Please use lights / high vis at all times

instinct

I nearly squashed a cyclist today. A seasoned cyclist with all the club gear, over shoes and stuff. But not one light or anything high vis. It was twilight hours which are the most dangerous but I guess cause its still kind of bright its a false sense of security.

Please try to make your self as visable as possible as I never could get over it if I had hit the poor guy.

Bunnyhopper

Just to be clear - I'm not blaming anyone here, but without knowing exactly how dark it was, what the road situation was, etc. etc., it's hard to understand that you couldn't see him and yet could see well enough to tell that he had club gear and overshoes on. Did he come across in front of you at a junction or something?

Lights should be used during lighting-up times, and are advisable when visibility is poor. The usefulness of hi-viz is moot. Telling cyclists to use lights and/or hi-viz "at all times" is a bit simplistic, frankly.

Lumen

Please paint your car luminous yellow in order that I can avoid cycling into it at twilight.

kenmc

indeedy. your rant would be MUCH better directed at the person in question than st the entire anominity of d'internet. believe it or not, despite the whole 7 degrees of separation, not everyone here knows each other.

mbiking123

As a motorist and a person who cycles to work, I can appreciate what is being said

Often I see cyclists with no lights, HI-VIZ etc.

On the other hand I wear Hi-VIZ and have a number of lights on my bike for visibility and yet there are times I wonder am I the invisible man with the way some motorists drive. On the other hand on one occasion one motorist rolled down the window and said I was like a christmas tree (helmet light)

Some time back a woman nearly took me off my bike at a roundabout and apol that she did not see me. I cant understand how she did not see me, it was bright and I had bright clothing on ???????

pedestrians walking out in front of cyclists on the road without looking properly is another one, in any case will leave that discussion

Bluefoam

instinct wrote: »

I nearly squashed a cyclist today. A seasoned cyclist with all the club gear, over shoes and stuff. But not one light or anything high vis. It was twilight hours which are the most dangerous but I guess cause its still kind of bright its a false sense of security.

Please try to make your self as visable as possible as I never could get over it if I had hit the poor guy.

Please pay attention to the roads and be aware that your metal box, while protecting you does not remove your responsibility to other road users...

Keep you eyes open and pay attention to the roads!

Bluefoam

mbiking123 wrote: »

Often I see cyclists with no lights, HI-VIZ etc.

This must be a lie... How could you possibly have seen them if they were not wearing HI-VIZ clothing.

I'm all for using lights between light up and light down, but I cannot support the idea that wearing ridiculous yellow vests has any impact... except that it makes cyclists look like weird losers and fanatics who don't have a proper place on our roads...

Effort would be better spent educating motorists on the facts... such as the fact that it is their responsibility to be aware of other road users!

tommmy1979

Bluefoam wrote: »

I'm all for using lights between light up and light down, but I cannot support the idea that wearing ridiculous yellow vests has any impact... except that it makes cyclists look like weird losers and fanatics who don't have a proper place on our roads...

I'm one of those weird losers and fanatics..

You must be the guy that thinks commuting is some kind of fashion parade.

Wheely GR8

The majority of drivers who don't see cyclists ,just don't bother to think of them. A high viz jacket won't make a blind bit of difference when a driver decides to turn left ,without looking in their side view mirror for cyclists.
I think this is partly the failing of local authorities for not enforcing cycling lanes ,policing and maintaining them properly.

Theres also a theory that cars painted black are involved in more accidents ,so in theory all cars should be painted white. But we all know things aren't that black and white

Link

Cabaal

As a cyclist and motorists it annoys me that so many motorists drive with parking lights on or with broken headlights when its dark, everyone should fix these issues.

Like the OP's post it would be great if people did but as already pointed out the people on this forum like the people on the motor forum don't know everyone else.

In an ideal world it would be great if people took full responsibility for their actions and own safety instead of constantly trying to blame someone else but hey we are only human.

In short, if people want to be safe they will take what actions they believe are right.

If people don't want to then leave the darwin awards list them next year or something, this goes for motorists, cyclists etc

ROK ON

I live in a rural area with no street lighting. My road attracts a lot of walkers/joggers. If I am driving at night I find it very very difficult to see the walkers wearing hi biz until I am on them. Whereas I notice those with a light/torch etc from a long way out.
I just don't see the attachment with hi viz.

