hi-viz gone mad....

[Jezston]

whereas if they see a hiviz vest they'll assume it's slow or stationary (cyclist, road worker, bin collector, school child) or simply not important and probably pull straight into your path.

If you don't like the way flourescents or reflectives look because of your own aesthetic tastes, the association with 'amateur' commuters or that it's another step of putting responsibility on vulnerable road users to be seen rather than for drivers to see - that's all fine.

But seriously this kind of justification against hivis stuff is just getting silly. Unless there is actually any evidence for this somewhat huge assertion?

 

[Dan B]

. Unless there is actually any evidence for this somewhat huge assertion?

Exactly as much evidence as there was for the assertion in the post I was referring to

 

[BentMikey]

Actually there is - being seen as a cyclist rather than as an unknown vehicle is not usually an advantage. Dan's absolutely right.

 

[Jezston]

Actually there is - being seen as a cyclist rather than as an unknown vehicle is not usually an advantage. Dan's absolutely right.

I understand this is the crux of you and some other's views, but is there any evidence for it?

I'm more of the opinion I'd like people to know exactly what I am as early as possible so that they are able to behave appropriately around me.

 

[BentMikey]

Aaaaahahahahaha!!! I'm sorry mate, but behave appropriately? We know how that minority of bad drivers are going behave around us already. The good ones, there's no problem at all.

What does SMIDSY stand for, and why are SMIDSY complaints on here most commonly accompanied by BRIGHT YELLOW HIVIZ didn't see me complaints? LOL!

 

[GrasB]

Actually there is - being seen as a cyclist rather than as an unknown vehicle is not usually an advantage. Dan's absolutely right.

On my 'bent I run two LUMOTEC IQ Cyo T lights from a battery. At the speeds I'm typically doing it for all the world looks like a moped at night. The number of close calls due to drivers pulling out on me are reduced to almost 0. Compare that to a Strada which has much more of a 'bright bike light' look to the beam, actually it looks brighter due to the fact it's beam isn't shaped, where I end up slamming the brakes on quite regularly because I'm recognised as a bike by the light.

 

[Jezston]

Aaaaahahahahaha!!! I'm sorry mate, but behave appropriately? We know how that minority of bad drivers are going behave around us already. The good ones, there's no problem at all.

Again, we're then getting into that whole binary thing from earlier. If bad drivers hit cyclists because they just weren't looking or thinking properly, then is there any point in trying to making yourself visible in any way anyway? I.e. even worth bothering with lights?

and why are SMIDSY complaints on here most commonly accompanied by BRIGHT YELLOW HIVIZ didn't see me complaints? LOL!

They are? I can't recall any like that off hand, but I do remember 'lit up like a christmas three' and 'twin magicshine' type comments in relation to smidsys.

I'm not saying you are wrong - you may well be right, but until someone does some kind of proper scientific study into cyclists, hivis and modern powerful lights we shouldn't be making such sweeping generalisations as to what works and what doesn't. Too many of the comments against hivis on here read to me like "I just don't like hivis for whatever reason and I'm going to invent reasons as to why it makes you less safe to justify my views". And personally I'm not comfortable with the 'WTF is that' style of visibility-making as I wouldn't have thought potentially confusing other road users as to what they are is likely to make them behave more appropriately.

 

[Jdratcliffe]

Top rant about lights hun...

+ 1

 

[BentMikey]

And personally I'm not comfortable with the 'WTF is that' style of visibility-making as I wouldn't have thought potentially confusing other road users as to what they are is likely to make them behave more appropriately.

Which, knowing that drivers treat cyclists with less time and space than they should, is exactly this: WRONG.

Not knowing what a vehicle is causes drivers without any doubt to give more time and space than they otherwise would. A cyclist is the least dangerous thing to drivers, so as soon as you're identified you'll get lesser treatment than any other vehicle.

Lit up like a Christmas tree? Yes, with silly little bike lights and Hiviz:

"The best way not to be noticed is to wear urban camouflage - hi viz clothing, lots of lights and reflectors and a helmet." Dr. Tony Raven

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Again, we're then getting into that whole binary thing from earlier. If bad drivers hit cyclists because they just weren't looking or thinking properly, then is there any point in trying to making yourself visible in any way anyway? I.e. even worth bothering with lights?



