- 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
news
Derbyshire Police reflective clothing at night videoPolice video pushes reflective clothing for cyclists - but rider is breaking law by not having lights
Police in Derbyshire have released a video to demonstrate how much more visible a cyclist is wearing reflective clothing at night than without, but fail to mention the rider's lights are turned off, breaking the law.
In two side-by-side clips, titled Road Safety Week – Why Wearing Reflective Clothing Gear is Essential, a cyclist is shown riding on an unlit road wearing a reflective jacket and lights, another without, showing a striking difference in how soon it is possible to see each rider.
Derbyshire Police have been criticised for overemphasising the role of reflective clothing by showing the non-reflective cyclist without lights, however. The clip and its accompanying commentary make no mention of the lights being turned off, and also at times refer to hi-vis clothing, which is not designed to be visible at night, rather than reflective clothing, which is.
Chief Inspector Andy Palmer, head of Derbyshire Constabulary's roads policing unit, told the Buxton Advertiser: "The video highlights just how important it is for cyclists to make sure they can be quickly and easily seen by other road users.
"The cyclist who is not wearing any reflective gear is almost invisible until the car is right behind him - whereas the cyclist with the jersey can be seen immediately. "We are releasing this video as part of Road Safety Week 2016, which is aimed at raising awareness of safety across all road users, including cyclists.
"Many cyclists take great pride in their bikes and we want to encourage them to treat their own safety as seriously and invest in proper reflective equipment."
The video caption says: “The following clip shows two cyclists. How long does it take to spot them both?”
Immediately the reflective cyclist can be seen, both a red rear light and the reflective jacket itself, where the unlit, unreflective rider is not visible for at least 12 seconds.
The video goes on: “In these stills, the cyclist is in the same spot, with one clear difference. One of them is not wearing hi-viz gear, and one is.”
Cycling UK's Sam Jones told road.cc the video, however well meaning, is sending out the wrong message.
He said: "Clearly their heart's in the right place but it is a shame that they haven't really thought through the issues. Turning off the lights is a big no no. I hope it was on a closed road because it could have been quite dangerous for that cyclist going along without any lights.
"Using lights while cycling at night is essential; wearing reflective gear or high vis is not," he added.
"However, reflective gear can be of use, particularly pedal reflectors, because they are moving and can catch a driver's attention."
The video ends with the message “wearing high-visibility clothing, rucksacks, helmets, spokes, mudguards and lights makes you much easier to spot. Be seen. Be safe”, but fails to note the non-reflective cyclist’s lights are turned off.
Where hi-vis clothing is brightly coloured, designed to be highly visible in daylight, it is reflective clothing which is designed to be seen at night as it reflects direct light, like car headlights.
Cyclists argue the video is an unfair representation of the importance of reflective clothing.
Cyclist and blogger, Bez, commented on the video: "If it's so important, or effective, why do you have to remove the lights and show illegal riding in order to make your point?"
The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain's Mark Treasure called the removal of lights "dishonest".
@beztweets Looks like the same bike too, so @DerbysPolice seem to have gone to the trouble of actually removing the light. Pretty dishonest
— Mark Treasure (@AsEasyAsRiding) November 22, 2016
Bez argues the rider would be "easily visible" with the lights but without the reflective gear.
.@DerbysPolice You appear to be using a rider with no lights—who should be easily visible with them—as a comparison. Why is this? pic.twitter.com/eXxQUJAVIr
— Bez (@beztweets) November 22, 2016
Criticism has also included that lights are a legal requirement at night, whereas reflective clothing is not. And sometimes, perhaps, there can never be enough reflective material to avert a collision on Britain's roads.
HT @cosaingalway pic.twitter.com/DGveV4Nc8Q
— Bez (@beztweets) November 21, 2016
That doesn't mean this is necessarily a good idea, though.
After numerous calls from the public who no doubt saved a life. This Cyclist found riding in lane 2 of the A52. No lights, dark clothing pic.twitter.com/eAYqpGzUZQ
— Derbys Roads Police (@DerbyshireRPU) November 20, 2016
Derbyshire Police have been contacted for comment regarding the lights and the apparent confusion over hi-vis and reflective clothing.
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- mattsccm 2 sec ago
I have to assume that the cyclist wasn't thick enough to just change lanes without looking. Not a small puddle so I guess that they saw it and...
- Simon E 53 min 50 sec ago
Being a titchy lightweight I find the minimum pressures shown on bike tyres are considerably higher than I would use....
- Simon E 1 hour 7 min ago
Bruyneel saying publicly that Boonen "should shut up" is all you need to know about both Bruyneel and the doping regime at his team. Dirty in both...
