Here it is in English:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528
The reporting bias in this study is huge. To start with, people applied to be part of this study. This suggests that they have a strong interest in cycling safety. They are not representative of the general population and are motivated to find the jackets are safer.
That's part of the problem.
The hi-vis group saw 48% less personal injury accidents, adjusting for adherence hi-vis could theoretically lead to as high as a 60% reduction.
In theory so could wearing a non-High-vis clown costume.
The bigger problem is that the test was performed in Denmark and doesn't take account of the novelty factor. It is far less common to wear High-vis, helmets, etc than it is other places.
A major factor in accidents is 'look but not see.' The driver's eye takes in the cyclist but doesn't register them. If there is something unusual about the cyclist there is more chance of the brain registering something unusual and actually 'seeing' the cyclist.
The study itself says as much but without mentioning 'look but not see':
The external validity of the experiment is challenged by the fact that the effect is assumed to change if the environment changes. For instance, the effect will most likely decrease if an increasing number of cyclists start using a bright-coloured bicycle jacket because the jacket will not attract as much attention when more cyclists use it.
In order for this study to be valid they have to do something about the inherent bias in the selection of participants and the reporting.
They also have to repeat it somewhere where high-vis is less of a novelty. Or perhaps a third group should be included with some sort of visually distinctive feature (it might be difficult to get people to ride in a clown costume for a year) in order to account for the novelty factor in the 'look but not see' issue.
And I don’t see anything in the study (I can read Danish) that tries to shift responsibility over to the cyclist, to me that’s a strawman argument against a good faith study.
I find it extremely suspicious when someone funds a study that seems to be pushing the idea that cyclists should bear more responsibility for their own safety. Especially when they seem to have found the magic bullet. They always seem to be pushed by people who are trying to sell something or who are trying to get people off their bikes and into their cars.
Finally, it's very irresponsible to go around saying that this study proves that high-vis reduces your likely-hood of an accident by 47% and maybe as high as 60%. You are basically giving drivers yet another excuse when they hit someone (drivers have plenty of excuses already).
Please stop pushing this as fact until more studies have been performed that address the issues in this one. You're making the roads more dangerous for all of us.
bigger problem is that the test was performed in Denmark and doesn’t take account of the novelty factor. It is far less common to wear High-vis, helmets, etc than it is other places.
Data please.
In theory so could wearing a non-High-vis clown costume.
Yes, probably not a bad idea. Even better, a hi-vis reflective one.
They also have to repeat it somewhere where high-vis is less of a novelty. Or perhaps a third group should be included with some sort of visually distinctive feature (it might be difficult to get people to ride in a clown costume for a year) in order to account for the novelty factor in the ‘look but not see’ issue.
They don't have to, but great if someone else does, this is so far the best study we have on the topic.
In order for this study to be valid they have to do something about the inherent bias in the selection of participants and the reporting.
Doesn't invalidate the findings whatsoever. In fact is should relate more to the crowd here on STW which I assume is somewhat safety minded.
I find it extremely suspicious when someone funds a study that seems to be pushing the idea that cyclists should bear more responsibility for their own safety. Especially when they seem to have found the magic bullet. They always seem to be pushed by people who are trying to sell something or who are trying to get people off their bikes and into their cars.
Finally, it’s very irresponsible to go around saying that this study proves that high-vis reduces your likely-hood of an accident by 47% and maybe as high as 60%. You are basically giving drivers yet another excuse when they hit someone (drivers have plenty of excuses already).
Please stop pushing this as fact until more studies have been performed that address the issues in this one. You’re making the roads more dangerous for all of us.
No, they don't claim it's a magical bullet, they found using highly visible colors really help drivers see you in daylight. Not that shocking, but interesting the effect size was as big as it was and not say in the 10-30% range which some (incl me) may assume. To think drivers will a) read this study and b) use it as excuse to drive more recklessly is frankly so paranoid I needn't argue against it. You're making the road more dangerous for yourself by not wearing something hi-vis, I suggest a clown costume.
Data please.
https://cyclingindustry.news/london-has-highest-helmet-use-in-europe-netherlands-almost-zero/
The researchers noted that, along with London’s high helmet use, there was also a correlation with high levels of high-visibility clothing, suggesting London’s cyclists have a higher perception of danger on the roads around them. 60.9% of London cyclists observed wore a helmet.
