The importance of high visibility [with pictures]

ardmacha

Modern LED lights and rechargeable batteries make lighting a cycle vastly easier than at any time in history, yet some people still seem unwilling to do this. These same people may have €400 phone which they charge every day.

NeedMoreGears

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Can someone tell me what added benefit such a garment would bring when I have lights which can be seen from 1km away?

Hi-Vis (as in yellow or orange material) - possibly keep you a bit warmer. Otherwise, in my view, a waste of time.

Reflective strips- quite beneficial even if they are passive. Most decent cycling clothing has these. Better again if the strips are high on the body as it gives another line of sight in traffic (although a helmet mounted rear light is quite effective)


Lights - Clothing is not a substitute for lights. You gotta have lights. End of.


My preference is a decent (150 lumen or maybe a bit more) front light on constant and aimed left and low accompanied by a low power flasher (25 lumen) to attract attention. On the back two powerful flashers (1/2 watt leds).

From what I can see of the ninja dude (which ain't much), even well lit, the manoeuvre he attempted seems unsafe regardless of whether he (I assume) had lights or not. He appears to have basically pulled across the car. Fair play to the OP's awareness at that hour of the morning

2 Wheels Good

Cork seems to be getting worse for this, and worse again more people cycling the wrong way down one way streets with no lights and dark clothes and expect car drivers to see them. I live on a one way street and see it almost daily now.

And possibly worse, have also noticed people with lights and high vis who seem to think this gives them a magic pass and safety cloak to do the same on one ways, as well as cycle on narrow footpaths.

It's down to the RSA and the Gardai to just enforce the law and common sense on cyclists, lights are needed, a hi-vis helps and obeying the rules of the road should all get you home safe. Lycra wearing or not

seamus

thebullkf wrote: »

Seamus,

Citation needed..what's this, a courtroom??

No, but if you're going to make a claim, you're going to need facts to back it up. Otherwise it's just a baseless opinion.

What happens if for some reason you have an off, touch wood you never do, but assume you come off, bike in a ditch, unlit road.. cyclist unconcious. Are you honestly telling me its worse to be lying. in the middle of the road wearing black instead of a hivis, reflective
Clothing? Seriously?

Specific and unlikely scenarios aren't what we're discussing. We're not talking about lying in the middle of a country road in the middle of the night.

We could invent a million other similar scenarios and ask why you don't wear high-viz 24/7 and paint your car reflective yellow "just in case".

Your argument is that wearing high-vis is inherently safer than not wearing it. Show me the evidence.

eringobragh

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Is it necessary to look like a lollipop lady though? Don't you have decent lights? That's the bit I have trouble with. What does the lollipop lady apparel bring to the party? Does it make you visible to drivers who are, for some reason, blind to lights? Does it transform someone who can clearly be seen into someone who can be seen even more? As in "I couldn't see his lights but thank the good lord he was wearing an RSA bib!"?

I fully agree with you on ninjas and lack of enforcement. A walk home with a Fine On The Spot in pocket is what's needed.

While I don't have the top brand lights the lads on here are spouting I have a more then capable setup - my front 2 is a 200lm cree led mounted torch and a 53 LED array aimed slightly downwards to avoid dazzling any driver.

On the rear is a decent LED one cant remember brand but its very bright, and old 'blinky' on the pannier and one built into the helmet.

The hi-viz is just an additional layer - and its got some construction companies name on the back rather then the RSA not that it would bother me - if it enhances my visibility even in the slightest and makes my journey that little bit safe then its worth it in the end

Muckers

Bottom line is that we need to be as visible to motorists etc at all times, but especially during the dark Winter months. If that means wearing hi viz along with having your bike well lit up, then so be it. It's in our own interest to do so.

The clown in the pics is on a suicide mission, and as mentioned already, fair play to the op for spotting him. This idiot cyclist is giving us all a bad name.

munsterleinster

seamus wrote: »

reflective yellow "just in case"..

Yellow ain't reflective..It's just dark grey at night.:P
Reflective material is reflective. Scotchlite is just as dark grey at night unless lit.

the.red.baron

seamus wrote: »

[Citation Needed]
You appear to be the one incapable of providing any evidence whatsoever that high-vis works. There are numerous studies showing that at best high-vis makes no difference, and at worse places the cyclist in a riskier position.

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/10/31/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-sensible-precaution-or-victim-blaming/


Fully aware that there are more factors at play, I've yet to see one study which shows an improvement in safety when high-vis is worn.

