Cycling UK Forum

This is the result of a crash when the driver somehow didn't see a job lot of flashy lights, hi-vis colours and reflectives when police were in attendance to an incident during darkness a few years ago.
Maybe Humberside police should think long and hard about their colour-scheme

Oh and people confusing deliberately trying to not be discovered by use of camouflage is different psychology to people on the roads/building sites and being forced to wear hi-vis etc.
It's not a simple case of being seen and not being seen, the whole way of thinking and what it's meant to achieve are utterly different, typical ignorance by people who come up with the same old tired comparison to people deliberately attempting to hide themselves from an enemy/from a prey you're hunting

Near me is a long straight section of single carriageway A road with a 60mph speed limit. It's easy to avoid cycling on it and I certainly don't. Neverthless plenty of road bike riders choose to ride on it. The road is tree lined and consequently always in shade. In my experience I typically notice riders on that road wearing brightly coloured kit about two to four times the distance away that I notice riders in all black kit.

Assuming car drivers' observation skills are no better than mine, the extra distance provided by brightly coloured or otherwise easily observable clothing will make a significant difference to the amount of time a driver travelling in the same direction has to plan to overtake the cyclist, e.g.
- checking the opposite lane for oncoming traffic to determine if it will be possible to move over into it for the overtake
- checking the rear view mirror to see what traffic is behind
- taking the foot off the accelerator to allow speed to drop, both to increase the time before the overtake (giving more time to plan the manouevre) and to execute the overtake at a lower speed
- braking if neccessary due to the conditions.

Of course there are plenty of bad drivers whose observation skills are poor and who will drive dangerously close to a cyclist at excessive speed even if they have observed them well in advance, but that is no reason to seek to make things more difficult for drivers by choosing clothing that is less noticeable.

Cugel wrote:One's own driving experience is a guide.

The trouble with this is that (as you recognize) we are all cyclists. This means we are more likely to notice other cyclists. Not to see them - our eyes aren't different - but to take note, register them as people on certain machines, be familiar with their characteristics and needs, and - most importantly - consider them.

If you're worried about not being seen could you not supplement the (black) jacket with a vest, belt or reflective bands around your legs?

There's little evidence to suggest that wearing a black jacket on the road makes you any less safe. The TRLs review of several pieces of research found little evidence that fluorescent garments make you any safer. The DoTs research found no link whatsoever between their use and roadworker-traffic casualties. I guess the bottom line is that people run you over because they're not looking or they're behaving like twits, and florries won't cure that.

I'm involved in Search and Rescue at a fairly high level, and yellow hi vis has sacked off as it's been discovered to actually have a camouflage effect against the rural background of grass, hedgerows and trees, the opposite effect of that intended. Some teams have gone to orange hi vis, MREW have gone to bright red, some dropped its use altogether. If you've a rural commute or out for a ride in the sticks then typical yellow hi vis is likely making you harder to see in many circumstances.

Interestingly, my local police force has just binned mandatory wearing of florries for officers in non specialist roles, because they were an expensive purchase and quite ineffective. No matter how bright they glowed the eternal complaint was "we never see the police..." Our neighbouring force did the same a couple of years ago and has seen no difference in casualty rates attributable to their removal.

The simple fact is there is no garment that makes you universally more visible in all situations, and there is little evidence to suggest that hi vis makes you universally more visible that conventional clothing, and some evidence to suggest that in rural settings and extreme urban clutter environments they may actually make it harder for an observer to see you. For every upside, there is a downside. Actual efforts at camouflage is a bad idea, but normal clothes in normal colours have not been reasonably demonstrated to be any more likely to get you run over.

It's like DRLs on cars. People thnk they "must" be safer, but the EUs own research found no safety benefit outside of a sub-arctic climate, yet because the common wisdom is that they enhance safety they were foisted upon us.