Or just look at literally any video on youtube of people cycling in Copenhagen. If you wear high vis you stand out like a sore thumb. In London you don't.
this is so far the best study we have on the topic.
What you mean is that this is the study tells you what you want to hear. It's not the only study out there and certainly not the best.
https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/25/3/517/2398658
Doesn’t invalidate the findings whatsoever. In fact is should relate more to the crowd here on STW which I assume is somewhat safety minded.
By having your participants apply to be part of the study it, without question, reduces the validity of the results. For one thing, all the participants in both the test and control group got a high-vis jacket at the end of it. If some of the participants are taking part because they are going to get a free high-vis jacket you would imagine they were keen on the idea to start with.
No, they don’t claim it’s a magical bullet,
Something that would reduce the number of car/cyclist collisions by 60% is a magic bullet.
To think drivers will a) read this study and b) use it as excuse to drive more recklessly is frankly so paranoid I needn’t argue against it.
Yeah, you're living in fantasy land now. Why do you think when the AA polled it's members they unsurprisingly found that the number one way to improve cyclist safety was to have all cyclists wear helmets?
Drivers will use absolutely any excuse to avoid responsibility for killing or injuring cyclists. The sentences handed down to drivers who kill and injure cyclists are laughable. A large reason for this is that there's an attitude that cyclists are somehow asking for it.
Not wearing a helmet or high vis is somehow used as a mitigation when it really isn't. You are helping this justification by repeating your ridiculous 'could be as high as 60%' statement.
Cyclist safety will only improve with better infrastructure and a change in driver's attitudes, not a magic bullet.
Not the right data.
What you mean is that this is the study tells you what you want to hear. It’s not the only study out there and certainly not the best.
You're comparing two observational studies with a randomized controlled one and claim they are "better".
Cyclist safety will only improve with better infrastructure and a change in driver’s attitudes, not a magic bullet.
You're claiming a ridiculous dichotomy, cycling safety will improve with both. This is like saying that a RCT study showing 50% reduction in cancer rates from eating a broccoli a day should be ignored because it's shifting responsibility onto the individual to eat healthier, and will make drug companies not invent better cancer drugs.
Maybe the UK is some sort of dystopia full of evil drivers, but your claims seem so excessive they border on paranoid. I'm pretty sure drivers also want better infrastructure to keep cyclist out of "their way". I guess drivers in Denmark will now start driving like maniacs after this study came out, only they didn't, so much for the attitude point.
I actually didn't "want" this result to be as strong as I'd prefer to keep riding in my black outfit and detest hi-vis.
I don't necessarily wear hi-viz all the time but I do go for jerseys in light colours. The only black one I have is a Gabba and I tend to stick an orange wind vest over that for visibility. Mind you I can't help thinking - why aren't all cars fluorescent yellow?
Not the right data.
Because it doesn't support your argument?
You’re comparing two observational studies with a randomized controlled one and claim they are “better”.
Yes, there are pluses and minuses in all processes but your prefered process is so biased it's results are pretty much useless.
You’re claiming a ridiculous dichotomy, cycling safety will improve with both. This is like saying that a RCT study showing 50% reduction in cancer rates from eating a broccoli a day should be ignored because it’s shifting responsibility onto the individual to eat healthier.
You mentioned something about a strawman argument earlier. I meant to say it at the time but I don't think strawman argument means what you think it means.
What you just said there is a pretty good example of a strawman argument.
But anyway, if it turns out your 60% number is correct then we should probably all start wearing high-vis.
However, the 60% number is almost certainly not correct. It's a distraction to the real solution which is infrastructure and driver attitudes.
Unfortunately useful idiots in the cycling community continue to do the motoring lobby's job for it by keeping the focus on high-vis and helmets.
It would be a strawman argument if you didn't imply we should only focus on motorist attitudes and infrastructure.
Yes, there are pluses and minuses in all processes but your prefered process is so biased it’s results are pretty much useless.
Yes the study is useless because you linked to two observational studies that fit what you believe better? Keep in mind I didn't believe / want to belive the result of the Danish study.
The 60% number is likely ballpark correct compared to wearing muted everyday clothing like most danes do (black, earth colors), it very well may be less in London where hi-vis is more normal, but I wouldn't be my life that this negates a 40-60% effect. So yes, you should wear something high visibility in daylight (and something reflective at night), at least until we have totally separate bike lanes (danish drivers are well behaved, but even there they saw a > 2% bodily injury accident rate / year in normal clothes). The end.