If there are numerous studies to show high viz doesn't work, why do you link to one, which quotes another Study all together and then has warnings all over it about the quality of the study it is quoting from and even starts off by saying there are big short comings in the literature regarding bike crashes in the first place.

seamus

Cos it was the first one I had to hand which wasn't already provided earlier in this thread by others. Note that the concerns weren't about the quality of the study at all, just about the availability of the data and the limits of drawing solid conclusions of same.

Besides, I made a claim that high-vis alone can make matters worse. And I provided a reasonable link to that effect. I note that anyone who claims high-viz to be a really super idea has still failed to provide any kind of evidence which backs up this point.

the.red.baron

seamus wrote: »

Cos it was the first one I had to hand which wasn't already provided earlier in this thread by others. Note that the concerns weren't about the quality of the study at all, just about the availability of the data and the limits of drawing solid conclusions of same.

Besides, I made a claim that high-vis alone can make matters worse. And I provided a reasonable link to that effect. I note that anyone who claims high-viz to be a really super idea has still failed to provide any kind of evidence which backs up this point.

They do raise notes about the quality of the study. How the data is collected and the conclusions drawn are what the report is all about.

They also note another study which indicates the benefits of High viz in motorcycle crashes. They then go onto to point out some flaws in this study of how they break down the data.

I'm not going to read it through.

Studies are just as flawed and bias as the people that make them.

So I'd take this evidence with the pinch of salt it deserves.

Jawgap

Hi-viz relies on an external light source to 'work'


In a country where it seems ever second or third motor vehicle has poorly adjusted headlights and / or only a single functioning dipped headlight, it will never be anything other than an idle add on in terms of improving cyclist safety.

thebullkf

Nice deflection, you said wearing hi vis was worse than not wearing one.

I gave a scenario all the more possible given the weather, and you yet again twist words to suit your argument.

I'll ask again. If you had an accident and were on the ground, is wearing reflective, hi VIA gear worse than not wearing any ?

It's a simple question and I think any reasonable person would agree that wearing anything that improves the possibility of visibility whilst on the road is a good thing.

This thread has turned slightly as a lights vs hi vis, the op and my argument is that hi VIS IN addition to lights is better. The proof is in the pics Ffs. If the guy had no reflective clothing at all there may have been a different outcome, and as someone else pointed out some poor other road user could be partly held liable for something easily avoided.


The proof you seek is inherent in common sense. Regardless of how outlandish my scenario may seem, I have had an off myself and hi vis, led armbands helped save my life. I had a friend die a horrible death , when unconscious at the side of a road, in Dublin when struck having come his bicycle. The lorry wasn't speeding, he just didn't see him.

It's all about maximizing safety, for an experienced cyclist not to recognise the benefits of added visibility particularly when you could be in a defenceless position beggars belief.

I actually thought you were taking the pee for the craic.

seamus wrote: »

No, but if you're going to make a claim, you're going to need facts to back it up. Otherwise it's just a baseless opinion.

Specific and unlikely scenarios aren't what we're discussing. We're not talking about lying in the middle of a country road in the middle of the night.

We could invent a million other similar scenarios and ask why you don't wear high-viz 24/7 and paint your car reflective yellow "just in case".

Your argument is that wearing high-vis is inherently safer than not wearing it. Show me the evidence.

Kurtosis

the.red.baron wrote: »

They do raise notes about the quality of the study. How the data is collected and the conclusions drawn are what the report is all about.

They also note another study which indicates the benefits of High viz in motorcycle crashes. They then go onto to point out some flaws in this study of how they break down the data.

I'm not going to read it through.

Studies are just as flawed and bias as the people that make them.

So I'd take this evidence with the pinch of salt it deserves.

Very good. Do you have a methodologically superior study to indicate hi-viz improves safety?

petethedrummer

I'm glad I don't have camera lenses for eyes.

Nate--IRL--

penguin88 wrote: »

Very good. Do you have a methodologically superior study to indicate hi-viz improves safety?

No, but when cycling home I notice people in Re-reflective clothing sooner than I see cyclists with just lights. I can't prove that to you, and I don't care.

Nate

mamax

Some people seem to miss the obvious in this thread, these are some of my observations.....

This thread:
In the 1st post in this thread, (in all the pics) the cyclist farthest away is apparently more visable because his hi-visability clothing is reflective.
So in that particular situation I believe hi-vis clothing is indeed beneficial for that particular cyclist.

