As anyone who posts regularly on social media will know, sometimes the things you share online can come back to bite you, and that’s what’s happened with Proviz this weekend after they aimed this provocative Facebook post at cyclists who choose not to wear light clothing whilst riding at night.
The enhanced-visibility sportswear brand certainly got plenty of replies, but they perhaps hadn’t accounted for the number of critical responses that would come their way on the worldwide web and eventually deleted the post after receiving a barrage of unwanted attention.
The post also found its way onto Twitter, via @2wheelsnot4 and not Proviz themselves, and here are just a selection of the many replies it received:
@1894restore: The same as driving a black car – you put lights on. Not impressed with this @ProvizSports there are better ways to promote your products than encourage drivers to use particular sticks to beat us with
@ibikeheathfield: “perfectly acceptable given nothing you wear can protect you from an inattentive, pi**ed, drugged, distracted, mobile phone using, SHONKY, driver.” If they are looking they’ll see you, if they aren’t they won’t, regardless of what you wear.
@RichardClinker: Other reflective kit is available. I think a lot of people here, who may be looking to purchase, may now look elsewhere first…
@Keefspark: In the 1980s TRRL looked at hiviz for motorcyclists and came to the conclusion that after a period of time it became the “norm” and lost it effect. It may also lose it potential for safety with the number of construction workers now wearing it around our streets.
@WilliamNB: Seriously, @ProvizSports? I have 1 of your backpacks, but as a result of this, you’ve lost any future custom from me. I don’t support companies who fuel anti-cycling hatred!
@gfaz81: 90% of the time I cycle all in black. I don’t give a s**t what people think of it. You’re not telling the black car drivers to pop high viz on. Got my lights on.
@billhulley: Manufacturer of reflective sports wear victim blaming their prospective customers to promote their products. Not a good look.
@beabikes: The answer to their question is – perfectly safe if you have lights in your bike. For clarity. My tweet is a tongue in cheek FU to dim witted advertising efforts. Of course cycling isn’t safe while people have cars.
We contacted Proviz themselves for a comment on the post and they kindly sent us this response: “We would like to apologise for our post and the offence it has caused. We have deleted it. It wasn’t our intention to upset anyone.
“Our ethos has always been one of empowering people to run and cycle whenever – and in whatever gear – they choose. The question was posed to start a dialogue within the community. Our intention is to always engage positively and supportively, and we are very sorry if in this instance we missed the mark.”
What are your thoughts on Proviz’s post? Should cyclists be called out for wearing dark clothes at night or are there more pressing concerns that need to be addressed when it comes to cycle safety? Let us know in the comments.
50 thoughts on “Proviz face social media backlash for inflammatory post”
So that was it? That’s all
So that was it? That’s all the post said? So instead of people saying things like “cycling in the dark is FUN” or “cycling in the dark is GREAT” people naturally went for the negative?
I have a colleague who runs,
I have a colleague who runs, early mornings, she was sent a link to this, she was not impressed at the reflectivity.
It is pretty fecking stupid,
It is pretty fecking stupid, though.
I’d say better for Proviz to
I’d say better for Proviz to emphasise the positive of their product, rather than the sub-optimal nightriding apparel of a sensitive few. I detest high-viz – kills my look – but all black is night camouflage.
I have one of their jackets,
I have one of their jackets, the one which looks bright silver in the light. yes, it is bright, but apart from that it is pretty shit. It tears if you dont treat it with kid gloves and it is shite in the rain. I dont bother wearing it any more as I am so disappointed with it. A waste of money in my eyes.
Doesn’t Rule 59 say that
Doesn’t Rule 59 say that cyclists *should* wear
“light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light”
* Yes, I know it’s a Should, and as such advisory, but if you lived around here – where ambient light is almost zero unless its a full moon in a cloudless night once you get out of the towns – anything that gives you an increased margin of visibility is a bonus **
** except hi-vis … random ultra-reflective stips work far better then the tapes over the shoulder and around the waist, and its next to useless in daylight.
