Why wear black?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9971
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Cunobelin » 8 Jan 2020, 6:09am

dim wrote:hi viz:



An unevidenced, non-peer-reviewed personal opinion by some bloke on the internet, paid to promote the equipment in the video

Hardly evidence for anything. What is interesting is that there if you look at the cars in the video and how much more visible the lighter cars are - evidence for HiViz cars. There is also the fact that because of the contrast the darker motorcycle stands out better against the white road than the lighter bike.

Is there a version for pedestrians?
Last edited by Cunobelin on 8 Jan 2020, 6:20am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9971
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Cunobelin » 8 Jan 2020, 6:19am

There are doubts about the efficiency of the HiViz

However, what is disputed is the absurd scenarios invented in an attempt to justify, the "wear or die" emotional blackmail, the ill-informed claims made about a dead cyclist, this is the unacceptable face of HiViz and needs to be challenged and disproven

pwa
Posts: 11254
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby pwa » 8 Jan 2020, 6:31am

Cunobelin wrote:There are doubts about the efficiency of the HiViz

However, what is disputed is the absurd scenarios invented in an attempt to justify, the "wear or die" emotional blackmail, the ill-informed claims made about a dead cyclist, this is the unacceptable face of HiViz and needs to be challenged and disproven


The general public think that not wearing high visibility clothing constitutes negligence, and I don't see that view changing any time soon. That may not be fair, but it is how it is. At least if you have hi-viz and good lights when you are hit, that particular excuse will not be used to mask whatever the real problem happens to be.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17138
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 8 Jan 2020, 7:55am

A working environment where everyone is compelled to use high vis is hardly comparable to the public road.

We’ll be blaming trees for getting hit, and attributing the actions of motorists to their vehicle soon... oh wait we already do.

To say that a high vis work environment makes you think that high vis has any real effect on the road is mere evidence of confirmation bias. There is no measurable effect on the road, because the issue isn’t one of conspicuity - humans are already quite visible (as evidenced by the repeated complaints about unlit cyclists, pedestrians etc), bike reflectors are excellent things at night, lights can be useful too ...
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.

mattheus
Posts: 1438
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby mattheus » 8 Jan 2020, 9:10am

pwa wrote: At least if you have hi-viz and good lights when you are hit, that particular excuse will not be used to mask whatever the real problem happens to be.


If you're dead, does it matter what conclusions are drawn (mostly by complete strangers)??

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3861
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Why wear black?

Postby pjclinch » 8 Jan 2020, 9:11am

pwa wrote:I have been used to working in environments where everyone is wearing hi-viz and in those environments I find it useful.


This gives you a good first stab of reasoning that it might be a good idea for general use on the road, but only as a first stab. If it turns out that it doesn't seem to help much then that first stab should be filed under "well, it was at least worth looking in to" and then move on.

However, we have a situation instead where (along with helmets) it has become orthodoxy to the point that in the UK very little attention is paid to anything else. "Cycle safety" to many means hi-viz and helmets, The End. And the more pople go on about them, the more important they seem, and the more important they seem the more people go on about them, and so on. So its mostly about cultural values, not about actual safety.

pwa wrote:I think if there ever was any doubt about this matter in the minds of the non-cycling public, those days are long gone. For as long as I can remember it has been assumed by most people, rightly or wrongly, that the wearing of high visibility clothing on the roads makes you safer. That is disputed on this Forum, where people take a more in depth interest in the matter, but out there on the streets most folk think it is a fact. Even if they are wrong about this, if a cyclist ends up being run over and they are wearing a black top it is likely to be seen as a contributing factor by the general public. The driver who did the deed will feel better because of it. Personally, I don't want to give them that excuse for feeling a bit better about what they did.


So on this point we're in Furious Agreement, that the perception of cycle safety is badly borken. The issue then moves on to the twin issues of can we fix it, and that everyone buying in and wearing the stuff probably makes it a bit worse.

For your parting point, cyclists are an outgroup, and people in general will rationalise things so it's not their fault. Someone might rationalise away killing me as I wasn't in hi-viz, but make no mistake, the same driver would rationalise killing you that it wasn't their fault. And in either case the cry would be for more "cycle safety", which in the public discourse means more helmets and hi-viz.

