Reflective Tips (Part 2)

[GrumpyGregry]

I do see my own visibility on a bicycle as a safety issue. When I choose to cycle in clothing that makes me more visible, I do so for my own safety. The gear that I wear for safety's sake is 'safety gear'.

Similarly, I have lamps on my bicycle which I switch on when the quality of light is poor. It's a safety thing. I take a road position that I believe improves my chances of being seen and avoiding unintended contact. I don't believe that by taking that road position I make all other safety issues superfluous.

I wear gloves and (very rarely) a helmet. That is protective clothing. It doesn't make me more visible, but it keeps skin and bone away from tarmac. It may be refered to also as 'safety gear', but its primary function is to form a barrier between me and other objects (also to make me look like a mushroom).

As you said yourself; people think many things.

 

[gaz]

Absolutely no flash,that would have defeated the object, and as I said previously, the view I had with my eyes was even better than that portrayed by the camera.

I don't get your massive hang up over the fact that reflectives do work and you got yourself in a bit of a jam over your choice of words.

Just let it go and learn from it and please take my word for it, that had my results proved me to be wrong, I'm broad shouldered enough to have come on here and openly said so.

If you don't like reflectives, fine - your choice, don't use them, but they've kept me and colleagues safe for a lot of years at many unlit motorway and dual carriageway incidents; and without working in those conditions, it's easy to underestimate the value of anything that keeps you alive and gets you back to your family at the end of your shift.

All I've done here is shared that experience with fellow cyclists and the worst that can happen is someone spends a bit more cash. I don't need to spell out the worst case scenario if someone doesn't buy some protective gear and finds themselves in a position where they need it.

Why have you failed to provide exposure and iso information for your images?
I tried to replicate your photo and didn't get anything similar. I'm more than happy to accept that I am wrong, but I can't until I can replicate the same thing.

From my experience of road use as a driver of a motorised vehicle at night, I do not find the headlamps on the cars I have driven sufficient enough to reflect a large amount of light back from hi-viz worn above the waist.

 

[ushills]

Proof was asked for because data beats anecdote every time. Why do I need to see a cyclist at 600 yds when my braking distance is a fraction of that? Why aren't pedestrians encouraged to dress this way? Why aren't cars (oh so many of which around here have filthy number plates and defective lights) all bright yellow and covered in diamond tape?

So...

How many ninjas have you run down when driving? I'll wager the answer is near zero.
How many hi-viz types have you run down when driving? I'll wager the answer is near zero.

I think the answer is simple. You're looking. (Probably, I'll wager, because you are a cyclist) You aren't the problem.

Why do hi-viz types and ninjas alike suffer close passes in broad daylight?

Have you seen/read the attached document.

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38338/1/c38338.pdf

In the controlled tests carried out that are described in the study:

When wearing black cyclists were recognised 2% of the time, reflective vest 50% of the time and vest and ankle reflectors 90% of the time.

You are not forced to wear reflective clothing when cycling but to state that they provide no benefit is wrong, without doubt (and as proved in the above study) they improve visibility. What a driver then does with that information is up to them.

In answer to the question why do I need to see a cyclist at 600 yds when my braking distance is a fraction of that? Well if you haven't noticed him for 500 yds you have still have an opportunity for his reflective jacket to improve your chances of seeing him for the next 100yds, unlike the ninjas who I often only spot 20yds in the distance.

I will accept that hi-viz has very little benefit in the day, it's all about contrast. I wouldn't recommend cycling in camouflage gear where I live as you will look like a hedge and probably get hit by some blind OAP, however, a strong colour would be recommended. Reflective provides that contrast to the dark at night in the best way possible with the exception of good lights, in some cases reflective is sometime better than the red things some people fit to their bikes.

PS how many cyclists have I knocked down? One ninja cycling behind the back of my car while reversing, not proud and felt like killing the idiot for doing what he did, but he was young and not taught any different. I also try to eductate the local kids when they cycle on the road with no lights at night by explaining that I cannot see them when driving.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

20% of the time older drivers didn't recognise the cyclists with no lights wearing vests and ankle reflectors in a closed road unlit rural driving environment in a test designed to test cyclists assumptions about what made them visible.....

Hmmmmm.... were the drivers not looking?

 

[BentMikey]

If people on the road looking at you can see your reflectives before they can see your lights, then you need to spend a bit more on lights and/or get some more modern LEDs.

 

[ushills]

If people on the road looking at you can see your reflectives before they can see your lights, then you need to spend a bit more on lights and/or get some more modern LEDs.

Exactly, I would rather there be some standards for the minimum outputs from lights, a guy I saw last night had a barely visable rear red light stuck to his rucksack. I almost walked into him as I couldn't see his front light.

