# hi-viz gone mad....



## gaz (2 May 2012)

http://road.cc/content/news/57417-uk-brand-li-co-launch-visijax-motion-activated-electronic-jacket


> *Cambridge-based Li & Co have launched a new electronic cycling jacket that senses when you move your arm to indicate and flashes amber lights automatically to alert other road users*.
> The new Visijak jacket incorporates a total of 23 high-intensity LEDs and the indicator lights use what the manufacturer describes as an Intelligent Motion-Activated Signalling System (iMASS).
> Motion detectors sense the movement when you raise your arm to indicate a turning and automatically turn on the appropriate amber signal. The flashing signal remains on for around 5secs after you’ve put your arm down to allow sufficient time for a safe turning.


----------



## musa (2 May 2012)

oh no you've started..its what I see as exploitation and manipulation why?

Well, safety sells innit simple as that it's money


----------



## fossyant (2 May 2012)

Oh great. The lass looks a right plum !


----------



## ohnovino (2 May 2012)

Not something I'll be buying, but when it was featured on "Click" (the BBC's tech show) I thought it had a couple of neat features.

It's powered by a surprisingly small battery pack that's easy to remove, and charges through USB. This means it could be useful as a backup light system that you'd never forget to bring to work. Also it's not crazily priced; the reporter said it's around the same price as any other waterproof & breathable jacket.

Still a bit of a mad idea though...


----------



## Melonfish (2 May 2012)

i like it, interesting to see how much they end up being, anything that improves cyclist visibility is good in my book.


----------



## GrasB (2 May 2012)

Except the problem is people not looking, not visibility. For most cyclists with a reasonable set of lights (~0.5w worth of LEDs at the front & back with properly charged batteries) night time visibility is fine, during the day with brighter coloured clothing without resorting to high-vis is perfectly adequate for someone seeing a cyclist 1km away.


----------



## ianrauk (2 May 2012)

GrasB said:


> Except the problem is people not looking, not visibility. For most cyclists with a reasonable set of lights (~0.5w worth of LEDs at the front & back with properly charged batteries) night time visibility is fine, during the day with brighter coloured clothing without resorting to high-vis is perfectly adequate for someone seeing a cyclist 1km away.


 

Exactly... and Hi-Viz just looks the same washed out colour as normal colours at night under street lighting. That and in the words of Greg. 'Hi-Viz doth offend mine eye'


----------



## benb (2 May 2012)

I often wear dark colours because, well, black looks cool. I think a solid black block should be easy to spot in daylight (are black cars hit proportionately more often than yellow ones). My jacket is bright red though, but haven't needed it for a few days.

On all except bright days I have lights, no matter whether it's dark or not.

I don't mind high-vis, but I don't really think it makes you any more likely to be seen. Any driver looking properly (given the lights as already discussed) will see you whether you're wearing it or not. Any driver _not_ looking properly won't see you whether you're wearing it or not.

Kind of like helmets - wear it if you want, but don't expect it to significantly increase your safety.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 May 2012)

Well I'll say it anyway....

Hi-viz doth offend mine eye.

If they ain't looking they ain't going to see you. If they are, they will.


----------



## BentMikey (2 May 2012)

Still remember LeeW's Quest that some woman in a 4x4 pulled out on. A large refrigerator sized piece of hiviz. Bet her insurance company coughed smoke when they saw how much the Quest was going to cost them, LOL.


----------



## growingvegetables (2 May 2012)

Hmmm - I have my very own "Intelligent Motion-Activated Signalling System (iMASS)". Can I get a patent on the use of two fingers?


----------



## sidevalve (2 May 2012)

The trouble with wether hi viz gets you seen or not is that there is and can never be any proof either way, after all there is no record of accidents that don't happen ! Anyway if you want to wear it, wear it, if it offends someone else well that's their problem.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 May 2012)

Hi-vis is so commonplace nowadays that it is disregarded to the extent of uselessness. Someone robbed an auction room near me a few weeks ago, relieving it of over £300,000 worth of jewellery. What was he wearing to go unnoticed in his approach and escape? Yep, a hi-vis jacket.

It's modern-day urban camouflage.

GC


----------



## machew (2 May 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Hi-vis is so commonplace nowadays that it is disregarded to the extent of uselessness. Someone robbed an auction room near me a few weeks ago, relieving it of over £300,000 worth of jewellery. What was he wearing to go unnoticed in his approach and escape? Yep, a hi-vis jacket.
> 
> It's modern-day urban camouflage.
> 
> GC


Banksy has been quoted in saying, if you want to paint any wall wear hi-vis, have heart FM on the radio, a red top newspaper on the dashboard of you white van and if any one talks to you complain about your hourly rate or rant about them "Coming over here and doing our Jobs"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 May 2012)

sidevalve said:


> The trouble with wether hi viz gets you seen or not is that there is and can never be any proof either way, after all there is no record of accidents that don't happen ! Anyway if you want to wear it, wear it, if it offends someone else well that's their problem.


Yeah, I know what you mean. I keep not having RTA's involving other vehicles when not wearing hi-viz. Life's a bummer.


----------



## sidevalve (2 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Yeah, I know what you mean. I keep not having RTA's involving other vehicles when not wearing hi-viz. Life's a bummer.


 Which proves ? Either 1 - people are better drivers than you give them credit for 2 - your lucky 3 - it may do no good but equally no harm either, as I said, can't be proved. Don't really see the problem.


----------



## Recycler (2 May 2012)

sidevalve said:


> Which proves ? Either 1 - people are better drivers than you give them credit for 2 - your lucky 3 - it may do no good but equally no harm either, as I said, can't be proved. Don't really see the problem.


+1
Exactly how I see (!) it. It certainly doesn't make things worse for me so I prefer to use it.
What I don't understand is why some peeps are so "anti" it.


----------



## Davidc (2 May 2012)

Most drivers are good and do see us on bikes and do behave acceptably.

A small minority of drivers are so poor they don't look where they're going &/or don't see what they're looking at. They cause most of the collisions and won't see you if your lights are as bright as a lighthouse and you have any hi-viz ever made. The only option is to spot them and get out of the way. (Same goes if you're on foot, on a motorcycle, in a car, or driving a JCB*).

Lights (day and night for me) are there to help the first category, try to wake up the ones in between, and are no use for the second category above 'cos they're texting/ sleeping/ looking the other way.

Hi viz (daytime) and reflective (night time) helps the good drivers see you early, might wake up a few waverers, and are no use for the second category above 'cos they're texting/ sleeping/ looking the other way.

I don't object to hi viz, I do wear it sometimes, but I only think it's useful in dull and wet weather like the last week's. Reflectives are of use on unlit country roads, but experience suggests they're chocolate teapots under streetlighting. My waterproofs and warm stuff are mainly bright yellow because that's cheapest.

I won't be buying the jacket in the OP because I think it's silly, won't help with anything, and will cost too much.

* If they hit a JCB it's messy scraping them off and they might scratch the paint, so still best keep the JCB out of their way.


----------



## gaz (2 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> +1
> Exactly how I see (!) it. It certainly doesn't make things worse for me so I prefer to use it.
> What I don't understand is why some peeps are so "anti" it.


It is just like helmets, it makes cycling look like a hazardous activity.


----------



## Davidc (2 May 2012)

gaz said:


> It is just like helmets, it makes cycling look like a hazardous activity.


So common it just makes cycling look the same as almost every other activity.

Wouldn't disagree over helmets though.


----------



## Recycler (2 May 2012)

gaz said:


> It is just like helmets, it makes cycling look like a hazardous activity.


 
But surely it is at least a little hazardous?

We can argue about the degree of danger but, since I took up reasonably serious cycling, I have become much more aware of my vulnerability on the road than I am as a car driver. I'm not saying that it qualifies as a "dangerous sport", but every day we read about near misses and/or "downs" on this site.

In any event I'm not even sure that there is any problem if we make it look hazardous. My main concern is to make sure that other road users don't crash into me....I don't really care what they think about me.


----------



## Boris Bajic (2 May 2012)

Some people are *massively* in favour of dark clothing in urban environments... but I can't see it myself... 







I'll get my (non-HiViz) coat.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> +1
> Exactly how I see (!) it. It certainly doesn't make things worse for me so I prefer to use it.
> What I don't understand is *why some peeps are so "anti" it.*


aesthetics. style. taste.

a dislike of the garish, the clashing, the strident, the loud. visually speaking.

or in plain speak; because it looks feckin' awful.


