Mandatory hi-vis had no influence on number of cyclists involved in collisions according to Italian study

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Rich CB, you ARE the definition of insidious, the sick thing is you actually believe your bullshit spin, you truly are a dangerous oerson with respect to safety for people on bikes. Congratulations! (that's scarcasm btw).

I pray that you have no influence on anything other than if the toilet seat is lifted at your abode!

Evidence based decision making is a pretty dangerous thing.

Better to stick to more reliable sources of information right?

Tell me again about how the secret UN migration plot works?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Rich CB, you ARE the definition of insidious, the sick thing is you actually believe your bullshit spin, you truly are a dangerous oerson with respect to safety for people on bikes. Congratulations! (that's scarcasm btw).

I pray that you have no influence on anything other than if the toilet seat is lifted at your abode!

The question really is whether he has a hi viz bog seat and a helmet helmet..

Bikebikebike wrote:

But whatever our opinions on hi viz, surely we can agree that only a fool would cycle without a helmet. 

Sir, you have truly been sent from A Higher Place to save us mere mortals from our foolishness.

I beg you, allow me to bow down before you and kiss your big ring.

CygnusX1 wrote:

PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!

I have a cunning plan for you Cygnus.

If you do not click on this thread, then as far you are concerned it will have stopped!

felixcat wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!

I have a cunning plan for you Cygnus.

If you do not click on this thread, then as far you are concerned it will have stopped!

I began to feel really sick. But I could not shut my glazzies and even if I tried to move my glazballs about I still not get out of the line of fire of this thread.

Let me be sick... I want to get up. Get me something to be sick in... Stop the comments... Please stop it... I can't stand it any more. Stop it please... please.

CLOCKWORK HI-VIS ORANGE

CygnusX1 wrote:

felixcat wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!

I have a cunning plan for you Cygnus.

If you do not click on this thread, then as far you are concerned it will have stopped!

I began to feel really sick. But I could not shut my glazzies and even if I tried to move my glazballs about I still not get out of the line of fire of this thread.

Let me be sick... I want to get up. Get me something to be sick in... Stop the comments... Please stop it... I can't stand it any more. Stop it please... please.

CLOCKWORK HI-VIS ORANGE

 

You can't leave it alone, can you? You have only yourself to blame.

ktache wrote:

Unfortunatly red is one of the most common colours colourblind people have difficulty in seeing.

I remember reading in the CTC magazine about a case of a colour blind driver getting off because the cyclist was in red.  They of course must have had great diffuculty with Royal Mail artics and those pesky London double decker buses.

Now I am seriously thinking of ditching the red jacket and just going with the knee high flamingo pink socks in all circumstances! Or can pink not be seen through a certain make of sunlasses?

Pushing50 wrote:

ktache wrote:

Unfortunatly red is one of the most common colours colourblind people have difficulty in seeing.

I remember reading in the CTC magazine about a case of a colour blind driver getting off because the cyclist was in red.  They of course must have had great diffuculty with Royal Mail artics and those pesky London double decker buses.

Now I am seriously thinking of ditching the red jacket and just going with the knee high flamingo pink socks in all circumstances! Or can pink not be seen through a certain make of sunlasses?

Red-Green colour blindness is more common than Blue-Yellow, however the most common in the Red-Green bracket is *Deuteranomaly which the green cone photopigment is abnormal. Yellow and green appear redder and it is difficult to tell violet from blue. This condition is mild and doesn’t interfere with daily living. 

*Protanomaly: In males with protanomaly, the red cone photopigment is abnormal. Red, orange, and yellow appear greener and colors are not as bright. This condition is mild and doesn’t usually interfere with daily living. Protanomaly is an X-linked disorder estimated to affect 1 percent of males.
*Protanopia: In males with protanopia, there are no working red cone cells. Red appears as black. Certain shades of orange, yellow, and green all appear as yellow. Protanopia is an X-linked disorder that is estimated to affect 1 percent of males.

Seeing as this is so rare a condition and such a low percentage (following my new found love for percentages and statistics), I think that I will change my mind and go back to the red jacket.

I am so fickle.

*National Eye Institute

Yrcm wrote:

I work in highway maintenance and construction, everyone thinks hi viz is a good idea. I ride horses, everyone thinks wearing hi viz if you go out on the road is a good idea. It seems self evident that wearing something eye catching *may* just mean you're seen, or seen a few moments sooner, can't see how it can make me less visible anyhow.

Maybe I'm more attuned to it but I certainly spot cyclists sooner in hi viz when I'm driving or cycling myself, and there are plenty of circumstances where you can struggle to spot the ninjas.

Cycling on British roads is dangerous, and I assume everyone is out to get me every time I go out. So if I can do any small things that might just skew the odds in my favour I will, regardless of what some bloke with an axe to grind and questionable statistics says on the web.

