Cycling UK Forum

I'm going to muddy the issue, by suggesting that bike positioning might have a factor in whether you are seen and that the vehicle behind has acknowledged your presence. Generally speaking I ride in the primary position where one would expect to see a moped or light motorcycle...

...admittedly when self drive vehicles become common, i'm expecting to be utterly flattened when cars CPU fails to recognise me...

Some more here on Hi Viz:

https://twitter.com/LakesWeather/status ... 3802777684
https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/ski ... live-15508

[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑14 Dec 2024, 3:14pm

Rob D wrote: ↑12 Dec 2024, 8:26pm Whilst I favour drab colours when walking, I cannot understand any reluctance by cyclists to be visible.

Are you suggesting that cyclists are peculiarly invisible?

Wearing black doesn't make you invisible - particularly not when the vehicle you're riding has appropriate lighting.

No, of course not. But cyclists, by their very nature, are more vulnerable and moving much faster than pedestrians. A walker can use pavements if available, or walk much closer to the road edge. If I'm belting down a hill on a bike, I want to ensure that any motorist about to turn into my path can see me in plenty of time. If I'm cycling through a busy city, again, I want to be visible.

I used to drive into a small city to work. It never failed to astound me, seeing cyclists in gloomy or even dark conditions, with no lights and wearing clothing which didn't help drivers see them. Where is their sense of sel-preservation?

Consider a bright sunny day, you're cycling on a narrow road through a wooded area. A car is coming towards you from outside the shaded area. It takes a while for the driver's eyes to adjust. Again, being visible will help - as will having a flashing light. Wearing black or other colours which blend in to to your surroundings certainly extends the time it takes for a driver to see you, with potentially disastrous effects.

Rob D wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 8:52am

[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑14 Dec 2024, 3:14pm

Rob D wrote: ↑12 Dec 2024, 8:26pm Whilst I favour drab colours when walking, I cannot understand any reluctance by cyclists to be visible.

Are you suggesting that cyclists are peculiarly invisible?

Wearing black doesn't make you invisible - particularly not when the vehicle you're riding has appropriate lighting.

No, of course not. But cyclists, by their very nature, are more vulnerable and moving much faster than pedestrians. A walker can use pavements if available, or walk much closer to the road edge. If I'm belting down a hill on a bike, I want to ensure that any motorist about to turn into my path can see me in plenty of time. If I'm cycling through a busy city, again, I want to be visible.

I used to drive into a small city to work. It never failed to astound me, seeing cyclists in gloomy or even dark conditions, with no lights and wearing clothing which didn't help drivers see them. Where is their sense of sel-preservation?

Consider a bright sunny day, you're cycling on a narrow road through a wooded area. A car is coming towards you from outside the shaded area. It takes a while for the driver's eyes to adjust. Again, being visible will help - as will having a flashing light. Wearing black or other colours which blend in to to your surroundings certainly extends the time it takes for a driver to see you, with potentially disastrous effects.

Being the driver of a car as well as a cyclist, I have a look at my own experiences of encountering cyclists when driving. Whilst I'm not a universal-model of driver (there are many varieties) I am a universal model of a human, so some of my experiences are probably relevant to all human drivers ..... even if they become irrelevant in some drivers who don't perform the fundamental driving requirement of looking where you're going; and keeping speed down based on what you see.

There's no doubt that some clothing is much more visible - visible earlier - than other clothing. Fluo-orange seems the most visible, with some (but not every) yellow-jacket being more obvious than, say, black wool. White is surprisingly visible in a large variety of backgrounds, especially green.

Some body parts are also visible earlier. Bright shoes or booties, especially if a light is included, immediately attract the eye because of the movement. A bright yellow or orange cap sticks up above hedgerows, walls and the like and often signals a cyclist even when the rest of them is obscured by that hedge or whatever.

Best visibility aid of all is a very bright light, especially a flashing bright light, which immediately says "cyclist" rather than anything else.

Personally, then, I always have bright flashing front & back lights, and generally wear a bright cap in white or some fluo-shade; and perhaps a white jersey.

************
As well as the not-looking drivers, there are the not-seeing drivers. The latter often lurch out of junctions, as even if they looked they saw none of the cars or lorries they sought, with a cyclist of little differentiation from the background somehow not registered in their brainbox. This is another reason to have the bright flashing lights. Even bright clothing might go unnoticed if the driver gives but a cursory glance right & left before pulling out. They only look for a second and already have a brainbox filter that's looking primarily for other motorised traffic, not cyclists, peds or squirrels.

**************
Many cyclists argue that drivers have a duty to look carefully for other traffic and to treat it with due consideration if they see it. Therefore cyclists shouldn't have to wear particular clothes or have flashing lights. In practice, this driver perfection is rare; and the notion of what drivers ought to do (but don't) is of no compensation as you lie maimed or dying under their wheels.

