Forum menu
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?
Funnily enough I use lights when it's dark or very murky. As I would if I was driving. My car's grey, btw.
You'll have to explain how a hi-viz makes me more visible in low sun.
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 remember in one case it was something like 8s the cyclist would have been visible for before the collision and the driver said they hadn't seen them.
the wearing of PPE has no effect on their safety compared to all the other factors
Do.you think it is completely irrelevant to the normalisation of cycling?
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.
So has anybody got any suggestions on how to effectively mitigate that risk?
I'm still waiting for the evidence that hi-viz has a safety benefit.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The reason why the stats don't exist is because they are almost impossible to collect. What is known is that hi-viz is more conspicuous, it fires more photons in the direction of the person doing the looking. What isn't known is how much SMIDSY is down to people not looking at all, or whether people don't look properly and therefore miss less conspicuous objects. In my own experience it seems to me that they simply don't look, but I take the view that increasing my conspicuity can never be a bad thing, so I do it anyway. I don't buy the argument that this makes cycling seem more dangerous: it is the attitudes and behaviour of UK car drivers who create the tone.
I wonder if danny has come up with any answers to my question yet?
Seriously mate, can you please put the question up again as I can't find the will to trawl back through all the inane denying of the bleeding obvious.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The reason why the stats don't exist is because they are almost impossible to collect. What is known is that hi-viz is more conspicuous, it fires more photons in the direction of the person doing the looking. What isn't known is how much SMIDSY is down to people not looking at all, or whether people don't look properly and therefore miss less conspicuous objects. In my own experience it seems to me that they simply don't look, but I take the view that increasing my conspicuity can never be a bad thing, so I do it anyway. I don't buy the argument that this makes cycling seem more dangerous: it is the attitudes and behaviour of UK car drivers who create the tone.
That sums it all up very nicely. I assume this is just a pet issue for a couple of the other posters on this thread so they will just argue the toss whatever. What is the real issue, do you just not like how you look in day-glo yellow?
What Imnotverygood says sums it up.
I've a feeling I'm coming from a slightly different commute* to some. I'm lucky (unlucky?) if I'm passed by 10 cars, all A and B roads flanked by hedges and many sections with trees creating a tunnel over them.
Combining this with the low light levels this time of year I'll be doing anything I can to get the drivers behind to spot me even a fraction of a second earlier.
Like the photo I posted with the two horse riders, I know which I'd rather be.
*18km so I'm hopefully allowed to be a little whiffy by the end.
Can you not think of any other possible reasons?
(interestingly that was the question BTW)
Can you not think of any other possible reasons?
Reasons for what? You really are going to have to spell this one out for me.................
You'll have to explain how a hi-viz makes me more visible in low sun.
Picture's worth a thousand words, the suns backlighting them from the right.
[img] http://www.horseaccidents.org.uk/Advice_and_Prevention/Riding_on_the_Road/~/media/BHSMain/Riding/Riding%20Safely/Road%20Safety/hi%20viz.ashx [/img]
My car's grey, btw
Irrelavent, mines a kind of 'british sky blue', but car's are 10x larger and even to the most dim witted car driver generaly where you expect them to be (in the flow of traffic). Whereas bikes tend to come from all directions at any speed. Fitering, overtaking, being overtaken, on the white lines, staying in the outside lane of roundabouts turning right, etc are all perfectly legal, but don't nececeraly put you in the same position as a car and consequently drivers may not always be looking right in your direction, sto standing out like a sore thub and catching their eye is a good thing.
And another asside, plenty of results on google to say some car colours have more accidents than others, happily for this thread, black comes out top, first link i found put it at 10% more accidents in the day, 47% in twilight, negligable at night (headlights negating colours)!
Now if you wanted to make your car stand out whilst filtering past traffic, like we often do on bikes, what would you paint it................
[img] 
[/img]
or...........
[img] 
[/img]
There's a theme emerging there.