Oldfatgit wrote:
You **MUST** have working lights front and rear on your bike. This negates any need for relective clothing that only works when you shine a light on it. Yes some people have crap lights – that’s a different issue.
Personally I have 2 lights front and rear so I have backup – again, a personal choice. My commutes go from county lanes to central and back so I value good lights.
I think it’s down to your own
I think it’s down to your own risk appetite. Pretty sure oldfatgit lives in the middle of nowhere.
I have reflectives, a proviz jacket and lots of lights and use nsl roads all the time.
I’m older now and now risk averse, so that’s my rationale but apart from telling people to use lights, I would not further than that.
hirsute wrote:
I do live in the arse of nowhere. A 10 or so minute ride from here takes you to the A70, which is at the bottom of the Pentlands.
I go out looking like a bloody Christmas Tree at night, and I’ve had far less problems than during the day*.
* I was in brights and reflectives when I was hit and seriously injured – and that was in broad daylight
EddyBerckx wrote:
You *must* have yellow reflectors in your pedals.
How many people riding SPD – SL (or equivalent) have them?
TBH … Someone wants to ride in black at night … They are welcome to fill their boots; I was merely pointing out what the HC says about it.
yeah fair enough. I agree
yeah fair enough. I agree with you that I generally have less problems at night than during the day, regardless of the brightness of clothes I’m wearing or if it’s sunny etc.
I strongly believe people close pass you because they think it’s ok to do rather than not seeing you. At night, with bright lights in their face they are a little less sure of themselves and so give a little more room
EddyBerckx wrote:
I don’t think that’s entirely sufficient for some environments though, particularly the very heavy traffic London environments I ride in at night/before dawn. Often when Mrs H is a few cars ahead of me I can’t see her lights because there’s higher traffic in the way, but I can pick out her fluorescent helmet and, yes, her Proviz jacket. Just personal preference, not saying it should be compulsory, but I feel safer having a light and/or something reflective/fluorescent up around shoulder level or higher at night, in addition to the legal requirements.
Yup, day-glo helmet, that’s
Yup, day-glo helmet, that’s how I end up as back-marker on group rides! At least I’m guessing it’s because the leader can see me easily, I mean … I do shower.
I don’t rate the proviz
I don’t rate the proviz jacket. Saw someone cycling in one the other night, yes it was bright, but head-on, it just appeared like a big round bright static blob.
I think having reflectives on moving bits works better or at least in some sort of pattern that’s recognisable as a person.
Movement is the key.
Movement is the key.
That’s why you *must* have amber reflectors in your pedals; there is no other sequence of lights that mimic the action of pedals, and the eye is automatically drawn to moving lights (which is why the majorty of us have at least one flashing light as the flashing mimics movement)
I’ve had a look on Google,
I’ve had a look on Google, can’t locate this movement called the flashing mimics. Are they a naked celebrity lookalike group?
Maybe they’re reviving this:
Maybe they’re reviving this:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167561/
This might help.. Fireflies,
This might help.. Fireflies, beetles of the family Lampyridae, use flashes of bioluminescent light for sexual communication—by means of coded patterns, males and females identify and locate each other in darkness.
I remember following someone
I remember following someone wearing the gilet version, and theyd created such a high contrast bright blob, you couldnt see when they stuck their non reflective arms/hands out to indicate. Which struck me as not ideal.
