The fluorescent clothing debate

[mattc]

Well I don't know, but the study Bridget quotes disagress with you.

[Back-of-envelope example:
knee-pads make knee injuries less severe. But if you speed up when wearing them, you're making it more likely you'll have a fatal head injury.]

[Gandalf]

Well I can honestly say that when approaching junctions I crap myself equally whether wearing Hi Viz or not.

[Hot Flatus]

Clearly if you THINK you are wearing something that reduces accidents, you will make more dangerous assumptions.

It's impossible to put a figure on this, but it seems pretty irrefutable to me.

You can only speak for yourself on this.   

I often wear more visible clothing.  I know it is visible because colleagues who drive to work on the same roads as me tell me so.  What I think about my visibility doesn't come into their opinion.  I still ride very defensively. 

[should be cycling]

Well I don't know, but the study Bridget quotes disagress with you.

[Back-of-envelope example:
knee-pads make knee injuries less severe. But if you speed up when wearing them, you're making it more likely you'll have a fatal head injury.]

I'm not saying risk compensation never increases danger.  I'm saying one can't extrapolate from evidence that it increases danger in some cases to an assumption that it increases danger in all cases.  If it always increased danger, the rational conclusion would be to never adopt any so-called safety measures of any kind. 

[Jaded]

Clearly if you THINK you are wearing something that reduces accidents, you will make more dangerous assumptions.

It's impossible to put a figure on this, but it seems pretty irrefutable to me.

You can only speak for yourself on this.  

I often wear more visible clothing.  I know it is visible because colleagues who drive to work on the same roads as me tell me so.  What I think about my visibility doesn't come into their opinion.  I still ride very defensively.  

However you are not normal and blasting on and on about hi-vis for cyclists will lull quite a number of normal people into wearing hi-vis and believing it makes them safer when proper riding skills would be far more advantageous for all.

[Wendy]

It's obviously hit a bit of a nerve with pumpy there...

I think the risk compensation posts are quite sensible and obvious.

[Hot Flatus]

However you are not normal and blasting on and on about hi-vis for cyclists will lull quite a number of normal people into wearing hi-vis and believing it makes them safer.

If drivers comment on how visible I am, when wearing high-viz, why should that be any different for what you term a 'normal' cyclist?  

Surely, we aren't going to deny that being visible is safer than being invisible, are we... or has the deluded sophistry that can be seen on this thread rotted your brain?

Bluntly, it most likely will make them safer.  Wearing hi-viz shows an awareness of the dangers implicit in cycling, it doesn't show complacency.  You are quite right about 'proper riding skills'  but that is a separate issue.  High-viz clothing and decent road sense are not mutually exclusive.

Funny how a lot of the 'risk compensation' stuff always applies to other people isn't it.  Good job we are all so much more aware ......

<scratches head and wonders whether he's ever seen a smidsy post on this forum>

[Jaded]

It's not the drivers seeing you better, it's just the men admiring your arse but not able to say as such. 

[Hot Flatus]

Well it is rather fine...

[PhilO]

You are quite right about 'proper riding skills'  but that is a separate issue.  High-viz clothing and decent road sense are not mutually exclusive.

There is an argument that for some people the two will go together:

I doubt if any here would argue that confident, assertive positioning is an aid to safety, and most (including me) would rank it above Hi-Vis clothing in value.

So the nervous, kerb-hugging rider is most at risk, irrespective of clothing worn.

Give said nervous rider a bright yellow jacket, and they might compensate by taking more risks. But they also might ride more confidently and assertively, thus improving their safety. The psychology will vary from person to person, so there's no value in making generalisations...

[hatler]

... so there's no value in making generalisations...

Generally.

[Frenchie]

Well here are my recent observations:

* A guy crossed the road at about 07:00 in pitch black condition on a country road the other day. He was wearing fluo orange clothing with a lot of reflective (civil eng type clothing, top and bottom). I only saw him because his reflective material lit up with the light of my eDelux. His bright clothing I only saw as I rode past him at very short range.