Raam

tommmy1979 wrote: »

You must be the guy that thinks commuting is some kind of fashion parade.

Eh, like, totally!

a148pro

As usual the well meaning poster is met by the ignorance of the cycling ideagogues. The world is flat. NO NO, THE WORLD IS FLAT.

kenmc wrote: »

your rant

What rant?

Bluefoam wrote: »

Please pay attention to the roads and be aware that your metal box, while protecting you does not remove your responsibility to other road users...

Nor does it remove our responsibilty to other road users and as cyclists we have rather more to lose.

Bluefoam wrote: »

This must be a lie... How could you possibly have seen them if they were not wearing HI-VIZ clothing.

I'm all for using lights between light up and light down, but I cannot support the idea that wearing ridiculous yellow vests has any impact... except that it makes cyclists look like weird losers and fanatics who don't have a proper place on our roads...

Effort would be better spent educating motorists on the facts... such as the fact that it is their responsibility to be aware of other road users!

Along with any rational thinking person, I will take looking like a weird loser or fanatic if it means using the road more safely. We don't have a proper place on most Irish roads because they weren't built to accomodate us safely, therefore its a good idea to make us as visible as we can. It is also our responsibility to ourselves and our families, if not other road users, to try and use the roads as safely as possible.

Wheely GR8 wrote: »

A high viz jacket won't make a blind bit of difference when a driver decides to turn left ,without looking in their side view mirror for cyclists.

Absent a cycling lane you shouldn't be passing out someone on the inside. Even where there is a cycling lane you should exercise caution because of the incompetence of drivers. In either case you remain better off in this situation if you're visible. If you've lights on the incompetent driver might even notice them flashing in his side view mirror. In any event the incompetence of drivers is not an argument for not trying to make yourself more visibile, in fact, its the reverse.

Wheely GR8

a148pro wrote: »

Absent a cycling lane you shouldn't be passing out someone on the inside. Even where there is a cycling lane you should exercise caution because of the incompetence of drivers. In either case you remain better off in this situation if you're visible. If you've lights on the incompetent driver might even notice them flashing in his side view mirror. In any event the incompetence of drivers is not an argument for not trying to make yourself more visibile, in fact, its the reverse.

Hi-Viz would help ,but it will never take away the responsibility of the driver to be aware of cyclists on any road. And I've often seen cars turning left without indicating and almost taking cyclists down ,even though some of them were wearin hi-viz :mad:
I've been driving every day for over 15 years and I've seen a lot of what goes on.

Sr. Assumpta

kenmc wrote: »

indeedy. your rant would be MUCH better directed at the person in question than st the entire anominity of d'internet. believe it or not, despite the whole 7 degrees of separation, not everyone here knows each other.

Off Topic : Hey kenmc, it's only 4.74 degrees these days http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/technology/between-you-and-me-4-74-degrees.html , so we do all almost know each other......

Incidentally, it was never '7', you may have been thinking of 7 Deadly Sins or something

Dermot Illogical

Sr. Assumpta wrote: »

Incidentally, it was never '7', you may have been thinking of 7 Deadly Sins or something

False advertising. I've tried them and while lust and gluttony were indeed deadly, the rest weren't all they were cracked up to be.

Sr. Assumpta

RT66 wrote: »

False advertising. I've tried them and while lust and gluttony were indeed deadly, the rest weren't all they were cracked up to be.

Lust..... Deadly?????? That's a story worth hearing.
If we take 'deadly' literally, sloth can get fairly life-limiting if one does it properly...... e.g. if one was too lazy (slothful) to wear hi-viz, one might be squished by a carelessly driven motor-vehicle :rolleyes:

Bluefoam

tommmy1979 wrote: »

I'm one of those weird losers and fanatics..

You must be the guy that thinks commuting is some kind of fashion parade.

I don't think of cycling as a fashion parade, nor do I think of getting dressed up to drive my car. I just get on my bike wearing whatever I'm in... If I had to dress in special cloths, I'd probably just use the car instead... My bike is a convenient piece of transport, and a way for me to enjoy my leisure. Magic clothing will not make it safer.

Good lights are a definite benefit, magic reflection cloths are false idols...

