visible but only if someone is bothered to look in the first place.


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Dec 2021)

It's not something I feel terribly strongly about.

I stick a couple of back lights on my bike. Super power isn't necessary in back lights, they just need to work reliably. On the front I have a couple of lights, normally one one and one (smaller one) just in case. I try not to dazzle people and I keep the power as low as conditions allow in order to save battery.

I put reflective bands on my ankles in winter. That's about my only bit of hi-vizzery. My favourite winter jerseys are yellow ones with reflective stripes, from Aldi. But I like them because they are warm, and very long rather than their visibility powers. I do sometimes wear other colours, including black. I think my winter boots have retro-reflective details too.

Edit: I put some red retro-reflective tape on my rack and rear mudguard too. This is mainly because the colour scheme of my bike is black with red details, and it's just to add a splash of colour, rather than for particular safety reasons.


----------



## wafter (9 Dec 2021)

cougie uk said:


> A head torch ???
> 
> So not legal lighting on the bike. Good luck if you get hit. And having a light on so high gives the impression of a bike further away. Unless you move your head and then nobody would take you as a bike anyway.
> 
> Just get a standard bike on the bars please.





Alex321 said:


> A head torch as the sole front light is not legal for riding after sunset or before sunrise.
> 
> You must legally have both font and rear lights *attached to the bike* when riding at that time.
> 
> ...


Indeed... a decent front light is on the "to do" list; along with many other things I can't apply myself long enough to research sufficiently to feel confident buying (and nothing on the market appears overwhelmingly worth having, from what I've seen).

While I appreciate the legal position and ideally would run both, I'm not sure I accept the suggestion that the head-mounted light implies that I'm further away. In addition it does have its benefits since it gives more control over the beam's direction - allowing you to illuminate where you're looking / going rather than where the bike is pointing, as well as being able to direct the beam directly at the odd oncoming driver who refuses to dip their headlights. 

All largerly a moot point currently in any case, since I've not been out on the bike for months and (especially in light of the points raised in my earlier post) I have very little desire to be out after dark!


----------



## Ian H (9 Dec 2021)

I'm not really in favour of dazzle-camouflage on a bike. What I have is decent front & rear lights, rear reflector, and probably something approximating to pedal reflectors. Winter clothing generally has some kind of reflective detailing, which I don't particularly object to.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (9 Dec 2021)

Indeed high viz is far from necessary and over rated.


----------



## BoldonLad (9 Dec 2021)

wafter said:


> .........
> 
> *Ultimately as a driver, under these conditions I can't say that I'd be able to identify and avoid a poorly visible cyclist 100% of the time.. and (as much as I'm the first to put the boot in when a motorist is at fault) as others have said this shouldn't be about blame / "us and them"; it's about sensible, responsible precautions for everyones safety.*



Nice bit of honesty there, very rare I find 

As an additional point (not directed at your post, in particular). Personally, I think it wise not to dress head to toe in black or dark colour, in dark conditions, or, poor visibility. It would suggest to me, a desire NOT to be seen, rather like a Special Ops Soldier, say. There is a happy medium, no need for head to toe hi-viz either, just keep a sense of perspective.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (9 Dec 2021)

wafter said:


> Typically my attitude to visibility has been "minimalist" - usually a single rear light and a head torch of decent brightness; with no specifically-chosen bright or reflective clothing to improve my visibility.
> 
> That said my riding at night used to be nearly all within the city (where there's usually additional lighting / generally better visibility and the traffic is slower) or on very quiet roads in good conditions outside of rush hour.
> 
> ...



One has to ask whether you introducing that danger to unsuitable roads is wise. That your thought process ought to be about changing your route so that you aren’t driving down potholed, narrow, poor sight lined roads where you are likely to hit something


----------



## Alex321 (9 Dec 2021)

Ian H said:


> I'm not really in favour of dazzle-camouflage on a bike. What I have is decent front & rear lights, rear reflector, and probably something approximating to pedal reflectors. Winter clothing generally has some kind of reflective detailing, which I don't particularly object to.


