Can hi-vis clothing do harm?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19801
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by [XAP]Bob »

The way I read the RVLR - flashing lights must have between a 1 and 4 Hz flash rate, with equal duration on periods and equal duration off periods (i.e. they don't need to be 50/50, but they can't flash a varying speeds).

I'm about to do my own lighting on a microcontroller, so I'm looking at the rules quite carefully. I can't possibly comply with all the regulations, but since I am disabled and can't ride an upright bike then I have to take the approach that I do all I can to comply with the intent of the legislation.


So if you look for more than half a second you really ought to see even the slowest flashing light
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20334
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by mjr »

Psamathe wrote: 12 Aug 2021, 11:07pm
Pebble wrote: 12 Aug 2021, 10:58pm
Psamathe wrote: 12 Aug 2021, 8:09pm
Without any "tearing apart", could you point us to the research that has shown those to be the case please.

Thanks
Ian
some stuff is so obvious it don't need research, where as riding at night dressed as a ninja turtle probably does need to be researched to prove if it is entirely safe.
Human perception, registration and mis-perception is amazingly complex. Add a fast dynamic environment and it gets harder. So I get very worried about "some stuff is so obvious it don't need research". I claim no expertise but as part of my education I did a module on psychology of perception and (pardon the pun) it was a real eye opener, some weird stuff.

Ian
It is so obvious it don't need research that people who advocate legally-insufficient lights like the Cateye Omni 5 should not be listened to about safety and visibility!

They also seem to think hi vis can be seen through trees, which is utter nonsense.

I bet they have not even painted the back of their rear mudguard white. If they won't even take such basic steps, how can they credibly claim to care about visibility?
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.
MartinC
Posts: 2134
Joined: 10 May 2007, 6:31pm
Location: Bredon

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by MartinC »

If "SAFETY, Visibility" means bright colours or high vis why do we have black cars?
pwa
Posts: 17409
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by pwa »

MartinC wrote: 13 Aug 2021, 10:31am If "SAFETY, Visibility" means bright colours or high vis why do we have black cars?
I suppose black cars are less easy to see in poor light than white cars. Many years ago a friend of mine told me that he had nearly driven into the back of an unlit army truck at night on a moorland road with no street lighting. It had broken down and was being pushed by a number of soldiers in combat gear. He wasn't the safest driver in the world, so undoubtedly he was going too fast and/or not paying enough attention. But yes, darker vehicles are less easily seen in some circumstances. The rear end of modern ambulances show how conspicuous vehicles can be if you go to the opposite extreme.
Stevek76
Posts: 2087
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by Stevek76 »

Blondie wrote: 13 Aug 2021, 8:52am You suggest you are looking is no more than a quick glance of less than half a second. Suggest you have a proper look before pulling out. Even at twice a second you should see the light. What front light do you have with such slow flash rates by the way ?
I've suggested no such thing, I was rather clearer the second post that I look multiple times. However individual looks are indeed probably around half a second, the purpose is checking for people and vehicles, not reading reg plates. Without flipping my handlebar cam around and going for a ride I cannot provide an average for how long those looks are. That I saw the cyclist in their unlit state surely indicates I'd had a proper look? If the premise of this thread is to be believed they should have been invisible to me at that point. :) And that was before the subsequent checks where I noted they did have a light, just a rather poor one.

The light is a moon meteor though such slow flashes are fairly common from what I see about. I may replace/supplement it soon as it appears to have an annoying habit of running it's own battery down when off. Like most lights it's in no way complaint with the UK's out dated legislation on the matter.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
De Sisti
Posts: 1507
Joined: 17 Jun 2007, 6:03pm

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by De Sisti »

Drivers of motor vehicles will always see cyclists ahead, in front of them. If they didn't there
would be more bikes being rear-ended. The drivers just don't like (thinking that they are) being
slowed down or delayed a few seconds by a bike.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56366
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by Mick F »

MartinC wrote: 13 Aug 2021, 10:31am If "SAFETY, Visibility" means bright colours or high vis why do we have black cars?
We had a Peugeot 205 for some years.
Dull green and we found fairly quickly that we were invisible on the road. It really was noticeable to us that people and other drivers and road users didn't see us clearly. Honestly, that's what we felt.
We had to drive differently so we made ourselves "visible" and just got used to the situation.

Main roads weren't so bad, but side roads and lanes, the colour of the car (and that it was a small one) blended into the hedges and greenery.

Series of red cars after the green Peugeot, and red is very good. Pale blue one too - equally good.
Now drive a white car, and the difference is astounding.
Mick F. Cornwall
Mike Sales
Posts: 7898
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by Mike Sales »

Mick F wrote: 13 Aug 2021, 2:15pm
MartinC wrote: 13 Aug 2021, 10:31am If "SAFETY, Visibility" means bright colours or high vis why do we have black cars?
We had a Peugeot 205 for some years.
Dull green and we found fairly quickly that we were invisible on the road. It really was noticeable to us that people and other drivers and road users didn't see us clearly. Honestly, that's what we felt.
We had to drive differently so we made ourselves "visible" and just got used to the situation.

