You might have already seen this but just in case you haven't, any thoughts on High-viz vests a must for cyclists?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
High-viz vests a must for cyclists?
(39 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
"but all roadway users – cyclists, walkers and runners – should be obliged to wear high-viz vests"
Well it's simpler than expecting drivers to pay much attention.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Cycling anarchy? I like the sound of that! :)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Cycling anarchy? That's Critical Mass, isn't it?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Wrong on so many levels I wondered whether to even comment. Short answer, as long as some drivers are capable of driving into another (6 foot tall, 15 foot long) car in broad daylight then wearing a bright jacket is highly unlikely to save me from their incompetence. Trying to shift the blame onto the victim helps no-one.
Posted 12 years ago # -
so long as all cars have to come in either fluopink or flouyellow, with retroreflective tape on all sides, then fair's fair
Posted 12 years ago # -
Good post, Kim.
In order to believe that hi-viz would solve anything for cycle safety you'd need to subscribe to a few unrealistic assumptions, not least of which is that people are being driven into because drivers look at them but can't see them because ordinary clothes are just too camouflaged against the tarmac.
I'd put good money on one of the two other options (driver doesn't look at all, or driver sees cyclist but does something silly anyway) as being massively responsible for the bulk of collisions.
As far as I'm aware nobody has ever shown a difference in the rate of hi-viz wearing and the proportion of cyclist casualties who are wearing hi-viz (although I'm sure if there was enough money in it, we could produce an "85% of all collisions" paper in short order)
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Addendum: My letter above didn’t get published, for some reason"
Length? I'd have been worried about how you would have been edited down if you had been published.
But good blog post anyhow.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The high standard of driving reported by Sgt. Quentin when on cyclocop duty suggests that folk can distinguish at a glance between normal hi-viz and the police trimmed version, which is technically a teeny bit less hi-viz because some of the yelow is given over to the blue checks. I find it hard to believe the same people can also fail to distingush between a drably-clad cyclist and and empty stretch of tarmac.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@cb yes it probably was length, but I have had letters of a similar length published in the past. It such depends on what else is getting attention at the time.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I don't agree with 'obliged to wear', but I also take issue with a lot of cyclists view that all high vis and safety gear does is take the blame, and shift it onto the cyclist, it doesn't.
High vis or not, motorists will always hit each other, stationary objects, cyclists, and pedestrians, as will cyclists (albeit with less consequence). People are people, and no matter their mode of transport they will hit things. I've even seen pedestrians walking into things, done it myself!
So we need to take responsibility for our own safety too, and if we accept that motorists, even the careful and well meaning ones, are going to hit things (because there is no way to stop it), then wearing something that is going to make you more visible, especially in the dark doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Someone on here once mentioned a study where accident rates based on colour of vehicle was studied (can't remember thread), and it turned out light coloured cars were hit less. There was a bit of a 'no sh*t sherlock' reaction to that, and lets make all cars yellow, but to suggest light, or high viz clothing might have the same effect? ...No evidence, rubbish, make cars floupink etc etc
In short, my view, if you buy black car, you're probably more likely to get hit by another motorist, same if you wear black clothing at night on your bike, make your choice...
Posted 12 years ago # -
@Uberuce, spot on, the difficulty is not being "visible", the difficulty is being allocated the category "relevant" or "important" within the observing drivers subconscious.
Splitshift got a good demo of this one day on the bikeability training recently when I chose to wear a white crash helmet and my first aider pattern hi-viz vest, instant and highly noticeable difference in the behaviour of nearby traffic as I was classified under "look out! Might be Police!" :-/Nothing to do with visibility, everything to do with attracting a second look.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I find it hard to believe the same people can also fail to distingush between a drably-clad cyclist and and empty stretch of tarmac.
I was speaking to a friend who just bought a new car (she also cycles, but not as much now she has a new shiny vehicle). She had in my view ruined her fairly new bike by spray painting it fluoro pink badly. She claimed this was to make her 'more visible' on the road. I opined that if a driver fails to look, no amount of spray paint or hi-viz will help. To which the response was that cyclists in ordinary clothes 'blend into the background' for drivers. At which point I began to question her driving... Anyway, this is someone who has cycled most of her life. I was a bit shocked that popular myths about cycling can colonise someone's consciousness to such an extent purely due to taking 'the driver's perspective'.