- Barraob1 1 hour 19 min ago
I like it because it's a bit different, but it's way out of my price range. Wonder if it will take off, or will we be talking about in 15 years...
- kingleo 1 hour 28 min ago
Cyclists used the roads before cars - it was cyclists who petitioned the government to put a hard surface on our roads.
- wtjs 1 hour 24 min ago
I had a brief moment of déjà vu about established reds...
- hawkinspeter 4 hours 56 min ago
I saw something about the Smart Lever a month or so ago, and was intrigued enough to put it on my Xmas list, so maybe I'll get to have a play with...
- hawkinspeter 6 hours 28 min ago
Who the fuck's that?
- PRSboy 7 hours 13 min ago
Rather better than my effort on Coll de Rates at 28:05, but in my defence it was 30c, I'd had a big lunch and a beer and climbed it on an old MTB I...
- Secret_squirrel 7 hours 27 min ago
Surely these are only as good as your knowledge of their placement? They seem a bit pointless without a decent amount of Sports Massage / Physio...
Add new comment
36 comments
I had cause to drive through Cambridge yesterday evening. Most cyclists were easily visible due to a mixture of clothing, lights and reflectors, in a few cases only by pedal reflectors. Some stealth ninjas were also spotted. Now Cambridge is renowned as a cycling city, as a car driver you cannot be but aware of their ubiquity and this of course is a good thing. The main roads are well lit and there is much cycle priority infrastructure. It is not cycling utopia but it must be up there as one of the better cycling friendly urban environments in the UK. I.e as a cyclist, if you really do object to wearing special hi viz clothing or making any effort, including mandatory requirements for road use, to make yourself conspicuous to other road users and pedestrians then this is the place to do it.
From my observations*:
1. If you are paying attention, all cyclists regardless of their clothing, lights or reflectors were visible at what I would consider a safe distance. Though of course I cannot comment on how many I did not see at all.
2. Pedal motion (pedal reflectors) is the most noticeable indication to me of a cyclist. Followed by reflective clothing, blinky lights, steady lights, fixed reflectors.
3. I would estimate that on average a conspicuous cyclist is visible at 2 to 3 times the distance as a ninja. That is a significant additional time to be aware of and anticipate passing position or take other action if needed. Or more importantly to catch the attention of a distracted driver.
In many respects this is a practical best case scenario for cycles, add some rain, repeat the drive at dusk or in bright sun, remove the overhead street lighting and what makes a cyclist stand out in traffic will change. At different times, in different lighting conditions: hi viz**, reflectives, lights will be more or less effective at making you conspicuous.
As to how much effort or responsibility should be apportioned to the cyclist? That is a vexed question. Have you ever heard of a motorist involved in a crash that was not their fault being criticised in court or by the Police for driving a dark coloured car?
We are fortunate to live in a society that has both rules and personal choice in a lot of activities. Rules that if obeyed protect us from each other, and freedoms to interpret those rules in reasonable, practical ways. Hypothetically, I have no wish for gov't approved reflective cycle jackets to become a mandatory legal requirement, yet at the same time I mostly choose to wear such an item, not in the misguided belief that it will magically protect me from all harm, but in the genuine knowledge that it serves a function of keeping me warm and dry and maybe, just maybe on a dark night without ever being aware of it the car driver that passes me safely may otherwise have driven into me because they didn't see me.
I think this Police video is helpful in demonstrating the effectiveness of reflective clothing.
*From my observation over 20 minutes on a dark dry night and light traffic. Plus 30+ years of driving experience. Your perception of the real world, interpretation and acquired wisdom may vary.
**By hi viz I mean conspicuous in the environment. If riding in fog, on a snowy road in daylight this might mean blackest black. As others have stated yellow and orange hi viz can be a great disguise to blend in some environments.
Your observations and estimate seem about right to me. And I agree with most of what you have written.
And, I cannot find the references right now, but there are other studies which show that "bio-motion", which usually equates to pedal reflectors(*), is especially effective in attracting drivers' attention.
But... and it's a big "but" ... the assumption is that if all cyclists were lit up and reflective at night and wearing contrasting daylight colours during day, that this would lead to reduce casualty incidence. I can see this failing to pan out for the following (hypothetical) reasons:
1. Risk compensation: drivers in the expectation of good visibility will change their driving behavior so that they eat into any "safety margin" gained by being able to see cyclists from further away
2. Although cyclists may be detected at some greater distance (let's agree on 2 to 3 times for the sake of argument) this does not translate into more than a few seconds at the current speeds at which motor vehicles are driven. That may not be enough to affect accident rates significantly
3. The whole exercise shifts attention, responsibility and care away from those that are introducing the problem of dangerous vehicles on the road onto those that are not responsible from the problem.
