So to summarise, the point I opened with was that I see a lot of cyclists out by me in the dusk, by that I don’t mean dark, but a light which results in most (9/10) cars having their head lights on, wearing black kit. It struck me this was on the increase and I wondered why as most cycle kit comes in a range of colours from dark to light.
This is not about night riding, there are reasonable laws surrounding how cyclists should equip their bikes which I assumed everyone would agree with, although it appears that there is a small minority who believe that road safety should be governed by some sort of hierarchical system ie:
Pedestrians don’t have be visible cos its cyclists ultimate responsibility that they remain safe
Cyclists don’t have to carry lights cos its mopeds ultimate responsibility that they remain safe
Mopeds don’t have to have their lights on cos its large motorbikes ultimate responsibility that they remain safe
large motorbikes don’t have to have their lights on cos its cars ultimate responsibility that they remain safe
cars may as well not put their lights on cos its vans................etc etc etc
An interesting argument, and one that would ensure that everyone is very safe, however I would like to see some evidence (I will return to this evidence theme!) how this would work and impact on traffic flow..
Its all about why people are wearing black in dusk, nothing to do with lights.
So what does the evidence tell us riding in brighter clothing?
Several studies (peer reviewed, not Wikipedia) suggests that the evidence points toward
Drivers' and observers' detection and recognition improved with visibility aids. For daytime, fluorescent materials in yellow, red and orange colours enhanced detection and recognition. "Biomotion" markings enhanced recognition. Substantial heterogeneity between the trials limits the possibility for meta-analysis. Visibility aids have the potential to improve detection and recognition and would merit further development to gain public acceptance"
(from: Visibility aids for pedestrians and cyclists: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials)
As with all research more needs to be done to improve our knowledge, but at the moment I would argue the evidence (there it is again) seems compelling.
If anyone can provide any EVIDENCE that does not start with “I saw.....I can see....Well I....I’ve never, ” that cycling in dark clothing is as safe as cycling in bright clothing put it on here. If that is your assertion then what is your evidence? Surely you cannot base it on only what you can see or have seen? That leads us to the assumption that the earth is flat..We have to rely on others experiences, research, experiments and writings..so it would be nice if your evidence could start with:
"It has been shown that......" (and then the source in brackets)
Now.... I have lots of interesting stuff on cyclists motivations and how clothing, image and how we relate to others works from: (evidence)
O’Connor, J.P. and Brown, T.D. (2006). Competitive cycling within Victoria: An exploration of the needs of competitive cyclists within Victoria. Draft Report. Melbourne, Victoria.
Brown, T. & O’Conner, J. (2007) Real cyclists don’t race informal affiliations of the weekend warrior International Review for the Sociology of Sport . 42 1 83-97
Brown, T., O’Conner,J. & Barkatsas,A. (2009) Instrumentation and motivations for organised cycling: the development of the cyclist motivation instrument. Journal of sports science and medicine. 8, 211-218
So this is what I am basing my judgments on, as well as personal experience.
I look forward to learning something new
Edited for spelling!
) and it was interesting that threads like this about "ninja" cyclists, or 'badly clothed' riders often start with "I see a lot of...etc" It's interesting that we can see these stealth riders, and other people, ie: those in anything other than open air, cannot.
<==I 
