If you feel like some drivers will pass too close no matter that you wear and that you’re being given less space on the road than you used to, a new study says you’re right, and indicates very strongly that you’re not safer if you wear high-vis in the daytime.
Researchers from the University of Bath and Brunel University found that no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2% of drivers will pass dangerously close when overtaking. They also found that compared to Transport Research Laboratory findings in 1979, drivers today on average pass 61cm (2ft) closer to cyclists – 118cm compared to 179cm.
The researchers conclude that there is little a rider can do, by altering their outfit or donning a high-visibility jacket, to prevent the most dangerous overtakes from happening. Instead, they suggest, if we want to make cyclists safer, it is our roads, or driver behaviour, that need to change.
The research was conducted by Dr Ian Garrard from Brunel University and the project led by Dr Ian Walker from Bath University. Ian Walker is famous as the sometime wig-wearer who discovered in 2006 that cyclists are afforded more space by drivers if they appear to be female or are not wearing a helmet.
In this study, the two Dr Ians were trying to find out if drivers gave cyclists more room depending how skilled and experienced they looked. They expected that drivers would give more space to a rider who seemed inexperienced and less space to a rider who looked highly skilled.

The range of outfits worn during the research
Dr Garrard used an ultrasonic distance sensor to record how close each vehicle passed during his daily commute in Berkshire and outer London. Each day, he chose one of seven outfits at random, ranging from tight lycra racing cyclist clothes (signalling high experience) to a hi-viz vest with “novice cyclist” printed on the back (signalling low experience).
He sometimes also wore a vest that said he was video-recording his journey, or a vest modelled on a police jacket but with “POLITE” printed on the back. He rode the same bike, in the same way, every day and over several months collected data from 5690 passing vehicles.
The vest that mentioned video recording persuaded drivers to pass a little wider on average, tallying with anecdotes from helmet-cam users that drivers behave better when they know they are being recorded. However, there was no difference between the outfits in the most dangerous overtakes, where motorists passed within 50 cm of the rider. Whatever was worn, around 1-2% of motorists overtook within this extremely close zone.
Dr Ian Walker said: “Many people have theories to say that cyclists can make themselves safer if they wear this or that. Our study suggests that, no matter what you wear, it will do nothing to prevent a small minority of people from getting dangerously close when they overtake you.
“This means the solution to stopping cyclists being hurt by overtaking vehicles has to lie outside the cyclist. We can’t make cycling safer by telling cyclists what they should wear. Rather, we should be creating safer spaces for cycling – perhaps by building high-quality separate cycle paths, by encouraging gentler roads with less stop-start traffic, or by making drivers more aware of how it feels to cycle on our roads and the consequences of impatient overtaking.”
The researchers point out that while they found that wearing high-visibility clothing made no difference to the space left by overtaking drivers, they did not try to find out if it made cyclists more visible at junctions or at night.
However, they note that there is surprisingly little evidence that high-visibility clothing for cyclists and motorcyclists offers any safety benefits in daytime. This would further support the idea that there is no easy fix for riders’ safety from asking them to wear bright clothing.
The reduction in average passing distance between 1979 and today “could be a result of greater traffic volumes since the 1970s,” say the researchers, “or reduced levels of bicycling which mean that the average motorist is less likely to have experience of bicycling themselves, and so is less understanding of a bicyclist’s needs.”
It occurs to us that it could also be linked to the increased width of modern cars. A 1979 Ford Escort Mk II was 1570mm wide (5ft 2in) while the modern equivalent Ford Focus is 1823mm wide (5ft 11 1/2in). However, Ian Walker points out that there was no difference in passing distance between wide four-wheel drive vehicles and standard cars in his 2007 study.
The paper – The influence of a bicycle commuter’s appearance on drivers’ overtaking proximities: An on-road test of bicyclist stereotypes, high-visibility clothing and safety aids in the United Kingdom – will be published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention.






















105 thoughts on “High vis clothing doesn’t make cars pass you more safely, says new study”
What’s with the floating
What’s with the floating head?
j1mmy76 wrote:What’s with the
Klingon cloaking device.
The most interesting thing I
The most interesting thing I found in the study was for <100cm passes between the Police and Polite vests.
24% for Police and 43% for Polite.
That is a difference of one letter.
1-2%…try cycling in rural
1-2%…try cycling in rural Ireland you can increase that figure tenfold and you’d still only be half right….SMIDSY…more like…
YISYBICGAFYAC…..Yes I See You But I Couldn’t Give A F@ck You’re A Cyclist
I have a lot of respect for
I have a lot of respect for Dr Ian Walker, but we must be clear about what this study concludes. It is a record of passing distances when overtaking, and does not in any way dismiss the value of wearing hi-viz in helping to make cyclists more visible in certain situations, such as when squeezing up the inside of an hgv, for instance.
Road.cc journalist Sarah Barth, in a recent article, described the enhancement to visibilty (of a rider wearing hi-viz) when viewed through the mirror of an hgv, as “astonishing”.
But we come back to the point
But we come back to the point here that squeezing up the inside of an HGV is not the brightest idea in the firmament, and if wearing hi-viz encourages that particular flavour of numptiness then it’s not actually helping.
c.f. “risk compensation”
Neil753 wrote:… in helping
Classic!
I do hope you’ll be wearing your precious helmet when you’re “squeezing up the inside of an HGV” though. That way you’ll be nice and safe.
Joeinpoole wrote:Neil753
Ah, Joe…..
As an hgv driver I know that keeping well away from lorries, when I’m on my bike, is the best policy. But when I’m driving my artic, and coping with the multitude of cyclists who do indeed “squeeze up the inside”, quite often in dark clothing, I would prefer it if they at least wore hi-viz whilst attempting such a foolish stunt.
Incidentally, Joe, I don’t actually wear a helmet in traffic because, like many other cyclists, I believe that cycling is an inherently safe thing to do. Although I would always wear a helmet off-road, I feel that motorist’s perception of me as a helmetless cyclist means that they give me slightly more room when they pass, more than compensating for the increased risk of injury if I fall.
^^^ Fair enough! I thought I
^^^ Fair enough! I thought I remembered you as one of the helmet-wearing zealots. Must have been someone else.
Joeinpoole wrote:^^^ Fair
No probs mate.
Neil753 wrote:…. and does
So that’s OK then. If you’re wearing hi-viz it’s safe to squeeze up the inside of an hgv as you’re more visible.
I think NOT!
If there is little or no value in wearing hi-viz in the most dangerous situation for cyclists, being passed by 1500kg of metal, glass and plastic, then there is even less value in any other situation.
jova54 wrote:If there is
That does not seem to be the most dangerous situation. Most deaths have been at junction, at very low speed overall. The poor chap in Bristol is of course an exception. But being overtaken seems to be safe-ish, but frightening at times, in city traffic.
jova54 wrote:Neil753
If you’re going to be a total tit by going up the inside of any long vehicle then hi viz will help the likes of Neil though most on this forum are quite happy to stay behind these particular modes of transport.
The last 3 days I’ve noticed
The last 3 days I’ve noticed the same car passing me on roughly the same spot and getting from close to uncomfortably close. Got half the car reg so far….they’d better watch out.
What can be useful is an ‘innocent narrow wiggle’ if you can hear a vehicle approaching from behind, kinda makes the think a bit! :O
“High vis clothing doesn’t
What a weird piece of research. Does anyone seriously wear Hi-Vis because they think they will be overtaken with more courtesy?
Why not, get guinea pigs to take a drive in a simulator. Don’t tell them the real purpose of the research so that they are not especially on the look out for anything. Project footage of cyclists riding in a variety of traffic and weather conditions onto the screen and into the rear view and side mirrors. Use eye tracking hardware/software to detect how quickly drivers notice them. See if there is a significant difference in response times dependant on the clothing the cyclist is wearing. Make sure you include colour blind drivers as well.
