hi-viz gone mad....

[GrasB]

So you've never had a cycling accident then?

Yes, several. Every time I've been wearing a helmet I've ended up with a neck injury. Every time I've not been wearing a helmet I've never had an injury above my shoulders....

 

[GrasB]

Ahh you mean a third party didn't see you and tripped you down the stairs.

In a reported incident a fire engine with priority through a cross roads with sirens & flashers going was T-boned by a car. The driver didn't see the fire engine! Now how the hell do you miss a fire engine in full "I'm here" mode?

What I do know is when I'm doing a commented drive with cameras running quite often I'm calling out a cyclist, even in dark clothing, typically before I can actually see them in the cameras. My view is SMIDSY isn't a defense, it's an admission of driving without due care & attention.

 

[Andy84]

Ahh you mean a third party didn't see you and tripped you down the stairs.

Yes, if you want.

 

[ianrauk]

ahhh it's all about how it looks now.

In a nutshell

 

[GrumpyGregry]

ahhh it's all about how it looks now.

all? no. Something? Certainly, and I'm will to bet the aesthetics of the kit you ride and wear has way more to do with why you own it than you'd care to admit....

 

[glasgowcyclist]

How many hi-viz cars do you see then?

In that picture? erm, 1.
Did I pass?


GC

 

[Jezston]

aesthetics. style. taste.

a dislike of the garish, the clashing, the strident, the loud. visually speaking.

or in plain speak; because it looks feckin' awful.

Everyone who isn't a serious cyclist thinks ALL cycling gear looks stupid anyway.

Flouro is great in dingy daytime weather, better than lights.

I understand the dislike of flourescent stuff because yes it isn't pretty and we shouldn't be demanding cyclists wear it (and helmets) to take responsibility away from bad drivers. There was a couple I used to see every day on my commute wearing flourescent jackets who only ever rode on cyclepaths anyway. I mean WTF.

But it's still useful. The arguments I've read against it's usefulness are tenuous - if you don't like the way it looks, you associate wearing it with amateurs and bad cyclists and you don't like the increased responsibility of being seen over seeing that's fine.

 

[gaz]

So you've never had a cycling accident then

I've had several collisions with other vehicles. Roughly half with hi-viz on and half without. All of them being of smidsy variety..
I have cycled many many many more miles without hi-viz.

 

[GrasB]

Flouro is great in dingy daytime weather, better than lights.

Not even close. Best thing during the day is a 1.5-3W LED light with some kind of flashing pattern that never turns off completely. These can be spotted miles (literally) of through hedgerows, between building, etc. A quick glimpse of something fluorescent through small gaps gives your eye a nondescript bright colour & tends to be written off as unimportant where as a bright red or white light catches the attention much more.

There's someone around here on a trike who often wears a fluro orange top, much brighter than the typical yellow tabards you see people wearing & has a a B&M light of some description. When riding along & I see him coming towards me I invariably see his headlight first, especially if it's up near the the American Seminary.

 

[Jezston]

I'm talking more about in closer urban environments. The flouro also tells you more about what the object is (i.e. a human) than a light which just says it's a light. But that's a whole other debate.

 

[GrasB]

A light is something on the road; bike, motorbike, car, etc.. Fluro means 'something' could be a delivery guy, lorry driver, service worker, ped, cyclists, a warning tape/ signage on the back of a lorry, etc...

 

[Boris Bajic]

I'm with Jezston on this. When driving, I do find it easier both to spot and to identify earlier cyclists who are wearing some sort of Hi-Viz.

I am in favour of lamps too, but I find that the cyclists I see in really good time tend to be wearing Hi-Viz or bright colours.

The earlier a motorist sees cyclists and identifies them as such, the safer and more predictable that motorist's response will be.

As Jezston implies, there are myriad other signals and identifiers; but to discount Hi-Viz seems eccentric. To my mind it is one of the key ones.

I do not write this as Mr Flouro-Cyclist. Little of my cycle clothing has true Hi-Viz properties. I write it as a motorist who appreciates being able to see cyclists early and identify them early.

Some of the negatives I've faced as a cyclist have involved motorists who've failed to see me in time. I'm all for giving them any help I can.

 

[ohnovino]

In broad daylight, hi-vis makes no difference.
At night, hi-vis makes no difference.

If a driver looks properly, they'll see you whatever you're wearing.
If a driver doesn't look, they'll miss you whatever you're wearing.

What that leaves is dim/dull/overcast conditions and where a driver just has a quick glance rather than a proper look, such as when they're about to pull out from a side road. If they just flick their eyes briefly in my direction, surely I've got a better chance of being spotted if I can make myself stand out.

 

[BentMikey]

You're not going to see any hiviz vest behind the lights I'm using.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The earlier a motorist sees cyclists and identifies them as such, the safer and more predictable that motorist's response will be.

In my experience that means the driver will often think to himself "Feck it, it's only a cyclist" and pull out regardless of how close I am etc.
It's the main reason I don't use blinking front lights, only steady.


GC