It would be a strawman argument if you didn’t imply we should only focus on motorist attitudes and infrastructure.
Until we find another factor that we know is going to improve cyclist safety we should only focus on infrastructure and driver attitudes.
Once your high vis clothing is proven to improve safety we can focus more on it. It is nowhere close to being proven.
The strawman comes into it because you chose to make a brocolli analogy rather than argue against the real issue which is that there is little evidence that there is any benefit to high-vis clothing. There is your study with it's very questionable methodology and a bunch of other studies that contradict it.
Stop pretending it's a proven fact.
The 60% number is likely ballpark correct compared to wearing muted everyday clothing like most danes do (black, earth colors), it very well may be less in London where hi-vis is more normal, but I wouldn’t be my life that this negates a 40-60% effect.
That's your theory. It's fine to have theories. My theory is that you'd be better off wearing a clown costume. There is about as much evidence out there for both our theories.
So yes, you should wear something high visibility in daylight
If people want to wear high-vis they should go ahead and do that. If people don't they shouldn't and they should not be seen as irresponsible until there is some actual evidence that there is a benefit to it.
Until then please stop doing the motoring lobby's job for them. They are doing more than enough damage by themselves.
There is your study with it’s very questionable methodology and a bunch of other studies that contradict it
Stupid danes doing such a totally useless study, you should suggest an improved methodology for them! Or perhaps Aarhus university was paid of by the Danish motoring lobby and/or hi-vis manufacturers?!
So what clown costume do you want to wear?
Stupid danes doing such a totally useless study, you should suggest an improved methodology for them! Or perhaps Aarhus university was paid of by the Danish motoring lobby and/or hi-vis manufacturers?!
So what clown costume do you want to wear?
I think you're getting upset now so let's just leave it there, shall we?
Not at all - just want to see your preferred clown costume :o)
I understand why cyclist's don't want to be made blamed for accidents casused by poor driving and poor infrastructure
But at the same time i'm quite bothered by how many cyclist's seem happy to ride in an outfit that makes them hard to see. I've seen riders all dressed in black in fog with no lights. I'm happy to support people having a choice about what they wear. But i worry that the don't make us wear hi viz argument has led to behaviour that puts cyclists at risk
I’ve seen riders all dressed in black in fog with no lights. I’m happy to support people having a choice about what they wear. But i worry that the don’t make us wear hi viz argument has led to behaviour that puts cyclists at risk
Are you talking about at night time?
If so, that's a bit different to what we're discussing here. Reflective stuff and lights makes sense in low light conditions just in terms of driver's eyes being able to detect your presence.
During the day I don't think the issue is that driver's eyes aren't good enough to see, it's the look but don't see problem which has been thoroughly documented.
https://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
That's why I suspect that in the case of this study it's the novelty factor that makes drivers take particular notice of an unusual looking cyclist rather than the high-vis making it easier for the eye to detect the cyclist.
Somewhere where most people wear high-vis during the day (like in London) I suspect the effectiveness of high-vis is greatly diminished and possibly non-existent because drivers brains are used to seeing florescent yellow everywhere so it doesn't cause the eye to stop mid-scan.
In low light conditions reflective gear and lights is a no-brainer (and a legal requirement). High-vis during the day needs more research and a better understanding of what the actual problem is.
And it certainly shouldn't be anywhere near better infrastructure and driver attitudes in terms of priorities for road safety.
@BruceWee - I agree with the thought that people are too used to seeing lumi yellow, and actually standing out requires other colours.
See my approach.
Mind you I can’t help thinking – why aren’t all cars fluorescent yellow?
I seem to remember some data a few years back where black, dark grey etc,. cars were involved in more accidents. Don't have the data, didn't study it as the data in this thread has been and so on but worth looking into if you are really interested.
I found the far higher incidence of single accidents (accidents not involving another vehicle) in the control group more surprising.
Yes, me too. Can anyone suggest an explanation? I wonder if self-selection is a factor here.
Yes, me too. Can anyone suggest an explanation? I wonder if self-selection is a factor here.