Personally for me it's a B&M Cyo and Seculite on the rear, reflective gillet and ankle reflectors plus one on my right wrist for indicating.

 

[ushills]

20% of the time older drivers didn't recognise the cyclists with no lights wearing vests and ankle reflectors in a closed road unlit rural driving environment in a test designed to test cyclists assumptions about what made them visible.....

Hmmmmm.... were the drivers not looking?

Better than the 100% of the time they didn't recognise the cyclists in black.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Better than the 100% of the time they didn't recognise the cyclists in black.

Not if you are Mr 10%

 

[biking_fox]

Why with the helmet debate and the reflective debate do people think that it is safer not to use reflective materials.

Assuming that a sensible individual cycles or even walks properly on the road, reflective material must at least be the same or better than wearing all black or non-reflective clothing.

Why not drive/cycle without lights surely that must be safer as well.

Stupid people will always be stupid

Because there is a cost involved in each case. Not just a monetary cost, but a time and a signicificant inconvenience cost, and a social cost. Given that 99%+ of bike journeys don't invovle an accident/incident some people want/need to save themselves incurring those costs.

I wish manufacturers would make jackets where the tiny reflective stripe isn't hid behind a rucksack, given that's the most practical mode of transport for me. I wish they'd make gloves that have refective tape on them as well. But it all depends on the repcise journey yo're making whether or not it's worth investing in the money tima eand inconvenience of cycle specific clothing.

 

[Spinney]

When I'm driving along on an unlit road I can see someone wearing reflective before I can see someone who is not. Therefore I am aware of their presence quicker and therefore able to adjust my speed & position quicker or even indicate around them thus advising those behind me of their presence and my intentions. If someone is dressed like a ninja they may not get that courtesy and I will just avoid them if I have insufficent time to do anything else.

How about viewing reflectives as something worn partly as a courtesy to drivers?

As a driver, if I catch sight of a ninja (as I did a few weeks ago when his/her shape momentarily blotted out the lights of oncoming cars as he turned onto the road), I then have to put a fair amount of concentration into keeping him in view until I pass them. If the cyclist is reflecting, it is so much easier for me to monitor their position, and it also allows me to plan how to overtake them rather than having to do a quick swerve or stamp on the brakes if I only spot them when I am quite close to them.

 

[BlackPanther]

1/ I wear hi viz.
2/ I use lights night and day.
I feel a little safer using these methods, but despite being lit up like a Christmas tree I still had a pratt pull out on me on a roundabout a couple of weeks ago. The reason I didn't get knocked off is because....
3/ I always assume that drivers just don't see me. Maybe they're texting. Maybe they're putting on their lipstick. Maybe they're drunk or high. Maybe I'm in their blind spot. Maybe they're homicidal maniacs who want to run me over for the hell of it. Even if I were to get knocked off by one of these muppets, I'd still be p1553d off with myself for not being on the ball. The best method by far for not getting taken out is to assume every driver is out to get you. Sad, but oh so true.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

BlackPanther I share your attitude but...

...how does your assumption work to prevent rear ending?

 

[snailracer]

Lights, even very bright ones, do not give much indication of a rider's width, from which a motorist can gauge distance. Reflectives and the much-underrated pedal reflectors are useful for this.

The additional confounding issue with photographing reflectives is the observation angle resulting from the separation (if any) between the camera lens and flash and the distance between the flash and reflective target - some reflectives materials are "narrower" than others, which makes them seem brighter when photographed with a typical camera with co-located flash, but the advantage may be reversed in the real-life situation where there is separation between the driver's eye and headlight, in particular at close range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector

 

[mattsr]

I feel as though I've just arrived in some sort of parallel universe reading some of the posts in this thread.

How can it be anything other than simple common sense to wear reflectives? The clue is in the name. You can argue all you like about camera settings, how visible they are, whether reflective leggings are more effective than a reflective jacket etc., etc., but surely the point is, you are more likely to be seen if you wear them than if you don't. And that's what matters. Isn't it?


And just a quick one on the Altura Night Vision Jackets- I had one of the original versions, and the zip was absolute rubbish, giving up the ghost after a few weeks, but I bought the Evo version to replace it and the zip seems much better.

 

[snailracer]

Because as Greg says (and as the dog-walkers I saw exemplify), people are being educated to believe they are some form of protection which they are not. It would be far better to educate people to do as the man in black was doing; if they want to add reflectives as well, that's cool. The problem is that (like ever-brighter lights on vehicles) these are portrayed as 'safety gear' that replaces sensible practice. People think that as long as they are wearing reflectives (or driving with all their brightest lights shining), they are safe.

Aren't you over-egging the risk compensation issue here?
If you take it to the logical limit, you would get rid of the lights as well, and simply avoid riding at night.