----------



## Recycler (2 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> aesthetics. style. taste.
> 
> a dislike of the garish, the clashing, the strident, the loud. visually speaking.
> 
> or in plain speak; because it looks feckin' awful.


 
Well, I never said that it was pretty but I really don't care what it looks like. I rather doubt that anything I wear would result in a trail of girls swooning at the roadside as I pass by. I may just as well try to be visible


----------



## mcshroom (2 May 2012)

I have nothing against high viz - but I do worry if it would encourage people to look for high viz rather than people, in the same way that I feel daylight running lights encourage drivers to look for car lights rather than for other vehicles.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (2 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> Well, I never said that it was pretty but I really don't care what it looks like. I rather doubt that anything I wear would result in a trail of girls swooning at the roadside as I pass by. I may just as well try to be visible


Fear not, some of us like the hi viz look


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (3 May 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Hi-vis is so commonplace nowadays that it is disregarded to the extent of uselessness. Someone robbed an auction room near me a few weeks ago, relieving it of over £300,000 worth of jewellery. What was he wearing to go unnoticed in his approach and escape? Yep, a hi-vis jacket.
> 
> It's modern-day urban camouflage.
> 
> GC


 







How many hi-viz cars do you see then?



gaz said:


> It is just like helmets, it makes cycling look like a hazardous activity.


 
So you've never had a cycling accident then?



GregCollins said:


> aesthetics. style. taste.
> 
> a dislike of the garish, the clashing, the strident, the loud. visually speaking.
> 
> or in plain speak; because it looks feckin' awful.


 

ahhh it's all about how it looks now.


----------



## Andy84 (3 May 2012)

"So you've never had a cycling accident then?"


I've had an "accident" walking down the stairs before, I wouldn't class it as a hazardous activity though!


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (3 May 2012)

Andy84 said:


> "So you've never had a cycling accident then?"
> 
> 
> I've had an "accident" walking down the stairs before, I wouldn't class it as a hazardous activity though!


 

Ahh you mean a third party didn't see you and tripped you down the stairs.


----------



## BentMikey (3 May 2012)

Were you wearing hiviz when the chappie in the Landrover turned right across you?


----------



## GrasB (3 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> So you've never had a cycling accident then?


Yes, several. Every time I've been wearing a helmet I've ended up with a neck injury. Every time I've not been wearing a helmet I've never had an injury above my shoulders....


----------



## GrasB (3 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Ahh you mean a third party didn't see you and tripped you down the stairs.


In a reported incident a fire engine with priority through a cross roads with sirens & flashers going was T-boned by a car. The driver didn't see the fire engine! Now how the hell do you miss a fire engine in full "I'm here" mode?

What I do know is when I'm doing a commented drive with cameras running quite often I'm calling out a cyclist, even in dark clothing, typically before I can actually see them in the cameras. My view is SMIDSY isn't a defense, it's an admission of driving without due care & attention.


----------



## Andy84 (3 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Ahh you mean a third party didn't see you and tripped you down the stairs.



Yes, if you want.


----------



## ianrauk (3 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> ahhh it's all about how it looks now.


 
In a nutshell


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> ahhh it's all about how it looks now.


 
all? no. Something? Certainly, and I'm will to bet the aesthetics of the kit you ride and wear has way more to do with why you own it than you'd care to admit....


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> How many hi-viz cars do you see then?


 
In that picture? erm, 1.
Did I pass?


GC


----------



## Jezston (3 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> aesthetics. style. taste.
> 
> a dislike of the garish, the clashing, the strident, the loud. visually speaking.
> 
> or in plain speak; because it looks feckin' awful.


 
Everyone who isn't a serious cyclist thinks ALL cycling gear looks stupid anyway.

Flouro is great in dingy daytime weather, better than lights.

I understand the dislike of flourescent stuff because yes it isn't pretty and we shouldn't be demanding cyclists wear it (and helmets) to take responsibility away from bad drivers. There was a couple I used to see every day on my commute wearing flourescent jackets who only ever rode on cyclepaths anyway. I mean WTF.

But it's still useful. The arguments I've read against it's usefulness are tenuous - if you don't like the way it looks, you associate wearing it with amateurs and bad cyclists and you don't like the increased responsibility of being seen over seeing that's fine.


----------



## gaz (3 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> So you've never had a cycling accident then


I've had several collisions with other vehicles. Roughly half with hi-viz on and half without. All of them being of smidsy variety..
I have cycled many many many more miles without hi-viz.


----------



## GrasB (3 May 2012)

Jezston said:


> Flouro is great in dingy daytime weather, better than lights.


Not even close. Best thing during the day is a 1.5-3W LED light with some kind of flashing pattern that never turns off completely. These can be spotted miles (literally) of through hedgerows, between building, etc. A quick glimpse of something fluorescent through small gaps gives your eye a nondescript bright colour & tends to be written off as unimportant where as a bright red or white light catches the attention much more.

There's someone around here on a trike who often wears a fluro orange top, much brighter than the typical yellow tabards you see people wearing & has a a B&M light of some description. When riding along & I see him coming towards me I invariably see his headlight first, especially if it's up near the the American Seminary.


----------



## Jezston (3 May 2012)

I'm talking more about in closer urban environments. The flouro also tells you more about what the object is (i.e. a human) than a light which just says it's a light. But that's a whole other debate.


----------



## GrasB (3 May 2012)

A light is something on the road; bike, motorbike, car, etc.. Fluro means 'something' could be a delivery guy, lorry driver, service worker, ped, cyclists, a warning tape/ signage on the back of a lorry, etc...


----------



## Boris Bajic (3 May 2012)

I'm with Jezston on this. When driving, I do find it easier both to spot and to identify earlier cyclists who are wearing some sort of Hi-Viz.

I am in favour of lamps too, but I find that the cyclists I see in really good time tend to be wearing Hi-Viz or bright colours.

The earlier a motorist sees cyclists and identifies them as such, the safer and more predictable that motorist's response will be.

As Jezston implies, there are myriad other signals and identifiers; but to discount Hi-Viz seems eccentric. To my mind it is one of the key ones. 

I do not write this as Mr Flouro-Cyclist. Little of my cycle clothing has true Hi-Viz properties. I write it as a motorist who appreciates being able to see cyclists early and identify them early.

Some of the negatives I've faced as a cyclist have involved motorists who've failed to see me in time. I'm all for giving them any help I can.


----------



## ohnovino (3 May 2012)

In broad daylight, hi-vis makes no difference.
At night, hi-vis makes no difference.

If a driver looks properly, they'll see you whatever you're wearing.
If a driver doesn't look, they'll miss you whatever you're wearing.

What that leaves is dim/dull/overcast conditions and where a driver just has a quick glance rather than a proper look, such as when they're about to pull out from a side road. If they just flick their eyes briefly in my direction, surely I've got a better chance of being spotted if I can make myself stand out.


----------



## BentMikey (3 May 2012)

You're not going to see any hiviz vest behind the lights I'm using.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> The earlier a motorist sees cyclists and identifies them as such, the safer and more predictable that motorist's response will be.


 
In my experience that means the driver will often think to himself "Feck it, it's only a cyclist" and pull out regardless of how close I am etc.
It's the main reason I don't use blinking front lights, only steady. 


GC


----------



## Boris Bajic (3 May 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> In my experience that means the driver will often think to himself "Feck it, it's only a cyclist" and pull out regardless of how close I am etc.
> It's the main reason I don't use blinking front lights, only steady.
> GC


 
This post suggests a quite extraordinary ability to read and analyse the thought processes of a passing driver. I've cycled for tens of thousands of miles and have never yet been able to determine what a passing driver is thinking to himself (or herself). You seem to be suggesting you can do so as a matter of course. Do you have some sort of telepathic ability? 

But on a more serious note, I'm with you on front lights used with anything other than their constant setting. When a cyclist with VERY POWERFUL blinky lights is coming towards me, I find they can be unhelpfully distracting whether I'm on a bike or in a car.

In a car, it's because the lamps are often at my eye level and as a cyclist it's worst when my glasses are rain-spotted and flashing lights turn my field of vision into a disco nightmare.

Also on a more serious note, how do other members who are also drivers think about cyclists in Hi-Viz?