I had a textbook SMIDSY the other day. Me heading downhill with right of way, minibus approaching crossroads ahead, trees screening me from sight.
Driver just assumed it was clear and pulled out in front of me, I braked and turned up same road as the van - just staying on bike. Fortunately I'd anticipated and feathered the brakes a bit beforehand.
After shouting at him for a minute or so and him being very apologetic, I calmed down enough to say something like "ok we all make mistakes but please try to take more care". I hope he does.
Nothing I could have worn would have prevented that, but I still try to wear bright-ish clothes when I'm out in rush hour, when there's low sun or if I'm gonna be riding on shady tree-lined narrow lanes.
What other people wear for cycling is up to them, thankfully.
A picture [s]is worth a thousand words[/s] is often deceptive
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The reason why the stats don't exist is because they are almost impossible to collect.
The only evidence I'm aware of is that drivers give you less room if you're wearing hi viz.
Picture's worth a thousand words, the suns backlighting them from the right.
Really? In which case, the picture is extremely misleading as it doesn't look sunny at all.
Irrelavent, mines a kind of 'british sky blue', but car's are 10x larger and even to the most dim witted car driver generaly where you expect them to be (in the flow of traffic).
And yet people keep driving into each other.
And another asside, plenty of results on google to say some car colours have more accidents than others, happily for this thread, black comes out top, first link i found put it at 10% more accidents in the day, 47% in twilight, negligable at night (headlights negating colours)!
So you're saying that we should use lights at night? Any other pearls of wisdom?
Now if you wanted to make your car stand out whilst filtering past traffic, like we often do on bikes, what would you paint it................
Maybe it's just me, but I find a siren and flashing blue lights are the first thing that attract my attention to a police car. In which case, why don't we do that for bikes?
I have given up.
Although we're going round in circles here…
This is a fairly frequent sight around this way at this time of year, and is IMO when wearing some hi vis is only going to improve things for everyone involved.
Feel free to replace the horse for a walker or cyclist. No one is doing anything wrong but the driver is going to make out the rider that fraction earlier.
Again, we're talking lower light levels not bright sunlight but this time of the years its more likely those conditions than not.
The only evidence I'm aware of is that drivers give you less room if you're wearing hi viz.
What evidence is that then?
except so far we've had no evidence to suggest it does make a difference and 1 study to say it makes **** all difference, so far evidence is not on your side (and the victim blamers also stand on your side, you're already in deficit)so you'd be advised to mitigate risk in the absence of a proper enforcement/cultural response to poor driving.
true but even when by some miracle a god awful driver is found guilty the sentence is pretty derogatory.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.
Investigation*, charging** and sentencing*** all seem to stack very well in the drivers favour.
*ever tried getting (fortunately) injury free dangerous driving investigated? Helmet cam footage almost never used.
**obviously dangerous driving so often being downgraded to careless
***kill someone by any other means and see what sentencing would be. Bans running concurrently with jail time so you finish your jailtime and legally get back into a car (supposed to be fixed but hasn't been yet and probably never will be)
Yes, you're 47% mor elikely to be in an accidnet in a black car at dusk, other modes of transport in drab colours may suffer a similar increace.So you're saying that we should use lights at night? Any other pearls of wisdom?
Maybe it's just me, but I find a siren and flashing blue lights are the first thing that attract my attention to a police car. In which case, why don't we do that for bikes?
Are you just arguing for the sake of it, or do you really believe the high vis is there for some other reason than to make the vehicles highly visible. I mean the clues in the name. You're argueing that high vis paint/clothes does nothing to make the object highly visible?
Really? In which case, the picture is extremely misleading as it doesn't look sunny at all.
So it's an example of how high vis is more visible in low light conditions with a low winter sun, it's a very specific example, but it's exactly the conditions most people are commuting in at this time of year. Are you going to argue that you cans ee the rider in blue better than the one in yellow?
