More visible cycle jersey

[uppadine]

red, orange and pink are seen as various shades of khaki.

Not true! Colour blindness means that red doesn't stick out from green or brown backgrounds as it would to normal eyes, but orange, pink and yellow certainly do, and as the colours they are, not khaki! I stress that high-vis colours are vital for those drivers with colourblindness being able to distinguish things in shade or otherwise camouflaged by background details, or in poor light.

[DavidT]

Racing shirts can be a right old mixture of colours and as others have mentioned, I sometimes worry about them having the effect of "dazzle camouflage" that can actually make you harder to spot from a distance as the rider's human shape can be completely broken up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

(Article relates to ships, but it makes the point)

Bold/single colours are thefore possibly better. (Even black in some conditions?). Anecdotally I tend to notice pink sticks out a mile on the lanes around me. White's pretty good as well? Personally I tend to wear, but not exclusively, red or otherwise brightish tops or yellow hi viz.

[chris3vic]

Altura do a l/s version of a night vision jersey. Red or Yellow. Loads of reflective markings. I've been using one in red and feel pretty visible pre-dawn.

It's fleece lined, so a little warm for it at the moment. No doubt it will be worn more in the coming months though!

[MikeF]

Personally I think pink or orange show up best, it is surprising what colours disappear against a background of foliage and/or overhanging branches. I have seen yellow marshall jackets show up quite poorly against a background of greeny yellow grass and leaves...

My observation of others is that orange is far more visible than yellow, and that's now my choice. I agree that yellow merges with too many greenish/yellow items in the hedgerows etc. However I went to London yesterday Clapham/Battersea area and I was amazed how many 'ordinary' bikes there were with people riding them in 'ordinary' clothes

[LittleGreyCat]

I'm a little puzzled as to why people seem so anti wearing high viz.

When I'm driving in my car (hmm...song title?) I find I notice yellow high viz clothing much more than normal street clothes or branded racing colours.

Given that I want to be noticed and avoided I always wear bright yellow tops.

Is fashion more important than survival?

Cheers

LGC

P.S. Aldi, here I come

[[XAP]Bob]

Really most people are visible if only the motorist looks. There are issues in dappled light and, although the motorist should be making allowances (yeah right), I use lights for that reason.

A motorist would be expected to stop if there was a black car broken down - or a fallen tree, or any number of other things.

[Ayesha]

Long blonde wig.

Proven to be the most attractive thing to the human eye.

Most men can see a blonde girl standing at the dark end of a crowded nightclub.

[Benethi]

I have the Impsport Uno jerseys, have found them really good.
http://www.impsport.com/Products/CY0402 ... no-jersey-
I have a bright orange one which I tend to use during the day, and an amber one (more of a yellow colour) which I tend to use in the dark.

As a bonus, they're £15 each or two for £25!

I like brightly coloured tops, and hate stripy ones for several reasons:

- they make me look like a tube of toothpaste
- the have a camouflage effect as mentioned already
- they make me look sporty.

As many motorists hold racing cyclists in a lot of contempt, I try to avoid looking like a racer, and more like a person on a bike. Maybe it's just a placebo effect, but I find it helps a lot. Things that I've noticed help are straight handlebars, jeans and a t-shirt...(actually I don't even own any jeans but you get the idea). Basically, the amount of respect you get from motorists is inversely proportional to the amount of respect you get from other cyclists

[LollyKat]

red, orange and pink are seen as various shades of khaki.

Not true! Colour blindness means that red doesn't stick out from green or brown backgrounds as it would to normal eyes, but orange, pink and yellow certainly do, and as the colours they are, not khaki! I stress that high-vis colours are vital for those with colourblindness being able to distinguish things in shade or otherwise camouflaged by background details, or in poor light.

Thanks for clarifying that. I have only been able to 'test' it on websites that show the effects of the different kinds of colour blindness with regard to website design (it's an accessibility issue), and not in the real world.

[mjr]

I'm a little puzzled as to why people seem so anti wearing high viz.
[...]
Is fashion more important than survival?

I sometimes wear hi-vis but more because my jacket looks misleadlingly official and just happens to be hi-vis. I dislike the day-glo colours but some of my other jackets have more subtle reflective triangles or stripes.

Anyway, I think it's not about fashion and hi-vis is unlikely to help your survival. It may improve your chances of being seen slightly, but how many crashes are "SMIDSY" (more like Sorry Mate I Didn't Look) where it probably won't help? It also helps to give non-riders the impression that riding bikes is a dangerous activity that requires special safety equipment, contributing to the sense of cyclists as an outlier group. Finally, there's things like Ian Walker's research that seems to suggest that you get less room if you look more competent, so it's not even a definite safety improvement for you yourself.

Is a debatable improvement in your personal visibility more important than promoting cycling as accessible and easy?

[Elizabeth_S]

I have the Impsport Uno jerseys, have found them really good.
http://www.impsport.com/Products/CY0402 ... no-jersey-
I have a bright orange one which I tend to use during the day, and an amber one (more of a yellow colour) which I tend to use in the dark.

As a bonus, they're £15 each or two for £25!

I like brightly coloured tops, and hate stripy ones for several reasons:

- they make me look like a tube of toothpaste
- the have a camouflage effect as mentioned already
- they make me look sporty.

As many motorists hold racing cyclists in a lot of contempt, I try to avoid looking like a racer, and more like a person on a bike. Maybe it's just a placebo effect, but I find it helps a lot. Things that I've noticed help are straight handlebars, jeans and a t-shirt...(actually I don't even own any jeans but you get the idea). Basically, the amount of respect you get from motorists is inversely proportional to the amount of respect you get from other cyclists

I went for a couple of these but had to buy the mens sizes (I'm not that large but in women's sports sizes you are XL at a 16 and they often don't make them!) so I'll have to see how they fit, went for orange and gold.

