High-Viz & day-lights

[Cugel]

Would anyone be interested in a discussion examining the safety attributes (and any contrary effects) of high-viz clothing and lights (typically flashing) meant to attract attention during daylight hours? There seem to be studies about that look at these things from a cyclist-safety point of view (including some referenced by Cycling UK) but I confess to being less familiar with them than I've become with studies and analyses concerning helmets and safety effects (or lack of them).

Personally I have the flashing day-lights on during lone rides although I don't use them when out with the club as they tend to be too bright in the eye of those cycling behind. I also tend to wear a high viz windproof because such windproofs are commonly available in yellow or orange. I don't wear a high viz jersey, unless you count those that tend to contrast with the surroundings - white, white/red (club colours) and similar. But I often have a dark jersey on - merino jerseys are not usually of the garish hues.

The studies I have read seem to say that high viz and daylight flashers do improve the attention of 1/3rd of drivers; another 1/3rd also notice but get more aggressive as they see these things as somehow an arrogant claim to greater cyclist-importance; another 1/3rd aren't looking at the road often enough and don't notice anything much, especially when their phone rings.

Anyone care to express their own experiences, opinions, references to studies et al?

Cugel

[gaz]

Italian study on hi-vis.

implementation of legislation imposing high-visibility clothing for cyclists did not influence the number of bicycles involved in road crashes.

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study

UK study

Our study suggests that, no matter what you wear, it will do nothing to prevent a small minority of people from getting dangerously close when they overtake you.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2013/11/26/o ... -cyclists/

Recent DRL thread.

IME hi-vis makes no difference to driver behaviour, neither do DRLs.

[Wanlock Dod]

I don't think that giving motorists the impression that they don't need to look out for cyclists any more, because the cyclists will make them aware of their presence through the use of various conspicuity aids, is likely to have a positive impact on road safety.
I do think that reinforcing the impression that cycling is extremely dangerous and therefore requires use of lights, high viz, and a helmet at all times regardless of purpose probably doesn't do very much for uptake of cycling so it is harder for things to get safer through a safety in numbers effect.
I do think that cognitive dissonance is a very important factor with these kinds of issues.

[Mike Sales]

The advice to cyclists to wear hiviz is frequent and relentless. It comes from all quarters, the police, road safety officers, school heads, random members of the public, and even other cyclists.
What is much less heard is advice to drivers to obey H.C. para 126.

Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

In my experience most drivers need reminding of this.

[Cugel]

I have difficulty in deciding whether to wear high viz or not; or to have the flashing daylights. The arguments agin them hold water (victim-blaming, no effect on those not looking anyway or who don't give a stuff about endangering a cyclist). Why bother then?

It's a mistake to assume everyone is the same as us. ..... However, I personally do notice cyclist in high viz and with flashing lights well before I would if they were without, when traffic or the environment is crowded with many other targets for the eyes. I might well notice them anyway, later but still in plenty of time to accommodate them as another road user. After all, I am ever so careful when driving as I dread hurting someone with a car "by accident" (aka incompetence).

But I imagine a driver who is more distracted than me; a driver who has lesser eyesight; a driver otherwise in a bit of a fugue. Perhaps just a small number of such drivers might notice me in time rather than not-in-time if I am more of an eye-attractor?

Motorists should all be competent, careful and considerate. But they aren't. Is this a reason that high viz and flashers might save me from a poor driver, just once or twice, which gives me three lives rather than one? What do you think?

****

What worries me is the victim-blaming of those without half a ton of often useless "safety aids" as well as the loonies who regard high viz and a flashing light as some sort of goading target for them to drive at. And I must take care not to assume I am generally less vulnerable when vizzing and flashing, as I will (being a stupid human) take more risks even though I know I shouldn't.

Cugel

[millimole]

I hate the victim blame game as much as the next cyclist - but -
I have used daytime rear lights (Bontrager Flare R) for a couple of years when on rural rides after seeing the benefit as a driver while in France.
My non-scientific observation is that I get fewer close passes on A roads from cars, but no difference with HGVs .
I've recently taken to a bright front daytime light, but haven't seen any benefit.

I rarely wear HiVis as I'm unconvinced of the benefit (and never wear a helmet). I'm interested in the recent study (?link) that showed HiVis on the lower leg was particularly effective.

You can't do a thing if the driver is distracted - no amount of lights or HiVis will wake them up if they aren't looking.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.

[Ellieb]

Italian study on hi-vis.

implementation of legislation imposing high-visibility clothing for cyclists did not influence the number of bicycles involved in road crashes.

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study



IME hi-vis makes no difference to driver behaviour, neither do DRLs.

It is worth noting that the Italian study does not actually consider whether passing a mandatory hi-viz law causes Italian cyclists to wear hi-viz clothing. One of the reasons why the law may not have had an effect on accident rates is because it hasn’t changed what people wear.