Anyway, with cash-strapped police forces I would much rather see resources going into initiatives like the West-Midlands close pass than this.
I thought the video was good! Honestly I see quite a few cyclists with no lights, black clothing, OR, they have lights but are very weak like just a single 5w blinky on the rear.
The side on view was particularly interesting, as getting pulled out on (SMIDSY) is a big risk.
I think there is a lot of nit picking in the comments. Weak lights or no lights are dangerous.
Bright clothing and reflective are very useful. The video helps show this.
Thanks to the police for putting in the time and effort.
It's everyone's right to dress like a ninja and have a road legal light powered off one AAA battery but I'd rather be seen sooner rather than later so I've less of a chance of being a SMIDSY victim.
I actually prefer my commute now it's actually dark and my lights and reflective gear show up more obviously.
One of the worst things about their weird attitude here- lights (usually) have a wide angle of effectiveness- even if not illuminating, the edges of the beam are usually visible from the side and rear lights are usually designed to be wide angle.
On the other hand, retro reflectives only really work when the viewer and the light source are roughly in the same place. To a certain extent it is why they work.
So if you're comeing along a main road, and a driver is approaching on a side road, and you're an idiot wearing hi-vis but with no/weak lights, they might see the lack of beams and pull out. Only as you cross into the beam of their lights would your entirely retro reflective jacket suddenly appear.
This is, of course, why those reflective jackets can appear a bit pants- unless you shine a light directly at them from you they will..
Conclusion: use lights.
Or even better - use lights and reflectives.
I need a front light to see the road ahead - i will notice if that fails.
If the light behind falls off or fails - I might not notice immediately. A few bits of kit with reflectives on buys a bit of peace of mind. I can see no reason not to have them.
Scenario 1:
Judge, "Why did you kill the cyclist?"
Defendant, "He had no lights so I didn't see him."
Judge, "Ok away you go then."
Scenario 2:
Judge, "Why did you kill the cyclist?
Defendant, "I was blinded by the light reflected off his clothing so I didn't see him."
Judge, "Ok away you go then; bloody cyclists!"
The highway code says...
Rule 59
Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.
Rule 59: Help yourself to be seen
Rule 59: Help yourself to be seen
Copied verbatim from the .gov.uk website.
Hope this helps.
Afraid it doesn't. The highway code is full of 'shoulds'. Most of them are ignored. As are more than a few of the 'musts'.
Besides, nowhere does it say 'you should use rigged tests that damage your credibility'. That's the only issue here - that its just a bit depressing that casual dishonesty, even if its in a good cause, seems to be so accepted now. "Post-truth era" and all that.
I have no stats, but I think that most recent reports seem to say that bank robbers wear hi viz; the stuff makes you blend in invisibly.
I agree that they are being intellectually dishonest in how they are going about the suggestion. That said, extra visibility can be a good idea, even with a tail light, as lights can fail and you won't really know until you finish the ride.
Conversely, no one seems to discuss is punishment passes being envoked due to being too reflective. I have personally had a bottle glance off my head while being yelled at by the passenger for being "too reflective."
Reflectors seem to irritate rednecks... like a flapping red cape to a bull.
Seems to me that it is simple courtesy to other road users to make yourself more visible, especially in poor conditions. It certainly won't kill you to chose a slightly more conspicuous jacket over ninja stealth gear. Unless of course you really are on a secret mission and need to avoid detection.
Well, I *might* be, but I can neither confirm nor deny that...
To be fair I think this is a valid awareness exercise as it is possible to be cycling along and have your rear light fail (be it down to loss of power or water damage) without you realising it. If this should happen it is good knowledge to have about how visible you are with hi-vis equipment vs without
I've seen a few examples lately where the rear light was obscured from behind, mainly by bad positioning on the seat post meaning the light was obscured by saddle bags, rear mudguard or a rack. The prize, however, goes to the rider I saw that had a jacket tied round their waist that dropped down over the light.
I'm getting so sick of this culture of getting offended by shitty little nit-picking things these days.
It's a fact that reflective clothing helps to make you more visible than non reflective clothing at night, and surely that's all they are trying to get across.
I don't see anybody getting offended, though we could rightly be a bit peed off about more of plod's clumsy communication regarding bikes.
It just makes it a pointless exercise. If you're meant to have lights on, show us hi-viz + lights vs just lights only, as they're the only two meaningful scenarios.
Smacks of either those scenarios not suiting their argument, or them not having a clue about bikes (could be both).
The fact that they turned the lights off makes you wonder if, when the lights were left on, the difference wasn't quite as striking as they had already decided it would (or should) be. So they turned them off to make their point stronger, but it actually rather seems to undermine it.