BTW, my main point was that the OP came on here giving out that all cyclists should make special efforts to make themselves luminous for car drivers. IMO it is more important for car drivers to pay attention to the roads and other road users... that would be a tad more respectful.

greenmat

instinct wrote: »

I nearly squashed a cyclist today. A seasoned cyclist with all the club gear, over shoes and stuff. But not one light or anything high vis. It was twilight hours which are the most dangerous but I guess cause its still kind of bright its a false sense of security.

Please try to make your self as visable as possible as I never could get over it if I had hit the poor guy.

I think people are being very harsh on the OP. He obviously did drive with due care and attension as he seen the cyclist and avoided the collision. What ever your views on Hi-Vis he's right about lights front and back, give you some chance of being seen. There are some drivers that even if you had a WW2 searchlight on your bike would miss you but this particular driver seems not to be one of them.

Dermot Illogical

Sr. Assumpta wrote: »

Lust..... Deadly?????? That's a story worth hearing.
If we take 'deadly' literally, sloth can get fairly life-limiting if one does it properly...... e.g. if one was too lazy (slothful) to wear hi-viz, one might be squished by a carelessly driven motor-vehicle :rolleyes:

Literally? Nah. Like as in "The sloth in Ice Age was bleedin' deadly, and if Manny's herd wore Hi-Viz they wouldn't have been killed by cro-magnons".

Sr. Assumpta

RT66 wrote: »

Literally? Nah. Like as in "The sloth in Ice Age was bleedin' deadly, and if Manny's herd wore Hi-Viz they wouldn't have been killed by cro-magnons".

The Sloth was a head-wrecker, and don't get me started on that bloody squirrel!!!!!!! Manny's crew made the fundamental error of getting backed into a corner, if I remember correctly; in such a scenario wearing hi-viz would only have made them easier to pick off, fish in a barrel, so-to-speak.

Yi Harr

Views expressed in the above image may not necessarily represent that of YH though he does believe hi-vis has no place on svelte, lycra clad, finely tuned man-machines.

mbiking123

Bluefoam wrote: »

This must be a lie... How could you possibly have seen them if they were not wearing HI-VIZ clothing.

I'm all for using lights between light up and light down, but I cannot support the idea that wearing ridiculous yellow vests has any impact... except that it makes cyclists look like weird losers and fanatics who don't have a proper place on our roads...

A lie, be honest, cyclists do cycle on the roads in the dark with no lights on their bike. If they had a Hi VIZ it would be of some help and some of the no lights gang dont have a hi viz either. Thats no lie its fact I see it. I cycle pass by them on the way home.

Hi viz is not law in this country, however builders use them. On the continent you must have one in the boot of a car. They must be useful to some degree. In any case alot of cycle clothing is now hi viz colour, eg rain jackets have reflective detail, flu yellow etc.

Please dont call people a liar, until you have all the facts

Bluefoam

mbiking123 wrote: »

A lie, be honest, cyclists do cycle on the roads in the dark with no lights on their bike. If they had a Hi VIZ it would be of some help and some of the no lights gang dont have a hi viz either. Thats no lie its fact I see it. I cycle pass by them on the way home.

Hi viz is not law in this country, however builders use them. On the continent you must have one in the boot of a car. They must be useful to some degree. In any case alot of cycle clothing is now hi viz colour, eg rain jackets have reflective detail, flu yellow etc.

Please dont call people a liar, until you have all the facts

I think you missed both my wit and cynicism... I was being very clever in pointing out that you had noticed these invisible ninjas even though they wore no hi viz cloths... How could you possibly expect to have seen them without reflective straps around their heads... (please insert relevant cynical and witty smiley). You are also diverting away from my post, in which I had mentioned I whole heartedly support the use of lights. My argument is regarding yellow vests - the benefits of which I am still not aware of - and you have failed to give a suitable answer, besides that you once saw a builder wear one.

youtheman

For me the 'High VIZ' debate is a bit like the debate on the MMR vaccine and the Flouridation of the water. There are some people who are convinced there is a conspiracy out there.

I'm sure if you look long enough you might find a few cases where high viz was ineffective, and maybe even a case where high-viz made the scenario worse. But for a lot of cases it could prevent an accident. And given that you can get one for less than a tenner I consider wearing them to be a 'no-brainer'.

