Least dorkiest hi viz for civilian clothed commuters?

[philepo]

Hi

Am just curious what people think about hi viz. I've never used a helmet or hi viz but recently I've started a commute in a new area and the drivers are very laissez faire about driving safety and quite scary at times. I don't want to wear cycling gear (Lycra etc) but is a Sam Browne belt really dorky on top of a suit or dark overcoat?

I bought the Sam Browne belt as I don't like the look of the completely enveloped hi viz clothing and I thought that the belt was less dorky about cycling safety like a vest. However, a colleague did comment that I looked like a giant child on a cycling safety course! (So much for my view on dorkiness?!)

I know there are lots of choices, but for clarity, let's just say which is LEAST dorkiest:

1 sam browne belt
eg http://www.preseli.biz/product-reflective-sam-browne-belt-532.html

2 workman's vest
eg http://wholesaler.alibaba.com/product-detail/LX602-manufacture-100-poly-fabric-meet_60289273366.html

 

[Drago]

You may want to use the forum search function, but the bottom line is that despite efforts to prove such a link, no evidence has come to light which proves the wearing of hi vis makes you any safer on the road.

A lot of us, including myself, wear them, but not because we have faith in their infallible safety attributes but rather it immediately shuts down an almost inevitable avenue of victim blaming if some car driver should ever wipe me out.

 

[mjr]

A lot of us, including myself, wear them, but not because we have faith in their infallible safety attributes but rather it immediately shuts down an almost inevitable avenue of victim blaming if some car driver should ever wipe me out.

Whereas I generally don't (some of my coats have reflective detail and a couple of gifts are that awful yellow - but I'm less likely to wear them because yellow really isn't my colour) because I view the above as like "let's throw that dead squirrel in my neighbour's garden", encouraging a belief that drivers should expect cyclists to be wearing the awful visual pollution and uglying up landscapes and townscapes. Once they've got the cyclists, they'll come for the walkers. Then animals. Then every damned thing near a road... http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2007/12/...council-paint-everything-else-luminous-green/

And that in a nutshell probably sums up the two extremes of the debate

I feel it is not possible to wear hi-vis and not look like a dork IMO. It's far better to light+reflector up the bike, because you never ride without the bike.

 

[philepo]

You may want to use the forum search function, but the bottom line is that despite efforts to prove such a link, no evidence has come to light which proves the wearing of hi vis makes you any safer on the road.

A lot of us, including myself, wear them, but not because we have faith in their infallible safety attributes but rather it immediately shuts down an almost inevitable avenue of victim blaming if some car driver should ever wipe me out.

Fair point, particularly the second bit. But, there is no evidence that wearing a seat belt saves lives - but I presume you do wear it when in the car? And would wear it if it was not compulsory as well?

 

[Drago]

There is a vast raft of evidence, both statistical and directly scientifically observered , that 3 point seat belts improve casualty rate in a smack, so I can't see the relevance.

 

[mjr]

To answer the original question belatedly. A work overvest is less dorky and has the benefit that you can impersonate a worker while doing some unofficial roadworks and probably not be challenged. Not that I ever have.

 

[jay clock]

how about just everyday kit but in bright colours. This for example....

 

[mjr]

how about just everyday kit but in bright colours. This for example....

That's good enough to "like" but it's a shame there's no Pat Sharp in it.

 

[philepo]

There is a vast raft of evidence, both statistical and directly scientifically observered , that 3 point seat belts improve casualty rate in a smack, so I can't see the relevance.

Simply not true I'm afraid There is a "vast raft" of evidence that in a crash the people wearing seat belts are much safer, that is true, not to say pretty intuitive, however, the bit you mention about statistical observations showing that it's the case is rubbish. Statistically, for the driving population as a whole (UK), seat belts have not saved lives. It seems like a paradox but both facts are true.

To me this is analogous to the hi viz argument (and helmets also): in other words overall there may be no evidence that casualty rates are reduced by wearing hi viz (I think this is what you are saying?), but individually it is proven fact that hi viz works in that it does makes people more visible in building sites and so safer - but I don't know if any scientific tests have validated this for cycling too?? Perhaps not and therefore perhaps I can stop looking like a dork.

 

[Milkfloat]

 

[Lonestar]

Perhaps not and therefore perhaps I can stop looking like a dork.

To be honest I wear it and I don't really care what people think.I'm more worried about the dorks who can't drive.

 

[subaqua]

Simply not true I'm afraid There is a "vast raft" of evidence that in a crash the people wearing seat belts are much safer, that is true, not to say pretty intuitive, however, the bit you mention about statistical observations showing that it's the case is rubbish. Statistically, for the driving population as a whole (UK), seat belts have not saved lives. It seems like a paradox but both facts are true.

To me this is analogous to the hi viz argument (and helmets also): in other words overall there may be no evidence that casualty rates are reduced by wearing hi viz (I think this is what you are saying?), but individually it is proven fact that hi viz works in that it does makes people more visible in building sites and so safer - but I don't know if any scientific tests have validated this for cycling too?? Perhaps not and therefore perhaps I can stop looking like a dork.

anecdotal so therefore ineligible by some forum pedants, but the fact that i am typing this rather than pushing up daisies is directly down to me wearing a seatbelt in 1990 when i rolled my car. I injured myself and the bruised/ cracked ribs took a inordiante amount of time to heal.

back to the OP . I have a bright red Night vision coat it keeps me warm and dry and has a bonus in that it is bright and has some retro reflectives on it

 

[philepo]

anecdotal so therefore ineligible by some forum pedants, but the fact that i am typing this rather than pushing up daisies is directly down to me wearing a seatbelt in 1990 when i rolled my car. I injured myself and the bruised/ cracked ribs took a inordiante amount of time to heal.

back to the OP . I have a bright red Night vision coat it keeps me warm and dry and has a bonus in that it is bright and has some retro reflectives on it

I wear a seat belt too.
Does the night vision coat fit over a bulky normal coat?

 

[vickster]

I have one of these, which has replaced a yellow one, looks less bikey and road crewish...warm and waterproof to boot. http://www.wheelies.co.uk/p64202/Al...aign=Adwords&gclid=CNPax7jDi8sCFQQewwodX34Apw
There's a men's one too

In the summer, I wear a yellow or red gilet or a brightish jersey

I bought a Sam Browne belt when I first started cycling, it was never comfortable and as such has sat in a box

I can't imagine a driver really seeing one if they can't see the adult wearing it. A piece of reflective, bright clothing serves a dual purpose

 

[mjr]

I can't imagine a driver really seeing one if they can't see the adult wearing it. A piece of reflective, bright clothing serves a dual purpose

The other purpose being to help make cyclists an outgroup, or what?

If a motorist cannot see bright+legal bike lights and reflectors and a big lump like me on a bike, it's unlikely that choice of clothes is going make the slightest difference.