The importance of high visibility [with pictures]

Puggy

Good post. Lights are a legal requirement. Hi Viz is for day light, its the reflective strips (grey) that reflect light back to you that help you spot other road users at night or in low light.

I cycle in from north county Dublin most days, and pass this same guy dressed completely in black, with a tiny single red led on his seat post. I almost cycled into him one day at Whitehall, as I did not see him. Next time we passed each other, I tried to mention the visibility issue and he told me to pee off and mind my own business.

Hi Viz helps cars approaching you from behind see you long before they get to you, that can only be good for cyclists.

beauf

There a lot of poor hi viz jackets with very little reflective striping on them. If you are a dark lane and the car lights don't hit you, you will be invisible, which is why you need bright lights. You can clearly see this in the Phoenix park you can usually only see the lights of the bikes, the yellow jackets often can't been seen at all. Especially if you have a dark rucksack over it.

I was waiting on the Quays the other night, about 9pm, opposite the 4 courts, and it was very dark, with fast moving traffic. I'd say 4 out of 5 cyclists who passed had no lights, (or so dim to be useless) and dark clothing. Tour De Ninja's. This is a result of a lack of enforcement.

Even if you are kitted out with Hi Viz and a bunch of lights, a vehicle might still not see you, if they don't look. Vehicles still have blind spots, people are human and don't look properly.

humbert

If the difference between you (you as in one, not the OP) seeing a cyclist and not seeing a cyclist is hi-vis either they need better lights or your attention/eyesight is deficient.

Stills from a low quality dashcam in low light only go to show that people with cataracts shouldn't drive.

NeedMoreGears

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

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".

The safest thing to do with a bike is to leave it in the shed and don't go near it. You'll never fall off it, hurt your back lifting it, bruise your thumb trying to remove a tyre........ Stay in bed folks and all will be ok. You'll live to 100 (providing you don't starve or trip over on the way to the toilet)

More seriously, I am somewhat concerned that "hi-viz" now seems to have entered our transport culture as some form of panacea for all safety ills and indeed absence of hi-viz gear on victims (including pedestrians) is increasingly absolving those who are actually in the wrong of blame or at least being seen as a mitigant in terms of any sanctions imposed.

Road users are generally injured due to stupidity - theirs or someone elses. I think there is much more to be gained from reducing stupid behaviour (such as that exhibited by the cyclist in the stills) and from encouraging clever behaviour (such as the alertness and awareness shown by the OP).

DaithiMC

Just focusing on this particular incident and not paying attention at all to the complexities of the benefits or not of hi-viz, I do believe a high viz jacket on the rider who cycled into the path of the car would have been beneficial. The cyclist is side on to the car so front or rear lights would have had less impact on visibility than being in front or behind the cyclist. So, in this particular incident, I do believe the benefit of hi-viz, or even brighter clothing, would have been helpful to the motorist.

I would go along with the idea that hi-viz does not make drivers change their behaviour in the context of overtaking but when I am making a right turn at a junction and am in the middle of the road I want to be as much in contrast to the black asphalt and mostly grey built environment as I can be, day or night, and having both lights and bright clothing help me achieve this. The degree to which one or the other aspect (lights or bright clothing) works best changes with the progression from dark to light.

What many, many arguments on this thread forget is that there are dozens of different situations one can be in when commuting by bike and so any points that include the words "General", "Generally", "Usually" or "Mostly" I tend to disregard as not having any sensitivity to all the situations and the benefits of multiple safety aids when cycling.

seamus

thebullkf wrote: »

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.

Not really, you presented a strawman. We're not talking about lying on the ground. We're talking about the general, overall risk presented by encouraging people to wear high-vis as a safety aid instead of lights.

I'll think you'll find that what I said was that if you have no lights, it's worse to wear high-vis than not. While cycling. That's what we're discussing.

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 ?

