Proviz face social media backlash for inflammatory post

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, can't locate this movement called the flashing mimics. Are they a naked celebrity lookalike group?

Maybe they're reviving this:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167561/

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 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.

Oldfatgit wrote:

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.

 

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 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 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.

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:

Oldfatgit wrote:

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.

 

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.

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 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:

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.

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 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.