A very silly boy!

[GBC]

I think we'll see all cyclists and motorcyclists wearing hi-vis/ reflective clothing in years to come....either the law of the land or Darwin will ensure it.
I've got the same sort of qualifications as steveindenmark (not the driving instructor) and it's a fact that not everything that we 'see' registers on our consciousness, so anything we can do to make ourselves stand out, and it won't always be enough, can only be to the good.

 

[Norm]

As for whoever asked if we ever see cars decked in day glo yellow. They weigh about 2 ton, are as wide as...a car, actually, travel at 140mph and are often driven by lunatics. If you can`t see it you shouldn`t be riding a bike. because you are blind.

You seem to be doing a good job for setting up arguments against your own points, Steve. You say on the one hand that cars weigh more (does that have any relevance?) and travel at 140mph (does that?) but that cyclist and bikers cannot be seen unless they wear hi-viz. I genuinely don't get that.

You also say that cars don't need to be painted bright colours, but cyclists need to wear them so that drivers can see them.

The last time this was trotted out, I posted these pix of my wife's car which someone drove into at a completely open junction on a clear, dry day. The guy said he didn't see her, although she was doing 40mph and was visible for at least 20 seconds before the junction.



I've also stood on the pavement in the middle of Edinburgh watching someone who was turning into a car park doing exactly the same to a police car which was running with sirens and flashing lights.

Take a hint yourself, Steve, some people just don't recognise cyclists as they don't present a danger. No amount of bright yellow will change that so why make it the cyclists fault that when drivers turn homicidal and leaves them "to lay under a truck bleeding until the lights go out"?

And, finally, as you may not have understood it when I first posted it, it's not about "Why should we wear bright vis vests?"...

I wear a hi-viz jacket or "builder's vest" most of the time and, when I wear a rucksack over that, my rucksack cover is hi-viz.

I don't like the idea that a cyclist gets criticised for not wearing a colour which is not available on any car manufacturer's spec list, I don't like the idea that a cyclist is criticised for wearing a solid block of colour and I don't like the idea that a cyclist is made blameworthy for the potential failings of car drivers but I've no objection to people wearing hi viz.

 

[theclaud]

Tee Hee....

When I was younger I did work that involved seeing and identifying things that were hard to see. We were also taught how to make highly visible things jolly hard to see.

One thing that helped in this task was that there were a lot of people out there who thought as you do.

TeeCee, if you don't mind.

It's not my problem if you see the roads as some sort of playground for Derren Brown wannabees. SMIDSYers are not hoodwinked, deceived or outsmarted into not seeing us. Cyclists are not a collective optical illusion, nor is a motorist approaching a junction or passing a cyclist facing some kind of needle-in-a-haystack challenge or being asked to spot a buff-tip on a birch twig. Their entire obligation is to look out for entirely ordinary things they might hit or be hit by. They don't see us because they choose not to.

 

[Boris Bajic]

TeeCee, if you don't mind.

It's not my problem if you see the roads as some sort of playground for Derren Brown wannabees. SMIDSYers are not hoodwinked, deceived or outsmarted into not seeing us. Cyclists are not a collective optical illusion, nor is a motorist approaching a junction or passing a cyclist facing some kind of needle-in-a-haystack challenge or being asked to spot a buff-tip on a birch twig. Their entire obligation is to look out for entirely ordinary things they might hit or be hit by. They don't see us because they choose not to.

Tee Hee!

1. No, it's not your problem. I don't suggest it is.
2. But... I don't see the roads as....a playground for a wannabe whatever you said.
3. I am a cyclist and do not consider myself an optical illusion. I do not for a moment suggest that any cyclist is an illusion.
4. All road users have several obligations; one of them is to be appropriately observant. I would never suggest it is otherwise.
5. When one road user fails to see another, it is not because they choose not to. I do not see where choice comes into this.

People make mistakes. If those people are drivers and they make their mistakes when driving around other road users, then injury or death may occur. It's been so since before I rode my first bike in the 60s.

Many, many drivers have either hit me or almost hit me in that time. I will never know for sure, but I do not believe that one of them chose not to see me.

If they did, I might start to get a little nervous.

 

[theclaud]

I do not see where choice comes into this.

Clearly. People often don't take the idea of choice seriously. I blame Tony Blair.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Clearly. People often don't take the idea of choice seriously. I blame Tony Blair.

So do I. Frequently. I've even been known to reverse the vowels in his surname for poorly judged comic effect... which is sad.

But I do not blame him for the inability of some people to take choice seriously.... Is that what you blame him for?

I take choice terribly seriously at all times, unless bread & butter pudding is on the menu - at which point options become meaningless.

But failing to see another road user is not a choice. Nor is failing to see Tony Bliar..... Damn! I've done it again...

 

[MontyVeda]

I'm lucky... I've got rosacea... AKA a bright red face

 

[Crackle]

But failing to see another road user is not a choice.

Yes it is, it's an unconscious choice. 'll give you a little anecdote because you're fond of them, tell you what I'll even throw in a motorbike to the anecdote too, just so's we keep the theme going.

