Should you have lights on during the day?

[pwa]

Just for completeness I offer one more thing for consideration, something that always gets mentioned when hi-viz is discussed. If I get knocked off my bike and I am wearing hi-viz clothing, and using good lights if necessary, I can expect the driver responsible to leave my visibility out of his/ her excuses. If a cyclist in subdued clothing has the same misfortune the driver may seize on that "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. Even if the clothing choice played no part in the driver's mistake, they have a convenient lie they can resort to, one that they may believe themselves after a while. [...]

Leaving aside the irrational belief that it makes you more likely to return home, its current mistaken inclusion in the Highway Code is one of the few rational arguments for donning the fugly IMO. However, that doesn't yet apply to lights.

When I did wear it, I still expected the driver responsible to include my visibility in his/ her excuses, based on the sheer number of SMIDSYs I suffered then. After all, the invisible gorilla is a well-known effect and there's no earthly reason why a driver should expect to see someone dressed as a binman/roadworker nowhere near a bin lorry or roadworks.

But you must at least half understand my wish not to give anyone an excuse if I can help it. It may seem petty, and probably is, but if I ever end up lying in the road and waiting for an ambulance I want to be able to point out to the driver that the cyclist he/she failed to spot was dressed to be seen. I don't want them consoling themselves with the thought that I was failing to tick one of the boxes.

On the issue of daytime lights (in good light conditions) I'm not convinced I notice cyclists with them any sooner than those without.

[[XAP]Bob]

Driving back from the office this morning I spotted a cyclist on the road.
I note that this was on a rural road, with occasional trees etc, various bends some straight sections.

They were at least a couple of hundred yards away on a 50mph road - I was doing 50mph.

Within a couple of seconds of seeing them I noticed that their dark jacket actually had 'bright' sleeves, shoulder and collar - that wasn't what I had seen though. I had seen the solid dark jacket against the dark, but not solid, hedge.

I had absolutely acres of time before I had to make a decision about how I was going to pass them. As I approached I lifted early, because they were coming out of a section with solid white lines.
The cyclist pulled really far left, which I ignored entirely and overtook them properly, using the other lane (entirely using the other lane) since it was nice and clear.

Didn't see any lights, and certainly can't see that seeing her any *earlier* would either have been possible or beneficial.

[pwa]

Driving back from the office this morning I spotted a cyclist on the road.
I note that this was on a rural road, with occasional trees etc, various bends some straight sections.

They were at least a couple of hundred yards away on a 50mph road - I was doing 50mph.

Within a couple of seconds of seeing them I noticed that their dark jacket actually had 'bright' sleeves, shoulder and collar - that wasn't what I had seen though. I had seen the solid dark jacket against the dark, but not solid, hedge.

I had absolutely acres of time before I had to make a decision about how I was going to pass them. As I approached I lifted early, because they were coming out of a section with solid white lines.
The cyclist pulled really far left, which I ignored entirely and overtook them properly, using the other lane (entirely using the other lane) since it was nice and clear.

Didn't see any lights, and certainly can't see that seeing her any *earlier* would either have been possible or beneficial.

Firstly, you did what I would do, which is to start the planning as soon as I see I have a slow road user ahead. Adjusting speed to avoid meeting them at a point where overtaking is out of the question, etc. Ready to wait if necessary.

Secondly, I wonder if your observation about seeing the dark area of clothing first is a manifestation of something I suspect to be true: that uninterrupted blocks of one colour or shade are seen more easily than strips of different colours on one garment. If so, perhaps the worst clothing choice might be stripes of highly contrasting tone, like tiger or zebra stripes. For that reason I am open to the idea that an all black top might stand out better than black with yellow areas. The less we mimic creatures known to have camouflage the better.

[[XAP]Bob]

Driving back from the office this morning I spotted a cyclist on the road.
I note that this was on a rural road, with occasional trees etc, various bends some straight sections.

They were at least a couple of hundred yards away on a 50mph road - I was doing 50mph.

Within a couple of seconds of seeing them I noticed that their dark jacket actually had 'bright' sleeves, shoulder and collar - that wasn't what I had seen though. I had seen the solid dark jacket against the dark, but not solid, hedge.