I'm sure there's plenty of others but straight off: victim blaming, normalising hiviz as the default for cycling, portraying cycling as a dangerous activity leading to fewer people riding or considering taking it up.What is the real issue, do you just not like how you look in day-glo yellow?
that and the fact most riding gear is dark so often you have to go out of your way to get the day glow stuff
1 study to say it makes **** all difference
That evidence is only loosely related to the argument. It is about overtaking distance. Dr Walker is a lovely chap I'm sure, but his studies are about driver attitudes, not about conspicuity (if you believe his second study) or about helmet wearing/being a woman (in his first.) The problem with both his studies is that they contradict each other. They are also have several methodoligical problems but they are the only studies which [i]seem[/i]to deal with these issues. This means they are easily taken up by people trying to push an agenda and are used to prove points they weren't designed to prove.
...that and the fact most riding gear is dark so often you have to go out of your way to get the day glow stuff
Yeah… [url= http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/jackets-cycle?f=2258 ]not that far though.[/url]
Plus, doesn't everyone "enduro" these days? Surely you've got head to toe fluro kit to ride your mtb at the weekend? 😉
so just the victim blaming on the hiviz side and bugger all actual evidence of eficacy? compelling! someone get me a PPE catalogue.
oh wait, we still have the negatives.
very quick rough count says 10/48 are hiviz/dayglo on page 1 of your link, go you!Yeah… not that far though.
I don't actively avoid getting hivis stuff but the fact that none of my jackets (got 1 gilet) is hiviz suggests either the hiviz lovers [i]always[/i] get there before me or darker stuff is more prevalent (I'll guess - with no evidence as is becoming the norm for this thread - it's the latter) anyway I've got more important things to base my clothing choice on.
oh wait, we still have the negatives.
Well, we have all those people for whom wearing Hi-Viz gives a sense of safety (supported by evidence or not) & who otherwise wouldn't ride on the road in normal clothes. (Not supported by any evidence, but then again neither is your assertion that fear of the road engendered by Hi-viz puts people off). Victim blaming? If it wasn't Hi-Viz there would be something else to blame cyclists for. There are plenty of cases where the cyclist has been lit up like a Christmas tree and still the car driver is exonerated for one reason or another.
The point was there are a good number of jackets (18 at a quick found) on page 1 of CRC available in bright/highly visible colours, delivered to your door with a couple of clicks. Congrats on missing that one.
So no, you don't have to go out of your way to find it. In fact I'd hazard a guess it's available at a number of online cycle stores and maybe even a few LBS too.
Since buying a road bike I've been struck by how much of the decent kit is dark coloured. We can argue all we like about how effective hi-viz is when a driver isn't paying attention, but personally I like being seen.
Earlier this yr I was out on a ride through the Calder Valley and whilst stopped, saw a bunch of riders heading along the valley. Most were in black (overcast February morning) and I was struck by how quickly they blended into the background as I watched - and I was deliberately looking at them.
My road helmet is a Giro in their hi-viz yellow, I have a Sportful black/hi-viz yellow LS jersey, a Morvélo LS jersey that's black with hi-viz yellow stripes up the back and across the chest and arms, I have a VERY yellow (& black) Morvélo jersey as well.
My bike is black and yellow with matching tyres so its a theme!
Best thing ive bought though is some hi-viz yellow shoe covers from Sportful. I saw a rider in deep shade under some trees and his moving hi-viz shoe covers really stood out even though the rest of his attire was black.
It's ok I managed to get a bright green sweaty boil in the bag packamac* for even less than that! However jackets I actually want to spend more than the duration of a short shower in that I own, are all darker. But I never said hiviz wasn't available, did I? But hey nice to see you've dropped the name calling, you've just switched to implying stupidity instead, at this rate we may have you discussing this in a civil manner by the end of the thread.The point was there are a good number of jackets (18 at a quick found)... Congrats on missing that one.
*had forgotten about that when I posted earlier
No, not unavailable, just have to go out of your way to find it. Which you don't really.
