Forum menu
I preferred the hotdog, Al.
[img] 
[/img]
You're right. I'm wrong. I'm very sorry for wasting so much bandwidth before I realised this.
Some strange views in here.
If people aren't looking then no, they aren't going to see you regardless of what you're wearing.
That being said, good drivers who are aware of their surrounds and watching the road both in front and behind are going to struggle seeing you if you're enough of a prat to commute in dark clothes.
That being said, good drivers who are aware of their surrounds and watching the road both in front and behind are going to struggle seeing you if you're enough of a prat to commute in dark clothes.
Yes, it's a miracle I'm still here, especially considering I don't wear hi-viz when walking, either.
I'd imagine, Ransos, that you walk on the pavement?
If you're walking down the middle of the road with your back to oncoming traffic I'd say you're probably right, it is a miracle.
If I was out walking the dogs down a road without a pavement in anything but the brightest of days I'd be chucking on hi viz.
Risk vs a little effort to not be a complete numpty and all that..
I'd imagine, Ransos, that you walk on the pavement?
Sure, and I cross the road too. Some poor souls get mown down by motorists when doing so - if only they'd worn hi-viz, eh?
Risk vs a little effort to not be a complete numpty and all that..
Yep, wearing a helmet when driving is very little effort.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.. 🙁
No, I'd imagine (no stats to back it up) that these would be more incidents of the pedestrian having not seen the car though. Do yoyu have a breakdown to suggest that pedestrians struck by vehicles are hit because the driver didn't see them or do you think there may be a range of causes, e.g. pedestrian stepping out, driver losing control or other. Cyclists share the carriageway with motorists thus it being more important that the motorist knows you are there. Your smug and oblique responses are not based on any thought having been given to the subject matter and are just an attempt by you to justify your own position re hi viz.
plenty of pedestrians killed on the pavement too don't forgetSure, and I cross the road too. Some poor souls get mown down by motorists when doing so
Road KSI stats certainly contain plenty to be concerned about, not so much fun stuff in there tho 🙁I don't know whether to laugh or cry..
Plenty of stats about head injuries to car occupants, but suggesting helmet use for them is "daft"Your smug and oblique responses are not based on any thought having been given to the subject matter and are just an attempt by you to justify your own position re hi viz.
"normal" stuff like driving and walking (aslong as it is to and from the car) it's accepted that you can do it in your normal clothes, anything else is dangerous and needs special clothing and padding.
where do you get your [s]smartie[/s] generic sugar coated chocolate cookies from jamie? 🙂
No, I'd imagine (no stats to back it up) that these would be more incidents of the pedestrian having not seen the car though.
I'd imagine (no stats to back it up) that you're victim blaming.
Do yoyu have a breakdown to suggest that pedestrians struck by vehicles are hit because the driver didn't see them or do you think there may be a range of causes, e.g. pedestrian stepping out, driver losing control or other.
I suspect there is a range of causes, just as there is when cyclists are hit by cars.
Cyclists share the carriageway with motorists thus it being more important that the motorist knows you are there.
Which is best achieved by the motorist looking where he is going.
Your smug and oblique responses are not based on any thought having been given to the subject matter and are just an attempt by you to justify your own position re hi viz.
It's not up to me to justify anything. If you wish to show how the wearing of hi-viz is necessary for a low-risk activity, with the specific safety benefits, then be my guest.
Going by the number of people knocked of bikes every day I'm not sure I'd call it low risk.
If you don't want to wear hi vis, if you're too cool, down with the kids… whatever… then don't. Not my problem. I'll keep on using a bit of common sense and weighing up the risk of what I'm doing vs the effort I'll take to keep my self safe.
It seems theres a lacking of common sense and an abundance of halfwits regardless of the form or transport.
When I'm driving it's my observation that cyclists wearing high-viz are more noticeable than those wearing all black (or even blue, red etc.)...that is, I pick them up that [i]fraction[/i] of a second earlier. My own observation is good enough for me so I choose to wear flo yellow. You're happy wearing black, fine...no need to be a tool about it.If you wish to show how the wearing of hi-viz is necessary for a low-risk activity, with the specific safety benefits, then be my guest.
Going by the number of people knocked of bikes every day I'm not sure I'd call it low risk.
About the same risk as walking or driving...
If you don't want to wear hi vis, if you're too cool, down with the kids… whatever… then don't.
I don't wear hi-viz because cycling is a) a low risk activity so there's absolutely no need to wear special clothes that make it look dangerous and b) I've yet to see evidence that hi-viz would confer a safety benefit.
