Tips to Make Yourself Visible

[Slick]

One from Ireland.

Wow, how sad was reading that story. Obviously you would never know how you would react unless it happened to you, but I suspect this guy is a much better man than I am.

 

[classic33]

Wow, how sad was reading that story. Obviously you would never know how you would react unless it happened to you, but I suspect this guy is a much better man than I am.

She had done everything to be visible.
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/s...-cyclist-left-unable-to-speak-or-walk.218116/

 

[BoldonLad]

She had done everything to be visible.
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/s...-cyclist-left-unable-to-speak-or-walk.218116/

Very sad.

I may have miss-read the article, but, my understanding, after reading the article is that the cyclist turned right, across the path of the inadequately lit, approaching, car.

I may be wrong.... it has been known

Either way, there are most certainly no winners.....

 

[Slick]

She had done everything to be visible.
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/s...-cyclist-left-unable-to-speak-or-walk.218116/

I didn't read the entire thread, but I can't believe that is what you get for such an offence. Really disgusting.

 

[raleighnut]

And the last post from that thread is worth repeating on this one.

One of those 'skeleton' tops might have similar 'attention grab'.

They do, mind you I must be the only skeleton with a beer-gut.

 

[PaulSB]

It's raining (down here in Devon) otherwise I would be out cycling. On the plus side the forecast is good (sunny if a bit 'fresh') for tomorrow and Wednesday.

Do you disagree with the view that one needs to prove hi viz is not effective for cyclists?

I'm struggling with what you mean here. Are you suggesting hi viz may be a danger to cyclists?

Don't you think that if there were data to prove hi viz is effective for cyclists that this would be easy to find? Think of the commercial benefit to the hi-viz industry.

Yes I think it very odd it is so difficult to find ANY real data to prove the value or effectiveness on colour and/or hi viz in relation to safety for cyclists and in every other situation. Clearly there is a huge financial benefit to proving the effectiveness of both in financial and safety terms. I presume from this your view is the concern would be evidence might prove hi viz is a danger to cyclists?

I'd suggest that the reason why industry uses hi-viz clothing is not for 'operational' reasons but to mitigate the risk/effect of litigation, rather than because its use has proved to offer a 'real' benefit (reduction of accidents). This is the basis of their 'business case': they are not spending money "for the sake of it". In the Risk Management 'bow-tie' this is dealing with the consequence of the 'event' rather than minimising the risk of such an event happening - a measure of interest to a company concerned with the effect on reputation (however unfounded) and litigation. The 'consequence' issue is the reason (warning - off topic - please do not pursue - for illustration only) I wear a h****t: because I don't want my BH and others to say/think (after the event) 'if only'?
In an industrial setting where items may fall from height (eg oil rigs, refineries ime) or where height in passages is restricted it makes sense to mandate the use of a hard hat: good research has shown that the protection such a head cover offers reduces the damage to the worker wearing it.

Absolutely. I didn't suggest industry was spending money for the sake of it. Every company I worked with as a supplier would have some form of "accreditation" manual - a set of rules, guidelines, etc. with which suppliers were expected to comply. Every word in these manuals had one purpose only - to avoid the consequence of accident, product quality, danger to the public etc. The only consequence any of these companies were interested in was £££££s. I used to work in horticulture and there was a period when the "peat issue" was a very hot topic revolving around the extraction of peat from SSSIs. I've never forgotten the day a buyer looked me in the eye and said "I don't care where you get your peat so long as you have invoices to prove it's not from an SSSI" I'm not offering an opinion one or another on industry in this discussion but yes it's entirely clear the use of hi viz is driven by £££££.

Following this through I suggest industry is sufficiently convinced there is a benefit to wearing hi viz which is literally too expensive to ignore. The balance is simple will a company spend more on hi viz than it will lose in compensation ££££s? That is what drives the decision.

 

[Slick]

The thing with industry, they rarely set anything in stone preferring the risk assessment approach making it easier for the executive to bring a successful prosecution should anything go wrong. This is their take on high viz.


http://www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/factsheets/clothing.htm

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 5057975, member: 9609"]No it wouldn't.

On dark unlit country roads hi-reflective is the very very very best thing to wear to be seen by the occasion car that may come along, as a driver you can pick up on it half a mile away easily, and it soon becomes very clear if it is a cyclist, walker, horserider - even for those not concentrating they have so much longer to see it and it is often way brighter than the rear lights.[/QUOTE]
They only have longer to see it on straightish roads and if anyone sees the standard hi vis pattern of two white lines like | | on top of white lines like = and thinks "ah, that's a cyclist" then they've got problems IMO!

As I've mentioned before, a decent tail light is visible much more than half a mile away, so that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. Even a flipping standlight is visible almost that far at first.

 

[mjr]

Following this through I suggest industry is sufficiently convinced there is a benefit to wearing hi viz which is literally too expensive to ignore. The balance is simple will a company spend more on hi viz than it will lose in compensation ££££s? That is what drives the decision.

Follow it further: will they lose ££££s because hi viz works or merely because enough people are convinced it works that they risk losing court cases if they don't have due regard to that view?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/25/3/517/2398658

Thanks but that's not it. It was a description of the different colours suited to the many different backgrounds and lighting situations that showed that any one colour of hi-vis jacket would be ineffective most of the time.

 

[mjr]

Thanks but that's not it. It was a description of the different colours suited to the many different backgrounds and lighting situations that showed that any one colour of hi-vis jacket would be ineffective most of the time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22062342 "Attention and search conspicuity of motorcycles as a function of their visual context"

 

[400bhp]

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...vis-clothing-makes-you-a-safer-cyclist-358674

 

[400bhp]

Interesting reading a little on saccadic masking, which basically explains how we as humans struggle to see everything.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIF3FRwbG6Y

 

[400bhp]

https://www.keithmichaels.co.uk/news/saccadic-masking-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-affect-my-driving/

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Industry rightly puts PPE including hiviz at the bottom of the things to use to manage the risks to their workers. Indeed a worker not wearing hiviz will not exonerate a company from blame. Hiviz and PPE is the less effective measure