That might answer a real question.
Idiot in a Vauxhall shot past
Idiot in a Vauxhall shot past me this evening with a bout 30cm to spare. I noted the car had a baby onboard sticker int he window, so asking others to look out for the vehicle and be careful, but not giving a stuff about anyone else in other words. I caught it up at the next set of lights of course, and considered giving the driver a few suggestions on safe driving techniques, but then couldn’t be arsed.
OldRidgeback wrote:Idiot in a
I’ve noticed this before as well, quite a number of times…
This is why I consider a
This is why I consider a really good mirror (e.g. the Mirrycle) to be more valuable than a helmet or hi-vis clothing. You can check all the overtaking vehicles without losing concentration on what’s happening in front of you. Looking over your shoulder is a poor substitute.
I have Mirrycle mirrors on
I have Mirrycle mirrors on all my bikes. A good mirror is probably the most underrated piece of safety equipment you can have on your bike for daytime riding. I ride quite often on a short section of the Trans Canada Highway here in Sault Ste Marie when riding to the east. Although the speed limit is 70 kph motor vehicle speeds are typically 80 – 90 kph. Shoulder checking simply does not allow me to see far enough behind prior to moving over to make a left turn (which is like making a right turn in the U.K.).
I have Mirrycle mirrors on
I have Mirrycle mirrors on all my bikes. A good mirror is probably the most underrated piece of safety equipment you can have on your bike for daytime riding. I ride quite often on a short section of the Trans Canada Highway here in Sault Ste Marie when riding to the east. Although the speed limit is 70 kph motor vehicle speeds are typically 80 – 90 kph. Shoulder checking simply does not allow me to see far enough behind prior to moving over to make a left turn (which is like making a right turn in the U.K.).
Saeco, sweet. Classic kit,
Saeco, sweet. Classic kit, 2002 I think. I love Red Thursdays.
bikeboy76 wrote:Saeco, sweet.
Bike boy you need to get out more often 😉
This Tweet backs up the
This Tweet backs up the study’s finding to a degree: https://twitter.com/niroads/status/405322909649891328/photo/1
If professional drivers can’t see a bridge what hope has a humble cyclist got ?
The study is pointless
The study is pointless bollax. I don’t wear hi-vis because I think I’ll get passed safely, I wear it so that the drivers who don’t think to look for cyclists will see me, so hopefully avoiding smidsy’s. I don’t know anyone who wears hi-vis for any other reason than to be seen.
Mate of mine is a research scientist for a major drug company, he was telling me last week about how much pointless study is done because some idiot is willing to give phd’s funding. You don’t need hours of study or thousands of pounds of funding to work out that you can see a cyclist rom further away if he’s wearing hi-vis.
A close pass by a driver who
A close pass by a driver who has seen you won’t harm you. Being taken out from behind by a driver who hasn’t seen you probably will.
Wearing high visibility clothing might just make the difference between being seen or not, by an inattentive driver.
The authors assertion that this study is ‘a very strong indication that you’re not safer wearing high vis in the daytime’ is completely erroneous and misleading.
I’m not sure what the agenda is here from road cc, but I suspect it’s a reaction to recent calls for helmets, headphones, high vis etc for cyclists, which may be deemed as ‘victim blaming’ by some here in the context of recent deaths. This attitude is not helpful to our cause.
I’m not against anyone wearing dull clothes, headphones or going bare-headed when they ride, but publishing these articles with a misleading spin to them is not responsible or helpful.
Road cc can be a great source of entertainment and information but please be aware of the bias, spin and agenda pursued by certain authors on here when you come to read ‘news’ articles like these.
700c wrote:A close pass by a
That’s not true. What if you hit (or had to swerve around) a pothole? What if you hit a patch of oil? What if there was a sudden gust of crosswind?
The point of overtaking widely is so that if the cyclist unexpectedly swerves or falls of, the overtaking vehicle still won’t hit them.
benb wrote:700c wrote:A close
You’ve quoted me out of context but ok, I completely understand how a close pass could be dangerous, -this is poor driving, and they’ll do that whatever you wear, as per the study
– but the point is AT LEAST THEY’VE SEEN YOU. Wearing high visibility may just make the difference in this regard, so saying high vis has no benefit for rider safety is totally misleading.
This is what I replied to the
This is what I replied to the Road.cc Face Book thread on hi-viz:
“Mmmm…as can be seen from my profile shot, I do wear hi-viz whenever I cycle and while I agree that all cyclists “should” wear some form of hi-viz while cycling, I can really see this going pear shaped far too quickly…!!
Can you imagine the DfT regulations for this:-
1) how much (as a percentage) of a cyclist must have hi-viz clothing worn, when cycling…and should there be a difference for day time / night time riding??
2) should there be a British/ European Standard applied to hi-viz cycling clothing, as in to just “how visible” it is and at what distances it can be differentiated from??
3) if you’re not wearing such suitable clothing and you are involved in an accident, how much of the blame should the cyclist share??
3) knowing the DfT how often would this be reviewed to reflect (pardon the pun!?) changes in technology etc??
And I could go on ad nauseam…but personally any cyclist that doesn’t wear a at least one item of clothing that is either hi-viz or reflective while cycling on the roads of the UK is being a bit silly…especially in low light or poor weather conditions.
Never the less, even though I am lit up like a Belisha beacon (especially at night), wearing all sorts of hi-viz and >1,000 lumens of front lights and >200lumens of rear lights…motorists either still fail to see me, cannot judge my speed/distance away from them or simply don’t give a tinkers cuss is still rather surprising!!
Though admittedly with my motorist’s cap on (and not a lid)…often that little bit of hi-viz, reflectives etc that is worn by a cyclist does give me that much more time to calculate what can be done (safely), check the road ahead, slow down, accelerate to overtake (if safe to do so) etc…etc BUT at 30mph this can give me about 15yds a second to make up my mind…so therefore the greater time and distance a motorist has to see a cyclist makes that decision making process a darned sight safer!!
Seriously do the maths…if you can give a motorist 5 or even 10 seconds extra to decide what to do when approaching a cyclist – that is a significant distance, even at 30mph!!
As to lids…well I’ve commented enough on that one over the years, I think that they should be worn but they are NOT the cycling safety panacea that too many people believe them to be!”
Personally I do believe that wearing hi-viz and reflectives to be more important than wearing a lid as a safety precaution even with the results of this research…though this could be because I am have always cycled even though I passed my driving test in the 80’s – and now cycle at least twice the mileage I drive!
Furry Mommy wrote: …but
Go ride your bike in Holland or Denmark, the safest countries for cycling on earth by a country-mile, whilst wearing *your* precious helmet and *your* mandatory hi-viz … and then reflect on how silly you will look amongst the charming Dutch/Danish girls riding their bikes in floral-print dresses with their beautiful blonde locks flowing in the breeze. You will undoubtedly look like the plonker you sound.
Furry Mommy wrote:And I could
There’s little evidence for hi-vis and I’ve red reflective tape on much of the back of my bike, as well as the standard reflector and light. I feel that’s much better because it’s always there and doesn’t depend on whether I was expecting to ride when I picked up my coat.
Also, all reflective clothing I’ve seen shows WHITE to the REAR which is just confusing and wrong. White should be for the front, not the back.
It depends where those 1000 and 200 lumens are being directed, but it sounds like they might be dazzled! Also, is that back light a hard-to-estimate point source or an easier-to-judge bar like a Toplight Line or Lumiring?
Seems to me that people
Seems to me that people always have put too much faith in hi-vis. Research around motorcycles finds that it isn’t really very useful.
I wear bright but contrasting colours, a bright yellow helmet with reflectives on it, I have awesome lights including some on my helmet, I always (yes always – just like when I’m driving) stop at red lights and I ride in good visible positions, make my intentions clear etc. BUT still they don’t see.
