Visibility

[mjr]

As happened in my case when I was rear ended by a motorist. As he was coming out of a slip road, ( daytime ) he was looking to his right and failed to see me in my fluro yellow jersey in front of him.

Are you sure he failed to see you, rather than subconsciously deciding "fluro yellow = cyclist (or, worse, static roadworker or sign) = no threat, disregard due to limited processing capacity and instead worry about the approaching threats on the major route"?

 

[mjr]

I did not say hi-viz would stop you getting killed or injured. I said:

cherry picking exceptions was not helpful

Being dressed like an SAS soldier in head to toe black, while cycling in the dark or poor visibility, was not wise.

It depends what the poor visibility is. Clothing is also irrelevant if the bike is correctly lit and reflectored.

I can only assume you think the military and nature have got it all wrong with their attempts to make things less visible?

The military and nature don't agree on a single approach: black, camouflage and dazzle have all been used in different contexts. I'm also unaware of either using bright lights and reflectors while trying to hide.

 

[Dolorous Edd]

Lovely to see someone play the death card, but visibility theatre won't stop you getting killed. You may get seen 20m earlier if drivers are looking but they would see you in plenty of time anyway.

I'll still have the extra 20m. Thanks.

 

[classic33]

Are you sure he failed to see you, rather than subconsciously deciding "fluro yellow = cyclist (or, worse, static roadworker or sign) = no threat, disregard due to limited processing capacity and instead worry about the approaching threats on the major route"?

How can he know, much less be expected to know, what another person was thinking?

 

[mjr]

Will all due respect, I think that is utter tosh. No-one ever got put off riding a bike "because there was too much gear to wear". Most bike stuff you buy has some hi viz on it. If you want to just wear jeans and t-shirt that's fine, but it may be an idea not to dress like a ninja.

Well, "utter tosh" right back at you. What they wear doesn't matter if the vehicle is legal. Most riders don't buy or wear "bike stuff" and people really do say they are deterred from riding if they feel they should have the gear and they either cannot afford it or it is impractical for their destination (no changing rooms and smarter clothing required, for example).

Nor have I ever heard a council state " we were going to improve the roads and build a new bike lane but we spent all the money on a campaign to get people to wear yellow gilets".

How many council meetings about cycling have you been to? I've certainly been told far too often that the cycling budget is going into promotion and education efforts instead of infrastructure, usually because someone believes (possibly correctly) that the budget is not enough to build enough infrastructure to make a measurable difference once motorist engineers have diverted chunks into motoring projects (stunts like resurfacing 100m of A road either side of a cycleway crossing or rebuilding half an expressway roundabout's embankment, to name two recent examples by nearby councils).

I can understand it in a way: it's easy to measure and report to cabinet that X short-life polluting gilets were distributed with Y leaflets at Z events and school indoctrinations, and N people engaged with their video adverts, while the casualty and ridership numbers showing their ultimate ineffectiveness may only become obvious years later (if at all), after cabinet members and officers hope to have been promoted out of the firing line. It's easier to exploit cabinet members' beliefs that shoot like gilets help than educate them.

 

[classic33]

It depends what the poor visibility is. Clothing is also irrelevant if the bike is correctly lit and reflectored.


The military and nature don't agree on a single approach: black, camouflage and dazzle have all been used in different contexts. I'm also unaware of either using bright lights and reflectors while trying to hide.

Infra red reflectives, to avoid being seen at night
https://pincroft.co.uk/infrared-reflective-material/

 

[mjr]

How can he know, much less be expected to know, what another person was thinking?

Thank you for pretty much restating the point of my question(!) How does he know where a driver behind at a junction was looking for the entire approach?

 

[classic33]

It depends what the poor visibility is. Clothing is also irrelevant if the bike is correctly lit and reflectored.


The military and nature don't agree on a single approach: black, camouflage and dazzle have all been used in different contexts. I'm also unaware of either using bright lights and reflectors while trying to hide.

Depends on what they are trying to hide from. Not always just a visual camouflage. Even in nature.

Clutching at straws springs to mind.

 

[classic33]

Stop making stuff up!

Thank you for pretty much restating the point of my question(!) How does he know where a driver behind at a junction was looking for the entire approach?

If this question could be answered by the injured party, in an accident,(what the other party was thinking at the time), accident reports would be very much shorter. And no disputes.

Are you sure he failed to see you, rather than subconsciously deciding "fluro yellow = cyclist (or, worse, static roadworker or sign) = no threat, disregard due to limited processing capacity and instead worry about the approaching threats on the major route"?

 

[BoldonLad]

It depends what the poor visibility is. Clothing is also irrelevant if the bike is correctly lit and reflectored.


The military and nature don't agree on a single approach: black, camouflage and dazzle have all been used in different contexts. I'm also unaware of either using bright lights and reflectors while trying to hide.

True, a single approach is not appropriate, little point in dressing all in black, if you wish to reduce your visibility in a snow covered landscape.

Earlier in this thread, you made great play on the word "invisible". Well, of course people, cyclists etc do not become "invisible" even if they are dressed in camouflage, but, they may become more difficult to see (which, unless I am very much mistaken, is the object of camouflage).

But, in the context of this thread, we are not talking of decreasing a cyclists likelihood of being seen, but, of increasing their likelihood of being seen. It is true there are other factors, not least of which is drivers observation skills. However, personally, I would rather increase my chances of being seen than have to call a "no win no fee" solicitor.

 

[mjr]

However, personally, I would rather increase my chances of being seen than have to call a "no win no fee" solicitor.

But that is a logical disconnect. We cannot show that the wearing conspicuity garb reduces the chances of being hit, and counterexamples of the types posted by cyclists above are plentiful.

I suspect there may even be some benefit from the bike being very visible and the rider being a bit difficult to make out: they might mistake my build for someone with @Drago's physique and decide they value their limbs enough to avoid me.

 

[Alex321]

But that is a logical disconnect. We cannot show that the wearing conspicuity garb reduces the chances of being hit, and counterexamples of the types posted by cyclists above are plentiful.

You may not be able to prove it, and I know that what appears obvious to common sense isn't always correct. But common sense here certainly suggests it may help, and there is no real possibility it will harm.

I don't see any "logical disconnect" in what he said.

I suspect there may even be some benefit from the bike being very visible and the rider being a bit difficult to make out: they might mistake my build for someone with @Drago's physique and decide they value their limbs enough to avoid me.

 

[DaveReading]

Is there any evidence that wearing conspicuity garb increases the chances of being hit?

 

[Dogtrousers]

Clothing is also irrelevant if the bike is correctly lit and reflectored.

This ^

Nothing wrong with a bit of reflective bling. I have absolutely no objection to it and own various things that happen to be reflective. I even have a reflective gilet that I use sometimes for night riding because it takes the chill off and has good pockets. But the lights and reflectors on the bike are what is really important. Everything else is of minor importance.

 

[Milkfloat]

Is there any evidence that wearing conspicuity garb increases the chances of being hit?

This image is one used by a site selling high vis, as you can see the black stands out far clearer than the high vis. I have certainly experinced far worse by high vis clad cyclists and walkers with fields of rape and other crops. I wear black at times for practical reasons, however my commuting bike and winter bike have a lot of reflective on as do my overshoes and cycling bib longs, I don't own any high vis. I commute in normal clothes.