Common sense

[steveindenmark]

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.

I have been riding for over 50 years. Maybe I have just been lucky. Possibly there might be something in what I am saying.

 

[MontyVeda]

I have been riding for over 50 years. Maybe I have just been lucky. Possibly there might be something in what I am saying.

I've been riding for almost 50 years. Maybe I've just been lucky. Possibly there might be nothing in what you're saying.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Just by experience I find that drivers give me more room and appear to see me sooner if I wear high viz.

I have been riding for over 50 years. Maybe I have just been lucky. Possibly there might be something in what I am saying.

And possibly not.

I've been riding bikes and motorbikes for as long as you have.

A few years ago I experimented with varying my clothing over a few months, in two-week spells, and found that what I was wearing had no bearing on the behaviour of drivers around me. The close passes, the SMIDSYs at junctions, the left hooks and right hooks, they all occurred with the same frequency. Even when I dressed similarly to you and wore a helmet with a light on it, I'd still get some dunderheids saying they didn't see me, so I'd definitely agree with the view that you've just been lucky. (Long may that continue!)

 

[confusedcyclist]

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.

No Steve, that's an incorrect assumption of my train of thought. As I already stated, people dressing up as flashy lemons is fine by me, I'm all for personal freedoms, do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else*. As others have said, it has been proven that high-vis safety gear does not reduce the incidence of KSI figures in all sorts of settings, including cycling. Take from that what you will. Being visible is very different to being safe. I as others before me have pointed out that, a 'common sense' response of doing something (unproven) rather than doing nothing at all, can backfire spectacularly. If you willingly overstate the positive benefits (or fabricate them entirely), at the same time as disregarding the possible negative effects, you'll expose yourself to the phenomenon of unintended consequences.

For example, the brighter is better mantra, seems plausible right? Nope, the ensuing lighting arms race resulting in temporarily blinded motorists careering down the road at high speeds, clearly it will not be doing anyone any favours. Flashing lights? Eye-catching right? Being seen is important right? Actually, some studies have demonstrated blinky lights make judging speed and distance harder. Day-time running lights? Drivers de-sensitised the the presence of cyclists at night time. We can go on and on. The thing is. The actual downsides might be slight, but if the positives are overstated, then the negatives can more easily be overlooked, but what if the unintended consequences detract more than the actual equivalent of the overstated benefit? What if the culimation of all these safety tips, turns our roads into a modern day battle ground, where the simple act of cycling, is not longer safe or practical, and that put people off.
This plays out at a societal level, as well as the individual. What if to the layman, the high-vis clad road cyclists makes cycling feel more dangerous to them than that it actually is? What if that means less cycling overall and a public health crisis, what if number of cyclists on the roads fall, so local govt. can't/won't justify the funding to install actual meaningful safe infra? What if the victim isn't wearing high vis? Can the careless driver now get away with it because the victim didn't do everything in their power (wearing unproven safety gear) to protect themselves, despite the carelessness and mixing of modes which are separated by an order in magnitude in terms of mass being the root of the problem.

As others have said, I too hope that you won't experience a serious collision with a motorist, but if you do, you'll soon realise that being seen isn't the issue. It's being safe, and that means out of harm's way. I have lost count of the times I got SMIDSY's, despite it being a glorious clear day with a high sun. I wasn't invisible, I wasn't safe. I was at the mercy of my own reactions to incompetent driving. My clothing had no bearing on my safety. That's what the research tells us too.

*Actually, wearing high-vis, and advocating its use may actually harm the cycling safety agenda on a societal scale, as it distracts many from what can be done for very little money, if only there were the political will and less dead ends to lead well meaning blokes like you.

 

[steveindenmark]

And possibly not.

I've been riding bikes and motorbikes for as long as you have.

A few years ago I experimented with varying my clothing over a few months, in two-week spells, and found that what I was wearing had no bearing on the behaviour of drivers around me. The close passes, the SMIDSYs at junctions, the left hooks and right hooks, they all occurred with the same frequency. Even when I dressed similarly to you and wore a helmet with a light on it, I'd still get some dunderheids saying they didn't see me, so I'd definitely agree with the view that you've just been lucky. (Long may that continue!)

I have taken on board what everyone has said and the general concensus seems to be is that its not my dayglo jacket that has kept me safe. Its my luck.
So to test this I have been shopping and bought this ticket. But if I win the big money, I dont know how to tell you how lucky I am because I will be disowning you all 😁 But if I do come back, I will still be dressed as a lemon. 😁

 

[icowden]

As others have said, it has been proven that high-vis safety gear does not reduce the incidence of KSI figures in all sorts of settings, including cycling.

