The fluorescent clothing debate

[Rig of Jarkness]

A well argued piece in support from bikeradar.com - I couldn't agree more !
Cyclists: Be Seen And Not Hurt - BikeRadar

[Charlotte]

I could.

[Julian]

I think the key phrase in that article is this:

I’d been looking for traffic through a rain streaked window. If I’d wound down the window I would probably have seen him.

So:  I'd been looking for traffic - he was looking for nice big cars with headlights
through a rain streaked window - with bad visibility
If I'd wound down the window - had I bothered to ensure that I could see what was coming I would have seen him.

So the article says:  ICBA to check what's coming and therefore nearly hit a cyclist.  At least he's honest.   

[Regulator]

I have fecking powerful lights...

...if they can't see those then a bit of flourescent clothing (which washes out under many street lights) won't make much difference.

Time for drivers to start acting responsibly rather than expecting cyclists (and horseriders and pedestrians) to compensate for their idiocy.


Here endeth the rant...  

[mattc]

I shan't lower myself to register, purely to tell them what a twunt their writer is.

[Rig of Jarkness]

I think the key phrase in that article is this:

I’d been looking for traffic through a rain streaked window. If I’d wound down the window I would probably have seen him.

So:  I'd been looking for traffic - he was looking for nice big cars with headlights
through a rain streaked window - with bad visibility
If I'd wound down the window - had I bothered to ensure that I could see what was coming I would have seen him.

So the article says:  ICBA to check what's coming and therefore nearly hit a cyclist.  At least he's honest.   

I can't disagree with any of the above but sadly, that's the reality of many people's driving. 

[teethgrinder]

I think the key phrase in that article is this:

I’d been looking for traffic through a rain streaked window. If I’d wound down the window I would probably have seen him.

So:  I'd been looking for traffic - he was looking for nice big cars with headlights
through a rain streaked window - with bad visibility
If I'd wound down the window - had I bothered to ensure that I could see what was coming I would have seen him.

So the article says:  ICBA to check what's coming and therefore nearly hit a cyclist.  At least he's honest.   

Errr, not quite how I read it.
More like, "I did look, but only for things that I was expecting to see which are very easy to spot (car headlights). I could have been more observent, but thought it unnessecary, so wasn't. Therefore, everyone should be easier for me to see by wearing high vis."
That's pretty well why I use very bright lights most of the time and am very aware when I am not.
I'm in two minds about high vis.

[MSeries]

My own trials with and without fluorescent clothing tell me it makes no difference to me. No more and no fewer near misses of hits. YMMV.

Teethgrinder sums it up well.

[Hot Flatus]

Well I'm grateful to all the non hi-viz urban cyclists who can educate errant drivers on the need to look more carefully for cyclists by smashing up their bonnets and cracking their windscreens.

Personally I'd prefer to stay out of hospital, even if it means looking like a twat.

Driving in the rain these past two days have reminded me of the need to stick my high-powered strobe on the bike.  I'd have little chance of seeing an unlit cyclist in dark clothes in these weather conditions however hard I may look.

[geraldc]

I have fluo clothing, but generally only wear it in very bad weather.  It's a fashion vs safety trade off.

I notice reflective piping on cyclists far more than fluoresent bibs etc.

Surely if fluorescent colours stopped accidents then they should make all cars fluoresent too.

[teethgrinder]

My own trials with and without fluorescent clothing tell me it makes no difference to me. No more and no fewer near misses of hits. YMMV.

Same here.

My brother was walking along a pavement with his bike at night a few weeks ago. He now has a badly broken leg because someone drove out of their driveway without checking to see if anyone was walking along the pavement. He was wearing a high vis at the time.
The ****er in the car must have been going some break someone's leg.

[perpetual dan]

I think the key phrase in that article is this:

I’d been looking for traffic through a rain streaked window. If I’d wound down the window I would probably have seen him.