Part of the problem is that the "road safety" lobby is largely run on the same lines as transport planning: the bottom line is throughput of motor traffic, and that guides the narrative that it's the job of cyclists to get out of the way and look after themselves. I'd strongly suggest a read of Robert Davis' Death on the Streets, now freely downloadable at https://rdrf.org.uk/death-on-the-streets-cars-and-the-mythology-of-road-safety/ (of particular interest might be the stuff on visibility from Page 143). Now we are starting to challenge the idea that as many cars as possible may be less important than people, and with good examples of safer countries with saner systems, and a climate emergency that suggests we just might be better off deprecating cars, we have an opportunity to push the debate to actual safety before its too late.

Pete.
Last edited by pjclinch on 8 Jan 2020, 9:33am, edited 1 time in total.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3861
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Why wear black?

Postby pjclinch » 8 Jan 2020, 9:22am

mattheus wrote:
pwa wrote: At least if you have hi-viz and good lights when you are hit, that particular excuse will not be used to mask whatever the real problem happens to be.


If you're dead, does it matter what conclusions are drawn (mostly by complete strangers)??


Well, quite, but even if it does matter let's look at reactions to accidents... A local campaign was started after a lad rode off the pavement in to a bus. He didn't hit his head, but broke his arm. So was the campaign for, say, more cycle training that would have avoided the whole crash to start with? No, it was for more kids to wear helmets.

Someone wearing a helmet is killed by head injuries it was inadequate to protect them against, the answer is compulsory helmets.
Someone wearing a helmet is killed by injuries to their chest/abdomen or blood loss from limbs, the answer is compulsory helmets.
Someone not wearing a helmet is killed by head injuries a lid would be inadequate to protect them against, the answer is compulsory helmets.
Someone not wearing a helmet is killed by injuries to their chest/abdomen or blood loss from limbs, the answer is compulsory helmets.

Hi Viz is next in line after helmets for dopey rationalisations. The more people that buy in to hi-viz, the more it becomes a stick to beat us with, and the more it will become a "mine's brighter than yours so I'm safer!" arms race. I'd much sooner we didn't go there.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14728
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why wear black?

Postby mjr » 8 Jan 2020, 9:51am

pwa wrote:At least if you have hi-viz and good lights when you are hit, that particular excuse will not be used to mask whatever the real problem happens to be.

Not that excuse but they'll just move onto the next excuse! Maybe you'll be accused of making a suicide swerve ("he was all over the road, m'lud") so then you need cameras but then you'll be accused of doing something off-camera that caused the collision although we don't have many examples of that yet with so few bike cams in use, or maybe it'll be the good old "sun was in my eyes" as used by a certain royal to explain not seeing a car approaching from the north!

Bottom line is that you're not going to win safety by pandering to misconceptions. Pandering never wins. Remember: pandas are endangered for a reason! ;)
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3861
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Why wear black?

Postby pjclinch » 8 Jan 2020, 10:07am

mjr wrote:Bottom line is that you're not going to win safety by pandering to misconceptions.


Very much this.

In at least some places the argument is moving away from repeating hi-viz & helmet platitudes where it's up to vulnerable road users to look after the risks imposed on them by motors. Note how local authorities now portray cyclists in normal clothes in their promotion campaigns, for example, here's one from TfL's cycling pages advertising free training:

Image

We might take away the message from that that it's okay to wear hi-viz, and it's okay not to. Same for helmets. And that is the state of the actual evidence.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

mattheus
Posts: 1438
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby mattheus » 8 Jan 2020, 10:11am

Wow! Well done TfL.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9971
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Cunobelin » 8 Jan 2020, 12:30pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:A working environment where everyone is compelled to use high vis is hardly comparable to the public road.

We’ll be blaming trees for getting hit, and attributing the actions of motorists to their vehicle soon... oh wait we already do.

To say that a high vis work environment makes you think that high vis has any real effect on the road is mere evidence of confirmation bias. There is no measurable effect on the road, because the issue isn’t one of conspicuity - humans are already quite visible (as evidenced by the repeated complaints about unlit cyclists, pedestrians etc), bike reflectors are excellent things at night, lights can be useful too ...


But we already do...

On the A3 an avenue of Maples donated by Canada was moved because despite being 6 feet away from the Carriageway they were a Hazard
Streetlights are now at the back of the pavement as on the kerb is a hazard to motorists
In the New First and Dartmoor there are various demands for Livestock to have HiViz, Luminous paint and lights
In parts of South Wales Livestock wear HiViz in case they stray on to a road

At some point drivers are going to have to accept some responsibility for their actions and speed

Cowsham
Posts: 194
Joined: 4 Nov 2019, 1:33pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Cowsham » 8 Jan 2020, 1:19pm

Cunobelin wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:A working environment where everyone is compelled to use high vis is hardly comparable to the public road.

