Is black cycling gear dangerous?

[Recycler]

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

Once more you are misrepresenting unattributed quotes. (Incidently, are you sure that it comes from the Metropolitan Police Force? It looks to me to come from Hendon Publishing in Illinois, USA. http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=207033)

Nobody has suggested that the fluorescent part of Hi Viz gear has any effect at night.

And, No, reflective strips will have no effect in the situation which is described in that quote. However, that is all but irrelevant for the safety of cyclists. Reflective strips, or more correctly retro-reflective strips, work by reflecting light back in the direction from whence it came. In other words, if your car headlights pick up the retro-reflective strips on a cyclist, then that light is reflected back at you. It is the same principle which is used on number plates, street signs, cats-eyes or even white lines on the road.

If a cyclist is lurking in a doorway and is being observed from across the road then he will be no more visible than if he was wearing an old trench coat. But, if the cyclist, as is more likely, is on the road then, when a cars headlights shine on him the reflective strips on his clothing will highlight his presence to the car driver. You must have seen this when you have been in a car.

If you want to understand how reflective strips work then I'll happily go into more detail tomorrow.....I earned my living with the stuff for many years.

I'm off to bed now. Good Night.

 

[marzjennings]

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

No not at all. Hi Viz may make your presence made earlier to the observant driver, but the observant driver is going to see you anyway. It's the unobservant driver, not paying attention, texting or on the phone who needs to be made aware of the cyclist on the road and for them Hi Viz is not going to help.
Plus given the fact that most collisions with cyclist happen in the short distance, at junctions, sharp bends, drive ways where the cyclist may only appear in the driver's peripheral field of view and where most of us are unable discern colour, then wearing something orange, yellow, red or black doesn't make any difference.
The best thing is flashing white and red lights front and rear to hopefully identify your position on the road or ride with the knowledge you're invisible to most drivers.

 

[ufkacbln]

The best thing is flashing white and red lights front and rear to hopefully identify your position on the road or ride with the knowledge you're invisible to most drivers.

This is why HiViz is so laughable.

I have 3,000 lumens of lights atthe front of the trike, and 300 at the back.

If they can't see those (and some don't) then HiViz is pointless

 

[ufkacbln]

Once more you are misrepresenting unattributed quotes. (Incidently, are you sure that it comes from the Metropolitan Police Force? It looks to me to come from Hendon Publishing in Illinois, USA. http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=207033)

Nobody has suggested that the fluorescent part of Hi Viz gear has any effect at night.

And, No, reflective strips will have no effect in the situation which is described in that quote. However, that is all but irrelevant for the safety of cyclists. Reflective strips, or more correctly retro-reflective strips, work by reflecting light back in the direction from whence it came. In other words, if your car headlights pick up the retro-reflective strips on a cyclist, then that light is reflected back at you. It is the same principle which is used on number plates, street signs, cats-eyes or even white lines on the road.

If a cyclist is lurking in a doorway and is being observed from across the road then he will be no more visible than if he was wearing an old trench coat. But, if the cyclist, as is more likely, is on the road then, when a cars headlights shine on him the reflective strips on his clothing will highlight his presence to the car driver. You must have seen this when you have been in a car.

If you want to understand how reflective strips work then I'll happily go into more detail tomorrow.....I earned my living with the stuff for many years.

I'm off to bed now. Good Night.

...and yes it was the Met. In 2010-2011 there were changes to the regulations that apply to HiViz and the US experience was one of those quoted as being pertinent to the decisions. The same arguments existed along with the slightly different concerns over an increasingly paramilitary style of uniform

However once again the stated limitations on efficiency of HiViz are unequivocal. Dismiss it as "misrpresentation" if you find it easier than recognising the facts, but it won't make it any more visible in dark areas no matter how much you wish it to be so, and will not help your narrow agenda.



(By the way will you be adding biomobilty to your explanation of refectives and how studies have shown that ankle and wrist reflectives are more efficient than HiViz jackets?)

 

[Recycler]

No not at all. Hi Viz may make your presence made earlier to the observant driver, but the observant driver is going to see you anyway. It's the unobservant driver, not paying attention, texting or on the phone who needs to be made aware of the cyclist on the road and for them Hi Viz is not going to help.
Plus given the fact that most collisions with cyclist happen in the short distance, at junctions, sharp bends, drive ways where the cyclist may only appear in the driver's peripheral field of view and where most of us are unable discern colour, then wearing something orange, yellow, red or black doesn't make any difference.
The best thing is flashing white and red lights front and rear to hopefully identify your position on the road or ride with the knowledge you're invisible to most drivers.

Yes, we've seen those arguments several times already but we are trying to support our different views with research, hard statistics and real evidence in this thread.