The authors of the paper suggest a reason and claim to have corrected for it. I've only skim read. I can see other possible reasons: every time I go on my bike with my safety jacket I am reminded it is dangerous and subconsciously take more care; wearing the yellow jacket puts me off cycling so I don't ride as much; the definition of single person accidents was sufficiently vague that if I swerve to avoid someone but don't his them I am recording as a single person accident and the jacket reduces those.
I do think it is a leap to assume that the data would be transferable to the UK. It is interesting though - as it clearly suggests that a large part of the "Danish problem" is not seeing rather than not looking. Given there were still accidents perhaps no all of the problem. As others have noted cycling is different in Denmark and the UK. I don't think anyone else has noted that at many cycle path - road intersections the cyclist will have right of way, that could also be important, to my mind if you have look to give way and don't see someone that is a risk. In the UK without our backwards approach of cyclists almost always giving way at those crossings it would be more important for cars to be visible!
To add some anecdote probably biased by having read this thread yesterday - on my drive to the tip yesterday I was travelling along a 3/4 mile long fairly straight road with multiple parked cars, pedestrian and moderate traffic. At about 1/2 a mile I see a cyclist ahead wearing a red jacket or top. By the time I get to ~ 1/4 mile I can see he is not alone and has another rider with him who is mostly in black but has a red frame and some red on his helmet. His top wasn't black buy was a dark colour (dark blue/grey). Only when I was about 100m away at most did I realise there was actually a third rider in the bunch who was all in black, with a black frame, black cycling shoes etc. There are people who will rightly say its the drivers responsibility to spot the cyclist - this study is just validating one method of doing that is bright clothing.
I think it would have been a better study if they had given different designs (e.g. black, red, yellow, black/white striped jackets) so the subjects all had the same level of inconvenience and the importance of yellow would be more apparent - the headlines are hi-vis helps but actually its just "visibility"! Even then it may not be that transferable to other countries where hi-vis is prevalent amongst people on pavements, delivery drivers etc. What I do "notice" round here is runners (on road not pavement) wearing a kind of washed-out neon yellow that camouflages very well with the foliage at certain times of year.
Are TrygFonden a jacket manufacturer? It looks to me as though they are more like RoSPA? I think the other thing that is not clear is did they commission the study or did the authors design the study then ask them to fund it.
The one thing cyclists need to remember when considering visibility is that motorists still manage to crash into trucks they didn't see...
See my approach.
Putting the wife between yourself and any potential accident is pretty inspired
I call total bullshit on the drivers excuse of being so used to seeing lumi-yellow, being a thing.
Lumi Yellow is only any good at increasing visibility if it increases contrast against the background. That is why the RAF paint their training aircraft black to improve contrast against the sky, they found that red is actually the worst colour, which make the Red Arrows doubly impressive or dangerous depending on your point of view. In my experience as a driver, in daylight hours cyclists in bright pink and orange are visible from much further away than the black ninjas who can be almost invisible against freshly laid tarmac, depending on the time of year neon yellow can be worse than black as it tends to blend in with the fields and hedgerows.
Thats why I don't wear hi-viz yellow kit in daylight in the countryside where the background is often lush green fields and hedges, instead pink or orange are my preference, admittedly it is pretty hard finding men's kit in fluo pink.
I call total bullshit on the drivers excuse of being so used to seeing lumi-yellow, being a thing.
I don't think we know enough yet to call bullshit on anything. It seems certain that during daylight hours Saccadic masking plays a significant role in accidents.
What I haven't seen is too much information on what causes the brain to register something unusual mid-scan and cause attention to be diverted back towards the hazard.
I'd like to see more research to give us a better understanding of what minimises saccadic masking and then apply the findings to more targeted research into how this would apply to road safety.
There is a guy who has made it his life's work to look at safety for motorcyclists and especially why they are hit by other road users. He looks at studies carried out all over the world and lectures on it. The parallels between bicycle visibility and motor cycle visibility are clear.
These are his conclusions:
https://scienceofbeingseen.org/conclusion-what-could-work/
In particular:
CONCLUSION SIX – In daylight, light intensity and background constantly change so we must understand that any colour of clothing may stand out or blend in from moment to moment. We should consider changing hi-vis colour depending on where we ride and seaso. We should avoid hi-vis clothing that creates disruptive camouflage effects and adopt single-colour clothing, ideally matching the bike in order to present a quasi-human shape to the observer.