I had absolutely acres of time before I had to make a decision about how I was going to pass them. As I approached I lifted early, because they were coming out of a section with solid white lines.
The cyclist pulled really far left, which I ignored entirely and overtook them properly, using the other lane (entirely using the other lane) since it was nice and clear.

Didn't see any lights, and certainly can't see that seeing her any *earlier* would either have been possible or beneficial.

Firstly, you did what I would do, which is to start the planning as soon as I see I have a slow road user ahead. Adjusting speed to avoid meeting them at a point where overtaking is out of the question, etc. Ready to wait if necessary.

Secondly, I wonder if your observation about seeing the dark area of clothing first is a manifestation of something I suspect to be true: that uninterrupted blocks of one colour or shade are seen more easily than strips of different colours on one garment. If so, perhaps the worst clothing choice might be stripes of highly contrasting tone, like tiger or zebra stripes. For that reason I am open to the idea that an all black top might stand out better than black with yellow areas. The less we mimic creatures known to have camouflage the better.

Note that anecdote doesn't make data - but it does rather call into question the 'high vis is obviously more visible' tripe that is trotted out.
The other thing I noticed was that whatever the cyclist had been doing - there is nothing that could have let me see them from further away - generally it's curvature of the road that limits the distance over which a person is visible.

Camouflage is designed for specific environments and for the sensory systems of particular observers - note that most dogs are effectively RG colourblind, so if you are wearing red and have a choice of running to a blue or green wall - run to the green wall.

There is no 'typical' environment for cyclists - and there are, I assert, two classes of road user. Those who will see you and those who won't. There is nothing that you can do as a cyclist to change the 'species' of a motorist (who may well vary between 'species' at different times of the day/their journey/life).

[Wanlock Dod]

... If I get knocked off my bike and I am wearing hi-viz clothing, and using good lights if necessary, I can expect the driver responsible to leave my visibility out of his/ her excuses...

I didn’t see him. I feel that he has come from the back of the car.

Driver who killed cyclist on roundabout near Bristol given community order after careless driving conviction

But he failed to see Mr Brown, who was wearing a high visibility jacket and cycle helmet, and knocked him off his bike on the roundabout.

[mjr]

Leaving aside the irrational belief that it makes you more likely to return home, its current mistaken inclusion in the Highway Code is one of the few rational arguments for donning the fugly IMO. However, that doesn't yet apply to lights.[...]

But you must at least half understand my wish not to give anyone an excuse if I can help it. It may seem petty, and probably is, but if I ever end up lying in the road and waiting for an ambulance I want to be able to point out to the driver that the cyclist he/she failed to spot was dressed to be seen. I don't want them consoling themselves with the thought that I was failing to tick one of the boxes.

On the issue of daytime lights (in good light conditions) I'm not convinced I notice cyclists with them any sooner than those without.

I can understand the wish but I would bet a reasonable amount on them simply finding another excuse. Probably picking it from the examples used to get other motorists off, like low sun to the north

[reohn2]

Reading this thread and in my own long experience cycling,it all comes down to drivers either not seeing,not looking or not caring and carrying on anyway hoping the cyclist will stop,a 'might is right' attitude to cyclists,and motorcyclists too FTM.
There are many drivers on UK roads who simply do not recognise or respect cyclists as equal road users and many who think cyclists shouldn't be on the roads at all,that attitude is a fact.
The law reflects that by the way of it's agents poor implementing of the law,for reasons they see fit .
That being the case all anyone as a cyclist can do is make themselves as conspicuous as possible in whatever way they see fit,that is their personal choice.
All claims on this thread by drivers of seeing cyclists comes from cyclists who drive.
Like it or not,but non cyclists drivers have a completely different mindset for whatever reason which can be myriad,but is a fact.

