mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
No, but rather than blaming others, I have sometimes thought "ah, time to put my headlights on"
Hi-Viz / reflective - pros & cons.
- Thread starter simongt
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
unfortunately, science has failed to prove this. What seems "common sense" does not translate to numbers, and regardless of what anyone may "think" that is the bottom line.
Obviously, avoid tones and patterns that could act camouflage in the riding environment, but beyond that you're no safer in a high visibility garment than you are in, say, a Led Zeppelin T shirt, a tweed jacket and deer stalker, or a sequined ball gown.
Despite many, many studies to try and prove the link, zero correlation between user safety and high vis garments has been discovered. That seems simple enough for me.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
I run with headlights on all the time, not to see by but to be seen. This is/was standard practice (even required by law, not sure) in Norway and Sweden. And it allows other motorists and cyclists to see you "more easily/earlier" - recognise the phrase?. On my bike I can 'see' cars behind earlier if they have their lights on as my front wheel rim (with a bit of polish) reflects the headlights up to my line of sight.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
There is evidence from several studies (the most notable by Suzuki, who were looking into motorcycle safety) that driving with headlamps on in good visibility actually makes you more likely to have a smack, as it breaks up your outline to incoming observers, which deprives their brains of the datum required to calculate your speed. Therefore, only use your headlights when you require them to see by, which is their function after all.
There is also no evidence that DRLs have any positive impact upon accident rates anywhere in Europe apart from the northern Scandinavian countries.
Again, what seems like a great idea for safety just doesn't work in practice. I'm all for safety gadgets, gizmos and practices, where there is proper information to reasonably suggest they actually work, and that they don't have any detrimental side effects like daytime headlight usage does.
There is also no evidence that DRLs have any positive impact upon accident rates anywhere in Europe apart from the northern Scandinavian countries.
Again, what seems like a great idea for safety just doesn't work in practice. I'm all for safety gadgets, gizmos and practices, where there is proper information to reasonably suggest they actually work, and that they don't have any detrimental side effects like daytime headlight usage does.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
I recognise the phrase... as the last resort of a motoring lobby fellow-traveller, appealing to mistaken intuition despite the evidence to which @Drago alludes. I put my lights on when they help me to see and I don't have any illusion that they can make me "be seen" (which is a silly concept, if you stop to think about it).
Levo-Lon
Guru
motorcycle twin front lights can look like a car in the distance in a rear view mirror at night..drivers just have a quick glance and assume or think its a car..
then its right behind them after changing lane..
i do think the single headlight low beam is safer at night until the bulb blows lol
then its right behind them after changing lane..
i do think the single headlight low beam is safer at night until the bulb blows lol
Tin Pot
Guru
It doesn't make any difference at all.
Not one ounce, gramme, bit, iota, atom.
Forget your "common sense" and "intuition" and rely on facts.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Facts are, as we've seen, in rather short supply. The various studies quoted are relatively inconclusive and seem to be enlisted, on this forum, in favour of the 'do nothing, some drivers don't look anyway, let's just hope, if too many people wear hi-viz they'll make it law' chapter (see example contributors above). I can't help thinking that those who think it's worth trying to be more visible on a bike have given up on this thread because they know that 'you' are not going to give up repeating your mantras. But after yesterday's 110km (wearing a black and white rain jacket, reflective stripes on my bib tights and overboots and dispalying a flashing rear light), I'm inspired to have one more effort.
Do you also think that it's a waste of time trying to increase one's conspicuity by displaying a rear flashing red light? Why have cars got brake lights? In dull conditions one can see a car from behind more easily if their rear lights are on. Or do you think that's not true either? Does one not see the rear of emergency and highway maintenance vehicles more easily by their general adoption of yellow/orange/red diagonal stripes?
Do you think that females feel differently about this subject (effort to increase conspicuity), being daughters, mothers, wives and sisters, and therefore, perhaps, more sensitive to the "common sense and intuition", whether based on facts or not, of their loved ones?
Do you also think that it's a waste of time trying to increase one's conspicuity by displaying a rear flashing red light? Why have cars got brake lights? In dull conditions one can see a car from behind more easily if their rear lights are on. Or do you think that's not true either? Does one not see the rear of emergency and highway maintenance vehicles more easily by their general adoption of yellow/orange/red diagonal stripes?
Do you think that females feel differently about this subject (effort to increase conspicuity), being daughters, mothers, wives and sisters, and therefore, perhaps, more sensitive to the "common sense and intuition", whether based on facts or not, of their loved ones?
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Conspicuous by the display of lighting is a different scientific area of human behaviour, and is neither relevent or analogous to our discussion about hi vis garments.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Yes. CTC were right about rear red lights in the 1940s. Flashing rear reds are even more folly because they're not on at some times when a substandard motorist may glance towards you.
To save their drivers from flapping their arm out the window.
It depends but usually not in merely dull conditions (rather than darkness).
No, the now-painfully-bright flashing blue/amber lights are far more the reason why they're seen, not the near-dazzle patterns they put on those vehicles now.
No. Some people seem more susceptible to social pressure to conform despite lack of evidence that it helps, though.
mustang1
Legendary Member
- Location
- London, UK
Gatso cameras went grey for a short time while the motoring industry backlashed. Now they are yellow are far more visible.
Traffic police wear yellow.