Bluefoam

youtheman wrote: »

For me the 'High VIZ' debate is a bit like the debate on the MMR vaccine and the Flouridation of the water. There are some people who are convinced there is a conspiracy out there.

I'm sure if you look long enough you might find a few cases where high viz was ineffective, and maybe even a case where high-viz made the scenario worse. But for a lot of cases it could prevent an accident. And given that you can get one for less than a tenner I consider wearing them to be a 'no-brainer'.

I am still waiting for someone to elaborate on why a thin yellow piece of material will make them visible... the reflective bits - if included will only reflect when intense light is pointed directly at them - TBH, I'd prefer to just use a light than to rely on something that requires a car to be pointing directly at me and at close quarters to have any effect. My lights are very good, have a 180 degree viewing angle and work regardless of whether a car is chasing me down at speed. If a driver does not see me, then they are negligent and me wearing a stupid ****ing vest would make no discernible difference!

monument

There's more and more cars driving with one headlight out these days and I've spotted three cars driving without any lights on after dark in the last week alone.

So, should there be high-vis for all cars?

Wheely GR8

The high viz thing is a lame duck for both cyclists and drivers. Cop on and keeping your wits about you is safer than pigeon holing one road user over another.

mbiking123

Bluefoam wrote: »

I think you missed both my wit and cynicism... I was being very clever in pointing out that you had noticed these invisible ninjas even though they wore no hi viz cloths... How could you possibly expect to have seen them without reflective straps around their heads... (please insert relevant cynical and witty smiley). You are also diverting away from my post, in which I had mentioned I whole heartedly support the use of lights. My argument is regarding yellow vests - the benefits of which I am still not aware of - and you have failed to give a suitable answer, besides that you once saw a builder wear one.

Health and Safety, they all wear them on site

Manchegan

Bluefoam wrote: »

I am still waiting for someone to elaborate on why a thin yellow piece of material will make them visible... the reflective bits - if included will only reflect when intense light is pointed directly at them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens–Fresnel_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector

Bluefoam

I am aware of that. I have a full collection of PPE and have a Safe Pass. I would like to know in detail, with information to support your argument, what benefits a yellow vest offers to cyclists...

mbiking123

Manchegan wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens–Fresnel_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector

I think you are wasting your time

Bluefoam

mbiking123 wrote: »

Manchegan wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens–Fresnel_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector

I think you are wasting your time

I understand how a reflector works. However I have been offered no evidence of how a reflector protects a cyclist. As per the Wikipedia offering, a reflector will only directly return direct light... It's use is very limited...


And by the way. A yellow vest is not a reflector. It is just a yellow coloured vest, unless fitted with reflectors...


Good lights are a far superior solution as they provide their own light source, illuminate in numerous directions and don't require a car to be pointing directly at them to operate.

tomasrojo

We've covered this ground before.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056459722
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056401419

tomasrojo

I don't do this myself but if you have very good lights, keeping them on during the day seems to be pretty effective. I can spot a dublinbike out of the corner of my eye, which I can't say of any other bicycle-user, hi-viz or otherwise.

monument

Any body convinced that high-vis is effective -- How do you explain more than a few people on here claiming to be lit up like a Christmas tree with high-vis and all but still have gotten hit by motorists?

Real-world affects of any safety device may not as desired .

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

Any body convinced that high-vis is effective -- How do you explain more than a few people on here claiming to be lit up like a Christmas tree with high-vis and all but still have gotten hit by motorists?

I guess this would discredit the notion that hi-viz is infallible, rather than effective.

Not much work done on how effective it is for cyclists. That Australian study that said that knee and ankle reflectors were much more effective at night than jackets chimes with my real-world experience.

I personally think that fluorescent materials are probably most valuable at dusk, not very valuable during times of good visibility (e.g. noon on a clear summer's day), and useless at night (even the reflective strips aren't much good, because they're too high up for dipped headlights and sometimes point skywards on cyclists on road bikes).

I also don't think that hi-viz is remotely effective enough to be the subject of discussion to the extent that it currently is. Lights should be the emphasis, and good lights with fresh batteries at that.

mbiking123

monument wrote: »

Any body convinced that high-vis is effective -- How do you explain more than a few people on here claiming to be lit up like a Christmas tree with high-vis and all but still have gotten hit by motorists?