I'm fairly similar to that, but without anything approximating pedal reflectors.

I should get some ankle band reflectors to sort of do that job.

I do find it surprising that most clipless pedals are sold without even the facility to become legal. Not only sold without reflectors, but with nowhere to attach any post-market. If it is a legal requirement to have them, you might reasonably expect it to be a legal requirement to be able to fit them.


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> I do find it surprising that most clipless pedals are sold without even the facility to become legal. Not only sold without reflectors, but with nowhere to attach any post-market. If it is a legal requirement to have them, you might reasonably expect it to be a legal requirement to be able to fit them.


I have a pair of 2 bolt SPDs with reflectors. The fact that I find this noteworthy shows how unusual it is.


----------



## wafter (9 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> Nice bit of honesty there, very rare I find
> 
> As an additional point (not directed at your post, in particular). Personally, I think it wise not to dress head to toe in black or dark colour, in dark conditions, or, poor visibility. It would suggest to me, a desire NOT to be seen, rather like a Special Ops Soldier, say. There is a happy medium, no need for head to toe hi-viz either, just keep a sense of perspective.


Thanks and yes; I agree. In the past, in reasonably-well-lit city streets I've been very much of the opinion that lights should be enough and I've never gone out of my way to alter my clothing to make myself more visible.

Given my more recent experiences I can fully appreciate the need to dress a bit more "defensively" but I agree with your point about excess - a case in point being that I sometimes find retro-reflective road signs excessively-so to the point of being dazzling / distracting; with cyclists dressed in a similar manner not much better I'd imagine!

I quite like the idea of reflective bits on the parts of you that move most (i.e. feet) as striking a decent balance between appropriate visibility and practicality 




Ming the Merciless said:


> One has to ask whether you introducing that danger to unsuitable roads is wise. That your thought process ought to be about changing your route so that you aren’t driving down potholed, narrow, poor sight lined roads where you are likely to hit something


Unfortunately it's unavoidable - all the roads round here look like a 1990's Bagdad airstrip and I already go out of my way on a longer route to get to work in order to avoid some of the most abhorrant roads.

Of course the ideal solution would be to live and work in Oxford and commute by bike.. however beggars can't be choosers.


----------



## cougie uk (9 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> I'm fairly similar to that, but without anything approximating pedal reflectors.
> 
> I should get some ankle band reflectors to sort of do that job.
> 
> I do find it surprising that most clipless pedals are sold without even the facility to become legal. Not only sold without reflectors, but with nowhere to attach any post-market. If it is a legal requirement to have them, you might reasonably expect it to be a legal requirement to be able to fit them.



You can just stick some reflective tape onto your pedals or cranks or maybe just have reflective shoes. 

There are some good cycling tights around with a lot of reflective on the lower leg. They stand out really well under headlights.


----------



## cougie uk (9 Dec 2021)

wafter said:


> Indeed... a decent front light is on the "to do" list; along with many other things I can't apply myself long enough to research sufficiently to feel confident buying (and nothing on the market appears overwhelmingly worth having, from what I've seen).
> 
> While I appreciate the legal position and ideally would run both, I'm not sure I accept the suggestion that the head-mounted light implies that I'm further away. In addition it does have its benefits since it gives more control over the beam's direction - allowing you to illuminate where you're looking / going rather than where the bike is pointing, as well as being able to direct the beam directly at the odd oncoming driver who refuses to dip their headlights.
> 
> All largerly a moot point currently in any case, since I've not been out on the bike for months and (especially in light of the points raised in my earlier post) I have very little desire to be out after dark!



I'm glad you're not currently riding at night without the front light - but I don't think you need fret over getting the perfect light - anything will be better than the head torch. From my experience of them - you will be looking all over and up and down and the actual time your light is pointing in the right way and visible to motorists looking to pull across your path will be minimal. If you look away - he's not seeing any light.


----------



## Threevok (9 Dec 2021)

It's always good to stand out, both in the day and at night.