----------



## just jim (3 May 2012)

They'll be rockin' that jacket in downtown Copenhagen.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (3 May 2012)

GrasB said:


> Yes, several. Every time I've been wearing a helmet I've ended up with a neck injury. Every time I've not been wearing a helmet I've never had an injury above my shoulders....


 

That's unlucky,and no doubt I have been lucky.


----------



## BentMikey (3 May 2012)

I'm with glasgowcyclist, I don't want to be identified as a cyclist because that means they'll take a chance with me that they won't with an unidentified vehicle with very bright lights. Thus I tend to leave my front light on flash in the day, and constant at night.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (3 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> You're not going to see any hiviz vest behind the lights I'm using.


 

So you need lights during the day,why?

Because they don't notice you normally,at a guess.



BentMikey said:


> Were you wearing hiviz when the chappie in the Landrover turned right across you?


 
He may have left it late before he braked,but he saw me eventually.Probably because I was swearing and that woke him up.Yes we know hi-viz isn't foolproof,as has been stated on this thread,if motorist or pedestrian doesn't look (or just glances) then it's no good.That's a common problem anyway.

Really,why should I care if you don't wear hi-viz?

It suits me better if you don't*,but I don't necessarily agree that hi-viz is useless,admittedly it isn't foolproof as the landrover incident proved,but the guy saw me at the last second and that was enough for me to get away with it.

*=(I suppose)


----------



## gaz (3 May 2012)

just jim said:


> They'll be rockin' that jacket in downtown Copenhagen.


I can't' see any cyclists in this image, they are not visible enough


----------



## ianrauk (3 May 2012)

gaz said:


> I can't' see any cyclists in this image, they are not visible enough


 

If you squint and stare at the pic for long enough a cyclist comes into view.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (3 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> ahhh it's all about how it looks now.


 


GregCollins said:


> all? no. Something? Certainly, and I'm will to bet the aesthetics of the kit you ride and wear has way more to do with why you own it than you'd care to admit....


 
You're so vain, you probably think this thread is about you, you're so vain ....


----------



## BentMikey (3 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> So you need lights during the day,why?


 
I don't believe I do, but it's an anti-insurance argument. If you've not seen an Exposure MaXx-D, should've gone to specsavers innit.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (3 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I don't believe I do, but it's an anti-insurance argument. If you've not seen an Exposure MaXx-D, should've gone to specsavers innit.


 
Blimey,the motorists on your commute must have brilliant eyesight.

I feel such a fool,this thread has made me realise hi-viz is no good.I wont be using it in future,im convinced.


----------



## redcard (3 May 2012)

I'm going to go shopping for some nice pastel shades, hi-viz is just soo common.

Wonder if I can get a set of light to match - those red LEDs are just so garish.


----------



## Recycler (3 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Also on a more serious note, how do other members who are also drivers think about cyclists in Hi-Viz?


 
As a driver I'm convinced that Hi-viz makes cyclists more visible. Other drivers tell me that it makes cyclists more visible. The police and other organisations seem to agree. For me it's a no brainer.

I don't really care if it lacks street cred. As someone said earlier in this thread, most non-cyclists think cycling gear looks a bit odd anyway and, if I look like a belisha beacon, I'm quite happy to laugh at myself!

I'm just surprised at how "anti" some people obviously are....nobody complains about red jerseys or any other colours. It reminds me of all the arguments you used to hear to justify not using seat belts before they were made compulsory. But, each to their own. If peeps don't want to use it it's fine by me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 May 2012)

just jim said:


> They'll be rockin' that jacket in downtown Copenhagen.


Clearly these people are not _serious_ cyclists...


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (3 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Clearly these people are not _serious_ cyclists...


 
Does it make you a serious cyclist because you use hi-viz,or does it make you a serious cyclist because you wear all the lycra gear?

*GregCollins A fixed gear is a harsh mistress.*

 (Don't I know it)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Does it make you a serious cyclist because you use hi-viz,or does it make you a serious cyclist because you wear all the lycra gear?


You tell me... the question is as specious as it is vapid.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (3 May 2012)

Oh well.


----------



## GrasB (4 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I'm with Jezston on this. When driving, I do find it easier both to spot and to identify earlier cyclists who are wearing some sort of Hi-Viz.
> 
> I am in favour of lamps too, but I find that the cyclists I see in really good time tend to be wearing Hi-Viz or bright colours.
> 
> ...


In my experience all road users who say high vis make cyclists more visible make HUGE miss-judgments is speed of cyclists at the extremes of a cyclists the speed range... eg. consistently waiting for ages for a cyclist doing little more than walking pace or cutting up cyclist who are at high speeds. In short you're not seeing the cyclist more easily you're makeing a per-concived judgment based on typical parameters. I there for say stop making assumptions & start observing properly for the sake of all road users.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (4 May 2012)

GrasB said:


> In my experience all road users who say high vis make cyclists more visible make HUGE miss-judgments is speed of cyclists at the extremes of a cyclists the speed range... eg. consistently waiting for ages for a cyclist doing little more than walking pace or cutting up cyclist who are at high speeds. In short you're not seeing the cyclist more easily you're makeing a per-concived judgment based on typical parameters. I there for say stop making assumptions & start observing properly for the sake of all road users.


 

That's your opinion.I don't really have too much of a problem,the only problem I had yesterday was with a motorist who was (texting?) on his phone and had not idea I was behind him and by his side watching him,obviously hi-vis was no good in this situation.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 May 2012)

GrasB said:


> In my experience all road users who say high vis make cyclists more visible make HUGE miss-judgments is speed of cyclists at the extremes of a cyclists the speed range... eg. consistently waiting for ages for a cyclist doing little more than walking pace or cutting up cyclist who are at high speeds. In short you're not seeing the cyclist more easily you're makeing a per-concived judgment based on typical parameters. I there for say stop making assumptions & start observing properly for the sake of all road users.


 
Your experience seems to tell you a lot. I'm not sure how you reach your conclusions on the basis of your hypothesis, but I find them flawed.

As a driver I make the judgement (based on experience) that Hi-Viz and bright colours are an advantage. I therefore fall into the group you identiy in your first sentence. By your judgement therefore, I make HUGE misjudgements about cyclist speed.

I'm also a keen, relatively high-mileage cyclist. On occasion a motorist emerging at a junction, changing lanes or overtaking misjudges (or appears to misjudge) either my speed or their and my relative speed. This is just as true when I'm driving a car. I do not see this failure in judgement as a function of their (unknown to me) view on Hi-Viz.

As it happens, I have hardly any cycle clothing that could be described as Hi-Viz, but I am strongly in favour of bright colours. 

I see that your post has picked up a couple of 'likes' from sensible and thoughtful members, but I find that it makes invalid assumptions and unhelpful generalisations.

I am in favour of cyclists making themselves more visible by wearing clothing that stands out a little. This view does not suddenly dump me in an imagined group of road users who make assumptions about speed and fail to observe properly, although you suggest this is the case. There may be a few road users who fall into the group you identify - and some of those may be in favour of Hi-Viz. I draw no connection between one group and the other and cannot see how you do. Clearly, it is the responsiblity of all road users to be alert and observant. There are times when some of us are not, but this is not because of our views on Hi-Viz.

To my (albeit limited) mind none of the connections you draw above on the basis of your experience is valid. Some of them may be accurate in some cases, but not for the reasons you give.


----------



## just jim (4 May 2012)

See these "stealth" cars with their dark paint jobs? I don't! I like cars painted a colour which maybe not bright, makes them stand out a little. Motorists do themselves no favours by driving around in black, brown, grey or browny-grey cars.


----------



## Alun (4 May 2012)

I thought of wearing green or a sandy yellow, the same colour the army paint their armoured vehicles. Bet the average motorist can see them, "txting" or not !


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 May 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Hi-vis is so commonplace nowadays that it is disregarded to the extent of uselessness. Someone robbed an auction room near me a few weeks ago, relieving it of over £300,000 worth of jewellery. What was he wearing to go unnoticed in his approach and escape? Yep, a hi-vis jacket.
> It's modern-day urban camouflage.


Whilst I agree with some of the arguments against using fluorescent clothing, I always find this particular argument rather strange. It's not about standing out from the crowd; it's about standing out from the background.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (4 May 2012)

just jim said:


> See these "stealth" cars with their dark paint jobs? I don't! I like cars painted a colour which maybe not bright, makes them stand out a little. Motorists do themselves no favours by driving around in black, brown, grey or browny-grey cars.


