Why wear black?

[al_yrpal]

Black makes you look thinner!

Al

[[XAP]Bob]

https://www.itravelyork.info/cycling/ro ... -at-night/


Note the cyclist in the background in the 1st picture.

Most noticeable because, wait for it,....

Hi.vis.

Quite right. It kind of proves the point without even saying anything

See the comments, ask yourself why the detail on the bike is more visible in picture 2.

Why are the forks, handlebars bell more visible without the benefit of HiViz?

Photoshopped images are hardly unequivocal proof of anything

In this case they “prove” that the author had to cheat to support their argument, which rather suggests that they found their argument to hold no merit at all.

Driving around town tonight (playing taxi for various activities) I was alarmed to see that I was perfectly capable of seeing pedestrians in black on the pavement at a significant distance... that flies in the face of everything we’ve been told here.
I was also able to see parked black cars, and their tyres.

One reason of course is that the eye is not a camera. We have stereoscopic vision with massive processing power dedicated to detecting motion, and even more dedicated torecognising shapes.

[pedals2slowly]

Unbelievable that there continues to be cyclists defending their right to be less visible to motorists.
I blame Sky and other pro-teams for adopting low visibility clothing.
I'll lecture all day to everybody and take the mickey out of anyone who chooses 'cool' black.
I'm seriously considering issuing hi-viz jackets to riders who rock up all in black to evening rides or telling them to take a hike.
Organisers have a responsibility for ensuring the safety of riders in their events.
Conspicuity is the key, large bright areas of colour is best, bits going up and down tell the motorist 'it's a cyclist' from the furthest distance just get decent ankle bands and use them.

[BlueRider]

If you think Hi Via is there to make you be seen more, you are misunderstanding it's purpose and value.

[pedals2slowly]

If you think Hi Via is there to make you be seen more, you are misunderstanding it's purpose and value.

Common sense trumps intellectual argument

[[XAP]Bob]

If you think Hi Via is there to make you be seen more, you are misunderstanding it's purpose and value.

Common sense trumps intellectual argument

Not really.. no one has yet suggested any benefit that high vis will provide (marginal benefit on twisty a roads with inappropriately high speed limits - though that says what should be changed).

Common sense says you should wear a helmet when in bed - do you know how dangerous sleeping is, loads of people die doing it every week.

[Smudgerii]

Unbelievable that there continues to be cyclists defending their right to be less visible to motorists.
I blame Sky and other pro-teams for adopting low visibility clothing.
I'll lecture all day to everybody and take the mickey out of anyone who chooses 'cool' black.
I'm seriously considering issuing hi-viz jackets to riders who rock up all in black to evening rides or telling them to take a hike.
Organisers have a responsibility for ensuring the safety of riders in their events.
Conspicuity is the key, large bright areas of colour is best, bits going up and down tell the motorist 'it's a cyclist' from the furthest distance just get decent ankle bands and use them.

Lecturing is your choice, mickey taking is bullying, listening is optional.

Everyone has responsibility for rider safety. What YOU don’t have is the right to insist on what a cyclist wears on the public highway, that right is reserved for others. An organised ride is just that, organised riding, you can advise/request but the Law does the insisting.

[Oldjohnw]

I still don't get why people don't just do what they will, mind their own business, don't tell others what to do.

Pax.

[[XAP]Bob]

I still don't get why people don't just do what they will, mind their own business, don't tell others what to do.

Pax.

Because having self justified an “intervention” for themselves most people can’t help but suggest that it is “obviously correct” for everyone.

[Cunobelin]

Unbelievable that there continues to be cyclists defending their right to be less visible to motorists.

They are arguing that it is not the answer the zealots claim it is. Driver education would be a far better solution.

I blame Sky and other pro-teams for adopting low visibility clothing.

Feel free, but you are imposing your own beliefs.

I'll lecture all day to everybody and take the mickey out of anyone who chooses 'cool' black.

Simple bullying... What other biases do you have?

I'm seriously considering issuing hi-viz jackets to riders who rock up all in black to evening rides or telling them to take a hike.

Again imposing your own biases and decisions upon others. This is really rather unpleasant, and I suspect that any organisation upon which you are acting would be less than happy. Just as a quick clarification, what type of top are you handing out, what standard do they conform to and how are you ensuding a correct and safe fit?

Organisers have a responsibility for ensuring the safety of riders in their events.

No they don't, they have a responsibility to ensure the organisation of teh event is safe and risk assessments are in place. They can insist that the riders follow a legal specification such as lights, but the rest is again simply bullying

Conspicuity is the key, large bright areas of colour is best, bits going up and down tell the motorist 'it's a cyclist' from the furthest distance just get decent ankle bands and use them.

