Tips to Make Yourself Visible

[400bhp]

What all this is saying to me is that the risk factors surrounding bike safety is extremely complex. We can mitigate some risks ourselves but some of them are ones we have no control over. I think driverless cars will eventually be a beneficial thing for cyclists but there's a way to go until we get to that point.

Personally I wear a helmet, don't wear hi viz from choice (I do have hi viz kit but that's because it was genenrally cheaper), use reflective bands and clothing, use lights, choose the roads I cycle on and aim to use road positioning to mitigate those risks.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

A lot of SMIDSY incidents could be avoided or reduced in severity if some cyclists slowed down a bit and took more care. Some of the idiots I see in London seem to think they're competing in the Tour de France and are clearly road racing against fellow cyclists. It's not just cars vs bikes either - I've witnessed SMIDSY collisions where all the parties involved were cyclists; one idiot pulling out of a junction without looking, and the other idiots tearing along in a heads-down position at excessive speed so unable to swerve or stop in time.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

A lot of SMIDSY incidents ....; one idiot pulling out of a junction without looking, and the other idiots tearing along in a heads-down position at excessive speed so unable to swerve or stop in time.

So one idiot failing to look, to exercise an appropriate degree of care, to give way to another road user and other non idiots getting a spot of victim-blame for riding a bike fairly normally then....?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

A lot of SMIDSY incidents could be avoided or reduced in severity if some cyclists slowed down a bit and took more care. Some of the idiots I see in London seem to think they're competing in the Tour de France and are clearly road racing against fellow cyclists. It's not just cars vs bikes either - I've witnessed SMIDSY collisions where all the parties involved were cyclists; one idiot pulling out of a junction without looking, and the other idiots tearing along in a heads-down position at excessive speed so unable to swerve or stop in time.

It only seems like Tour de France speeds because your average speed in a vehicle is now below 7mph.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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

That's good but it's not right.
Jeez, I think I'm turning into Roy Walker here...

 

[classic33]

That's good but it's not right.
Jeez, I think I'm turning into Roy Walker here...

Did it get linked on here? Say what you saw.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Did it get linked on here? Say what you saw.

Can't describe it much better than I already have in previous posts. It was, if I remember correctly, a quote from research - can't recall if it linked to the source.

 

[PaulSB]

I was driving tonight on an unlit section of road with pavement on the opposite side of the road. The local running club were out in force using the pavement. All were wearing white lights of a good but not blinding intensity, no flashing or strobe effect.

As I got closer I could see all were wearing orange or yellow jackets.

I saw the lights from a long way off, I was almost level with them before I saw the jackets.

As I posted earlier lights, properly used, are without doubt the best way to be visible

 

[Ajax Bay]

Use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and risk of crashes involving other road users: Population based case-control study
Conclusion (my emboldening)
This study found no evidence that cyclists using conspicuity aids were at reduced risk of a collision crash compared to non-users after adjustment for confounding, but there was some evidence of an increase in risk. Bias and residual confounding from differing route selection and cycling behaviours in users of conspicuity aids are possible explanations for these findings. Conspicuity aids may not be effective in reducing collision crash risk for cyclists in [cities] highly-motorised environments when used in the absence of other bicycle crash prevention measures such as increased segregation or lower motor vehicle speeds.

Also this:
The influence of a bicycle commuter's appearance on drivers’ overtaking proximities: An on-road test of bicyclist stereotypes, high-visibility clothing and safety aids in the United Kingdom

 

[jefmcg]

Use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and risk of crashes involving other road users: Population based case-control study
Conclusion (my emboldening)
This study found no evidence that cyclists using conspicuity aids were at reduced risk of a collision crash compared to non-users after adjustment for confounding, but there was some evidence of an increase in risk. Bias and residual confounding from differing route selection and cycling behaviours in users of conspicuity aids are possible explanations for these findings. Conspicuity aids may not be effective in reducing collision crash risk for cyclists in [cities] highly-motorised environments when used in the absence of other bicycle crash prevention measures such as increased segregation or lower motor vehicle speeds.

Ahem

here's the study

It's the study this thread has been looking for

Highlights

• There is conflicting evidence as to whether use of conspicuity aids is associated with a reduced risk of a crash in cyclists.
• This matched case-control study included cases attending an emergency department following a cycling collision crash.
• There was no evidence of a reduced risk of a crash associated with use of conspicuity aids and some evidence of an increased risk, but this may reflect biases and residual confounding.
• Further research is needed to evaluate bicycle crash prevention measures.

 

[PaulSB]

I’m far from an expert in how to understand these studies. I find it impossible to understand how a highly visible cyclist is just as likely to be hit by a driver as one almost invisible by dressing all in black at night without lights.

Logic says if something is more visible one is more likely to see it. Now that may not change driver behaviour but it must give out some sort of valuable warning?

Sometimes I feel it’s possible to prove anything! Surely there are too many variables and unquantifiable influences to reach such conclusions by analysing accidents and comparing these with non accidents? Or is this just a case of statistics proving something when commonsense would offer the opposite conclusion?

 

[Tin Pot]

ILogic says ...

It’s the difference between science and logic.

Once you’ve grasped that, you’ll be fine.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I’m far from an expert in how to understand these studies. I find it impossible to understand how a highly visible cyclist is just as likely to be hit by a driver as one almost invisible by dressing all in black at night without lights.

Logic says if something is more visible one is more likely to see it. Now that may not change driver behaviour but it must give out some sort of valuable warning?

Sometimes I feel it’s possible to prove anything! Surely there are too many variables and unquantifiable influences to reach such conclusions by analysing accidents and comparing these with non accidents? Or is this just a case of statistics proving something when commonsense would offer the opposite conclusion?

Yeah, it's obvious, common sense innit?

 

[PaulSB]

Well I half expected those remarks

I’ve even googled the “difference between logic and science.” Living with a health professional I’m more than familiar with the “show me the research” response when something she considers wrong comes up. I do appreciate science gives proper answers to measurable problems.

On the question of cyclists conspicuity I feel you might as well research how many people walk in to a table in a darkened room if they don’t turn the light on!!

Recently my wife failed to see me on a main road and pulled out in front of me. When I told her about this her response was “your shirt isn’t bright enough.” I know what she would say if I showed her this bit of research

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Recently my wife failed to see me on a main road and pulled out in front of me. When I told her about this her response was “your shirt isn’t bright enough.” I know what she would say if I showed her this bit of research

That's her excuse not her reason.

She didn't see you because she wasn't looking. She wasn't looking because she probably drives/rides in a state of unconscious competence and evolution has wired her head up in such a way that half of us, well...

.