 

Not good for me because in some dismal lighting positions motorcyclists (and sometimes cars) can be hard to see,for me that is.Obviously it has to be a double take which isn't always easy.Perhaps I just take note of what I see when I am a pedestrian.I do tend to watch cyclists,some have great lights and some dont.No more specsavers jokes please mikey as it really isn't funny.


----------



## just jim (4 May 2012)

Alun said:


> I thought of wearing green or a sandy yellow, the same colour the army paint their armoured vehicles. Bet the average motorist can see them, "txting" or not !


Sandy yellow? I get "Sue Pollard's 1980's Macintosh Coat" in my head. Damn you "Hi-De-Hi"!


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (4 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Clearly these people are not _serious_ cyclists...


 
You are right,no lycra.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> You are right,no lycra.


if that is your conclusion you are welcome to it.


----------



## Maz (4 May 2012)

I can resist no longer...it's time for one of these...


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (4 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> if that is your conclusion you are welcome to it.


 

You brought it up.


----------



## Jezston (4 May 2012)

GrasB said:


> all road users who say high vis make cyclists more visible make HUGE miss-judgments is speed of cyclists at the extremes of a cyclists the speed range...


 


> ... I there for say stop making assumptions & start observing properly for the sake of all road users.


 
And I'm out.


----------



## Trickedem (4 May 2012)

Will Hi viz become the discussion item that gets banished to its own sub forum?

Anyway Hi viz is essential according to Halfords. So there!
http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/...1_catalogId_10151_categoryId_228860_langId_-1

"Sometimes called hi viz clothing, these brightly coloured accessories reflect light and make sure drivers and other road users know you're there. It's essential to wear hi vis clothing when riding at night or in dull weather, to help keep you safe"


----------



## just jim (4 May 2012)

These are Copenhaganites making their way to Hafliörds to buy h-viz rechargeable L.E.D tabards with their cash money.


----------



## Recycler (4 May 2012)

An interesting discussion.
On the basis that nobody has given me a reason to stop wearing Hi Viz I think I'll continue to use it. It won't do me any harm; it may save me from a SMIDSY.


----------



## benb (4 May 2012)

Trickedem said:


> Anyway Hi viz is essential according to Halfords. So there!
> http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/...1_catalogId_10151_categoryId_228860_langId_-1
> 
> "Sometimes called hi viz clothing, these brightly coloured accessories reflect light and *make sure drivers and other road users know you're there*. It's essential to wear hi vis clothing when riding at night or in dull weather, to help keep you safe"


 
Wow, that's amazing. How exactly does high-viz manage this conjuring trick?


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (4 May 2012)

Trickedem said:


> Will Hi viz become the discussion item that gets banished to its own sub forum?
> 
> Anyway Hi viz is essential according to Halfords. So there!
> http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/...1_catalogId_10151_categoryId_228860_langId_-1
> ...


£9.99 for a standard reflective waistcoat? I can get four for that price from Charlies Stores.


----------



## 400bhp (4 May 2012)

benb said:


> Wow, that's amazing. How exactly does high-viz manage this conjuring trick?


 
I'm more interested in this "dull weather" that Halfords seem to have.

Wonder what weather is exciting?


----------



## siadwell (4 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> I'm more interested in this "dull weather" that Halfords seem to have.
> 
> Wonder what weather is exciting?


 
All weathers are dull.They only ever talk about the British.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> An interesting discussion.
> On the basis that nobody has given me a reason to stop wearing Hi Viz I think I'll continue to use it. It won't do me any harm; it may save me from a SMIDSY.


No one is trying to persuade you or anyone else not to wear it, if you/they want to.


----------



## growingvegetables (4 May 2012)

Trickedem said:


> Anyway Hi viz is essential according to Halfords. So there!
> http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/...1_catalogId_10151_categoryId_228860_langId_-1
> 
> "Sometimes called hi viz clothing, these brightly coloured accessories reflect light and *make sure* drivers and other road users know you're there.


Love it! So next time some wombat in a BMW "doesn't see" me, I can make a claim against Halfords. Yippee - that's a gravy train that'll fund a long and pleasurable retirement! 

Seriously though - we can argue amongst ourselves til Kingdom Come about the need/desirability/whatever of hi viz. And it's pretty much irrelevant?

Personally, what counts is that no f*ckw!t, nor his/her insurance company, gets the chance to weasel out of their responsibilities, should I be knocked off my bike, by claiming they'd have seen me if I'd had hi viz.

Scientific effectivenesss - open to question.
Effectiveness against scheming barstewards - definitely.


----------



## Panter (4 May 2012)

Hi-viz, the clue's in the name


----------



## Alan Frame (4 May 2012)

Whatever the pros and cos, I feel that the insurance companies will use lack of fluorescent gear against any cyclist involved in an rtc with a motorist.

I prefer to deprive them of that opportunity.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 May 2012)

I've heard this, but the last time I was knocked off it was classic SMIDSY.

I was in jeans and a sweatshirt, no helmet.

The insurer of the driver rang me and settled there and then.

I've never met anyone who had their claim adjusted or queried because of perceived partial invisibility or somesuch similar.

I like the idea of being visible partly because I feel safer when I'm more easily seen and partly because in Star Trek the Romulans never seemed to win despite their cloaking device. It's the H--Viz Enterprise and her brightly dressed crew who generally prevail, although I may be mixing fiction with fact here.

It may be that the stories of insurers questioning liability on a matter of visibility have some basis in fact, but they have only ever reached my ears as rumour.


----------



## Theseus (4 May 2012)

Has anyone posted this up yet?


----------



## gaz (4 May 2012)

Alan Frame said:


> Whatever the pros and cos, I feel that the insurance companies will use lack of fluorescent gear against any cyclist involved in an rtc with a motorist.
> 
> I prefer to deprive them of that opportunity.


Have you ever heard of this happening?

I've had involvement with several insurance companies for several collisions, never had an issue with not wearing hi-viz.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (4 May 2012)

Touche said:


> Has anyone posted this up yet?


 

Sod 'em,i'd wear black then.





wtf?



GregCollins said:


> No one is trying to persuade you or anyone else not to wear it, if you/they want to.


 
Thank you.x


----------



## SW19cam (8 May 2012)

I'm a bit late to this party, but when I cycle (usually around dusk on the way home) hi-vis sticks out like a sore thumb. So thumbs up to it's use. 

It shouldn't be used instead of lights, but if you just have an ok pair (of lights) then it helps dramatically. It's particularly helpful to see when people are signalling left or right...(I haven't seen anyone with lights on their arms yet!)


----------



## her_welshness (9 May 2012)

I'm not the coolest dude on this planet. I like my hi-viz jacket. I like its fluorescent strips. I like the different pockets it has all over the jacket. When I look at its colour in the fading light I radiate. This makes me feel like a GOD.

Seriously, my husband has attested that cyclists do stick out like a sore thumb when he is driving. If others choose to wear differently and feel comfortable then good for them.

Now onto lights. The number of f*cktards that I've seen using their £200 f*ck off lights on the embankment is really starting to p*ss me off. Why? YOU DON'T BLOODY WELL NEED TO USE THEM IN THE F*CKING DAYLIGHT AND GIVE ME A F*CKING HEAD-ACHE - PRICKS. Sorry, no, its a lack of prick thats the key, that or they need to get themselves some entertainment.


----------



## ianrauk (9 May 2012)

Top rant about lights hun...


----------



## gaz (9 May 2012)

her_welshness said:


> Now onto lights. The number of f*cktards that I've seen using their £200 f*ck off lights on the embankment is really starting to p*ss me off. Why? YOU DON'T BLOODY WELL NEED TO USE THEM IN THE F*CKING DAYLIGHT AND GIVE ME A F*CKING HEAD-ACHE - PRICKS. Sorry, no, its a lack of prick thats the key, that or they need to get themselves some entertainment.


What do you need in daylight to be seen?
A £15 knog light won't do much in daylight.
Where as a £200 several hundred lumen light will aid you being seen in low lying sun. Maybe even more so than hi-viz.

You issue is not so much the brightness, but more where they are pointing, into your eyes?


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (9 May 2012)

After yesterday,im outta this.