I think I have the solution to being seen.
I need to wear black trousers, a black hoody, headphones, no lights, no helmet and ride on pavements except when jumping red lights; then miraculously, all of the drivers will see me, and even write to their papers about me and ALL the other cyclists!
😉
What can you do when you’re
What can you do when you’re togged up in broad daylight with your hi viz sharp yellow jacket clearly visible and some fat old tart in a people carrier passes you within a loaf of bread’s touching distance going uphill with a clear lane in front and 300m of clear visibility coming down the other away?
You gesture pointedly to the other unoccupied free lane and she stops in the road angling her vehicle so you can’t get past inside or out without exposing yourself to imminent danger (it’s very a fast hill coming down!) so that she can harangue you in front of her aged old mother and tell you that you were in the “middle of her lane” and “you cyclists are supposed to ride next to the kerb.” Sure thing, cos that’s where the potholes are, along with the detritus and debris of motoring and all the winter shale that so easily pierces your tyres. 600mm from the kerb is fine by Nicola Cooke and damn it – she should know!
All I said was: “Couldn’t you see me? Just give me a bit more room!” It finished with me wishing that: “I sincerely hope your children are better behaved than you are.”
But of course it fell on stoney ground. After all, she has the killer vehicle and by (her) definition has the absolute right of the road.
You can’t argue safely with a woman (or man) who displays a serious lack of concern, or consideration and has the blaze of “I’ll do you damage” in their eyes – whether you’re in hi viz gear, or not!! You just shut up and cycle on, hoping she doesn’t hurt anyone and, at some point, gets her comeuppance. But they never do, do they?
Just anecdotally, I’ve
Just anecdotally, I’ve noticed the opposite. It seems to me that motorists give me more space when either I have lights on during the day or I’m wearing some form of high-viz clothing but maybe it’s the cute wobble I also do!
Incidentally much of my cycling is done on back country roads and I’m amazed at the number of motorists who overtake on blind bends etc and then rather than terminate the manoeuvre when they see a car coming the other way, feel that’s it OK to squeeze the poor cyclist into a ditch. There definitely needs to be an education campaign.
On my commute I have found
On my commute I have found that my closest calls with cars come at junctions, particularly roundabouts, mostly SMIDSY’s.
The one thing I have found, like Ridgeback rambler, that has made a difference is leaving my lights on day and night.
Perhaps the Dr’s Ian can look into that for their next paper
Saying that there’s little
Saying that there’s little cyclists can do to avoid collision is simply untrue.
The solution is simple: just ride in the middle of your lane.
Whenever there’s traffic on the adjacent lane, overtaking you is physically impossible if you ride in the middle of your lane. On the other hand, if you leave any space, 1-2% of drivers will try to overtake you anyway, knowingly jeopardizing your safety.
When the adjacent lane is empty, still keep to the middle of your lane. The cars behind you will have to drive wide to overtake you anyway so the chance they won’t pass you leaving safe distance is smaller – and even if they do, you still have a lot of space for yourself and you can increase the distance in a split second.
But never, under any circumstances, be a jerk. No matter how heavy traffic is, let people overtake you once they slow down behind you and clearly let the driver behind you know they can pass you.
More on this topic: http://www.kochamrowery.pl/2013/08/bezpieczenstwo-kierowcy-jazda-srodkiem-pasa.html (written in Polish, feel free to translate it).
Works every time in my case.
Ian Walker has also tested
Ian Walker has also tested that theory and shown that drivers pass closer to people cycling in the middle of the traffic lane than those cycling at the edge.
While taking the lane can reduce the number of left hooks (or right hooks for those on the European mainland is places without decent infrastructure), it does increase the risk of side swipe and punishment passes, so overall is no safer.
To really make the road safe requires better infrastructure, better legal protection and strict enforcement.
What about a BLUE flashing
What about a BLUE flashing light ? in the sea of red light and Hi Vis yellow nothing makes the spinkter twitch like a blue light !
Just an idea I had while driving up the M6 last week. I’m not sure how legal it would be but I think a blue flashing light would stand out, and generally signals DANGER . . . POLICE . . . Risk of points on your licence !
What does anyone else think? 😕
.
banzicyclist2 wrote:What
Not legal, unless you’re an emergency vehicle – Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 – also pretty obvious.
I’ve often wondered about using the green flashing “doctor on call” light. Has no authority to make people give way etc, but just might make them think.
One more thing: the person
One more thing: the person who designed this experiment is also the one that executed it and collected data (or at least this is how I understand it). Therefore it’s not a “blind” experiment, which is a major flaw.
For example, we have no guarantee that the author didn’t (intentionally or not) ride the bicycle less safely while in a hi-viz kit, which could lead to false results.
It’s not the first time, by the way, that these authors make this mistake.
‘However, they note that
‘However, they note that there is surprisingly little evidence that high-visibility clothing for cyclists and motorcyclists offers any safety benefits in daytime’
Pope in ‘being catholic’ shocker, ursines defecate in tree-rich areas.
“It’s not the first time, by
“It’s not the first time, by the way, that these authors make this mistake.”
“…this study is … completely erroneous and misleading.”
“..please be aware of the bias, spin and agenda…”
“The study is pointless bollax.”
“What a weird piece of research.”
etc, etc.
Dear moaners and whiners,
Rather than sit on your backsides and complain, how about (a) acknowledging that the researchers are trying to make themselves useful, (b) making a constructive, positive suggestion about how the research, article, coverage could be improved and then (c) actually *do* something to make it happen.
Otherwise, please just STFU.
flobble wrote:”It’s not the
What ? You’re a “moaner and whiner” if you disagree with the usefulness and validity of the study ? I conduct my own “study” every time I ride, if some mug would like to give me some funding I’ll base a phd around my riding experiences and publish y own study, which I’ll be happy to take comment and criticism on.
I’m not sure which part of the world you’re from but here in the UK if someone puts up an opinion you’re entitled to comment on it and get this, even challenge it
colinth wrote:
What ? You’re
My personal philosophy: I respect people who actually *do* things in an attempt to make the world a better place (even if they get it wrong). I have little time for those who criticise (even if they’re right), but fail to act to improve things. My concern is not the commenting or challenging (i.e. the easy part), it’s the difficult bit thereafter that’s missing.
Time now to stop wittering on the internet, and go and do something productive…
flobble wrote:colinth
My personal philosophy: I respect people who actually *do* things in an attempt to make the world a better place (even if they get it wrong). I have little time for those who criticise (even if they’re right), but fail to act to improve things. My concern is not the commenting or challenging (i.e. the easy part), it’s the difficult bit thereafter that’s missing.
Time now to stop wittering on the internet, and go and do something productive…— colinth
So you respect people who “do” things even if they’re wrong, have no time for critics, even if they’re right, and make assumptions that those who criticise are doing nothing positive other than post on this forum. Nice to see you’ve thought things through clearly.
I’m off to conduct a study to prove that people driving badly is the result of latent tension created by the summer hose pipe ban in the home counties, which was a result of immigrants using “our” water. It’ll be published in the Daily Mail soon. I look forward to your full support
flobble wrote:”It’s not the
Thanks for your input. I think you are missing the point, however, that the study is not ‘erroneous and misleading’, but the conclusions drawn by the author of this article are.
I read the “wig” study so I
I read the “wig” study so I won’t bother with this one. While the authors do provide some useful information, the conclusions drawn are ridiculous, IMO. IIRC, their work betrays a certain anti-helmet/safety bias (probably, as suggested, a way to get grant money).
I prefer to have overtaking vehicles leave my entire lane free, but that doesn’t mean one giving half as much space is more dangerous.
And, as pointed out by other commenters, the purpose of hi-viz (should you choose) is to be seen. I would expect “good” drivers to give adequate space regardless of what I wear (providing they have seen me!) and bad drivers? The ones on the mobile eating soup? Good luck.
