Common sense

[hatler]

Neither, for that matter, does it benefit motorists in many circumstances.... On a busy road, all you can see is the glare of the lights, with little chance of picking out any detail behind them. The lighting arms race is a retrograde trend dressed up as progress. A bit like plastic packaging, on which, all of a sudden, majority opinion has switched - so there's hope for our roads yet.

I'd say it's a retrograde trend dressed up as fashion.

The manufacturers are creaming themselves over their vehicles' 'distinctive LED signatures'.

I find them hugely disruptive in a daylight setting, it's like they suck out of view everything that's behind them. A truly backward step in holistic safety.

 

[bianchi1]

On roads where the speed of traffic approaching the lower limit is particularly high or where there are a large proportion of drivers exceeding the speed limit,there may be a need to make the speed limit signs especially conspicuous. The use of new speed limit signs with yellow backing boards shall be restricted to such locations or those where there is a history of injury accidents

Who or what are you quoting there, please?



No, I'm not keen to suggest they use a version with lower contrast and that conceals the distinctive warning triangle shape to boot!

Also, it looks like they need to cut the hedge from over the lights on that school sign!

Its all driven by accident statistics;

"If the accident record suggests that drivers are failing to notice the warning, or seeing it too late to take the necessary action, the next larger size can be used. Conspicuity can also be increased by the use of yellow backing boards (see 1.12). These are environmentally intrusive and should only be used sparingly, not as a matter of course". https://tsrgd.co.uk/documents/traffic-signs-manual


I would argue that when running an occasional cycle event the signs should be environmentally intrusive. They are temporary after all!


Locally to me (Malvern) the advice is the same;

"Backboards ; you should not use backboards unless it can be demonstrated that they are essential. Clean retro-reflective signs show up well against most backdrops. Backboards may be necessary in exceptional cases where justified by accident statistics"

It is worth mentioning that the main argument with yellow backed signs is that they are too conspicuous and therefore ruin the natural environment!

 

[boydj]

Thats not correct. of course it matters what you are wearing. There is no point in laying under the wheels of a car and with your dying breath saying "Its not my job to make it easier for him to see me".
I consider myself to be a safe experienced driver. But even with bright, clean lights and screen and travelling at well under the speed limit. At 4.30am it can still be difficult to see the dog walker dressed in black walking his black dog out in the countryside. Or the cyclist with no lights who I passed last week. Lights and reflectors are the bare minimum to be legal on the road. As cyclists we need to take responsibility of our own safety and not leave it soley in the hands of motorists. That means having extra lights and making ourselves more visible. This old chestnut of drivers not paying attention is nonesense. Of course it happens. But some people just use it as an arguement to put their point over.

You take a small part of what I said and misinterpret it.

I've had two major offs while commuting, both entirely the fault of drivers. In the first, early morning, not quite light, I was wearing bright clothes, lots of reflectives, two lights at the front and three at the back - SMIDSY by a guy turning across me. In the second, nice bright afternoon, riding in the middle of lane one on a 30mph dual carriageway, sideswiped by a lady changing lanes - I was wearing a bright white jacket - she simply forgot I was there, even though she had moved out to overtake me initially. Drivers are often on autopilot, with their attention only partly on their driving and not fully registering what's going on in the road in front of them. Their brains are programmed to register the actions of other motor vehicles, but not that of cyclists or pedestrians. That's why you need to ride in such a way that they do notice you and register your presence - and even that does not always work.

I've never said that cyclists don't have a responsibility to be visible - self preservation dictates that necessity. But how you ride is far more important in that regard than the clothes you wear. And there are plenty of drivers out there not fully paying attention who will eventually negate all the precautions that you take.

 

[steveindenmark]

You take a small part of what I said and misinterpret it.

I've had two major offs while commuting, both entirely the fault of drivers. In the first, early morning, not quite light, I was wearing bright clothes, lots of reflectives, two lights at the front and three at the back - SMIDSY by a guy turning across me. In the second, nice bright afternoon, riding in the middle of lane one on a 30mph dual carriageway, sideswiped by a lady changing lanes - I was wearing a bright white jacket - she simply forgot I was there, even though she had moved out to overtake me initially. Drivers are often on autopilot, with their attention only partly on their driving and not fully registering what's going on in the road in front of them. Their brains are programmed to register the actions of other motor vehicles, but not that of cyclists or pedestrians. That's why you need to ride in such a way that they do notice you and register your presence - and even that does not always work.

I've never said that cyclists don't have a responsibility to be visible - self preservation dictates that necessity. But how you ride is far more important in that regard than the clothes you wear. And there are plenty of drivers out there not fully paying attention who will eventually negate all the precautions that you take.

Doesn't matter what you wear when you are cycling, as long as you are legal with lights and reflectives at night

I took a part of what you said but I dont think I misinterpreted it. It is very clear what you said.

I agree with the points you are making about road positioning. But cycling safety comes in a package and imo clothing is part of the package.

