Hi-Viz / reflective - pros & cons.

[Origamist]

@User "if", "could" "give and take". If you had a teenager who sought your advice (maybe your child or another's), would you recommend that they dress themselves generally in dull drab coloured clothing (let's allow black to be a colour for this purpose) or would you recommend that they consider and wear a brighter top and socks (say). Would you recommend that they avoid buying hi-viz items and/or clothing with reflective 'stripes' or logos on? Would your advice vary if the weather is bright or dull? Why? Because you don't like 'giving in' to the threat posed by careless drivers or because it's not aesthetic? I understand your argument: "nature of taking responsibility for cyclists' safety on our roads. Anything we give is taken as a norm" but I don't think wearing 'ninja invisibility' kit is going to help make the case. But I do think that, on the balance of probability and rationality, that the less visible cyclists are generally the more will get hit, because the hazard is not going away. The risk can be mitigated in a number of ways: clothing and lights are just two (the first being subject of this thread). @Accy cyclist and @biggs682 express this with admirable brevity.

Interestingly, a recent study in the UK found the opposite. I have quoted the abstract's conclusion:

This study was designed to assess the effect of conspicuity aid use on the risk of crash for commuter and utility cyclists. A slightly greater proportion of cases than controls reported using conspicuity aids. There was therefore a raised odds ratio of collision crash involvement for those using conspicuity aids even after adjustment for a large number of important confounders. The study results do not demonstrate a protective effect as expected given previous work testing the effects of such aids on drivers’ awareness of cyclists and pedestrians. This study demonstrates the importance of understanding why many cyclists remain at risk of collision crash resulting in injury despite the use of conspicuity aids.

The use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and the risk of crashes involving other road users: a population based case-control study

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/

 

[mjr]

Yes i find fluoro yellow and red or fluoro yellow and black are easier to see when i'm driving.

And when was your last eye test?

You will be surprised how more visible you are, and how driving improves when they see they are being recorde

Yes. I don't often ride with a camera but I've noticed motorists stop at red lights after looking at my new more-obvious handlebar camera when I'm pretty sure from the manner they approached that it wasn't their original intention! There are a couple of sets of lights where cross-traffic is limited to cycles and sometimes buses and RLJing is rife when there is no bus.

So "if they are looking" they will see you earlier if you're wearing clothing which increases your visibility.

And so by the time they get to you, they've forgotten they need to do anything, whereas if they'd seen you at the same time as the surrounding environment, they can decide their appropriate action all at once.

The classic is a "left hook" where the driver moves out to overtake and then turns across your path

Nothing is going to prevent these types of stupidity

I thought primary position prevents left hooks?

Part of my reasoning for putting on some bright clothing or a Sam Browne belt, is not wishing to give any negligent drivers an easy cop-out if I should be unfortunate enough to come a cropper.

Yet, you're comfortable with helping to give any negligent drivers an easy copy-out if ANYONE ELSE is unfortunate enough to come a cropper?

If you had a teenager who sought your advice (maybe your child or another's), would you recommend that they dress themselves generally in dull drab coloured clothing (let's allow black to be a colour for this purpose) or would you recommend that they consider and wear a brighter top and socks (say).

Rather than burden them with complicated DOs and DON'Ts and keeping a wardrobe of special-purpose clothes, I'd recommend that they just get on their bikes and ride.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmdqAfmTlzo

But I do think that, on the balance of probability and rationality, that the less visible cyclists are generally the more will get hit

Any evidence for that? We certainly seem to be regaled with plenty of stories of cyclists wearing hi-viz and Christmas decorations who have been hit - could it be some motorists think "ah, they're an experienced cyclist, they'll be used to avoiding motorists" whereas they wouldn't chance it with the stereotypical hoodie ninja kerb-hopper on a beat-up BMX?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Hi-Viz pro's? None - if they aren't looking they won't see you and you only need to worry about the ones who aren't looking cos the ones who are looking will see you, even if you are a ninja (NO. It does not increase the odds of an inattentive driver seeing you. Nothing does)
Hi-Viz con's? Loads - normalisation of PPE equipment for riding a bike; a nonsense. You look like a space lemon; a nonsense. You increase the perception that cycling is a dangerous activity undertaken by eccentric people in eccentric clothing; an utter nonsense. Et cetera.

