- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
safety clothing
why do the majority of road cyclists wear black or other dark-coloured clothing?
Motorists are more likely to hit them, or pedestrians step in front of them!
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- wtjs 1 hour 6 min ago
No- the official method of non-apology is 'we're sorry you feel you were offended'
- Boopop 1 hour 8 min ago
This feels a bit like chopping down trees to make way for a cycle track, I can't tell what to make of it. As we've seen on this site, house owners...
- IanMK 1 hour 22 min ago
Do they look like bicycles? I think they mostly look like Mopeds. Think 50cc 70s Puch. I think the average person can distinguish between the...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 20 min ago
Luckily we know both "how the alternative could look" / "what we could win" (NL - perhaps)...
- stonojnr 3 hours 16 min ago
surprised they didnt blame the council for not gritting the road
- chrisonabike 4 hours 7 min ago
EDIT - I wonder if this is coming from the realisation of "we can't drive through quickly now - because of those *other drivers*"? If so is it...
- RayG 9 hours 40 min ago
I've got the 900 lumen version of the front light. Even when the cam lever is closed properly, it doesn't grip the light well. The first one let...
- Freddy56 15 hours 34 min ago
the Rapha's Excess Collection is bullshite. MAAP did the exact same. It is sold like there is a left arm of a jacket lying on the floor, We will...
Add new comment
61 comments
Any ebike going 20+mph under assistance is illegal. Of course a fit cyclist can go 25mph under their own steam.
If you are having near misses turning around cyclists, then you are not making proper observation around any pillars. You need to move your head and body around more. Have a read of this article too https://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
"I have been in touch with the MOT about the rules, but their consultations have mainly attracted input from this fraternity, who put "Macho" before safety, to change the law."
I have no idea what that means or what groups you refer to.
Can you explain why you are going for the bottom risk control of PPE rather than say getting drivers to understand the importance of observation and how to practise that?
Again, it's not about fault and blame, it's about taking practical steps to improve road safety and ideally achieve Vision Zero (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero). The thing is that focussing on what cyclists/pedestrians are wearing is not going to be an effective strategy to improve road safety and unfortunately we see a lot of misguided attempts by motorists to distract from what does actually work.
Have a look at other cities around the world and how they have successfully managed to increase modal cycling share and improve road safety at the same time - hint: it wasn't by focussing on cyclists' clothing but instead improving infrastructure.
I find your "sitting on a cloud..." statement to be patronising and I imagine it'd be quite offensive to anyone who has lost a family member due to a road collision.
I notice, andy, that you've posted precisely twice, on this forum thread.
Remind me - which cycling clothing company are you doing research for?
sanity at last - well said Shades!
Not prepared to respond to the substantive points made in a clear manner then.
Why did you ask the question as you are not engaging with the posts made?
Probably no clear winner on whether dark or brighter clothing makes you more visible; I'd say for commuting in busy traffic then high-viz is better, especially as the drivers are just hell bent on getting home/to work and aren't paying attention. Wouldn't say dark clothing without reflectives at night is a great move as all you can see are the bike lights; reflectives make you stand out in car headlights. Not a huge fan of the black gear, black bike, deep-section wheeled robocop look; my wife calls it 'aggressively roadie'.
I have had comments that my retro-reflective ankle bands are the most visible part of me - presumably because of the constant movement that the eye is drawn too.
I also have different rear light patterns which I hope also draws a motorist's eye. Incidentally, I think this is why escooters are more vulnerable because there is so little movement that would indicate to a driver that something is ahead.
I'll also throw in those ridiculous 100,000 lumen headlights coming the otherway completely obscure any cyclist or pedestrian.
Hence the 'rules' on pedal reflectors
I am a fan of a a full reflective jacket on winter nights as the visible object is actually a human shape, just generally wear bright colours the rest of the time, not for HiViz, just I'm an 80s fan and love my team Z kit amongst others
And yet, motorists are always able to see them (mainly so they can complain that the person was wearing black).
