Cycling UK Forum

It seems to me that if you are never in a crash then you will never know what may have "worked" for you.

If you are hit then that's when the negotiators get going and these specialist togs might present a Catch 22. If I have it right, they originate in a wish to comply with the French law requring riders to wear hi-viz in certain circumstances, but adapted for riders in ultra endurance events. So, why would eg a riderr going to the shops need a shirt designed for an endurance ride?

This is quite beyond my experience so I hope I am wide of the mark

thirdcrank wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 3:51pm It seems to me that if you are never in a crash then you will never know what may have "worked" for you.

Well, I was crashed into more in the few years I wore hi viz (3 in about 15) than the greater number of years before or since (1 in 25, which includes being a teenager doing some daft stuff).

I think people look for and care about people more than unusual reflective or fluorescent shapes and so the best tactic is to look person-shaped. I also like to look back at drivers when possible because seeing a smiling face seems to provoke a better response.

No, I'm sorry, but this anecdotal stuff about whether one individual was or wasn't crashed into when they were or weren't wearing hi viz means diddly squat.

When people give similar anecdotes about the-safety-device-which-dare-not-speak-its-name - "polystyrene save my life" type comments - we see a deluge of responses to do with pulling the head away, the thing making the head bigger so impact happened, you wouldn't be dead even if you hadn't had it on etc. etc. Oh yes, and "risk compensation". Is there not "risk compensation" attached to wearing hi viz?

Studies showing the effect of laws being passed in other countries, will often be attached or quoted, for what they are worth.

If there are any studies on the likelihood of collision in relation to the wearing of hi-viz, please post them. I would be genuinely interested.

In the meantime, an individual's experience of whether an extremely rare event was related to them wearing hi-viz (or not) means nothing.

maximus meridius wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 6:34pm No, I'm sorry, but this anecdotal stuff about whether one individual was or wasn't crashed into when they were or weren't wearing hi viz means diddly squat.

If there are any studies on the likelihood of collision in relation to the wearing of hi-viz, please post them. I would be genuinely interested.

I fink Jonathan might have something.... I'll admit to wearing hi-viz but I don't know if it works or not....

maximus meridius wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 6:34pm Oh yes, and "risk compensation". Is there not "risk compensation" attached to wearing hi viz?

Almost certainly, by both the riders and, more importantly, drivers near them.

If there are any studies on the likelihood of collision in relation to the wearing of hi-viz, please post them. I would be genuinely interested.

I remember seeing a NZ study that found a small increase in crash rate for hi viz users, but there were confounding factors, including that the crashed users were more endurance/extreme /event cyclists ( pushing the limits of their abilities) than the crashed non users, so it would be worthless to cite.

mjr wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 10:57pm

maximus meridius wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 6:34pm Oh yes, and "risk compensation". Is there not "risk compensation" attached to wearing hi viz?

Almost certainly, by both the riders and, more importantly, drivers near them.

If there are any studies on the likelihood of collision in relation to the wearing of hi-viz, please post them. I would be genuinely interested.

I remember seeing a NZ study that found a small increase in crash rate for hi viz users, but there were confounding factors, including that the crashed users were more endurance/extreme /event cyclists ( pushing the limits of their abilities) than the crashed non users, so it would be worthless to cite.

And yet you chose to mention it. What you didn't choose to mention is this one, for instance:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3517313528
which took me very little time to find. Though you did have vague memories of a New Zealand study that found the opposite result. I wonder why.

An interesting comment at the end of the paper.

The external validity of the experiment is challenged by the fact that the effect is assumed to change if the environment changes. For instance, the effect will most likely decrease if an increasing number of cyclists start using a bright-coloured bicycle jacket because the jacket will not attract as much attention when more cyclists use it.

re_cycler wrote: ↑29 Oct 2023, 7:13am An interesting comment at the end of the paper.

The external validity of the experiment is challenged by the fact that the effect is assumed to change if the environment changes. For instance, the effect will most likely decrease if an increasing number of cyclists start using a bright-coloured bicycle jacket because the jacket will not attract as much attention when more cyclists use it.

Yes, it's possible- however after dark, I is my believe that the reflective strips on my hi-vis marks me out as a person whereas if I was to rely on lights and refectors alone I may be mistaken for a something else... what I tend to like about the reflective strips (having noticed it when driving, when it's worn by other people) is the way that it can suddenly 'light up' when the light from my car's headlamps fall on it...
...I suppose the other reason for using it, is to cover those very rare occasions when both my dynamo and my battery lights stop functioning...leaving me with only my refectors and my waist coat.