We’ll be blaming trees for getting hit, and attributing the actions of motorists to their vehicle soon... oh wait we already do.

To say that a high vis work environment makes you think that high vis has any real effect on the road is mere evidence of confirmation bias. There is no measurable effect on the road, because the issue isn’t one of conspicuity - humans are already quite visible (as evidenced by the repeated complaints about unlit cyclists, pedestrians etc), bike reflectors are excellent things at night, lights can be useful too ...


But we already do...

On the A3 an avenue of Maples donated by Canada was moved because despite being 6 feet away from the Carriageway they were a Hazard
Streetlights are now at the back of the pavement as on the kerb is a hazard to motorists
In the New First and Dartmoor there are various demands for Livestock to have HiViz, Luminous paint and lights
In parts of South Wales Livestock wear HiViz in case they stray on to a road

At some point drivers are going to have to accept some responsibility for their actions and speed


And what about those elephants will the cost of making a hi vis coat for them be put onto the tax payer -- I might switch sides cos then if an elephant wearing hi vis were to stroll out onto the road in front of me and he was wearing the same colour as me the driver behind me might not see me cos I'd blended into the elephant I'd have to think fast and ditch the hi vis -- of course I'd be travelling slow enough to be able to do that before 1. I hit the elephant 2. the elephant hit me or 3. The car driver hit me.

tim-b
Posts: 1158
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: Why wear black?

Postby tim-b » 8 Jan 2020, 2:18pm

Hi
We might take away the message from that that it's okay to wear hi-viz, and it's okay not to. Same for helmets. And that is the state of the actual evidence

The BBC are around 1:3 on the hi-viz, but more emphatic on helmets where they're visible in the tandem ident
BBC Cyclist Ident link
BBC Tandem Ident link
Regards
tim-b
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9971
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Cunobelin » 8 Jan 2020, 8:09pm

Cowsham wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:A working environment where everyone is compelled to use high vis is hardly comparable to the public road.

We’ll be blaming trees for getting hit, and attributing the actions of motorists to their vehicle soon... oh wait we already do.

To say that a high vis work environment makes you think that high vis has any real effect on the road is mere evidence of confirmation bias. There is no measurable effect on the road, because the issue isn’t one of conspicuity - humans are already quite visible (as evidenced by the repeated complaints about unlit cyclists, pedestrians etc), bike reflectors are excellent things at night, lights can be useful too ...


But we already do...

On the A3 an avenue of Maples donated by Canada was moved because despite being 6 feet away from the Carriageway they were a Hazard
Streetlights are now at the back of the pavement as on the kerb is a hazard to motorists
In the New First and Dartmoor there are various demands for Livestock to have HiViz, Luminous paint and lights
In parts of South Wales Livestock wear HiViz in case they stray on to a road

At some point drivers are going to have to accept some responsibility for their actions and speed


And what about those elephants will the cost of making a hi vis coat for them be put onto the tax payer -- I might switch sides cos then if an elephant wearing hi vis were to stroll out onto the road in front of me and he was wearing the same colour as me the driver behind me might not see me cos I'd blended into the elephant I'd have to think fast and ditch the hi vis -- of course I'd be travelling slow enough to be able to do that before 1. I hit the elephant 2. the elephant hit me or 3. The car driver hit me.


Brilliant you are learning, and this post proves it!


Firstly you are correct about the cost being excessive in terms of benefit.
Secondly, you are at last learning about Contrast. HiViz does often blend in rendering it ineffective
You have learnt that travelling at a speed that you can see is appropriate

Well done

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9971
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Cunobelin » 8 Jan 2020, 8:14pm

pjclinch wrote:
mjr wrote:Bottom line is that you're not going to win safety by pandering to misconceptions.


Very much this.

In at least some places the argument is moving away from repeating hi-viz & helmet platitudes where it's up to vulnerable road users to look after the risks imposed on them by motors. Note how local authorities now portray cyclists in normal clothes in their promotion campaigns, for example, here's one from TfL's cycling pages advertising free training:

Image

We might take away the message from that that it's okay to wear hi-viz, and it's okay not to. Same for helmets. And that is the state of the actual evidence.

Pete.


Anecdotal....

I used to work with a young lady who reckoned that a short skirt was the best visibility aid ever. a lot of drivers would slow down and give more distance in order to look. On a wet day when she wore leggings and waterproof trousers, the situation changed dramatically