I'll keep on using a bit of common sense and weighing up the risk of what I'm doing vs the effort I'll take to keep my self safe.
I'll do the same. See above.
It seems theres a lacking of common sense and an abundance of halfwits regardless of the form or transport.
I couldn't agree more.
I'd imagine (no stats to back it up) that you're victim blaming.
I'm not. Are you saying that anyone involved if anyone is involved in an RTA then the car driver is immediately at fault?
Which is best achieved by the motorist looking where he is going
They're generally not though, are they?
When I'm driving it's my observation that cyclists wearing high-viz are more noticeable than those wearing all black (or even blue, red etc.)...that is, I pick them up that fraction of a second earlier. My own observation is good enough for me so I choose to wear flo yellow. You're happy wearing black, fine...no need to be a tool about it.
Right, so your evidence is a single person's anecdote. If that's your basis for getting dressed up then that tells me all I need to know.
I'm not. Are you saying that anyone involved if anyone is involved in an RTA then the car driver is immediately at fault?
Nope. You were the one making an assertion, remember?
They're generally not though, are they?
If a motorist is not looking where he or she is going, hi-viz can't make any difference, now can it?
Nope. You were the one making an assertion, remember?
In order to have an appropirate response to the risk you need to have an idea of the potential root causes of the incidents don't you? Just saying it's somebody else's fault isn't massigely constructive.
If a motorist is not looking where he or she is going, hi-viz can't make any difference, now can it?
You can assume that they spend a little time looking in their general direction of travel though can't you? Making best use of this brief window of attention is to your adavantage, would you not agree?
In order to have an appropirate response to the risk you need to have an idea of the potential root causes of the incidents don't you? Just saying it's somebody else's fault isn't massigely constructive.
Again, you were making the assertion, not me. In any case, to follow your argument, if pedestrian fatalities/ accidents were always due to them stepping out without looking, wouldn't the motorist stand a better chance of avoiding them if they were wearing hi-viz?
You can assume that they spend a little time looking in their general direction of travel though can't you? Making best use of this brief window of attention is to your adavantage, would you not agree?
Given reasonable visibility, I've never had any trouble spotting a cyclist on the road, regardless of what they're wearing. I'm sure you're aware of the Danish and Dutch accident statistics - and what they wear when cycling.
I'm still waiting to hear why PPE is being advocated for one particular low risk travel activity, but not others that have a similar risk.
[img] 
[/img]
Ransos.
You are clearly a principled person who has the courage of their convictions. You believe in the world as it should be, not as it is. For this, I commend you.
danny, have you managed to think about any of the other reasons why cyclists wearing hi-viz isn't a good idea yet?
Ransos.You are clearly a principled person who has the courage of their convictions. You believe in the world as it should be, not as it is. For this, I commend you.
I have the courage of my convictions because they were shaped by evidence and proportionality. I also think it's a shame that people perpetuate the myth that cycling is dangerous, as I consider that to be a barrier to more bums on saddles, which of course is the single best thing that could happen for our safety.
But hey, it's your choice.
I wasn't offering any evidence, simply countering your demand for such with an observation. I thought the word 'observation' might have been a give-away...Right, so your evidence is a single person's anecdote.
Can I take it from your response ransos, that throughout your life you never make decisions based on your own observations? How odd!
We're all dressed up like dick-heads...a splash of flo yellow isn't going to make any difference. Or are you laboring under the impression that you look dead cool in your black leotard and matching top?If that's your basis for getting dressed up then that tells me all I need to know.
We're all dressed up like dick-heads
What everybody on the entire planet, or just those wearing bike specific clothes? Because it is possible to ride a bike whilst wearing normal clothes you know.
I wasn't offering any evidence, simply countering your demand for such with an observation. I thought the word 'observation' might have been a give-away...Can I take it from your response ransos, that throughout your life you never make decisions based on your own observations? How odd!
I've asked for evidence that hi-viz improves cyclists' safety several times in this thread. The silence is instructive...
We're all dressed up like dick-heads...a splash of flo yellow isn't going to make any difference. Or are you laboring under the impression that you look dead cool in your black leotard and matching top?
When cycling to work, I wear my work clothes. As I would if I was walking and driving.
Again, you were making the assertion, not me. In any case, to follow your argument, if pedestrian fatalities/ accidents were always due to them stepping out without looking, wouldn't the motorist stand a better chance of avoiding them if they were wearing hi-viz?
No. If they could see them they'd just have a better view as they bounced off the windscreen.
Given reasonable visibility, I've never had any trouble spotting a cyclist on the road, regardless of what they're wearing. I'm sure you're aware of the Danish and Dutch accident statistics - and what they wear when cycling.