----------



## ianrauk (9 May 2012)

gaz said:


> You issue is not so much the brightness, but more where they are pointing, into your eyes?


 
This is a big problem that annoys the feck out of me also.
It's simple. Use your common sense. Aim lights down, not up

(Here follow's a long drawn out story from Boris Bicycle geezer about how when he was a young motorcycle despatch rider around London and his lights etc etc etc )


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> After yesterday,im outta this.


What happened y'day?


----------



## BentMikey (9 May 2012)

I'm one of those fcuktards, although not on the embankment usually. Oh, I'm apparently too low to be seen. It's alright then, you can't see my lights down here anyway.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (9 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> What happened y'day?


 

Another near collision.Oh you've seen it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Another near collision.Oh you've seen it.


yeah. I reflected and did a little search.


----------



## SW19cam (9 May 2012)

her_welshness said:


> I'm not the coolest dude on this planet. I like my hi-viz jacket. I like its fluorescent strips. I like the different pockets it has all over the jacket. When I look at its colour in the fading light I radiate. This makes me feel like a GOD.
> 
> Seriously, my husband has attested that cyclists do stick out like a sore thumb when he is driving. If others choose to wear differently and feel comfortable then good for them.
> 
> Now onto lights. The number of f*cktards that I've seen using their £200 f*ck off lights on the embankment is really starting to p*ss me off. Why? YOU DON'T BLOODY WELL NEED TO USE THEM IN THE F*CKING DAYLIGHT AND GIVE ME A F*CKING HEAD-ACHE - PRICKS. Sorry, no, its a lack of prick thats the key, that or they need to get themselves some entertainment.



Today I ordered my upgraded light so I'll have it in time for the Dunwich Dynamo. It's rated at 900-1000 lumens... GULP. I promise to aim it DOWN!!! (and anyway, I rarely cycle near Embankment these days)

On a side note, is anyone on this topic actually saying categorically that Hi-vis is a bad thing and shouldn't be worn, or just that they don't wear it, and just generally wouldn't encourage it? The interesting bit for me would to see an argument categorically saying it's bad.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 May 2012)

the best argument I can muster is that 'Hi-viz doth offend mine eye'. A bit like her_welshness on lights above but without the ranting... 

Is it bad? Define 'bad' in this context.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (9 May 2012)

I know Hi-Viz is so widely disliked.Fair enough.

(I was supposed to be out of here goddamit.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 May 2012)

chrisk said:


> On a side note, is anyone on this topic actually saying categorically that Hi-vis is a bad thing and shouldn't be worn, or just that they don't wear it, and just generally wouldn't encourage it? The interesting bit for me would to see an argument categorically saying it's bad.


 
I don't say it's a bad thing, I just question its efficacy as a tool when yellow jackets are so widespread as to no longer stand out.
My current jacket is of the yellow variety but when it comes time to renew it (soon), I will be choosing one based on its ability to cope with Glasgow weather over its brightness, maybe a nice dark blue to match my bike.

GC


----------



## buddha (10 May 2012)

One place I can't argue with hi-viz (especially bright/bold colours) is on country lanes, when it's grey outside.

I bought a Lusso jersey online a couple of years ago. And didn't realise from the pictures that it was fluorescent. I only use it on foggy or 'dark' days. Otherwise the glare of the arms is too much!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

buddha said:


> One place I can't argue with hi-viz (especially bright/bold colours) is on country lanes, when it's grey outside.
> 
> I bought a Lusso jersey online a couple of years ago. And didn't realise from the pictures that it was fluorescent. I only use it on foggy or 'dark' days. Otherwise the glare of the arms is too much!


Red is a nice colour. So is pink. So is purple. So is green. All occur in nature. All are in harmony with a country lane. All come in bright shades.

Fluorescent fabrics in the countryside.... 

But each to their own.

(and all the lights and reflectives and flourescence on earth won't stop you getting rear-ended, or collecting a door mirror with your elbow, if the driver isn't looking and is driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions)


----------



## buddha (10 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Red is a nice colour. So is pink. So is purple. So is green. All occur in nature. All are in harmony with a country lane. All come in bright shades.
> 
> Fluorescent fabrics in the countryside....
> 
> ...


There be the problem though, especially on country lanes. To stereotype, the older folk tend to be fine. It's the boy/mid-life-crisis racers in Audi's that are more of a problem with inappropriate speed.
You'll probably agree that a fluro/bright jersey is easier to notice from far, against a green hedgerow than a dark/dull jersey. It's something out of the ordinary in the countryside, so easier to differentiate. And, being at a distance, they may just have enough time to think "eh, could be a horse/cyclist/nutter etc" and become aware and slow down.
That said, I normally wear red - and mostly faded at that!


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (10 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1842512, member: 9609"]HiViz Fields LINK

A really stupid one I seen this morning; When schools near where I live take the little ones out they make them all wear hiViz bibs, looks a bit silly but highly effective. This morning in the heavy rain 'just when hi viz would come into its own' most of them were wearing their coats on top of the high viz vests.[/quote]


I'd be invisible in that lot.


----------



## ianrauk (10 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1842512, member: 9609"]HiViz Fields LINK

A really stupid one I seen this morning; When schools near where I live take the little ones out they make them all wear hiViz bibs, looks a bit silly but highly effective. This morning in the heavy rain 'just when hi viz would come into its own' most of them were wearing their coats on top of the high viz vests.[/quote]


Funny thing you mention this.
Only this morning whilst commuting to work I saw a 'school walking train' of about a dozen pupils aged about 8 to 10 and 3 adult. All wearing Hi Viz waistcoats. In London, on a bright morning too. I did despair at it. There really is no need for it whilst walking in London during the day.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (10 May 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Funny thing you mention this.
> Only this morning whilst commuting to work I saw a 'school walking train' of about a dozen pupils aged about 8 to 10 and 3 adult. All wearing Hi Viz waistcoats. In London, on a bright morning too. I did despair at it. There really is no need for it whilst walking in London during the day.


 

Is that more to do with keeping track of the kids though,to stop them wandering off?


----------



## ianrauk (10 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Is that more to do with keeping track of the kids though,to stop them wandering off?


 

Nope.
They were in 2by2's holding hands.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

buddha said:


> There be the problem though, especially on country lanes. To stereotype, the older folk tend to be fine. It's the boy/mid-life-crisis racers in Audi's that are more of a problem with inappropriate speed.
> You'll probably agree that a fluro/bright jersey is easier to notice from far, against a green hedgerow than a dark/dull jersey. It's something out of the ordinary in the countryside, so easier to differentiate. And, being at a distance, they may just have enough time to think "eh, could be a horse/cyclist/nutter etc" and become aware and slow down.
> That said, I normally wear red - and mostly faded at that!


There are whole stretches of my ride home where there is no sight line allowing me to be seen from afar, and in two or three locations on sharp uphill bends, or in dips, or over crests, I'm out of sight from as little as 50m back. Now take a car driving at 60mph "but that's the speed limit" and hitting those corners, cresting those crests.... Hence since 2008 I've been rear ended once (in hi-viz back then with three rear lights) and heard the cringe inducing sharp squeal of brakes from behind on countless occasions..... on one bend the potholes/busted up surface mean I can't even gutter creep round it. Folk drive simply not expecting to encounter something much slower than them "in the way" on "their" side of the road. (and when it has been a tractor and trailer trundling along on that road it has resulted in at least one fatality.)

Which I'm afraid means I continue to be the man in black.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (10 May 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Nope.
> They were in 2by2's holding hands.


 

Were they glued together then?


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (10 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1842620, member: 9609"]All very true, hi viz is not going to be 100% effective on every part of every road in every lighting condition, but then again there are plenty of riding scenarios where wearing hiViz will get you spotted that little bit sooner - overall it has to be a good thing!
[/quote]

I know.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1842620, member: 9609"]All very true, hi viz is not going to be 100% effective on every part of every road in every lighting condition, but then again there are plenty of riding scenarios where wearing hiViz will get you spotted that little bit sooner - overall it has to be a good thing![/quote]
My take on this....



GregCollins said:


> All very true, hi viz is not going to be 100% effective on every part of every road in every lighting condition, but then again there are plenty of some riding scenarios where wearing hiViz will may get you spotted that little bit sooner if the *driver is looking and where being spotted sooner may make a difference to the drivers behaviour* - overall it has to may be a good thing!.


