Study says cyclists should make themselves seen - but reflective clothing, not hi-vis, is the answer

Regretfully I've taken the decision not to ride on the roads anymore other than during a race. I've grown tired of an apathetic government sanctioning the cull of people simply trying to enjoy an amazingly rewarding sport.

I can think of no other similar environment where the levels of injury and death is so readily accepted. 38 dentists struck off for malpractice according to a recent news clip ending years of study, financial commitment and permanent loss of income - they are unfit to practice so the government correctly seeks to protect the public.

In contrast we learn that Scottish driver kills twice 'by accident' and still the government restores his 'right' to drive. What did he invest to get his licence? 25 hours perhaps and a 45 minute farce of a test he can repeat as many times as he wants before fluking a pass. He still has his income and has the option of using public transport or dare I say it, actually use his legs to get about.

Indoor trainer and a spot of mountain biking is the best I can hope for now. The government has well earned the obesity crisis and all that comes with embracing the car at all cost.

So should cyclists only be allowed on the road, if they have a marching band in tow. Should the marching band also be dressed like an xmas tree or would that be over the top?

Victim blaming, pure & simple. Many drivers see a cyclist and make a concious decision that, as the cyclist will come of worst, the cyclist WILL give way.
The fraction of a second it would take for them to wait is more important than the life of a cyclist. That's the attitude that needs changing. How that's done is difficult, but heavier penalties would be a start.

Another story today (http://road.cc/content/news/95382-sussex-driver-involved-crash-claimed-c...) was a driver, who killed a cyclist, getting 20 days prison & 3 year ban for driving without insurance or MOT. Compare that to killing a cyclist and getting community service (http://road.cc/content/news/92738-community-service-driver-who-killed-cy...) & 1 year ban. Something is seriously wrong with the balance.

After years of trying all the options I now always mount my front light on top of my helmet (No sniggering at the back Oli Pendrey).

1. You can point it towards the left edge of the carriageway when cars are oncoming so that...
2. ...you can run a properly bright light without it dazzling drivers.
3. Additionally, if you get to a junction where a car may be pulling out into your path & you think there's even a small chance that they haven't noticed you, just turn to look them in the eye directing your light towards their face for a moment.
NOW they've noticed you.

Neurologically, the human brain, as powerful as it is at coping with a constant flood of information from all of our senses, still has to prioritise - something we aren't conscious of in the moment - and tends to ignore constancy. Our brains are, however, exceedingly alert to changing stimuli. So a flashing red light is always more visible to another road user than a constant one. It also makes sense that a driver's lights glinting off reflective patches of clothing are going to be more noticeable than brightly coloured clothing.

Dont let it put you off. Ride. Enjoy. But ride defensively - even if it is technically your right of way (the earlier post by b3nharris is spot on...) - and do everything you can to be seen & keep yourself safe. Even if that driver IS in the wrong, their car is harder & heavier than you are.

Rubber Side Down.

Herohirst: you're unlikely to get done by the police for what you're doing, but the law does require you to have a compliant light mounted on your bike. Regardless of how good it is, a helmet mounted light does not comply with the legal minimums.

They again, how many of us ride at night with pedals that are that are non compliant? Do you have orange reflectors on them visible front and rear? There are such things that can be bolted into SPD-SLs. You're to struggle on Speedplays! And remember, again, shoes don't count!

Jason Timothy Jones has hit the nail on the head. Drivers need to change their attitudes. This is the ONLY solution. Yes cyclists can do more but where does this end. Multi-coloured florescent clothing, reflective strips on clothes, bikes and bags. Two to three front lights, two to three rear lights. Reflectors on pedals, spokes, handlebars, seatpost. Must be wearing a helmet (cause getting hit by a car without one is the cyclists fault, clearly!), don’t break any road laws, etc etc. Doing all this will not stop idiot drivers driving dangerously around you or not see you at all (the recent story about the driver who was playing with her satnav for 22 seconds without looking at the road who ended up hitting and killing a cyclist).

If drivers followed what is already taught (ie the highway code) to the best of their ability, I am very sure casualty numbers would dramatically fall and cyclists would feel hugely safer on the road, by not getting overtaken at pinch points (or even on a wide road but still only given 2 inches of space!), drivers actually obeying speed limits(!), etc. If this happened there would be little to no need to change cycling/road infrastructure (blue paint, segregated cycle lanes etc), imagine that.

As said, the current laws need to be enforced with high penalties. The Australian system sounds quite good. Also proper penalties for killing/ injuring other road users (6 months driving ban and 200 quid fine is not a joke, it’s an insult). I would add that the driving test would need to be retaken every 10 years with mandatory training before each test, so as to teach current best practice.I mean you are in charge of a 1+ ton metal box! Will any of this happen in the UK any time soon. No chance!

Recently I was out on my bike, with two lights front & rear (one of each Hope vision super bright hobbies) with a top with reflective piping on. A police car pulled me over to tell me a car had nearly hit me, which I had noted myself due to eyes. I think they were telling off the wrong person.