Real-world affects of any safety device may not as desired .

Yes, hence why at times I wonder am I the invisible man

Morning is worse, guess they are half asleep

Manchegan

Bluefoam wrote: »

I understand how a reflector works. However I have been offered no evidence of how a reflector protects a cyclist. As per the Wikipedia offering, a reflector will only directly return direct light... It's use is very limited...

Read the first of the two links. You yourself claim your lights offer 180-degree illumination. Car lights use the same photons.

And by the way. A yellow vest is not a reflector. It is just a yellow coloured vest, unless fitted with reflectors...

The link above to the study correlating car colour to incidents would be applicable here, no?

Good lights are a far superior solution as they provide their own light source, illuminate in numerous directions and don't require a car to be pointing directly at them to operate.

Agreed 100%. It's also the law. But this is not an either/or debate (viz the thread title). In the continuum between ninja and being lit up like a Christmas tree, the choosing the middle ground would be sensible.

youtheman

Bluefoam wrote: »

I am still waiting for someone to elaborate on why a thin yellow piece of material will make them visible... the reflective bits - if included will only reflect when intense light is pointed directly at them

There are two elements to high viz (as per EN471 standard). There must be a bright colour (yellow or orange) for daytime, and reflective strips for nightime.

The way I look at it that high-viz is 'passive' protection, and as such is cheap, widely available and very reliable (in that it can't break down or need a new battery). It's not a 'silver bullet' by any strectch of the imagination, but I can't think of one 'con'. So I just wear it. End of.

coolbeans

youtheman wrote: »

There are two elements to high viz (as per EN471 standard). There must be a bright colour (yellow or orange) for daytime, and reflective strips for nightime.

The way I look at it that high-viz is 'passive' protection, and as such is cheap, widely available and very reliable (in that it can't break down or need a new battery). It's not a 'silver bullet' by any strectch of the imagination, but I can't think of one 'con'. So I just wear it. End of.

I'll give you a few cons. It looks crap and it's an extra thing to carry which matters when you cycle. The RSA gives them out free which somehow tells people that as long as they're wearing an RSA labelled irradiated banana suit they'll be grand without lights. This isn't intended of course but the RSA are idiots so it's no surprise that at least 50% of cyclists I see wear hi-vis as a lazy substitute for lights. That's a big con. Save a fortune and shut the RSA I say.

Popoutman

It causes no harm to have the old retroreflective vest on.
As a driver - I have my dips adjusted correctly, and I do get a small return from walkers and joggers when I am on dips, and a great return when on high beams. It's much preferable to be able to see a reflective vest ahead of me than to have a near miss with an old dark-coloured bike with a rider wearing dark grey/brown clothing and no lights or reflectors.

As a cyclist - I cycle very defensively when in traffic, as I know that no matter how right I may be, I'll come off worse in any collision. At night I'll have reflectors, both a solid red and flashing red rear light, and a 3-watt MTB uber-bright LED helmet light on the helmet. The helmet light is bright enough that cars tend think I'm a motorbike when I lift my head and sweep the beam across the oncoming lights and they then dip the headlights - shows they are then aware of me and will usually avoid me. I'll also have reflective sections on my clothing as well. Better to look like a christmas tree than be less-visible.

There are good points on both sides of the story and some apparently dumb arguments as well pointing to the extremes, that hide the benefits that can be gained by the OP's posting. The OP has a very good point in that if you can, you should make an effort to be more visible to people that can accidentally kill you through no fault of your own. Motorists have the responsibility to pilot their 2-ton machine with due care and attention, and cyclists have to be responsible enough to do what they can to stay safe when mixing it with said 2-ton machines.

tomasrojo

Popoutman wrote: »

Better to look like a christmas tree than be less-visible.

I found this argument persuasive when I read it in Richard's 21st Century Bicycle Book, but I don't find it so now. As with most things in life, there's an optimal level, whereafter adding more has very little return. (I imagine your helmet light would be all you would require to achieve significantly greater conspicuity than one bright red and one bright white light alone would give you; its great advantage is that it isn't static, as light in biomotion gets much more attention than static hi-viz or static lights.)

If you imagine someone invents a Tron suit, will we be having the conversation that anyone who doesn't wear one is remiss?

