Can hi-vis clothing do harm?

[Sum]

I recall that a few years ago a (then) new MD / CEO marked their arrival to the company I work for, by making the wearing of Hi Viz vests mandatory for everyone on site when not inside a building. The rationale was that there was some construction work going on at the time, and folk needed to wear Hi Viz even when walking across site from their cars to the office and vice versa, but the reality was that most of the staff were nowhere near the construction stuff.

The Hi Viz rule was enforced and there were stories of people being disciplined after refusing to comply. I suspect there weren't many that didn't comply; all you saw during in-muster and out-muster was Hi Viz yellow as people walked from their offices to the car park and vice versa. People eventually got used to it and stopped noticing the Hi Viz. Then, ironically, anyone not wearing a Hi Viz became highly noticeable, and not just because they were usually seen dashing back to their car / office in a flustered state, having forgotten their Hi Viz and were trying to retrieve it before someone snitched on them.

Some people simply left the Hi Viz on their normal clothing so they wouldn't forget it, and could still be seen wearing it off site. We became known as the 'gloworms' to the local community. Anyone wearing Hi Viz offsite became associated with the company, which was an issue as the company wasn't always popular with the local community, and some cyclists took to removing the Hi Viz once they left work, due to concerns of how they might be treated on the roads.

Anyhoo, the MD was eventually let go for some misconduct or the other, and after they left we got the Hi Viz rule reversed on the basis that making everyone wear it was adversely affecting safety.

Anyway, an anecdote for amusement.

[mattsccm]

I'll agree for several reasons. I feel that it is immoral as it goes to have others responsible for my safety and even mild encouragement is appaling. You have no right to comment sort of thing.
It will become mandatory in the same way seat belts or motorcycle helmets have. Immoral again. Before then it will be contributary negligence .
It, along with helmets encourages, in some people, lack of care.
It has become "invisible".
It isn't universal, see above. Around here white is the best colour but awful in fog. Black actually stands out best as there is little black until night time and then you stick a light on.

[Cugel]

What harms can wearing hi-viz do? Is that the question?

Personally I think that being highly visible to other road users is a good thing - for all road users not just cyclists. But what does "being highly visible" mean? And what shouldn't it mean?

1 What makes you high viz?

Different environments require different methods of making yourself more visible. There is no single colour of garment that works in all environments, even though some tend to be more useful than others in many commonly encountered environments. But, to make yourself highly visible is not simply a matter of buying and wearing something in bright yellow, orange, white, black or sky-blue pink on all occasions. What are the conditions you'll ride in? How much will those conditions change during the ride?

For this reason I tend not to rely on clothing so much as on alternatives, particularly bright flashing lights fore and aft. Even they can be the wrong choice in some environments, such as night in a neon-lit cityscape. (I don't go in them, me).

So making yourself highly visible is not as simple as wearing a single hi-viz bit of clothing you bought in all circumstances. In fact, in some circumstances, it can make you less visible, which may be harmful.

2 Does wearing hi-viz cause risk compensation syndrome in the wearer?

The answer is surely, yes, in some cases. Alternatively, not wearing hi-viz is unlikely to make anyone take more risks. Therefore, some hi-viz wearers with an over-inflated sense of protection will take more risks and may come to more harm as a result.

3 Does hi-viz on cyclists as an expected norm detract from the cyclist's safety if the cyclist eschews hi-viz?

That seems unlikely at first glance but .... there is another cost to hi-viz being an expected norm, in that it suggests blame for cyclists being run over by cars or whatever automatically becomes cyclist blame if the cyclist isn't wearing hi-viz. That's generally bad for cyclists as Toad will feel safer in risking a runover if he notices the cyclist in his way has no hi-viz. The hi-viz of others causes more harm to those not wearing it. And perhaps hi-viz becomes compulsory just to thwart Toad, not to actually make you more visible.

In short, there's no simple yes-or-no answer to this question!