So:  I'd been looking for traffic - he was looking for nice big cars with headlights
through a rain streaked window - with bad visibility
If I'd wound down the window - had I bothered to ensure that I could see what was coming I would have seen him.

So the article says:  ICBA to check what's coming and therefore nearly hit a cyclist.  At least he's honest.   

Errr, not quite how I read it.
More like, "I did look, but only for things that I was expecting to see which are very easy to spot (car headlights). I could have been more observent, but thought it unnessecary, so wasn't. Therefore, everyone should be easier for me to see by wearing high vis."
That's pretty well why I use very bright lights most of the time and am very aware when I am not.
I'm in two minds about high vis.

And I read it as:
I was pulling out from a junction with poor visibility. I could have improved it by winding my window down, but it was raining and letting the rain in is missing the point of driving a car. 
I saw a cyclist as part of the traffic. What I noticed was the hi viz.
I didn't see a second, nearer, cyclist who blended into a dark + lights in the rain scene.

Simple analysis - he might have seen the second one if they were also wearing hi viz.
A brighter / better angled light and/or different road position might also have done the trick.
As I was riding home last night I was wondering whether light area rather than just brightness is a factor.

None of these is a guarantee of being noticed by drivers who aren't paying attention. I'm not convinced fitting tazers with a cyclist proximity trigger in driver's underpants would help with some.

[Pancho]

No amount of gay clothing can compensate for drivers who can't take the time to look for anything smaller and less illuminated than a car or bus.

I'm happy to load the bike up with hundreds of pounds worth of lighting and reflectives but I see no benefit in wearing fancy dress just to get from A to B.

[Jaded]

He didn't not see the cyclist, he made an assumption that there wasn't one there.

As others have said it's been difficult out there these last few nights, wet and dark. Personally I've been slowing down if I can't see if the road is clear. That's part of the contract I have agreed to when I got my licence.

If hi-vis would have made a difference then there must have been some light about.

Maybe in the future each driver should have a contraption that projects a beam of light in the way they are looking, just incase someone with compulsory reflective stuff happens to be in their way or is likely to slow them down at all.

[woollypigs]

Cyclist needs to have need to have visible and working lights and cycle somewhere people would see them. And other road users needs to pay more attention on what is going on on the roads they use.

But that said, if other road users aren't looking, you can dress up as a massive x-mas tree and they would still not see you.

Then again for some reason when it rains in the UK, the skills of a road user in the UK goes down.

[hellymedic]

My own trials with and without fluorescent clothing tell me it makes no difference to me. No more and no fewer near misses of hits. YMMV.

Teethgrinder sums it up well.

+1

Fluorescent is useless after dark under many sorts of streetlight.

I was nearly doored one lunchtime when wearing a fluo orange jacket & trousers (Windscale flakes stylee). No look -> no see...

[andygates]

Why do no drivers expect to paint their cars fluo yellow?   

"Seen and not hurt", gods, that's the most putrid victim-blaming I've heard in minutes.

[Kim]

My thinking is that you might as well have a fluorescent waterproof, as murky rainy daylight is when it's most likely to be of any use.  The rest of the time, I don't think it's of significant benefit.  Retroreflectives are a good thing, but mainly on the feet/ankles/lower legs  where they're in motion and on the hands/wrists (for indicating).  For everything else, there's frikkin' lasers and/or perfectly good daylight.

The being-seen-through-a-wet-side-window-by-a-driver-about-to-pull-out-of-a-juntion scenario is one of the trickier edge-cases of bicycle visability.  Reflectives won't help, as the car's lights won't point at you until too late.  A fluorescent jacket may be of some benefit in the right kind of murky gloom, but not darkness or under street lighting.  A nice bright front light is clearly the most important thing, but can blend into the background.  Much as I hate flashing front lights, this is one situation where they seem like a good idea, at least as a secondary to a proper static light, as they unambiguously scream "BIKE! (or distant police car or something)".