Can you provide the evidence to support your assertions?

 

[Recycler]

...and yes it was the Met. In 2010-2011

Do you have either a reference or the link to that? I'm interested to see what the change in regulations was.

(By the way will you be adding biomobilty to your explanation of refectives and how studies have shown that ankle and wrist reflectives are more efficient than HiViz jackets?)

Yes, biomobility aids conspicuity but I think it is probably muddying the water to add yet another aspect to a discussion which is mainly about the pro's and con's of Hi Viz per se.. I'm not sure that it is specifically more efficient than jackets, rather than a useful addition. Which studies are you referring to?

FWIW Biomobility is not necessarily on just ankles and wrists. Wrists provide little biomobility (except in the important case when hand signals are being made). Biomobility is also achieved by the reflectors on pedals.....which is probably why it is compulsory on new bikes.

But I do agree. Biomobility is a useful benefit of the Hi Viz provided by reflectors at night.

but it won't make it any more visible in dark areas no matter how much you wish it to be so, and will not help your narrow agenda.

Do you understand how the interaction between car headlights and reflective materials works? I suspect from that comment that you simply don't understand it.

 

[Recycler]

This is why HiViz is so laughable.

I have 3,000 lumens of lights atthe front of the trike, and 300 at the back.

If they can't see those (and some don't) then HiViz is pointless

So you are arguing that we need do nothing to improve our visibility because the problem is that drivers simply don't look properly but at the same time you light yourself up like a christmas tree so that they can see you?.
Do you see the contradiction?

Perhaps you just don't like Hi Viz and are trying to rationalise that belief? There's nothing wrong with that other than the fact that you may persuade others to not wear Hi Viz when perhaps they would benefit by using it.

 

[RAYMOND]

Yes if your cycling in the dark.

No if your cycling during the daylight hours.
If a vehicle driver can't see a object (cyclist) in front of them then they shouldn't be on the road with there eyesight.

 

[ufkacbln]

We could try the Dft and their work..

38% of accidents involving vehicles had failing to look as a contributory factor and 17% failing to correctly assess speed or path, followed by another 8% where the driver was too close.

How does HiViz help in this 63% of incidents?

 

[Alun]

If a vehicle driver can't see a object (cyclist) in front of them then they shouldn't be on the road with there eyesight.

No they shouldn't, but they are, so you have to act accordingly.

 

[ufkacbln]

So you are arguing that we need do nothing to improve our visibility because the problem is that drivers simply don't look properly but at the same time you light yourself up like a christmas tree so that they can see you?.
Do you see the contradiction?

Perhaps you just don't like Hi Viz and are trying to rationalise that belief? There's nothing wrong with that other than the fact that you may persuade others to not wear Hi Viz when perhaps they would benefit by using it.

You are again making what is posted fit your own agenda

Let me make this really really simples.

The reason I use lights on my bike, incredible though it may seem is to see the roads and paths ahead of me!!!!!!!!!

Your fixation is becoming tedious.

HiViz does not work in the majority of situations where driver complacency, misjudgement or failure to take simple steps is involved.As for the ridiculous statement:

Perhaps you just don't like Hi Viz and are trying to rationalise that belief? There's nothing wrong with that other than the fact that you may persuade others to not wear Hi Viz when perhaps they would benefit by using it.

It is called informed choice and is only an anathema to those who are so entrenched in an unproven and unprovable case.

 

[Alun]

We could try the Dft and their work..

38% of accidents involving vehicles had failing to look as a contributory factor and 17% failing to correctly assess speed or path, followed by another 8% where the driver was too close.

How does HiViz help in this 63% of incidents?

Are you referring to table 7-6 of that document?

 

[captain nemo1701]

Cycle clothing obviously follows the philosophy of Mr Ford and the saying that 'you can have any colour you like as long as it's black'. Still, Nightvision kit is pretty visible.

 

[ufkacbln]

Are you referring to table 7-6 of that document?

Yes.

There are some flaws in the compilation and whether reporting is complete, but it is an interesting analysis of the contributory factors when the vehicle is "at fault"

 

[PK99]

We could try the Dft and their work..

38% of accidents involving vehicles had failing to look as a contributory factor and 17% failing to correctly assess speed or path, followed by another 8% where the driver was too close.

How does HiViz help in this 63% of incidents?

38% of accidents involving vehicles had failing to look as a contributory factor : Hi viz may be more likely to be seen in peripheral vision

17% failing to correctly assess speed or path : The more visible a potential hazard the easier it is to track

8% where the driver was too close : when passing, cyclist is out of the forward cone of optimum vision and in peripheral vision, Hi viz may make the cyclists distance more apparent