I use high viz sometimes, but most often on autumn rides where parts of the road will be in bright sun (drivers eyes will be adjusted) with patches of deep shade (where a “low-viz” cyclist will disappear).
I suspect a lot of unsafe cyclists are non-drivers or poor drivers, and just don’t have the experience of being surprised by other vehicles when we didn’t expect or see them. Such as the idiots who drive out of a setting sun (sun behind them) without their headlamps on. They can see just fine, but the cars coming toward them are blinded by the sun. This happens twice a day in clear weather – much of it commuting time. That’s one reason why many countries went to Daytime Running Lights (now on all new cars in the EU) despite the usual (much of it British) grumbling “We don’t need that safety crap here”.
CanAmSteve wrote:I read the
Except that the note in the paper says “The authors … received no specific funding for this project” so can anyone explain how it helps get grant money? They could probably publish any results and have about the same effect on their research ratings.
a.jumper wrote:Except that
It’s quite simple actually. As long as you provide unexpected results, you’re more attractive as a researcher because you provide “new information” and “a new approach to the problem”. It’s easy to notice once you spend some time in any research lab.
Not that I’m blaming the authors, I’m just answering your question!
Maybe people should show the
Maybe people should show the stop and advice police on the capitol’s streets this paper so they can stop totting out you should wear hi-viz.
Their actual advice should be, you should wear a wig and no helmet…
Headline seams to be true,
Headline seams to be true, from my experience. Though one benefit from High-Vis clothing is that in case of accident driver can not use the excuse: “I could not see him!”.
I would like to see a similar study done on overtaking speed. My theory is that High-Vis clothing alerts drivers much earlier that there is cyclist or a road-worker on the road thus giving more time to safely slow down. There are drivers who will always pass cyclists dangerously close, but they would do that at lower speed.
In my experience, you are given more space by overtaking cars if you ride like novice cyclist and appear to be “wobbly”. We always put a wobbly guy at the back of the group 8}
I wear Hi-Viz clothing so ALL
I wear Hi-Viz clothing so ALL road users have the opportunity to see me earlier than they would have if I had been wearing black kit and rideing a black bike. This (hopefully) gives the vehicle operator a longer period of time to decide what avoiding action to take. I don’t wear high viz so another driver will think that he has to pass me at a greater distance than he would otherwise, and if I see a cyclist wearing hi-viz when I’m in my car, I don’t think “I must pass him leaving more room than I normally would”. There will always be a very small percentage of drivers will always pass cyclists/horses/any other slow road user too close. Its the ones who don’t see you at all that will kill you
FlatBattery wrote:I wear
+ 1
I actually think the study’s
I actually think the study’s quite interesting (flaws not withstanding), it’s the erroneous conclusion drawn about safety that worry me, both in the piece and the headline which links from the main page.
Before we start putting off people from wearing clothing that might make them easier to be seen by drivers of lethal motor vehicles, can Road CC please update the article?
This study presents no evidence that wearing high visibility clothing ‘does not make you safer’, since safety is about many things including visibility, and is more than just driver behaviour when they overtake. X(
Quote:Dear moaners and
Thing is though, as others have pointed out, this is not a scientifically sound study for any number of reasons – the authors were the ones doing the experiments, collating and interpreting the data therefore it’s open to all kinds of bias; there may well be other variables not listed (weather, traffic density, time of year, light levels) and it was done on one route in one location. Hardly what you’d call conclusive either one way or the other. Useful possibly on where to go from here in terms of designing a proper scientific study but other than that, it’s main purpose seems to be to clog up internet message boards with stuff that once again detracts from the main debate.
It’s been well covered – 6 cyclists in London have lost their lives in the space of a fortnight (almost all due to buses/trucks) yet Boris and co have managed to get a debate going about helmets, hi-vis and headphones. Police are out having a “crackdown” on pavement cycling and RLJing. A report comes out about hi-vis maybe not being the cure-all that it’s made out to be.
NONE of that is the point – shit infrastructure and shit driving (and riding) standards is the point coupled with a total lack of political will to do anything. All the rest just serves as overwhelming white noise designed to get politicians off the hook in terms of actually doing anything and give the media another excuse to bash cyclists and engage in some good old victim blaming. It’s worked perfectly.
Pretty much what Ive always
Pretty much what Ive always thought. The majority of drivers are fine with cyclists, but its a small percentage of morons who cause the trouble. Likewise there are a similar number of morons on bikes who get us all a bad name
In terms of drivers we need to make insurance too expensive for them to encourage them off the road. This is why I support car monitoring devices from insurers as they would give a measurable estimate of the associated risk for drivers. Why should law abiding drivers pay for these morons?
I have evidence that it’s a
I have evidence that it’s a driver choice over how close they pass, be it conscious or unconscious, and I spoke to Ian about this.
I heard him speak about the research a couple of weeks after being given the ‘POLITE’ version of the hi-viz in the graphic. For a couple of weeks I felt like I was given loads of space, to the extent that some passing drivers were crossing the centre line of the road even though I was in a cycle lane. Then the effect diminished. My theory is that as I commute the same route every day that drivers learned that I wasn’t a copper, so it was OK to return to their normal behaviour, or possibly even throw in a little ‘You’re a dick’ punishment if they thought I was trying to mislead them!
Although Ian said they had varied the time of the commute in their research it is still a long enough distance that many of the passing motorists will have seen him every day and gone through the same acclimatisation process as I think I experienced.
Bottom line? Drivers do see cyclists, but their perception of the amount of space needed varies and is mostly inadequate.
And as a follow up: Part of
And as a follow up: Part of the reason I wear hi-viz is so if I do end up on the tarmac as a result of a motorist’s actions I can see the look on their face as they tell a copper wearing very similar hi-viz that they didn’t see me!
I didn’t even need a review
I didn’t even need a review or study – some time ago I bought a ex police cyclist hi viz rain jacket which is the obligatory bright yellow and, apart from the insignia’s and badges, when I am wearing it I have often had it commented on that I look like a police officer and if it just had POLICE in a blue rectangle on my back then the illusion would be complete.
It is a shame it is Hi Viz yellow, because it is a damned fine jacket and it performs even better than certain other very costly branded jackets that I have owned and used for rainy weather, one of which began falling apart in less than a month. The fact that it cost me less than £20 off eBay makes it seem even more of a bargain and I even look forward to rain because I know it will keep me dry.
BUT – I am under no illusion and I am not constantly amazed by the number of drivers who come so close to tipping me off my bike that it as if they did not care – like the bloke driving the Arriva No 37 bus between Sandbach and Middlewich this morning who very obviously deliberately tried to use his vehicle as a weapon and force me off the road, despite the fact that just a few yards and few seconds further along the road widens and he could have overtaken me with bags of space to spare. You can wear as much high viz as you like… you could even look like you could be a police officer… non of that will make a blind bit of difference.
it’s entirely true. a close
it’s entirely true. a close pass won’t harm you. A collision, on the other hand, may well harm you.
Thought i would just throw
Thought i would just throw into the mix the French.
Not sure where they are at the moment, but there are very strong suggestions if not law that you have to wear Hi Viz, seem to remember reading the PBP riders had to wear compliant Hi-Viz. (EN?????)
mrmo wrote:Thought i would
Suitable hi-viz is mandatory during the hours of darkness in France. EN1150, I think.
As a cyclist, when I am in
As a cyclist, when I am in the car, I am naturally more aware of cyclists on the road.
Even with that awareness, over the last few weeks i’ve ended up getting closer behind than i’d like (not dangerously so) to idiots dressed all in black, riding with no lights after dark. If they had something high-vis on, i’d have had far more chance of seeing them much earlier than I did (obviously them having lights would be even better).