...I don't tend to do much cycling in the dark now - thanks to over strong car headlamps and weakening eye sight.. but I still do enjoy it... the evening when the colours fade from the sky, and the blue darkened to black, the way the mist creeps from the ditches over the road, the smell of wood smoke from chimneys and the light from the windows of the cottages as you ride past.. and other other way where the dawn takes back the dark, and the colour is returned amongst the bird song, remain for me the most magical times of the day...

..apologies, its another anecdotal, rather than stastics..

cycle tramp wrote: ↑29 Oct 2023, 8:00am Yes, it's possible- however after dark, I is my believe that the reflective strips on my hi-vis marks me out as a person whereas if I was to rely on lights and refectors alone I may be mistaken for a something else... what I tend to like about the reflective strips (having noticed it when driving, when it's worn by other people) is the way that it can suddenly 'light up' when the light from my car's headlamps fall on it...
...I suppose the other reason for using it, is to cover those very rare occasions when both my dynamo and my battery lights stop functioning...leaving me with only my refectors and my waist coat.

I do wonder if there is a benefit to a degree of uncertainty about what you're seeing. Given the amount of information being processed does the eye / brain park something once it is recognised compared to a movement which has yet to be identified. Or another take, do changes in a scene such as pedal reflectors cause the brain to react more frequently than a single easy to see body once it's been seen.

re_cycler wrote: ↑29 Oct 2023, 8:20amI do wonder if there is a benefit to a degree of uncertainty about what you're seeing.

That would be somewhat consistent with the arguments for shared spaces, where white lines and the like are removed to create uncertainty, so that people look out for each other. It's also consistent with the idea that what you need is not simply for someone to see you, which is rather passive, but to pay attention.

maximus meridius wrote: ↑29 Oct 2023, 12:16am
And yet you chose to mention it. What you didn't choose to mention is this one, for instance:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3517313528
which took me very little time to find. Though you did have vague memories of a New Zealand study that found the opposite result. I wonder why.

Taking a stab based on why I didn't mention it... Not knowing about it? And as for a study that reported the opposite... this study actually reports more single-bike crashes for the hi-viz wearers (not that I think they're being unreasonable in dismissing it, but it does show it's in the realms of possibility for another study to show otherwise).

You only find the likes of that if you go looking, and I don't have a regular trawl for new helmet and hi-viz papers since very long ago as it never made things any clearer, and as the paper mentions there's not really very much out there that they found (looking rather harder than I ever did, I would imagine) pre-existing.

Now I am aware of it I went on a quick trawl and noticed it's actually in the CUK evidence review for conspicuity aids, have a look at https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... _brf_1.pdf

The main question it didn't really answer for me is if a Danish environment is directly transferrable/relevant to a British/subset of British environment (after all, we can change the UK KSI rates by a factor of 20 according to what sorts of road we ride on). That doesn't invalidate what they report but one study somewhere else isn't enough to make me rush out and re-invest in hi-viz quite yet.

As for anecdotal data being worthless, I'd say it's certainly of very limited use, but not actually worthless. An anecdote is useful as an illustration of principle or possibility, e.g., it is certainly possible to ride without hi-viz in the UK without frequent collisions.

So back to a Proviz jacket, and I'll say what I've already said. The best reason to get one is because you'll be happier riding in one. You don't need to justify your choice according to scientific citations, but it is certainly possible to ride a bike without a loud coat and get away with it.

Pete.

maximus meridius wrote: ↑29 Oct 2023, 12:16am

mjr wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 10:57pm

maximus meridius wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 6:34pm Oh yes, and "risk compensation". Is there not "risk compensation" attached to wearing hi viz?

Almost certainly, by both the riders and, more importantly, drivers near them.

If there are any studies on the likelihood of collision in relation to the wearing of hi-viz, please post them. I would be genuinely interested.

I remember seeing a NZ study that found a small increase in crash rate for hi viz users, but there were confounding factors, including that the crashed users were more endurance/extreme /event cyclists ( pushing the limits of their abilities) than the crashed non users, so it would be worthless to cite.

And yet you chose to mention it. What you didn't choose to mention is this one, for instance:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3517313528
which took me very little time to find. Though you did have vague memories of a New Zealand study that found the opposite result. I wonder why.

There are numerous studies. Some show benefit, and some do not. In general, the ones that show benefit, have the problem that either they are self-reported (as is the case with the one linked by maximus meridius) or they are hospital studies, which are biased, in that they exclude the population that didn't turn up in hospital.

The linked study also found the number of reported single accidents (no other people or vehicles involved) was significantly lower in the test group than in the control group. While the researchers correctly assumed that this was bias and used the result to adjust the findings, it is typical of the problems with this sort of study.