Anyone who paints pictures knows that dense foliage alternates black spaces and coloured spaces. I have noticed that black garbed cyclists can sometimes merge almost invisibly in these backgrounds and thus I would never wear black tops accompanied by a black helmet. A white helmet is a good way to stand out and still looks cool if you must.
I often wonder in a world where dark coloured kitchen units, grey walls carpets and furnishings, and even grey cars are de rigeur what is happening?

Al

I absolutely agree with Cugel's comments above.

Re wearing something bright on one's head, we often use helmet lights when dark. In the narrow Devon lanes, with hedges on banks, this really helps drivers see us from afar. I think they think it must be a lorry or tractor coming, so they pull in to an appropriately wide passing place. I imagine many are surprised when 2 bikes sail by.

Rob D wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 8:52am ...

If I'm belting down a hill on a bike, I want to ensure that any motorist about to turn into my path can see me in plenty of time. If I'm cycling through a busy city, again, I want to be visible.

...

Under those conditions at night reflective things do not help as the vehicle lights are not shining at the bike. If you are already in the path of a vehicle and sideways on then the reflectors will work, but if you are moving, a collision is unlikely. For that reason tyre and wheel reflectors are of limited safety value in my opinion. They do help with safety in numbers as drivers will see more bikes about than without these sideways reflectors.

In daytime bright contrast colours might help against simple backgrounds, so only in the countryside. In towns and cities I suspect only flashing lights are useful. I have flashers front and rear, which I use in daytime when I must mix with other faster and heavier traffic. I wear bright trouser bands and otherwise normal clothes when utility cycling. So do most people round here. Normal for winter usually means dark in colour. For goths and young folk black is an all-year-round fashion thing.

plancashire wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 5:04pm Under those conditions at night reflective things do not help as the vehicle lights are not shining at the bike.

Which vehicle?

plancashire wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 5:04pm If you are already in the path of a vehicle and sideways on then the reflectors will work, but if you are moving, a collision is unlikely.

The car was in my path, not me in it's path, that's why I hit the front offside wing and summersaulted over the bonnet.

axel_knutt wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 5:23pm

plancashire wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 5:04pm Under those conditions at night reflective things do not help as the vehicle lights are not shining at the bike.

Which vehicle?

any motorist about to turn into my path from the post I quoted.

axel_knutt wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 5:23pm

plancashire wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 5:04pm If you are already in the path of a vehicle and sideways on then the reflectors will work, but if you are moving, a collision is unlikely.

The car was in my path, not me in it's path, that's why I hit the front offside wing and summersaulted over the bonnet.

I think we are discussing different scenarios. I was referring to a bike in the path (and lights) of a motorised vehicle with headlights.

Sorry about your collision. I hope you are OK.

plancashire wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 5:32pm

axel_knutt wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 5:23pm

plancashire wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 5:04pm Under those conditions at night reflective things do not help as the vehicle lights are not shining at the bike.

Which vehicle?

any motorist about to turn into my path from the post I quoted.

axel_knutt wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 5:23pm

plancashire wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 5:04pm If you are already in the path of a vehicle and sideways on then the reflectors will work, but if you are moving, a collision is unlikely.

The car was in my path, not me in it's path, that's why I hit the front offside wing and summersaulted over the bonnet.

I think we are discussing different scenarios. I was referring to a bike in the path (and lights) of a motorised vehicle with headlights.

Sorry about your collision. I hope you are OK.

Your post was in response to a scenario in which a car crosses the path of a bike travelling straight ahead, which is the same as the incident that happened to me.

If a motorist waiting to pull out of a side road is looking for oncoming hazards why does the hi vis have to be illuminated by his own lights and not those of one of the other vehicles on the road?

axel_knutt wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 6:41pm ...

Your post was in response to a scenario in which a car crosses the path of a bike travelling straight ahead, which is the same as the incident that happened to me.

If a motorist waiting to pull out of a side road is looking for oncoming hazards why does the hi vis have to be illuminated by his own lights and not those of one of the other vehicles on the road?

I was writing about reflective material, which reflects almost all of the light straight back the way it came with low spread. The angle between driver and lights of a distant vehicle is small, so the driver sees quite a bright reflection. Even quite a small increase in the angle can reduce the amount of visible reflection markedly. You can try it for yourself with a torch held next to your head pointing at some reflective material. Move the torch away.

The solution is to generate your own light pointing in the right direction: have lights on the bike.

This does not apply to bright coloured or white material which simply reflects light diffusely in all directions, including in daytime. Hi-vis clothing often has both features: bright colours and reflective parts. A bright coloured jacket illuminated by one vehicle would be visible to a driver of a second vehicle, but nowhere near as bright as in the case I describe above. I assume this is the scenario you describe. In this case black clothes would make a difference.

Cugel wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 10:41amMany cyclists argue that drivers have a duty to look carefully for other traffic and to treat it with due consideration if they see it. Therefore cyclists shouldn't have to wear particular clothes or have flashing lights. In practice, this driver perfection is rare; and the notion of what drivers ought to do (but don't) is of no compensation as you lie maimed or dying under their wheels.

