Reflective Tips (Part 2)

[G-Zero]

After some negative comments on a recent thread regarding the effectiveness of reflective panels on cycling jackets, please have a look at the following pictures and make your own minds up.

We're both pleased we bought them, especially after seeing these pics and I make no excuse for creating a new thread, as I feel it is worthwhile having the pics up front.

They first 3 are in the dipped beam of an ordinary little 6 year old Toyota Aygo at approximate distances of 30, 60 and 90 metres, as paced out by my good lady in her Altura Nightvision jacket.

The last pic was taken purely out of interest with the lights on main beam, at the limit of the road that we used for the pics, on a 90 degree bend, at a distance of 468 metres (0.291 miles).

All the pics were taken on an old digital compact, with no changes to exposure time and without a tripod, thus the slight changes in view.

 

[400bhp]

 

[BlackPanther]

I agree 100%. I wear an Endura Flyte high viz jacket. In addition, all my bikes are reflected up. O.K, some people think using/wearing hi viz makes you look a tad silly, but I want every advantage I can get on the roads. Besides, on most bikes you can get diamond grade tape that matches closely. The red reflective tape on my bacchetta for example is not noticeable in daylight.

 

[gaz]

My point was that refelctives on your legs are far better than on your upper body.

Anyway, let me grab my camera, tripod, car and an assistant!

All the pics were taken on an old digital compact, with no changes to exposure time and without a tripod, thus the slight changes in view.

Can you please post the exposure, aperture, ISO and focal length of those images.
Such data should be stored in the EXIF or meta data of the image. If you can't find it out then please send me a copy and I will look. It is the only fair way to compare images taken from different cameras.

 

[gaz]

Slightly out of focus. My apologies for that, I took them rather quickly and without reviewing the images in detail as it was mighty cold outside.
My assistant was standing roughly 30-40 meters in front of me. The car was a modern Mini that is 05 plate.

The first on full beam. Exposure 1/30sec at f/5.0, 39mm, ISO 3200

Normal beam. 1/30 sec at f/5.0, 39mm, ISO 3200

Note how my result is extremely different to yours...

 

[HovR]

Anyone else think CC should have a set of guidelines for night time camera settings, so the pictures we take of lighting are actually fair comparisons against each other?

 

[gaz]

Anyone else think CC should have a set of guidelines for night time camera settings, so the pictures we take of lighting are actually fair comparisons against each other?

So rarely does this sort of thing happen, it will often be overlooked. Just like most of the other guidelines that we have.

As long as people post their ISO's, exposure times and aperture then the pictures can be replicated.

 

[HovR]

The idea was that it would be a set of unofficial guidelines users could follow if they so chose, but you are probably right, they would be forgotten/overlooked.

 

[wiggydiggy]

What is the ISO, exposure time and aperture of the human eye please, then you can replicate it and then you can truly compare.

Alternatively stick some reflectives on your arse in the shape of a smiley face and have some fun

 

[Norm]

As long as people post their ISO's, exposure times and aperture then the pictures can be replicated.

This is the problem with people who use compacts. Looking at the top images, they do look impressive until you look at the effect on the verge. In some of them, the same exposure which shows the reflectives at 90m has burnt out the verge, so that's probably not a good reflection **groan** of the way that the eye would perceive the scene.

Conversely, in gaz's images, the pavement is barely illuminated so that's possible showing less than the eye would see.

However, that's a very subjective opinion, as eyes are all very different and the way that we perceive light would change from gaz's street-lit urban surroundings to G-Zero's very rural scene.

 

[gaz]

Conversely, in gaz's images, the pavement is barely illuminated so that's possible showing less than the eye would see.

Indeed, I should have probably put the ISO up to 6400.

 

[G-Zero]

My point was that refelctives on your legs are far better than on your upper body.

Anyway, let me grab my camera, tripod, car and an assistant!


Can you please post the exposure, aperture, ISO and focal length of those images.
Such data should be stored in the EXIF or meta data of the image. If you can't find it out then please send me a copy and I will look. It is the only fair way to compare images taken from different cameras.

This is the very reason I created a new thread, rather than risk the pics being lost in pages of nonsensical argument.

Your initial response was "DO NOT GET A REFLECTIVE JACKET, they are a waste of money". No one disagreed with you about the reflectives on moving parts being even more beneficial.
Furthermore, when I suggested moving your subject further away from the lights and that the above would be the case, your response was "Oh Really" ?

IMO the pictures above show "Yes really" and that the jackets are not a waste of money.

I am not a professional photographer with expensive kit, but to keep things simple, the view that my eyes had of the jacket last night was even better than that depicted in the photos.
I will pass on the figures if I can find them in the camera when I get home tonight, however why anyone would feel the need to make comparisons between cameras is beyond me, the issue is whether or not the reflectives work and going off 'eyes alone', they do.

I'm also bemused as to why anyone would try to put fellow and/or potential new cyclists off being as safe as possible on our roads.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I'm also bemused as to why anyone would try to put fellow and/or potential new cyclists off being as safe as possible on our roads.

Do you have any data, other than intuition, in combination with 'it's obvious' and 'common sense', to support the assertion that reflective jackets actually make cyclists safer?

 

[G-Zero]

Do you have any data, other than intuition, in combination with 'it's obvious' and 'common sense', to support the assertion that reflective jackets actually make cyclists safer?

Errrrmm..... No !

Common sense and common use, both do it for me.

The fact that reflectives are used in one form or another throughout the world for road signs, for 'cat's eye' studs, on most vehicle registration plates, on retro reflective panels in most rear lights, side markers, spoke reflectors, pedal reflectors, trailer warning triangles, on emergency vehicles; and finally on emergency services personnel, breakdown services and road workers clothing is sufficient for me to justify using them on my cycle jacket.

I'm sure the data will be out there somewhere, in the H&S mauals, but whether or not it's cycle specific is another matter and I certainly don't feel the need to access it.
There's probably data that suggests hi-viz clothing is safer than dark clothing in certain environments, or that lights on vehicles are safer than no lights in certain conditions, but I don't need access to the data before I believe it.

Keep it simple - Be safe - Be seen

 

[gaz]

This is the very reason I created a new thread, rather than risk the pics being lost in pages of nonsensical argument.

Your initial response was "DO NOT GET A REFLECTIVE JACKET, they are a waste of money". No one disagreed with you about the reflectives on moving parts being even more beneficial.
Furthermore, when I suggested moving your subject further away from the lights and that the above would be the case, your response was "Oh Really" ?

IMO the pictures above show "Yes really" and that the jackets are not a waste of money.

I am not a professional photographer with expensive kit, but to keep things simple, the view that my eyes had of the jacket last night was even better than that depicted in the photos.
I will pass on the figures if I can find them in the camera when I get home tonight, however why anyone would feel the need to make comparisons between cameras is beyond me, the issue is whether or not the reflectives work and going off 'eyes alone', they do.

I'm also bemused as to why anyone would try to put fellow and/or potential new cyclists off being as safe as possible on our roads.

You took my inital post slightly out of context there, but that's fine. I'm just challenging peoples opinions of reflectives, and I welcome a good discusion on the topic, i've laid out my position that I think position is key!

And yet my pictures show that a jacket is not as effective as people think.

My eyes last night saw just the same as what my picture shows, the refective hump held down by the legs clearly visible but the jacket not.

The expsure, apearture and ISO are very important, it's not to show the difference between two cameras but in fact to see if you used a long exposure time (not really possible without a tripod) or a high ISO. Needless to say i'm not the only one questioning your photos, as someone else has pointed out, the hedge on the left looks rather well light up, much more than I would expect.