They are? I can't recall any like that off hand, but I do remember 'lit up like a christmas three' and 'twin magicshine' type comments in relation to smidsys.

I'm not saying you are wrong - you may well be right, but until someone does some kind of proper scientific study into cyclists, hivis and modern powerful lights we shouldn't be making such sweeping generalisations as to what works and what doesn't. Too many of the comments against hivis on here read to me like "I just don't like hivis for whatever reason and I'm going to invent reasons as to why it makes you less safe to justify my views". And personally I'm not comfortable with the 'WTF is that' style of visibility-making as I wouldn't have thought potentially confusing other road users as to what they are is likely to make them behave more appropriately.

But a lot of the pro-party post things which read a lot like

"I like hivis and I'm convinced, for whatever reasons, that it must make me/you safer, in fact it is obvious it makes you/me safer, it's common sense isn't it, and anyone who disagrees, regardless of their experience, or reasons, is a dunderhead and a dullard."

I just think it looks shite, offensively so, and they aren't even looking anyway.

 

[Hawk]

A lot of us here might use the "intentional wobble" technique to make drivers think their paintwork is at risk if they overtake dangerously closely; another tactic I use on a fast road near me with a junction from the left and traffic just raring to right hook me from the other side is to "swerve" in a perfectly controlled but 'unexplainable' fashion as I approach this danger point, two or three times across the width of my lane. This definitely forces motorists who are deciding whether to cut me up to look again and this makes them re-judge my speed too, it seems.

I think confusing motorists can, IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES, be a really useful tool in the defensive cyclist's toolbox.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Which, knowing that drivers treat cyclists with less time and space than they should, is exactly this: WRONG.

Not knowing what a vehicle is causes drivers without any doubt to give more time and space than they otherwise would. A cyclist is the least dangerous thing to drivers, so as soon as you're identified you'll get lesser treatment than any other vehicle.

Lit up like a Christmas tree? Yes, with silly little bike lights and Hiviz:

"The best way not to be noticed is to wear urban camouflage - hi viz clothing, lots of lights and reflectors and a helmet." Dr. Tony Raven

I am a driver and a cyclist. The great majority of drivers treat me with plenty of time and space, to use your phrase.

The frequency of close passes, SMIDSYs and similar perpetrated against me seem reasonably evenly distributed between my motoring and cycling miles.

I am drawn to this idea that uncertainty causes drivers to give more space, but I've never seen it in action.

I am frequently driven by other motorists too, and have not witnessed this mindset you identify, where motorists somehow flip to their 'only a bicycle' default mode (once they've ascertained that the unidentified object is not a car, truck, tank or tractor) and give it less space.

As a keen cyclist, I find that I observe the way family, friends, colleagues and limo guys drive around bicycles. I simply do not see what you do and do not connect your observation with any argument for or against Hi-Viz.

 

[BentMikey]

The word you're looking for is SMIDSY, well, it's really SMIDGAF.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I am frequently driven by other motorists too, and have not witnessed this mindset you identify, where motorists somehow flip to their 'only a bicycle' default mode (once they've ascertained that the unidentified object is not a car, truck, tank or tractor) and give it less space.

As a keen cyclist, I find that I observe the way family, friends, colleagues and limo guys drive around bicycles. .

interesting

I find once a driver knows they have a cyclist like me in the car they suddenly come over all safety conscious around cyclists.

When they don't know I'm a cyclist they pass as close as they can like they normally would.

I've had to consciously educate my psuedo-son-in-law about passing cyclists. Does he give them a wide berth when I'm not getting a lift? I doubt it.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

A lot of us here might use the "intentional wobble" technique to make drivers think their paintwork is at risk if they overtake dangerously closely; another tactic I use on a fast road near me with a junction from the left and traffic just raring to right hook me from the other side is to "swerve" in a perfectly controlled but 'unexplainable' fashion as I approach this danger point, two or three times across the width of my lane. This definitely forces motorists who are deciding whether to cut me up to look again and this makes them re-judge my speed too, it seems.

I think confusing motorists can, IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES, be a really useful tool in the defensive cyclist's toolbox.

What, you do that on Great Western Road? Hat off to you! I would chicken out, find a back way