Cycling in grey in the city
Cycling in grey in the city is ____?
its the cycling equivalent of
its the cycling equivalent of asking how long is a piece of string I think, its too generic a question or statement to pose because my answer is well it depends.
do I have black cycling kit, yes, do I wear bits of it in the dark, yes, does it matter, no not really because I have decent bright lights, and actually my black cycling kit has reflective bits either on the legs, arms, hands etc
so whilst I might not look like Ive gone for a ride through Sizewells nuclear reactor and be positively glowing, Im fairly certain the bits of my cycling kit which are black are still visible.
what I wouldnt do, and I often see this from other commuting riders this time of year, is just wear a totally dark coat, to keep warm, have no reflectives at all and a set of lights that frankly are about as much use as a set of tea lights are at illuminating.
now you can get away riding in the dark with 1 of those things, maybe even 2 if you stick to well lit roads, but you cant do all 3, and be safe
Who cares? It’s maybe not
Who cares? It’s maybe not the brightest thing to do (see what i did there…) but why is everybody getting so triggered?! Christ.
The main insanity I find is
The main insanity I find is people pushing high vis who can’t comprehend that a redundant set of lights is now far preferable. (unlikely for both sets to fail at once, better visibility than high vis, cheaper these days, and even relatively cheap LED bike lights are bright enough to be seen from miles away – i.e. any driver who doesn’t see them will never see you…)
Lights are FAR more effective than high vis (and both are no more effective than lights alone).
Equally iirc there are fairly good stats to show that the difference between a few cm square reflectives and larger reflectives is relatively minimal. I.e. lights + gloves with reflective decals should be enough.
qwerty360 wrote:
Redundant?
From the context, he means
From the context, he means two sets of front and rear lights, one set might technically be redundant, but if a single set fails, there will still be one lit.
Particularly useful at the rear where a flat battry might be unnoticed.
Ah. That’s what I have, I
Ah. That’s what I have, I just call them extra…
two sets up front is a bad
two sets up front is a bad idea though as in the dark with no other light source on you, the human brain translates it as a vehicle thats much further away than you as a dual light carrying cyclist actually are, less problematic in urban environments as you should be seen by other light sources, but could be lethal in the countryside, which is why dual light equipped motorcycles can only engage both on full beam, on dipped only one light can be set on.
also there is a statistical quirk, that you actually increase the probability of a light failure, because you are now running double the amount of lights.
Awavey wrote:
How is that a quirk (or indeed a problem)? Clearly the more lights you run the greater chance that you have a dud amongst them, but the smaller the chance of going totally dark.
On a related note, always carry a bomb when you fly – the chances of there being two on board are vanishingly small.
Sriracha wrote:
Like the old story of the hitchhiker picked up by a kindly old dude in the California desert: “Hey man, thanks for picking me up, I thought you might think I was a serial killer!”
Kindly old dude: “Well son, according to the FBI there are only around twenty serial killers operating at any one time in the whole USA. The chances of two being in the same car at the same time are pretty minimal.”
Reminds me of the hitchhiker
Reminds me of the hitchhiker scene in ‘There’s something about Mary’.. my favourite in a movie loaded with funny scenes.
its a quirk because most
its a quirk because most people who go for running double lights have assumed it means theyve increased the reliability of their light setup, but not realised the likelihood that 1 of the lights will now fail has risen, which then reinforces the belief they were right to have gone with double lights in the first place 🙂
I carry a spare I dont run them both at the same time
But it’s not about whether
But it’s not about whether one light fails it’s about whether you are left with no lights. So 2 lights is more reliable than one. A spare is only as good as the batteries in it and how long since you checked them.
Awavey wrote:
That sounds logical but I can’t really see that being the case unless you’re carrying two ultra high beam lights that could be mistaken for car headlights, and carrying them on the outside edges of the bars to boot. In most cases it’s quite obvious what’s a cycle light and what’s not. Also, if you have one on strobe and one on steady it’s even more obvious, bikes being the only vehicles that carry strobing lights.
You increase the chances of experiencing one light failure, but you decrease the chances of being left with no lights.
Most cyclists that run 2
Most cyclists that run 2 front lights have one steady and one flash, which is not a problem with your scenario; I use the redundancy principle, with 2 front lights but I only use 1, keeping the other only as a spare to use if the other fails. I do have 2 rear lights on, 1 on the helmet and 1 on the seatpost.
