Cyclists gets a finger wag !

[glasgowcyclist]

If a driver is looking, he still might not see you if you're dressed in black or other dark clothing. If he/she is looking you have a better chance of being seen in high viz.

What is this magical hi-vis that is more effective than lights?

That goes for pedestrians as well

Like this head-to- toe fluorescently-clad crossing warden who was killed in broad daylight because his killer didn't see him directly in front of her outside a school?
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/cr...death-cps-drops-case-against-driver-1-6135894

 

[mjr]

I had the joy of coming to an abrupt standstill when one of those front lights ended up in my front wheel after the bracket came loose

They were meant to be mounted onto a fin brazed on the outside of the front fork, not directly to the fork IIRC, else that was a risk. If you didn't have a fin, there was some adapter to fit it to... I think the headset.

My rear did the same (because the nuts always seem to rattle loose and the light would drop down the stay), but thankfully didn't throw me off

The rears tended to get thrown clear by the wheel rotation, but rear-wheel lockups tend to be less dramatic anyway.

 

[Mugshot]

I had the joy of coming to an abrupt standstill when one of those front lights ended up in my front wheel after the bracket came loose.......I still have the scars from the aftermath of landing on freshly laid gravel on the road

Same thing happened to someone I know (although I didn't at the time) and I would imagine many many others, they really were shocking How did we ever survive?
Mind you I don't know what the lesser of the two evils was when the toss up was between them and a dynamo that wore your tyre away and made it feel like you were constantly going up a 1:4

 

[Accy cyclist]

What is this magical hi-vis that is more effective than lights?



Like this head-to- toe fluorescently-clad crossing warden who was killed in broad daylight because his killer didn't see him directly in front of her outside a school?
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/cr...death-cps-drops-case-against-driver-1-6135894

My point is that ok,you could still be hit if you're wearing head to toe high viz with flashing lights, but the chances of being hit while wearing dark clothing are considerably higher. It's the same with bullet proof vests. Wearing one in a shoot out doesn't guarantee you wont get shot but it does decrease the chance considerably

 

[Markymark]

but the chances of being hit while wearing dark clothing are considerably higher.

And which stats did you use to form that statement...or is it from the school of "It's common sense, innit"?

 

[Bimble]

My point is that ok,you could still be hit if you're wearing head to toe high viz with flashing lights, but the chances of being hit while wearing dark clothing are considerably higher. It's the same with bullet proof vests. Wearing one in a shoot out doesn't guarantee you wont get shot but it does decrease the chance considerably

The thing is, and this is nothing personal, but that is subjective and very much an assumption. Other cyclists will tell you, for a fact, that they have been hit whilst wearing hi-viz and being well lit.

That's not to say it isn't a reasonable precaution and you shouldn't wear it - of course, to any rational person it does make sense that something reflective, when worn at night, should help to increase your visibility (and it probably does) - the problem isn't actually with you, the cyclist, and with your choice of clothing, the problem is inattentive drivers - and, as you've possibly experienced yourself, no amount of lights or hi-viz will help if the driver isn't paying attention - they simply don't see you and they pull out or drive into you.

 

[mjr]

That's not to say it isn't a reasonable precaution and you shouldn't wear it

OK, I'll say that: it's not reasonable to say people should buy/carry/wear special clothes for cycling and you shouldn't wear it because that's perpetuating the myth and you should instead ensure that your bike is legally lit and reflective and if someone doesn't see good lights or reflectors then the presence or absence of an ugly coat is completely irrelevant and should never be mentioned by any cyclist.

 

[Big Andy]

The thing is, and this is nothing personal, but that is subjective and very much an assumption. Other cyclists will tell you, for a fact, that they have been hit whilst wearing hi-viz and being well lit.

That's not to say it isn't a reasonable precaution and you shouldn't wear it - of course, to any rational person it does make sense that something reflective, when worn at night, should help to increase your visibility (and it probably does) - the problem isn't actually with you, the cyclist, and with your choice of clothing, the problem is inattentive drivers - and, as you've possibly experienced yourself, no amount of lights or hi-viz will help if the driver isn't paying attention - they simply don't see you.