Trouble is, you can be lit up like a Christmas tree, but nobody is going to see you, if they don't look.

This poor lad was driving home on a moped

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59596579 😢


----------



## T4tomo (9 Dec 2021)

cougie uk said:


> You can just stick some reflective tape onto your pedals or cranks or maybe just have reflective shoes.
> 
> There are some good cycling tights around with a lot of reflective on the lower leg. They stand out really well under headlights.


3M reflective tape is great. I have / had bits stuck on pedals that lacked reflectors and on back of mudguards, on cranks and round fork legs & seat stays on my London commuter bike. Great for all round visibility, rear/front on and side on (for junctions etc)


----------



## cougie uk (9 Dec 2021)

Threevok said:


> It's always good to stand out, both in the day and at night.
> 
> Trouble is, you can be lit up like a Christmas tree, but nobody is going to see you, if they don't look.
> 
> ...


Bloody awful. She had defective headlights so no amount of reflectives would have helped him. 

I hope she never drives again. There's no way I could if I had killed.


----------



## Fredo76 (9 Dec 2021)

Does anyone hesitate to use attention-getting flashing lights for fear of drawing too much attention? I have a blinking bright light that I only turn on in certain circumstances, such as heading into the setting sun on a two-lane highway with no shoulder. Cycling is somewhat an unusual pastime where I live, and I sometimes wonder whether a lit-up rider who is otherwise easily seen might arouse an "Isn't HE special?" resentment...

Do you regard drivers who won't move over an inch when passing, when they easily could, as aggressively insisting that you don't belong on the road? I do, and it's maybe one out of fifteen here. They typically get no reaction from me, in the land of the locked and loaded, and I hesitate to provoke them with lights, unless the visibility situation is really marginal.

I also believe that cyclists, motored or not, and pedestrians need EXTRA visibility to even get noticed, and am against competing sources, such as 'lights on in the daytime' behavior from motorists and their vehicles, and the flashing lights on school buses trend. Aren't THEY special? Grrr..


----------



## BoldonLad (9 Dec 2021)

Threevok said:


> It's always good to stand out, both in the day and at night.
> 
> Trouble is, you can be lit up like a Christmas tree, but nobody is going to see you, if they don't look.
> 
> ...



Tragic.

But, not sure I see the relevance to taking sensible steps to be visible. I don't see how cherry picking instances where visibility aids (ie lights, reflective items etc) are not relevant, invalidates those situations where they may make a positive difference. After all, as this tragic case shows, no matter who is "right", the outcome for the cyclist may be death.


----------



## Tribansman (9 Dec 2021)

winjim said:


> Some car manufacturer has decided that cars need to put on inappropriately bright lights on unnecessary occasions so now as a cyclist I need to put on inappropriately bright and flashing lights?
> 
> Under streetlights they're not needed and without streetlights, reflectors do a fine job. Bright lights are dazzling and distracting, I'd happily take a sledgehammer to the lot of them. Bike lights should be calibrated to the brightness of a single 1980s Ever Ready and no more.


If you're just talking about being seen, maybe, but reflectors don't light the way so you can see where you're going on unlit rural roads!


----------



## icowden (10 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753518309871
> Conclusion
> "The attentional selection of a cyclist in the road environment during car driving depends partly on bottom-up processing (such as saliency related to colour contrast). *However, the yellow cyclist jacket proved to be insufficient as a visibility aid."*



That conclusion doesn't support what you think it supports. The study was on cyclists during daylight hours and concluded that in and of itself the jacket could not be evaluated as to whether it helped or not, due to other visibility factors.

Personally, I never worried about visibility when cycling in London at night due to the wall to wall streetlights. I'd still have a high vis (my rucksack), my lights and my shiny white helmet, but I wouldn't be that bothered about visibility as it's almost like daylight at night time on the main roads. However, once back in Surrey I was very much aware of how much darker it was on some sections of my commute. Indeed there is a 60mph road very near me with no streetlights, at the side of a reservoir. It is *very* *very* dark. I have seen cyclists almost hit due to their almost complete invisibility (no lights, dark clothing). Even the streetlights around here are "low light" ones. 