Of course some drivers will pass too close regardless of what someone is wearing. This is because there are a lot of ar*eholes on the road who think they’ve got more right to be there than the cyclist. That is vastly different from helping make yourself more visible to drivers in order to lessen the chance of you simply not being seen.
Quote:Thanks for your input.
More pertinent to the conclusions reached is the way that it gets reported.
Media today can’t cope with an in-depth article (and readers can’t cope with it either!). So a short snappy headline to draw people in and then a very basic precis of the “facts” means everything gets distorted and twisted to fit
a) the space available and
b) the spin that the reporter wants to put on it
Couple a slightly dodgy conclusion (drawn as we’ve already discussed in a potentially erroneous and misleading way) with an audience that probably won’t be bothered to do anything involving the effort of actually reading the original report and you’ve got the potential there for pretty much anything to be said/taken/understood!
I think a ‘few’ people don’t
I think a ‘few’ people don’t seem to have grasped the gist of the study. It is moreseo a study of perception rather than hi viz versus not wearing hi viz – which seems to be the main debate ranging over multipe replies/posts….
The study of drivers’ perception and observation is the real crux (from my viewpoint)…
…If you perceive the road user to be a ‘cyclist’ rather than a ‘bike user’…so to speak,was one node of the experiment…
One hypothesis is – If the ‘cyclist’ is wearing ‘all the right cycling gear’ – minimal/no hi viz then the driver will ‘assume’ that the rider ‘should’ have better control and not likely to wobble all over the road…and therefore the driver most likely feels there is adequate space whilst overtaking in close proximity to the ‘obstacle’ in his path – ie he is comfortable that the cyclist can cope with this close proximity.
Whilst wearing the hi viz gear- with different logo/slogans emblazoned on them – the test was to see with what difference- if any – the drivers would treat the obstacle.
Would a Novice Rider be given a wider berth, would a ‘POLICE/POLITE/I’m recording you’ slogan alter the drivers behaviour. Seemingly this made no difference. It wasn’t a test to see if the driver could ‘see’ the cyclist.
Where the study falls down is in the repeatability of the experiment. The sample of motorists would not be the same, also differing volumes of traffic would/could skew the results. Time of the day etc are all mitigating factors- not apparent from road.cc’s commentary. Perhaps a link to the paper (*edit* at the bottom of the article – must get my eyes tested ***- would be better- allowing the whole study to be taken in it’s intended context…and not a singular interpretation (ie no bias- not that there was any inferred in the reporting).
Likewise, many comments from road.cc members/posters are also anecdotal – as everyone has their own experiences (and opinions) of ‘close calls’ whether it be during night/day whilst wearing all black/pink fairy lights or lit up like a lighthouse, etc…
I have too…no matter what I’ve been wearing, time of day, width of road or vehicle for that matter. I’ve no idea what has been going on in the drivers’ lives/minds when these incidents have taken place. And neither does the study – how can it? It’s not like he tracked down all the drivers and asked them to fill in a survey…!!!
I’m sure if you asked ‘any driver’ if he had given enough room to a cyclist he would immediately say yes, but if evidence to the contrary were given, perhaps on reflection the driver would reconsider and “heaven forbid” be more considerate in future.
Again this is down to perception – does ‘any driver’ believe themselves to be superior to the cyclist, does he have any concern/remorse that his actions have endangered another life…or did he simply not even consider that is what has happened??
After all – how many drivers know the actual width of their vehicle or the roads that they travel on
No amount of logo/slogan or hi viz clothing is going to alter that…
…so this study is more surrounding the attitude of vehicle users than the merits of wearing clothing that alerts them to the presence of another more vulnerable road user.
That’s my tuppence worth of (anecdotal) meandering…(no diatribe intended) <:P
As a cyclist and
As a cyclist and motorcyclist, my experience shows that if the driver of a car isn’t paying attention (ie: talking on phone, texting, playing with the satnav, in-car entertainment, talking to someone in the car, trying to manage kids, or even eating cereal) then all the hi-vis, lights, horns and body armour in the world won’t save you.
I’ve been “run over” on my bicycle (with lights on and blazing) in a round-a-bout by someone who simply wasn’t paying attention to what was going on. The only thing that stopped them from advancing further with their car was the fact that I was able to come to a stop with only half the bike under the car and jump off the bike at the same time, only my screaming at the driver while this was happening got them to stop. Result: bent wheel and loose headset.
Instead of heaping the onerous solely on the bicycle users to make themselves visible or protect themselves (high vis, lit up like a christmas tree, helmets and other body armour) it’s time to educate drivers and bicycle riders about how to behave. An intensive sensitisation programme that teaches respect from a young age will take time to filter through (a generation of so I would imagine), but it’s the only way imo.
Should have tried a hi-viz
Should have tried a hi-viz with ‘Please don’t kill me’ on the back…wonder what response that would have.
Just a wild stab in the dark
Just a wild stab in the dark but might it have something to do with the average road width staying the same but car width is ever increasing. I’m not saying its the only cause but its got to be a big factor. I would like to see stats on what cars are involved in incidents with bikes, would there be a trend or would it get mixed in with all the other causes, ie young inexperienced drivers in smaller cars.
I think we’re also getting
I think we’re also getting confused between high-vis and reflectives.
High-vis does nothing at nighttime, unlike clothing with reflective elements.
I seem to remember that the
I seem to remember that the Highway Code used to advise drivers to give a wider berth to cyclists – was it six feet? And now it just says “plenty of room”. Is this a coincidence?
It does say ‘Give Plenty of
It does say ‘Give Plenty of Room (https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225/motorcyclists-and-cyclists-211-to-213)’ but then clarifies this: it says ‘give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car ‘.
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169
Could the author repeat the
Could the author repeat the study but vary his typical distance from the kerb instead of clothing. I hypothesise the more room you take the fewer close passes you’ll receive. Unconsciously the brain of the driver assumes that if you only need a foot from the kerb they can pass leaving only a foot, take a yard and a half they give you three or hold back if the road is narrow or beep if they are impatient.
Maybe the point of this is
Maybe the point of this is that the 1-2% of drivers who pass too close can see you fine whatever you wear, but CHOOSE to pass too close.
How do you get these drivers to change their behaviour?
But the high vis still means
But the high vis still means the cars DO SEE YOU!!!! At least they are passing even if too close!! Better they pass you than HIT YOU!!!! You’d be a fool to think hi vis doesn’t help. These surveys are sometimes send the wrong message. Don’t get too drawn in by them. Use your own experience as a driver and cyclist to draw the sensible conclusion. You need to be seen and well in advance if possible.
saladfunky wrote:But the high
Rubbish. It makes little odds what you wear. Yesterday on the approach to a crossroads I moved further out into lane one to make the left turn. The bus behind pulled into lane two (ahead only) to then cut across me to make his left turn with about 5 meters to spare. Visibility was good and the approach to the crossroads was a straight road. This driver saw me and still pulled this stunt. As a driver I’m not only looking one car ahead. I’m looking 6 cars ahead in town. On duel carriageways and rural I’m looking a mile ahead. It takes 75 feet at 30 mph to think and react to a perceived hazard. The wearing of hi viz is a distraction to road safety. Most motorists whilst having no desire to hit a vulnerable road user drive like tools and I can guarantee that if you were beside them in their car they would miss out half the things going on around them if asked.
giff77 wrote:Rubbish. It
This is sometimes known as the Fallacy of the Lonely Fact.
So the driver, we suppose, would have done it even if you’d been wearing some HiViz clothing ? Is that what you mean ? In which case this is less about HiViz or not and more about the driver.
Also what, pray, does this have to do with whether HiViz is useful in getting noticed in the first place – or perhaps you think that is not relevant to safety ?
After that, your argument sort of staggers about a while – what, exactly, are you trying to say here in relation to HiViz ? Drivers “would miss out half the things going on around them if asked”, so HiViz could not have any effect on the number and type of things they notice …. really ?
fukawitribe wrote:giff77
This is sometimes known as the Fallacy of the Lonely Fact.