* A scooter overtook me today on a country road which is partially lit. As the guy was pulling away I couldn't see his fluo yellow top, but his reflective bands on it were visible in my light (as was his red light).

* In the evening on several rides heading home I saw some bikers/cyclists with fluo yellow tops. Under sodium lighting this is not more visible that any othe top; at least it wasn't to me. The tone of the lighting makes this type of fluo colour "common"; they do not stand out.

[rower40]

I ride home through an unlit park, used (at that time of night) only by dog-walkers, commuting cyclists and joggers (*).   Reflective clothing is anathema to the first group, but de rigeur for second and third.  In my Cateye Doubleshot, the reflectives really stand out, but the dog-walkers are next-to-invisible.

In one case, I only knew that there was someone there by noting the red flashing light on the dog's collar, at a speed, trajectory, and height-above-ground impossible to achieve on a bike!  So I slowed down as there had to be an owner there somewhere.

(*) Too late for flashers, too early for dogging.

[David Martin]

Fluo tops are only really more visible than other dyes when you have considerable amounts of UV around, and otherwise low contrast. So misty days are a prime candidate.
Night time? No more effective than anything else.

Retroreflectives? Only good if there is a beam of light shining at you to reflect back.

..d

[Cudzoziemiec]

Surely saying fluoro doesn't show up at night but reflectives do, is missing the point? They are both types of hi-viz, one suitable for day, the other for night. Whether anyone "should" be wearing either is not affected by fluoro's unsuitability for night and reflectives for day, but by other considerations entirely.

I ride home through an unlit park, used (at that time of night) only by dog-walkers, commuting cyclists and joggers (*).   Reflective clothing is anathema to the first group, but de rigeur for second and third.  In my Cateye Doubleshot, the reflectives really stand out, but the dog-walkers are next-to-invisible.

In one case, I only knew that there was someone there by noting the red flashing light on the dog's collar, at a speed, trajectory, and height-above-ground impossible to achieve on a bike!  So I slowed down as there had to be an owner there somewhere.

(*) Too late for flashers, too early for dogging.

How come the dogs and their walkers don't show up in your lights? What about the trees and bushes in the park - presumably they must also be next-to-invisible.

[Jaded]

I too find dogs and dogwalkers near invisible on a tree-lined path near us. Hi-vis doesn't help either - only a torch or reflectives. That's with one or two Dinottes - so plenty of light.

[hawkeye]

I too find dogs and dogwalkers near invisible on a tree-lined path near us...

It's not seeing the Ninja dogwalkers and their muddy pets that's the problem, it's the 3m lead connecting the two.

It's only a matter of time ... 

So there I am heading for the other path users with my old Smart lights on dip and they think it's helpful to shine their multi-led torch from Telegraph Lifestyle or whatever full in my face. How does that help ?

Sorry, nearly developed into a rant there. 

[Wendy]

There's a bit of oldtimers wisdom that says never to ride between owners and their dogs or kids and their parents.

[mattc]

There's a bit of oldtimers wisdom that says never to ride between owners and their dogs or kids and their parents.

yeah but you have to see both parties before you can apply this rule!

[Don't forget swans - they can break your arm you know.]

[nuttycyclist]

...
* In the evening on several rides heading home I saw some bikers/cyclists with fluo yellow tops. Under sodium lighting this is not more visible that any othe top; at least it wasn't to me. The tone of the lighting makes this type of fluo colour "common"; they do not stand out.

Fluo tops are only really more visible than other dyes when you have considerable amounts of UV around, and otherwise low contrast. So misty days are a prime candidate.
Night time? No more effective than anything else.

Retroreflectives? Only good if there is a beam of light shining at you to reflect back.

..d

By my recollection of the stats, being hit from behind is much less frequent than a driver pulling out/turning in front of you.

At night, in street lit conditions, hi-viz doesn;t show up; and the reflectives don't work in the common incident scenarios since the driver's headlights aren't directed at the cyclist.