Hi-Vis Clothing:
I believe there are 2 positives and uses for hi-vis clothing and I don't think they mix.
1. Hi-vis clothing for daytime use is excellent to alert others to your presence on the road, and quite useless for night time use.
2. Hi-vis clothing with reflective strips as seen in post #1 of this thread can and does alert others to your presence on the road by night but the reflective strips are quite useless for daytime use.

So in my opinion Hi-vis clothing is for daytime use and clothing with reflective strips is for night time use but used as an added safety precaution because in reality there are no substitutes for decent bicycle lights !

Wishbone Ash

I was taken down by a motorist last year when she decided to make a right turn across my path at point blank range. I t-boned her car at 40km/h and went over the top breaking my collar bone and two ribs. I had a 450 lumen front light and two Smarts on the rear. She said she didn't see me!

Two other motorists immediately behind her came to my assistance and said that they couldn't understand how she didn't see me as my front light was very powerful.

The following day a Garda came to take a statement from me. He spent a lot of time asking about my clothing and seem pre-occupied by the fact that I wasn't wearing a hi-viz jacket. He seemed to be under the impression that it would have 'saved' me. (The cycling jacket I had on and my over-shoes do have some hi-viz detailing).

Basically my point is that there are a minority of motorists who won't see a cyclist/pedestrian regardless of what they wear and despite having 2 accidents requiring hospitalisation, I see no benefits to wearing one.

To those who have commented about not knowing if a rear light is working - if you're rear light isn't visible from the saddle position then it's probable not effective. I check mine every minute or so by glancing downwards. I can check the helmet one my turning my head slightly and seeing the reflection in the Garmin.

superelliptic

Jawgap wrote: »

......decent lights (not the crappy ones the RSA give out) will trump hi-viz every time.

Running and walking may be more suited to the wearing of hi-viz because you can't carry the same luminosity of lights as you can on a bike.

Plus, lights are an investment - I rather not trust my safety to an item given out for free and supplied to a public body at lowest cost possible during a time of austerity.

Ah here come on!

There's another side to the hi-viz pro/con question IMO that hasn't been looked at so far and that is the safety factor it gives people who are new to cycling. The RSA give out free hi-viz because it gets people to think about safety while cycling and about how much more vulnerable you are on a bike - not because of anything to do with austerity. I know several people in work who have taken up cycle commuting over the past year and they all swear by a combination of lights and hi-viz - although the lights are usually not very well maintained.

There's no need to create a partisan issue out of weather or not Hi-Viz is effective or not, it isn't mandatory to wear it and its not perfect but a big reflective yellow jacket is a hell of a lot easier to be seen in when cycling in the dark than wearing a dark colour one as the OP's photos point out.

Yeah they are better when used together but one is not useless without the other.

Chips Lovell

It's funny, you similar patterns of argument on helmet threads.

There is something about safety debates that causes some people to leave reason at the door. They doggedly pursue the line of "If item X decreases your risk of injury, you are a fool to cycle without item X".

fg10291

Like wishbone ash, I was taken down a few weeks ago as well. I have 2 red lights on the back two white on the front, I wear a hi viz jacket, hi viz bag cover from the rsa, hi vis helmet cover and have reflective tape on forks and frame , yet according to the guy that hit me he didn't see me. Luckily I wasn't hurt and bike not damaged.

I think it's down to a lack of attention on some peoples part a pillars on cars. I think a pillars actually block a significant portion of the road so if a cyclist is approaching from an angle such as a t junction and when driver looks, cyclist could be behind pillar not visible and motorist powers resulting in collision.

There is no excuse for cyclists not protecting themselves with light and hi viz

thebullkf

seamus wrote: »

No, but if you're going to make a claim, you're going to need facts to back it up. Otherwise it's just a baseless opinion.

Specific and unlikely scenarios aren't what we're discussing. We're not talking about lying in the middle of a country road in the middle of the night.

We could invent a million other similar scenarios and ask why you don't wear high-viz 24/7 and paint your car reflective yellow "just in case".

Your argument is that wearing high-vis is inherently safer than not wearing it. Show me the evidence.

Came across this just now,
Ok, granted its motorcyclists but results are results :

drivers wearing ANY. reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.94) than other drivers. Compared with wearing a black helmet, use of a white helmet was associated with a 24% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.76, 0.57 to 0.99). Self reported light coloured helmet versus dark coloured helmet was associated with a 19% lower risk.
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7444/857

The odds of having an accident decrease further when the above is combined with other factors like driving with lights on during the day etc.