----------



## Blurb (10 May 2012)

My take on your take....

All very true, hi viz is not going to be 100% effective on every part of every road in every lighting condition, but then again there are some riding scenarios where wearing hiViz may get you spotted that little bit sooner if the driver is looking and where being spotted sooner may make a difference to the drivers behaviour - overall it may be a good thing, *so for those situations where my well-being is at stake, I choose to try and stack the odds in my favour and wear it rather than not.*


----------



## gambatte (10 May 2012)

3M diamond grade tape.
I have a strip running full length of each of the seat stays. Whether car drivers notice or not I've not had any feedback. However the first time I took it out after fitting it one of the regulars commented on how far away he'd been when he first saw it (... maybe he was letting me know he'd SCRed me?)


----------



## gaz (10 May 2012)

Get a high powered rear light and hi-viz and reflectors become useless from behind. They always see the sunlight coming from you rear


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

Blurb said:


> My take on your take....
> 
> All very true, hi viz is not going to be 100% effective on every part of every road in every lighting condition, but then again there are some riding scenarios where wearing hiViz may get you spotted that little bit sooner if the driver is looking and where being spotted sooner may make a difference to the drivers behaviour - overall it may be a good thing, *so for those situations where my well-being is at stake, I choose to try and stack the odds in my favour and wear it rather than not.*


 
if the driver isn't looking the odds are unaffected. the driver that is looking won't hit you.


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> if the driver isn't looking the odds are unaffected. the driver that is looking won't hit you.


 
It's not binary though is it.


----------



## Recycler (10 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> It's not binary though is it.


 
+1 Precisely!
All Hi Viz will do is possibly help when a driver is looking, but is not seeing. If it helps to make me seen then it is worth having.
I get the impression that some people are in denial, which is fine but I do find it difficult to understand.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> It's not binary though is it.


feels fairly binary to me.

if, however, folk feel differently and want to wrap themselves in flouro on the basis of 'if x may x might x maybe = greater safety for them' then I'm relaxed about that, until I have to look at them, and won't go around shouting 'placebo' or 'comfort blanket'. Everyone is entitled to their faith system and if someone else's cult involves wearing flouro vestments I'll live and let live.

Helmets make you safer too don't they?


----------



## gaz (10 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> feels fairly binary to me.
> 
> if, however, folk feel differently and want to wrap themselves in flouro on the basis of 'if x may x might x maybe = greater safety for them' then I'm relaxed about that, until I have to look at them, and won't go around shouting 'placebo' or 'comfort blanket'. Everyone is entitled to their *faith system* and if someone else's cult involves wearing flouro vestments I'll live and let live.
> 
> Helmets make you safer too don't they?


----------



## Jezston (10 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> feels fairly binary to me.


 
If it were that binary (as in, well, actually binary) then lights wouldn't make a difference either.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

Jezston said:


> If it were that binary (as in, well, actually binary) then lights wouldn't make a difference either.


Do we have a dataset that demonstrates they do?

They may make a difference. As may flouro. As may dressing like Ronald MacDonald or cycling around with a replica of the Needles lighthouse on your head. Is the difference they make discernible and if discernible, is it big enough?

I think not. YMMV.


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Do we have a dataset that demonstrates they do?
> 
> They may make a difference. As may flouro. As may dressing like Ronald MacDonald or cycling around with a replica of the Needles lighthouse on your head. Is the difference they make discernible and if discernible, is it big enough?
> 
> I think not. YMMV.


 
So, you believe it is binary then?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> So, you believe it is binary then?


see #124


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> see #124


 
I did:

#121 - your words appear to make out that you believe it is binary

#124 - you say it's fairly binary, suggesting that certain factors are material enough not to make it binary

#127 - your response suggests that you believe that the other factors are immaterial such that we are dealing with a binary situation.

You have a way with words


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> I did:
> 
> #121 - your words appear to make out that you believe it is binary
> 
> ...


well why don't you just pick one for me seeing as it seems so important to you.


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

#121
#124 #127

Argument like a pack of cards :blow:


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> #121
> #124 #127
> 
> Argument like a pack of cards :blow:


I bow before the stream of hot air you :blow:

Argument :sucks:


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

No argument from me - I'm just trying to understand your divided mind.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> No argument from me - I'm just trying to understand your divided mind.


Any division of my mind only exists in yours on the basis of how you choose to interpret (some of) my statements. You claim a level of incoherence/inconsistency in my argument. fair enough.I say 'I see none', I say 'So what if there was?'

I say two things over and over.

"Hi-viz doth offend mine eye"
-and-
"If they aren't looking they won't see you no matter what, etc., etc.."
-and-
"if wearing flouro makes you feel better do it"

Ok that's three things.

we're cool btw, from my perspective.


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

Hairy muff


----------



## Hawk (11 May 2012)

Despite hi-viz becoming more common, I don't often have to stand out from a fluorescent green billboard behind me.

If a driver doesn't look, they wont see. Hi-viz will not alert them to your presence. Yeah, sounds alright.
If a driver does look, no matter how carefully, it will be easier for them to spot me in hi-viz (compared to them looking equally carefully but with me in dark clothes). When they "look" they are looking for, say, things moving towards them, to make a decision about whether to pull out. If that thing stands out from the background then they will be more likely to pay more attention to it, surely.

I think a study is required though  put drivers in a "hazard perception" style test. Perhaps we could have pictures of a driver's view in various situation flashed up for varying (short) periods of time and see how well a competent driver can identify hazards in what time. Part of this could include cyclists in hi-viz etc. This would simulate the grey area of "looking but not properly". I think we agree if a driver doesn't look at all, we're screwed regardless of clothing; if a driver looks truly 'properly' we can be camouflaged against our surroundings and they should still see us


----------



## Dan B (11 May 2012)

Hawk said:


> When they "look" they are looking for, say, things moving towards them, to make a decision about whether to pull out.


And if they see a car, they won't (probably), whereas if they see a hiviz vest they'll assume it's slow or stationary (cyclist, road worker, bin collector, school child) or simply _not important _ and probably pull straight into your path.


----------



## Jezston (11 May 2012)

Dan B said:


> whereas if they see a hiviz vest they'll assume it's slow or stationary (cyclist, road worker, bin collector, school child) or simply _not important _ and probably pull straight into your path.


 
If you don't like the way flourescents or reflectives look because of your own aesthetic tastes, the association with 'amateur' commuters or that it's another step of putting responsibility on vulnerable road users to be seen rather than for drivers to see - that's all fine.

But seriously this kind of justification against hivis stuff is just getting silly. Unless there is actually any evidence for this somewhat huge assertion?


----------



## Dan B (11 May 2012)

Jezston said:


> . Unless there is actually any evidence for this somewhat huge assertion?


Exactly as much evidence as there was for the assertion in the post I was referring to


----------



## BentMikey (11 May 2012)

Actually there is - being seen as a cyclist rather than as an unknown vehicle is not usually an advantage. Dan's absolutely right.


----------



## Jezston (11 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Actually there is - being seen as a cyclist rather than as an unknown vehicle is not usually an advantage. Dan's absolutely right.


 
I understand this is the crux of you and some other's views, but is there any evidence for it?

I'm more of the opinion I'd like people to know _exactly _what I am as early as possible so that they are able to behave appropriately around me.


----------



## BentMikey (11 May 2012)

Aaaaahahahahaha!!! I'm sorry mate, but behave appropriately? We know how that minority of bad drivers are going behave around us already. The good ones, there's no problem at all.

What does SMIDSY stand for, and why are SMIDSY complaints on here most commonly accompanied by BRIGHT YELLOW HIVIZ didn't see me complaints? LOL!


----------



## GrasB (11 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Actually there is - being seen as a cyclist rather than as an unknown vehicle is not usually an advantage. Dan's absolutely right.


On my 'bent I run two LUMOTEC IQ Cyo T lights from a battery. At the speeds I'm typically doing it for all the world looks like a moped at night. The number of close calls due to drivers pulling out on me are reduced to almost 0. Compare that to a Strada which has much more of a 'bright bike light' look to the beam, actually it looks brighter due to the fact it's beam isn't shaped, where I end up slamming the brakes on quite regularly because I'm recognised as a bike by the light.