[Charlotte]

I saw a fascinating bit of behaviour this morning on my way into the office.

There was an enclosure for road works in the middle of a busy carriageway and a stack of contractors’ lorries parked up on one side of the road.  A load of blokes were working - digging a hole in the cordoned-off enclosure.  Another bloke was crossing the road from the vehicles back to the safety of the enclosure.

Everyone was wearing PPE – boots, hats and hi-viz.  But here’s the weird bit:

The bloke who was crossing the road to get to where the work was being done had his big, hi-viz jacket only half on.  As he dashed out into the thick traffic, he was holding it up to the oncoming cars in the manner of a shield.

Perhaps it had magic powers?

[David Martin]

I saw a fascinating bit of behaviour this morning on my way into the office.

There was an enclosure for road works in the middle of a busy carriageway and a stack of contractors’ lorries parked up on one side of the road.  A load of blokes were working - digging a hole in the cordoned-off enclosure.  Another bloke was crossing the road from the vehicles back to the safety of the enclosure.

Everyone was wearing PPE – boots, hats and hi-viz.  But here’s the weird bit:

The bloke who was crossing the road to get to where the work was being done had his big, hi-viz jacket only half on.  As he dashed out into the thick traffic, he was holding it up to the oncoming cars in the manner of a shield.

Perhaps it had magic powers?

Nah.. He is a M4tador.. dodging all those WVM Bull Bars

..d

[Cudzoziemiec]

Perhaps he thought it would act as a kind of stop sign - not because it means anything nor because it's so visible, but because it looks "official".

In fact, I've mentioned before that some keen cyclists here in Bean town (Bangalore) have said to me "If you wear a helmet and lycra you get more respect from drivers." I didn't agree at the time, but I do now - in the context of a place where such things are a rarity and do indeed mark you out as someone who's cycling for love not poverty. In fact yesterday, at dusk, I noticed two cyclists approaching on a busy road I was crossing. They had no hi-viz, and they turned out to be tourists on Moultons (or something similar - I was in the middle of the opposite carriageway by the time they were close enough to see), but what initially attracted my attention was that they were wearing helmets. That unusual (here) garment made me think "ooh, must take a look at them". I think that's a similar idea to hi-viz for road workers, and something similar to what was going on in your guy's mind. "Look at me, I'm officially here on serious business, (so don't hit me)."

I doubt if helmets and hi-viz on cyclists have the same effect in the UK though, as they seem to be the norm nowadays.

[Regulator]

I saw a fascinating bit of behaviour this morning on my way into the office.

There was an enclosure for road works in the middle of a busy carriageway and a stack of contractors’ lorries parked up on one side of the road.  A load of blokes were working - digging a hole in the cordoned-off enclosure.  Another bloke was crossing the road from the vehicles back to the safety of the enclosure.

Everyone was wearing PPE – boots, hats and hi-viz.  But here’s the weird bit:

The bloke who was crossing the road to get to where the work was being done had his big, hi-viz jacket only half on.  As he dashed out into the thick traffic, he was holding it up to the oncoming cars in the manner of a shield.

Perhaps it had magic powers?

You've made this up!

The bold bit gave you away....  as if we'd believe there'd actually be men working on roadworks in London.   
 





 

[Panoramix]

I am quite amazed by some reactions of the anti high viz brigade.

As soon as you get into safety, redundancy matters. For instance you would avoid relying on a single bolt for a life critical application. Assuming you have three, if one goes pop due to some manufacturing issue or just bad luck, you still have 66% of the capacity left. Hopefully seeing one go will scare everybody and they will stop using the bit of equipment or structure.

You all seem to be arguing high viz is less efficient than lights/reflective/assertive riding. Obviously it is easy to find anecdotal cases when it is true but still, high Viz is pretty efficient at making you spottable from far away in daylight. So why are you dismissing it?

I don't use it for a quick ride to the shops but on open roads I wear one most of the time because I want to be seen from far away, what's wrong with this?