Would you agree that a cyclist wearing hi-viz and with extra lighting over and above the minimum required by law is more likely to attract the attention of that driver than a cyclist wearing dark colours and the minimum required lighting?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

My point is that ok,you could still be hit if you're wearing head to toe high viz with flashing lights, but the chances of being hit while wearing dark clothing are considerably higher. It's the same with bullet proof vests. Wearing one in a shoot out doesn't guarantee you wont get shot but it does decrease the chance considerably

How would you better address the problem; issue everyone with Kevlar vests or instigate gun control?

 

[Bimble]

OK, I'll say that: it's not reasonable to say people should buy/carry/wear special clothes for cycling and you shouldn't wear it because that's perpetuating the myth and you should instead ensure that your bike is legally lit and reflective and if someone doesn't see good lights or reflectors then the presence or absence of an ugly coat is completely irrelevant and should never be mentioned by any cyclist.

It's not a myth - if it was you would be able to prove it was wrong, which we can't - we don't know for a fact that hi-viz has absolutely no effect at all - it may well have a positive and somewhat protective or preventative effect, we just can't show for sure that it does.

 

[Accy cyclist]

And which stats did you use to form that statement...or is it from the school of "It's common sense, innit"?

I base it on my driving experiences. I can see a well lit cyclist,or a cyclist wearing high viz far better than a cyclist wearing dark clothing with no lights or poor lights. Then i can act accordingly.

 

[Markymark]

I base it on my driving experiences. I can see a well lit cyclist,or a cyclist wearing high viz far better than a cyclist wearing dark clothing with no lights or poor lights. Then i can act accordingly.

Ah, so your experience. So when you say 'the chances of being hit are higher', you're just making that up. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Bimble]

Would you agree that a cyclist wearing hi-viz and with extra lighting over and above the minimum required by law is more likely to attract the attention of that driver than a cyclist wearing dark colours and the minimum required lighting?

I would agree that there appears to be some logic in that statement, and that common sense would lead you to assume that someone more brightly lit and wearing reflective clothing should be seen more readily - however, the experience of cyclists (well lit-up and wearing hi-viz) who get driven into ... counters that assumption. It would be interesting to know if there have been any studies done to show whether it makes any practical difference.

My partner insists that I wear certain "protective gear" for my cycle commute (which I do to save arguments about the perception of safety and my actual experiences), but I don't wear it when out for a weekend ride. I really don't notice any difference in how drivers treat me, and have come across idiots whilst wearing both of my "get ups".

 

[mjr]

Would you agree that a cyclist wearing hi-viz and with extra lighting over and above the minimum required by law is more likely to attract the attention of that driver than a cyclist wearing dark colours and the minimum required lighting?

Not significantly, no.

It's not a myth - if it was you would be able to prove it was wrong, which we can't - we don't know for a fact that hi-viz has absolutely no effect at all - it may well have a positive and somewhat protective or preventative effect, we just can't show for sure that it does.

We can't prove it absolutely because this is an experimental real-world kind of thing that doesn't have an absolute yes/no answer, but I think most of the research evidence has shown no benefit to cyclist health. Example http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/

I base it on my driving experiences. I can see a well lit cyclist,or a cyclist wearing high viz far better than a cyclist wearing dark clothing with no lights or poor lights. Then i can act accordingly.

Do you act differently towards a cyclist wearing no hi-viz who has legal lights and reflectors? If so, why?

 

[benb]

If it's such a problem, why are unlit cyclists less than 2% of all cyclist KSI figures?

I'd submit that this debate is a colossal waste of time if the outcome we want is better road safety. You can dress head to toe in luminous clothing, and your risk of being hit is not substantially different to someone all in black.

We know what the single most common cause of KSI on the roads is: drivers not looking properly and/or driving too fast for the conditions. So if we want people to be safer, that's where we need to concentrate our efforts. Anything else is going to achieve FA reduction in KSI.