This, and other discussions with drivers have made me realise that the whole driver/cyclist dichotomy is really mostly a question of identity politics: joining one camp or another. It has relatively little to do with visibility, etc. Clearly for some folk having a foot in both camps is an intolerable pressure, leading to strange schisms in attitudes and beliefs bordering on the schizophrenic.
Length? I'd have been worried about how you would have been edited down if you had been published.
@Kim, you linked to another letter that was published. It took a slightly different, but related angle to your reply: but it was brief and to the point. Easy choice for the editor!
Posted 12 years ago # -
@Baldcyclist, I follow your reasoning, however at night retro-reflectives are definitely useful, fleuro colours are of debatable value.
However what I am wearing at night is surely a moot point, good led lights make me visible to any driver who cares to pay attention, the ones who don't will continue to fail to look/notice unless there is somethin unsual to attract their attention. In broad daylight, what's the point?
I have nothing against people wearing hi-vi/dark clothes/pink tutus, but if we want to redce smidsy's we need to preach defensive riding and primary position, I honestly believe those are the areas where rapid safety gains are available just nowPosted 12 years ago # -
In short, my view, if you buy black car, you're probably more likely to get hit by another motorist, same if you wear black clothing at night on your bike, make your choice...
It depends on the context. In many parts of southern Europe, people avoid 'black cars' as they are afraid of who might be inside and the consequences for themselves and their family if they do anything rash like scratching the paintwork of the black S-class, 7 series, Bentley, etc.
To put it another way, don't the police wear black? Does that make them more likely to be hit by members of the public?
Posted 12 years ago # -
I object to the whole idea of 'take responsibility for your own safety', at least when it's used to justify a fairly arbitrary choice of safety measure like a hi-viz suit.
For instance, we already know that wearing a blonde wig leads to drivers giving significantly more passing space in at least some circumstances. Why does nobody argue that "all cyclists should take responsibility for their own safety and wear blonde wigs - after all, you'll come off worse if you're hit by a car whoever's at fault"?
It's just because of a social construct that makes it acceptable to think that wearing a luminous suit is a reasonable course of action but wearing a wig is ridiculous (in the same way that pedestrian and driving helmets are ignored despite offering huge safety benefits in absolute terms over cycling lids).
It wouldn't surprise me to learn, if such things could be measured, that useless-in-the-wet rim brakes contribute to a large proportion of cyclist injuries, to take one example. Should insurers be able to reduce compensation because cyclists refuse to upgrade to discs, negligently contributing to a higher accident rate (regardless of who is to blame for the actual collisions)?
Should we even take the minimal step of "taking responsibility for our own safety" by fitting upgraded brakes?
You can play this game with almost anything, but the bottom line remains that until someone can demonstrate a population-level reduction in casualties amongst wearers of hi-viz versus ordinary cyclists I'll be highly sceptical.
Posted 12 years ago # -
fleuro colours are of debatable value
I was lead to believe by some article or another that at night time, white is far more visible than yellows. It stands to reason, being that it reflects the whole of the light spectrum, not just part of it.
As Smudge says, at night, it's reflectives that work best. Apparently they work best when applied to moving parts of the body (i.e. legs / ankles) as peripheral vision is sensitive to moving points of light more than static ones. But you only need to catch a retroreflective road sign, tyre sidewall or similar in a bicycle headlight to see just how effective they are at even say 100m away.
Posted 12 years ago # -
if we want to redce smidsy's we need to preach defensive riding and primary position
Yep. I'd much rather the driver was beeping the horn and yelling at me for being 'in the middle of the road', no matter how socially 'unacceptable'. Far better than lying in a pool of my own blood by the side of the road as the driver mumbles 'Sorry mate, I didn't see you.' Apparently though that is socially 'acceptable'.
Posted 12 years ago # -
+1 Baldcyclist
It stands to reason....
Yes, but it's not quite as simple as that for flourescent materials. They can convert light from one wavelength (maybe invisible) into another.
Since the eye has a variable response to different wavelengths, an object with a flourescent coating can be brigher than a white one in the same environment.
There's a number of new roadsigns around that exploit UV light to produce a bright yellow in daylight: very effective, so don't dismiss flourescent clothing in the day.
Posted 12 years ago # -
fleuro colours are of debatable value
I was lead to believe by some article or another that at night time, white is far more visible than yellows. It stands to reason, being that it reflects the whole of the light spectrum, not just part of it.
