Reflective Paint

[BentMikey]

On the contrary Tynan, the onus is on you to prove that HiViz is necessary and improves safety. It's easy to see a cyclist without HiViz, and almost no-one on the continent wears it, so why here in the UK?

 

[Brock]

Although I'd like to agree with Mikey here I think I probably lean towards the pro Hi-viz camp. It's a close run thing though.
I hate the idea that I should modify my behaviour to allow for driver's inattention, and in doing so actually perpetuate such lax driving. The more a driver expects cyclists to be lit up like Christmas trees in day-glo fluorescents the less he'll be looking for those in 'normal' clothes.
The onus should not be on cyclists to make themselves 'safer' in an environment of bad driving, it should be on drivers to concentrate on the road.
If I am less safe on the road in normal clothing, who's at fault? And who's behaviour should be addressed?

That said, from a purely selfish point of view I think my personal safety is probably slightly increased by wearing some reflective and hi-viz clothing, it might just make my presence known to some speeding chav a second before he looks down to fiddle with his mobile phone.

 

[Piemaster]

My cycling clothing is all dark or black, with reflective seams here and there, and from what I remember most of the other kit on the shelves was as well.
Don't like the idea of riding at night like that and as I'll have a backpack on anyway bought a hi-viz hump. Reckon it should make me reasonably visible day/night, apart from the idiots who wouldn't notice me anyway. Flashy string seems reasonably bright and as it's blue hope it gets the "What is that?" attention from cars, something to catch the eye.
As its on the backpack and thus don't have it on every time I go out, I tend to forget its there anyway, so can't say it brings on any 'risk compensation'. It ain't body armour.

The wire is available here. How about it wrapped around the frame instead of reflective tape? Could even get a certain type of person out of their Novas and onto cycles the 'Chav' biker :-)

 

[Tynan]

so you make bold statements and refuse to back them at all mikey? bravo, are you serious?

everyone complains about drivers not seeing them, you might think hi viz has come about to try and alleviate that mightn't you?

you might think fluorescent reflective gear might be eye catching mightn't you?

do you think lights after dark aren't safer than not?

all that gear in blues and blacks and greys with minimal reflectives is designed to appeal to buyers that want to look cool

whatever, really

 

[BentMikey]

So that means you can't prove that HiViz actually works for cycling safety!!!! Almost no-one in the Netherlands or Denmark uses hiviz, and yet they have far better cycling safety than we do. That implies hiviz does not have a measurable effect on cycling safety.

As we all know some drivers don't see cyclists with lights and hiviz, or indeed even buses. That's because they're either not looking, or do look, and go anyway because it's just a bike. Hiviz isn't going to fix that, and it isn't going to do anything for the majority of drivers that do see us and drive just fine around us.

I'm a light user and believer, as you know. I don't think I want my lights to make it immediately obvious I'm on a bike. I'd rather other road users saw my lights and thought "vehicle" and not be sure exactly what vehicle I was.

 

[summerdays]

So that means you can't prove that HiViz actually works for cycling safety!!!! Almost no-one in the Netherlands or Denmark uses hiviz, and yet they have far better cycling safety than we do. That implies hiviz does not have a measurable effect on cycling safety.

Surely you can't link HiViz and cycle safety in the Netherlands, they have a totally different cycle culture, where the laws are different, more people cycle so are more aware of what cyclists need on the road - space etc.

I have to wear Hi-Viz for work ... so my employers must believe that it is benificial to my safety.

 

[magnatom]

Bentmikey,

I do often agree with what you say on here, but on the subject of Hi-viz I can't find much common ground.

I have never really bought the safety compensation argument. Once I am riding my bike I completely forget what I am wearing and I concentrate on the road. I cycle no different with or without hi-viz.

Cycling on the continent is very different to cycling here. As summerdays has said the culture is very different. Cyclists are actually respected and often have specific segregated lanes to cycle on away from traffic. Where the do interact with vehicles cyclists often have priority. That is certainly not the case here.

It is a fact (I don't have the references and I don't really have the time to search for them) that contrasting colours improve perception of objects, especially in peripheral vision and when the contrasting object is moving. Would you agree Mike that it is possible that wearing a hi-viz in some situation would increase the likelyhood of drivers seeing you compared to not wearing it?

I also don't understand the attitude of not wanting to appear as a bike. I am a bike and I demand respect and the space that a cyclist requires. When I drive a car I expect cars to be capable of certain manouvers. I expect cyclists to be capable of a different set of manouvers. Trying to appear as a car could lead to confusion and possibly the risk of the driver misreading a situation and leading to an accident.

I'm not big into hi-viz, I don't think you need much. but a small amount of hi-viz could help catch an eye at the most vital moment. I can't see how wearing it could harm anyone.