Hi-Viz doth offend mine eye.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

and it is getting worse. Nearly a year in 'sunny' Scandinavia and the only people in hi-viz on bikes are British Ex-pat Hi-viz fetishists.

mind you space lemon torso and arms is a popular look with runners hereabouts. I prefer all black, but can roll with a sky blue with fluorescent zips/details if I must, when on two legs.

 

[Tim Hall]

Hi-Viz pro's? None - if they aren't looking they won't see you and you only need to worry about the ones who aren't looking cos the ones who are looking will see you, even if you are a ninja (NO. It does not increase the odds of an inattentive driver seeing you. Nothing does)
Hi-Viz con's? Loads - normalisation of PPE equipment for riding a bike; a nonsense. You look like a space lemon; a nonsense. You increase the perception that cycling is a dangerous activity undertaken by eccentric people in eccentric clothing; an utter nonsense. Et cetera.

Hi-Viz doth offend mine eye.

El Grumpo has it nailed.

 

[growingvegetables]

Interestingly, a recent study in the UK found the opposite. I have quoted the abstract's conclusion:

The use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and the risk of crashes involving other road users: a population based case-control study

Thank you - if frightening in its backing for this anecdotal.

Assess your risks in your environment. Which is the greater risk?

- Not being seen early, by competent and courteous drivers (the huge majority), who will give the space you need, even when they see you a bit later?
- Being seen by nobbers; being thought of as "protected" and "safe"; and therefore a "fair target" for a well-aimed close pass?

 

[Smokin Joe]

So many people are wearing high viz now that any use it may have had has long passed, it has become just another visual item people are so used to coming across that it fades into the general surroundings. Rather like daytime running lights should their use ever become widespread.

 

[biggs682]

you are right no matter how lit up you are some dum ass drivers still like to scrape the skin of your elbow

this is the hi viz i wear complete with lights

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/J2X-Fitne...Top-Hi-/171923511437?var=&hash=item6d9fe37c9b

 

[GrumpyGregry]

So many people are wearing high viz now that any use it may have had has long passed, it has become just another visual item people are so used to coming across that it fades into the general surroundings. Rather like daytime running lights should their use ever become widespread.

Urban camouflage?

 

[jonny jeez]

Which is all well and good, until not wearing one is seen as negligence

i suspect, unofficially, we are already there.

 

[jonny jeez]

So many people are wearing high viz now that any use it may have had has long passed, it has become just another visual item people are so used to coming across that it fades into the general surroundings. Rather like daytime running lights should their use ever become widespread.

I hear that a fair bit but dont actually think its true. In the dark its useless but in the rain or that magic light early in the morning (opposite of twighlight) it really stands out. even in town ...at the above times...it stands out well.

 

[Accy cyclist]

And when was your last eye test?

People like you have this notion that if you have poor or restricted eye sight you either shouldn't be driving, or people with bad eye sight don't exist.

 

[mjr]

People like you have this notion that if you have poor or restricted eye sight you either shouldn't be driving, or people with bad eye sight don't exist.

Well they shouldn't! I know people with poor eyesight exist because I can't see well enough to drive without glasses. It is rightly a requirement to be able to see well enough to drive and we should disqualify those who can't, including those who won't wear their prescribed glasses, not make everyone else dress funny.

I noticed you didn't answer when your last eye test was...

 

[Brandane]

It is rightly a requirement to be able to see well enough to drive and we should disqualify those who can't

The legal eyesight standard for driving is a joke.
I went for my latest sight test last October, and according to the Optician, my eyesight WITHOUT glasses is ok for driving. I found that incredible as I wouldn't dream of going out on the road without corrected vision.
My contact lenses are +2.25 for the left eye, and +1.75 for the right. That sounds like bad eyesight to me, but apparently I can legally go out on public roads in a 44 tonne lorry without glasses or contacts!

 

[Drago]

It is possible to have tunnel vision that is so bad that you'd be clinically classified as blind and still pass the number plate test.

My Missus is blind in one eye and still drives. Hell, you can legally fly a Jumbo jet with only one working eye. Her insurance didn't go up, the accident stats don't evidence any greater risk.