The fluorescent clothing debate

[ian]

I have a fluoro yellow jacket. Makes me look like a sherbet lemon, but I do tend to wear it during inclement conditions or if I am about during twilight. I figure it can't hurt and it's not every day I get to dress up as a sweet. I usually opt for something with Scotchbrite after dark since it is spendiferously bright if caught in headlights. That and a decent front light.

Since I figure there's something vaguely illegal about handlebar mounted miniguns, I usually just assume that drivers will select the stupiest option available to them in any given situation. After all, I was hit the other week in perfect daylight conditions - why? - the driver didn't look, he just pulled out. I could, frankly, have dressed as a twenty foot tall giant purple flashing dildo and he still wouldn't have noticed. Because. He. Did. Not. Look. He's sorry, of course. He'd be sorrier if I had that minigun, that's for sure.

Some horrific driving in the rain today. For the benefit of the esteemed drivers of the London Borough of Bromley, rain is the wet and slippy stuff that falls from the sky. Just because it's not inside your car doesn't mean that it's not there.

[xpc316e]

On Monday evening I was driving my car along an A road through a village that had a 30 limit.  There were no street lights and I was following an Eddie Stobart truck at a distance of about 100 yards.  The truck and I were keeping to the speed limit.

I saw the truck make a sudden swerve to the right and wondered why it had done so.  I eventually saw two boys, dressed in dark clothing, riding unlit BMX bikes.  Neither bike had any rear, or pedal, reflectors.

Funnily enough I, and doubtless the truck driver too, would have been rather grateful if either of the two cyclists had been wearing even just a scrap of hi-viz/reflective clothing.  I cannot even begin to understand why one would not choose to wear clothing that stood a better chance of being noticed by another road user.  Why would you remove the reflectors on your bike, like these two idiots did? 

I have never had a crash on my bike whilst not wearing hi-viz gear, neither have I had one whilst dressed in hi-viz clothing - but that does not prove that both kinds of clothing are equally safe.  I wear hi-viz stuff because common sense dictates that it lessens my risks.

[andygates]

Hang on: you saw them, there was no incident, despite their subnormal visibility? 

1: These invisible cyclists are really easy to spot.

2: Lights are a legal requirement and common sense.  These kids were twats for not riding for the conditions. 

3: Neither 1 nor 2 have a damn thing to do with optional clothing.  If they'd had the right kit they'd have been even easier to spot.  If they were spotlit by a helicopter, they'd be really REALLY easy to spot. 

There's a balance to be struck between being seen and other considerations; the law specifies exactly what the requirement is.

If a driver cannot see legally-presented vehicles, he's incompetent.

[teethgrinder]

Why would you remove the reflectors on your bike, like these two idiots did? 

I remove reflectors because handlebar space is a premium. I need to put some lights up there. I have a reflector on the rear mudguard but nowhere else. It's hard enough finding somehwere to fit a rear light. Most of my luggage has reflective stuff on. I'd like reflectors on my pedals, but that would mean using pedals which aren't up to the job and potentialy dangerous. I did used to use ankle reflectors. They either fell to bits, got lost, hurt my ankles (the metal snap on ones) or give me painfully spotty ankles because they don't breathe so I stopped using them.
High vis vests don't cause any problems. They breathe quite well, don't get lost, fold up really small and cause no discomfort.
I tried not wearing it last winter to see if I was better off without. I couldn't tell any different. So I can't say you're better off without and think I'll go back to wearing my high vis vest again.
The other obvious advantage of high vis is if your back light packs up and you haven't yet twigged. No bugger will tell you. So you'll at least have something.
On balance, I reckon there's very little in it, but I think that high vis has the slight advantage and it would at least help me look good in court if it comes to that.

[teethgrinder]

I'll see you're

If a driver cannot see legally-presented vehicles, he's incompetent.

and raise you
If a driver can't see a legally unlit pedestrian wearing dark clothing while they are walking along a road, in spite of having some very splendid car headlights to see with, then they're incompetent.
I don't think that lights or reflectors should be a legal requirement on any vehicle.