When I attended one of his lectures (Biker Down, set up with Kent Fire and Rescue to reduce the number of KSI's involving motorcyclists), he showed several photos of riders who had put flashes of reflective tape on their bikes and clothing. This just causes disruptive camouflage. He made the point that you need to create a silhouette that "looks" like a human on a bike. If the human brain isn't sure what it is looking at, it freezes and takes no action. If it sees something it regards as recognisable and human the thought process is much quicker so better decisions are made.
For hi vis the colour is critical. In urban areas, yellow works OK, in rural areas in autumn it's like wearing camouflage. He showed us this photo:
[img] 
[/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2mxi8M9 ]hi vis1[/url]
The most effective colour to wear is pink. Most of you won't like that. But anecdotally since switching to wearing only pink on the road I have far fewer issues with people pulling out on me. As far as the close pass is concerned, hi vis probably makes no difference. The driver has seen you but for whatever reason decides to pass closer than they should. This is very different to the driver not seeing you and hitting you or forcing you to take avoiding action.
Being seen works. Hi Vis helps with that.
But anecdotally since switching to wearing only pink on the road I have far fewer issues with people pulling out on me.
I have a pink high viz waistcoat.
It's worn more on the Autumn/Winter commutes, and always around the time the clocks change*.
It has "CAREFUL NOW" printed on the back, it seems to get me noticed.
* When millions of people seem to forget how to drive in the dark
Being seen works. Hi Vis helps with that.
Interesting conclusion given what the entire article was saying.
Notice that the use of hi-vis clothing and day riding lights – whilst promoted as a good thing – were not top of the list. To my mind, that’s an indication that the limitations of conspicuity aids generally.
The conclusion I would draw is that high-vis might help but other factors are going to help a lot more.
It was interesting to read about lateral movement. It's not something I'd really thought of much and it's never something that's presented as an option for cyclists. Probably because cyclists are 'supposed' to ride close to the kerb and any lateral movement would probably have to be from the inside to the middle where some moron might be trying an overtake.
I might try taking command position when approaching junctions from now on and see if some swerving makes me more visible. No doubt some drivers are going to be upset.
Daytime lights are also something I almost never run but probably should. I might try figuring out how to run a three amber light set up on my bike.
He showed us this photo:
4 cyclists stood still against an oversaturated photo of autumn parkland. Yep, very conclusive. Yellow hi-viz = camouflage
😆
For me this makes me reconsider wearing all black on the road in the daytime
NC500 route, dreich weather last week, the ones in dark colours without lights were so much harder to see as they just disappear into the background. And that's me as a cyclist looking for bikes. Now imagine the tourist in a hired camper who can't even stay the correct side of the white line because they're looking at the view.
4 cyclists stood still against an oversaturated photo of autumn parkland. Yep, very conclusive. Yellow hi-viz = camouflage
It's important to remember what you're actually trying to achieve. You're trying to cause something to trip your brain to overcome the saccadic masking. For that to happen the contrast has to be huge (and possibly unusual).
It's not the same as playing Where's Wally 🙂
he showed several photos of riders who had put flashes of reflective tape on their bikes and clothing. This just causes disruptive camouflage. He made the point that you need to create a silhouette that “looks” like a human on a bike. If the human brain isn’t sure what it is looking at, it freezes and takes no action
If, as a driver, you see flashes of reflective tape moving down the road in front of you, can't work out what it is and decide to take no action then you really shouldn't be on the road. That may not help the person that you've just driven over at the time, but if we allow this ridiculous attitude in drivers then it makes little difference what we wear.
During the day I don’t think the issue is that driver’s eyes aren’t good enough to see, it’s the look but don’t see problem which has been thoroughly documented.
I'm sorry, but I can give you an anecdote from just last night of how that isn't true.
I'm living in Cambridgeshire at the moment, so sight lines are about as perfect as you can get on the roads.
On one section I could probably see 2+ miles up the road, including a cyclist commuting home in a high vis jacket quite a way ahead. But I still got a jump when a 2nd cyclist "appeared from nowhere" when they were about 100m in front of me. He was in the shade of a small group of trees (at about an hour before sunset) and I only spotted him when he passed a gap and was lit up by the sunlight.
No lights, no high vis, some sort of black/purple rapha-esque kit. And basically invisible unless you caught him in the sunlight.
I saw him in plenty of time to slow down and overtake. But it was scary quite how invisible he was.
