- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Cyclists in high-vis (CC licensed image by garryknight)High vis clothing doesn't make cars pass you more safely, says new study
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.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 2 hours 41 min ago
Radar tells me their closing speed, if they are slowing and how far away. Then I decide to say a prayer. The change of light pattern is incidental.
- lonpfrb 3 hours 1 min ago
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent. Of course, enforcement is another thing..
- lonpfrb 3 hours 27 min ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- TheBillder 4 hours 13 min ago
In that £1000 exactly scenario, beginners should probably be made aware that pedals will be extra.
- don simon fbpe 4 hours 41 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 5 hours 22 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 6 hours 1 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 6 hours 58 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- chrisonabike 8 hours 14 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
Add new comment
105 comments
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.
Should have tried a hi-viz with 'Please don't kill me' on the back...wonder what response that would have.
Suitable hi-viz is mandatory during the hours of darkness in France. EN1150, I think.
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 confused between high-vis and reflectives.
High-vis does nothing at nighttime, unlike clothing with reflective elements.
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 Room (https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225/motorcycli...)' 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
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...
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 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 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.
+ 1
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.
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 ?
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
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.
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.
How do you draw that conclusion from the survey? Half the outfits weren't hi viz.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
'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 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).
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.
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 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 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.
Pages