My favourite visibility aid is hi-viz gloves. I do think they make a difference when indicating as they can be seen *very* clearly by motorists. As a driver I can "see" a cyclist much more easily if they are wearing a little bit of stuff that makes it easier to see.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Dec 2021)

To summarise conclusions so far. Proper front and rear lights lit with backup red and white reflectors and attached to bike is all that’s necessary at night.


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> But, not sure I see the relevance to taking sensible steps to be visible. I don't see how cherry picking instances where visibility aids (ie lights, reflective items etc) are not relevant, invalidates those situations where they may make a positive difference. After all, as this tragic case shows, no matter who is "right", the outcome for the cyclist may be death.


Lovely to see someone play the death card, but visibility theatre won't stop you getting killed. You may get seen 20m earlier if drivers are looking but they would see you in plenty of time anyway. The problem is usually drivers not looking properly. Hi vis makes no significant positive contribution and distracts effort from things that work like Bikeability, lobbying for layout improvements and encouraging more people to ride.


----------



## icowden (10 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Lovely to see someone play the death card, but visibility theatre won't stop you getting killed. You may get seen 20m earlier if drivers are looking but they would see you in plenty of time anyway. The problem is usually drivers not looking properly. Hi vis makes no significant positive contribution and distracts effort from things that work like Bikeability, lobbying for layout improvements and encouraging more people to ride.



And your study to support this is where exactly?


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2021)

icowden said:


> As a driver I can "see" a cyclist much more easily if they are wearing a little bit of stuff that makes it easier to see.


And how many have you hit because you did not see them? I suspect you are not the problem and the drawback of extra hi vis is it enables problematic drivers to continue until they meet some perfectly legal normal road users or street furniture they see incorrectly. Without prolific hi vis, such drivers might realise they cannot see well enough sooner and stop.


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2021)

icowden said:


> And your study to support this is where exactly?


I posted links to some studies finding no significant positive contribution a few pages ago and this discussion is itself an example of how it distracts cyclists from more effective actions.


----------



## Dogtrousers (10 Dec 2021)

icowden said:


> My favourite visibility aid is hi-viz gloves. I do think they make a difference when indicating as they can be seen *very* clearly by motorists. As a driver I can "see" a cyclist much more easily if they are wearing a little bit of stuff that makes it easier to see.


I didn't think about that. My gloves are lemon yellow ones from Decathlon. I bought them primarily because I can actually get them on to my gnarled claws (which is imposible for many gloves), but I guess the hi-vizziness doesn't do any harm. 

Well they were lemon yellow. They are a sort of yellowy beige with grey oil stripes now after many washes.


----------



## icowden (10 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> I posted links to some studies finding no significant positive contribution a few pages ago and this discussion is itself an example of how it distracts cyclists from more effective actions.



The first study you cited was a study as to whether appearance affects the way that motorists overtake. This study had no focus on visibility and was entirely looking at driver behaviour around overtakes. It did not focus on weather conditions, lighting or time of day. 

The second (Phil Miller) is interesting but it only considers those who have "crashed" and not those who have not. At best it can demonstrate that if you have been knocked off your bike, your clothing is not a major factor in that collision. It does not attempt to evaluate whether many collisions are avoided if you are more visible. 

Another study is specific to New Zealand, and demonstrates that geographical factors and numbers of people cycling may be a stronger factor than hi-viz when it comes to bike collisions.

We are cycling actually states 



> On the other hand, research suggests that retroreflective accessories designed to make you more conspicuous in the dark - especially ankle straps that move when you pedal - are probably worth the investment.



Suggesting that *some* visibility aids are beneficial in *some* circumstances.


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> Well they were lemon yellow. They are a sort of yellowy beige with grey oil stripes now after many washes.