Obviously it's the drivers fault if they hit him, but he wasn't making it at all easy.
moving down the road in front of you, can’t work out what it is and decide to take no action then you really shouldn’t be on the road.
You're conflating concious decisions with your brain subconsciously processing information.
Your brain is wired up to see things it need to see, like predators. You see a large animal, you make a decision to run away, and Darwin handles the rest.
So the animal develops camoflauge (say, bright orange stripes...) and all of a sudden you don't see it, and you never get to make that decision to run away from the tiger (or avoid the cyclist).
I’m sorry, but I can give you an anecdote from just last night of how that isn’t true.
Are you sure that saccadic masking wasn't actually the issue?
It sounds like you were scanning ahead and were able to see the cyclist when they were suddenly illuminated because there was a gap in the trees (a sudden change that disrupted the scan and caused you to re-fixate).
Did they disappear again when they went back into the shade or were you still able to see them?
If you were still able to see them then clearly the issue wasn't that they were invisible, it's just that as you scanned the road you were missing them because there was nothing about their appearance to cause you to stop and re-fixate.
During daylight hours, if you physically can't see a human sized object on the road even when you know it's there, then that's a different issue and a trip to the optician is needed.
Interesting - I completely understand the point trying to be made about hi vis sometimes being rather camo with the foliage and I still think in some settings with all the other hi-vis on the pavement etc, I assume its one or both of these reasons that railworkers wear orange rather than yellow.
I think a lot of what applies to motorbikes is probably true for cycling BUT:
- from front or rear the colour of the bike is much less important
- our helmets are typically smaller
- we often peddle which creates movement
- motorbikes in the UK usually have a fairly large light at the front a sizable yellowy-orange number plate at the rear.
so whilst I can get on board with a lot of what Kevin Williams is saying his example picture you posted seems to contradict this:
adopt single-colour clothing,
the police officer who stands out best is the one wearing only a tabbard/vest as there arms are contrasting. I'm not sure exactly what he means by dazzle style camo - I've seen it on ships but not consciously on the road. Interestingly all the emergency services use battenburg to make themselves more visible whilst motorway services, long vehicles etc tend to use chevrons. I've never notices an issue with interpreting them in the scene. Even top to toe in dayglo pink - there will be moment when you happen to be beside an icecream van, or some bus covered in a huge ad for bulb electricity or something and you blend in. A 2 colour approach seems much less likely to be invisible, and perhaps even the lower speeds on a bike mean a fraction of a second whilst the driver's brain works out what they just saw are less critical?
Ever been to Denmark? Proper cycling infrastructure everywhere, no hills/twisty roads, big straight roads with 40/50 limits, laughably low population density outside of KPH. And most importantly everyone rides a bike
Not really even comparable to the entitled shitshow that is the average UK road
@desperatebicycle
Free Member
He showed us this photo:4 cyclists stood still against an oversaturated photo of autumn parkland. Yep, very conclusive. Yellow hi-viz = camouflage
You completely missed the point. Hi vis only works if it contrasts with the background. Yellow hi vis against autumn leaves = camouflage, a black jacket in an Arctic whiteout = very visible.
@poly Totally agree on the differences between motorbikes and bicycles. Helmets and bike colour are probably irrelevant.
I don't disagree on the point about having 2 colours to avoid blending in with a single colour background, but the point Kevin makes is that it is important to immediately be identified as a cyclist /motor cyclist as then the driver knows what to do with that information.
Having black clothing with reflective stripes doesn't look like anything. The driver comes up behind you at 50mph on an unlit lane and sees reflective flashes. What is the driver seeing? Is it a tin can in a hedge? Is it the light of a car a mile up the road? Is it a gatepost? Is it a small thing a long way off or a large thing much closer? While the driver is processing this, he is in effect frozen. If there is a vehicle behind he won't brake, besides you don't brake every time you see a reflection - they are mostly tin cans. Now the driver is pretty much on you. The same happens if you are on the road and a car is waiting to pull out of a side turning.
That's why it's important to look like a cyclist even with just a casual glance.
it is important to immediately be identified as a cyclist /motor cyclist as then the driver knows what to do with that information.
how important do you think to tell the difference between bike and motorbike at a glance? As ebikes increase typical speeds for many cyclists does it become important that drivers can appreciate that the "at a glance" expected sp
Having black clothing with reflective stripes doesn’t look like anything. The driver comes up behind you at 50mph on an unlit lane and sees reflective flashes.
