Smidsy

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Eat MY Dust

New Member
Terminator said:
What's wrong with Hi-Viz then?

It's made a lot of difference to my commute over the last ten years.

Nothing wrong with it, but I personally found it to be of no benefit. I used to cycle in Hi Viz but decided a couple of years ago not to bother. I now wear mostly black even in the dark winter nights and haven't found there to be any difference in drivers attitudes. I believe that if you have the correct lighting on your bike, you don't need the Hi Viz.
 
OP
OP
B

BentMikey

Rider of Seolferwulf
*cough* The OP was not about hiviz or drivers' perceptions of cyclists, but about overtaking "invisible" recumbents and then nearly hitting the "invisible" pedestrian refuge.
 

Tynan

Veteran
I didn't mean hi viz, I posted 'any sort of hi viz'

meaning ninjas and people in dull colours that actually seem to want to be not seen

lets not have yet another hiviz discussion

yes to the OP point, perhaps preceding point would have been better

as for generalisations, you can hardly ever make any point at all without generalising to some degree, as long as it's clear you're generalising, what's the problem

now the weather is better I'm wearing the forum top, that's bright enough, that and lights
 

Terminator

New Member
I wont have another Hi-Viz discussion i'd get a better response talking to a brick wall.

Watch a ped next time.Very interesting.Half the time they only look once and don't see you.Happens all the time.Then im invisible.
 

Origamist

Legendary Member
magnatom said:
Interesting. I don't have time to read all of this at the moment. Did they manage to account for the fact that cyclists who wear hi-viz would be more likely to be conscientious. On average I would suspect that this would be the case.

One could also argue that cyclists who wear High Viz clobber could be less conscientious as they believe they are more likely to be seen and cycle accordingly...
 

Tynan

Veteran
peds work from sound most of the time I think, if they worry at all

they must see bikes all the time in London at least but they only ever seem to do a quick look for a speeding car, the line bikes take seems to be a blind spot
 

Origamist

Legendary Member
BentMikey said:
*cough* The OP was not about hiviz or drivers' perceptions of cyclists, but about overtaking "invisible" recumbents and then nearly hitting the "invisible" pedestrian refuge.

The driver was either a) lying, or :angry: lying to himself, or c) both.
 

Tynan

Veteran
Origamist said:
One could also argue that cyclists who wear High Viz clobber could be less conscientious as they believe they are more likely to be seen and cycle accordingly...

yes one could, one could find an argument to negate every single point

and then it's all meaningless isn't it
 

Origamist

Legendary Member
Tynan said:
yes one could, one could find an argument to negate every single point

and then it's all meaningless isn't it

It's not negation, it's a counter-argument; a dialectic. :angry:
 
Origamist said:
One could also argue that cyclists who wear High Viz clobber could be less conscientious as they believe they are more likely to be seen and cycle accordingly...

You could, but I don't buy it. Generally if people wear something all the time it tends to become the norm and is forgotten about. However, we've had this discussion on here ad nauseating'um so it's best not to go there! :biggrin:
 
OP
OP
B

BentMikey

Rider of Seolferwulf
Oi, you lot! Bu**er off somewhere else with hiviz. It's irrelevant to this topic anyway, because although the driver claimed he didn't see me, he somehow decided to overtake the invisible cyclist rather than driving straight into my rear wheel.
 
Tynan said:
yes one could, one could find an argument to negate every single point

and then it's all meaningless isn't it

That's the job of us scientists to try and control for as many confounds as possible. Completely accounting for everything is near impossible, but possible confounds should at least be discussed in the paper, otherwise it indicates that the science wasn't to great.
 
BentMikey said:
Oi, you lot! Bu**er off somewhere else with hiviz. It's irrelevant to this topic anyway, because although the driver claimed he didn't see me, he somehow decided to overtake the invisible cyclist rather than driving straight into my rear wheel.

See what you've done now origamist, you've woken the monster....:biggrin::biggrin:
 

Terminator

New Member
34zad74.gif
 
Top Bottom