If someone wanted to lessen the environmental benefits of cycling, making cyclists wear synthetic materials that pollute the water with every wash and need to be replaced frequently would be one way to do it!


----------



## simongt (10 Dec 2021)

Threevok said:


> but nobody is going to see you, if they don't look.


As happened in my case when I was rear ended by a motorist. As he was coming out of a slip road, ( daytime ) he was looking to his right and failed to see me in my fluro yellow jersey in front of him.


----------



## BoldonLad (10 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Lovely to see someone play the death card, but visibility theatre won't stop you getting killed. You may get seen 20m earlier if drivers are looking but they would see you in plenty of time anyway. The problem is usually drivers not looking properly. Hi vis makes no significant positive contribution and distracts effort from things that work like Bikeability, lobbying for layout improvements and encouraging more people to ride.



I did not say hi-viz would stop you getting killed or injured. I said:

cherry picking exceptions was not helpful

Being dressed like an SAS soldier in head to toe black, while cycling in the dark or poor visibility, was not wise. 

I can only assume you think the military and nature have got it all wrong with their attempts to make things less visible?


----------



## Threevok (10 Dec 2021)

simongt said:


> As happened in my case when I was rear ended by a motorist. As he was coming out of a slip road, ( daytime ) he was looking to his right and failed to see me in my fluro yellow jersey in front of him.



This "mini" roundabout here is the absolute nightmare part of my commute home

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.692...4!1sW2sVS8_1HWkmPfQ8OWbTkQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Quite regularly, traffic from the left does not stop and give way. They barge straight out without looking to their right first and cut across the roundabout, so I have to be very careful. Buses are the most dangerous because of their length, even you wait a few feet back from the line, they still get very very close.

That aside, the worst incident (so far) I've had there, was in daylight. I was wearing high viz and with a flashing light on the front.

As I crossed the line to go around the roundabout, a driver (too busy looking left) drove straight out of that car park on the opposite side of the roundabout. They were so far across the roundabout, that they were on the wrong side of the road.

The driver hit me head on, knocked me back a few feet, then treated me to a barrage of insults, before driving off 

As I mentioned above, it's good to make yourself as visible as possible. However, it's not a guarantee that drivers will see you, if they don't bother to look.


----------



## icowden (10 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Lovely to see someone play the death card, but visibility theatre won't stop you getting killed.



But being seen *might* help stop you getting hit in the first place. 



mjr said:


> Hi vis makes no significant positive contribution and distracts effort from things that work like Bikeability, lobbying for layout improvements and encouraging more people to ride.



Will all due respect, I think that is utter tosh. No-one ever got put off riding a bike "because there was too much gear to wear". Most bike stuff you buy has some hi viz on it. If you want to just wear jeans and t-shirt that's fine, but it may be an idea not to dress like a ninja. Nor have I ever heard a council state " we were going to improve the roads and build a new bike lane but we spent all the money on a campaign to get people to wear yellow gilets".


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2021)

simongt said:


> As happened in my case when I was rear ended by a motorist. As he was coming out of a slip road, ( daytime ) he was looking to his right and failed to see me in my fluro yellow jersey in front of him.


Are you sure he failed to see you, rather than subconsciously deciding "fluro yellow = cyclist (or, worse, static roadworker or sign) = no threat, disregard due to limited processing capacity and instead worry about the approaching threats on the major route"?


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> I did not say hi-viz would stop you getting killed or injured. I said:
> 
> cherry picking exceptions was not helpful
> 
> Being dressed like an SAS soldier in head to toe black, while cycling in the dark or poor visibility, was not wise.


It depends what the poor visibility is. Clothing is also irrelevant if the bike is correctly lit and reflectored.



> I can only assume you think the military and nature have got it all wrong with their attempts to make things less visible?


The military and nature don't agree on a single approach: black, camouflage and dazzle have all been used in different contexts. I'm also unaware of either using bright lights and reflectors while trying to hide.


----------



## Dolorous Edd (10 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Lovely to see someone play the death card, but visibility theatre won't stop you getting killed. You may get seen 20m earlier if drivers are looking but they would see you in plenty of time anyway.