That's where I'm struggling a bit. If it's me on an unlit lane he'll be seeing a flashing red LED that is distinctively a bike (or maybe horse/runner/dog). I have driven up behind people without lights who have retro reflective pin strips or trim and actually they are fairly obviously bikes (or at least people).
As your link says "CONCLUSION FOUR – Alternative strategies are required for day and night, in urban and rural environments, and at junctions approached at different speeds. There is no ‘one size fits all’ solution."
However the one thing that makes a bike at night stand out as a bike very quickly is pedal reflectors - yet almost all of us swap the supplied pedals out for something else. This study was not about night safety though.
they are mostly tin cans. Now the driver is pretty much on you. The same happens if you are on the road and a car is waiting to pull out of a side turning.
Whilst I accept that the typical driver's response to not being able to process what they are seeing is to push the right foot down rather than lift it up, I'm not quite so sure it applies coming out of a side road. Clearly, plenty of collisions happen there - but I'm sceptical that they looked, saw something, couldn't process/understand what it was and proceeded anyway - as the site you linked to puts it there are at least 4 different reasons for "SMIDSY" - ‘looked but COULD NOT see’; ‘looked but FAILED TO see’; ‘looked, SAW AND FORGOT’ and ‘looked, SAW AND MISJUDGED’. You really want a strategy for being visible that helps all 4.
how important do you think to tell the difference between bike and motorbike at a glance?
I really don't know. It probably depends on the individual cyclists, drivers and situations.
I certainly don't have all the answers. I brought Kevin Williams into this as he has spent many years studying all the research about vulnerable road users being seen. Some of what he says applies to cyclists.
These threads always concern me though. They bring out those who say it's their right to wear camouflage and it's down to the dozy car drivers to see them, those who wear a bright colour with no thought about what they are contrasting against and those who are determined to blind drivers because of course, blinding someone is a guarantee they won't hit you.
We all know though that the ninja will probably be OK and the "hi vis lit up like a Christmas tree" could still be run over. There is no certainty and no one size fits all. We should make our decisions based on the best information though not arrogance or learnt behaviour.
I don't ride much road these days, generally just short links between off road sections. Even my commute is virtually traffic free now, but when I do ride on the road I wear bright pink and have a number of "not too bright" rear lights, pedal reflectors (as you say above, they really mark you out as a bike) and a StVZO front light. This set up makes me comfortable that I'm doing what I can to protect myself and if I end up getting hit and going for compensation I shouldn't hear the phrase "Contributory negligence".
Are you sure that saccadic masking wasn’t actually the issue?
It sounds like you were scanning ahead and were able to see the cyclist when they were suddenly illuminated because there was a gap in the trees (a sudden change that disrupted the scan and caused you to re-fixate).
Did they disappear again when they went back into the shade or were you still able to see them?
Are you sure that saccadic masking wasn’t actually the issue?
The latter, it's a simple case of the human eye has a very good dynamic range, but it's not infinite. There are plenty of other cyclists about, even others wearing dark colours. But from my perspective approaching in the bright sunlight looking into the darker section of road they were all but invisible.
Saccadic masking is something that comes into play when the eye has to move. This is Cambridgeshire, the roads are flat and straight so your eye has to move very little to see 2+ miles up the road.
The posters seeking to invalidate this survey are probably the same types trying to tell us that helmets are actually more dangerous, and who years ago, were telling us that car seatbelts were no good because it was better to be 'thrown clear' 😀
I honestly don't know why they bother? Presumably, if visibility were so useless then ride around at night down dark country lanes in matt black clothes with no lights or reflectors? 😀
and if I end up getting hit and going for compensation I shouldn’t hear the phrase “Contributory negligence”.
Indeed. A great reason to ensure you have good lights, reflectors, helmet and hi-vis.
The posters seeking to invalidate this survey are probably the same types trying to tell us that helmets are actually more dangerous, and who years ago, were telling us that car seatbelts were no good because it was better to be ‘thrown clear’ 😀
Ah yes, the classic seatbelt strawman. I was waiting for that one.
But yes, some of us like to actually read the research rather than just take it on faith what the AA tells us is going to keep us alive (you know, as opposed to drivers bearing any responsibility).
If you feel you need to wear magic talismans to keep you safe you should definitely feel free to carry on wearing them. I'll continue to read the research and take a holistic view of road safety, if that's all right with you?
