Hi-Vis OR Lights

[cyberknight]

Lol no, it was meant to be a joke but I left a smiley out

And what you doing up?

I have just got up early to watch last nights TDF as SWMBO wanted to watch some other B*ll**ks , epic stage !!!

 

[Riding in Circles]

On the rear they won't completely hide reflectives at all (unless you're using a dinotte). Usually people have lights on the front that are much more likely to drown out the hi viz than on the rear. It's really the same principle as really a driver should even be able to spot a ninja from behind (in theory).

To be fair BM rides a bent so his back is obscured by the seat anyway, anyone who rides at night without lights should have their bicycle taken away from them.

 

[BentMikey]

Yeah, but I'm not taking the bent as an excuse, I'm assuming normal bike usage and seating position. Perhaps I'm hypocritical though, because as we both know a bent is more visible than any upright, by an order of magnitude, and they scare most drivers far away from us.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Are you not afraid of becoming a victim of target fixation?

Well, that's one area where hi vis can help. As I've said before, what hi vis does is help to give definition to the area behind the lights (yes, yes, yes I've seen your photos). This helps a driver judge distance much better than a simple single light will, no matter how bright it is.

 

[BentMikey]

If you've seen the photos, then why are you suggesting that hiviz can be seen behind decent lights? Poorer quality lights, sure, but that's an argument for getting better lights, not for wearing hiviz.

Lights don't have the same gaping vulnerabilities to turning invisible that hiviz has, and yet people like the OP's mate rely on the hiviz above lights. That's what I have a problem with - it's stupid un-safety.

 

[downfader]

Where bright clothing may make a slight difference is side-on. Think roundabouts and passing junctions or bends in the road.

 

[Norm]

If you've seen the photos, then why are you suggesting that hiviz can be seen behind decent lights? Poorer quality lights, sure, but that's an argument for getting better lights, not for wearing hiviz.

As I said, your photos are a very specific set of circumstances and don't reflect (groan) that many people have their front lights shining at the road surface in front of their tyres rather than some chap standing 100m away.

Also, as I've said many times, I can and have seen reflectives behind a front cycle light at night. I didn't take photos, I wish I had, but I was driving at the time. The point remains that I have experienced reflectives helping me to identify a cyclist at night

Lights don't have the same gaping vulnerabilities to turning invisible that hiviz has, and yet people like the OP's mate rely on the hiviz above lights. That's what I have a problem with - it's stupid un-safety.

Assuming you mean reflectives where you say hiviz, I don't think that any here are arguing for solely using hiviz. My concerns are that some are arguing against using it at all.

 

[BentMikey]

Not at night mate as in the OP. We've shown why there's no retro return under those sorts of circumstances. Besides, any good lights will have excellent side-on visibility.

 

[BentMikey]

I love how you guys dismiss evidence that doesn't agree with your POV.

 

[Norm]

I love how you guys dismiss evidence that doesn't agree with your POV.

Any chance you could point out where anyone has done that?

 

[BentMikey]

You've dismissed the photos, when they clearly show reality. Pointing the light down isn't going to make any difference as it has a very wide beam, and it's pointed exactly as I ride with it anyway. All you've offered is opinion, and it's wrong here IMO. Hiviz is the combo of fluo and reflectives - I thought we'd moved past that a long time ago.

Anyway, it's all fairly immaterial, as nobody on this topic has suggested hiviz instead of lights, as per the original question. That shows you all know that lights are the thing that's really important, that hiviz can't be relied upon at all times, and I suspect that deep down you know that hiviz is nothing more than a rabbit's foot for luck and hope.

 

[Norm]

You've dismissed the photos, when they clearly show reality.

This is your first mistake. I have not dismissed the photo in any way, shape or form, although distorting what is in front of you like that is not too surprising.

I have said that the photos show one reality. I have given you another reality from my experience which, ironically, you are dismissing without even recognising it.

Hiviz is the combo of fluo and reflectives - I thought we'd moved past that a long time ago.

Indeed... which is why I was confirming that the two are used interchangeably for those who might be more recent.

I suspect that deep down you know that hiviz is nothing more than a rabbit's foot for luck and hope.

And this is your second mistake, not quite up to the level of the previous poster who said "we dismiss hiviz because we see it everywhere" but I know that, riding home this very evening, I saw someone in hi-viz from about 1/2 mile away but neither I nor the car I was following saw the ninja (this was at about 7pm heading westwards) until it was very nearly too late.

As I said, nobody is condoning or suggesting the use of hiviz alone. That thinking, along with the rabbit foot BS, is the preserve of those more blinkered souls.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I love how you guys dismiss evidence that doesn't agree with your POV.

AROOGA! AROOGA! IRONY ALERT!

With the greatest respect, no one's presented evidence. You've posted, what, three photos, taken on a relatively cheap camera (bearing in mind that even something like a Nikon D3 falls some way short of the abilities of the human eye) of a particular circumstance. As if that's not enough, you've taken them with the sole purpose of backing up a preconception of yours, viz. (ho ho) hi vis is no use.
My experience - which is, though you may not like it, just as valid as your snaps - is different. When I'm approaching a cyclist from behind, I find it easier to work out what they are earlier if they're wearing a hi vis tabard, no matter how bright their lights. When I see someone on the pavement wearing hi vis (I'm thinking of a particular group of joggers whom I see quite frequently), I find that I often see their reflective stripes before I see them, even though my headlights aren't pointing directly at them. And when I see a cyclist coming towards me on the other side of the road, there's nearly always some light reflected back at me if they're wearing a hi vis tabard.
You may not wear it yourself, and that's fair enough - as I said, I'm not campaigning to make it compulsory or anything - but you shouldn't dismiss it on the basis of three snapshots. It certainly doesn't make anyone less visible.

 

[cyberknight]

And this is your second mistake, not quite up to the level of the previous poster who said "we dismiss hiviz because we see it everywhere" but I know that, riding home this very evening, I saw someone in hi-viz from about 1/2 mile away but neither I nor the car I was following saw the ninja (this was at about 7pm heading westwards) until it was very nearly too late.

Come on norm , if you are going to take a poke at me .The way that comes across is a bit condescending.

The hi viz blindness was based on bits and bobs i had read like ..

http://bentsocietybl...now-we-are.html

Do i believe? personally no but some do.

This study has shown that light clothing and reflectives can reduce the chance of injury by 37 %
http://bentsocietybl...now-we-are.html

 

[biggs682]

i use a flashing hi viz as soon as it starts getting dark around 5 pm ish with a set of lights as well