Tips to Make Yourself Visible

[glasgowcyclist]

[QUOTE 5068620, member: 9609"]because most drivers are relatively careful and helping them out by getting yourself seen earlier is a nice way to thank them for their consideration.
Then there is the group who are not so careful, poor eyesight / mobile phones / over complicated heating controls - - being big and bright is going to help in getting seen when they do glance forward.
Then there are the speeders, 90mph is 40 metres per second, they are concentrating but you need to become recognisable as a cyclist 3 or 4 seconds out - can your lights and shape give then this info from a 140 metres?
Then they are the complete idiots like you mention, not really much you can do but get off the road out of the way.[/QUOTE]

As I rode down one of the rare pieces of segregated cycle route in Glasgow this morning, a pedestrian stepped in front of me without looking, causing me to stop. She wasn't wearing hi-vis but was dressed in dark winter coat & hat whereas I was on a bright white bike, with big white panniers and my smug-git B&M dynamo lights on.

I avoided hitting her because I was keeping a lookout for normal people doing normal things while normally dressed.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 5068620, member: 9609"]because most drivers are relatively careful and helping them out by getting yourself seen earlier is a nice way to thank them for their consideration.
Then there is the group who are not so careful, poor eyesight / mobile phones / over complicated heating controls - - being big and bright is going to help in getting seen when they do glance forward.
Then there are the speeders, 90mph is 40 metres per second, they are concentrating but you need to become recognisable as a cyclist 3 or 4 seconds out - can your lights and shape give then this info from a 140 metres?
Then they are the complete idiots like you mention, not really much you can do but get off the road out of the way.[/QUOTE]
If they're careful and responsible, they don't want your thanks. In fact, they would probably prefer you looked ordinary and not wear confusing reflective white stripes. I certainly would. Anyway, hi vis doesn't matter in this case because this group wouldn't've hit you anyway.

If they're not paying enough attention, if hi vis worked, then you'd be farking over the person cycling next to you by distracting the driver from them, possibly when they're closer. Is that the sort of selfish swine you want to be? So hi vis may well put others in more danger.

If they're doing 90, they're closing on other vehicles at 30-70mph, so they're going to lift off as soon as they see tail lights... unless they think it's something they can squeeze past, such as a cyclist. So hi vis may well put you in more danger.

And the rest, yes, not much can be done, but fortunately that's a tiny minority.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

And yet the only conclusion out of studies into hi is use by cyclists concluded they were hit more often than those without. Good drivers will see you several hundred meters ahead on a straight road, regardless of what you wear. What matters is whether they pay attention to you and any other vulnerable road users, moderate their driving and speed in the presence of vulnerable road users and continue to do that as they approach you, and are able to stop in the distance they see clear. Indeed being able to stop behind you should you be turning right etc.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

If drivers are not seeing vulnerable road users or obstructions early enough for them to react appropriately then the correct response is lower speed limits for that section of road.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 5069196, member: 9609"]where are these conclusive studies ? think there have. But I think the problem here is some cyclists don't want to come out of the 60s and feel their safety is everyone else's responsibility.[/QUOTE]
The safety of other road users IS everyone else's responsibility.

And as wearing space lemon or having uber lights doesn't affect my safety one jot so far as I can tell (school of hard knocks) and none of the space lights and uber lemon advocates can put forward a shred of evidence (pelmets anyone?) that they do improve my safety I'll carry on insisting that drivers drive responsibly, and arguing with the lemonistas.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If you have legal lights and reflectors it is someone else's responsibility. The question is why is that not being enforced?

Because an Englishman's car is his castle?

 

[raleighnut]

Because an Englishman's car is his Codpiece?

FTFY.

 

[jefmcg]

[QUOTE 5069196, member: 9609"]where are these conclusive studies ? think there have been two put forward in this thread which are about as inconclusive as it gets.[/QUOTE]
Fine. If hi viz works, please produce the studies that show it prevents injuries and save lives.

[QUOTE 5066128, member: 9609"]the fact that these trucks only get hit once in a blue moon proves how effective it is[/QUOTE]

Do you know how often they get hit? Do you have any data to compare with the other stopped vehicles on the motorway?

I see a fair number of unlit cyclists. They are also rarely hit. Does shows how effective not being lit and wearing dark clothes is?

The apparent truth is that if a driver looks properly, they will see you, and if they don't they won't - and what you wear changes nothing.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 5069750, member: 9609"]May be you mean it should be? becacause at the moment not many of them are thinking that way.[/QUOTE]
I mean it is. That people are not held accountable for failing in their responsibilities is

a) a separate debate
b) No reason to increase my burden of responsibility via visibilism, nor to insist or imply I'm accountable if I don't subscribe to the lemon way.