By far me favourite jacket is my old Howies long way home, it's black and most of the reflective bits aren't that reflective any more but its waterproof and breathable. I'd pick it up every time to go out on the mtb but to ride into work on grey October morning… I'd rather be a bit less comfortable and a bit more visible.
ok possibly already done this to death but just for clarity for my learned friend:No, not unavailable, just have to go out of your way to find it. Which you don't really.
If I find a jacket I like the fit/price and function of but it's only in a dark colour I'll get that, I won't chose a worse jacket just because it is hi viz.
I still maintain darker stuff is more prevalent than hi viz.
What can I do if drivers shine lasers in my eyes?
I think you're supposed to reach for them.
In my own experience it seems to me that they simply don't look, but I take the view that increasing my conspicuity can never be a bad thing, so I do it anyway.
Nothing I could have worn would have prevented that, but I still try to wear bright-ish clothes when I'm out in rush hour, when there's low sun or if I'm gonna be riding on shady tree-lined narrow lanes.
I'm sensing a theme here...
I'm sensing a theme here...
Yes, there is no research to 'prove it', It doesn't guarantee your safety, but it [i]might [/i]help.Wearing it doesn't bother me so I am completely open-minded without any prejudice for or against. So why not?
Believe it out not aracer, my anecdote was addressed to the original post in this thread - not the subsequent 'debate'.
You seem to be approaching the issue from quite a binary position, which is just as daft as the compulsory hi-vis view IMO.
I'd suggest you reconsider, but I think we all know thats not going to happen.
wear it by all means, it's the "you must wear hi viz or you're an idiot with a deathwish" theme that is counter productive, there's enough cyclists on here who think cycling is a dangerous activity, so everyone constantly banging on about the necessity for hiviz and helmets isn't great for long term cycling prospects. We need more "utility" cyclists, people just grabbing a bike instead of the car keys for a trip to the shops, school run, the 2 miles to work, wherever! The idea that you have to suit up especially for it [b]really[/b] doesn't help with the big picture.Wearing it doesn't bother me so I am completely open-minded without any prejudice for or against. So why not?
Nice DONK (and others)
I'm a utility cyclist.. I don't own a car
I do the shopping, school run twice daily, trips to the beach, to the park, town, visiting family, in fact just about everything that most folk do by car (or on foot 😳 ) I do by bike.. very often with a trailerful of kids..
Generally I'm pretty proud of the way people in my town react to the bike, other road users are very courteous and patient, I'm seeing more trailers and child seats zipping about each year and get great feedback each and every day..
Winter is coming though and after a mean time last year with eff all proper winter wear I'm kitting up this year.. I generally do a bare minimum of 40 miles per week towing the trailer about with no alternative, plus leisure activities and cycling for fun and I want to be fairly comfortable..
But I have noticed that cycling gear is kinda drab, especially at the cheaper end of the market, and today, on the first poor visibility morning we've had down here for yonks I had two car drivers pull out on me, and that was in broad daylight with good lights on the bike (one right outside the local primary school..)
I'll be wearing a high viz vest.. if you think it's 'not helping the bigger picture' that's your lookout, I get your point but with my kids in tow I'm taking every measure available to me
You seem to be approaching the issue from quite a binary position, which is just as daft as the compulsory hi-vis view IMO.I'd suggest you reconsider, but I think we all know thats not going to happen.
OK, I've reconsidered. I still don't think hi-vis will help in the majority of SMIDSYs which should really be SMIDL. I'm not seeing an awful lot of evidence to suggest I'm wrong about that, even from those who seem to think hi-vis is a good idea. Meanwhile the issue is that its promotion is a distraction from other more important things - did you see the one recently where the reaction from some safety partnership to the news of increased cyclist casualties on the roads was solely to recommend hi-vis? 🙄
Well if I'm approaching it from a binary position, what does that say about all those calling people stupid for not wearing it because it's "obvious"?
