Why wear black?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Smudgerii
Posts: 99
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: Why wear black?

Post by Smudgerii »

reohn2 wrote:
Bez wrote:I use lights 24/7 too, partly so I don’t feel any need to wear clothes I don’t like :)

The reason for bright tops and bright lights in my case is that if I get wiprped out or seriously injured by the seemingly increasing numbur of cyclist haters and idiots behind the wheel of cars these days,at least they can't claim they didn't see me :D



But they can still make the claim of not seeing you.. your choice of clothing, lighting won’t alter their ability to make the claim.

Is the claim true? Only they know that answer and they are very unlikely to tell you.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Why wear black?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Smudgerii wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
Bez wrote:I use lights 24/7 too, partly so I don’t feel any need to wear clothes I don’t like :)

The reason for bright tops and bright lights in my case is that if I get wiprped out or seriously injured by the seemingly increasing numbur of cyclist haters and idiots behind the wheel of cars these days,at least they can't claim they didn't see me :D



But they can still make the claim of not seeing you.. your choice of clothing, lighting won’t alter their ability to make the claim.

Is the claim true? Only they know that answer and they are very unlikely to tell you.



Not only that - but it seems to be an accepted defence in court.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Why wear black?

Post by pwa »

Smudgerii wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
Bez wrote:I use lights 24/7 too, partly so I don’t feel any need to wear clothes I don’t like :)

The reason for bright tops and bright lights in my case is that if I get wiprped out or seriously injured by the seemingly increasing numbur of cyclist haters and idiots behind the wheel of cars these days,at least they can't claim they didn't see me :D



But they can still make the claim of not seeing you.. your choice of clothing, lighting won’t alter their ability to make the claim.

Is the claim true? Only they know that answer and they are very unlikely to tell you.

I would say that their claim of not being able to see you would seem more credible to a lot of people if you were dressed entirely in black and with poor or non-existent lighting. I'm like R2. I want to have the satisfaction of not leaving open excuses that I could remove.
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Why wear black?

Post by horizon »

John Holiday wrote:One of the most frequent concerns of parents and comments on why they are reluctant to allow children on the roads ,is motorised traffic and vulnerability.


My impression of parents is that their most frequent concern is having to slow down for cyclists. Once they imagine their own children in the firing line, they get them off the road quick. Show me a parent who's worried about their children and I will show you a parent who doesn't cycle and drives too fast. And is probably overweight.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Smudgerii
Posts: 99
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: Why wear black?

Post by Smudgerii »

pwa wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:
reohn2 wrote:The reason for bright tops and bright lights in my case is that if I get wiprped out or seriously injured by the seemingly increasing numbur of cyclist haters and idiots behind the wheel of cars these days,at least they can't claim they didn't see me :D



But they can still make the claim of not seeing you.. your choice of clothing, lighting won’t alter their ability to make the claim.

Is the claim true? Only they know that answer and they are very unlikely to tell you.

I would say that their claim of not being able to see you would seem more credible to a lot of people if you were dressed entirely in black and with poor or non-existent lighting. I'm like R2. I want to have the satisfaction of not leaving open excuses that I could remove.


The “satisfaction”... but the excuse will still exist and nothing you do will change that.
Adnepos
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Jun 2016, 1:47pm

Re: Why wear black?

Post by Adnepos »

niggle wrote:
tim-b wrote:Hi
Loughborough University Motor Vehicle and Pedal Cycle Conspicuity: part 3 - Retro-reflective and Fluorescent Materials, final report (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/2736982.pdf) is worth a read, "Combined performance fluorescent-retro-reflective materials should be permitted under ECE104 since they are likely to be of benefit to daytime conspicuity and some night-time aspects, whilst imposing no significant disbenefits"...

If the study only looked at conspicuity, and not whether it reduced actual risk of death or injury then it is pointless...


Agreed, conspicuity is not a useful endpoint.

But also, this work involved help and co-operation from:

• 3M United Kingdom PLC
• BOC Gases
• Boots The Chemists
• Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association
• Exel Logistics
• Freight Transport Association
• Police Scientific Development Branch
• Reflexite UK Ltd
• Road Haulage Association
• Swift

So this work is open to criticism of bias.
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Why wear black?

Post by horizon »

Smudgerii wrote:
horizon wrote:
John Holiday wrote:One of the most frequent concerns of parents and comments on why they are reluctant to allow children on the roads ,is motorised traffic and vulnerability.