A final point. If cyclists must wear hi-viz to make themselves more visible to road users, so should pedestrians, cats & dogs and anyone else using roads - including motorised users. All cars, vans, lorries and reliant robins should be bright orange then?

Cugel

[Nearholmer]

All cars, vans, lorries and reliant robins should be bright orange then?

I think that was voted down in favour of compulsory illumination of lamps in day time on vehicles built post XYZ date.

There is good research evidence that of all single colour choices, bright orange works best across a range of lighting and background conditions for clothing, which is why it was chosen in the rail industry, but no single colour is perfect.

[tatanab]

If all cyclists had to wear Hi-viz when on the road, that would be the end of interclub competition/racing because all riders look the same so nothing to distinguish one club from another, and the same would apply to professional teams as well. Likely that racing would be limited to off road circuits and velodromes where Hi-Viz rules would not apply. Therefore, compulsory Hi-Viz would be detrimental to the sporting side of cycling at least.

Much the same applies to daytime lights on pedal cycles.

[Traction_man]

folks, wear it if you want, if you don't don't!

[Nearholmer]

Therefore, compulsory Hi-Viz would be detrimental to the sporting side of cycling at least.

Compulsory HiVi wasn’t the question.

But, you do raise an interesting question, in that some “club strips” seem incredibly LoVi to me, which has always seemed to me like an odd choice.

[Psamathe]

folks, wear it if you want, if you don't don't! :roll:

Discussing it is useful beyond "wear it if you want ..." as others raise aspects you might not have considered in your personal decision. I've changed my view about daytime running lights following discussion and aspects raised by others on this forum, aspects and experience I'd not previously considered (and most people are probably aware of " wear it if you want, if you don't don't!").

Ian

[tatanab]

But, you do raise an interesting question, in that some “club strips” seem incredibly LoVi to me, which has always seemed to me like an odd choice.

It is the modern aim to appear "retro". They seem to think that in the era they consider retro (possibly 60s. 70s, maybe 50s) club strips were invariably dark colours, I can tell them that is not true. What is true is that people did not routinely wear club strips except for competition, and the rest of riding was done in civvies.

[Nearholmer]

My father had a brief period of cycling with a club in the mid to late 50s, day tours etc rather than competitively, and in all the photos I’ve seen they are wearing completely ordinary clothing: baggy shorts, or trousers with clips, shirt and jumper, and one of those wind-cheater jackets if necessary. Many of them are wearing plimsolls, only the keener bods cycling shoes, and several have gas mask bags on the handlebars, rather than saddlebags. Same bikes for getting to work as on a Sunday run too.

Certainly no ‘strip’.

[Stevek76]

Much as with the... other... debate, there is a perception that such special clothing reinforces the popular view of cycling as something that is far more dangerous than the national collision statistics would indicate. This puts people off cycling which causes a public health cost both through lost health gains and reduction of the safety in numbers effect.

Ie it might help the individual slightly but harm society as a whole.

Probably should be considered that it's not as magic force field regardless. It can attract the attention of drivers who are already looking, it can't do anything about the ones who aren't looking at all which is why drivers still manage to regularly crash into all kinds of high vis things.

[foxyrider]

folks, wear it if you want, if you don't don't!

hear, hear!

[fastpedaller]

We had a 'gas man' call to inspect our LPG gas tanks. He parked his van on our drive (without asking, but hey-ho). Anyway I had to laugh, as every time he got out of his cab he put on the hi-viz to walk the 30 feet across our garden to the tanks - what on earth did he think was 'dangerous' such that he had to don the hi-viz? No vehicle could 'attack' him unless it knocked down the brick garden wall, and in a small rural close, (even if some drive a little fast ) \they'd have difficulty attaining enough speed! Quite bizarre.

[Jdsk]

That sounds sensible to me. Without a blanket rule it would be necessary to assess each the hazards of each task in its setting on its own merits. That takes time, might need to be recorded, and mistakes might sometimes be made. With a blanket rule you can get on with the job.

Jonathan

[Nearholmer]

What, he had to put on a blanket as well?!