I'm certainly not arguing against reflective stuff here. But this is like the left hook video; the poor execution just makes you wonder what agenda or decisions led to the end product, and then the message is lost or obscured.
But they are doing it by skewing the message completely and tricking the viewer through the removal of the rear light.
If they'd done the same video with and without reflective with full legal lights on, I'd say fair enough. Now the case may not have been as compelling.
Plus if you read the west midland police blog, you'll see that data shows that in the majority of collisions, reflective and high vis is irrelevant. If a driver doesn't pay attention, he/she won't see you even with a unicorn on your luggage rack.
Problem is that people hang on to reflective and high vis like if they were a magic blanket that will save your life. It won't. It may contribute to it but that alone, won't.
Those kind of "initiative" for all the missguided good will behind them, continue peddling the myth that we as cyclist are the main responsible for our safety "be seen, be safe", therefore pushing the SMIDY blame onto our dress code rather than the driver's lack of attention.
I'm not advocating for people to go without lights or appropriate closing to keep drivers on their toes but when police focus resources on stuff that have shown to have little incidence on actual safety, instead of tackeling danger at the source (driver's inattention). It's a waste and it sends the wrong message both to drivers and to aspiring cyclists.
Off to sit in a dark room....
I think they are preaching to the converted?
Perhaps, in the spirit of "Road Safety", they should have focussed on telling drivers to look out for cyclists in the dark as they are not easy to see if they aren't covered in all of the reflective material in the world? Rather than trying to place the onus on the person who will get squished if someone doesn't drive to the conditions.
I prefer Bez's term of "Road Danger Reduction", let's tackle the danger rather than cover ourselves in magic hats and shiny clothing.
Does it offend you? :rofl:
Words usually spoken by someone who then goes on to regale their audience with something that is definitely not a fact.
Don't bother reading this... you won't understand it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4440447/
some very interesting stuff in that paper. These factoids were very conspicuous:
"During a median follow-up period of 6.4 years, 162 participants experienced 187 bicycle–motor vehicle crashes."
"A Canadian study observed that the risk of collisions with a motor vehicle was increased by wearing fluorescent clothing but decreased by wearing white or coloured clothing.17 Likewise, a UK study reported an increased risk of collision or evasion crashes by using any item of fluorescent or reflective material.18 Additionally, a recent experiment in the UK reported little effect of fluorescent clothing on drivers’ overtaking proximity"
"In a recent eye tracking experiment conducted in the UK, drivers failed to see 22% of cyclists on the road, outnumbering motorcyclists (15%) and pedestrians (4%)."
Yes, some weird possibilities suggested by it.
But to be clear, I'm not even saying that I whole-heartedly believe everything that is suggested in it to be true, let alone of the level of "fact" that would satsify PaulBox. It's just that I am aware that there's bunch of literature from transport research labs around the world which is at best ambivalent about what is the best way to avoid some average scumbag running into me when I'm using the road.
More important is the point made by people like Bez about whether the effort that goes into this sort of "don't go down dark streets wearing a miniskirt" should be going into something more effective in terms of making me safe and comfortable on the roads.
You really shouldn't laugh at your own jokes...
The only thing I don't understand is why you are trying to dig me out using a report which in many ways backs up my statement. Obviously if drivers aren't paying attention it doesn't matter what you do, but that doesn't change my statement. Perhaps you should get somebody to explain the report to you...
The point they are trying to make is valid but why don't these people bounce their ideas off people or bodies that can assist and advise them before putting out the finished product.
Also fascinated by how much deeper the penetration of the headlights are in the lower picture (and indeed the illumination to the right hand side) at the point they took the still with the bike in the same spot...
Looking at the pattern the upper picture (no reflective gear) the lights is more to the left as well as not penetrating do far. I wouldn't be surprised if the upper picture has dipped headlights and the lower full headlights
I have to agree. Dipped headlights Vs full beam.
Welcome to the "Post Truth" world we now live in.
Are you serious ? Have you actually looked at the stills ?
Unfortunately this bit is all too true ?
Erm, yes. You cannot see it?
BTW, I'm not dissing the message they're wanting to put over, just questioning the methods they've used which somewhat diminish the honesty and therefore the effectiveness of the message. I would prefer to have seen the bike to have had it's rear light on in both instances and to have been filmed under similar lighting in both instances which would have portrayed a much more realistic comparison. Personally, I light myself up like a christmas tree from the rear for my commute on dark, unlit rural roads but don't dress myself up in particularly reflective clothing (just a few reflective darts here and there) and colleagues and friends that have passed me in cars tell me they can "see me from miles away"[sic].
Are you serious ? Have you actually looked at the stills ?
Pages