[/quote][/quote]
Showing a complete ignorance of the real issue.

I would be interested in finding out which organisation you are organising these rides for and if they support your actions

[pedals2slowly]

It's a shame that sensible debate cannot be pursued on virtually all internet forums.
It goes to show that keyboard warriors have a strange perspective on life.
Time to unsubscribe to this topic methinks (again)

[Mike Sales]

It's a shame that sensible debate cannot be pursued on virtually all internet forums.
It goes to show that keyboard warriors have a strange perspective on life.
Time to unsubscribe to this topic methinks (again)

You may not like his arguments, but it seems to me that Cunobelin is debating sensibly.

[Cunobelin]

It's a shame that sensible debate cannot be pursued on virtually all internet forums.
It goes to show that keyboard warriors have a strange perspective on life.
Time to unsubscribe to this topic methinks (again)

It would appear that you do not consider anything apart from your extremist views as "sensible debate"

You cannot make statements that you would enforce your views, exclude and penalise those who disagree without that being questioned

[The utility cyclist]

In answer to the question about the value of being more conspicuous(*) at a distance...

In town, I don't see any value. Many motorists simply drive within their immediate surroundings, as is obvious when you see them accelerate towards traffic lights and then brake at the last minute, taken completely by surprise that the light has suddenly entered their little bubble.

Out of town, I see things differently. There have been a number of times when travelling on country A-roads at night that I've seen a remarkably conspicuous cyclist in the middle distance. "Remarkably" in the sense that I've remarked to my passenger about their presence. Due to bends in the road, etc, the cyclist has been temporarily hidden at various points until I eventually caught up and passed them, but the early warning meant that I was expecting them, and taking extra care with blind corners and dazzle from oncoming traffic. Did this make any difference to the cyclist? Probably not, I'm generally a pretty careful driver anyway, and don't make a habit of careering round corners into the unknown. But my reaction to the cyclist did make me especially careful, and persuades me that being conspicuous in those conditions has value.

Having said that, the problem I have with hi-viz, and reflectives, is that you need a light to be shining at you. I worry about cars coming out of side roads, especially in poor weather, and not seeing(**) a cyclist on the road they are joining. The only reliable defence here is a good strong headlight and positive road positioning - the colour of your clothing doesn't make a lot of difference.

(*) I much prefer "conspicuous" to "visible", not least because it stops mjr from going off on one!

(**) I know that one can argue in circles about why the cyclist wasn't seen, and who's fault that is, and how it shouldn't be the case, and that some drivers will pull out even if they have seen the cyclist. However, my observation is that, as a driver, it's easy to be tempted to look in the right direction, but not to ensure that you've seen everything there is to see. That's often laziness, but also is sometimes very hard to avoid. If as a driver pulling out, I wind down my right hand window window, squint through the driving rain looking for barely lit cyclists, then do the same on the passenger side, it's already time to start over, because a new barely-lit cyclist may have entered the area of risk. Sometimes, you simply need to rely on other road users making themselves sufficiently conspicuous.

That just sounds like you're driving based on what you know rather than what you don't know is on the road or around a bend ahead, that's not a particularly safe way to drive or cycle. If you are driving properly and within the law you've enough time to come to an absolute full stop for a person or object that is not lit or has any conspicuity dressing on it, a broken down vehicle for instance whose electrics have failed or a fallen tree or an animal, it sounds very much that you, like others would simply crash into these things because of the way you think about needing advanced warning to moderate your behaviour including speed. In fact the hi-vis distratcs you from what else might be on the road in the near vicinity which is massively more important, if you are driving within the law and not distracted by other things then stuff/people closer to you that you don't immediately know about will be safe/r from harm. There was a post a couple of weeks ago about someone seeing a dog walker further up but missed the person nearer to them though because of their speed/overall thinking to safety didn't have a collision, the hi-vis though did have an overall negative effect in the sense of distracting away from the nearer hazard.

That is the reason why people crash into stuff on the roads both during daytime and at night and why sadly people crash into innocent victims of when driving which the reality is they are criminals due to their behaviour, this usually ends up with police and joe public putting blame on the victims because the system has changed the thinking on who is responsible for not getting killed or injured.
This is why hi-vis and the other garment are objectionable, pandering to those who don't care or don't want to understand about safety and responsibility, not to mention being utterly useless in real life when it comes to their supposed/promoted benefits. Even after RIDDOR was introduced and hard hats/hi-vis became a massive thing, incident/casualty rates did not fall in line with employee numbers.

[Smudgerii]

It's a shame that sensible debate cannot be pursued on virtually all internet forums.
It goes to show that keyboard warriors have a strange perspective on life.
Time to unsubscribe to this topic methinks (again)

Missing you already