But at the end of the day, it's the driver's responsibility to look before pulling out.  If that means wiping/opening the side window, or squirming around in the seat to see round the pointlessly chunky A pillar, then so be it.

[teethgrinder]

I have thought before, that if I ever got knocked off while wearing high vis and had to go to court, I'd wear my high vis in court to make a point. I'd put money that they'd claim a SMIDSY in almost any accident they caused. SMIDSY proves carelessness and inattention, but not wrecklessness. So the lesser punishment to them.
I often think that SMIDSY is used as a get out of jail free card.

[Jacomus]

How many times have we read posts, or made posts, on this forum that contain a variation of the common cry "despite me being lit up like a Christmas tree, they still did

• "

The biggest contributor to a cyclists safety is their roadsence, followed in hot pursuit by well adjusted, well maintained, lights. (IMO)

[teethgrinder]

My thinking is that you might as well have a fluorescent waterproof, as murky rainy daylight is when it's most likely to be of any use.  The rest of the time, I don't think it's of significant benefit.  Retroreflectives are a good thing, but mainly on the feet/ankles/lower legs  where they're in motion and on the hands/wrists (for indicating).  For everything else, there's frikkin' lasers and/or perfectly good daylight.

The being-seen-through-a-wet-side-window-by-a-driver-about-to-pull-out-of-a-juntion scenario is one of the trickier edge-cases of bicycle visability.  Reflectives won't help, as the car's lights won't point at you until too late.  A fluorescent jacket may be of some benefit in the right kind of murky gloom, but not darkness or under street lighting. A nice bright front light is clearly the most important thing, but can blend into the background.  Much as I hate flashing front lights, this is one situation where they seem like a good idea, at least as a secondary to a proper static light, as they unambiguously scream "BIKE! (or distant police car or something)".

With bright bike lights, you have to be aware that they are still not very good compared to car headlights. Car headlights on dipped mode spread a lot of light over a large area compared to good cycle lights, such as an IQ Fly. This means that your very good bike light wo'nt appear to be all that bright unless the beam/focus of light is shedding some light in the direction of the person pulling out of a junction. This where riding in primary can be a disadvantage, because  when you get nearer to the person pulling out, they are out of your beam pattern. I have gone into the gutter before to keep my light shining on them. All circumstances are different.
Solidlights are king in these situations, as they throw light everywhere.
Even so, you still get people pull out on you. Car drivers get it too, even with their mega bright lights.

[Kim]

I have thought before, that if I ever got knocked off while wearing high vis and had to go to court, I'd wear my high vis in court to make a point.

That's brilliant! (pun intended) 

[gordon taylor]

Teethgrinder is right again. SMIDSY isn't a cycling thing, it's general. If today was an average day on the UK's roads, 600+ people have been injured (to a greater or lesser degree) and eight killed*. To make a difference in those catastrophic figures needs much. much more than a few jackets with shiny trim.

* Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main Results: 2008

[teethgrinder]

The biggest contributor to a cyclists safety is their roadsence, followed in hot pursuit by well adjusted, well maintained, lights. (IMO)

I would argue that the best thing for a cyclists safety is for people in motor vehicles to not drive or ride into me and it's best that they have better roadsence. The next best is for me to have very good roadsence and know how to avoid those people in motors who don't. Then lights.
I have good lights. Some motorists are very good. Most are pretty OK most of the time but have much to learn, then you get a few twits.
I'm still working on my own roadsence. I've probably ridden over 300,000 miles in my lifetime now and still have a lot to learn.

[teethgrinder]

I have thought before, that if I ever got knocked off while wearing high vis and had to go to court, I'd wear my high vis in court to make a point.

That's brilliant! (pun intended) 

Ideally, an authority in the courtroom would comment on my attire and I'd reply with something like, "Oh, I didn't think anyone would have noticed, after all, he/she didn't." Then point at the defendant.