Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
-
- Posts: 4010
- Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
The orange hi-vi thing started on the railways in the 1970s, and the choice of colour was based on a lot of research about which colours stand out from most backgrounds, under the widest spread of lighting conditions.
Yellow is also very good on that respect, but in a railway context it means “train” or “construction machine”, while orange means “person”. There is a pretty tight colour vision standard for people who work on railways, so “orange blindness” would be a disqualifier, very specifically so, because one signal aspect is “yellow”, which has a distinctly orange tinge.
How transferrable all that is to the road environment I’m not sure, but my personal observation is that bright orange is still the most “poke in the eye” colour in most circumstances. However, that doesn’t guarantee a particular response from drivers, any more than flashing lights do; it’s just a case of doing what you can to get noticed (ride in the buff?).
Yellow is also very good on that respect, but in a railway context it means “train” or “construction machine”, while orange means “person”. There is a pretty tight colour vision standard for people who work on railways, so “orange blindness” would be a disqualifier, very specifically so, because one signal aspect is “yellow”, which has a distinctly orange tinge.
How transferrable all that is to the road environment I’m not sure, but my personal observation is that bright orange is still the most “poke in the eye” colour in most circumstances. However, that doesn’t guarantee a particular response from drivers, any more than flashing lights do; it’s just a case of doing what you can to get noticed (ride in the buff?).
- Chris Jeggo
- Posts: 583
- Joined: 3 Jul 2010, 9:44am
- Location: Surrey
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
I read many years ago that the technical concensus at that time was that red and orange are the most conspicuous colours during daytime and white is most conspicuous at night, with fluorescent yellow being a good compromise round the clock. I think those results applied to the natural environment rather than built up areas.
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
Long ago, the Home Office used to have its own research unit. Long ago in the sense that when I attended a junior CID course in 1973, one session was presented by its police liaison officer. IIRC, in the days when officialdom began to take an interest, that unit carried out research or sponsored it and ascertained that in terms of physical conspicuity (?) the best colour was the flourescent greenery-yallery colour which became known as "Saturn yellow" and quickly became the standard for police hi-viz togs.
AFAIK, there was no thought given to my dear old dad's line "What would happen if everybody did it?" and eg, ganiffs now wear it to gain a bit of a quasi-official air. Even less about some of the philosophical questions arising on threads like this.
AFAIK, there was no thought given to my dear old dad's line "What would happen if everybody did it?" and eg, ganiffs now wear it to gain a bit of a quasi-official air. Even less about some of the philosophical questions arising on threads like this.
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
I don't like wearing hivis when cycling for all the reasons given above, but I confess there are occasions when I feel that the combination of {time of day / weather / choice of clothing /intended route} leads me to wear something more visible.
My choice in this instance is a cross-over belt. It looks like a X in flo-yellow on my back & front against a (generally dark jacket) which I think is perhaps marginally more visible than a block of a single colour. It's a variation on the old-style Sam Browne belt.
By preference I use a bright rear flashing light (and front in some circumstances) - I'm sure this gives greater presence than clothing.
My choice in this instance is a cross-over belt. It looks like a X in flo-yellow on my back & front against a (generally dark jacket) which I think is perhaps marginally more visible than a block of a single colour. It's a variation on the old-style Sam Browne belt.
By preference I use a bright rear flashing light (and front in some circumstances) - I'm sure this gives greater presence than clothing.
Leicester; Riding my Hetchins since 1971; Day rides on my Dawes; Going to the shops on a Decathlon Hoprider
-
- Posts: 4010
- Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
Despite the fact that I’ve had a bit to say about hi-vi clothing, I too think that flashing lights are the best attention grabbers, and they shout ‘cyclist’, so on the road I switch them on, as well as dressing like a tangerine.By preference I use a bright rear flashing light (and front in some circumstances) - I'm sure this gives greater presence than clothing.
I do understand the points about hi-vi and lights creating an impression that cycling is more dangerous than it in fact is, and creating a norm that might then make un-lit, well-camouflaged riders “disappear” even more than they do already, but as arguments they feel distinctly “ideal world” to me, whereas much cycling on roads occurs in a far from ideal world, which won’t get any more ideal by me becoming less visible to drivers.
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
I think that there is so much high viz these days that it leads to a sort of blindness whereby yellow jackets now just fade into the background and yellow just becomes part of the scenery.