That depends on the scenario. If I'm lying on the ground in the middle of a bad bend, no amount of high-viz makes you visible. If an drunken farmer driving an unlit tractor back from the pub comes barrelling down the road, he won't see me.
I'm not deflecting, just presenting straw rebuttals to your straw argument.

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.

Which brings us back to the reductive argument. if increasing visibility is inherently a "good thing", that "any reasonable person" would agree upon, then why does the law not require people to cover their vehicles in reflective strips, have flashing orange lights on top and a continous beep emitted while moving?

So, why the fervour over cyclists wearing high-vis when there has been no study done to show any effectiveness? The only evidence, however weak or inconclusive indicates that it creates a reduction in safety.

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.
...
The proof you seek is inherent in common sense.

Anecdotes are not proof. "Common Sense" is most certainly not proof at all. What your "common sense" tells you to be the right thing is often way off.

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.

So presumably you wear a high-vis vest all of the time when out walking? Even during the day?
We're back to the reductive, "maximising safety" argument. It's about maximising safety within reasonable bounds of practicality and sensibility.

Maximum safety would be to walk about wearing a suit of armor covered in reflective strips. You'd be protected from all forms of assault, not to mention highly visible to traffic, and protected from the elements. Safety ahoy!

It's about taking all reasonable and appropriate precautions to protect yourself against all reasonably foreseeable incidents. This is 90% attitude, 10% equipment. If you start to give equipment more importance than it's due, you reduce safety because your attitude is all wrong.

thebullkf wrote: »

Came across this just now,
....
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.

That's fair enough, I appreciate the link. But like Wishbone Ash says, it's for motorcycles. So not exactly applicable, because the contexts are very different. To take my example above, it's like saying that because some large vehicles are made safer by using large yellow flashing lights while moving, then all large vehicles would be made safer by having them do the same.

It's a different context, so the same conditions don't apply.

beauf

DaithiMC wrote: »

....any points that include the words "General", "Generally", "Usually" or "Mostly" I tend to disregard ...

So we should disregard your post as it has all those words ?

DaithiMC

beauf wrote: »

So we should disregard your post as it has all those words ?

Usually I would.....

Wishbone Ash

DaithiMC wrote: »

Just focusing on this particular incident and not paying attention at all to the complexities of the benefits or not of hi-viz, I do believe a high viz jacket on the rider who cycled into the path of the car would have been beneficial. The cyclist is side on to the car so front or rear lights would have had less impact on visibility than being in front or behind the cyclist. So, in this particular incident, I do believe the benefit of hi-viz, or even brighter clothing, would have been helpful to the motorist....

Just to clarify - are you referring to my accident as described a few posts back?

If so, I don't understand where you are coming from. I did not cross the path of the car - it crossed my path. I had right of way. The driver was stopped waiting to make a right turn from a main road onto a minor road (facing me) with 2 motorists behind. For some reason, she then turned across my path. Prior to that I would have been in her line of vision and was seen by the 2 motorists behind. It was not a crossroads. I would only have been side-on at the point of contact.

DaithiMC

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Just to clarify - are you referring to my accident as described a few posts back?

If so, I don't understand where you are coming from. I did not cross the path of the car - it crossed my path. I had right of way. The driver was stopped waiting to make a right turn from a main road onto a minor road (facing me) with 2 motorists behind. For some reason, she then turned across my path. Prior to that I would have been in her line of vision and was seen by the 2 motorists behind. It was not a crossroads. I would only have been side-on at the point of contact.

No, the OP - the original theme of the thread....the "invisible cyclist" is crossing the road from right to left of the car and it is at that point that he is least visible, at least in the photos.

I just read your post now and it is different in circumstance and does elaborate my point about considering all the different situations. You t-boned the car so were never in front in the same way as the guy in the photos was so there was a completely different visual field and dynamic in the two situations.

thebullkf

seamus wrote: »

Not really, you presented a strawman. We're not talking about lying on the ground. We're talking about the general, overall risk presented by encouraging people to wear high-vis as a safety aid instead of lights.

