Can hi-vis clothing do harm?

[drossall]

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.

Arguably they'd have been at fault for riding on the pavement and then swerving briefly into the road. But that's not the real point for me. This does seem to relate to one of the issues with cycle paths and the like, which move cyclists to places where drivers aren't looking. Depending on the road layout, the cyclist may still have priority. And again, lights and hi-vis will not do any harm, but won't fix the issue - so they aren't the whole answer. Whether you are seen, as opposed to whether you are visible, involves more than those things.

[Bmblbzzz]

Or they could have been on the pavement running.

[thirdcrank]

Putting it at it's very least, hi-viz togs make SMIDSY that bit less credible.

[Stevek76]

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.

Yes, hence the need for shorter looks, that was the point I was making earlier. I find a rapid cycle through the directions I need a keep track of more effective than long stares.

I'm sure mileage varies in this so I doubt we are going to agree as to how brief half a second is. Regardless, I doubt I'm the only person and while I'm ok at seeing an unlit, dark clothed cyclist with poor street lighting, the premise of this thread is that some drivers aren't hence my view that if you're going to bother with lighting, there should be some constant element to it.

This does seem to relate to one of the issues with cycle paths and the like, which move cyclists to places where drivers aren't looking. Depending on the road layout, the cyclist may still have priority.

They tend to get used to looking in those directions fairly quickly from what I've seen, engineering measures such as raised tables & continuous footways help and should be a standard really for inclusivity reasons alone* (try getting a wheelchair along a normal UK street where it ramps down and up for a side road every few tens of meters!)

*fixed typo

[Bmblbzzz]

"Try getting a wheelchair along a normal UK street where it ramps down and up for a side road every few tens of meters!"

Never mind the side roads, wheelchair using friends tell me that what's really annoying is driveways. Not only are they more frequent but because they're constructed so the whole pavement slopes down to road level, they're disturbing to the equilibrium both mentally and gravitationally. It's a good example of how prioritising the convenience of a large and influential minority (car drivers) causes not only major inconvenience to a small and ignored minority (wheelchair users) but to the majority (in this case, virtually the entire population, because almost everyone walks along the pavement at some time).

[Blondie]

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.

Erm which is exactly what I was pointing out in my replies to him

[De Sisti]

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.

Erm which is exactly what I was pointing out in my replies to him

You didn't make it clear enough

[[XAP]Bob]

"Try getting a wheelchair along a normal UK street where it ramps down and up for a side road every few tens of meters!"

Never mind the side roads, wheelchair using friends tell me that what's really annoying is driveways. Not only are they more frequent but because they're constructed so the whole pavement slopes down to road level, they're disturbing to the equilibrium both mentally and gravitationally. It's a good example of how prioritising the convenience of a large and influential minority (car drivers) causes not only major inconvenience to a small and ignored minority (wheelchair users) but to the majority (in this case, virtually the entire population, because almost everyone walks along the pavement at some time).

I quite often just bail and use the bloody road - and the crest of it at that.
It's hard enough wheeling along anyway without having to deal with a substantial camber.

[mjr]

This does seem to relate to one of the issues with cycle paths and the like, which move cyclists to places where drivers aren't looking.[...]

I don't feel that's a particularly specific issue. Many drivers aren't looking at the road properly either. Even if they are, a cyclist cannot tell if they are looking properly, or if they are about to make the correct decision from what they are looking at, so we cannot rely on it. In almost every collision, the cyclist will come off worst, so cyclists must not pass within a second of the front of a car if at all possible. This is another part of why, when riding on-carriageway, it's important to move into primary position passing side roads and driveways.

One of the few benefits of the crap design of UK cycle paths at side roads is that at least most of them give cyclists an easy option to swerve behind the car waiting to pull out into passing cyclists, making it a lot more difficult for them to hit you without warning, especially now more cars have "hill hold" reducing incompetent drivers rolling back.

[mjr]

Putting it at it's very least, hi-viz togs make SMIDSY that bit less credible.

Not when "hi-viz togs" are widely known as urban camouflage.

[Stevek76]

Never mind the side roads, wheelchair using friends tell me that what's really annoying is driveways.

Yes, those too, use of these needed as standard

https://www.aggregate.com/products-and- ... dutch-kerb


Rather like 'Dutch' bikes, there are actually historic British examples still visible scattered around, we just apparently forgot all that because cars.

[MartinC]

If "SAFETY, Visibility" means bright colours or high vis why do we have black cars?

OK. No-one has come up with an answer. I think it's because "we" regard cars as "normal" and the underlying visibility rationale contains more then a little element of victim blaming ('cos they make life inconvenient for the perpetrators)

[mjr]

If "SAFETY, Visibility" means bright colours or high vis why do we have black cars?

OK. No-one has come up with an answer. I think it's because "we" regard cars as "normal" and the underlying visibility rationale contains more then a little element of victim blaming ('cos they make life inconvenient for the perpetrators)

Or maybe there's no answer because "we" don't agree that "SAFETY, Visibility means bright colours or high vis" and "they" aren't particpating in this discussion?

[thirdcrank]

The answer to the question about black cars is that people are free to pick what colour they want - subject to availability, of course. (pace Henry Ford.)

We do have hi-viz emergency vehicles, where once we had plain colours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyznR29NAyw

This one appears to have been registered in 1967:-

Had the question been "Why does the Highway Code not specify hi-viz finishes for cars" I'd not have had an answer.

[Bmblbzzz]

Never mind the side roads, wheelchair using friends tell me that what's really annoying is driveways.

Yes, those too, use of these needed as standard

https://www.aggregate.com/products-and- ... dutch-kerb


Rather like 'Dutch' bikes, there are actually historic British examples still visible scattered around, we just apparently forgot all that because cars.

Plenty of those still around on older (maybe pre-1960s?) UK kerbs and a small trend to use them now, probably more in urban than suburban environments. I've no idea where they originated but they're certainly found in UK and around Europe and beyond.