My impression of parents is that their most frequent concern is having to slow down for cyclists. Once they imagine their own children in the firing line, they get them off the road quick. Show me a parent who's worried about their children and I will show you a parent who doesn't cycle and drives too fast. And is probably overweight.



What utter ******


Do you want to explain further? Any points I can take issue with? :wink:
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Why wear black?

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Bez wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
Bez wrote:
Out of interest, what colour(s) are your trousers/leggings/shorts/tights?

FIFM :wink: :mrgreen:


Right… as suspected, but therein lies the point: it's quite curious to be dogmatic about the upper body, saying "black is a no-no", and then to wear black on your lower half. Especially since it's the lower half which is in constant motion and therefore offers the greater opportunity for conspicuity.

The thing is, the matter of drawing a line between maximum conspicuity and acceptable comfort/expense/aesthetics/etc is a massively subjective one. You, I suspect, like almost everyone, feel awkward in brightly coloured trousers. You feel less awkward about wearing a brightly coloured jacket. These reactions are completely normal.

It's also completely normal to not like brightly coloured clothing at all, whether leggings or jackets, or to not want to have to spend money replacing a functional black piece of clothing with a brightly coloured one.

Everyone has their threshold. Just as with anything else: the threat from motor vehicles isn't massively different when you're walking to when you're cycling, but society has come to normalise helmets for cycling and not walking, nor even driving. Hence the earlier reference to the "if it saves one life" hypocrisy. I've yet to meet anyone that believes a helmet could save a life on a bicycle who applies it to the possibility of losing their own life: not one of them would wear a helmet to walk down the street, despite the indisputable possibility of dying that way. They'd feel uncomfortable and awkward doing that; it would be an inconvenience and an extra cost to them.

It's the same thing here. The fact that the OP draws his own line at a certain point doesn't mean everyone else will, or even should. To believe otherwise is to take a stroll through the 5 o'clock to the 7 o'clock region of the cognitive bias codex.

I agree with this but, especially regarding the bolded paragraph, I fear the 'just one life' effect means we will end up with helmets for pedestrians. Drivers too. Just as hi-viz has spread from certain occupations to almost normality via compulsion for (in certain countries) pedestrians, cyclists and anyone on the roadside (as in France); and DRLs started as daytime headlights in certain Scandinavian circumstances; and seatbelts have gone from must be fitted in the front seat, wear them optional, to compulsory wearing even in coaches; so helmets have gone from motorcycles to pedal cycles and are now being worn by children on kick-along scooters; there is no actual end to the process, it's a continual drift of 'just makes sense'.
Smudgerii
Posts: 99
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: Why wear black?

Post by Smudgerii »

horizon wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:
horizon wrote:
My impression of parents is that their most frequent concern is having to slow down for cyclists. Once they imagine their own children in the firing line, they get them off the road quick. Show me a parent who's worried about their children and I will show you a parent who doesn't cycle and drives too fast. And is probably overweight.



What utter *******


Do you want to explain further? Any points I can take issue with? :wink:



I’m a parent and grandparent... I cycle, I drive responsibly, I ain’t overweight. What you posted is utter ******

Which bit do you want to take issue with?
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Why wear black?

Post by pwa »

Smudgerii wrote:
pwa wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:

But they can still make the claim of not seeing you.. your choice of clothing, lighting won’t alter their ability to make the claim.

Is the claim true? Only they know that answer and they are very unlikely to tell you.

I would say that their claim of not being able to see you would seem more credible to a lot of people if you were dressed entirely in black and with poor or non-existent lighting. I'm like R2. I want to have the satisfaction of not leaving open excuses that I could remove.


The “satisfaction”... but the excuse will still exist and nothing you do will change that.

They can still claim not to have seen me but they will not be able to say "Look at what he was wearing, and look at the absence of lights". I will not have gifted the slippery so-and-sos that little bit of leverage. If you get knocked off in the dark and you are wearing black, there is a high probability that your clothing will be used against you.
Smudgerii
Posts: 99
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: Why wear black?

Post by Smudgerii »

pwa wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:
pwa wrote:I would say that their claim of not being able to see you would seem more credible to a lot of people if you were dressed entirely in black and with poor or non-existent lighting. I'm like R2. I want to have the satisfaction of not leaving open excuses that I could remove.