I suppose it's little surprise that in a road.cc forum so many posters love and swear by their no doubt expensive and expansive kit, in the belief it will keep them safe from the destruction meted out by inattentive or malicious motorists: the rest of the site is festooned with adverts for the latest hi-vis, reflective and expanded polystyrene panaceas.

But such measures only work if those same motorists are attentive and benevolent, and that they give a damn about who or what they hit while driving.

(I notice that in the helmet review section no mention is made of the single most important reason for buying a helmet - will it save my life in the event of a collision? Some of these items cost well over £160 - I'd want something a bit more definite and reassuring than 'offers great streamlining').

In the current climate experienced by people using bikes in the UK, much attention is paid to 'educating' the various groups of road users (viz the ridiculous NiceWay Code). But as someone pointed out on a US blog, education is a slow and tedious process, and what's slowest and most tedious is "educating" motorists, who have no particular incentive to learn.

Many drivers resist education because they believe they already know all they need to, and with penalties for poor standards of driving so feeble, they have little to fear from the courts for their actions while driving.

**Opinion Alert**

Speaking as a driver, if in daylight, you can't pick a cyclist out wearing whatever the feck they want, you are not driving with due care and attention, and deserve to have your license revoked. The same can be said in poor visibilty if the cyclist has adequate levels of lighting.

The argument of 'that is not going to save you when someone doesn't notice you' can be applied to every level of preventative action you take, and ranks about as high as the playground jibe 'I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?'.

Whatever your mode of transport, if you use the roads;

i. pay attention,
ii. abide by the current laws,
iii. behave with courtesy

and people will get hurt less. As jason timothy jones said, all it needs then is for those behaivours to be politely and professionally enforced.

I fully agree with those comments about driver attitude it's got little to do with what you are wearing/light up with.

Yes being seen will help, however I am increasingly getting fed up with cyclist blinding me, both as driver and fellow cyclist, with their mega super bright lights. Hello people, time to realise drivers can not see you if they are blinded by your lights. Do we really need to head down bigger/brighter is better? Also how far a head do you need to be before you become background? By this I mean do people really focus on what's happening a mile in front at 30mph or 2 minutes away. Or do we focus mainly on the next 10 seconds or the next corner. Therefore how far a head do you need to telegraph your presence to be safe?

I was stopped the other day by a driver who ranted at me for wearing black on a day of clear blue sky. They shut up when I pointed that they had seen me, not once but twice, therefore their arguement was null and void. I've had more close calls on the bright yellow and green frame than the dark blue one. Strangely enough I feel safer wearing the black "Blood Cyclist" shirt than I do with a red and white Katusha or a plain white shirt.

(RE)Educating all drivers to look out for the hazard called "a cyclist" and to give the cyclist space and time to sort themselves out would be the best start. Not forcing all road users to be lit up with 2 million candle power and only wearing day-glo yellow or orange.

Jeez, think of the environment and where does the power come from.

Lights > Reflectives > 'Hi-Viz'. Simple.

'So a flashing red light is always more visible to another road user than a constant one'

Is, of course, absolute toss. Have you ever asked yourself why all the other vehicles on the road don't have flashing lights? a *moving* light is more visible, not a flashing one. Flashing lights are only good for battery life.

@andyp - here's a test for you tonight, if it's not too cloudy. Look at the sky - you should see four "types" of light
1) still and steady light
2) still and flashing/flickering
3) moving and steady
4) moving and flashing/flickering.

Which ones catch your attention best?

What about pedestrians?

Would any researchers dare to suggest that they too "should" be wearing certain types of high viz/reflective gear while e.g. crossing a busy street?

Genuine question.

There's clearly lots of opinions about hi vis clothing, but imagine the following experiment.

Get several hundred cyclists (half with a hi vis vest and half without). Now intruct those cyclists to mix things up a bit, by varying their speed and direction at random on an inner city route.

Now imagine you're driving a truck, and trying to spot every cyclist, using all three windows and six or seven mirrors, plus do all the other things you have to do, like keep an eye on cars, pedestrians, traffic lights, signs, weight limits, bridge heights, etc.

I think most people would be far more likely to spot the cyclists wearing hi vis, rather than those who are not wearing hi vis.

Maybe some organisation could recreate this type of experiment, stick it on Youtube, and let people decide for themselves whether they want to ride without any hi vis clothing.

Problem: 90% of the "reflective" cycling clothing available is totally inadequate at night. Reflective piping that is 3mm wide? Reflective dots a couple of centimetres across? Reflective lettering, for Christ's sake, that is 2mm thick and which I would stuggle to read from 5m away? The clothing needs to have big panels of the stuff all over the front, back, sides, arms ands legs. Until a manufacturer starts selling this, I will not feel safely dressed at night.

I wear pretty much all black clothing. When visibility decreases I use front/rear lights. If a driver can't see bright lights in front of him, then he won't see me regardless of what I'm wearing.

Then again some idiot cyclists take it to the extreme, blinding all other road users with their stupidly bright lights pointed at eye level. That's dangerous! The aim isn't to blind, it's to see/be seen!

Contrary to previous comments, most Tarmac appears to the human eye as silver to white. Black clothing actually contrasts pretty well with Tarmac.