I'll still have the extra 20m. Thanks.


----------



## classic33 (10 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Are you sure he failed to see you, rather than subconsciously deciding "fluro yellow = cyclist (or, worse, static roadworker or sign) = no threat, disregard due to limited processing capacity and instead worry about the approaching threats on the major route"?


How can he know, much less be expected to know, what another person was thinking?


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2021)

icowden said:


> Will all due respect, I think that is utter tosh. No-one ever got put off riding a bike "because there was too much gear to wear". Most bike stuff you buy has some hi viz on it. If you want to just wear jeans and t-shirt that's fine, but it may be an idea not to dress like a ninja.


Well, "utter tosh" right back at you. What they wear doesn't matter if the vehicle is legal. Most riders don't buy or wear "bike stuff" and people really do say they are deterred from riding if they feel they should have the gear and they either cannot afford it or it is impractical for their destination (no changing rooms and smarter clothing required, for example).



> Nor have I ever heard a council state " we were going to improve the roads and build a new bike lane but we spent all the money on a campaign to get people to wear yellow gilets".


How many council meetings about cycling have you been to? I've certainly been told far too often that the cycling budget is going into promotion and education efforts instead of infrastructure, usually because someone believes (possibly correctly) that the budget is not enough to build enough infrastructure to make a measurable difference once motorist engineers have diverted chunks into motoring projects (stunts like resurfacing 100m of A road either side of a cycleway crossing or rebuilding half an expressway roundabout's embankment, to name two recent examples by nearby councils).

I can understand it in a way: it's easy to measure and report to cabinet that X short-life polluting gilets were distributed with Y leaflets at Z events and school indoctrinations, and N people engaged with their video adverts, while the casualty and ridership numbers showing their ultimate ineffectiveness may only become obvious years later (if at all), after cabinet members and officers hope to have been promoted out of the firing line. It's easier to exploit cabinet members' beliefs that shoot like gilets help than educate them.


----------



## classic33 (10 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> It depends what the poor visibility is. Clothing is also irrelevant if the bike is correctly lit and reflectored.
> 
> 
> The military and nature don't agree on a single approach: black, camouflage and dazzle have all been used in different contexts. I'm also unaware of either using bright lights and reflectors while trying to hide.


Infra red reflectives, to avoid being seen at night
https://pincroft.co.uk/infrared-reflective-material/


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2021)

classic33 said:


> How can he know, much less be expected to know, what another person was thinking?


Thank you for pretty much restating the point of my question(!) How does he know where a driver behind at a junction was looking for the entire approach?


----------



## classic33 (10 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> It depends what the poor visibility is. Clothing is also irrelevant if the bike is correctly lit and reflectored.
> 
> 
> *The military and nature don't agree on a single approach: black, camouflage and dazzle have all been used in different contexts*. I'm also unaware of either using bright lights and reflectors while trying to hide.


Depends on what they are trying to hide from. Not always just a visual camouflage. Even in nature.

Clutching at straws springs to mind.


----------



## classic33 (10 Dec 2021)

Stop making stuff up!


mjr said:


> *Thank you for pretty much restating* the point of my question(!) How does he know where a driver behind at a junction was looking for the entire approach?


If this question could be answered by the injured party, in an accident,(what the other party was thinking at the time), accident reports would be very much shorter. And no disputes.


mjr said:


> Are you sure he failed to see you, rather than subconsciously deciding "fluro yellow = cyclist (or, worse, static roadworker or sign) = no threat, disregard due to limited processing capacity and instead worry about the approaching threats on the major route"?


----------



## BoldonLad (10 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> It depends what the poor visibility is. Clothing is also irrelevant if the bike is correctly lit and reflectored.
> 
> 
> *The military and nature don't agree on a single approach: *black, camouflage and dazzle have all been used in different contexts. I'm also unaware of either using bright lights and reflectors while trying to hide.



