Page 49 of 53
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 8:20am
by BlueRider
Cunobelin wrote:mattheus wrote:BlueRider wrote:Well, at least we have given up on the pretence that either Hi vis or helmets are
useless 
Do you mean posting references?
Or in fact any evidence. that proved HiViz wasn't useless?
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.
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 8:35am
by Smudgerii
BlueRider wrote:Cunobelin wrote:mattheus wrote:Do you mean posting references to research that shows helmets are very probably useless for preventing TBIs?
Or in fact any evidence. that proved HiViz wasn't useless?
At this point, these arguments are bordering on wummery.
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.
Or is it he LGV’s headlight highlighting him? First thing I noticed was a bike with no lights...
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 9:29am
by [XAP]Bob
BlueRider wrote:Cunobelin wrote:mattheus wrote:Do you mean posting references?
Or in fact any evidence. that proved HiViz wasn't useless?
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.
And the use of seeing them that far off (even though we've already seen the cyclist in the foreground eclipsing the scene behind (really quite good contrast there).
There isn't any. High vis does nothing to improve your visibility in the relevant region of space - but does put people off a healthy mode of transport.
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 10:04am
by BlueRider
[XAP]Bob wrote:
High vis does nothing to improve your visibility in the relevant region of space - but does put people off a healthy mode of transport.
Righto
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 10:45am
by Smudgerii
The title of the subject is “why wear black?”, so to get back on to the subject...
The answer remains, because you can! It really is that simple.
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 10:53am
by mattheus
Smudgerii wrote:The title of the subject is “why wear black?”, so to get back on to the subject...
The answer remains, because you can! It really is that simple.
Also, I find it very slimming.
Does the forum recommend I try stripes?
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 11:05am
by Smudgerii
mattheus wrote:Smudgerii wrote:The title of the subject is “why wear black?”, so to get back on to the subject...
The answer remains, because you can! It really is that simple.
Also, I find it very slimming.
Does the forum recommend I try stripes?
They need to be vertical to carry off the optical illusion... apparently width is the key
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 11:15am
by RickH
By a quirk of geography I can see what phase a set of lights, that I regularly pass through, is on from our house.
The fact that I can see them, & whether they are red or green, is of absolutely no relevance as they are around 2 miles away.
The lights only start to become relevant as they come into view approximately
here (& even then I'm probably at least twice as far as I need to be to have to consider what phase they are on).
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 12:47pm
by rfryer
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.
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 1:52pm
by Vorpal
Most of the stuff about helmets has been moved to the ghetto
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=135350
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 2:11pm
by Marcus Aurelius
BlueRider wrote:Cunobelin wrote:mattheus wrote:Do you mean posting references?
Or in fact any evidence. that proved HiViz wasn't useless?
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
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 2:17pm
by mattheus
rfryer wrote:(*) I much prefer "conspicuous" to "visible", not least because it stops mjr from going off on one!
DDDD But seriously, that's a very helpful term.
(**) 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.
I understand what you're saying, HOWEVER:
- Really bad visibility is quite unusual. As a rider, you would probably be even more untrusting of other road users (risk compensation maybe??)
- we've all either been victim of, or heard stories of, SMIDSYs (and near misses) in perfect conditions, or with riders that are Lit Up Like Christmas Trees. I know I was one such victim (and I survived a head injury, stitches in my forehead and everything - it was a miracle!!!!)
So i guess I'm saying that your reasonable point makes very little difference to the real numbers of the risk out there. IMHO!
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 5:43pm
by Cunobelin
BlueRider wrote:Cunobelin wrote:mattheus wrote:Do you mean posting references?
Or in fact any evidence. that proved HiViz wasn't useless?
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.
Note the outer cars in the picture.
Most noticeable because, wait for it,....
Hi.vis.
Is that unequivocal proof for HiViz on cars, are you going to demand its use. Should all cars be HIViz?
The other reason for this photograph is that the conditions are the same for all the vehicles. A genuine comparison, as opposed to the photoshopped dishonesty you have chosen
The difference in your picture is contrived, to try and make a point.
The reasons the cyclist is more visible
1. The exposure is different making the rider more visible
2. The contrast of the image is different makingthe rider more visible.
3. The rider now has lights making him more visible
4. There is now a light source illuminating the bike and cyclist
Look at the bike itself, it becomes more visible because of the con trick with lighting, exposure and contrast, nothing at all to do with HiViz. You nneed to compare the same conditions to make the claim that you are making. At the moment all that is really "Proven" is that Photoshop aids visibility in cyclists!!!!!!
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 5:51pm
by Cunobelin
Smudgerii wrote:mattheus wrote:Smudgerii wrote:The title of the subject is “why wear black?”, so to get back on to the subject...
The answer remains, because you can! It really is that simple.
Also, I find it very slimming.
Does the forum recommend I try stripes?
They need to be vertical to carry off the optical illusion... apparently width is the key
Re: Why wear black?
Posted: 7 Feb 2020, 5:56pm
by Cunobelin
Marcus Aurelius wrote: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