Main roads weren't so bad, but side roads and lanes, the colour of the car (and that it was a small one) blended into the hedges and greenery.

Series of red cars after the green Peugeot, and red is very good. Pale blue one too - equally good.
Now drive a white car, and the difference is astounding.
Perhaps hiviz yellow with reflective stripes would best.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Gerry557
Posts: 5
Joined: 28 Jul 2021, 8:07pm

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by Gerry557 »

It's not just visability but also expectations. I had a "near miss" yesterday. I was driving a car out of an estate road onto another road. I stopped at the junction to turn left. I was waiting for a gap in the traffic on my right.

I hadn't seen the two youths riding on the pavement, probably hidden behind some pedestrians, as I checked to the left. They came from slightly behind me, on the footpath, cut across the front of the car, from my left to right.

Fortunately I was warned by my passenger, I still hadn't "found" them when they cut across me. They were going downhill, and relatively fast.

I was concentrating on the road, now empty of traffic on my left, although I wouldn't be on that side of the road and looked now clear on the right. I probably would have set off at this point as the "Road" was clear except for the warning.

The delay in moving off prevented an incident. Obviously I don't know how the two cyclists would have reacted if I had pulled out to the left. Would they have stopped in time? Why didn't they consider going behind me. Did they even consider that I might move. Probably not.

I don't think hi vi's or lights would have helped them or me. It just one of those gorilla in the room moments.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6311
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Mick F wrote: 13 Aug 2021, 2:15pm
MartinC wrote: 13 Aug 2021, 10:31am If "SAFETY, Visibility" means bright colours or high vis why do we have black cars?
We had a Peugeot 205 for some years.
Dull green and we found fairly quickly that we were invisible on the road. It really was noticeable to us that people and other drivers and road users didn't see us clearly. Honestly, that's what we felt.
We had to drive differently so we made ourselves "visible" and just got used to the situation.

Main roads weren't so bad, but side roads and lanes, the colour of the car (and that it was a small one) blended into the hedges and greenery.

Series of red cars after the green Peugeot, and red is very good. Pale blue one too - equally good.
Now drive a white car, and the difference is astounding.
There's psychology in this as well. Red and yellow are perceived as danger signs (wasps, snakes and so on). Green is a safe colour (leaves).
Blondie
Posts: 239
Joined: 23 May 2021, 5:11pm

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by Blondie »

Stevek76 wrote: 13 Aug 2021, 11:46am
Blondie wrote: 13 Aug 2021, 8:52am You suggest you are looking is no more than a quick glance of less than half a second. Suggest you have a proper look before pulling out. Even at twice a second you should see the light. What front light do you have with such slow flash rates by the way ?
I've suggested no such thing, I was rather clearer the second post that I look multiple times. However individual looks are indeed probably around half a second, the purpose is checking for people and vehicles, not reading reg plates. Without flipping my handlebar cam around and going for a ride I cannot provide an average for how long those looks are. That I saw the cyclist in their unlit state surely indicates I'd had a proper look? If the premise of this thread is to be believed they should have been invisible to me at that point. :) And that was before the subsequent checks where I noted they did have a light, just a rather poor one.

The light is a moon meteor though such slow flashes are fairly common from what I see about. I may replace/supplement it soon as it appears to have an annoying habit of running it's own battery down when off. Like most lights it's in no way complaint with the UK's out dated legislation on the matter.
Just seems odd that a flashing light would be off for as long as half a second. The meteor manuals I’ve found don’t state the specifics of flash mode. Plus half a second is too short in my view. That is but a briefest of glances. Which might be ok on a clear junction in day time, but at night easy to miss someone in that 1/2 second. A cyclist could easily cover 15 metres before you turn back.
De Sisti
Posts: 1507
Joined: 17 Jun 2007, 6:03pm

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by De Sisti »

Blondie wrote: 13 Aug 2021, 7:25pm but at night easy to miss someone in that 1/2 second. A cyclist could easily cover 15 metres before you turn back.
Look for a longer period of time.
pwa
Posts: 17409
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by pwa »

De Sisti wrote: 14 Aug 2021, 8:02am
Blondie wrote: 13 Aug 2021, 7:25pm but at night easy to miss someone in that 1/2 second. A cyclist could easily cover 15 metres before you turn back.
Look for a longer period of time.
There are particularly awkward junctions where an emerging driver has to look repeatedly left and right very quickly because they cannot see very far in either direction, and while they are looking left something may have appeared quite close on the right. This has got me wondering whether I could miss a slower flashing light through the timing of what has to be a brief last glance. Surely, if conditions merit a front light, it ought to be constant, not flashing.
User avatar
TrevA
Posts: 3561
Joined: 1 Jun 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by TrevA »

Better to have the light on pulse mode, rather than flash mode. That way, it is always on, but there are intermittent brighter pulses of light. Of course, not all lights have a pulse mode.
Sherwood CC and Notts CTC.
A cart horse trapped in the body of a man.
http://www.jogler2009.blogspot.com
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19801
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: SAFETY, Visibility

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Or to have both a blinky and a static light.

But either it’s dark enough to want a light to see where you are going, or it’s light enough to be visible anyway (by virtue of street lighting).
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Post Reply