I honestly don’t know why they bother? Presumably, if visibility were so useless then ride around at night down dark country lanes in matt black clothes with no lights or reflectors? 😀
Just out of interest, have you actually read any of this thread, at all? I mean, fair enough if you haven't read the research (although it would help you make an intelligent contribution) but you seem to have absolutely no grasp of what the rest of us are talking about.
Saccadic masking is something that comes into play when the eye has to move. This is Cambridgeshire, the roads are flat and straight so your eye has to move very little to see 2+ miles up the road.
Without seeing the road and light conditions it's impossible to make too many judgments although even on a straight road your eye still has a tiny area of focus and is constantly moving from the speedo, to the mirrors, to something 20 meters away, to something 2 miles away, etc.
The effect is obviously far more pronounced at junctions but it happens everywhere.
And as you said, you spotted them 100 meters away. It's fairly uncommon to get run over during the daytime from behind because the driver simply hasn't seen you. It's more likely to be a cocked up attempt to pass in which case the driver has seen the cyclist and decided to risk their life so they can get to their destination 8 seconds quicker. Nothing you wear is going to make any difference in that case
Personally, I've never struggled to see a cyclist once I know they are there (assuming I'm not being blinded by the sun or they are being obscured somehow). If you are struggling to keep track of a cyclist you know is ahead of you during daylight hours that's something I would want to look into a bit more.
If you can keep track of them once you know they are there but they seemed to appear from nowhere that is most likely saccadic masking.
Personally, I’ve never struggled to see a cyclist once I know they are there (assuming I’m not being blinded by the sun or they are being obscured somehow). If you are struggling to keep track of a cyclist you know is ahead of you during daylight hours that’s something I would want to look into a bit more.
Thanks for the condesention. My eyesight is fine thanks.
Perhapse you should take a moment to consider you are not infact all seeing and awesome. Because if you're one of those drivers that does believe that then you are exactly the type to have a SMIDSY.
saccadic masking
Lovely words aren't they. I think that's mostly why they get used so much, cos they sound clever. Also it's a ****ing SUPERB EXCUSE for drivers - I mean anyone can understand "Oh the sun was in my eyes" and like, nope, you were there; cyclist was there; sun wasn't a factor... but something as clever and sexy sounding as saccadic masking? Hey you wouldn't understand, it wasn't my poor driving, inattention, distraction, it's this naturally occurring issue we ALL have! Bit too technical for you, sorry.
Personally I don't find it too much of an issue when driving. Any accidents I've had (or nearly had) have most definitely been down to my going too fast, not looking properly, bad anticipation, definitely a door pillar blindspot once etc. They are easy ones to understand for a dimwit like me. My eye-brain natural function?! Man I wish I'd thought of that as an excuse! Succyaddict what? Cool!
Thanks for the condesention. My eyesight is fine thanks.
Perhapse you should take a moment to consider you are not infact all seeing and awesome. Because if you’re one of those drivers that does believe that then you are exactly the type to have a SMIDSY.
Erm, you're the one who said a cyclist appeared as if from nowhere. It's not clear whether once you'd seen them you could keep track of them or not. If you couldn't keep track of them and the sun wasn't blinding you or they were being somehow obscured then yes, that points to an eye problem.
If they appeared from nowhere but then you could keep track of them then that is more likely to be saccadic masking, especially if the high vis cyclist was immediately visible but the one wearing dark colours was virtually invisible.
If it was purely an issue of low light or being blinded then the one in high-vis might be easier to see but it would be struggle to see both.
It's not that I'm trying to question your eyesight, it's just that one being immediately obvious and one being invisible sounds unlikely during daytime from a purely vision point of view.
Lovely words aren’t they. I think that’s mostly why they get used so much, cos they sound clever. Also it’s a **** SUPERB EXCUSE for drivers – I mean anyone can understand “Oh the sun was in my eyes” and like, nope, you were there; cyclist was there; sun wasn’t a factor… but something as clever and sexy sounding as saccadic masking?
It's an explanation, not an excuse. Understanding how SMIDSY happens means that you can take action to mitigate ie, slow down, look near medium far, move your head, etc.
Have a look at the links posted earlier.
It’s an explanation, not an excuse.
As a road user (driver and cyclist) that's exactly what I'm disputing. Sorry if my post was a bit too sarky for you.