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
The ladywife and me go out cycling together a lot, with both front and back flashing lights of quite high power. We also have handlebar-end mirrors (on drop bars). When we get separated, I can see her back light for a long, long way ahead. There comes a distance when it's all I can see of her, despite her fluo-orange jersey with ice cream cones on it. Even the fluo orange can merge into the scenery when she's a goodly distance ahead, the sun is bright etc.. And there might be marigolds, in their hundreds!
Ditto when I'm in front - I can see her flashing front light in my mirrors for a long way back. Again, there's a distance where it's all I can discern of her.
Flashing lights, as far as I know, are only used as a see-me by cyclists. They seem a far better hi-viz gubbins than bright clothing, of whatever colour. ..... Although I will also opine that plain white with a bit of red seems to be most visible in most environments (except dense white mist of course).
It's just as important to have a front one as a back one. Many a time, Toad will pull out of a junction, driveway or gateway in front of you. "SMIDSY", he will bleat. A bright front flasher might catch even his peeper, though. On the other hand, he often doesn't look, so will see nowt, not even the beam from a ray gun, which I sometimes wish I hadda one of on the bars. (The disintegrator kind).
Cugel, a flasher but of the legal ilk.
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
John Maynard Keynes
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
The points are true in this real world.Nearholmer wrote: ↑2 Jul 2022, 5:09pm I do understand the points about hi-vi and lights creating an impression that cycling is more dangerous than it in fact is, and creating a norm that might then make un-lit, well-camouflaged riders “disappear” even more than they do already, but as arguments they feel distinctly “ideal world” to me, whereas much cycling on roads occurs in a far from ideal world, which won’t get any more ideal by me becoming less visible to drivers.
[in addition: the only SMIDSY I've suffered was in perfect daylight - hi-viz would not have helped. You can find plenty of similar stories, from riders lit up like Christmas trees.
So given how little these "safety" measures seem to help, I'm happy to enjoy my feelings of freedom riding without them - and without a helm*t, in case you were considering asking ... ]
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
I wonder if, in the event that you got knocked off you bike by an inattentive driver, they might look at your inconspicuous clothing and let themselves off the hook with the explanation that you should have been wearing something bright. At least if you were wearing something bright you would have deprived them of that excuse.mattheus wrote: ↑4 Jul 2022, 12:07pmThe points are true in this real world.Nearholmer wrote: ↑2 Jul 2022, 5:09pm I do understand the points about hi-vi and lights creating an impression that cycling is more dangerous than it in fact is, and creating a norm that might then make un-lit, well-camouflaged riders “disappear” even more than they do already, but as arguments they feel distinctly “ideal world” to me, whereas much cycling on roads occurs in a far from ideal world, which won’t get any more ideal by me becoming less visible to drivers.
[in addition: the only SMIDSY I've suffered was in perfect daylight - hi-viz would not have helped. You can find plenty of similar stories, from riders lit up like Christmas trees.
So given how little these "safety" measures seem to help, I'm happy to enjoy my feelings of freedom riding without them - and without a helm*t, in case you were considering asking ... ]
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
No, if you're wearing something bright, you will be accused of wearing "dazzle camouflage" or "urban camo". Someone determined to argue that you were in the wrong will always find something. Also, if you've already been knocked off, you've already lost, really. The better thing is to take actions so you don't get knocked off so much: no hi vis, ride central in the lane when needed, and so on.pwa wrote: ↑4 Jul 2022, 3:50pmI wonder if, in the event that you got knocked off you bike by an inattentive driver, they might look at your inconspicuous clothing and let themselves off the hook with the explanation that you should have been wearing something bright. At least if you were wearing something bright you would have deprived them of that excuse.mattheus wrote: ↑4 Jul 2022, 12:07pmThe points are true in this real world.Nearholmer wrote: ↑2 Jul 2022, 5:09pm I do understand the points about hi-vi and lights creating an impression that cycling is more dangerous than it in fact is, and creating a norm that might then make un-lit, well-camouflaged riders “disappear” even more than they do already, but as arguments they feel distinctly “ideal world” to me, whereas much cycling on roads occurs in a far from ideal world, which won’t get any more ideal by me becoming less visible to drivers.
[in addition: the only SMIDSY I've suffered was in perfect daylight - hi-viz would not have helped. You can find plenty of similar stories, from riders lit up like Christmas trees.