[Jaded]

The truck and I were keeping to the speed limit.

FAIL.

I believe the correct term here should be:

"The truck and I were driving at a speed  that would allow allow us to stop well within the distance we could see to be clear."

[hellymedic]

teethgrinder, can I suggest you put some white/silver reflective tape round your cranks?
It weighs very little and won't give you spotty ankles.

My wheelchair is taped up with a festoon of reflective tape...

[woollypigs]

I don't know if it is still done in Denmark. But when I grew up you told if you are out walking you pull output little reflector on a string to dangle from your jacket. Every cereal packet, candy box or magazine had their logo printed on them and given free for you to wear.  

[andygates]

Yes, yes, yes, there are lots of ways to look all shiny. 

Here's the thing, because it's stubborn and nobody is saying it: Why the hell should I dress up like a total Mr Bean just to ride a freaking bike?  What makes drivers - or your well-intended suggestions - the boss of me?

Armani never made a yellow suit.

Cycling is not an industrial activity.

[Jaded]

Actually, dressing like Mr Bean (in a tweed jacket and dark trousers) would be perfect. 

[αdαmsκι]

A quote from the article - 'Actually I noticed his fluoro yellow jacket before I noticed his front light'.  So in this case there must have been enough light around for this to have had an effect.
The message I took from story was here was somebody paying what I would suggest is average observation, he saw the cyclist in the fluorescent jacket but missed the other. You can argue all you like about the rights and wrongs of this but those are the facts.  

We don't know why the driver saw the hi-viz cyclists before seeing the other cyclists, but hi-viz need not play at part. For instance, it's possible the driver was looking up the road, as drivers often do, but failed to actually look in their near-field.

teethgrinder, can I suggest you put some white/silver reflective tape round your cranks?
It weighs very little and won't give you spotty ankles.

I like that idea.

[hellymedic]

I wouldn't want to look like Mr Bean either...
 

Thankfully, some reflective items are quite discreet, but still effective.
I also dislike the Christmas tree appearance as well as the perceived need to have it.

[Martin]

I don't and will never buy the "our right to be in the road we shouldn't have to do this that and the other" argument; the roads are full of idiots who think we shouldn't be there and I'd rather they saw and avoided me than hit me; even if it's only out of sympathy for someone who looks like they are "care in the community"

having said that I only wear hiviz whilst commuting or if the temperture warrants my sole piece of cycle specific clothing in that colour; the rest of the time I wear what I like and keep my ears wide open.

[andygates]

They do avoid us.

They do see us.  How else could they p!ss and moan about the ninjas if they didn't see them?

The discussion of cycling look and feel is pulled around two poles at present: the lycra warrior and the copenhagenista.  I propose that a third pole be introduced into the discussion - this obsession with 'elf and safety gorn maaad.

[Kim]

teethgrinder, can I suggest you put some white/silver reflective tape round your cranks?

I'll second that.  A low-faff compromise between pedals with reflectors and nothing.  You might be able to find bits of pedal surface that'll take a bit of carefully-cut tape, too.

[bobb]

Since this was last discussed at great length, I've been keeping an eye on the visibility of cyclists when walking home from town/station at night. Quiet a large percentage of POBS have either no lights or pretty poor ones. I can still see them though. I'm in the well, but not excessively decorated xmas tree category when riding in the dark, but I think the majority of us agree that a moton still won't see us if they're not paying proper attention.

Most of my winter stuff has reflective goodness which I think works well. But I don't agree that wearing a bunch of tinsel in broad daylight makes any difference.

I've been fortunate enough never to have a me/car interface as an adult (the ones when I was a teenager were all my fault anyway!) The only very near miss I've had was in daylight and I was wearing the most bright yellow jacket ever made. The twat still didn't see me. He was only aware of my presence once I'd swerved around him into oncoming traffic shouting "C**T!!"