----------



## Jezston (11 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Aaaaahahahahaha!!! I'm sorry mate, but behave appropriately? We know how that minority of bad drivers are going behave around us already. The good ones, there's no problem at all.


 
Again, we're then getting into that whole binary thing from earlier. If bad drivers hit cyclists because they just weren't looking or thinking properly, then is there any point in trying to making yourself visible in any way anyway? I.e. even worth bothering with lights?



> and why are SMIDSY complaints on here most commonly accompanied by BRIGHT YELLOW HIVIZ didn't see me complaints? LOL!


 
They are? I can't recall any like that off hand, but I do remember 'lit up like a christmas three' and 'twin magicshine' type comments in relation to smidsys.

I'm not saying you are wrong - you may well be right, but until someone does some kind of proper scientific study into cyclists, hivis and modern powerful lights we shouldn't be making such sweeping generalisations as to what works and what doesn't. Too many of the comments against hivis on here read to me like "I just don't _like_ hivis for whatever reason and I'm going to invent reasons as to why it makes you _less _safe to justify my views". And personally I'm not comfortable with the 'WTF is that' style of visibility-making as I wouldn't have thought potentially confusing other road users as to what they are is likely to make them behave more appropriately.


----------



## Jdratcliffe (11 May 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Top rant about lights hun...


+ 1


----------



## BentMikey (11 May 2012)

Jezston said:


> And personally I'm not comfortable with the 'WTF is that' style of visibility-making as I wouldn't have thought potentially confusing other road users as to what they are is likely to make them behave more appropriately.


 
Which, knowing that drivers treat cyclists with less time and space than they should, is exactly this: WRONG.

Not knowing what a vehicle is causes drivers without any doubt to give more time and space than they otherwise would. A cyclist is the least dangerous thing to drivers, so as soon as you're identified you'll get lesser treatment than any other vehicle.

Lit up like a Christmas tree? Yes, with silly little bike lights and Hiviz:

"The best way not to be noticed is to wear _*urban camouflage*_ - hi viz clothing, lots of lights and reflectors and a helmet." _*Dr. Tony Raven*_


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2012)

Jezston said:


> Again, we're then getting into that whole binary thing from earlier. If bad drivers hit cyclists because they just weren't looking or thinking properly, then is there any point in trying to making yourself visible in any way anyway? I.e. even worth bothering with lights?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But a lot of the pro-party post things which read a lot like

"I like hivis and I'm convinced, for whatever reasons, that it must make me/you safer, in fact it is obvious it makes you/me safer, it's common sense isn't it, and anyone who disagrees, regardless of their experience, or reasons, is a dunderhead and a dullard."

I just think it looks shite, offensively so, and they aren't even looking anyway.


----------



## Hawk (11 May 2012)

A lot of us here might use the "intentional wobble" technique to make drivers think their paintwork is at risk if they overtake dangerously closely; another tactic I use on a fast road near me with a junction from the left and traffic just raring to right hook me from the other side is to "swerve" in a perfectly controlled but 'unexplainable' fashion as I approach this danger point, two or three times across the width of my lane. This definitely forces motorists who are deciding whether to cut me up to look again and this makes them re-judge my speed too, it seems.

I think confusing motorists can, IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES, be a really useful tool in the defensive cyclist's toolbox.


----------



## Boris Bajic (11 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Which, knowing that drivers treat cyclists with less time and space than they should, is exactly this: WRONG.
> 
> Not knowing what a vehicle is causes drivers without any doubt to give more time and space than they otherwise would. A cyclist is the least dangerous thing to drivers, so as soon as you're identified you'll get lesser treatment than any other vehicle.
> 
> ...


 
I am a driver and a cyclist. The great majority of drivers treat me with plenty of time and space, to use your phrase.

The frequency of close passes, SMIDSYs and similar perpetrated against me seem reasonably evenly distributed between my motoring and cycling miles.

I am drawn to this idea that uncertainty causes drivers to give more space, but I've never seen it in action.

I am frequently driven by other motorists too, and have not witnessed this mindset you identify, where motorists somehow flip to their 'only a bicycle' default mode (once they've ascertained that the unidentified object is not a car, truck, tank or tractor) and give it less space.

As a keen cyclist, I find that I observe the way family, friends, colleagues and limo guys drive around bicycles. I simply do not see what you do and do not connect your observation with any argument for or against Hi-Viz.


----------



## BentMikey (11 May 2012)

The word you're looking for is SMIDSY, well, it's really SMIDGAF.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I am frequently driven by other motorists too, and have not witnessed this mindset you identify, where motorists somehow flip to their 'only a bicycle' default mode (once they've ascertained that the unidentified object is not a car, truck, tank or tractor) and give it less space.
> 
> As a keen cyclist, I find that I observe the way family, friends, colleagues and limo guys drive around bicycles. .


interesting

I find once a driver knows they have a cyclist like me in the car they suddenly come over all safety conscious around cyclists.

When they don't know I'm a cyclist they pass as close as they can like they normally would.

I've had to consciously educate my psuedo-son-in-law about passing cyclists. Does he give them a wide berth when I'm not getting a lift? I doubt it.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (11 May 2012)

Hawk said:


> A lot of us here might use the "intentional wobble" technique to make drivers think their paintwork is at risk if they overtake dangerously closely; another tactic I use on a fast road near me with a junction from the left and traffic just raring to right hook me from the other side is to "swerve" in a perfectly controlled but 'unexplainable' fashion as I approach this danger point, two or three times across the width of my lane. This definitely forces motorists who are deciding whether to cut me up to look again and this makes them re-judge my speed too, it seems.
> 
> I think confusing motorists can, IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES, be a really useful tool in the defensive cyclist's toolbox.


 
What, you do that on Great Western Road?  Hat off to you! I would chicken out, find a back way


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 May 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Hi-vis is so commonplace nowadays that it is disregarded to the extent of uselessness. Someone robbed an auction room near me a few weeks ago, relieving it of over £300,000 worth of jewellery. What was he wearing to go unnoticed in his approach and escape? Yep, a hi-vis jacket.


That's a totally different phenomenon. It's not that no-one noticed him, it's that the hi-viz jacket was _all_ they saw. I read the biography of a conman years ago, who said he didn't ever attempt to actually disguise his true appearance, he would just add one very memorable feature, from a crooked nose to a large zit. When asked to describe him, that one feature was all people could really remember.


----------



## Recycler (11 May 2012)

Trikeman said:


> That's a totally different phenomenon. It's not that no-one noticed him, it's that the hi-viz jacket was _all_ they saw. I read the biography of a conman years ago, who said he didn't ever attempt to actually disguise his true appearance, he would just add one very memorable feature, from a crooked nose to a large zit. When asked to describe him, that one feature was all people could really remember.


 
Having read all the "anti" comments I think I'll dump my Hi Viz and get a crooked nose instead!


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> Having read all the "anti" comments I think I'll dump my Hi Viz and get a crooked nose instead!


Hedge your bets: get a hi-viz crooked nose.


----------



## BentMikey (11 May 2012)

Trikeman said:


> That's a totally different phenomenon. It's not that no-one noticed him



It's not known as urban camouflage for no reason. People ignore it.


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> It's not known as urban camouflage for no reason. People ignore it.


But the term is based on a misunderstanding. People see it, and avoid it, they just don't think anything of it.


----------



## Hawk (11 May 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> What, you do that on Great Western Road?  Hat off to you! I would chicken out, find a back way


 
I do go up Great Western road (the bit from town to anniesland cross is a bus lane most of the way and the rest has plenty of lanes for overtaking drivers when not too busy). Actually I use this coming down the switchback road from Canniesburn, the junction where the car showroom used to be, now a car wash


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

Trikeman said:


> But the term is based on a misunderstanding. People see it, and avoid it, they just don't think anything of it.


 
Well that's your contention, but your logic doesn't really follow, and I don't think too many other people support that view. Well, about the large zit perhaps, but not the hiviz.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 May 2012)

I have both cycled and motorcycled with & without hi-viz, and the difference is marked. People clearly see you _much_ earlier. The 'urban camouflage' concept is that people are so used to seeing people in hi-viz, it is not remotely _memorable. _As I say, people most definitely see it, they simply don't remember it afterwards.