Has it been proven that it makes things worse?

The issue with "proof" is that it doesn't have to exists for something to be a good idea.
For example, we cannot conclusively "prove" that climate change is being created by manmade phenomena and that reducing greenhouse gasses and moving to eco-friendly energy generation will make a difference.

Or in the words of a cartoon I saw a while ago... "Yes - but what if we have made the world a better place to live in FOR NOTHING?!!!".

I can't prove that a cycle helmet is going to protect me in any given situation. I can understand though that it provides some padding and protection. On the balance of probability it seems like a good idea, and since I fractured my nose, it seems like a better idea. I have gathered my own personal evidence that a helmet would have helped if I had been wearing one.

Similarly, as a driver, there are some lanes around me that are extremely dark. It is much easier for me to see a cyclist if they have lights. It is likely I will see them if they are wearing something reflective. However, dark clothing, on a dark bike in the dark is much, much harder to see until the last second. Someone picked the argument before, "if you can see someone without lights or refelctive gear when you are on a bike, then why can't you when you are in a car"?
Simple answer. A car is going *much* faster. It is approaching the bike at much greater speed. There may be oncoming headlights making it harder to see,. There could be rain.

If I'm on a bike it's unlikely I am going to catch up with that person at great speed - the differential is <10mph probably rather than say 30mph. I don't need anywhere near as much room to go around them if I am faster. The fresh air in my eyes and my own vulnerabilty as a cyclist means that I am riding with heightened awareness. In a car you are comfy, warm, have pleasant music or chat from the radio. It's an environment we have made more and more like sitting in the living room.

Of course you can go over the top with reflectors and helmets, but until you can "prove" that they make things worse, I'll continue to wear my shiny white helmet and my fluorescent backpack, my fluorescent "see my indication" gloves, and use my powerful front and back lights,

 

[confusedcyclist]

Well you can prove these things beyond reasonable doubt, it just takes a carefully designed study, but there are not enough of them. The issue is, we are dealing with compex systems. Most of the so called research is done by those with a vested interest in the outcome. The benefits are overstated in the real world, because the studies are designed to test a certain application, within tight constraints. Laymen see the claims, and parrot them endlessly. This thread starts with a example. There is not enough independent research, but it does exist. My point was that sometimes doing something (unproven) is worse than doing nothing, and that gets little attention in these debates.

If we want to tackle the issue of safety, instead of bickering who is at fault because the motorist (whom for some reason feels entitled to drive at speed in the rain) didn't see the cyclist. Shouldn't we spend our time thinking about why the motorist believes it's acceptable to travel at that speed differential in the rain in the presence of vulnerable road users. The scenario you suggest is one of the rarer situations that leads to an accident, more often than not, it's navigating junctions, but to humour you, the answer is not to blame the victim for their choice in clothing, it's to stop this game of chance being played by the motorist in the first place. Whether that means dropping the speed limit to a safe differential where special equipment is not required for a child to cycle along the road, or removing the cyclists from the path of the motorist entirely with a dedicated paved route that is convenient and practical. Lights, helmets, and reflectives may help in certain situations, but when it comes to getting catapulted by a motorist, the only thing that will keep you safe in that scenario is not being present in it at all. Vary rarely are cyclists not seen, they are simply disregarded. Not seeing cyclists is the excuse given by the driver who didn't react to the conditions of the road.

Unfortunately, high profile campaigns give credence to uproven safety gear meaning that certain careless drives are absolved of their blame, after all, who would ride on our dangerous road or fail take every precaution to protect themselves, all the whilst no one questions the habits of travelling at high speed differentials in inclement weather in the presence of non-motorists. Some might state that high-vis reduces your chance of being put in these situations in the first place, but the simple truth is that the KSI figures show no statistical significance between those hurt whilst wearing normal clothing vs special high vis 'safety' gear.

 

[MontyVeda]

I have taken on board what everyone has said and the general concensus seems to be is that its not my dayglo jacket that has kept me safe. Its my luck.
...

I'd hazard a guess that it's probably the road sense you've developed over the years. That's got to be of far more benefit than a colour, surely?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I'd hazard a guess that it's probably the road sense you've developed over the years.

Dang, I was just about to say the same thing, what with Steve having been a police driver and an ADI too.
Still, I hope he remembers me when he wins that lottery. I always said he was a great guy...