[the_twin]

The Italian study is relevant because it reports on the impact of legislation at a population level. If such a law were to be introduced in the UK you could guarantee that the ninjas without lights would continue to behave in the same fashion and that there would be a small chance of being stopped by the police. Thus total compliance is never going to happen.

The often quoted Danish yellow jacket study shows no difference between the hi-viz and control groups in what might be considered the important outcomes of being in a collision with another party requiring medical treatment or one that resulted in a police report. These are the sort of outcomes that a population based study would measure.

[the snail]

The often quoted Danish yellow jacket study shows no difference between the hi-viz and control groups in what might be considered the important outcomes

That's my experience as a driver. Cyclists are perfectly visible in most conditions with or without hi-viz or lights if you are paying attention, if not then it makes no difference either. Hi-vis might help in very poor weather though, and reflectives are very effective making you visible at a long distance. But the key thing is whether the motorist is looking properly at where they're going, and no amount of hi-viz will help if the driver is peering into their mobile. I overtook a merc the other day, doing 65 in the middle lane of the M4. As I passed I could see him gazing into his lap... hi-viz, helmets, lights are all pretty ineffective measures, deflecting responsibility from idiots like him IMO.

[Cyril Haearn]

I do not use lights when driving in daylight, I have the feeling that unlit vehicles are easy to see cos there are few of them
My vehicle is bright red, mind

[Cunobelin]

The two biggest issues are motorists failing to look and failing to respond appropriately


Neither HiViz, nor DRLs help in these circumstances

[Phil Fouracre]

Great, the next most contentious subject to bloody helmets!! I loath the idea of having to wear anything hi viz. if a driver can't see me, at 6' 4" riding 'in the middle of the road' they should not be driving
BUT, my beloved insists that we wear jackets, and, much as I resent the need, it does make you stand out more than not wearing it. I know that there are arguments about overkill, and not being seen if the use of it multiplies, but, from personal experience I have to admit that I've noticed people/riders earlier wearing them. The background also plays a major part, I had a 'discussion' a long time ago on this forum with someone arguing that hi viz/fluoro didn't stand out against pale blue, on his computer screen, yes, that is true. As I pointed out, 'where did they cycle'? Not seen any sunny uplands recently! Our Somerset background is, at the moment, brown and grey! and it does stand out particularly well here!!
As there will always be bad drivers on the road, the need to stand out and be noticed is a sensible survival strategy. I've always ridden assuming that all drivers are inconsiderate idiots, but, are hopefully nonetheless, not going to deliberately run you over!! It's worked for 40+ years so far?

[Cunobelin]

Great, the next most contentious subject to bloody helmets!! I loath the idea of having to wear anything hi viz. if a driver can't see me, at 6' 4" riding 'in the middle of the road' they should not be driving
BUT, my beloved insists that we wear jackets, and, much as I resent the need, it does make you stand out more than not wearing it. I know that there are arguments about overkill, and not being seen if the use of it multiplies, but, from personal experience I have to admit that I've noticed people/riders earlier wearing them. The background also plays a major part, I had a 'discussion' a long time ago on this forum with someone arguing that hi viz/fluoro didn't stand out against pale blue, on his computer screen, yes, that is true. As I pointed out, 'where did they cycle'? Not seen any sunny uplands recently! Our Somerset background is, at the moment, brown and grey! and it does stand out particularly well here!!
As there will always be bad drivers on the road, the need to stand out and be noticed is a sensible survival strategy. I've always ridden assuming that all drivers are inconsiderate idiots, but, are hopefully nonetheless, not going to deliberately run you over!! It's worked for 40+ years so far?

Norfolk......

[mjr]

Here's a summary of my objection to ugly clothes and wasted electricity:

If hi-viz and daylights worked, then it would be selfish and antisocial to use them primarily because you would be distracting people from other vulnerable road users and putting them at more danger.

But they don't work, so using them is selfish and antisocial mainly because you are helping create an expectation that vulnerable road users and valuable objects (such as houses) near roads will wear/carry them and making it more difficult for them to get justice from negligent, incompetent and/or reckless motorists if they strike them.

Anyone bothering cyclists to wear certain clothes or carry lights should be told in no uncertain terms to focus their efforts on the categories typically perpetrating traffic offences rather than the usual victims.

The massive numbers of complaints about seeing cyclists with no lights at night makes it clear that they are easily seen!

[Cunobelin]

I remember one discussion where it was argued that as road workers wore HiViz as PPE and were required to do so, it was stupid for cyclists not to wear them whilst one the road......


However when it was pointed out that Supermarket workers also wore HiViz as PPE when in the car park, and were required to do so..... by the same logic therefore it must be stupid for shoppers not to wear them in teh same car park

But apparently the logic only applies to cyclists and there is no need for motorists or shoppers to wear HiViz