I have only ever pulled out on a cyclist twice (so far, that is). Both times I was riding a motorbike and being a cyclist as well, was rightly mortified that I'd done it. In fact it led to a little self-examination. I concluded that as a vulnerable road user, a motorcyclist, I was looking only for vehicles that presented a risk to me and I wasn't looking for the cyclists. I subsequently modified that behaviour but was quite shocked at myself for tapering my observations to only look for risks to myself.

Now it doesn't take a great leap to imagine that people make similar unconscious misjudgements when they observe.This is why campaigns which raise awareness of other road users, pedestrians, motorcyles, horses etc.. have more effect than trying to make people see what they are not thinking about.

 

[steveindenmark]

There is always going to be a for and against the vis vest. In Denmark it was always against the vis vest but a lot more cyclists and motorcyclists are wearing them now. Oddly enough, Denmark is one of the safest places to ride in europe.

I am personally for them, although I do not wear it all the time on a cycle. I wear it all the time on a motorbike and have done for about a year. I am amazed at how more people appear to see me on the motorbike.

I am all for people making their own choices but it will not be too long before governments take the choice away.

Steve

 

[Norm]

There is always going to be a for and against the vis vest. In Denmark it was always against the vis vest but a lot more cyclists and motorcyclists are wearing them now. Oddly enough, Denmark is one of the safest places to ride in europe.

It's been a while since I lived & worked out there (lived mostly on Nyhavn in the middle of Copenhagen, worked in Taastrup) but I think a greater road safety device was the requirement for all cars to show headlights all of the time, although I didn't cycle out there so I'm not sure how that translates to cyclists' safety.

I am personally for them, although I do not wear it all the time on a cycle. I wear it all the time on a motorbike and have done for about a year. I am amazed at how more people appear to see me on the motorbike.

As I said above, I often wear a builder's vest-type reflective and I appear to get much more room with that on, especially from people driving trade vehicles (WVM, pickups etc). I believe that's because most drivers of such vehicles see that sort of vest as belonging to "one of us" rather than "one of them", so they give me more room.

 

[snorri]

It would be nice to hear of drivers getting together to say "Now what can we do to make the roads safer for cyclists?". Maybe we could get speed limits reduced, maybe we could stop using our mobile phones, tinkering with our sat navs, blethering to our passengers or just showing off to other young drivers.
"NO" they say with one voice, "cyclist should wear hi-viz"
Well, it's b*******, hi viz is just fiddling with the outer fringes of the problem.

 

[Boris Bajic]

It would be nice to hear of drivers getting together to say "Now what can we do to make the roads safer for cyclists?". Maybe we could get speed limits reduced, maybe we could stop using our mobile phones, tinkering with our sat navs, blethering to our passengers or just showing off to other young drivers.
"NO" they say with one voice, "cyclist should wear hi-viz"
Well, it's b*******, hi viz is just fiddling with the outer fringes of the problem.

This is an interesting notion, but it might be compromised up to a point by the apparent assumption that motorists are a group or community who share ideas and proposals for improving behaviour on the roads.

As a motorist for more than thirty years, I am under the impression that we are not a cohesive group or communty and we do not readily exchange ideas on how to make things better on the roads.

That being so, I do wear the odd bit of bright clothing and I take some pleasure in thinking that in conjunction with good road position and clear signals it makes me easier to see.

If that's fiddling with the outer fringes of the problem, so be it.

Most motorists are very good when driving near me. Some are horrid, dangerous or clueless, but the great majority are not.

It is the cyclist in me that thinks bright clothing makes sense on bicycles. I barely know two motorists who speak with one voice on any topic.

Much wisdom is spoken on this forum, but the notion of motorists speaking with one voice and proposing that cyclists wear Hi-Vis is slightly East Ham.

 

[snorri]

I thought the first line of my post set the scene of a complete flight of fantasy on my behalf.
There is no assumption on my part of drivers being a cohesive group any more than cyclists.

However, IME of speaking to non cycling drivers, the most frequently mentioned advice offered to improve the safety of cyclists include helmets, hi-viz, cycling close to the verge, or indeed not on road at all. I have yet to hear any suggestions likely to infringe on the liberties or cause even minor or momentary inconvenience to drivers, hence my fantasy post.

 

[Psycolist]

I don't agree with this Simon. The fact is, if you're on a road, you should notice anything else on the road with you. I most often notice cyclists a long way off by their movement, not their clothing. Same with cats, dogs, people at the side of the road, you should see them all and if the conditions are such that you can't see well, you simply need to adjust your driving, low sun, reflective road etc...

Hi viz is so prolific, I just see Hi viz now and have to concentrate to see if it's the binman, someone going to the shops or a cyclist. It also distracts in quite a selfish way because it causes people to fixate on you rather than their surroundings. It has it's place but it's far too common for my liking.

 

[Psycolist]

IRO every driver seeing everythng infront, behind and to both sides of them, I think you are being naive to think that the world works this way. In my experience, the cyclist has to do anything possible to make themselves seen, not expect , that because you are there, everyone will see you. Most drivers, especially on rural roads, when they have used a particular road many many times before, are almost on automatic pilot. They seem surprised that another road user should have the gaul to be on the same road that they are on, and even when there is plenty of room to pass, overtake unnessacerally (dunno if thats spelt right) closely , at an innappropriate speed or in the wrong place. Self preservation dictates BRIGHT CLOBBER IN THE DAYTIME, REFLECTIVES IN THE NIGHT.