The ideal is surely both... and...

The problem is that that is not the way it has gone. Each successive increase in visibility has resulted in complaints that cyclists/pedestrians/whatever weren't using it, which is evidence of an increase in expectations at least equal to the increase in visibility. So what we need, it seems to me, is ways to have our cake and eat it - additional visibility that does not affect the basic standard of observation expected of us as drivers (and cyclists, for that matter) in any way. Which standard, incidentally, was to see cyclists who had no rear lights, if you go back far enough.

By contrast, the other day, I saw a Facebook post complaining of cycle lights that were blinding other riders. That certainly happens to me with car lights as well, whether I'm cycling or driving. So we now have visibility measures that are of the "As long as I'm seen, who cares about anyone else" level. At the same time, adding visibility never seems to be enough. "High" visibility is a relative term; it means "high in comparison to everyone else". What else could it mean? There is no absolute measure out there. So, on every criterion, it's basically an arms race in which the weak go to the wall.

drossall wrote: ↑16 Dec 2024, 1:50pm

Cugel wrote: ↑15 Dec 2024, 10:41amMany cyclists argue that drivers have a duty to look carefully for other traffic and to treat it with due consideration if they see it. Therefore cyclists shouldn't have to wear particular clothes or have flashing lights. In practice, this driver perfection is rare; and the notion of what drivers ought to do (but don't) is of no compensation as you lie maimed or dying under their wheels.

The ideal is surely both... and...

The problem is that that is not the way it has gone. Each successive increase in visibility has resulted in complaints that cyclists/pedestrians/whatever weren't using it, which is evidence of an increase in expectations at least equal to the increase in visibility. So what we need, it seems to me, is ways to have our cake and eat it - additional visibility that does not affect the basic standard of observation expected of us as drivers (and cyclists, for that matter) in any way. Which standard, incidentally, was to see cyclists who had no rear lights, if you go back far enough.

By contrast, the other day, I saw a Facebook post complaining of cycle lights that were blinding other riders. That certainly happens to me with car lights as well, whether I'm cycling or driving. So we now have visibility measures that are of the "As long as I'm seen, who cares about anyone else" level. At the same time, adding visibility never seems to be enough. "High" visibility is a relative term; it means "high in comparison to everyone else". What else could it mean? There is no absolute measure out there. So, on every criterion, it's basically an arms race in which the weak go to the wall.

I will write to that Starmer and demand a perfek and just Britain immediately, without delay! Well, he might not make the arrangements but if I was dictator I'd make it far more difficult to drive; and ban forever those who make the grade but become "careless". (Careless to carless in an instant!)

*************

To cut the Gordian knot of this tangle of responsibilities of who for what in the way of prang-avoidance, may I suggest considering it from the point of view of probabilities - probabilities that may change as that arms race you mention inevitably goes on. Probabilities that will vary a lot with the individual cyclists and their cycling environment.

Is it more or less probable that using some sort of increases-my-visibility (or gets-me-noticed-sooner) device(s) will reduce my chance of getting pranged by another road user, especially a motorised road user? If I can surmise that even one road user is likely to notice me earlier or at all when otherwise they would have hit me, I'll use the get-noticed device.

The get-noticed devices don't have to go over the top. My flashing lights are not blinders (except in name - one of them is a Knog). I doubt if my white or fluo-yellow cap is going to be so attractive to a driver's eye that they fail to notice anything else and so crash into lamp posts.

Its a separate question as to what of such things should be compulsory or even "officially" recommended. It is a slippery slope from "recommended but still a free choice" to "compulsory to the point of unjust persecution".

In a complex world full of all sorts of risks and all sorts of abilities in dealing with them, we end up having to make as informed and rational a choice as we can - based on probabilities not some dogma about what "everyone ought or ought-not to do". There is no "everyone" except in the minds of ideologues and the writers of bad laws.

Of course, none of us is ever truly rational (or, in many cases, rational at all). Most go via a fashion-suggestion when it comes to answering, "What should I do?"

I'm not sure that cuts the knot though. I think you need to play two games at once. Life is like that sometimes.

Yes, as I've said, I wear hi-vis and use good lights. But, what I'm suggesting is that that is in my short-term interests, but that a constant pursuit of ever-more visibility is unlikely to benefit cyclists in the long term. Our motoring selves will always have more resources (bigger lights and batteries), and hence always win.

So I think I'd like to see campaigns for maximum lighting levels, and for increased penalties for causing accidents, the higher the victims were up the visibility scale.

Visibility is not the same as being conspicuous.

And most cyclists wear clothing for their destination, not specific clothing for the journey.
I maintain that the lights on the bike are the things that are meant to be conspicuous, and that it doesn't matter one jot what you look like if the motorist (as so many do) are looking for cars/lorries to avoid, rather than looking for a clear road.