So the driver, we suppose, would have done it even if you’d been wearing some HiViz clothing ? Is that what you mean ? In which case this is less about HiViz or not and more about the driver.
Also what, pray, does this have to do with whether HiViz is useful in getting noticed in the first place – or perhaps you think that is not relevant to safety ?
After that, your argument sort of staggers about a while – what, exactly, are you trying to say here in relation to HiViz ? Drivers “would miss out half the things going on around them if asked”, so HiViz could not have any effect on the number and type of things they notice …. really ?— giff77
Yes, motorists are so caught up in their little cocoon that they are oblivious to what is happening at the roadside or on the road be it cyclists, horse riders, pedestrians or other vehicles. Personally I would like to see a proper eye test included in driving tests.
As for the bus driver, well he and his colleagues have very little regard for vulnerable road users should they wear hi viz or not.
giff77 wrote:
fukawitribe
I’m not asking whether the general populous of motor vehicle drivers have piss poor observation skills, i’m all too aware of that, i’m asking whether you honestly think that HiViz (during daylight, likewise reflectives at night) have absolutely no effect on whether you are noticed by people in the first place ? In particular, having worked for TNT in operations for a number of years and listened to HGV drivers over the years (interesting video link posted somewhere on here recently too) about the effectiveness of them – i’m inclined to believe they have their uses. You clearly can’t differentiate the argument between being visible or not, or seem to indicate that all motorists behave the same once you are. On the bike, or on motorbikes, i’ve always treated road users as idiots by default – that’s a survival mechanism.. but it does NOT mean that they’ll all actually blind or malicious bastards – nor does it have anything to do with visibility.
Me too – not just focus tests but decent contrast, motion, colour and peripheral vision tests.
Nice generalisation – well done. The driver was acting like a twat from what you said, so obviously everyone else doing the same job is one as well.. this discussion clearly needs more intelligent insight from people like you.
fukawitribe wrote:giff77
I’m not asking whether the general populous of motor vehicle drivers have piss poor observation skills, i’m all too aware of that, i’m asking whether you honestly think that HiViz (during daylight, likewise reflectives at night) have absolutely no effect on whether you are noticed by people in the first place ? In particular, having worked for TNT in operations for a number of years and listened to HGV drivers over the years (interesting video link posted somewhere on here recently too) about the effectiveness of them – i’m inclined to believe they have their uses. You clearly can’t differentiate the argument between being visible or not, or seem to indicate that all motorists behave the same once you are. On the bike, or on motorbikes, i’ve always treated road users as idiots by default – that’s a survival mechanism.. but it does NOT mean that they’ll all actually blind or malicious bastards – nor does it have anything to do with visibility.
Me too – not just focus tests but decent contrast, motion, colour and peripheral vision tests.
Nice generalisation – well done. The driver was acting like a twat from what you said, so obviously everyone else doing the same job is one as well.. this discussion clearly needs more intelligent insight from people like you.— fukawitribe
OK then, reflectors/reflective trim and lights at night. You are very much in an environment where you need to make your self noticed. This is a must.
Hi Viz during the day. Pointless. If a motorist cannot see a pedestrian/cyclist at 100 feet they shouldn’t be on the road. Like Northernbike I can see what’s in the road regardless of what they wear. I was taught to look not just 6 feet ahead but also up to a mile ahead depending on the road I’m on.
Maybe I’m being too subjective, but the region I live in drivers just do not pay any attention. Yet I go to my parents and it’s a different story all together. As for my friend the bus driver, that company has a poor track record in interaction with the vulnerable road user. Other bus companies in the region are actually pretty good.
fukawitribe wrote:
After
The evidence appears to be that drivers take whatever safety measures they are given and use them as a means of paying still less attention and driving still more carelessly. This is, it seems to me, just human nature, not something unique to drivers.
Therefore the net benefit of everyone wearing high-viz is likely to be negligible in terms of the safety of those outside the vehicle. And morally as far as I’m concerned its a step too far in putting the burden of safety on people other than the driver.
Now I think its possible that if the penalties for not paying attention were far, far higher for the driver, that _then_ high-viz might make a difference. If cyclists were known to explode with the force of a IED if you hit them even at low speed, for example, then motorists would concentrate fully on looking for them and take full advantage of any aid to spotting them, and so high-viz might then make a difference. But I don’t think motorists take the whole issue seriously enough that such measures would improve the safety of the cyclist rather than just giving the motorist an excuse to pay still less attention.
In short, I don’t think motorists fail to see non-high-viz wearing cyclists in day light because its literally impossible to see them, I think motorists make a choice about how carefully to drive vs going faster or multi-tasking. Wear high-viz and that choice will just be shifted to “consume” any improved visibility.
This is why I personally think lights at night (or even reflective items at night) are different – a totally unlit cyclist in the dark is difficult for even a careful driver to see, and I accept its not reasonable to expect a driver to pay _that_ much attention and drive _that_ slowly as would be necessary to compensate for ninja cyclists in the dark. But high-vis in daylight hours is a step too far as far as I am concerned.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
I actually agree with much of what you say, but I differ in this regard – I consider hiviz/reflectives as just another aid to being noticed in the first place. What a driver does after having seen someone is another matter, and that’s generally out of the cyclists control. I not saying you have to wear hiviz etc to be noticed, nor should there be any compulsion, but I do believe it can have a beneficial effect – namely sometimes being seen when you otherwise wouldn’t have. It’s just another tool to use, in the end it’s entirely up to the rider to decide whether they do or not.
saladfunky wrote:But the high
How do you draw that conclusion from the survey? Half the outfits weren’t hi viz.
The main thing I object to
The main thing I object to with studies like this is that it sends out what in my opinion is the wrong message. Reading this, especially some of the headlines used by road.cc on twitter to publicise the story, the impression is hi-vis makes no difference to cycling safety. It doesn’t take into account junction smidsy’s etc but the glaring omission is that it didn’t interview the drivers for their opinion and to ask them when they saw the cyclist, when they started their overtaking manoeuvre and crucially how much space they think is appropriate.
I would guess that most of the drivers who we would consider to have passed too close, all think they passed safely. There’s a culture in driving that if you don’t hit something, then it was safe. We probably all do it when we drive, squeeze through a gap, just miss a lamppost doing a u turn etc
I saw a cyclist from several hundred yards away on a shadowy dual carriage way because he was wearing hi-vis. Because I’m a cyclist I knew what was safe so I moved into the fast lane as soon as possible as I knew it could be difficult later if there was fast moving traffic outside me. I watched 2 other cars stay on the inside lane and pass the cyclist at approx 50mph in the same lane. I can’t imagine that they saw the cyclist any later than me (maybe if they weren’t concentrating) but the issue imho is that they thought the pass was ok. “I didn’t hit him, what’s the problem ?”
There are hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted on pointless studies and vanity projects by phd’s. Hi vis does / doesn’t help, helmets do / don’t help. There was a study a few years ago to show that women like flowers and chocolates more than men (I kid you not).
The issue is people drive and cycle badly, but as we know cyclists might kill themselves, drivers will probably kill someone else. We need driver education, old school public information films to show people that actually, 20cms isn’t a sufficient gap and this is why. Until we address the standard of driving in this country we will never solve the problems
colinth wrote:The main thing
We desperately need research like this based on scientifically determined outcomes, not opinions. The danger is that if we don’t get some decent outcome based science done, that our lives will get dominated by the opinions and dogmas of the policy makers and not by what actually makes a difference. Common sense is good most of the time , but real science comes up with (the right) conclusions more often than not which contradict common sense and commonly held dogma.
I notice that none of the
I notice that none of the riders in the study are wearing the black tarmac camouflage that unfortunately is popular at the moment.
If drivers are to see us and hopefully behave accordingly, there is no excuse for taking measures that means motorists will not see us.