Rendel Harris wrote:
R.A.I.D : Redundant Array of Illumination Devices
I’ve never had a light fail
I’ve never had a light fail on me while riding in 28 years of cycling, 1/3rd of the time in the dark (early commute and being on call).
What I did encounter were flat batteries (own fault), rear lights falling off (5 or 6 of ‘m), having to return while just out the door because I noticed I had simply forgotten to mount the light, lights not charging due to water ingress and lights getting stolen off my bike. I seriously doubt if the weight and added faff of carrying an extra set would be worth it.
But if I’d get a euro coin for every fool I encountered riding a bike at night without any illumination whatsoever and dressed in dark clothing + running traffic lights or entering one-way streets in the wrong direction, that’d surely pay for a luxurious holiday.
Surely falling off or
Surely falling off or suffering water ingress are forms of failure?
I think by “fail” most of us
I think by “fail” most of us mean unexpectedly run out of charge as well as break, something that happens quite easily if you’re out longer than you meant to be (or someone else unplugs yours to charge theirs before yours are finished, grrr….). My spares, which are perfectly adequate for town riding, cost £12.99 for the pair and weigh 78 grams between them, not exactly a huge faff to have them sitting on the bars next to the main light until they’re needed.
I took fail to include
I took fail to include batteries running out mid ride.
The cables on my Hope R4,
The cables on my Hope R4, District+ and corresponding batteries have gone when out and about, every so often, 18 monthsish, (they replaced them for free for over the first 5 years). Even had a battery get to the end of it’s life when changed as a spare.
Have extra lights to help me get home, helmet and bag lights
Rechargeable batteries run
Rechargeable batteries run flat without warning, unlike non chargeable batteries which last longer and go noticeably dim when going flat.
Fluorescent is designed to
Fluorescent is designed to work in the daytime, it makes UV light visible to the naked eye. There isn’t much UV at night, that’s why safety gear is supplemented by reflectives. I’m all for being seen at night but the difference between white and black at night won’t make any difference to your safety.
How did you make the leap
How did you make the leap from day-glo to black and white?
Wardy74 wrote:
Empirical observation clearly shows that white is easier to see in the dark than black, that’s surely unarguable, and surely it’s equally unarguable that being more easily seen is safer?
I was driving home yesterday
I was driving home yesterday evening when this happened:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztQEokqdUP4
Cyclist had no lights and was wearing a black top*, I’m not surprised that the driver didn’t see them. At the very least he should have had lights. Thankfully he didn’t look to be seriously injured.
* also no helmet and not using the nearby shared use path, for the anti-cycling Full House.
Q. How do you know his lights
Q. How do you know his lights were not broken in the collision?
Mungecrundle wrote:
I suppose it’s possible he had functioning lights which somehow I didn’t see, can’t be seen on the video and then mysteriously vanished without a trace after the crash. It doesn’t seem very likely though.
Do you think it might be
Do you think it might be possible that you didn’t see his lights as you were quite some distance away, if not unsighted at the point of collision, that even your best case is viewing from the side and many bicycle lights simply don’t spread light sideways?
Do you think it possible that his broken lights are somewhere on the dark road surface?, gutter or in the undergrowth?
Not that I’d recommend black clothing after sundown, but do you think it is possible that the colour of his jacket is somewhat irrelevant under the streetlights? Maybe it has reflectives, but you are not seeing them as your lights are not directed his way (if he is one of the figures standing on the footpath)
Not saying you are wrong, but it is a bit easy to jump to conclusions.
FWIW here is my video of “invisible” pedestrians. https://youtu.be/3RaCa4g66Fg
There’s a good reason that hi
There’s a good reason that hi-vis is mandatory on work sites.. it greatly enhances visibility; anyone saying anything detrimental about cyclists increasing their visibility is an idiot.
I do like my Proviz rucksack
I do like my Proviz rucksack (though it’s looking very shabby now), but the Proviz jacket that I got is a bizarre shape – arms are too short, and it’s way too big around the chest.