Do you mean hi-vis or yellow? Does your horse wear hi-vis or yellow? Or do you think that you wearing hi-vis (or yellow)on your horse make you more visible than the hulking great mass that you are sat astride?

Yrcm wrote:

Maybe I'm more attuned to it but I certainly spot cyclists sooner in hi viz when I'm driving or cycling myself, and there are plenty of circumstances where you can struggle to spot the ninjas.

This sound a lot like the 'a cycle helmet saved my life' anecdote. Given you saw the cyclists wearing hi-vis and the ones not wearing hi-vis, how do you know that you would have seen the non hi-vis ones sooner if they were wearing it and the hi-vis ones later if they weren't?

This reminds me of photos taken by drivers of cyclists not wearing hi-vis complaining how difficult they are to see, apparently completely oblivious to the irony and the fact they are actually endangering themselves and others by using their phones at the wheel.

Pushing50 wrote:

Do you mean hi-vis or yellow? Does your horse wear hi-vis or yellow? Or do you think that you wearing hi-vis (or yellow)on your horse make you more visible than the hulking great mass that you are sat astride?

It does if the horse is a dark colour. Especially if I happen to be in the shade on a sunny day or in low light.

Pushing50 wrote:

Another thought just occured to me. Do you do the hunting thing on your horse. If so is it a good idea for the men on their mounts to be clad in red tunics and the woment to be ninjas (I take it you mean the wearing of black). These riders are seen on country roads. Has there been a study of the amount of riders dressed/not dressed in yellow on horses ever been conducted? If not, why does everyone think it is such a good idea when you are not fox hunting and just trotting slowly around the lanes?

Errrm, no to all of those. Hunts seem to operate on the basis that everyone else has to wait or get out of their way, if there are thirty horses on a narrow country lane there's no way of missing them or getting past them.

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

This sound a lot like the 'a cycle helmet saved my life' anecdote. Given you saw the cyclists wearing hi-vis and the ones not wearing hi-vis, how do you know that you would have seen the non hi-vis ones sooner if they were wearing it and the hi-vis ones later if they weren't?

Because hi viz / flourescent generally stands out from a dull background and dark colours don't.

Yrcm wrote:

Pushing50 wrote:

Do you mean hi-vis or yellow? Does your horse wear hi-vis or yellow? Or do you think that you wearing hi-vis (or yellow)on your horse make you more visible than the hulking great mass that you are sat astride?

It does if the horse is a dark colour. Especially if I happen to be in the shade on a sunny day or in low light.

Pushing50 wrote:

Another thought just occured to me. Do you do the hunting thing on your horse. If so is it a good idea for the men on their mounts to be clad in red tunics and the woment to be ninjas (I take it you mean the wearing of black). These riders are seen on country roads. Has there been a study of the amount of riders dressed/not dressed in yellow on horses ever been conducted? If not, why does everyone think it is such a good idea when you are not fox hunting and just trotting slowly around the lanes?

Errrm, no to all of those. Hunts seem to operate on the basis that everyone else has to wait or get out of their way, if there are thirty horses on a narrow country lane there's no way of missing them or getting past them.

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

This sound a lot like the 'a cycle helmet saved my life' anecdote. Given you saw the cyclists wearing hi-vis and the ones not wearing hi-vis, how do you know that you would have seen the non hi-vis ones sooner if they were wearing it and the hi-vis ones later if they weren't?

Because hi viz / flourescent generally stands out from a dull background and dark colours don't.

Do you mean hi-vis or yellow? Do you think that you on your horse,  nine feet in the air with a large mass beneath you will not be visible if you are not wearing yellow? Why would you not be visible if wearing lilac, white, blue, green? The point that I am trying to make is that the Danish study that is being discussed is about the findings of wearing a yellow jacket. I simply cannot believe that you would not be visible on the UK country roads if you were wearing anything but yellow.

Yrcm wrote:

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

This sound a lot like the 'a cycle helmet saved my life' anecdote. Given you saw the cyclists wearing hi-vis and the ones not wearing hi-vis, how do you know that you would have seen the non hi-vis ones sooner if they were wearing it and the hi-vis ones later if they weren't?

Because hi viz / flourescent generally stands out from a dull background and dark colours don't.

So my point stands. Previously you stated you were certain you saw the cyclists wearing hi-vis sooner because they were wearing hi-vis. You cannot know this without recreating the conditions exactly except for removing the hi-vis from the cyclists. This is analogous to someone starting that a cycle helmet saved their life.

Also, darker clothing generally stands out from a bright background.

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

So my point stands. Previously you stated you were certain you saw the cyclists wearing hi-vis sooner because they were wearing hi-vis. You cannot know this without recreating the conditions exactly except for removing the hi-vis from the cyclists. This is analogous to someone starting that a cycle helmet saved their life. Also, darker clothing generally stands out from a bright background.[/quote]

You better tell the british army to go back to wearing red coats, camouflage is a waste of time.