 

[BentMikey]

I don't see that. If visibility is good, then any cyclist is easy to see. If it's not so good, then what will it add over having a good set of lights switched on? My own bikes already have legal reflectors, minus pedal reflectors though. In both cases I don't need to be more visible or distracting.

As for not wanting to be seen as a bike, I see what you're saying, but think of it this way. So many cars pull out on us over the thousands of miles of cycling because they see bike, and think slow, and then are shocked when we're on them in seconds. Being seen as some other vehicle type prevents many of these incidents. I can't really think of too many incidents when overall safety would be reduced by being seen as another faster vehicle type. Perhaps one is a fast A road as someone else pointed out in a previous discussion where it *might* help drivers to realise that they're going to come up on you fast.

Bear in mind though, that behind hit from behind is one of the least common accident types. Most accidents happen at junctions, hence my wanting strong lights that don't make them think bike.

 

[magnatom]

Mike,

The situation I am talking about with the hi-viz is in a situation where a driver doesn't look properly. (shock horror it does happen! ) They may have glanced in your general direction, but not looked properly. In this situation I am certain that a bright yellow against gray blob (or reflective blob) would be more likely to be registered (just enough to cause a hesitation and possibly a second look) more than a black against gray blob. It could just be enough to make a split second difference.

I think being like a vehicle is fine for experienced cyclists like yourself Mike. You probably do act as a vehicle. However, for the masses this probably doesn't help. They are more likely to wobble or veer off to one side or another in a way that a car wouldn't be able to do. If they appeared as a car then this could completely take other drivers by surprise.

I suppose I also don't want to have to blend in. I want to be seen as a cyclist. I am after all proud of the fact that I ditched the car for my commutes! I want others to see me and others cycling in and think, hey, I can do that. Maybe I need a big hi-viz sign attached to my back saying something like 'This is fun, honest!!'

Of course all of this is hypothetical and supposition. In the end I am happy so long as people make an informed choice. At least that indicates that they are thinking 'safety'. That's why I like debates like this, even if it means I think your a nutter to not be wearing some form of hi-viz....

 

[BentMikey]

I see what you're saying, but I really doubt the hiviz will have any effect in that situation. Even if it causes a second thought and I really doubt it will, the driver will already have gone and or assumed you're a workman. I think road position will have one or two orders of magnitude more effect than hiviz. You need to be inside the drivers' narrow field of vision where very little is missed. Outside that tunnel, and you could be a bus for all the difference it will make.

On the lights and looking like a vehicle, I don't understand your point, there's no disadvantage shown.

 

[magnatom]

Outside that tunnel, and you could be a bus for all the difference it will make.

It doesn't matter what they think you are. So long as they notice that you are moving and require further attention.
I'm not a vision expert, but I am fairly certain that peripheral vision is fairly good at detecting high contrast moving objects. Much better to increase your chances of being detected in this way than to reduce your chances, IMO.

On the lights and looking like a vehicle, I don't understand your point, there's no disadvantage shown.

My point is that if you look like a vehicle then it is safest to act like a vehicle. If you do something that a vehicle couldn't do i.e. sudden swerve to the right, then it could catch a following driver out, i.e. overtaking where they assumed that there was little chance of swerving. Obviously we know that cyclists shouldn't be unpredictable, but they often are in a manor that a car could not be. So it is advantageous for a cyclist to look like a cyclist so that drivers can be prepared for the more erratic behaviour that can sometimes occur.

 

[domtyler]

I lean more towards Mikey's stance on high-viz, I really don't think it achieves anything more than making you look like a geeky cyclist dork. Reflectives I am covered with, check. Good lights, check. Great road positioning, check. Good awareness of what's going on around me and danger points, check.

Day glo yellow vests, sorry don't wanna look a tw@t.

 

[magnatom]

I lean more towards Mikey's stance on high-viz, I really don't think it achieves anything more than making you look like a geeky cyclist dork. Reflectives I am covered with, check. Good lights, check. Great road positioning, check. Good awareness of what's going on around me and danger points, check.

Day glo yellow vests, sorry don't wanna look a tw@t.

I'd rather look a twat, than go splat (that could be a campaign slogan!)

Of course I rather think I carry it off well....

 

[gambatte]

Another one with Dom and BM as regards the bright yellow. Got lots of relectives and lights. Only yellow I have is the rain jacket. Thats because its a Ronhill I got for jogging

 

[domtyler]

I'm pretty sure that wearing hi viz does serve to wind up and provoke hostile bullying behaviour from a certain sub section of the road using community too.

I really don't feel the need to be any more visible than I can make myself without it.

I almost forgot the piece of kit that guarantees to get you noticed every time and that is the good ol' AirZound. A hundred times more effective than any day glo vest will ever be.