I hope you continue to argue with the drivers, Im very much on your side - but think you're wrong to criticise those who are just trying to make the best of a bad situation.

I believe I am right, and somewhat entitled, to criticise anyone who, by their dress or specific equipment, portrays to non-cyclists that cycling is an unduly hazardous activity.

The benefits of cycling far outweigh the small risks involved, but the non-cyclist never knows that if riders either wear special sports clothes, indicating that only athletes need apply, or PPE, indicating that the riders health and safety are at significant risk whilst riding, or sport nuclear powered lights "to be seen".

On top of that I strongly feel that the "devolution" for road safety to the more vulnerable road users is an inherently motor-centric position, at best thoughtless, and worse, brainwashed, that needs to be constantly challenged. I can't abide the UK's motor-centrism.

 

[Hitchington]

keep a pasty complexion by avoiding going on holiday to sunny places.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 5069839, member: 9609"]please produce the studies that show it does not.

with probably every health and safety body within europe if not the world advising that it is the best way to be seen, I think the onus is on you to show that it does not help.[/QUOTE]
PPE is at the bottom of the pyramid. Anyone who ascribes the reduction in H&S injuries and deaths to the use of PPE because it is "the best way to be seen" can reasonably expect to be challenged that they appear not to understand how that pyramid works.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 5069839, member: 9609"]please produce the studies that show it does not.

with probably every health and safety body within europe if not the world advising that it is the best way to be seen, I think the onus is on you to show that it does not help.[/QUOTE]
It is rarely possible to conclusively prove that something is definitely useless. It should be easy to show that something has a significant effect if it does, yet no-one can for hi-vis.

I think the claim about "probably every health and safety body within europe if not the world advising that it is the best way to be seen" might be misleading: the UK's HSE only advises use of hi-vis jackets for people who have stopped their vehicles in traffic, doesn't it? Or have I missed where they say people walking and cycling on the roads should wear it? It doesn't seem to be in the last Report of the Work-related Road Safety Task Group.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 5069899, member: 9609"]not really, you and others are going against the advice of the highway code, show me where the highway code is wrong[/QUOTE]
Easily shown: Rule 59 is wrong and was introduced without any evidence - I think in 1993, under another number.

[QUOTE 5069899, member: 9609"]I am not telling anyone to make themselves easier to be seen, but defending my right to follow the advice of the highway code and make an effort to be seen by other road users, why is that not OK with you ?[/QUOTE]
If you want to do it because you're blindly following the highway code, then that's OK - what's not OK is to pretend that Major's government introducing it or Blair's government keeping it in the last code edition necessarily means it's safer or backed by sound evidence.

 

[mjr]

The highway code is wrong because it is written from a carcentric viewpoint.

Indeed! The Blair government initially only invited motoring organisations into the drafting process for the last revision. The cycling organisations had to do a lot of lobbying even to get cycling concerns heard and get the few changes they did - I think the rules about cycle facilities (61-63) initially lacked the "where practicable" and similar qualifications and were basically back to the 1940s highway code's "if there is a cycle track - use it". It's high time to rip it up and start again, putting humans first.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESy-Z8vqMrE

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 5069899, member: 9609"]I am not telling anyone to make themselves easier to be seen, but defending my right to follow the advice of the highway code and make an effort to be seen by other road users, why is that not OK with you ?[/QUOTE]
It is entirely ok with me for you to defend your right to do as you please. Our debate, and this is by no means the first time this debate has featured on cc, will live on long after we've agreed to differ. Hence

I believe I am right, and somewhat entitled, to criticise anyone who, by their dress or specific equipment, portrays to non-cyclists that cycling is an unduly hazardous activity.

Why do I do that? Specifically in relation to dress and lights, because

The benefits of cycling far outweigh the small risks involved, but the non-cyclist never knows that if riders either wear special sports clothes, indicating that only athletes need apply, or PPE, indicating that the riders health and safety are at significant risk whilst riding, or sport nuclear powered lights "to be seen".

and, generally, in relation to cycling on UK roads, because

On top of that I strongly feel that the "devolution" for road safety to the more vulnerable road users is an inherently motor-centric position, at best thoughtless, and worse, brainwashed, that needs to be constantly challenged. I can't abide the UK's motor-centrism.

The Highway code contains motor-centric advice from a bunch of motor-centrists.