[LittleGreyCat]

I'm a little puzzled as to why people seem so anti wearing high viz.
[...]
Is fashion more important than survival?

I sometimes wear hi-vis but more because my jacket looks misleadlingly official and just happens to be hi-vis. I dislike the day-glo colours but some of my other jackets have more subtle reflective triangles or stripes.

Anyway, I think it's not about fashion and hi-vis is unlikely to help your survival. It may improve your chances of being seen slightly, but how many crashes are "SMIDSY" (more like Sorry Mate I Didn't Look) where it probably won't help?

However if I am involved in a SMIDSY then should it come to court, showing a bright yellow top to the court and asking "The victim was wearing high visibility clothing and you claim you DIDN'T SEE THEM" may carry more weight than if you were wearing normal every day wear.

It also helps to give non-riders the impression that riding bikes is a dangerous activity that requires special safety equipment, contributing to the sense of cyclists as an outlier group. Finally, there's things like Ian Walker's research that seems to suggest that you get less room if you look more competent, so it's not even a definite safety improvement for you yourself.

I think we are drifting into well worn territory here - all the various counter intuitive arguments which say that an apparent safety improvement really reduces your personal safety.

The same type of arguments used about crash helmets on motor bikes, seat belts in cars for example.

I am merely stating that my personal experience as a driver is that high viz yellow jerseys stand out in urban, suburban, main and secondary roads.
They are especially effective for me personally on sunny days where there is shade from trees.
[There may also be some scientific reason that road workers (amongst may others) have to wear high viz clothing.]

So if I see these tops more easily, I assume that other drivers may see these tops more easily.

So I wear the tops.

Is a debatable improvement in your personal visibility more important than promoting cycling as accessible and easy?

I certainly don't think I should make myself less visible, presumably to put myself in harms way so that near misses, injury or death may serve as a warning to motorists and my noble sacrifice may some day benefit other cyclists.

I also don't think that me wearing bright yellow Lycra should scare others away from cycling (umm....perhaps an attack of nausea and "Mummy my eyes!! I can't see!!").

However as I said above we seem to be drifting firmly into areas of faith which don't always respond to rational argument.

Stay safe.

Cheers

LGC

[[XAP]Bob]

I am merely stating that my personal experience as a driver is that high viz yellow jerseys stand out in urban, suburban, main and secondary roads.
They are especially effective for me personally on sunny days where there is shade from trees.
[There may also be some scientific reason that road workers (amongst may others) have to wear high viz clothing.]

So if I see these tops more easily, I assume that other drivers may see these tops more easily.

Do they stand out in any meaningful way - i.e. can you see non "high vis" objects in time to avoid them? I don't care if a motorist can't see me from 7 miles, but I do care that they can see me from much closer than that.

High Viz research was IIRC conducted for railways - where speeds are much higher, braking distances are obscene and there is no possibility of direction change.
On a railway it is vital that I can be seen from 1-2 miles away - and identified as a person. For that application therefore, routine high vis is excellent. Similarly if I am at work on a motorway I'd like the same distant recognition, but as I'd either be on the hard shoulder or a closed lane in pretty much any circumstance it is actually far less important.

On a "normal" road the speeds are lower and the stopping distances are laughably short - assuming a motorist actually reacts. There is no need to be identified at massive range. I can spot a pedestrian, a cyclist, a motorcyclist, a horse from at least a hundred yards - which is the stopping distance from 70mph. That would be a bit tight though - certainly hard to decide on an emergency stop from there.
If you can't identify a "vulnerable road user" from 23m (official stopping distance from 30mph) without them in high viz then I suggest that your eyesight isn't sufficient to be in control of a motor vehicle - and the DVLA would agree: "You must be able to read a car number plate made after 1 September 2001 from 20 metres."

Interestingly colour blindness is not reportable.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg ... 188029.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/driving-eyesight-rules

[LittleGreyCat]

<snip>
On a "normal" road the speeds are lower and the stopping distances are laughably short - assuming a motorist actually reacts. There is no need to be identified at massive range. I can spot a pedestrian, a cyclist, a motorcyclist, a horse from at least a hundred yards - which is the stopping distance from 70mph. That would be a bit tight though - certainly hard to decide on an emergency stop from there.
If you can't identify a "vulnerable road user" from 23m (official stopping distance from 30mph) without them in high viz then I suggest that your eyesight isn't sufficient to be in control of a motor vehicle - and the DVLA would agree: "You must be able to read a car number plate made after 1 September 2001 from 20 metres."
<snip>

I think the main point is the inattentive driver.

I like to think that I drive attentively - always looking ahead for potential hazards.
On that basis I like it when potential hazards are identified early.

However there are some drivers who drive inattentively for a variety of reasons.
They may well have 20/20 vision and the ability to identify a vulnerable road user at a significant distance if they are actively looking but if they are distracted then something that draws the attention may be of benefit.

Your point about vision standards - there are probably a load of people driving now who are not fit to drive judged solely on eyesight.
Passed the test at 20, now 60, never seen the need to have an eye test.
This leaves out all those who drive without taking a test or insuring/taxing a vehicle.

So the real question is about practical not theoretical benefit.

I wonder if there has been a study of inattentive drivers with marginal (or even outside the DVLA rules) eyesight to see if high viz items are identified more swiftly.

Cheers

LGC

[Ayesha]

While driving along a road, a motorist might be playing with the stereo, looking at the SatNav, looking at a shop window or ogling a person on the opposite footpath. The motorist may not see the cyclist, however brightly the cyclist is painted.

This is the risk all cyclists take.