Visibility ... where do you draw the line?!

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

Crankarm

Guru
Location
Nr Cambridge
GregCollins said:
I fear, Mr Thief, you misinterpret me. It is a statement of fact, I don't work on a building site or on the railways (any more in the case of the latter.). Such clothing is iirc obligatory there and I have no doubt, once it becomes near ubiquitous on cyclists, it will become obligatory here, on my back, to. Aesthetically it is a freakin' disaster. I prefer style myself.

If hi-viz is the answer, why is not (already) mandatory? Why are cars and more especially motorcycles not flourescent? How come when a London cycle commuter I got hit three times whilst wearing a stoopid hi-viz tabard? Simples. If they ain't looking you could wear Sophie Dahl and they wouldn't see you.

You are a pro driver, your skills, vigilance and experience are not representative of Joe Public imo. If you choose to wear hi-viz

I would probably bonk if I were to wear her as well :smile:.
 
GregCollins said:
If hi-viz is the answer, why is not (already) mandatory? Why are cars and more especially motorcycles not flourescent? How come when a London cycle commuter I got hit three times whilst wearing a stoopid hi-viz tabard? Simples. If they ain't looking you could wear Sophie Dahl and they wouldn't see you.

Because Hi-Viz is not a Superman cape?

Also if people cannot be bothered to look then yes Hi-Viz is innefective as it shoes in one of my videos.Im still wearing it but im still on the lookout.
 

summerdays

Cycling in the sun
Location
Bristol
I wear a night vision coat in winter and when its cold or wet... its pink - I also have a pink gillet that I sometimes wear, or I can wear a huge variety of clothes that I have in my wardrobe with a tendency towards lighter clothes but not excluding navy, brown, or black. It's on dreary winter days that I feel the need for hi-vis.

I only use a rear light during the daytime again in those dreary winter months and then depending on my commute.
 
GregCollins said:
Aesthetically it is a freakin' disaster. I prefer style myself.

I can't attach any importance at all to the sartorial aspects of cycle clothing. As someone else said, I'm going for a bike ride, not out on the catwalk at The Clothes Show.

If hi-viz is the answer, why is not (already) mandatory? Why are cars and more especially motorcycles not flourescent? How come when a London cycle commuter I got hit three times whilst wearing a stoopid hi-viz tabard? Simples. If they ain't looking you could wear Sophie Dahl and they wouldn't see you.

Oh, I never claimed it was "the answer", and your anecdote about being hit while wearing hi vis is meaningless. Unless you know how many times you'd have been hit without hi vis, of course. My point was more that as cyclists we shouldn't just be visible in ideal circumstances - if a driver happens to be looking directly at us, say - but instead we should do everything we can to make ourselves conspicuous. If wearing something very bright yellow means that a driver who is watching a scooter rider in his mirror or watching the car waiting at the T junction fifty yards up the road notices me out of the corner of his eye because I'm wearing hi vis, that's good enough for me. Of course, I still use lots of lights at night.

You are a pro driver, your skills, vigilance and experience are not representative of Joe Public imo. If you choose to wear hi-viz

Maybe not, but my point was that I drive an awful lot, and I always notice hi vis vests, even when they're being worn by people in cars. They make a huge difference to how visible a cyclist is, even one with reasonably good lights.
 

Vikeonabike

CC Neighbourhood Police Constable
A combination of Fluo Pink and a Beard.... Most drivers mistake the combination of lycra and bright pink Lycra as being female....when they see the beard it's amazing how much room they give you. Maybe they are just not comfortable with themselves! :cheers:
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
arallsopp said:
Almost nobody, Mikey... You and I are at the upper end of a ramping scale that surely terminates with Sophie Dahl on a recumbent. :wacko:

You at least could sit Sophie on your lap in comfort whilst still making progress...
 
I am compelled, if not by law at least by company policiy, to wear hi vis at work. That's where I draw the line when I'm on my bike - a hi vis vest and good lights. Not too difficult.
 

Origamist

Legendary Member
It's interesting that the Danes, Dutch and Germans very rarely seem to wear Hi-Viz kit. In this country people seem to think you're asking for it if you don't. All of the continental countries listed above have more people cycling and have better casualty rates than us. The popularity of Hi Viz in the UK tells us more about how we perceive the dangers of traffic than anything else (i.e. that it's dangerous - we need to be seen, apropos, this makes us safer etc) and it doesn't address the core issues.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
Rhythm Thief said:
I am compelled, if not by law at least by company policiy, to wear hi vis at work. That's where I draw the line when I'm on my bike - a hi vis vest and good lights. Not too difficult.

You say cyclists "should do everything we can to make ourselves conspicuous" yet you merely wear a vest? I was expecting a full clown suit, and a flag on a pole, at the very least. :smile:

It's like the helmet debate, you think your use of hi-viz mitigates risk to a degree sufficient to offset any disadvantage that may arise from doing so.
I don't. I doubt anything we can say to each other on this will change our minds.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
Origamist said:
It's interesting that the Danes, Dutch and Germans very rarely seem to wear Hi-Viz kit. In this country people seem to think you're asking for it if you don't. All of the continental countries listed above have more people cycling and have better casualty rates than us. The popularity of Hi Viz in the UK tells us more about how we perceive the dangers of traffic than anything else (i.e. that it's dangerous - we need to be seen, apropos, this makes us safer etc) and it doesn't address the core issues.

+1

and it reinforces the idea that cycling is a very dangerous activity that requires special safety equipment and precautions well beyond those needed in 'normal' life.
 

gouldina

New Member
Location
London
I'd just like to point out that Augustus Windsock never wore hi-viz. And after all, he lived a very long time.

avatar51820_1.gif



Edit: anyone born after about 1970 probably won't get this reference - please ignore if so.
 

BentMikey

Rider of Seolferwulf
Location
South London
Origamist said:
It's interesting that the Danes, Dutch and Germans very rarely seem to wear Hi-Viz kit. In this country people seem to think you're asking for it if you don't. All of the continental countries listed above have more people cycling and have better casualty rates than us. The popularity of Hi Viz in the UK tells us more about how we perceive the dangers of traffic than anything else (i.e. that it's dangerous - we need to be seen, apropos, this makes us safer etc) and it doesn't address the core issues.

That's actually quite well put.
 
Top Bottom