Come on yunki, I thought I was fairly specific in my last post that I didn't consider that wearing highviz was "letting the side down" - it's the attitude that PPE is pretty much compulsory and cycling is a dangerous activity (fearmongering? that's a popular word at the moment) that I object to.I'll be wearing a high viz vest.. if you think it's 'not helping the bigger picture' that's your lookout
I've been clipped a couple of times and I really don't think high vis would have helped [i]in those few [/i]situations, especially as the last was at night and I was very well lit up, the gormless ****ers just didn't look, there may well be other conditions where it would help - if the driver is actually looking where they are going, I dunno but it's no panacea for shitty driving and it shouldn't be compulsory*
*Yeah ok, I think I'm the only person to use the word in this thread but being called numpty/idiot/etc for not wearing it certainly suggests some think of it as de facto compulsory.
I agree with you D0NK, I don't think it should be compulsory but I'll stand by my point that I think people are foolish if they don't wear hi vis [b]in certain situations.[/b]* It may be that where you're riding there simply isn't that need for whatever reason.
I'm not sure I agree cycling isn't a dangerous activity though, driving a car is definitely a dangerous activity and rightly or wrongly, putting yourself in a similar position but on a bike makes cycling the same.
At the end of the day it's a shared space with cyclists being one of the most vulnerable things in that space. Yes, attitudes should be different, punishments harsher etc and in an ideal world it shouldn't be dangerous but that's not going to make a difference if some gormless idiot** isn't concentrating - the outcome is the same.
Anyways, I've said my bit and will leave it there.
*see, no name calling, happier?
** is it ok here?
Sorry Donk.. no offence meant, I just bristled at the thought that I might be letting the side down..
I didn't fully understand what you were getting at until I re-read your comments
We've talked about getting some of those battery operated fairy lights recently so that the trailer can be literally 'lit up like a Christmas tree'..
In a similar vein, can anyone remember those hi-vis vests that looked at first glance like police vests but on closer inspection just had a witty comment emblazoned on them?
There was some debate over their legality IIRC but I'm happy to risk a slapped wrist for silly behaviour..
Holy Thread Revival!
I came across this Grauniad piece from Clarkson's tweet-gate that sums it up:
That is why I have remarkably little patience for campaigns like the recent one by police in London in which, among other things, officers pulled over cyclists who were not breaking the law to “advise” them to wear high vis jackets. If I’d been on the receiving end of such advice my response would have been pretty robust: it’s not the tiny number of drivers who don’t properly see me that worry me as a cyclist, it’s the significantly greater numbers who do, but just don’t give a damn.
from
Bit like the car driver I had an encounter with on my (rural) commute the other day.
Dry conditions, good light conditions, I'm wearing bright yellow jacket (no backpack) and have two rear lights on, one flashing & one static. I am approaching a road which joins from the left and there is a car coming up behind me. Now, I know that the driver has seen me because he gives me quite a wide berth as he passes me on the right. And then he turns left. By this time I am halfway accross the junction and about level with his rear doors! My only escape was to brake and swerve into the junction with him, luckily I had anticipated his movement by the sound of the gear changes he made. He'd definitely seen me but beyond that who the hell knows what his thought processes were 😯
[b]psling[/b] Sometimes I think people don't realize that bikes can move faster than 5mph:
1. Oh, a bike in front of me!
2. I'll leave a lot of room for him when overtaking.
3. I've overtaken him, so he must be waaaay behind me now! No need to check my mirrors at all!
I had two car drivers pull out on me, and that was in broad daylight with good lights on the bike (one right outside the local primary school..)I'll be wearing a high viz vest.. if you think it's 'not helping the bigger picture' that's your lookout, I get your point but with my kids in tow I'm taking every measure available to me
I had the same a while back. If a driver is not going to spot a large, lime green trailer with an orange flag, then it's difficult to imagine what possible difference a hi-viz vest is going to make.