This guys research may be done with the hoped for credibility being gained by being done by a Dr, but the agenda seems to be a deliberate attempt at undermining common sense.
Reg Oakley wrote:I notice
Unless the roads where you live are resurfaced much more frequently than in my neighbourhood tarmac is rarely actually black and unless you are looking at a cyclist from a helicopter or tall building it’s pretty unlikely that the background to the cyclist will be the road they are riding on. I don’t have any problem seeing cyclists whatever colour they are wearing, just as I can perfectly well see schoolkids crossing the road In dark uniforms, grey coloured cars or black cows in the middle of the road. If you can’t see any of these things the problem lies with you and not the road users you are blaming for your inability to see them.
Northernbike wrote:I don’t
Congratulations to you for your uniquely perfect vision. The rest of humanity, who haven’t reached the genetic peak you have, will have to cope with using contrast to detect objects more quickly and more easily. We can see dark uniforms and grey cars, of course, but may still prefer to have a earlier warnings of such things. YMMV
fukawitribe
‘uniquely perfect vision’ – if not running over schoolchildren is so unusual where you live you should move, really
‘may prefer to have earlier warning of such thing’- I prefer this too. I call it ‘paying attention to the road ahead’
I could have a moan about how
I could have a moan about how close some people get and ‘punishment’ passing, but I don’t feel like I’ve ever really been put in danger in the same way I have at junctions, roundabouts and at traffic lights; even when sat in an ASL.
Junctions are typically just people pulling out. My own experience is if I’m a ‘commuter’ (like, proper mudguards, tourer, panniers and looking like I might be slow…) then I often get MORE people pulling out and then just looking the other way as they block traffic. Rarely does this happen at a junction if I’m in roadie gear going at ~20mph.
ASLs make no difference what I wear. The biggest danger with the ASLs on my commute are the light sequence. Drivers just chance it on red. I’m sat in front of traffic and start off ahead of the queue behind me but the red light jumper coming from the left doesn’t really give two hoots. Thanks man; I have been knocked off like this and had one too many close calls. I instinctively have a quick look around these days…
And I was hit yesterday in a roundabout – the bloke admitted he didn’t see me; he hadn’t even looked until it was too late (even with my joystick front light on). He was too busy pulling around the traffic that HAD seen me (two lanes into the roundabout).
I agree that this is anecdotal, the experience of one (in my own opinion) incredibly safe cyclist; but it makes no odds if driver behaviour is generally atrocious around the country (which is something the study and I agree on).
I found the article very
I found the article very interesting and it tended to support my understanding of peoples view of HiViz. HiViz performs a similar function as road hazard warning signs in that drivers are expected to drive cautiously when they see them. However, we know that some drivers regularly disobey road hazard signs so why would they treat HiViz any differently?
In any event HiViz is the worst possibly option for preventing accidents as anyone with an iota of knowledge about safety will tell you. PPE should only be used as a last resort and never in isolation of other more effective controls. Eliminating or Avoiding the ‘hazardous situation’ is the best option and the only way we can achieve that, short of stopping driving or cycling, is to physically separate them from each other. If that is not 100% possible then as much separation as can be designed must be the standard to aim for.
We should be looking at more shared footpaths, more well maintained cycle ways, more cycle priorities at junctions and even the allowance of cycles to share pedestrian crossings. I can’t understand why the ‘red light jumping issue’ elicits such a vitriolic reaction from some people. If some road junction designs allowed safe filtering, say when turning left at a T-junction or filtering across the top of the T when pedestrians cross, I don’t see how that is a problem. Obviously, cyclists would have to give way to pedestrians in these situations and ride politely and cautiously but I don’t see why it should be argued against if it means less contact with motor vehicles. Afterall its only the faster cyclists, who cannot stop quickly, that pose a risk to pedestrians and even then the chances of serious injuries and deaths is ridiculously small compared to consequences of collisions between cycles and motor vehicles.
Someone with a thorough understanding of all these issues needs to get on the News and put these points across. The debate has become too much about ill informed gut reactions and the incompetent views of some high profile individuals and motoring lobby groups. Until we hear a proper detailed reponse from cycling safety experts we are in danger of one of our populist political parties screwing up cycling for everyone and that would be a travesty given how far cycling has come in the past few years.
+1. Hi Vis of no Hi Vis? It’s
+1. Hi Vis of no Hi Vis? It’s not the issue as it will not change reckless behaviour in some drivers and does nothing to re-enforce to motorists that we have a right to share the road. Once all vehicles are day glo and their drivers too I will don the nanny ware. Until that day I shall continue wearing black, black and white, red white and blue with black and even a touch of pink.
If I’m run down on a public road and killed in any of the above and the judge decides my clothing contributed to my death? Well. Who wants to live in a workd like that? Not I.
It would create all sorts of trouble if it was suggested that a black person dressed in black was less visible at night than a white person dressed in black so they were more liable when run down. The general argument regarding whether Hi Vis will preserve us from careless motorists is that daft to me.
[[[[ I’m a Wobbly Wheeler. If
[[[[ I’m a Wobbly Wheeler. If I spot trouble ahead (vehicle pulling out of a side-road), or sense trouble behind me, I wobble just a bit. This helps dopey drivers to notice me, and I believe overtaking drivers do actually give me a bit more room as they pass, seeing my slight weaving as unpredictable. When I’m driving, I notice cyclists whatever they’re wearing—or not wearing. I think non-cyclist drivers are now so accustomed to yellow jackets they hardly notice them, in daylight, anymore. Familiarity has bred contempt. It irks me to have to occasionally abandon my admirably smooth straight-line riding style, but hell – Southwest London’s potholed “roads” are not helping in that regard anyway. So….do I wear the screaming yellow coat-thingy? Hardly ever. If drivers can’t see my large bonkbag, with its diagonal night-reflective strip, or its red diagonal fluorescent dayglo strip (in daylight), then I can only hope they drive smack into the back of that tipper-truck they deserve to SMIDSY. Toodle-oo.
P.R.
This is a very well , but
This is a very well , but despite them feeling uncomfortable , close overtakes are not what causes most accidents.
Most accidents are caused by look but didn’t see at junctions. Could we have some proper research on the effect of attire on this please? Not much out there…..although my suspicion is that hiviz actually makes it worse not better!
Interesting guardian
Interesting guardian article:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/10/cycling-high-visibility-safe-fluorescent
And before you thought flashing lights at night help , cop a load of this :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7571470/
I think the failure of hi viz is linked th the above (siccadic masking)
Damned, but mostly by
Damned, but mostly by ourselves.
I think this thread is great and raises many of the most pertinent issues that we cyclists have to contend with on the road – to be seen by drivers and passed safely, but…
… why do we persist in riding in BLACK all of the time????
As a rider and driver, it truly is insane.
I was passed the other day by a guy togged head to toe in black- helmet, gloves, jacket – the lot – riding a black Boardman, deep in a wooded area of Berkshire. It was a dull, damp, dark, drizzly day – swallocky, they call it where I come from – and against the drab, dark, muddy coloured trees that offered no light whatsoever, I could barely see him – and I was on a bike doing a streaky 18mph!! He had no lights on and it was practically impossible for me to pick him out easily.
What chance then for a driver tootling along at anything between 30-70mph?????
WE must give drivers a fair chance – especially in the ugly, grey and dark winter weather – and wear clothing that will help them to see us – especially in those out of the way wooded areas – otherwise we are gambling with our lives – and the odds are seriously stacked against us.
And it’s not just out in the country either. I almost pulled out in my car from the kerb on a cyclist who was riding IN THE DARK with no lights, no hi viz kit, no helmet and yes you guessed – dark clothing – hammering down a short hill, but expecting that “driver’s good sense” would take care of him (or her)!!!
