Why cycling in high-vis may be not as safe as you think

[Davidc]

Nothing can guarantee being seen, not even a silly brightness light.

I wear dayglow type high viz in dull weather, and reflectives at night. I use bright (but not excessively so) lights in dark and daylight. All of these things help but guarantee nothing.

Even coupled with defensive techniques when riding it's always possible to be hit. Fortunately the probability of being hit is low, but it can certainly happen.

I'm not sure whether I take evasive action because someone clearly hasn't seen me any more or less now than decades ago before decent lights, reflectives, or dayglow existed. I know less cyclists get injured and killed now but I think that's pert of the general trend for road casualties rather than lights or clothes.

My guiding principle is to assume that no-one, driver, cyclist, biker or pedestrian has seen me unless they've proved it by actions.

 

[Miquel In De Rain]

High vis is a vexed subject for cyclists. Probably only helmets and light jumping cause more arguments. Ultimately, of course, what you wear on your bike is personal choice. Full Lycra gimp garb? Office clothes? Nothing at all? Go right ahead. Nonetheless, the debate merits an airing, for two reasons.

I hear that.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

just reading post 10 & it is something I've seen before on thest route marches into futility threads, so its not a dig at Gaz. Why does there seem to be this assumption that wearing hi-viz or reflectives goes hand in hand with not bothering about lights?

You don't see it in threads where people ask, e.g. what pedals - there's never an answer that says; well you'd be better off with a chain and some cranks, pedals aren't much use without them.

I don't get this assumption that you have to hand your brain in if you buy a yellow night vision jacket (not got one BTW and other jackets are available).

 

[BentMikey]

Being seen is a minor problem for me,except to peds that is.Peds seem to only look sometimes if they hear an engine noise.
Be fair Mikey a majority of motorists don't drive like @r535 in the Netherlands and isn't it a more cycle friendly country?

I dunno, the motorists don't seem much different to me, the tailgating on the motorway is shocking. The major difference is that the cyclists feel safe, so they don't feel the need to go overboard on lights and hiviz.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

I hate cycling behind anyone with a rear light even half that bright. It's a good way to stop anyone drafting you.

Do what I do, close your eyes

But on a slightly serious note, I was going to work at 06:30 yesterday on a narrow country lane & the only thing that allowed me to see the cyclist coming the other way was the fact he had a hi-vi, dark coloured clothing, no lights, he also didn't have it fastened at the front so only caught a glimpse of it, utter moron.

Alan...

 

[fossyant]

[quote="BentMikey, post: 2246245, member: 692TBF most cyclists in the UK go waay overboard with lights/hiviz/other compensatory things, including me.[/quote]

And me... 4 on the front and 4 on the rear.

 

[BentMikey]

Nothing can guarantee being seen, not even a silly brightness light.

I think that's fairly obvious. What you'd need to show is that hiviz lets you be seen when lights wouldn't. I don't think that's the case, quite the opposite actually. Lights are far better for being seen than hiviz.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

I'm sorry but the reflective parts of hi viz jackets effectiveness depends on where you are cycling. For example, I live in the stix, where street lighting is hit and miss. This winter I've seen more cyclists up here than ever before. One thing I've noticed as a driver - is the effectiveness of hi viz reflectives. the difference between hi viz and lights compared to just lights is staggering.

The cyclists that have the reflective hi viz jackets stand out in the dark country roads, far far earlier than the ones with just lights, I.e., I can see the reflective bits earlier than the lights and yes the lights appear to be good quality lights when I get nearer.

The difference is so much, that I'm getting a Sam Browne sash and belt.

 

[gaz]

just reading post 10 & it is something I've seen before on thest route marches into futility threads, so its not a dig at Gaz. Why does there seem to be this assumption that wearing hi-viz or reflectives goes hand in hand with not bothering about lights?

You don't see it in threads where people ask, e.g. what pedals - there's never an answer that says; well you'd be better off with a chain and some cranks, pedals aren't much use without them.

I don't get this assumption that you have to hand your brain in if you buy a yellow night vision jacket (not got one BTW and other jackets are available).

Why do you assume that I assumed that it doesn't go hand in hand.

Adding hi-viz to good lights will make minimal difference to your overall visibility anyway. If someone doesn't see a good set of quality lights, then they won't see some hi-viz.

 

[Arsen Gere]

I wear bright red jackets. They have a high background contrast in daylight too. I think it is something that catches peoples eye, they automatically look for red traffic lights, stop tail lights etc. All kinds of stationary workmen and runners wear high viz.

 

[MontyVeda]

....
The cyclists that have the reflective hi viz jackets stand out in the dark country roads, far far earlier than the ones with just lights, I.e., I can see the reflective bits earlier than the lights and yes the lights appear to be good quality lights when I get nearer.

....

these first thing i notice on a distant cyclist in the pitch dark is their pedal reflectors or reflective trouser straps going up and down up and down up and down... the motion makes them stand out far more and far earlier than relatively stationary lights or reflective patches.

 

[Davidc]

I think that's fairly obvious. What you'd need to show is that hiviz lets you be seen when lights wouldn't. I don't think that's the case, quite the opposite actually. Lights are far better for being seen than hiviz.

That's why I use good lights when I'm riding, 24/7. Hiviz is just an extra. After dark though it's a different matter for reflectives, at least in the absence of street lights. I agree entirely with bromptonfb in post #23. I drive (and cycle) a lot on unlit country roads, and if a cyclist (or pedestrian) is using good reflective kit that's always the first thing that I see.

 

[ianrauk]

[QUOTE 2246385, member: 1314"]Research by the Institute of Cool Cycling:

“The morphology of the Cyclist Cool with reference to non-dim synthetic outerwear.” (L.L. Coolio, 1989)

conclusively proved that wearing non-hi viz put you into the top 5% of cool cyclists. Wearing black or grey made you a sexy cool cyclist. Wearing a walz cap made you a sexy mofo.

For those reasons I will never wear hi viz. Or a helmet. Or anything bright.[/quote]

3 out of 3 for me - I am uber cool

 

[helston90]

When every member of society who ventures out onto our roads (runners- dog walkers- hikers etc.) starts wearing it I'll consider it, but since the groups mentioned largely don't so much as have any lights on I think my two front and two rear lights is a suitable level. Glad to see there's an over arching reminder of personal preference.

 

[BentMikey]

That's why I use good lights when I'm riding, 24/7. Hiviz is just an extra. After dark though it's a different matter for reflectives, at least in the absence of street lights. I agree entirely with bromptonfb in post #23. I drive (and cycle) a lot on unlit country roads, and if a cyclist (or pedestrian) is using good reflective kit that's always the first thing that I see.

Perhaps only if they have weaker lights. If Gaz was wearing them, you'll never see reflectives before you'll see his lights. Well, not unless his lights were off.