True, a single approach is not appropriate, little point in dressing all in black, if you wish to reduce your visibility in a snow covered landscape.

Earlier in this thread, you made great play on the word "invisible". Well, of course people, cyclists etc do not become "invisible" even if they are dressed in camouflage, but, they may become more difficult to see (which, unless I am very much mistaken, is the object of camouflage).

But, in the context of this thread, we are not talking of *decreasing* a cyclists likelihood of being seen, but, of *increasing* their likelihood of being seen. It is true there are other factors, not least of which is drivers observation skills. However, personally, I would rather increase my chances of being seen than have to call a "no win no fee" solicitor.


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> However, personally, I would rather increase my chances of being seen than have to call a "no win no fee" solicitor.


But that is a logical disconnect. We cannot show that the wearing conspicuity garb reduces the chances of being hit, and counterexamples of the types posted by cyclists above are plentiful.

I suspect there may even be some benefit from the bike being very visible and the rider being a bit difficult to make out: they might mistake my build for someone with @Drago's physique and decide they value their limbs enough to avoid me.


----------



## Alex321 (10 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> But that is a logical disconnect. We cannot show that the wearing conspicuity garb reduces the chances of being hit, and counterexamples of the types posted by cyclists above are plentiful.


You may not be able to *prove* it, and I know that what appears obvious to common sense isn't always correct. But common sense here certainly suggests it may help, and there is no real possibility it will harm.

I don't see any "logical disconnect" in what he said.



> I suspect there may even be some benefit from the bike being very visible and the rider being a bit difficult to make out: they might mistake my build for someone with @Drago's physique and decide they value their limbs enough to avoid me.


----------



## DaveReading (10 Dec 2021)

Is there any evidence that wearing conspicuity garb *increases *the chances of being hit?


----------



## Dogtrousers (10 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Clothing is also irrelevant if the bike is correctly lit and reflectored.


This ^

Nothing wrong with a bit of reflective bling. I have absolutely no objection to it and own various things that happen to be reflective. I even have a reflective gilet that I use sometimes for night riding because it takes the chill off and has good pockets. But the lights and reflectors on the bike are what is _really _important. Everything else is of minor importance.


----------



## Milkfloat (10 Dec 2021)

DaveReading said:


> Is there any evidence that wearing conspicuity garb *increases *the chances of being hit?


This image is one used by a site selling high vis, as you can see the black stands out far clearer than the high vis. I have certainly experinced far worse by high vis clad cyclists and walkers with fields of rape and other crops. I wear black at times for practical reasons, however my commuting bike and winter bike have a lot of reflective on as do my overshoes and cycling bib longs, I don't own any high vis. I commute in normal clothes.


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2021)

DaveReading said:


> Is there any evidence that wearing conspicuity garb *increases *the chances of being hit?


Some, including some already linked, but it is not strong, same as evidence the other way. We could conclude clothing is almost irrelevant...


----------



## Alex321 (10 Dec 2021)

DaveReading said:


> Is there any evidence that wearing conspicuity garb *increases *the chances of being hit?



In most cases, particularly in dark conditions, I don't think so. But it will depend on the background. There are cases where the background is so bright that it may blend in more than plain garb would.


----------



## classic33 (10 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Some, including some already linked, but it is not strong, same as evidence the other way. *We could conclude clothing is almost irrelevant*...


Going commando certainly gets you noticed. Believe me...


----------



## Tribansman (10 Dec 2021)

DaveReading said:


> Is there any evidence that wearing conspicuity garb *increases *the chances of being hit?


Not really evidence, but there may well be a complacency factor - e.g. if you're in hi viz and believe you can be more easily seen, you may exercise a little less caution or ride a little less defensively. In my experience, riding defensively at junctions and roundabouts and assuming drivers may well not give way is the single biggest thing you can do to keep yourself safe.

As has been said, being visible does absolutely nothing if drivers don't look.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 Dec 2021)

The only evidence I’ve seen on high viz in relation to cycling is that those wearing hiviz have more accidents.


----------

