Cycling UK Forum

mnichols wrote:
I don't normally wear a black top riding as I feel a bit invisible, but is that just me? Is black a problem?

IMHO - YES! I do use our roads a lot, on 2 wheels and 4, motorised and non-motorised, and I'm afraid black = "stealth" in a much wider range of conditions than lighter colours, and those that don't appear naturally on our roads (even the yellow rape fields don't often provide camouflage for yellow-jacketed riders!).

Dark/navy blue is just as bad, I nearly knocked over a uniformed policeman one dark, rainy night, he was completley invisible until I was almost on top of him - this was in the days before they used high-vis/flashing lights on clothing etc.

You can use your own observations to see what I mean.

Samuel D wrote:
Being seen from a great distance and identified as a cyclist may lead to drivers dismissing you from their mind long before they arrive at you.

I drive a lot - and certainly in my case you are very mistaken in this belief, quite the opposite in fact, especially on busy roads. In my experience this is a mistaken, foolish and potentially hazardous viewpoint.

PS sorry if I sound a bit tetchy - I was going to delete this reply, but decided not to since I feel a tad strongly about such comments in case people mistake them for advice.

rmurphy195 wrote:................even the yellow rape fields don't often provide camouflage for yellow-jacketed riders!...............

Which raises a question of opinions between yellow and orange hi-viz. This is just my opinion, but I think that orange is better in most conditions.

JohnW wrote:

jimlews wrote:I have a suspicion that Hi Viz results in motorists giving less clearance when overtaking and doing so at a greater rate of knots.(Especially that B*****! Subaru Impreza driver.)
I also think that motorists are more aggressive when I'm using 'blinky' lights. I think they become annoyed by them, or something.
When I was knocked off my bike a while ago, I was wearing Hi Viz and had flashing lights front and rear. You can guess what the drivers first words were.
Despite the above I still wear bright clothing for the daily commute, but a black jacket for touring.

An aggressive motorist is an aggressive motorist - it's in their nature,

I can't guess what the driver's first words were - tell us! Probably something along the lines of "it was your fault". When a bad person gets caught it's often the case that they raile and rant at the victim - how dare you delay him/her by living your life?

'Oh, I didn't see you'

I agree re: aggressive motorists. I also think that there is an inverse correlation between engine size and that of the male wasiname.

Hi

I think that orange is better in most conditions

I prefer orange because it doesn't attract bugs, unlike yellow
Regards
tim-b

tim-b wrote:Cyclists perceive that dark colours improve their safety, often on a subjective sample of one, which is contrary to a Cochrane Collaboration review of forty two studies, and industry documents e.g the Code of Practice for Safety at Street Works and Road Works which specifies yellow fluorescent material with reflective material

Please cite this Cochrane Collaboration review of forty two studies showing that hi vis reduces cycling casualty rates.

As for the Code of Practice for Safety at Street Works and Road Works, like I wrote earlier, I don't want a driver to subconsciously mistake me for a roadworker moving sub 4mph when I'm doing 20!

Too late for the OP, but Gore Shakedry jackets are available in black or grey with yellow or red sleeves: https://www.sigmasports.com/item/Gore-W ... acket/I9KN

Hi

Please cite this Cochrane Collaboration review of forty two studies...

It's here (link)

...showing that hi vis reduces cycling casualty rates

I don't believe that I intimated that. You seem to be misreading again; I used the word "safety", e.g. overtaking at a safe distance and speed, which doesn't imply "casualty"

I don't want a driver to subconsciously mistake me for a roadworker moving sub 4mph

I realise that Norfolk is vertically-challenged (highest point 103m), but cyclists in other parts of the UK will be this slow on occasions, and of course we all have to stop because of breakdowns, the P-word, read maps, etc.
A cyclist with legs moving up and down looks very different to a road worker, especially given the context that a road worker will be near to a vehicle(s) with flashing amber lights preceded by warning signs and possibly cones, etc. The motorist won't necessarily link the context of roadworks to the presence of a road worker, and I might as a cyclist negotiate roadworks, but this is a fraction of 1% of my cycling.
As with the H-debate, we're all free to choose what we wear, “Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of riding a bike” – John F Kennedy
Regards
tim-b

One's own driving experience is a guide.

Personally I tend to notice cyclists in glaring colours earlier than I do when they're dressed in colours that blend more with the background. But the background varies with season and geography. Hi-viz yellow is not that visible in busy urban roads on a sunny day, for example. Myself I find bright white the most visible across most conditions. It helps if the bright colour is on a high or a moving bit (e.g. a yellow cap and white shoes).

But I recall reading a study that came to broad conclusion as follows:

* Some colours are more noticeable than others but they do vary in their degree of standing-out with the physical context of the environment.