I am convinced also that hiviz yellow actually makes motorists pull out on you more often than not. This is precisely because it is associated with cyclists an only cyclists and therefore a. Very small minority of vehicles on the road . There is good research evidence also that in a complex traffic environment, hiviz distracts drivers and leads them to do what is not the safest thing in any situation.

If only more cyclists would learn the importance road positioning in all lighting conditions (most haven't got a clue!) then we might be getting somewhere. It trumps clothing colour , bright lights , the lot!

The conclusions of the Aussie study seem like deja vu. God knows how long ago it was but I read or heard from somewhere that contrast was the biggest factor in improving visibility to an onlooker. From the source I was already aware that depending on light conditions dark clothing or light clothing could be effective. It does seem logical, though where these things are concerned logic is not always the best guide so a study is rather welcome.

In the UK we tend to have a lot of overcast days so even during the day it is probably better to wear light clothing. Also as most urban and rural backgrounds at pedestrian, vehicular and cycle level are darker than hi-viz it is probably better to wear light clothing at all times. However, with many road cyclists having a penchant for black attire and many forums decrying the wearing of anything other than black as wholly unstylish it may be a while before we see anyone other than Dads, Mums, Geeks, and kids wearing reflective Hi-viz. I for one hate the stuff but can't deny it's benefits.

With respect to reflectivity I still think that dark clothes with reflective elements are not as visible as light (White or Hi-viz) clothing with the same reflective elements when riding in subdued light or the dark. I own a few Campagnolo items that are predominantly black with reflective 'IQseen Clearly Visible' elements. I'm yet to be convinced they are merely 'better than nothing'. They are very reflective, being visible at 160m, but unless the driver of a car realises the flash of light is a cyclist they probably won't respond accordingly.

To illustrate the point, I knew a chap who was speeding down a country lane and thought the headlights he saw in the distance were from an approaching car. Turned out it was a reflection of his own headlights from a driveway mirror, located on a sharp bend in the road. He was nearly killed as he hurtled into the drive and it convinced me that drivers can easily be fooled at night when they don't see the whole picture or person. With Hi-Viz the outline of the cyclist is better defined and that can't be a bad thing when you only get one life.

I think the key point is to distinguish between offering advice about precautions that may be worth taking, and making out that any cyclist who doesn’t do so is “acting irresponsibly”.

Of course it makes sense to offer sensible, evidence-based advice on how cyclists can maximise their chances of being seen and, perhaps more importantly, noticed (yes, they are different!) in poor light conditions. Of course it makes sense to be lit and to wear something reflective if riding on unlit roads at night. And it should preferably be something that moves, e.g. an ankle-band - this article rightly notes the evidence that this is more likely to catch drivers' eyes than 'static' reflective gear (e.g. jackets).

However it’s another matter altogether to suggest that cyclists who don't dress up like Xmas trees (including on lit streets or in daylight) have only themselves to blame (or even partially to blame) if they get hit. The last thing we should be doing is giving drivers, the legal system or motor insurance companies any excuse for yet more of this kind of atrocious victim-blaming - see http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/node/515.

* * *

While I'm on the subject, let me also share a story I remember seeing years ago on the letters pages of the London Cycling Campaign’s magazine. It was from an LCC member who also rode a motorbike. He described a one-person informal experiment he had conducted, which he felt was equally applicable to cycling.

To test out what difference it made if he was brightly clad / reflective etc etc, he firstly spent a month riding on normal dark-ish clothes, and observed how often other road users infringed his right of way. I don’t remember the number, but let’s say it was 1.9 times per day, for the sake of argument (it was something like that).

He then spent a second month riding in the brightest, most reflective kit he could muster. It made no difference – 1.9 infringements per day.

So he spent a third month riding in clothing which came as close as he could get away with to looking like a police motorcyclist. The number of infringements nose-dived – say, 0.2 per day.

See what I mean about the difference between “being seen” but “being noticed”?

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC

It seems to me that the basic concept of : Are cyclists stupid or what, is in question here.
Do they understand the difference between Hi-Vis in daylight and Reflective in poor light conditions?
If they don't well then they need educating in the most simplistic terms.
There are some Hi-Vis Greens and Yellows that are far more visible at night than others.
A simply resolve to both would be a Hi-Vis jacket with Reflective Edges and a Lightweight Reflective Gillet over the top when light levels begin to diminish.
There will come a time and not so very far away that Flash Harry Lawyers/Barristers will be claiming that the injured or dead cyclists were not Pro-active enough in the preservation of their own well-being/life,they will then be deemed as instrumental in their own injuries or death and be left looking the prats that they doubtless are or were;if dead.

Why do cyclists need to be recognised as cyclists per se? What's wrong with being mistaken for a motorcyclist or being acknowledged as a vehicle on the road in the generic sense? That's one reason I wear black from head to toe and very bright lights .

We should be as pro active in our own self preservation as any other vehicle on the road. The day painting a car bright yellow makes a sods worth of difference is the day I'll think twice about using excessive hi viz and or reflectives.

What about bike manufacturers painting the frame with reflective paint. I think it would also look cool.