Similarly, many people think riding their motorcycles with the headlights on during the day makes them safer - it doesn't. In the late 80's Suzuki and Honda did much research into this. Honda at the time owned the worlds largest searchlight manufacturer, so had vast expertise on optics to call upon. It was discovered that daytime headlight running (as opposed to low output or dim-dip system) brought a marked rise in casualties. The cause was, ultimately, quite obscure - the human brain calculates the speed of an oncoming object by the rate at which the object apparently grows in size compared to its surroundings. They found that daytime headlight running broke up the outline of the bike and rider, thus depriving thr observers brain of the visual datum required to make an accurate speed calculation. Thus we end up with lots of T bone type incidents with cars pulling out on motorbikes. It's a lesson for us cyclists too that stupid bright or badly aimed lights may actually make us less safe for the same reason.

So many things that seem to be utter common sense when it comes to road safety, rarely bear deep scrutiny and in some cases can actually endanger us. I have to wear a florrie when training (thanks to insurance) and I wear one in the rain simply because my most effective waterproof has many hi vis attributes, but for the reasons cited above I have no expectation at all that it will make me safer in all situations - in some it will help, in some it will make no difference, and in some it may make it harder for an observer to see me. Normal clothes behave exactly the same in all 3 regards.

Wear one by all means, I personally have no downer on them, but be aware that it's not a panacea. Your best safety aid is your awareness and your skills. The bulk of safety thinking cyclists will spend £££s on hi vis and then negate it all with appalling roadcraft, which achieves nothing whatsoever.

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Cugel wrote:One's own driving experience is a guide.

The trouble with this is that (as you recognize) we are all cyclists. This means we are more likely to notice other cyclists. Not to see them - our eyes aren't different - but to take note, register them as people on certain machines, be familiar with their characteristics and needs, and - most importantly - consider them.

True .... but ....

Like the Utility fellow, I would prefer it if all drivers of cars drove them well, with consideration and due car & attention. But they don't. So...

As another poster describes in some detail, many drivers who are already attentive will see a cyclist earlier if the cyclist wears something eye-catching. Sometimes this extra seeing time will enable some better evasive action that may be necessary.

So I conclude that wearing something to make sure an attentive and considerate driver sees me as early as practicable will sometimes allows them to treat me more safely than if they saw me a bit later. This is probably a very small fraction of those times when I'm passed by a car. Still, if it increases my safety by a few percentage points, that's fine.

I am wary of the absence of high viz, daylights et al on a cyclist being seen as an excuse for Toad to run over cyclists. Also of the fellows who feel high-viz or daylights are somehow an implied insuilt to their own road craft (or lack of it) and will get more agressive toward me. On balace, I feel a little bit of see-me clothing and/or a flashing light fore & aft may be worth having (just) in my efforts to avoid a long visit to a hospital.

But black jackets and tights are no problem really. A flashing red light trumps high viz clothing anyway, in most situations where getting noticed earlier is sought. And nothing is going to stop a Toad who is not looking at the road ahead from running into you - apart from having a mirror, a wary eye on it and the ability to spot Toad-antic in time to jig out of the way.

Cugel

Lance Dopestrong

I think it would be helpful if you were to link to the various official sources to which you refer. One of my oft-repeated views is that no matter what some cyclists may believe, the reality is that the authorities, including coroners and the surviving remnants of traffic police as well as those people who negotiate on behalf of insurance companies all take the view that hi-viz is effective. Therefore, anybody in a crash not so attired is likely to be in a worse position than if they had been, no matter what the cause of the crash. eg excuses on behalf of driver, reduced offers of compo, applications to have compo awards reduced for contributory negligence.

If there is a growing body of official expert knowledge that hi-viz is ineffective, then it needs to be published as widely as possible,

Please, just call me Lance

When I used to work I had it all on my work computer. I'll have a Google later, but in the meantime I'm sure your search engine is as effective as mine.