How utterly insane is that? If I had hit that rider I have no doubt I would have done serious damage to them and who would have been to blame? Not me … but tell the law that – and then try to prove it. What a mess it would have been – and why? Rider stupidity which simply fosters the attitude: “If you don’t care, why should I?” After all, who can help an idiot?
I thought my feet must have
I thought my feet must have fallen off this morning. Then I realised I had put my black socks on.
comm88 wrote:… why do we
It’s fashion (and money), pure and simple, largely influenced by pro teams, cycling industry, and the cycling media (who would have a lot less to talk about if everyone just decided to wear safety gear).
It’s also because of a small, but determined, group of cyclists (and even journalists) continually making irresponsible comments about “hi-viz”, and deterring inexperienced cyclists from making an informed choice about their personal safety.
Neil753 wrote:comm88
It’s fashion (and money), pure and simple, largely influenced by pro teams, cycling industry, and the cycling media (who would have a lot less to talk about if everyone just decided to wear safety gear).
It’s also because of a small, but determined, group of cyclists (and even journalists) continually making irresponsible comments about “hi-viz”, and deterring inexperienced cyclists from making an informed choice about their personal safety.— comm88
You certainly shouldn’t study for a sociology degree. Fashion it may be but their is no sphere in design where black is not a universally popular choice. People would not normally choose to were an unnatural colour if it were not for the supposed safety factor.
You criticize people for making snarky comments about HiViz colours and imply we are doing something wrong and harming young people. That is an outrageous slur. Firstly you totally overestimate the effect of a few internet forum posts; secondly social pressure is one of the few avenues that people have to object about HiViz. We have a right to voice our opinion. Your position moves us towards compulsion to wear HiViz and criminalizing those who do not wear it. This would cause a drop in cycling rates especially in the winter.
If the non-HiViz wearers of the world feel that their safety is diminished because you are training motorists to not look out for them (or anybody else) by wearing HiViz and trying to get the majority to do so, then don’t be surprised when people are vocally against it. The Herd Immunity were no one is wearing HiViz is dissolved every time you put on that jacket, so you are making other people less safe too, if only by a fraction of a percentage.
So get off your high horse and stop attacking people who oppose HiViz or support genuine choice, OR nail your colours to the mast and come clean that you do want compulsory HiViz not choice, if you are not worried about a few internet comments.
If you really want people to ‘make an informed choice’ then you shouldn’t imply that the informed choice is your choice. Otherwise you don’t really understand the ‘choice’ bit.
bikeboy76 wrote:”Fashion it
Yes there is – the sphere of personal safety clothing design. Isn’t that what we’re talking about here?
In a hazardous environment, hi-viz colours are a natural choice.
I didn’t say young people. I said inexperienced cyclists. But, yes, I do criticise people that make “snarky” comments about hi viz colours. People are influenced by the comments of others. I’m careful to promote the benefits of hi viz, in measured terms, but draw people’s attention to the derogatory, and often bizarre, remarks made by those who may infuence those who may wish to wear hi viz, but not do so, for fear of being ridiculed. There’s nothing wrong with discussing the merits of visibility, but we must be careful not to spread ridicule in a public forum.
It’s rather more than that, isn’t it? Forums, blogs, social networks, cycle cafes, sportives; even the cycling press seem keen to promote scorn and ridicule sometimes. And yet, can you imagine the backlash if people started to make widespread derogatory remarks about cycle helmets, with the associated risk that would come if inexperienced cyclists decided not to wear one?
On the contrary. My position is to defend the right of people to make their own informed choice, but unimpeded by the raucous cachophony of ribald anti hi viz sentiment staring up at them from the pages of every forum. In fact, far from my position moving us towards compulsion, it may well be that people are becoming increasingly concerned about these widespread adverse comments. And that, my friend, will undoubtedly be moving us towards compulsion, even if you cannot see it coming. Can you imagine what you cycling buddies would say, if your anti hi viz comments were used by legislators as part of the gathered evidence for a legislative proposal? That would be interesting, wouldn’t it?
I agree, so button it.
Drivers aren’t being “trained” to look out for hi viz, but I can certainly agree that it makes things slightly more dangerous for those in less visible clothing. But how many cyclists who get sucked into the LED lights “arms race” really give any thought to the fact that their brighter lights will make other cyclists’ lights less visible to drivers? However, when cyclists who claim that hi viz has no beneficial effect, suddenly realise that their own visibility is indeed becoming slightly reduced when other cyclists wear hi viz, there’s lots of cries that it’s unfair. Cyclists can’t have it both ways. It’s as farcical as a home owner complaining that his house is targeted more regularly by thieves after other homes in his street have had their security upgraded. I agree with you, the more hi viz is seen, the less prominent every other cyclist becomes but, if you’re asking me to adopt the ubiquitous “uban look”, just so you can save your own skin, the answer would be no. Everyone has a choice. I prefer not to wear a helmet – that is my choice. I wear hi viz – that is my choice. If I’m in a street full of cyclists wearing hi viz, and I’m less visible by not wearing hi viz – that would also theorically be a choice, even though it might be a seen by a coroner as a poor one.
I don’t see myself as attacking people who oppose hi viz because, as previously mentioned, I defend the right for people to make an informed choice. In fact, many of my posts are designed to provide a wider perspective, by writing from hgv driver’s point of view for instance. But, as we know, there are very few posters who argue the case for hi viz, and I’m sure you would agree that people who read these forums might wish to see both sides of the argument.
If you don’t have lights and
If you don’t have lights and reflectives in the dark, the colour of your clothing won’t make any difference.
I ride in whatever I’m
I ride in whatever I’m wearing. Lately that’s usually either a blue or black and white coat. The bike is festooned with reflectors and if it’s gloomy, I’ll switch the lights on. If any driver can’t see all that, they ain’t gonna see a yellow jacket instead of a blue one.
I have one of those Polite
I have one of those Polite Notice jackets with the blue and white reflective bands just like the police jackets and when I wear it in the winter nights I notice that drivers do drive further away from me.
Neil, your ridiculous
Neil, your ridiculous over-analysis of what I said shows how desperately you want acceptance of your view as you knit pick every contrary opinon. It seems like every post you have made on this site is HiViz related, I see no evidence that you are a committed cyclist or care about cyclists beyond forcing them into yellow jackets.
If “Forums, blogs, social networks, cycle cafes, sportives; even the cycling press seem keen to promote scorn and ridicule sometimes” as you say then it would seem that the cycling community and especially those who cycle the most are against HiViz and use the tools they have to oppose it; yet you persist in accusing us of some dirty campaign to harm other people.
People are vocal against HiViz because they see compulsion as a possibility, if you don’t like what they say but are pro-choice the solution is to stop going on about it then we won’t have to. Choice means freedom not to agree with you; analyse that.
You think that your comments are measured and reasonable but your accusations are just distasteful at best.
[[[[ Zzzzz….think I’ve
[[[[ Zzzzz….think I’ve heard enough on sickly-jackets for now. Oooh! —can we have a Helmet argument instead?
P.R.
A small point about riding in
A small point about riding in high-vis is that many of us have a destination when we cycle and this destination may be less suited to high-vis gear.
For example, a dark soft-shell cycle jacket will not look out of place walking around the shops or even in and around the office. Swap it for a dayglow version and your clothing choice becomes a little less multipurpose. Even on a Sunday morning run out to a nice coffee shop I’d prefer not to be sipping my expresso surrounding by dayglow monsters. Add to this the fact that high-vis colours get visibly dirty more easily and you can see why many people opt for less brightly coloured kit.
In countries where utility cycling is widespread nobody sees the need for any special clothing, they simply wear what is approprite for thier destination. Whilst I’m not ready to ditch my clippless pedals and fit a chainguard just yet I’m happy to comprimise by wearing clothing that works off of the bike as well as on.
Matt eaton wrote:Whilst I’m
The sock is a cheaper option. Or go hipster and roll your trouser up to the knee…