Ah, but fluorescent colours "pop" in sunlight because they absorb UV light and emit visible light - hence even better that white - check out a fluorescent colour on a dull day, it still shines...
As for the retro-reflectives versus lights argument, how many LED lights now emit in a very narrow cone, being blindingly/distractingly bright on axis (or when cycling behind), but off axis being rather dim? At least the retro-reflectives work from whatever angle the light source is approaching.
I'd sooner ditch my helmet (and may well do so until I need rain/cold protection again - currently it's only just staying on as a camera mount!), than drop the fluorescent/retro-reflective at night.
Robert
Posted 12 years ago # -
Then you need more/better lights :D
Posted 12 years ago # -
“
Defensive cycling courses for adults should be part of the package so that they understand the problems of visibility from large vehicles and speed differentials on rural roads.
"Posted 12 years ago # -
Reflectives at night are certainly in a different ball-park to hi-viz during the day (even moreso if you ride outside built up areas). Stick a top-quality white retro-reflective band on your right ankle and you can practically stop worrying about whether your rear light is working.
I have however considered putting reflective chequered body wrap on our car after noticing the highway patrols down south are black/hi viz - put a damper on the speedophiles in the mayhem through the midlands on the M6 anyway ;-)
Posted 12 years ago # -
There are regulations governing "Battenberg" reflective patterns on cars - as in, I don't think your'e allowed to use them unless you are one of the relevant emergency / officialdom services.
Posted 12 years ago # -
How about a reflective jacket which says POLITE?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Better put in small letters below 'cyclist'. Just to remove any confusion and the possibility of arrest for impersonating an officer...
Posted 12 years ago # -
From memory, restrictions on batternburg solely relate to the colouring rather than the pattern. The reflectives are treated for all intents as a light of the same colour, so reflective blue may only be used by police (or any emergency vehicle), green by ambulance, red by fire or at the rear of any vehicle, etc.
There's a recovery service called 911 that are not affiliated with the police, but are allowed to use battenburg with reflective yellow and standard paint because of this.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Blimey, that was a dull post...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Interesting discussion on the 'POLITE' hi-viz vests on this Police forum...
Posted 12 years ago # -
My take:
Methinks that at the point we begin moving in any transport device, from our own skin to an oil tanker, we take on a duty of care to our fellow Universe resident.
At all times, competent persons are responsible for ensuring that this duty to them can be carried out with only reasonable skill and attention.
If the operator of any given mode of transport is incapable of the emergent reasonably expected level of skill and attention, then they should stop using it.That just gives us the headache of deciding what's reasonable or not in any given context. Just.
In this context, to support mandatory hi-viz use, I'd have to consider it unreasonable to expect motorists to see drably clad cyclists in daylight, and I don't.
Compare and contrast that with unlit cycling at night in all dark attire, where I think it requires exceptional circumstances before it's ever reasonable to expect to be seen.At dawn and dusk, I think it's asking a bit much to make out my lights* against the first or last of the sun, so I don my brickie's vest** unless I have a white top on. The latter is also fluorescent thanks to the wonders of modern detergents, and I find knightly-clad cyclists to be comfortably visible in the gloaming to my eyes.
*although I do plan on winterising wee blue floofy further by copying Dave's front wheel concept, so I'll have a beefier light up front too.
**I also have a pair of fluorescent overbreeks and wore riggers boots in the few bad winter days we had, and may have noticed that I got more room than usual. I say 'may' since I might just be confirmation biasing, but I theorise it's because I was mistaken for a burly workman who'd steel-toe your car door and/or cranium into oblivion if you cut him up. Sort of like the blond wig in reverse, or possibly just the novelty factor forcefield like you get with trailers and 'bents.
Plainly this needs further research. I'll ride in:
1) My normal casual office/sproglet-wrangling clothes
2) Commuter warrior lycra
3) Brickie's mate garb
4) A dinner jacket, pair of Docs, radio earpiece and mocked up SIA badge strapped to arm
5) Full drag and wig large enough to obscure beard from behind(need to borrow a helmet mirror)
6) Oversized shorts, laced up high boots and boxing gloves. Might need to ride the fixed that day, little hope of using the brakes.
7) Romper suit, frilly bunnet and dummy.
8) Unfastend straightjacket soaked in fake blood, green lower-face mask and slicked back hair.
9) Baby otter disguise, while I try to wallop open a clam, fail and look sad
10) Flowing black robe with scythe...and see what gets the widest berth.
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