As a consequence I never trust any other road user when I'm using the roads,when I'm cycling I multiply that by a 100000 fold.
An,idiots are all around me,attitude has kept me safe until now,but I'm aware drivers are becoming more aggressive as roads become more crowded and so care less as a result.
My 2d's worth

PS,What PWA is saying is that should he be knocked off,at least the driver can't claim he was invisible by camouflage,I agree with his sentiment.
YVMV

[drossall]

Anyone care to summarise the arguments for/against in 200 words max?
Maybe someone who is 'for' could summarise the argument 'against' and vice-versa

The argument for is that hi-vis and lights are designed to make you more visible, and generally do. Therefore, they have to be a good idea, increasingly so on today's roads, and should be supported.

The arguments against are that, this notwithstanding:

• The available evidence is that they don't make a difference. This is because the processes involved in seeing something on the roads are different from and more complex than what people assume, and the issue of what the observer (usually in these discussions, motorist) is looking for and expecting to see plays a large part.
• Given this, allowing emphasis on hi-vis as a solution distracts attention from things that actually might work.

Note that it does not necessarily follow that people taking the second viewpoint ride as ninja cyclists. They simply do not place the same faith in the measures that they are taking.

114 words plus 32 for the footnote, not counting this sentence.

[Cyril Haearn]

Plusminus

Cycling is the greatest

When cycling one is endangered by motorised terrorists who ignore the rules and get away with it

[drossall]

Mjr mentioned, quite rightly, that h-viz on construction sites was introduced alongside all sorts of other safety measures, not instead of them.

This is one of the interesting things about evaluating safety measures, of course. They tend to be introduced in batches, for all sorts of very sensible and practical reasons. However, it then becomes difficult to determine which one worked. It's even theoretically possible to introduce several measures together, one of which is counter-productive, but whose problems are outweighed by the benefits of the others, and so believe that they were all good.

As a result, it's often been said that the same road-safety improvements have variously been claimed exclusively as benefits of seat belts, drink-drive legislation and speed limits (or whatever*), when in fact they are the net effect of all those changes and more being made together. So, in the same way, you wouldn't be able to say what the effect of hi-viz on building sites was, because of the other measures introduced at the same time. I'm not particularly claiming anything about hi-viz in this application, but making a more general point.

* Please note, I picked three road-safety measures at random, and I'm not sure whether those particular three ever were implemented together, but you see the point.

[gaz]

What PWA is saying is that should he be knocked off,at least the driver can't claim he was invisible by camouflage,I agree with his sentiment.

The reality is that even if you wear hi-vis the defence will argue that somehow your own actions made it less visible and it is still your fault: https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/l ... dog-726117

PC Lackey who carried out a reconstruction on Trewiston Lane said: “Anyone standing in the road in a high-vis jacket would have been visible to the driver at 42.3 metres and clearly identifiable at 25.1 metres. Given a speed of 30mph, the court heard this worked out at three seconds and seconds before impact respectively.

However, the court heard this assumed Mrs Bailey was standing upright and facing the oncoming vehicle. It was suggested by Kane’s defence that she may have been bending down, perhaps to move her two dogs from the road, which would have reduced the visibility.

[reohn2]

What PWA is saying is that should he be knocked off,at least the driver can't claim he was invisible by camouflage,I agree with his sentiment.

The reality is that even if you wear hi-vis the defence will argue that somehow your own actions made it less visible and it is still your fault: https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/l ... dog-726117

PC Lackey who carried out a reconstruction on Trewiston Lane said: “Anyone standing in the road in a high-vis jacket would have been visible to the driver at 42.3 metres and clearly identifiable at 25.1 metres. Given a speed of 30mph, the court heard this worked out at three seconds and seconds before impact respectively.

However, the court heard this assumed Mrs Bailey was standing upright and facing the oncoming vehicle. It was suggested by Kane’s defence that she may have been bending down, perhaps to move her two dogs from the road, which would have reduced the visibility.

Kill all the lawyers and your problem is solved

[De Sisti]

So the conclusion is that cyclists can have their lights on during the day if it makes them feel safer, but motor vehichle
drivers will (sometimes) still choose not to see them?

[drossall]

Choosing is putting it a bit strongly, isn't it? That's not really the point, surely.

[reohn2]

So the conclusion is that cyclists can have their lights on during the day if it makes them feel safer, but motor vehichle
drivers will (sometimes) still choose not to see them?

They may also choose not to put them on and motor vehicle drivers may still(sometimes) choose not to see them.