EDIT: Of course, someone has. Amend the thread title, mods.

Mycroft H

Bluefoam wrote: »

I understand how a reflector works. However I have been offered no evidence of how a reflector protects a cyclist. As per the Wikipedia offering, a reflector will only directly return direct light... It's use is very limited...


And by the way. A yellow vest is not a reflector. It is just a yellow coloured vest, unless fitted with reflectors...


Good lights are a far superior solution as they provide their own light source, illuminate in numerous directions and don't require a car to be pointing directly at them to operate.

I had a root around google for some studies regarding the impact of High visibility clothing for pedestrians.

http://www.nascoinc.com/standards/hivis/Highway%20Worker%20Visibility%20Report.pdf

Beith
et al. (1982) found that retroreflective configurations on the belt, arms (armbands), torso, and back (“zebra-shirt”) were similarly detectable, and were significantly more detectable than retroreflective tape on the cap or helmet only. Shinar (1984) noted that night time detection distances were twice as long when pedestrians wore retroreflective tags than when they wore dark clothes. The visibility distance with the tag exceeded the stopping sight distance for motor vehicles traveling at 90 km/h or less.

I can take from this and personal experience as a driver of a car and a lorry that retro reflectors do enhance your visibility on the roads and well, with the amount of bad drivers out there, that is only a good thing. Its as mentioned before, passive protection. It is no substitute to active protection, ie. your lights.

Its is worth remembering for both the cyclist-drivers out here, that everyone isn't as aware of our 2 wheeled friends while driving a car so anything additional to help stand out of the gloom can only be beneficial.

chakattack

coolbeans wrote: »

I'll give you a few cons. It looks crap and it's an extra thing to carry which matters when you cycle. The RSA gives them out free which somehow tells people that as long as they're wearing an RSA labelled irradiated banana suit they'll be grand without lights. This isn't intended of course but the RSA are idiots so it's no surprise that at least 50% of cyclists I see wear hi-vis as a lazy substitute for lights. That's a big con. Save a fortune and shut the RSA I say.

Well said - I see loads of people who think they are "being safe" by wearing high viz as a substitute for lights, used to do it myself in my college days. Waste of time....

High viz is for builders and lollipop ladies. Lights are for bikes

monument

BX 19 wrote: »

I had a root around google for some studies regarding the impact of High visibility clothing for pedestrians.

http://www.nascoinc.com/standards/hivis/Highway%20Worker%20Visibility%20Report.pdf

That's not about cyclists, it's about highway workers. Although there is two references to research on cyclists. The first in its abstract oncludes: "...However, the impact of visibility aids on pedestrian and cyclist safety is unknown and needs to be determined."

The other is crazy, it concludes that: "Comparisons of the detection and recognition distances suggested that pedestrians and bicyclists can greatly enhance their conspicuity to drivers at night by wearing certain types of apparel and by using devices that are currently available in the marketplace. Nevertheless, it was concluded that nighttime pedestrian and bicyclist activity is inherently dangerous, even with these devices, and should be avoided."

Cycling at night is not inherently dangerous. It's a messed up, unscientific claim to make.

BX 19 wrote: »

Its is worth remembering for both the cyclist-drivers out here, that everyone isn't as aware of our 2 wheeled friends while driving a car so anything additional to help stand out of the gloom can only be beneficial.

It's simply not true that it can only be beneficial.

For example, if all the time, effort, and money spent on promoting high-vis and other nonsense was spent on getting those drivers to be better drivers it would be far better spent. Get the drivers to watch out.

High-vis for use on roads was supposed to be for the unusual, something a driver should not be expecting normally -- ie road works, a car broken down, police attending an accident etc. Drivers should always expect cyclists on the road.

youtheman wrote: »

It's not a 'silver bullet' by any strectch of the imagination, but I can't think of one 'con'. So I just wear it. End of.

Not only is it not a 'silver bullet' but it has little proven affect on driver behavior. Given the lack of solid research, the feedback from users is very poor with many reporting close passing, near calls and been hit by drivers.

Here's a few possible cons:

[1] Makes cycling less attractive thus reduces the often proven and very effective measure of safety in numbers (Less attractive due to making it look more dangerous, less normal, less casual, far more of a strange thing that other people do and adding 'needed' gear)

[2] Unduly targets the potential victim rather than the potential criminal.