Tenzor07

fg10291 wrote: »

I think it's down to a lack of attention on some peoples part a pillars on cars. I think a pillars actually block a significant portion of the road so if a cyclist is approaching from an angle such as a t junction and when driver looks, cyclist could be behind pillar not visible and motorist powers resulting in collision.There is no excuse for cyclists not protecting themselves with light and hi viz

I would say mobile phones, sat navs, car radio/ipod plugged in, and "other electronic devices" prove more of a hindrance in a car than pillars(move your head around). |Not to mention having less time to focus on the road due to possible speeding.(less time to react at 50kph than 30)

What happens then is called "Inattentional Blindness", i.e. the brain is only focussing on one thing at a time...

Hi-Vis clothing is not the solution to this issue.

fg10291

I love that video

http://www.autoglassnews.co.uk/index.php?id=killer-pillars-and-white-van-man

Just had quick look to see if there was anything on a pillars and obstruction, first thing I found. Scary how much of an obstruction they cause.

MediaMan

I am completely at one with the view that misguided emphasis on hi-viz is a serious problem. It influences cyclists to believe it makes them completely visible in all situations, and biases the judgement of those who should know better (like safety authorities, gardai and medical staff) that hi-viz is the most important thing to have on the road.

On my commute, I would guess that during the hours of darkness about half the cyclists I see have no lights and of those, half will be wearing some form of hi-viz. How people can go to the trouble of acquiring and wearing hi-viz, sometimes even over a backpack, without going out any buying a couple of lights, is totally beyond me.

However I equally completely disagree with jumping down the throats of those who advocate the use of hi-viz, reflective strips and other passive visibility aids as if they were part of a crazy sect. People on here usually have a common goal of making the road as safe as possible for cyclists so I suggest we all bear that in mind. For my part I think that hi-viz and reflective strips have a role to play, so I wear them, along with having strong lights.

Unknown Soldier

I have two red LED lights on the rear of my bike, blinking. One normal white one blinking on the front. An Extra LED torch light on the front that I turn on in heavy traffic or at major junctions.

A bright yellow ruck sack with a highly visible "Oxford" cover and as well as that a bright red blinking LED attached to it.
And all my gear has reflective strips all over the place.

None of it stopped a bad driver nearly killing me this morning on the Walkinstown round about. (I am assuming they were worse for wear)

I don't think a high vis jacket would have helped. Even the drivers at the exit where it happened (waiting to come on to the roundabout) were shocked, judging by their jaw dropped looks.

I have nothing against hi-vis jackets but I think I am "lit up" more than sufficiently.

Regardless of all of the above, I have seen plenty of cyclists who could really put a bit more effort in.

Cookie_Monster

superelliptic wrote: »

Ah here come on!

There's another side to the hi-viz pro/con question IMO that hasn't been looked at so far and that is the safety factor it gives people who are new to cycling. The RSA give out free hi-viz because it gets people to think about safety while cycling and about how much more vulnerable you are on a bike - not because of anything to do with austerity. .

I don't think so, I think it makes people belive that a high vis vest is the be all and end all of road safety and they then don't even bother with lights.

lennymc

is it Friday already?

Darkglasses

lennymc wrote: »

is it Friday already?

No but it is Christmas :pac:

Jawgap

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

?....
The following day a Garda came to take a statement from me. He spent a lot of time asking about my clothing and seem pre-occupied by the fact that I wasn't wearing a hi-viz jacket. He seemed to be under the impression that it would have 'saved' me. (The cycling jacket I had on and my over-shoes do have some hi-viz detailing).

......

Twice I've been advised by Guards to wear hi-viz, on one of those occasions I was actually wearing a jacket with a hi-viz element.

On both occasions though they didn't seem to think the 1000 or so lumens being emitted from the lights on the front of the bike were sufficient.

Another occasion I was directed to pull in at one of their checkpoints where I was given a leaflet and a hi-viz jacket, despite being well illuminated.

Wishbone Ash

thebullkf wrote: »

Came across this just now,
Ok, granted its motorcyclists but results are results ....

I don't think you can compare motorcycle data with cycling data. It's not like for like for 3 main reasons:

1. Motorcycles are generally capable of travelling at the same speed as general motorised traffic thereby reducing the priority of rear lighting. On a windy road, a motorist is unlikely to suddenly come upon a motorcyclist.

2. With a few rare exceptions, motorcycles come equipped with statutory mandatory equipment such as lights, indicators etc.

3. Motorcycles are required to be registered, taxed and insured for use on public roads.

In saying that, I totally agree with the white helmet thing but that's probably because I wouldn't consider any other colour for helmet and shoes!