I don't wear that jacket any more as a. It does nothing to improve my visibility to someone who isn't paying attention anyway and b. It makes me look like a knob.

[rogerzilla]

There are a few technical problems with hi-viz, by which I mean fluorescent:

1) It's usually in the form of a fairly stiff but flappy waterproof which catches the wind.

2) It fades and loses its effectiveness if you wear or store it in full daylight.

3) It is totally useless in the dark since there is no UV to make it fluoresce.

I am happy that everyone can see me easily with a rear light, and a flashing LED on my courier bag (which has massive reflective chevrons).  I get plenty of room.  In fact, pretty much any rear LED with fresh batteries gets you seen; the trouble is that people run them right down so they're a faint glimmer, or have them pointed in the wrong direction.

MattC - you can't call "Ragged And Windswept" a twunt...he is a MBUK-before-it-was-crap legend  

[Pancho]

Sadly, the Highway Code now says that even pedestrians on pavements should wear hi viz.



At least they've changed the pic since the last edition which showed a busy high street with wide pavements and all the people wearing full hi viz jackets.

[D0m1n1c Burford]

I wonder how long it will be before compensation claims against cyclists by car drivers take into account whether or not the cyclist was wearing hi-viz clothing. After all, we have already seen reduced compensation claims when cyclists have not been wearing helmets.

"As the cyclist was not wearing hi-viz clothing, he is at least partly responsible for his injuries m'lud".

[DrMekon]

i do think it's worth wearing hi viz - driving is demanding, and we will always fall back on heuristics when our attentional resources are used up (thinking about work on the commute). not a subsitute for roadsense (eg nearly got wiped by a panel van that pulled out without looking), but if you are the most salient thing in a drivers visual field, he will see you when he's not mmaking an effort to process the information.

[Regulator]

In my big accident I was hit, in broad daylight, whilst wearing a hi-viz jacket.  If you can't see a fat fecker like me, in a bright yellow gilet, then you shouldn't be driving - particularly not an ambulance.

Reflectives at night, or contrasting colours during the day, are the most effective I have found.

And by the way, flourescent or hiv viz is not 'gay clothing' - we wouldn't be seen in such awful outfits.  We leave such fashion faux pas for the hetero chavs in their shell suits... 

[bobb]

And by the way, flourescent or hiv viz is not 'gay clothing' - we wouldn't be seen in such awful outfits.  We leave such fashion faux pas for the hetero chavs in their shell suits... 

That made me LOL 

[Wendy]

LMAO!

[Salvatore]

In my big accident I was hit, in broad daylight, whilst wearing a hi-viz jacket.  If you can't see a fat fecker like me, in a bright yellow gilet, then you shouldn't be driving - particularly not an ambulance.

Reflectives at night, or contrasting colours during the day, are the most effective I have found.

And by the way, flourescent or hiv viz is not 'gay clothing' - we wouldn't be seen in such awful outfits.  We leave such fashion faux pas for the hetero chavs in their shell suits... 

No wonder you were hit.

[Gandalf]

My view is very simple, though in a sense something of a capitulation.   Having just made the transition from a strictly leisure cyclist to a five days a week commuter I have just bought  a new jacket.  I went for an Altura Night Vision Evo in the end, largely prompted by its Hi Viz credentials.  Do I think by making myself thoeretically more visible to motons I will be safer?  No, not a bit of it, but if I do have an off It makes a  fine 'excuse remover'.

When I was knocked off back in 1990 the fact that I was well lit and wearing a Hi Viz Sam Browne was mentioned in court and the police even mentione it to my wife.  Had I been dressed like the Milk Tray Man I'm sure the defence would have brought that up.  Relevant? Fair?  Of course not, we shouldn't be compelled to go round like the sodding Aurora Borealis, but life isn't fair and that's the way it is.