loch eck steve wrote:See the new look jersey has been unveiled , don't think it looks too bad .
Where? https://shop.cyclinguk.org/cycling-uk-jersey looks the same to me.
loch eck steve wrote:See the new look jersey has been unveiled , don't think it looks too bad .
Spinners wrote:Sky-ish ain't it?!!
Spinners wrote:Sky-ish ain't it?!!
steady eddy wrote:Given their constant campaigning for road safety for cyclists Why do they persist in only doing clothing in dark colours?
steady eddy wrote:I had an opportunity to observe this yesterday when I was out. Put a cyclist in black against a dark background or in low light and do the same with one wearing a bright colour. The one in black all but disappears.
steady eddy wrote:Why do people working on building sites or the railway wear high viz - Its so they can be seen.
steady eddy wrote:The evidence may relate to accident stats but what evidence is there of near misses or collisions avoided because cyclists were more visible.
steady eddy wrote:I can only comment on what I see - Like many others I prefer to cycle in bright colours, (an option endorsed by Cycling UK) so they could at least give me and other like me the option.
mjr wrote:steady eddy wrote:I can only comment on what I see - Like many others I prefer to cycle in bright colours, (an option endorsed by Cycling UK) so they could at least give me and other like me the option.
If CUK is endorsing ugly clothes, they are not being evidence-led and I welcome the new look clothing as a step towards normalising cycling.
Rule 59 [of the Highway Code] [...] advises cyclists to wear light coloured or fluorescent clothing "which helps other people to see you" in daylight and poor light, and "reflective clothing and / or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark".
The merits of reflective clothing and hi-viz are dealt with in our 10 common questions about cycling briefing, but in essence the research suggests that retroreflective accessories designed to make you more conspicuous in the dark, especially ankle straps that move when you pedal, are beneficial. Conversely there is very little evidence to suggest that hi-viz (as opposed to reflective strips and items) makes a significant impact on cyclists' safety. The research suggests that it may help drivers to spot pedestrians and cyclists more readily, but there was no evidence by how much and it was impossible to say whether that made them safer, as spotting them was one thing and driving safely around them another.
Unfortunately, whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet and hi-viz appears to be a priority within many press reports following collisions involving cyclists, a factor which can influence whether or not the police decide to prosecute a driver, and an issue raised in evidence in court proceedings to determine either cause of death, civil liability or criminal responsibility.
Accordingly, whatever Cycling UK's views may be regarding helmets and clothing being personal choices, and whatever the safety merits of either may be, the reality is that the rule 59 advice is often sadly used to deflect blame to the cyclist and, in relation to clothing, to attempt to explain why a driver either failed to see or failed to avoid hitting a cyclist. Strangely, it does not seem to apply in reverse, so if you hit a black car you can't blame the owner or manufacturer for their paint colour choice. It's apparently just cyclists in dark clothes who can't be seen.
steady eddy wrote:Given their constant campaigning for road safety for cyclists Why do they persist in only doing clothing in dark colours?
steady eddy wrote:Oh what a can of worms I have opened
gaz wrote:steady eddy wrote:Oh what a can of worms I have opened
Don't worry AndyK has shut it quickly and firmly. I can't imagine that any of them had time to escape.