Good for you, I've made a number of mistakes when driving and had a crash or two along the way happily no one's been hurt and I've done my best to learn from these errors an ama better driver as a result. That's not to say I won't make errors in the future and I'm pretty sure, barring you being superhuman that you can't guarantee the same. We don't live in the netherlands we dont have such high participation rates or drivers with the same cultural outlook or the laws and infrastructure they have either.
Because it is possible to ride a bike whilst wearing normal clothes you know.
Technical fabrics or GTFO!
And constantly portraying cycling as a dangerous activity which needs safety gear certainly won't help with that, will it?We don't live in the netherlands we dont have such high participation rates or drivers with the same cultural outlook or the laws and infrastructure they have either.
Well, Al nearly got cleaned up 3 times in 10 minutes didn't he?
No. If they could see them they'd just have a better view as they bounced off the windscreen.
I've managed to stop my car as a pedestrian stepped into the road. They weren't wearing hi-viz, either.
Good for you, I've made a number of mistakes when driving and had a crash or two along the way happily no one's been hurt and I've done my best to learn from these errors an ama better driver as a result. That's not to say I won't make errors in the future and I'm pretty sure, barring you being superhuman that you can't guarantee the same. We don't live in the netherlands we dont have such high participation rates or drivers with the same cultural outlook or the laws and infrastructure they have either.
The point is that PPE is not necessary to achieve low accident rates, as the Dutch & Danish models tell us. The best thing that can happen is more people riding bikes, and the best way for that to happen is for it to be seen as a normal way of getting from A to B.
And again - even ignoring the potential societal disbenefits, I'm still waiting for the evidence that hi-viz has a safety benefit.
I've asked for evidence that hi-viz improves cyclists' safety several times in this thread. The silence is instructive…
Because no one can be arsed finding facts or figures - if you can't see the obvious benefits of being as visible as possible on the road then there is very little we'll do to convince you otherwise.
When cycling to work, I wear my work clothes. As I would if I was walking and driving.
Funnily the last thing I'd want to do is sit in sweaty clothes after riding into work - never mind subjecting colleagues to this… if I drive in I'll turn the air con on as required.
And constantly portraying cycling as a dangerous activity which needs safety gear certainly won't help with that, will it?
I wonder if danny has come up with any answers to my question yet?
[s]Because no one can be arsed finding facts or figures - if you can't see the obvious benefits of being as visible as possible on the road then there is very little we'll do to convince you otherwise.[/s] I haven't found any evidence to support the assertion, so I'll just repeat it with a hint of ad-hom thrown in
Fixed
woah woah woah, you can call people prat, numpty and halfwit (as you are keen to do jamesfts) but alluding that someone is "the smelly bloke in the office" is beyond the pale.Funnily the last thing I'd want to do is sit in sweaty clothes after riding into work - never mind subjecting colleagues to this
Harrumph!
I've managed to stop my car as a pedestrian stepped into the road. They weren't wearing hi-viz, either.
So when other car drivers hit pedestrians it must be deliberate then?
The dutch and danish models do show us that they are safer places to cycle. Not wearing reflective/hiviz isn't a factor in what makes them safer.
Because no one can be arsed finding facts or figures - if you can't see the obvious benefits of being as visible as possible on the road then there is very little we'll do to convince you otherwise.
"It stands to reason" etc. Seriously, is that the best you can do? If it was as obvious as you claim, then evidence would be a mouse click away.
Funnily the last thing I'd want to do is sit in sweaty clothes after riding into work - never mind subjecting colleagues to this… if I drive in I'll turn the air con on as required.
If you get sweaty after a 2 mile commute, then I can only assume that you're seriously unfit. You should ride your bike more.
So when other car drivers hit pedestrians it must be deliberate then?
You suggested it was impossible to stop if a pedestrian steps out into the road. You are wrong, because I've managed to do it.
The dutch and danish models do show us that they are safer places to cycle. Not wearing reflective/hiviz isn't a factor in what makes them safer.
Precisely: not wearing PPE doesn't make them unsafe.
on a more serious note if [i]everybody knows drivers don't watch where they are going[/i] WTF isn't something being done about it? Check the amount of death by careless/dangerous driving cases the driver says they didn't see the cyclist despite good conditions (or good lighting at night) and the driver "gets away with it"* and quite often drives home from court just to rub salt in.
Half arsed "please try not to kill [i]too[/i] many peds/cyclists" campaigns and the widely adopted "they aren't looking, so make them see you" really doesn't cut it. If you want to reduce road deaths go after the ones doing the damage not getting everyone else to either stay off the roads or armour/hiviz up, it's a shite state of affairs to be in.
