Is black cycling gear dangerous?

[ufkacbln]

I'm no Ben Goldacre but that triggers a few alarm bells - most significantly, the fact that it's a web survey of a self-selecting group of respondents...

They also seem to be a little vague about their definition of "crash" - as far as I can tell from a superficial reading, they don't specify that they mean incidents where a cyclist was knocked off by a motorist who claimed not to have seen them. For all I know, their definition of "crash" may well include incidents where no motor vehicle was involved at all.

d.

As I pointed out above, most of these studies simply assume tha ALL incidents would be prevented by HiViz when it is not the case.

The other flaw in the Tapau study is to fail to link the cyclist skill and cycle usage with HiViz. If all those weraing HiVIZ "always" are non-confident, intermittent , fair weather, casual users and those who "never wear" are dedicated all year rounders then that alone could explain the difference

 

[Banjo]

When that nutter in the lake district was going round shooting people fortunately the cyclist he tried to shoot was all in black and he missed.Which proves that wearing black is safer.

Or at least it would be in that situation.

 

[smutchin]

Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?.

Their conclusion is that cyclists who wear hi-viz spend fewer days off work due to cycling related injuries but it's hard to see where they have established a causal link between those facts.

There also seems to be a rather dubious assumption about conspicuity being a causal factor in the reported incidents. (ETA: as per Cunobelin's comments.)

d.

 

[Recycler]

The simple and incontrovertible fact is that HiViz is not the complete answer.

Nobody has even hinted that it is the complete answer. It has, however, been suggested that it is part of the answer.

My question was "Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?"
The two reports that you have raised suggest that it is but I am trying to establish if you are able to concede that point.

Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?
Yes or No?

 

[smutchin]

Using a bigger hammer won't make the jelly stick.

d.

 

[Banjo]

All joking aside when you refer to High Viz does that neccecarilly mean commercial type stuff as worn on building sites etc or just any light brightly coloured clothing?

I would hate to go round disguised as Bob the builder but usually opt for light bright colours for cycling tops.

 

[Recycler]

All joking aside when you refer to High Viz does that neccecarilly mean commercial type stuff as worn on building sites etc or just any light brightly coloured clothing?.

Hi Viz is usually taken to mean that it is flourescent.(i.e. it fluoresces in UV light)

Bob the builder usually has yellow, but it can be orange or red. It may be possible to have other colours but, IIRC blue does not work very well. AFAIK green usually ends up as a lime green rather than a a deep British Racing Green. Strictly speaking Hi Viz will mean that it is both flourescent and that it has reflective material on it. I hope that nobody is saying that reflective material is ineffective.

FWIW The Highway Code recomends light coloured or flourescent clothing. My personal preference is flourescent but. No, I don't wear Bob the builder jackets when I'm on the bike. There's plenty of proper cycling gear available which does the job and seems fine to me; though I fully accept that it is a matter of personal taste.

 

[ufkacbln]

Nobody has even hinted that it is the complete answer. It has, however, been suggested that it is part of the answer.

My question was "Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?"
The two reports that you have raised suggest that it is but I am trying to establish if you are able to concede that point.

Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?
Yes or No?

Lets rephrase that...

Do you agree that as part of a holistic approach to cyclist safety including awareness training for drivers, and training for cyclists to allow them to ride more safely, then HIViz may offer a safety benefit to cyclists.

 

[Recycler]

Lets rephrase that...

Do you agree that as part of a holistic approach to cyclist safety including awareness training for drivers, and training for cyclists to allow them to ride more safely, then HIViz may offer a safety benefit to cyclists.

OK. Rephrase accepted.
Can you accept that, on that basis, it is probably better that cyclists wear Hi Viz than something else?

 

[Banjo]

Hi Viz is usually taken to mean that it is flourescent.(i.e. it fluoresces in UV light)

Bob the builder usually has yellow, but it can be orange or red. It may be possible to have other colours but, IIRC blue does not work very well. AFAIK green usually ends up as a lime green rather than a a deep British Racing Green. Strictly speaking Hi Viz will mean that it is both flourescent and that it has reflective material on it. I hope that nobody is saying that reflective material is ineffective.

FWIW The Highway Code recomends light coloured or flourescent clothing. My personal preference is flourescent but. No, I don't wear Bob the builder jackets when I'm on the bike. There's plenty of proper cycling gear available which does the job and seems fine to me; though I fully accept that it is a matter of personal taste.

Thanks for that.

 

[Norm]

No, I don't wear Bob the builder jackets when I'm on the bike.

More anecdata, when I wear a "builder's vest" on the bike, I believe that I get more room from WVM and goods vehicles.

I don't know why this is, of course, but my guess is that's because they see someone wearing that sort of hi-viz as "one of us who happens to be on a bike", whereas someone wearing a hi-viz cycling jacket is "one of them".

 

[ufkacbln]

OK. Rephrase accepted.
Can you accept that, on that basis, it is probably better that cyclists wear Hi Viz than something else?

I can accept that idf someone feels that their training, experience and road skills reduce their risk then they achieve a similar reduction in risk.

A novice might benefit from HIViz, but they could also benefit from a whole range of other interventions.

I still stand that cyling should not and does not "need" specialist clothing.

 

[Norm]

I still stand that cyling should not and does not "need" specialist clothing.

+1. And also, looping back to the original question, black gear is not, IMO, dangerous.

 

[ufkacbln]

The "omnipotent" power of HiViz is overestimated. Even the Metropolitan Police recognise this...

If a person wearing the most highly rated hi-viz apparel walks under a streetlight, reflection from the stripes will be virtually unseen by people at ground level. The streetlight will obviously illuminate the person, but the reflective stripes won’t reflect back the light. The observation angle far exceeds 3 degrees. While demonstrating this phenomenon, the one thing that can often be seen reflecting back at ground level are the shiny surfaces of an officer’s metal badge!

A person standing in a dark, shadowy area while wearing a hi-viz vest would appear nearly as dark as his surroundings.

 

[Recycler]

I can accept that idf someone feels that their training, experience and road skills reduce their risk then they achieve a similar reduction in risk.

A novice might benefit from HIViz, but they could also benefit from a whole range of other interventions.

I still stand that cycling should not and does not "need" specialist clothing.

That strikes me as a somewhat patronising view of novices but I have read similar comments elsewhere to the effect that Hi Viz = Novice. Frankly, I think it is nonsense which appears to just be based on a dislike of the aesthetics more than anything else.

I also think that it is naive to suggest that experience, road skills and training alone will be enough to save a cyclist from a driver who is not observing things as diligently as he should. Those things will, of course, help but road craft alone will not increase conspicuity as much as road craft + Hi Viz. To claim otherwise is simply ignoring the results of the very research that you were quoting earlier........an 8 times reduction in days of work amongst the wearers of Hi Viz.

I agree that cycling does not "need" specialist clothing. It doesn't need lycra, it doesn't "need" special shoes, jerseys, glasses, jerseys, jackets or gloves.....but they can all be useful. Funnily enough though, basic Hi viz is available for just a very few pounds.... far less than many on this site will spend on a jersey.

I stand by my view that Hi Viz has an important part to play in improving our safety. I would also argue, as you raised the subject earlier, that any properly conducted risk assessment by a cyclist would come to the conclusion that Hi Viz can only improve their safety. It is a "win-win" argument.

You are, of course, entitled to your view. My only concern is that others reading your comments may think that, if they wear Hi Viz, then they are identifying themselves as novices and are therefore not "real" cyclists. That is arrant nonsense.