I'm talking about lying on the ground... its a possibility- i gave you examples i am personally aware of. Hi |Vis offers contrast and a brief outline of tyour shape particularly if in seams of jacket/trousers.

- who said anything about using Hi Vis instead of lights????
i am arguing in addition to lights. you said they were pointless in any situation , i disagree

seamus wrote: »

I'll think you'll find that what I said was that if you have no lights, it's worse to wear high-vis than not. While cycling. That's what we're discussing.

I disagree.

seamus wrote: »

That depends on the scenario. If I'm lying on the ground in the middle of a bad bend, no amount of high-viz makes you visible. If an drunken farmer driving an unlit tractor back from the pub comes barrelling down the road, he won't see me.

why because he's drunk?? where did drunklenness come in? what if he was sober? would a reflective material not help then? really?

seamus wrote: »

I'm not deflecting, just presenting straw rebuttals to your straw argument.

i fail to see the straw arguement- its not an arguement the scenario i alluded to actually happened... twice.. youre the amn with the drunk farmers on bends :rolleyes:

seamus wrote: »

Which brings us back to the reductive argument. if increasing visibility is inherently a "good thing", that "any reasonable person" would agree upon, then why does the law not require people to cover their vehicles in reflective strips, have flashing orange lights on top and a continous beep emitted while moving?

sure as has been pointed out already- driving a motorised vehicle vs a pedal powered bicycle is chalk and cheese - as pointed out in wishbones point

seamus wrote: »

So, why the fervour over cyclists wearing high-vis when there has been no study done to show any effectiveness? The only evidence, however weak or inconclusive indicates that it creates a reduction in safety.

is that based on your link? Because the link i shared said otherwise (despite being for motorcycles)

seamus wrote: »

Anecdotes are not proof. "Common Sense" is most certainly not proof at all. What your "common sense" tells you to be the right thing is often way off.
So presumably you wear a high-vis vest all of the time when out walking? Even during the day?

Do you cycle on the footpath..? where people walk? If i lived on a bothrín with no defined footpath that was susceptible to heavy traffic- i probably would- otherwise your analogy is useless.

People working on a road are required to wear to wear hi vis.

seamus wrote: »

We're back to the reductive, "maximising safety" argument. It's about maximising safety within reasonable bounds of practicality and sensibility.

I dont think its unreasonable to wear a hi vis/reflective clothing whilst cycling- it doesnt hinder you in any way, its practical and sensible

seamus wrote: »

Maximum safety would be to walk about wearing a suit of armor covered in reflective strips. You'd be protected from all forms of assault, not to mention highly visible to traffic, and protected from the elements. Safety ahoy!

yet more outlandish hyperbole

seamus wrote: »

It's about taking all reasonable and appropriate precautions to protect yourself against all reasonably foreseeable incidents. This is 90% attitude, 10% equipment. If you start to give equipment more importance than it's due, you reduce safety because your attitude is all wrong.

more than its due?? equipment is not a replacement for your safety but an addition to your well being. tools to be used in conjunction with safe riding and proper awareness. stop harping on about instead of, and start thinking , "in addition to"


any how - it seems this circular argument is going nowhere. you continue to not wear reflective gear, i shall continue to do so.

CramCycle

thebullkf wrote: »

is that based on your link? Because the link i shared said otherwise (despite being for motorcycles)

It actually doesn't, it implies it but leaves out huge swathes of information which would make or break the imposition eg were those involved in accidents speeding, were they breaking any of the local rules of the road, were there brakes in optimal condition. From the limited data involved I could surmise that MBers in dark helmets are under the belief that they are related to night rider and can travel faster and more recklessly in urban areas. The study you have linked to is at best limited and poorly designed, at worst it is completely misleading due to lack of supplementary data.

Beasty

thebullkf wrote: »

any how - it seems this circular argument is going nowhere.

Agreed

Thread closed