- 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)Mandatory hi-vis had no influence on number of cyclists involved in collisions according to Italian study
An Italian study has taken a look at “the role of conspicuity in preventing bicycle–motorized vehicle collisions.” Put another way, researchers looked at whether legislation demanding that cyclists wear high-vis had any impact on safety. They found that it did not.
BikeBiz reports that data on the monthly number of vehicles involved in road crashes during the period 2001–2015 were obtained from the Italian National Institute of Statistics.
Results revealed that legislation demanding that cyclists wear high-visibility clothing did not influence the total number of cyclists involved in road collisions and nor did it affect the number of collisions involving cyclists as a proportion of all vehicle collisions.
“The introduction of the legislation did not produce immediate effects, nor did it have any effects over time,” concluded the researchers.
They did however concede that they had not taken account of the extent to which hi-vis laws were being adhered to by cyclists, writing: “Lack of knowledge on how the law was introduced, the degree of enforcement by the police, and behavioural changes in response to the law makes it difficult to attribute the lack of effect on bicycle crashes.”
A study carried out last year by the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and Nottingham University found “increased odds of a collision crash” among cyclists who wear reflective clothing.
The researchers suggested that riders who believe they are more conspicuous may adopt more exposed positions on the road, before going on to point out that the results “should be treated with caution” as they were based on only 76 accidents.
In contrast, a larger study in Denmark, involving nearly 7,000 cyclists, found cyclists suffered 47 per cent fewer accidents causing injuries if a bright yellow jacket was worn.
2013 research from the University of Bath and Brunel University found that no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2 per cent of drivers will pass dangerously close when overtaking.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- espressodan 21 min 18 sec ago
In the UK, ford has sold 16,827 Ford Rangers. I would image that Ford UK would be able to idenfy the exact model from the body shape and trim. The...
- wycombewheeler 4 hours 11 min ago
rishi sundack has declared an end to the war on motorists (legal or otherwise) s clearly poor plod needs to get up to date with the latest national...
- timtak 4 hours 39 min ago
I feel some sympathy with the unnamed Rotherham business owner. There is one bike lane in my town and I never use it because the cyclists that do...
- Boopop 4 hours 47 min ago
Please can "Scottish Conservatives’ Transport Spokesperson Graham Simpson" have a word with Rishi Sunak?
- jamesdg73 5 hours 4 min ago
Any de branded carbon crank would be an aesthetic improvement on what you have now...
- Drinfinity 7 hours 32 min ago
Agreed. I had some experience of bonding in Aerospace, and it is an excellent solution there - no fasteners is not only fewer processes (=cheaper)...
- brooksby 10 hours 57 min ago
"We don't need the active and sustainable travel group because we have a big transport partnership group, and we're inviting even more stakeholders...
- eburtthebike 12 hours 40 min ago
That's basically a large hospital study and therefore suffers from the same methodological short-comings.
Add new comment
138 comments
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?
The question really is whether he has a hi viz bog seat and a helmet helmet..
Is everyone wearing high viz yet?
My theory is that you've all cut your chances by a third, good news. Also, I'm wearing black so stand out against all your day-glo yellow so I'm safer too, just because you're all different (I'm not)...
In fact given Rich's views on helmets we are close to becoming indestructible - can we ride on motorways yet?
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.
PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!
the_scream_edvard_munch.jpg
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
eyesopen.jpg
You can't leave it alone, can you? You have only yourself to blame.
It's worth reading the Danish study, which is available for free on the web. The first thing to recognise is that the "jacket" group were mostly not wearing the garment for about half the year when it was warmer. The second important observation is that for outcomes that might be considered important and verifiable, that is collisions with third parties that required medical attention or that resulted in a report to the police, there was no difference between the jacket and control groups. This is, of course, the sort of data that will have been analysed in the Italian study.
Think this is being approached from the wrong direction, motorists have no apparent difficulty in seeing naked cyclists. I could be wrong but haven’t read of any KSI data relating to naked cycling, even with large groups such as The World Naked Cycling Day.
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
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?
I use lights all the time. That means I can avoid the inconvenient stuff about *having* to wear a bright jacket and I can wear whatever I want as per the weather conditions.
Anyway, there's only one sure fire way to be seen when you're on a bike. Jump every red light and ride on the pavement. Miraculously, every motorist for miles around will see you (even if you're dressed all in black, in fact *especially* if you're dressed all in black!). They'll then take to the comments pages of their local rag to tell everyone else how dangerous cyclists are, what a bunch of rule-breaking hooligans we all are...
Ride round lit up like a Christmas tree looking like you've been dipped in glue and rolled through a road safety campaign and you'll get ignored and close passed!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'll tell them next time they are fighting straw men.
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?
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
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.
We wear orange at work, and I do have some red / orange kit for the bike.
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.
Pages