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

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

Mark_Robson

Senior Member
Until the core issues are addressed then I'm afraid that I am going to do whatever I can to make cycling as safe as possible for myself. You can't dispute that high viz does exactly what it says on the tin so it's fair to assume that it could prevent an accident.
 

chap

Veteran
Location
London, GB
I now view the back lights as more important than the front; and the Brompton battery standard rear light is despicable so I use 2 (one flashing.)


I also have 2 front lights: the Brompton battery standard for city use, and a supplementary one + blinking for when I am in certain places. I have been known to use all 3 and a headlamp in rural lanes on the outskirts of new towns though, although that is to make me very visible to the reckless drivers who use it as a race-strip and to use it in lit areas would be necessary.
 

Shut Up Legs

Down Under Member
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.
I believe this could have something to do with strict liability applying in these countries, but not in the UK? (not sure about Germany).
 
GregCollins said:
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. :biggrin:

:biggrin: Maybe I should try that.

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.

No, perhaps not. But I would say, finally, that I don't think my use of high vis is the be all and end all of road safety, merely that it's something I can do with no inconvenience to me and no disadvantages that I can see, which I believe from my experience behind the wheel makes cyclists much easier to see than they otherwise are. That's all.
 

NigC

New Member
Location
Surrey
Rhythm Thief said:
But I would say, finally, that I don't think my use of high vis is teh be all and end all of road safety, merely that it's something I can do with no inconvenience to me and no disadvantages that I can see, which I believe from my experience behind the wheel makes cyclists much easier to see than they otherwise are. That's all.

Agree completely. I wear a hi-viz jacket because I know, after well over 20 years of driving, that I notice hi-viz jackets earlier than people dressed in regular clothes. That's not to say I don't see them and give them room, but I DO see hi-viz from further away, which effectively means I see them in front of me for a longer period of time.

Now that I'm cycling, I want to give mototrists every opportunity to see me without compromising my comfort and a hi-viz jacket works for me. Flashing lights at night are my choice for exactly the same reason - I notice them from further away when I'm driving.

Bottom line is this: I don't think it makes a massive difference - hi viz v normal clothes or flashing lights v steady lights, but as it makes no difference to me, I'll take these options :biggrin:
 

gavintc

Guru
Location
Southsea
It is interesting that on a club run, when the rain starts falling the Brits put on hi vis rain jackets and the locals don their black ones. When riding in the group is easy to spot the ex-pat.

But I also note that the Italians tend to normally wear white and brightly coloured lycra kit. The Brits mostly wear black bibs and more sombre coloured tops. Just an observation on national stereotypes. I bought my first pair of white bibs a couple of weeks ago.
 

Origamist

Legendary Member
Mark_Robson said:
Until the core issues are addressed then I'm afraid that I am going to do whatever I can to make cycling as safe as possible for myself. You can't dispute that high viz does exactly what it says on the tin so it's fair to assume that it could prevent an accident.

That's understandable, but when I don my Sam Browne belt and ankle reflective I’m doing little more than indirectly reinforcing the status quo with regard to unacceptable road danger in this country and that makes me uncomfortable. In terms of increasing my safety margins when I cycle, I rate Hi-Viz slightly above pissing into the wind, but only hovering around the “not statistically significant” mark. Everyone will calibrate their risk thermostat differently.

victor said:
I believe this could have something to do with strict liability applying in these countries, but not in the UK? (not sure about Germany).

The countries have different systems (rebuttal presumption, stricter liability, operating risk - Betriebsgefahr etc) and it’s difficult to understand and translate the legal definitions (watching Judge John Deed and Rumpole have surprisingly not helped me). However, when people try to discuss the reasons why other countries in Europe have better cycling safety records than the UK, they tend to do it according to their own biases (i.e. it’s segregated facilities, safety in numbers, stricter liability etc). In reality, it is difficult disentangle the efficacy of a single measure from the miscellany of measures/factors that affect cyclists’ safety.
 
Top Bottom