* About one third of drivers will notice some high viz earlier (particularly if it's moving - lower legs, feet) than they do similar objects dressed in colours with less contrast to the background - then take more care.

* Another third notice and take no extra care, with some actually becoming more agressive.

* Another third don't notice because they aren't looking.

Personally I tend to wear whatever suits but with the aforementioned bright (white or yellow) cotton cap and white shoes, since these seem to be the bits that stand most chance of getting noticed earlier. I also have a bright flashing red tail light. But I don't assume that these will make all motorists take care so I keep a close eye on the mirror for loons that are showing car-twitches of the less attentive or friendly kind.

Cugel

tim-b wrote:Hi

Please cite this Cochrane Collaboration review of forty two studies...

It's here (link)

...showing that hi vis reduces cycling casualty rates

I don't believe that I intimated that. You seem to be misreading again; I used the word "safety", e.g. overtaking at a safe distance and speed, which doesn't imply "casualty"

You seem to be misreading or have pasted the wrong link. Even ignoring its lumping walking and cycling together, that one says "the effect of visibility aids on pedestrian and cyclist safety remains unknown."

I don't want a driver to subconsciously mistake me for a roadworker moving sub 4mph

I realise that Norfolk is vertically-challenged (highest point 103m), but cyclists in other parts of the UK will be this slow on occasions,

A small fraction of time.

and of course we all have to stop because of breakdowns, the P-word, read maps, etc.

Then you should get to a safe place out of traffic flow. Hi-vis is not a cycling park-anywhere lights.

A cyclist with legs moving up and down looks very different to a road worker, especially given the context that a road worker will be near to a vehicle(s) with flashing amber lights preceded by warning signs and possibly cones, etc. The motorist won't necessarily link the context of roadworks to the presence of a road worker, and I might as a cyclist negotiate roadworks, but this is a fraction of 1% of my cycling.

So what identifies a cyclist is the bobbing pedal reflectors. Why confuse matters by putting a roadworker shape by it?

As with the H-debate, we're all free to choose what we wear,

And as with the other H, other cyclists promoting the self-blaming fantasy device makes it more likely that myth will come back to bite us through laws, highway codes or court decisions.

“Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of riding a bike” – John F Kennedy
Regards
tim-b

At least that we can agree on!

Hi

You seem to be misreading or have pasted the wrong link. Even ignoring its lumping walking and cycling together, that one says "the effect of visibility aids on pedestrian and cyclist safety remains unknown."

In the Main Results section it says, "We found no trials assessing the effect of visibility aids on pedestrian and cyclist-motor vehicle collisions and injuries" and "Fluorescent materials in yellow, red and orange colours improve detection and recognition in the daytime", which logically increases safety because motorists have more time to plan and act than if you wear stealth-dark colours.
Not all motorists will take the opportunity to increase safety, but that isn't the fault of your greater visibility, and a percentage of motorists increasing safety because you are visible earlier is an increase in safety.
The Highway Code recommends light-coloured or fluorescent clothing in daylight for pedestrians (rule 3), horse riders (rule 50) and cyclists (rule 59)
Operational fighting machines and personnel aren't dressed in fluorescent colours for a very good reason, in their context to stand out is to be targeted
My purpose isn't to influence the way that anyone chooses to dress (and there are some cycling sartorial crimes being committed on a regular basis ) just to add my 2p-worth to the mix so that others can form their own opinion
Regards
tim-b

All my jackets are black, my latest is a showerspass skyline, the excuse of not seeing you due to not wearing xx colour is pony, it will not benefit you, people either look and 'see' or they don't.

mnichols wrote:I recently lost my beloved red Goretex packable waterproof jacket, and looking for a replacement the nearest, and best reviewed alternative that I can find are the new Gore shakedry jackets, but they are only available in black

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/editors-choice/gore-one-1985-gore-tex-shakedry-jacket-358850

It's been very well reviewed, and is currently half price in some places, so I've ordered it. The fit is more slightly more relaxed than I would have liked and the tail isn't as long as my old one which may be a problem when riding in the drops, but all the reviews that I have read say that this is the best lightweight, packable, breathable, waterproof jacket available on the market.......but it's black

I don't normally wear a black top riding as I feel a bit invisible, but is that just me? Is black a problem?

Concentrating for a moment only on protection from the weather, you seem to be accepting a review in the comic as being ... er .... waterproof. I own all sorts of Goretex togs but I know some of the limitations and if they are not emphasised in a review, then I suspect its independence.

I was discussing visibility with a former colleague, who is a competitive sail boat racer, and he tells me that black is the easiest colour to see in water.

It therefore depends a lot on where you are doing your cycling and what colour background you find yourself against., though I would not expect you to be cycling in the sea [emoji23]

It's a well-known principle that motorists will try harder to avoid something they can't see.