As a cyclist you are always competing with the background and other vehicles to be seen. Four ways to get noticed, Colour, Lights, Reflectors, Road position - use them all.
Hi viz yellow is not always good, for example riding past a field of oil seed rape.
Black is not always bad, for example riding through a white village on the Costa del Sol.
No matter what you do you will not be seen if the driver does not look
Depending on the background, black can be a high contrast / visible colour whilst the flouro greens and yellows favoured by many cyclists can become effective camouflage under a well lit spring canopy of overhanging trees.
However, the overwhelming problem in the driver v cycle and even motorcycle SMIDSY scenario is that the driver does not look. Or if they do, they somehow misjudge speed and distance, become target fixated, are unable to imagine potential "what might happen if?" or simply don't have the self control to slow down and drive with the necessary caution.
As for pedestrians, same goes for cycling in close proximity, except that they have the ability to turn on a dime and change direction. They are also often distracted. What I would suggest though, if you are concerned about the risk posed by cyclists to pedestrians is to look up reports of pedestrian / traffic collisions, maybe on the news stories in your local paper. See how many you can find, amongst the daily reports of car collisions resulting in death and injury, that involve a cyclist seriously maiming a pedestrian.
Another example of accepting the motorist's usual omni-excuse as truth: I didn't see you. All the near misses we see on here were performed by people who did see the cyclist, but didn't care how close they came. I was hit by someone driving on the wrong side of the road, while I was stationary with a very bright flashing light on my helmet- people like this are only interested in large 4-wheel vehicles like the one they're in.
Because we're cool as f**k 😀
Pedestrians will step out in front of anyone, giving the chance.
They just use their ears to tell if it's safe to cross the road. Moving their head and being spatially aware seems difficult for most people.
I'm surprised there aren't more incidents with electric vehicles and pedestrians.
Why are so many cars black or dark-coloured? You'd've thought that insurance would vary for different coloured vehicles, but the statistics do not back that up.
To be honest, if a motorist has trouble seeing a cyclist that's wearing dark colours, then they need to stop driving until they can get their eyes checked (and do not drive to Barnard's Castle).
With pedestrians, it's nothing to do with colour perception and everything to do with them not looking at all.
I would suggest that we need to examine why some motorists/pedestrians don't pay enough attention to their immediate surroundings rather than trying to shift blame onto the choice of clothing. For what it's worth, most black cycling clothing also has highly reflective elements which is more than can be said for black-coloured cars.
Black clothing does have the advantage of disguising sweat/dirt etc so there can be pragmatic reasons to choose black. That's why shorts are often black but tops are more brightly coloured.
Be practical. Its the cyclist who gets killed or injured regardless of who you consider to be at fault. Shouldn't they at least try to reduce the risk?
Most (non-sporting) road cyclists do NOT have reflectors on their clothing.
You say be practical, but you'll find the aspirations of many on this site, as far as 'utility' cycling is concerned, is for cycling to be normalised to the point where lycra and hi-viz become unnecessary - you wouldn't expect anyone saying 'pedestrians should wear hi-viz because sometimes they are killed by cars' to gain realistic traction (the whole 'worth it if it saves just one life' approach) likewise you'll gain no traction telling drivers to wear motorsport helmets, despite data suggesting that would make them safer ('worth it if it saves just one life'...)
Now, my commuting backpack is hi-viz and reflective. I also wear a bright pink helmet. This is my choice, and helps me feel confident. But the more you load responsibility for risk onto cyclists, especially if it's through legislation, the more you de-load responsibilty from those road users doing harm and disincentivise people who might be thinking about taking up cycling generally.
You can reduce the risk further by not cycling or banning cars or improving infrastructure.
Why are you going straight to the bottom of the hierarchy of risk control pyramid ?
Not sure what a non-sporting cyclist is. I'd have thought they were more likely to have reflectors on pedals, handlebars, rear, wheels unlike 'sporting' cyclists plus a lot of 'normal' coats have some form of small reflectives on them.