Thanks to those of you who have posted useful responses.

To be clear, as per my original post, it is "reflective things" that I am looking at. As opposed to fluorescent. Perhaps some readers missed that distinction. I am aware of the difference between fluorescent and reflective. Indeed, as I note a little down the thread, the "full reflective" Proviz jacket is anything but fluorescent under daylight.

A quick, though not complete, read of the ukcycling paper that PJ Clinch links to leads me to think I am on the right lines. UKC remarks that reflective stuff has value:

"On the other hand, research suggests that retroreflective accessories designed to make you more conspicuous in the dark – especially anything that moves when you pedal (e.g. ankle straps) – are probably worth the investment."

So my comment in the 7th post in the thread, where I mention ankle straps first in a short list of things I am considering, looks like I'm on the right path.

No need to consider anymore. I spent longer than warranted (considering the low price) comparing different reflective ankle straps on line. Then remembered I had one of the snap on ones somewhere, that came with a bike I bought. I wrapped it round a small tree and shone my bike light on it. All good. It was raining so after waiting a while for a car to drive past, abandoned that trial. I only have one, but as I said, one ankle will be obscured by the pannier, at least directly from behind.

On Friday, when I got home, I left the bike on the drive, demounted my front light (a Lezyne StZVO one) and walked as far away as I could to see what the reflectiveness of various components was:

1. It was noticeable how bright the reflective sidewalls on the tyres is. They are new Continental Contact Plus. That looks useful for side-on conspicuity. I don't know how quickly it wears off, I'll look again in a while. In fact I've got some slightly older Marathons somewhere, I'll do a side by side test sometime.

2. The reflective patch on the back of the Carradice pannier is bright, but some was lost due to the pannier folding - I don't really stuff if full.

3. The mudguard reflector was brighter than I thought it would be.

4. I couldn't see the pedal reflectors, as they hang down at rest.

5. The rear flashing red light was certainly conspicuous.

I'll read the research available more thoroughly and take note of specific items which are cited as useful.

In the meantime I will, of course, continue to cycle in ways which I hope will make me safer. Especially I will be mindful of the trap of risk compensation - imagining that I am more visible than I really am, due to things I am wearing or things on the bike. I am struggling to find Bikeability training that fits in with me, but will ask the local organiser for phone numbers - I think I may have to "go private". I will continue contributing financially to UKC and my local cycling campaign group, so that they can advocate for safer cycling. I will also continue to report, if I think it worthwhile, drivers who I believe are dangerous or breaking the law. And when the opportunity arises, I will remind drivers of their obligations towards cyclists, as I did twice last week.

I hope that's all OK. Investigating ways to make oneself safer by what one wears doesn't prevent one also taking other steps to make cycling safer for all, as well as at an individual level.

maximus meridius wrote: ↑30 Oct 2023, 10:39am <snip>
I am struggling to find Bikeability training that fits in with me, but will ask the local organiser for phone numbers - I think I may have to "go private".

I'd have a trawl for "adult cycle training" and similar. Bikeability is one particular programme to deliver National Standards for Cycle Training and while to many it seems synonymous it isn't really, and tends to be the banner for school/young people's provision even though it's the same stuff being taught.
"Adult cycle training" will probably get you at local authority provision as well as private training, and they could well be the same people delivering it.

Pete.

pjclinch wrote: ↑30 Oct 2023, 11:30am

maximus meridius wrote: ↑30 Oct 2023, 10:39am <snip>
I am struggling to find Bikeability training that fits in with me, but will ask the local organiser for phone numbers - I think I may have to "go private".

I'd have a trawl for "adult cycle training" and similar. Bikeability is one particular programme to deliver National Standards for Cycle Training and while to many it seems synonymous it isn't really, and tends to be the banner for school/young people's provision even though it's the same stuff being taught.
"Adult cycle training" will probably get you at local authority provision as well as private training, and they could well be the same people delivering it.

Pete.

Yes, "Adult cycle training" is exactly the phrase the local provider uses. There appears to be none at Level 3, hence why I think I'll need one-to-one, probably on an ad hoc "private" basis. Having attended one Level 1 class, I'm not sure I've got the time to do a lot of those. I'm trying not to be arrogant about my attitude to cycle training, or my cycling skills, but I didn't feel that I benefited from it much.

The training round here seems patchy, though I notice they've advertised for a new scheme manager, so perhaps it will improve. The focus seems to be getting new cyclists onto bikes, which is understandable.

PS. You deliver some training I believe. For somebody who is used to cycling, how much "extra" would be gained by in person training, as opposed to just reading through Franklin's book? Especially at Level 1 or Level 2?

Thanks.