----------



## Hawk (12 May 2012)

The hi-vis robbery story isn't really relevant. If the police had been called *and were looking for the person in the area* they would probably have a better chance of seeing him from farther away when he was wearing hi-viz


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

They might see it, but then they'll immediately pull out on you and otherwise mistreat you as a cyclist. You certainly won't get any space or respect from drivers for wearing hiviz, although of course you'll be blamed if you weren't wearing any and the driver causes a collision.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> You certainly won't get any space or respect from drivers for wearing hiviz


A bad driver will be a bad driver either way, of course, but a typical driver will see you sooner and you get significantly fewer near-misses in my experience.


----------



## Hawk (12 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> They might see it, but then they'll immediately pull out on you and otherwise mistreat you as a cyclist. You certainly won't get any space or respect from drivers for wearing hiviz, although of course you'll be blamed if you weren't wearing any and the driver causes a collision.


 
This is another argument altogether.

The vast majority of road users treat us with care.

There is probably a case to be made for "most people treat us with care and thus would see us anyway; being 'unknown' helps in the situation where another road user might not have treated us with care". on balance, I think that's probably fair.


----------



## Recycler (12 May 2012)

If Hi-viz is such good urban camouflage I wonder why the army doesn't use it when patrolling the Afghan streets?


----------



## Dan B (12 May 2012)

Trikeman said:


> A bad driver will be a bad driver either way, of course, but a typical driver will see you sooner and you get significantly fewer near-misses in my experience.


Possibly we are imagining different scenarios, because I am considering urban traffic and finding it hard to imagine how, under street lights, even a matte black ninja can't be seen soon enough to take a reasonably wide bearing on.

On Nsl roads and in the countryside, it's probably different


----------



## byegad (12 May 2012)

sidevalve said:


> The trouble with whether hi viz gets you seen or not is that there is and can never be any proof either way, after all there is no record of accidents that don't happen ! Anyway if you want to wear it, wear it, if it offends someone else well that's their problem.


 
I can 'prove' that Hi-Viz causes accidents. In my motorcycling days I was persuaded by the then Mrs Byegad to wear a Hi-Viz vest over my leathers. The third or fourth time I went to work on the motorbike a motorist turned right across my lane to get into a side road and wiped me out. The attending Police and Ambulance noted I had my Headlight on full beam and a Hi-Viz vest. The burke who hit me didn't. Short of hiring a troupe of dancing girls to prance naked in the road before me I don't know what else I could have done to be seen!

This is just as valid as any Hi-Viz/helmet/St Christopher saved my life story.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 May 2012)

Dan B said:


> Possibly we are imagining different scenarios, because I am considering urban traffic and finding it hard to imagine how, under street lights, even a matte black ninja can't be seen soon enough to take a reasonably wide bearing on.
> 
> On Nsl roads and in the countryside, it's probably different


I'd say hi-viz is certainly more valuable on rural roads, but I cycle on a mix of the two (central London and Essex) and my experience is that I get fewer issues in both environments when wearing hi-viz. Of course, the trike is the ultimate tool for ensuring people see you. :-)


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 May 2012)

byegad said:


> This is just as valid as any Hi-Viz/helmet/St Christopher saved my life story.


Ok, I think we're reaching a plan here: a day-glo crooked nose with a St Christopher who's wearing a helmet and a Scotchbrite tabbard.


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

Ah, anecdata, trike man. Very convincing.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Ah, anecdata, trike man. Very convincing.


On both sides of the debate, natch. 

Anyway, like h*lm*ts, each to their own choices.


----------



## ianrauk (12 May 2012)

My conclusion about HiViz.
It may or may not help.
But however you look at it, it does look shoot.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 May 2012)

ianrauk said:


> But however you look at it, it does look shoot.


I ride a trike and a Brompton - you think I care about how I _look_?!


----------



## ianrauk (12 May 2012)

Trikeman said:


> I ride a trike and a Brompton - you think I care about how I _look_?!


 

I know you.. I know you don't... what ever your ride.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (12 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> They might see it, but then they'll immediately pull out on you and otherwise mistreat you as a cyclist. You certainly won't get any space or respect from drivers for wearing hiviz, although of course you'll be blamed if you weren't wearing any and the driver causes a collision.


 
The way they go on at work,there isn't too much respect anyway,dont pay road tax,jump red lights,blah blah blah.

That's after complaining for being cut up yet again.


----------



## Recycler (12 May 2012)

ianrauk said:


> My conclusion about HiViz.
> It may or may not help.
> But however you look at it, it does look shoot.


 
A bit like Lycra then? 
My other half always laughs at me when I put on both Hi viz and Lycra.


----------



## byegad (12 May 2012)

Trikeman said:


> Ok, I think we're reaching a plan here: a day-glo crooked nose with a St Christopher who's wearing a helmet and a Scotchbrite tabbard.


 Add..

While riding a unicycle and juggling illuminated coloured balls and wearing a false nose made from a ping-pong* ball with flashing LED. 

And they'll still pull out in front, carve you up and pass within millimetres of you if they feel like it.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 May 2012)

byegad said:


> While riding a unicycle and juggling illuminated coloured balls and wearing a false nose made from a ping-pong* ball with flashing LED.


You always have to take things too far, don't you? The flashing LED is just overkill.


----------



## Hawk (12 May 2012)

I have had never had a driver pull out on me whilst riding a unicycle and juggling illuminated coloured balls and wearing a flashing false nose, but I have had drivers pull out on me whilst not wearing hi-vis. Therefore, not wearing hi-viz is clearly a death wish


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> The way they go on at work,there isn't too much respect anyway,dont pay road tax,jump red lights,blah blah blah.
> 
> That's after complaining for being cut up yet again.


 
Yup, which is why it's worth being identified as "unknown vehicle that might be dangerous to me" rather than as a cyclist.


----------



## stowie (12 May 2012)

Hawk said:


> I have had never had a driver pull out on me whilst riding a unicycle and juggling illuminated coloured balls and wearing a flashing false nose, but I have had drivers pull out on me whilst not wearing hi-vis. Therefore, not wearing hi-viz is clearly a death wish


 
Likewise, motorists never fail to see me when I cycle whilst wearing my shoulder mounted RPG. Which I find strange as it is black and therefore should be completely invisible to motorists. Go figure, eh!


----------



## Recycler (12 May 2012)

stowie said:


> Likewise, motorists never fail to see me when I cycle whilst wearing my shoulder mounted RPG. Which I find strange as it is black and therefore should be completely invisible to motorists. Go figure, eh!


 
I'm getting confused. I thought that we were being told that black is highly visible?


----------



## stowie (12 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> I'm getting confused. I thought that we were being told that black is highly visible?


 
Black is the new luminous yellow. Luminous yellow is the new grey whilst grey is the new black.


----------



## Recycler (12 May 2012)

stowie said:


> Black is the new luminous yellow. Luminous yellow is the new grey whilst grey is the new black.


 
Ah!
So, when I put my flourescent jacket on, I'm donning my Lo-Viz gear? It is difficult keeping up.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 May 2012)

Yeah, when Mike slags off hi-viz, he's referring to black clothing. It can get a bit confusing.


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

Well, you're right in that I'm a bit hypocritical, but mostly because I don't believe in hiviz, yet ride one of the most visible bikes out. It only works because there are so few of them.


----------



## stowie (12 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> Ah!
> So, when I put my flourescent jacket on, I'm donning my Lo-Viz gear? It is difficult keeping up.


 
I think we need Gok-Wan to do a TV series on it so we can keep up.


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

P.s. Trikeman, I think you're confusing me with someone else on the black equals more visible argument.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (13 May 2012)

This is me in my hi-viz gear.

Actually the beret a doesn't match.


----------



## Panter (13 May 2012)

I'd love to see these roads where so many people wear hi viz that it no longer stands out, never seen one yet!
Is it the new fashion then?


----------



## byegad (13 May 2012)

Trikeman said:


> You always have to take things too far, don't you? The flashing LED is just overkill.


Hangs head in shame...Walks slowly away, sobbing gently.


----------



## byegad (13 May 2012)

Hawk said:


> I have had never had a driver pull out on me whilst riding a unicycle and juggling illuminated coloured balls and wearing a flashing false nose, but I have had drivers pull out on me whilst not wearing hi-vis. Therefore, not wearing hi-viz is clearly a death wish


 
Yes. That's proof, I'm junking all of my clothing and buying a Day-Glo bodysuit to cycle in.


----------

