Where be

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

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Liken their attitude to people who wanted "deviants" to wear coloured stars and triangles. That always goes down well ;)

Or those people who say women are "asking for it" if they don't wear Victorian dress.

It's amazing the motoring lobby isn't seen for what it is more often.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Erm , i was thinking of a you tube clip :laugh: but that will do nicely . Thankyou .
"you tube clip" ain't an article ;) I can't find much about it on youtube beyond the usual "look! You're invisible if you're not ugly! common senz innit!!!1!" prejudiced junk. Closest is this demo from gaz that reflectives and lights are perfectly visible, even on a cyclist wearing all-black, although personally I don't think flashers or helmet lights are good ideas:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3APH1Lw-4M


As I understand it, one argument against cycling in builder chic is that motorists aren't expecting to see what looks like a builder effectively floating along a road at 10-20mph, so their brain either filters you out as improbable (what Douglas Adams made fun of as the "Somebody Else's Problem field" IIRC) or misclassifies you as travelling at a slow walking speed because that's how fast builders usually move. That's part of the reason why reflectives on cycling clothing typically avoid formal hi-vis workwear patterns.

Another is that the Stokes shift that hi-vis relies upon to fluoresce doesn't happen at night because there's no UV.

And finally, if you're wearing yellow/green and cycling against a yellow/green background (rape seed, sunflowers, various other crops...) then it's not particularly easy to make out. In low-visibility conditions, I tend to prefer bright blue because I like it and the only blue crop I've seen around here is linseed, which is a dusky blue.
 

Tim Hall

Guest
Location
Crawley
As I understand it, one argument against cycling in builder chic is that motorists aren't expecting to see what looks like a builder effectively floating along a road at 10-20mph, so their brain either filters you out as improbable (what Douglas Adams made fun of as the "Somebody Else's Problem field" IIRC) or misclassifies you as travelling at a slow walking speed because that's how fast builders usually move. That's part of the reason why reflectives on cycling clothing typically avoid formal hi-vis workwear patterns.

Another is that the Stokes shift that hi-vis relies upon to fluoresce doesn't happen at night because there's no UV.

I'm going to set up a fund, a bit like ianrauk's waving fund, for every time someone says hi vis doesn't work at night. Fluorescent clothing doesn't work, due to no UV. Hi Vis (exemplified by "builder chic") combines fluorescent and reflective, so the reflective bit works when hit by car headlights.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
There's this one...
I found that while searching, but it's typical GCN, finding new ways to prop up the same old flawed roadie views. It could have been a useful comparison if they aimed the lights as anyone taking reasonable care would, but then it might have come out with a different conclusion than using the illegally-dazzling wide-beam lights. Similarly, why put one of the clothing tests next to a car's reflective number plate if not to undermine the reflective jacket and justify the space lemon look?
 

Bollo

Failed Tech Bro
Location
Winch
"I saw this cyclist all dressed in black! How was I supposed to see him?!"

Actual quote from work colleague.
 
Top Bottom