The SAR reference is my own, being as I am one only 74 people in the country outside of the dibble accredited to run both search planning and search operations, so I get all the guidance from the governments own UKSAR panel hot off the presses, and guidance directly from ALSAR is it is published. We went orange, before you ask.

The Honda and Suzuki research was originally published in the UK by Bike and Superbikes magazines. It is out there in the ether of the web, I'll get the laptop out later and do a search on a proper machine for you.

Yep, I'm with you 100%, a tranche of 'uneducted' persons in authority take take the view that hi vis is some kind of magic safety device. I don't mean uneducated in the nasty sense, but rather to mean that they have no technical expertise in the matter, yet because of their positions of influence within society and the justice system their opinion carries a grossly disproportionate weight.

What we need is a pressure group to fight our corner om this one, to promote debate on the subject, but to promote evidence based safety informatuon. We could call them, I don't know, something like Cycling UK. Now wouldn't that be good?

I was driving up in Llandovery this very morning and pulled up to a T junction exiting an industrial estate. To my right, was a cyclist dressed all in black but with a grey/silver cycle helmet. He was far enough away that I could safely pull out. Now on the main road, I looked in my rear view mirror and was horrified to see a car turning right into the industrial estate and almost knocking the cyclist off by cutting right across him.

As someone said upthread, it's all about improving your chances of being seen and dressing head to toe in black does not help.

Hi

Maybe Humberside police should think long and hard about their colour-scheme

There was a lot of work done when Battenburg markings were proposed; some likened it to WW1 ship dazzle camouflage and some considered it poor when several vehicles were at the same scene, with doors open, etc
The photos linked to seem to show 1/2 Battenburg, i.e not the full two rows of colour, which wasn't intended for "outright visibility" but does seem to perform well in urban "clutter". Do you know the circumstances of the collision(s)? They aren't low-speed, which indicates that there is a possibility of inattention, intoxication, illness or tiredness involved and no amount of visibility will help there (see https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100408155425/http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk//hosdb/publications/road-policing-publications/14-04-High-Conspicuity-Li12835.pdf?view=Binary) Appendix B of that report entitled Scientific Basis for the High-Conspicuity Livery Scheme..."Main findings:
♦ Use fluorescent colours in daytime..."
Regards
tim-b

Hi

It's not a simple case of being seen and not being seen, the whole way of thinking and what it's meant to achieve are utterly different, typical ignorance by people who come up with the same old tired comparison

Please read my post on P1 of this thread, "It isn't as simple as colour, it's about driver perception...etc"
Regards
tim-b

tim-b wrote: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

Yeah, and that isn't worth 2p but much less, misrepresenting ones prior belief that more time to act equates to enhanced safety as logic and then using that to extrapolate your preferred conclusion from an entirely different one! That's not logic. It seems just as logical to say that once visibility time exceeds the time needed to act comfortably, it doesn't much matter and may even hurt.

Thanks to Lance for offering to pull the references together. My current Internet connection is very slow.

.

There are all sorts of reasons why drivers crash into people and things including (but not restricted to) being distracted (eg mobile phones) intoxicated (including more than booze) driving too fast for the circumstances, defective vehicles, showing off and road rage. The extent to which hi-viz etc will prevent or mitigate crashes must be limited. A common excuse is said to be SMIDSY which covers all sorts and is arguably no more than an admission of careless driving but it seems to be considered acceptable. Put another way, hi-viz may help drivers who are already behaving properly, but those who are not will try to shelter behind it and their insurers will try even harder.

You who philosophize etc.

==========================================================

PS re evidence the sort I'm thinking about is any which is already influencing official attitudes as posted by LD above

Bmblbzzz wrote: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

Actually not, i haven't worn it yet, it still has labels attached and all the packaging, and it's a 365 day return policy. Although I would still regard this as black, I'm not sure that the small amount of colour would make much difference. Worth considering though, the flashes on the sleeves maybe useful when indicating.

To add to the general debate, my preference is bright red. This seems to stand out against all backgrounds