Is black cycling gear dangerous?

[smutchin]

Can you really deny that Hi Viz is not more visible in daylight conditions? What non-anecdotal evidence do you have?

I'm not the one making claims about the effectiveness of hi-viz. I have made no claims either way.

d.

 

[ufkacbln]

PS the "greater distance myth" for HiViz is bizarrely only shown in interviews with cyclists. Car drivers do not have the same opinion

A divergence in attitudes was also apparent in terms of attribution of responsibility in cyclist-vehicle conflicts on the road. While the use of visibility aids was advocated by cyclists, this was not reflected in self-reported wearing patterns, and cyclists reported that the distance at which they would be first recognised by a driver was twice that estimated by the drivers.

Also interestingly a 2009 study in Australia showed that :

..... fluorescent vests were not a significant improvement on black clothing at night, and that retro-reflective strips were more effective when attached to knees and ankles than on a more or less static jacket.

 

[Recycler]

The problem is not whether HiViz works or not, .

& smutchin !

Can we tackle that issue first, before we go onto the H&S side of the question.
Simple question. Do you accept that Hi Viz generally offers greater visibility to the wearer in day light conditions?

PS May I ask that when you give quotes to support your argument that you also provide a link and/or quote the source?

 

[lulubel]

Despite my flippant earlier comment, I do agree with wearing hiviz in poor visibility. When I cycled to work, I had to wear a hiviz vest on arrival on the premises, so I tended to wear either the vest or my own hiviz jacket for the whole ride. Now, for the rare days when visibility is poor here, I have a choice of 2 different weights of hiviz jacket to wear.

On a bright, sunny day, I don't think they're at all necessary, although I don't tend to wear all-black tights and long sleeved top without a brightly coloured gilet on top. I figure there's no point in giving drivers that excuse to claim they didn't see me. I do recall one occasion when I was running on the coast path near Lands End in my hiviz windproof jacket, and 2 walkers ignored their dog while it ran after me and jumped all over me. Their excuse was, "Sorry, we didn't see you."

When I rode in the dark, which I don't do any more because I don't have to, I didn't worry particularly much about what I was wearing, but my bike was lit up like a Christmas tree. If a car coming the other way flashed its lights at me (presumably to tell me I hadn't dipped mine) I took that as a good indication that they were bright enough.

 

[Recycler]

PS the "greater distance myth" for Hi Viz is bizarrely only shown in interviews with cyclists. Car drivers do not have the same opinion:

You give a highly selective part of that quote to make your case. The full Australian abstract http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29579/ reads:

This study explored the beliefs and attitudes of cyclists and drivers regarding cyclist visibility, use of visibility aids and crashes involving cyclists and motorists. Data are presented for 1460 participants (622 drivers and 838 cyclists) and demonstrate that there are high rates of cyclist–vehicle crashes, many of which were reported to be due to the driver not seeing the cyclist in time to avoid a collision. A divergence in attitudes was also apparent in terms of attribution of responsibility in cyclist–vehicle conflicts on the road. While the use of visibility aids was advocated by cyclists, this was not reflected in self-reported wearing patterns, and cyclists reported that the distance at which they would be first recognised by a driver was twice that estimated by the drivers. Collectively, these results suggest that interventions should target cyclists’ use of visibility aids, which is less than optimal in this population, as well as re-educating both groups regarding visibility issues".

(my underline & bold)

In other words they were saying that cyclists generally believe that Hi Viz improves visibility even though they don't always practise what they preach. It also suggest that intervention (i.e. education) should be aimed at cyclists as well as drivers. Put another way, the very quote you are giving is from a report which recommends that more needs to be done to encourage cyclists to wear Hi Viz!

Also interestingly a 2009 study in Australia showed that :

Nobody has suggested that Hi viz offers much at night. It won't. The fluorescence in Hi Viz only works in daylight because of the ultra violet which comes from sun light. It may be a little brighter in a cars headlights than, say, black but that will only be because of the yellow/orange colour rather than the fluorescence.
At night reflective strips take over in the visibility stakes.

 

[smutchin]

Do you accept that Hi Viz generally offers greater visibility to the wearer in day light conditions?

No.

d.

 

[Poacher]

I usually wear relatively hi-vis tops, not just because I feel it makes me slightly safer, but mainly because if the worst happens, a SMIDSY argument would fail spectacularly in any reasonable court.

 

[Recycler]

No..

In that case I see little point in continuing with you on this thread. You said earlier that

I'm not the one making claims about the effectiveness of hi-viz. I have made no claims either way

and you have now contradicted that. It's pointless trying to have a serious discussion whilst trying to nail jelly to a wall.
Bye.