 

[MarkF]

I am not wearing any "safety" clothing ever, it all looks cack and I like to look good, I don't have any motorcycle safety clothing and have managed to get to 56 after 40 years on m/bikes by being on "high alert", I trust that more than safety clothing, I'd like car drivers to be on that too.

 

[Justinslow]

I am not wearing any "safety" clothing ever, it all looks cack and I like to look good, I don't have any motorcycle safety clothing and have managed to get to 56 after 40 years on m/bikes by being on "high alert", I trust that more than safety clothing, I'd like car drivers to be on that too.

Fair play not riding with a motorcycle helmet, leathers, gloves or boots for that long.

 

[MarkF]

Fair play not riding with a motorcycle helmet, leathers, gloves or boots for that long.

Well, I do have a helmet as I am forced to wear one, but that is not "clothing". It's an open face one, wouldn't be seen dead in a full one.

 

[Justinslow]

Well, I do have a helmet as I am forced to wear one, but that is not "clothing". It's an open face one, wouldn't be seen dead in a full one.

Out of interest what do you ride?

 

[Drago]

But cycling safety comes in a package and imo clothing is part of the package.

A lot of too and fro here which I've largely stayed out of. Nevertheless, there a bold statement, and bold statements require bold evidence.

What evidence do you have that clothing vis a vis its optical properties contributes to safety? Indeed, what evidence do you have that the problem is one of conspicuity, and not one of observation? Is that simply your own gut call, which as is your right is fair play, or is it a considered opinion based upon evidence? If there is no evidence, then you may as well rely on witchcraft or reading tea leaves.

Evidence. Otherwise, what's the point?

We should never do anything in the name of safety without evidence to support it - well intentioned but unproven efforts can, and have over the years, actually prove contrary to that aim.

 

[steveindenmark]

A lot of too and fro here which I've largely stayed out of. Nevertheless, there a bold statement, and bold statements require bold evidence.

What evidence do you have that clothing vis a vis its optical properties contributes to safety? Indeed, what evidence do you have that the problem is one of conspicuity, and not one of observation? Is that simply your own gut call, which as is your right is fair play, or is it a considered opinion based upon evidence? If there is no evidence, then you may as well rely on witchcraft or reading tea leaves.

Evidence. Otherwise, what's the point?

We should never do anything in the name of safety without evidence to support it - well intentioned but unproven efforts can, and have over the years, actually prove contrary to that aim.

Its my opinion based on 50 years of riding all over europe both on bikes and motorbikes. A very simple test would be to stand 2 people an equal distance away from you in varying light conditions. One in dark clothes and one high viz colours and see which one you see first. I know what I think and it works for me.

 

[confusedcyclist]

You are right. If they are driving like a twonker it makes no difference what you are wearing. But high viz and reflective gear does get you seen earlier by those not driving like a twonker. As a cyclist I have no control over how people drive But I can make it as easier for drivers to see me.

Where is the evidence it makes us safer though? The problem with doing something, because doing something is oft percieved as better than doing nothing has been debunked many times before. If people want to dress up as flashy lemons I'm all for that personal freedom, but for goodness sake, can we at least agree that we will demand something that actually makes us quantitatively safer?

 

[steveindenmark]

Where is the evidence it makes us safer though? The problem with doing something, because doing something is oft percieved as better than doing nothing has been debunked many times before. If people want to dress up as flashy lemons I'm all for that personal freedom, but for goodness sake, can we at least agree that we will demand something that actually makes us quantitatively safer?

So if it is not proved to be safer, then its not safer. Is that your train of thought?
Just by experience I find that drivers give me more room and appear to see me sooner if I wear high viz. I have no thesis to prove it. But I dont need one.

 

[Milkfloat]

Its my opinion based on 50 years of riding all over europe both on bikes and motorbikes. A very simple test would be to stand 2 people an equal distance away from you in varying light conditions. One in dark clothes and one high viz colours and see which one you see first. I know what I think and it works for me. View attachment 493776

View attachment 493777

I think I would be more likely to hit you due to the tears of laughter in my eyes.

 

[classic33]

https://www.shponline.co.uk/blog/hi-viz-blindness-is-it-time-to-rethink-our-approach-to-ppe/

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

 

[glasgowcyclist]

it works for me.

Until you encounter the crap driver who doesn't care how you're dressed (and I sincerely hope you never do).

We still have drivers killing people who can be expected to be found in predictable locations, dressed head to foot in hi-vis and carrying a large road sign. They are being killed in broad daylight.
School crossing attendant killed as he guided pedestrian across the road (just one of many)

We still have drivers ramming into the back of brightly coloured highway support vehicles with enormous light arrays flashing on them.
We still have drivers ramming into stationary police vehicles with their blue & red strobes activated.

As I pointed out further up this thread, it's less about the hi-vis and more about people driving like dicks around vulnerable road users.