Presumed liability and automatic loss of driving licence, unless exonerated from fault, in any serious collision would, I feel, be a far more practical remedy to making the roads a safer place for all users.
Presumed liability👍👍
A practical attitude to risk assessment and reduction is to be commended.
Usually, organisations try to implement a hierarchy of hazard control:
Elimination. In simple terms, this means that safety hazards should be eliminated from the workplace whenever possible. For example, if employees are working at heights, businesses should evaluate whether any activities can be done on the ground instead.
Substitution. Can a hazardous substance or piece of equipment be replaced with something less dangerous?
Engineering controls. These controls don't get rid of the hazard but they aim to isolate workers from the risk. These controls mitigate events that could cause harm by, for example, putting workers behind guardrails or on elevating work platforms.
Administrative controls. These include employee training, placing warning labels on products and posting signs in work areas that alert people to possible hazards.
Personal protective equipment (PPE). PPE includes items such as safety glasses, hard hats and respirators. This is the last point at which harm can be mitigated.
Now, high visibility clothing would fall under PPE so that's literally the last thing to be looking at to increase road safety.
By concentrating on the victim of the hazard (e.g. "it's the cyclist who gets killed or injured") you're inverting the hierarchy and it's really not an effective approach. Imagine if a building site didn't worry about builders dropping tools etc from heights because they concentrated instead on people wearing hard hats?
So in terms of road safety, the first step would be elimination which is not really possible outside of lockdowns. Next would be substitution - could we substitute lots of private cars with public transport (or drivers with cyclists)? Then we get to engineering controls which would most likely involve separate cycling infrastructure - we already separate foot and motorised traffic, so it would seem a logical step. Afterwards we get to administrative controls which would be things like road signage and driver education and training. Finally we get to PPE which is not a popular option as can be evidenced by the lack of pedestrians wearing helmets, gloves and knee/elbow pads.
I would also note that by putting the onus (and presumably restrictions) onto everyday cyclists it would act as a "barrier" to people wanting to occasionally substitute their drive with a cycle instead - that would thwart the substitution principle and possibly increase the hazard (more cars, less cyclists and drivers having less exposure to cyclists on the roads).
Pssst you forgot Reduction - tell im about reduction!
I thought that was covered by elimination and substitution
Elimination
Reduction
Isolation
Control
Substitution would come under elimination.
I'm just being didactic
Where's the PPE?
Cyclists never wear it anyway....
1a ban motor vehicles - probably not feasible
1b reduce motor vehicles - heres an action the driver cn take if they feel they are not up t the job of sharing space with cyclists (OP, this means you)
2 reduce risk from motor vehicles by reducing power and/or mass (subsitutute a less dangerous piece of equipment)
3)segregated cycle infrastructure - opposed by the motor lobby at every turn "yes we are in favour of cycling infrastructure but all existing road space must remain available to motor vehicles" so other than when building new towns this essentially means no cycle infrastructure
4 train drivers to take resposnbility more seriously, perhaps shorter bans for motoring offences rather than totting up oints may help - each incident longer ban thean the previous
5 now, having applied the above and still finding the risk significant we can look at hi vis clothing and helmets being mandatory
I agree that banning motor vehicles isn't politically possible at the moment, but it's interesting that some cities have taken that option: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191011-what-happens-when-a-city-bans-car-from-its-streets
Unless it's teh pedestrian of course....
Fact is I can see someone cos they contrast with their background - if I look. As the background is rarely black I can see them - as long as I look
If I don't look, they can be wearing what they like and I'll still hit them.
As a driver, it's my fault if I don't see them. I can even see people dressed in black at night, especially when they are in town and streetlit - as long as I look.
A driver who is not looking will hit someone, regardless of what they are wearing. Perhaps let's stop questioning what the victim was wearing, and look at the perpetrator and their actions - afterall we are slowly starting to do that for other crimes.....
Pages