[3] Makes cycling less normal thus making many motorists think that cyclists are different to them -- people have less empathy towards those they do not related to.

[4] As already mentioned, many people see high-vis as a lights replacement. It's easy to see why given that we all know that cyclists not using lights is a problem area but the RSA and other instead choice to try to convince cyclists to wear high-vis rather than lights!

[5] Motorists more and more start to think everybody on the road should wear high-vis so knock cyclists or pedestrians down who are not wearing it and the defence become "why were they not wearing high-vis?"

[6] Spending a lot of time / money / effort on something when we do not know its safety impact -- it could be positive, negative, or negligible

I suspect (guess) whether positive or negative, the impact of high-vis with lights is most likely negligible directly. The indirect affects would still be negative given misguided, wasted time, money and effort.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I guess this would discredit the notion that hi-viz is infallible, rather than effective.

Lacking more solid evidence (and millions of miles away from proof), the reports from cyclists of unchanged motorist behaviour / near misses / hits diminishes the chances of it being very effective.

Not effective when drivers are not looking / concentrating / misjudge distances or speeds / are reckless, and not effective when cyclists go in or are put in blind spots. Given that these cover a huge percentage of crashes, the rest is so negligible that it's not effective at all in my books and as already mentioned is possibly counter-productive for different reasons.

BostonB

monument wrote: »

Any body convinced that high-vis is effective -- How do you explain more than a few people on here claiming to be lit up like a Christmas tree with high-vis and all but still have gotten hit by motorists?

Real-world affects of any safety device may not as desired .

Ninja's would just get flamed. However if someone get shot in the head while wearing a bullet proof vest. It doesn't mean bullet proof vests aren't useful.

cyclopath2001

BostonB wrote: »

Ninja's would just get flamed. However if someone get shot in the head while wearing a bullet proof vest. It doesn't mean bullet proof vests aren't useful.

So we should all wear high-vis bullet-proof vests.

rollingscone

Back before widespread hi vis use drivers used to blame the pedestrian or cyclist for not wearing bright clothing... Whether or not they were.

jenko1982

instinct wrote: »

I nearly squashed a cyclist today. A seasoned cyclist with all the club gear, over shoes and stuff. But not one light or anything high vis. It was twilight hours which are the most dangerous but I guess cause its still kind of bright its a false sense of security.

Please try to make your self as visable as possible as I never could get over it if I had hit the poor guy.

as i described in my thread last week i was knocked off my bike last week in daylight hours with high-vis and lights on. drivers keep your eyes open

dave_o_brien

This is all getting a bit pedantic. The OP simply wanted to advise cyclists to make a reasonable effort to make themselves seen, as she nearly had a run in with one.

From that we can ascertain:

No accident occured, thankfully

The OP was observant enough to spot the cyclist, albeit later than desirable

The OP believes that had the cyclist been using lights, the accident near miss needn't have occured

The OP also mentioned high-viz, which, as has been shown, is contentious. Some use it along with lights; fair enough, you're not doing yourself any disservice. Some just rely on lights; fair enough, lights are far more effective than anything else. The OP didn't infer that lights alone would not have been adequate, just that the cyclist in this case was difficult to spot due to the time of day and light conditions. Now, most cyclists have probably been in a similar position to that cyclist; out for a spin on your good bike when it gets dark earlier than you had hoped it would, and you wished you were on your winter bike which has good powerful lights, or some similar version of that story. It's frustrating, it's stupid, but it happens sometimes.

I don't think anyone in this entire thread has suggested that high-viz is an acceptable replacement for lights. Obviously, they are not. Sadly, an awful lot of people who use bikes believe that they are, and yes, the RSA has something to do with it. The scaremongering that surrounds the belief in the usefulness of a high-viz jacket is worrying, because the same level of importance isn't given to the use of good lights, which is bizarre. I think we'd all be happier to see high-viz only cyclists replaced en masse by lights only cyclists, and then anyone who wishes to use both be free to do so. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the level of actual evidence as to their usefulness is simply not in existence, but similar arguments could be made as to their uselessness, or the usefulness of religious faith, or the usefulness in a national fund for the purchase of art.