 

[ufkacbln]

You give a highly selective part of that quote to make your case. The full Australian abstract http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29579/ reads:

(my underline & bold)

In other words they were saying that cyclists generally believe that Hi Viz improves visibility even though they don't always practise what they preach. It also suggest that intervention (i.e. education) should be aimed at cyclists as well as drivers. Put another way, the very quote you are giving is from a report which recommends that more needs to be done to encourage cyclists to wear Hi Viz!

Not at all.

The anecdata quoted previously was that HiViz makes you more visible at a distance to motorists, I simply replied to that (speific) statement that drivers do not agree with this.

The unequivocal point is that there is an overestimation by cyclist of the increased visibility afforded by HIViz - or did you miss that?

While the use of visibility aids was advocated by cyclists, this was not reflected in self-reported wearing patterns, and cyclists reported that the distance at which they would be first recognised by a driver was twice that estimated by the drivers.

Nothing selective, underhand or devious. Just a sim0le point disproving anecdata offered.

Nobody has suggested that Hi viz offers much at night. It won't. The fluorescence in Hi Viz only works in daylight because of the ultra violet which comes from sun light. It may be a little brighter in a cars headlights than, say, black but that will only be because of the yellow/orange colour rather than the fluorescence.
At night reflective strips take over in the visibility stakes.

Your assumpton is also flawed if you read the article.

Data are presented for 1460 participants (622 drivers and 838 cyclists) and demonstrate that there are high rates of cyclist–vehicle crashes, many of which were reported to be due to the driver not seeing the cyclist in time to avoid a collision.

It is consistently proven by other studies that not looking, not seeing and failing to react appropriately is more likely to be the cause of accidents. Any claim that HIViz would have helped is not necessarily supported.
Another study backs this up....

Although again coming out is suppport of HIViz, thay recognised the failings..

Trials of driver recognition have shown that cyclist and pedestrian use of fluorescent colors increases detection and recognition time by drivers,but, to our knowledge, no observational or experimental studies have previously shown a reduction in rate of bicycle crashes.

They also concluded that other effects and measures were of similar importance

On the basis of these results, combined with the well-established phenomenon of “safety in numbers”, we suggest that a common mechanism of collisions may be the failure of motorists to perceive and respond to cyclists. Cyclists able to “mimic” cars—by virtue of increased speed and size—may be more likely to be recognized by motorists and therefore avoided. Use of fluorescent colors may “shock” drivers’ perceptual systems into seeing cyclists who would have been missed otherwise. If this is true, transport planning that seeks to integrate, as much as possible, motor vehicles and bicycles, and hence increase the familiarity of cyclists to car drivers, may have a beneficial effect on the risk of a crash and injury.

Road positioning, size of rider and speed were all of importance iwth a large fast rider acting "assertively" also increased the visibility.

 

[Recycler]

.

Would you give either a link or state the source of those quotes?

 

[ufkacbln]

Conspicuity and bicycle crashes: preliminary findings of the Taupo Bicycle Study


http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/14/1/11.full

 

[Recycler]

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/14/1/11.full

The key finding of this study is the strong link found between cyclist conspicuity and bicycle crashes. An eightfold reduction in days absent from work was observed between “never” and “always” wearers of fluorescent colors. Greater average speed and increased body mass index, exposures that may relate to conspicuity, were also associated with reduced rate of injury outcomes.
Key points

• Low cyclist conspicuity may increase the rate of crash-related injury.
• Increased use of high-visibility clothing by cyclists is likely to reduce injury.
• Low average cyclist speed and low body mass index may also increase the rate of crashes.
• Days off work due to a bicycle crash injury may provide a useful outcome for assessing risk factors for bicycle crashes that involve motor vehicles.

Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?
If we are we can then move onto the question of H&S assessments which you raised earlier.

 

[smutchin]

you have now contradicted that.

Oh no I haven't!

I haven't made any claims about hi-viz myself. All I've said is that I reject your claims on the basis of a lack of compelling evidence. I'm a sceptic, that's all.

It's pointless trying to have a serious discussion whilst trying to nail jelly to a wall.
Bye.

Yay! I win!

d.

 

[smutchin]

Conspicuity and bicycle crashes: preliminary findings of the Taupo Bicycle Study


http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/14/1/11.full

I'm no Ben Goldacre but that triggers a few alarm bells - most significantly, the fact that it's a web survey of a self-selecting group of respondents...

They also seem to be a little vague about their definition of "crash" - as far as I can tell from a superficial reading, they don't specify that they mean incidents where a cyclist was knocked off by a motorist who claimed not to have seen them. For all I know, their definition of "crash" may well include incidents where no motor vehicle was involved at all.

d.

 

[ufkacbln]

Are we now agreed that the conspicuity of Hi Viz does offer safety benefits to cyclists?

The simple and incontrovertible fact is that HiViz is not the complete answer

If we are we can then move onto the question of H&S assessments which you raised earlier.

..... As before, ASDA's H&S assessment is tha their staff need to wear HiViz in the car park... should shoppers?

Cyclists are individuals with the right to decide for themselves.