 

[si_c]

The problem with advocating the use of hi-vis clothing is that a one size all approach doesn't work. There are too many variables.

Last year when commuting much further than I do now, most of my rides were in dawn or dusk and I was riding into the low sun. Most of my cycle clothing is black, largely due to personal preference, but I also find that a darker colour far more visible in the low light conditions in which a lot of my riding was done. The number of times I'd be riding and see a fellow cyclist all done out in high vis who was far less distinguishable against the sun because of the colours being worn.

I forget where, but I saw a study which implied that yellow is a terrible colour in low light - orange is better - and that in zero light conditions the colour is irrelevant but reflectives are important.

 

[MontyVeda]

The problem with advocating the use of hi-vis clothing is that a one size all approach doesn't work. There are too many variables.

Last year when commuting much further than I do now, most of my rides were in dawn or dusk and I was riding into the low sun. Most of my cycle clothing is black, largely due to personal preference, but I also find that a darker colour far more visible in the low light conditions in which a lot of my riding was done. The number of times I'd be riding and see a fellow cyclist all done out in high vis who was far less distinguishable against the sun because of the colours being worn.

I forget where, but I saw a study which implied that yellow is a terrible colour in low light - orange is better - and that in zero light conditions the colour is irrelevant but reflectives are important.

one former commute had a fearful section at a certain time of year... a long slow uphill with the rising sun on the brow of the hill directly ahead. Taking primary would have put me in the centre of the rising sun so I felt putting myself right in the gutter was the best place to be.

 

[mjr]

I can't prove that a cycle helmet is going to protect me in any given situation. I can understand though that it provides some padding and protection. On the balance of probability it seems like a good idea, and since I fractured my nose, it seems like a better idea. I have gathered my own personal evidence that a helmet would have helped if I had been wearing one.

That's a different argument and there's a different thread for the specific item, so I will comment only on two aspects of the specific scientific method claim embodied in the above: first of all, you say "on the balance of probability it seems like a good idea" but I think you haven't actually estimated any probabilities there, let alone tried to balance them. For example, what's the probability of hitting the protective area rather than another body part? What's the probability that the impact speed will be less than 12mph? What's the increase in probability of an impact from the increased size and weight?

Secondly, there seem to be plenty of examples of broken noses and other facial damage from people who have been wearing them, so I hope you're wearing a full-face one.

[...] Someone picked the argument before, "if you can see someone without lights or refelctive gear when you are on a bike, then why can't you when you are in a car"?
Simple answer. A car is going *much* faster. It is approaching the bike at much greater speed. There may be oncoming headlights making it harder to see,. There could be rain.

Simple retort: if you can't see well enough to be doing 40mph, you must slow down. To do otherwise is to at best careless driving. Highway Code Rule 126.

If I'm on a bike it's unlikely I am going to catch up with that person at great speed - the differential is <10mph probably rather than say 30mph. I don't need anywhere near as much room to go around them if I am faster.

I really hope I've misunderstood that and you're not suggesting that going faster means you can close-pass people!

The fresh air in my eyes and my own vulnerabilty as a cyclist means that I am riding with heightened awareness. In a car you are comfy, warm, have pleasant music or chat from the radio. It's an environment we have made more and more like sitting in the living room.

Making the car environment like sitting in the living room is a personal choice. When not on a motorway, I turn the radio down/off and open the window a bit so I can hear more of what's going on, so I'm more present in the town or village I'm driving into. I would really like to see some Public Information Films advocating this sort of behaviour and for driving into a built-up area with the windows up and music blaring to become as socially scorned as cycling with headphones on, but first we've probably got bigger fish to fry, such as driving with headphones on and farking with phones and sat navs while in motion.

Of course you can go over the top with reflectors and helmets, but until you can "prove" that they make things worse, I'll continue to wear my shiny white helmet and my fluorescent backpack, my fluorescent "see my indication" gloves, and use my powerful front and back lights,

By all means, continue to waste your time. Just don't encourage others to waste theirs, and definitely don't blame anyone else for not wasting theirs, please!

 

[sheddy]

Another reason (sadly) for wearing hi-viz is to avoid have damages reduced by a motocentric Judge.

 

[confusedcyclist]

Another reason (sadly) for wearing hi-viz is to avoid have damages reduced by a motocentric Judge.

Well that would depend on how good your lawyer is. But it's another good reason for debunking the myths.

 

[Milkfloat]

Another reason (sadly) for wearing hi-viz is to avoid have damages reduced by a motocentric Judge.

Has that ever happened?