That's good enough for me. If one doesn't want to look like a cyclist when off the bike (who does?) Then just take the jacket off and into a bag. I saw a YouTube video recently comparing different jackets and lights combo and the yellow stood out by a country mile.
Traffic police wear yellow.
That's good enough for me. If one doesn't want to look like a cyclist when off the bike (who does?) Then just take the jacket off and into a bag. I saw a YouTube video recently comparing different jackets and lights combo and the yellow stood out by a country mile.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
But most interestingly, the police who deal with the most dangerous tactical road encounters wear black, and they haven't endured an elevated casualty rate as a consequence.
Regular dibble, lollipop ladies Gatsos all wear hi vis, but not because of any science that says they will be more easily noticed, but because "common sense" tells us so.
Prevailing wisdom also tells us that noise causes avalanches, that big people lose fights more easily (the harder they fall), and that red sky at night bodes good weather, yet none of these things are true.
If I choose to do something for the purposes of safety I do it because there is some science to prove it, not simply because everyone says so. It's attitudes like that which saw people sacrificing goats to the gods because the perceived wisdom at the time was that it worked, not because science said so. If you think a mediaeval mind set when approaching such matters is in anyway helpful then be my guest...
Regular dibble, lollipop ladies Gatsos all wear hi vis, but not because of any science that says they will be more easily noticed, but because "common sense" tells us so.
Prevailing wisdom also tells us that noise causes avalanches, that big people lose fights more easily (the harder they fall), and that red sky at night bodes good weather, yet none of these things are true.
If I choose to do something for the purposes of safety I do it because there is some science to prove it, not simply because everyone says so. It's attitudes like that which saw people sacrificing goats to the gods because the perceived wisdom at the time was that it worked, not because science said so. If you think a mediaeval mind set when approaching such matters is in anyway helpful then be my guest...
Last edited:
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Yet abroad, they paint them bright colours for the opposite reason:
Yeah, sure, I'll buy and wear special clothes and carry extra luggage to store it when not on the bike... right after motorists are made to do that with fireproof overalls, as that would save more lives.
Wouldn't happen to have had some sort of financial interest in their sales, would it?
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
I think the crash scene I passed yesterday was attended by police in black (with some blue and white details), firemen in their customary mustard (with some yellow, white and red details) and only the paramedics wearing conventional-looking hi-viz.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
@Drago has pointed out that lighting contributions to conspicuity (the state or quality of being readily visible, easily seen or noticed OR attracting special attention, as by outstanding qualities (eg lighting of cycles)) are off thread. But here goes.
@mjray CTC [said in the 1940s that] rear red lights did not help conspicuity [in daylight]. Consider power of the lights in those days cf today]. “Flashing rear reds are even more folly because they're not on at some times when a substandard motorist may glance towards you.” This seems to acknowledge that if a motorist glances towards you when the light is in the ‘flash’part of its cycle they will see you better. The dwell time of a driver’s vision at the road ahead is (imo) longer than the ‘off’ phase of a flashing rear light.
Why have cars got brake lights? “To save their drivers from flapping their arm out the window.” Suggest it’s to highlight to those following that the vehicle(s) (several or directly) ahead are braking/slowing down - this helps road safety. Cf cyclist action on a club run approaching a ‘give way’ junction: helps those behind.
Assertion: In dull conditions one can see a car from behind more easily if their rear lights are on. Or do you think that's not true either? “It depends but usually not in merely dull conditions (rather than darkness).” So you think rear lights on a vehicle are normally not worth using except during ‘lighting up time’.
Assertion: Does one not see the rear of emergency and highway maintenance vehicles more easily by their general adoption of yellow/orange/red diagonal stripes? “No”. So why do many (emergency) service providers paint their vehicles thus (suggestion: so they are more conspicuous when the (blue/orange) lights are not on.
I assume @Drago you choose not to wear a helmet using the same rationale.
@mjray CTC [said in the 1940s that] rear red lights did not help conspicuity [in daylight]. Consider power of the lights in those days cf today]. “Flashing rear reds are even more folly because they're not on at some times when a substandard motorist may glance towards you.” This seems to acknowledge that if a motorist glances towards you when the light is in the ‘flash’part of its cycle they will see you better. The dwell time of a driver’s vision at the road ahead is (imo) longer than the ‘off’ phase of a flashing rear light.
Why have cars got brake lights? “To save their drivers from flapping their arm out the window.” Suggest it’s to highlight to those following that the vehicle(s) (several or directly) ahead are braking/slowing down - this helps road safety. Cf cyclist action on a club run approaching a ‘give way’ junction: helps those behind.
Assertion: In dull conditions one can see a car from behind more easily if their rear lights are on. Or do you think that's not true either? “It depends but usually not in merely dull conditions (rather than darkness).” So you think rear lights on a vehicle are normally not worth using except during ‘lighting up time’.
Assertion: Does one not see the rear of emergency and highway maintenance vehicles more easily by their general adoption of yellow/orange/red diagonal stripes? “No”. So why do many (emergency) service providers paint their vehicles thus (suggestion: so they are more conspicuous when the (blue/orange) lights are not on.
I partially agree with this sentiment but life is not as black and white as that (well not for me and many others). If I get caught by a nasty smash while riding, I don't want some sets of friends/relatives/children thinking 'if only he'd been a bit more visible maybe he wouldn't have been hit in that incident'. And I do think that drivers see me more easily, so that makes me more comfortable and confident when riding.
I assume @Drago you choose not to wear a helmet using the same rationale.