So given how little these "safety" measures seem to help, I'm happy to enjoy my feelings of freedom riding without them - and without a helm*t, in case you were considering asking ... ]
The worst SMIDSY I ever suffered was when I was wearing hi-viz before I got sick of all the close passes and stupid driving around me while I was wearing it. I strongly suspect that many motorists subconsciously think hi-viz objects are static (like road-signs and bollards) or slow-moving (like roadmenders) so it's really not good for cyclists to wear it.
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.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
I think if a careless driver has knocked you off because they didn't notice you, they will find it a lot more comfortable coming up with a narrative that has you at fault if your clothing is subdued in colour. When they are telling the story to friends and family the presence of black clothing (top and bottom) will be all that is needed to cast you as the villain. Blaming higher visibility clothing will take more of an effort. Even if I thought brighter clothing didn't actually reduce risk, I'd still wear it just to remove that excuse.mjr wrote: ↑4 Jul 2022, 6:23pmNo, if you're wearing something bright, you will be accused of wearing "dazzle camouflage" or "urban camo". Someone determined to argue that you were in the wrong will always find something. Also, if you've already been knocked off, you've already lost, really. The better thing is to take actions so you don't get knocked off so much: no hi vis, ride central in the lane when needed, and so on.pwa wrote: ↑4 Jul 2022, 3:50pmI wonder if, in the event that you got knocked off you bike by an inattentive driver, they might look at your inconspicuous clothing and let themselves off the hook with the explanation that you should have been wearing something bright. At least if you were wearing something bright you would have deprived them of that excuse.mattheus wrote: ↑4 Jul 2022, 12:07pm
The points are true in this real world.
[in addition: the only SMIDSY I've suffered was in perfect daylight - hi-viz would not have helped. You can find plenty of similar stories, from riders lit up like Christmas trees.
So given how little these "safety" measures seem to help, I'm happy to enjoy my feelings of freedom riding without them - and without a helm*t, in case you were considering asking ... ]
The worst SMIDSY I ever suffered was when I was wearing hi-viz before I got sick of all the close passes and stupid driving around me while I was wearing it. I strongly suspect that many motorists subconsciously think hi-viz objects are static (like road-signs and bollards) or slow-moving (like roadmenders) so it's really not good for cyclists to wear it.
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
The way a driver may explain away bad driving to their family or their own conscience is imo a side issue: the biggy is the attitude of the legal system, including insurers, lawyers and increasingly rarely the police. (Police, not their attitude which is increasingly rare.)
The families most likely to suffer are the bereaved or those acting as litigation friends for the really seriously injured, who may have this extra obstacle to getting some sort of resolution, and might even find themselves in the position of explaining the rider's reasons for eschewing hiviz.
If there is a crash, it may well be that the driver was not looking or ignored what they saw, but it's harder for them to come up with a version of SMIDSY if the casualty was obviously visible to anybody who looked.
The families most likely to suffer are the bereaved or those acting as litigation friends for the really seriously injured, who may have this extra obstacle to getting some sort of resolution, and might even find themselves in the position of explaining the rider's reasons for eschewing hiviz.
If there is a crash, it may well be that the driver was not looking or ignored what they saw, but it's harder for them to come up with a version of SMIDSY if the casualty was obviously visible to anybody who looked.
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
This is unnecessary scare-mongering. all this "may well be ... " twaddle. Is there any basis for this? I've been involved in 2 RTAs (1 as a witness), no HV, ho helmets; neither were a factor in the insurance settlement [my crash], or the court case [when I was a witness].thirdcrank wrote: ↑5 Jul 2022, 7:28am
The families most likely to suffer are the bereaved or those acting as litigation friends for the really seriously injured, who may have this extra obstacle to getting some sort of resolution, and might even find themselves in the position of explaining the rider's reasons for eschewing hiviz.
If there is a crash, it may well be that the driver was not looking or ignored what they saw, but it's harder for them to come up with a version of SMIDSY if the casualty was obviously visible to anybody who looked.
Drivers that feel guilty will make excuses - it's human nature. But they are nearly always twaddle, as is evident to anyone involved with a brain (and most judges, policemen and lawyers do have brains, fortunately)
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Can hi-vis clothing do harm?
I don't see it as scaremongering at all. For the greater part of the time and for the majority of riders, this will be no more than just another discussion. It's hardly scaremongering to note that the worst sometimes happens, which is when the arguing starts, generally made no easier by the rider having come off worst in the unequal exchange. Survivors' justice.