Yrcm wrote:

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

So my point stands. Previously you stated you were certain you saw the cyclists wearing hi-vis sooner because they were wearing hi-vis. You cannot know this without recreating the conditions exactly except for removing the hi-vis from the cyclists. This is analogous to someone starting that a cycle helmet saved their life. Also, darker clothing generally stands out from a bright background.

You better tell the british army to go back to wearing red coats, camouflage is a waste of time.

I'll tell them next time they are fighting straw men.

Yrcm wrote:

 

You better tell the british army to go back to wearing red coats, camouflage is a waste of time.

However there are different patterns and shades of camoflage depending on which environment they are fighting in. Desert is so different to the normal Green.

Now, is it any bright colour you are promoting, or just yellow?

You will see, the sport company POC have spent a lot of time and investment on their AVIP (Attention Visibility Interaction Protection) range of clothing. Not one thread of yellow appears in the range. They work on contrasting colours to a host of backgrounds and have found that the best colours for this purpose are orange, white and very dark blue (vitrtually black). Are these claims not as valid as your presumptions? 

As for roadside construction workers, are they not just as visible wearing red than they are wearing yellow?

Pushing50 wrote:

is it any bright colour you are promoting, or just yellow?

Pushing50 wrote:

They work on contrasting colours to a host of backgrounds 

At the risk of meddling in someone else's argument, I recall reading that contrast is the key point. Fluoro yellow is often a vivid contrast to its surroundings on the road but light, bright colours also reflect light well to a greater or lesser degree (rail workers seem to wear orange). Darker colours would be good for being seen while skiing in a whiteout.

Movement is also helpful in catching the eye, e.g. pedal reflectors catch the attention more than seatpost or mudguard-mounted equivalents. Perhaps flashing lights use some similar logic.

Duncann wrote:

Pushing50 wrote:

is it any bright colour you are promoting, or just yellow?

Pushing50 wrote:

They work on contrasting colours to a host of backgrounds 

At the risk of meddling in someone else's argument, I recall reading that contrast is the key point. Fluoro yellow is often a vivid contrast to its surroundings on the road but light, bright colours also reflect light well to a greater or lesser degree (rail workers seem to wear orange). Darker colours would be good for being seen while skiing in a whiteout.

Movement is also helpful in catching the eye, e.g. pedal reflectors catch the attention more than seatpost or mudguard-mounted equivalents. Perhaps flashing lights use some similar logic.

 

 

Discussion, not argument (you cannot meddle in a discussion, just add to it ).

Your comment is the point that I am trying to make throughout. From what I know (which is little) the best contrasting colours for a power point presentation is yellow writing on a blue background. I think this is the same reason that the police use these same colours for their fleet's chequered design. As far as I am aware, cones to segregate traffic in contra-flows are orange for daylight and reflective for night. If fluro yellow was so much more visible in daylight conditions on the road, then wouldn't someone have thought about changing the colour of the cones by now, or have I just hit on something?

The obsession with yellow is overrated in my opinion (and it is opinion). All drivers can see red, red/white, brown, blue and green roadsigns if they are looking at them (even at night) so why not a red, red/white etc coloured jacket? We do not even see fluro yellow roadsigns but this is the most highly visible colour to some people.... Right? 

Movement as you say is also helpful. Most cyclists when passed too closely are moving; are they not? I get the pedal movement idea which is why I wear Castelli Reflex overshoes at night and in dull conditions. I might start wearing flamingo pink knee length socks as I am sure that this will make me extremely visible on the bike during the day. 

I am not a colour scientist,but colour has become a bit of a fascination over the past 48 hours 

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

I'll tell them next time they are fighting straw men.[/quote]

Presumably in a snowstorm. Wearing colours that blend into your surroundings either makes you less conspicuous or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways.

Pushing50 wrote:

As for roadside construction workers, are they not just as visible wearing red than they are wearing yellow?

We wear orange at work, and I do have some red / orange kit for the bike.

Yrcm wrote:

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

I'll tell them next time they are fighting straw men.

Presumably in a snowstorm. Wearing colours that blend into your surroundings either makes you less conspicuous or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, that would be another straw man. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don't understand my argument as opposed to you deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

When you said 'I certainly spot cyclists sooner in hi viz when I'm driving or cycling myself', I merely pointed out that you cannot know this. You have no way of knowing whether you would have spotted them sooner, later or at the exact same time if those same cyclists weren't wearing hi-vis.

Any certainty you place on this belief is fallacious. It could be the fallacy of a self-evident truth that you alluded to in your original post. Alternatively, it could be the sunk-cost fallacy whereby you have spent time, effort and money in kitting yourself in hi-vis that you have to justify that investment to yourself by overstating its effectiveness to the point of it being magical.