The “satisfaction”... but the excuse will still exist and nothing you do will change that.

They can still claim not to have seen me but they will not be able to say "Look at what he was wearing, and look at the absence of lights". I will not have gifted the slippery so-and-sos that little bit of leverage. If you get knocked off in the dark and you are wearing black, there is a high probability that your clothing will be used against you.



It cannot be used “against you”, it can however be used as an attempt at mitigating the drivers failure. But so can not having the legally required reflectors, now how many ‘hi-viz’ posters have the full requisite of reflectors?
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Why wear black?

Post by horizon »

Smudgerii wrote:
horizon wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:

What utter *******


Do you want to explain further? Any points I can take issue with? :wink:



I’m a parent and grandparent... I cycle, I drive responsibly, I ain’t overweight. What you posted is utter ******

Which bit do you want to take issue with?


I think you misinterpreted my post which is why it's always better to write something intelligible so it can be responded to. I meant that for every cycling parent who is legitimately concerned about the safety of their children, I can show you one (or a hundred) non-cycling parents whose main concern is not the safety of their children but how fast they can drive. The OP went a bit off-topic with his comment about parents but I did want to take it up. The assumption is that parents can do nothing about the safety of their children cycling to school but in fact most are happy to miss every opportunity to vote for policies that support safe cycling to school and indeed often vociferously object to them. And most of the parents I have seen at the school gate are overweight and certainly IME don't drive responsibly. You and a few others are the exceptions.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Smudgerii
Posts: 99
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: Why wear black?

Post by Smudgerii »

horizon wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:
horizon wrote:
Do you want to explain further? Any points I can take issue with? :wink:



I’m a parent and grandparent... I cycle, I drive responsibly, I ain’t overweight. What you posted is utter ******

Which bit do you want to take issue with?


I think you misinterpreted my post which is why it's always better to write something intelligible so it can be responded to. I meant that for every cycling parent who is legitimately concerned about the safety of their children, I can show you one (or a hundred) non-cycling parents whose main concern is not the safety of their children but how fast they can drive. The OP went a bit off-topic with his comment about parents but I did want to take it up. The assumption is that parents can do nothing about the safety of their children cycling to school but in fact most are happy to miss every opportunity to vote for policies that support safe cycling to school and indeed often vociferously object to them. And most of the parents I have seen at the school gate are overweight and certainly IME don't drive responsibly. You and a few others are the exceptions.


Maybe that is what should have been written in your first attempt, unfortunately you put all concerned parents in the same category in the first instance.

Think your comment “main concern is not safety of their children but how fast they can drive” is again utter ********
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Why wear black?

Post by Vorpal »

Smudgerii wrote:
horizon wrote:I meant that for every cycling parent who is legitimately concerned about the safety of their children, I can show you one (or a hundred) non-cycling parents whose main concern is not the safety of their children but how fast they can drive. The OP went a bit off-topic with his comment about parents but I did want to take it up. The assumption is that parents can do nothing about the safety of their children cycling to school but in fact most are happy to miss every opportunity to vote for policies that support safe cycling to school and indeed often vociferously object to them. And most of the parents I have seen at the school gate are overweight and certainly IME don't drive responsibly. You and a few others are the exceptions.


Maybe that is what should have been written in your first attempt, unfortunately you put all concerned parents in the same category in the first instance.

Think your comment “main concern is not safety of their children but how fast they can drive” is again utter ********

I don't think that it is a lack of concern, but rather that most parents take the safety of the children almost for granted. Therefore, driving to school is a matter of personal convenience. Or that they do not understand risk sufficiently, and believe driving to be safer than walking or cycling. Or some combination of those.

I doubt that any are more concerned with how fast they can drive over the the safety of their children.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Why wear black?

Post by horizon »

Smudgerii wrote:
Think your comment “main concern is not safety of their children but how fast they can drive” is again utter ********


Smudgerii: it's a sweeping generalisation based on a lifetime of impressions. But it is IMV a general truth. Just to clarify again (I apologise if it wasn't clear), most adults are motorists; most motorists drive too fast on roads used by pedestrians, children and cyclists; most of those motorists who are parents don't wish to allow their children to cycle on the roads and cite (according to the OP) safety issues, of which for the most part they are the cause. It is utterly ingenuous and I think the OP has been thoroughly taken in. Hi-viz has nothing to do with it (which I think you agree with).
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Post Reply