*suspended/slap on wrist sentence
Has anyone linked to Dr Ian Walker's study on hi viz and cycling?
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2013/11/26/overtaking-cyclists/
Dr Ian Walker from our Department of Psychology, who led the project and analysed the data, said: “Many people have theories to say that cyclists can make themselves safer if they wear this or that. Our study suggests that, no matter what you wear, it will do nothing to prevent a small minority of people from getting dangerously close when they overtake you.“This means the solution to stopping cyclists being hurt by overtaking vehicles has to lie outside the cyclist. We can’t make cycling safer by telling cyclists what they should wear. Rather, we should be creating safer spaces for cycling – perhaps by building high-quality separate cycle paths, by encouraging gentler roads with less stop-start traffic, or by making drivers more aware of how it feels to cycle on our roads and the consequences of impatient overtaking.
It's overtaking rather than the typical junction SMIDSY but it's actual proper research rather than anecdotes.
I'm sure he did some 'driver perception' stuff too. It basically found that wearing hi viz* means that drivers who would have seen you if you were wearing dark clothes will still see you, just marginally earlier. But seeing a cyclist 10 seconds before you reach them isn't really any different from seeing them 10.5 seconds before you reach them. But he also found that there is the small set of drivers who won't see you regardless.
I'm always amazed when I'm driving on a fast road and spot a cyclist (even those in 'invisible' clothes) ahead by just how long I have until I catch up to them. The excuses trotted out when someone dies "I was distracted for a second by sneezing"/ "I was travelling at 50mph so had no time at all to react" just don't make sense when you're paying attention. I've regularly counted 30 seconds between spotting a cyclist and catching up to them. Imagine closing your eyes for 30 seconds while driving at 50mph...now think about the fact that loads of drivers are essentially doing just that every time you're on the road...terrifying!
*assuming you're not in all matte black on an unlit road in fog, i.e. a 'plausible' range of dull clothes in daylight or dull clothes and legal lights at night.
1. No I didn't, if there's sugffieicnt time and distance -but then if that were the case no on e would get run over (excpet where the driver is negligent) you're suggesting people just arent bothering?
2. No diametric opposite. the wearing of PPE has no effect on their safety compared to all the other factors (I bet some danish/dutch people do wear PPE, if they7 are travelling on higher spped roads etc - We see lots of pictures of people in the towns and cities making short journeys in numbers along low speed, well established routes but for longer distance commutes etc I'd wager some do)
DONK - that's what I'm getting at - the reality on our roads, particulalry for cycle commuting, is different so you'd be advised to mitigate risk in the absence of a proper enforcement/cultural response to poor driving.
on a more serious note if everybody knows drivers don't watch where they are going WTF isn't something being done about it? Check the amount of death by careless/dangerous driving cases the driver says they didn't see the cyclist despite good conditions (or good lighting at night) and the driver "gets away with it"* and quite often drives home from court just to rub salt in.
I'm only guessing but I reckon it's partly to do with the fact that juries in these cases will be made up predominately of drivers. As such they'll always have a nagging thought that "that could be me" and tend to err on the side of the driver rather than the cyclist. There's also the problem that if driving standards really are so low then this low becomes the norm and is the yard stick that bad driving is measured against. Suddenly it's not bad any more, just normal 🙁
Ransos - member[b]Given reasonable visibility[/b], I've never had any trouble spotting a cyclist on the road, regardless of what they're wearing. I'm sure you're aware of the Danish and Dutch accident statistics - and what they wear when cycling.
Countered your own argument there? The thread isn't about good conditions, it's about the low sun/twilight/misty/rain you get at commuing time at this time of year.
And it's cold, possibly raining, I'm going to wear a jacket anyway, why not wear a yellow one?
1. No I didn't, if there's sugffieicnt time and distance -but then if that were the case no on e would get run over (excpet where the driver is negligent) you're suggesting people just arent bothering?
You said:
No. If they could see them they'd just have a better view as they bounced off the windscreen.
That sound like you're suggesting pedestrians can't be avoided if they step into the road. Did you mean something else?
2. No diametric opposite. the wearing of PPE has no effect on their safety compared to all the other factors (I bet some danish/dutch people do wear PPE, if they7 are travelling on higher spped roads etc - We see lots of pictures of people in the towns and cities making short journeys in numbers along low speed, well established routes but for longer distance commutes etc I'd wager some do)
I've spent time in rural Jutland (including cycling), and hi-viz/ helmet-wearing is conspicuous by its absence. There are also fewer cycle paths than you might imagine.