You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
how important do you think to tell the difference between bike and motorbike at a glance?
I really don't know. It probably depends on the individual cyclists, drivers and situations.
I certainly don't have all the answers. I brought Kevin Williams into this as he has spent many years studying all the research about vulnerable road users being seen. Some of what he says applies to cyclists.
These threads always concern me though. They bring out those who say it's their right to wear camouflage and it's down to the dozy car drivers to see them, those who wear a bright colour with no thought about what they are contrasting against and those who are determined to blind drivers because of course, blinding someone is a guarantee they won't hit you.
We all know though that the ninja will probably be OK and the "hi vis lit up like a Christmas tree" could still be run over. There is no certainty and no one size fits all. We should make our decisions based on the best information though not arrogance or learnt behaviour.
I don't ride much road these days, generally just short links between off road sections. Even my commute is virtually traffic free now, but when I do ride on the road I wear bright pink and have a number of "not too bright" rear lights, pedal reflectors (as you say above, they really mark you out as a bike) and a StVZO front light. This set up makes me comfortable that I'm doing what I can to protect myself and if I end up getting hit and going for compensation I shouldn't hear the phrase "Contributory negligence".
Are you sure that saccadic masking wasn’t actually the issue?
It sounds like you were scanning ahead and were able to see the cyclist when they were suddenly illuminated because there was a gap in the trees (a sudden change that disrupted the scan and caused you to re-fixate).
Did they disappear again when they went back into the shade or were you still able to see them?
Are you sure that saccadic masking wasn’t actually the issue?
The latter, it's a simple case of the human eye has a very good dynamic range, but it's not infinite. There are plenty of other cyclists about, even others wearing dark colours. But from my perspective approaching in the bright sunlight looking into the darker section of road they were all but invisible.
Saccadic masking is something that comes into play when the eye has to move. This is Cambridgeshire, the roads are flat and straight so your eye has to move very little to see 2+ miles up the road.
The posters seeking to invalidate this survey are probably the same types trying to tell us that helmets are actually more dangerous, and who years ago, were telling us that car seatbelts were no good because it was better to be 'thrown clear' 😀
I honestly don't know why they bother? Presumably, if visibility were so useless then ride around at night down dark country lanes in matt black clothes with no lights or reflectors? 😀
and if I end up getting hit and going for compensation I shouldn’t hear the phrase “Contributory negligence”.
Indeed. A great reason to ensure you have good lights, reflectors, helmet and hi-vis.
The posters seeking to invalidate this survey are probably the same types trying to tell us that helmets are actually more dangerous, and who years ago, were telling us that car seatbelts were no good because it was better to be ‘thrown clear’ 😀
Ah yes, the classic seatbelt strawman. I was waiting for that one.
But yes, some of us like to actually read the research rather than just take it on faith what the AA tells us is going to keep us alive (you know, as opposed to drivers bearing any responsibility).
If you feel you need to wear magic talismans to keep you safe you should definitely feel free to carry on wearing them. I'll continue to read the research and take a holistic view of road safety, if that's all right with you?
I honestly don’t know why they bother? Presumably, if visibility were so useless then ride around at night down dark country lanes in matt black clothes with no lights or reflectors? 😀
Just out of interest, have you actually read any of this thread, at all? I mean, fair enough if you haven't read the research (although it would help you make an intelligent contribution) but you seem to have absolutely no grasp of what the rest of us are talking about.
Saccadic masking is something that comes into play when the eye has to move. This is Cambridgeshire, the roads are flat and straight so your eye has to move very little to see 2+ miles up the road.
Without seeing the road and light conditions it's impossible to make too many judgments although even on a straight road your eye still has a tiny area of focus and is constantly moving from the speedo, to the mirrors, to something 20 meters away, to something 2 miles away, etc.
The effect is obviously far more pronounced at junctions but it happens everywhere.
And as you said, you spotted them 100 meters away. It's fairly uncommon to get run over during the daytime from behind because the driver simply hasn't seen you. It's more likely to be a cocked up attempt to pass in which case the driver has seen the cyclist and decided to risk their life so they can get to their destination 8 seconds quicker. Nothing you wear is going to make any difference in that case
Personally, I've never struggled to see a cyclist once I know they are there (assuming I'm not being blinded by the sun or they are being obscured somehow). If you are struggling to keep track of a cyclist you know is ahead of you during daylight hours that's something I would want to look into a bit more.
If you can keep track of them once you know they are there but they seemed to appear from nowhere that is most likely saccadic masking.
Personally, I’ve never struggled to see a cyclist once I know they are there (assuming I’m not being blinded by the sun or they are being obscured somehow). If you are struggling to keep track of a cyclist you know is ahead of you during daylight hours that’s something I would want to look into a bit more.
Thanks for the condesention. My eyesight is fine thanks.
Perhapse you should take a moment to consider you are not infact all seeing and awesome. Because if you're one of those drivers that does believe that then you are exactly the type to have a SMIDSY.
saccadic masking
Lovely words aren't they. I think that's mostly why they get used so much, cos they sound clever. Also it's a ****ing SUPERB EXCUSE for drivers - I mean anyone can understand "Oh the sun was in my eyes" and like, nope, you were there; cyclist was there; sun wasn't a factor... but something as clever and sexy sounding as saccadic masking? Hey you wouldn't understand, it wasn't my poor driving, inattention, distraction, it's this naturally occurring issue we ALL have! Bit too technical for you, sorry.
Personally I don't find it too much of an issue when driving. Any accidents I've had (or nearly had) have most definitely been down to my going too fast, not looking properly, bad anticipation, definitely a door pillar blindspot once etc. They are easy ones to understand for a dimwit like me. My eye-brain natural function?! Man I wish I'd thought of that as an excuse! Succyaddict what? Cool!
Thanks for the condesention. My eyesight is fine thanks.
Perhapse you should take a moment to consider you are not infact all seeing and awesome. Because if you’re one of those drivers that does believe that then you are exactly the type to have a SMIDSY.
Erm, you're the one who said a cyclist appeared as if from nowhere. It's not clear whether once you'd seen them you could keep track of them or not. If you couldn't keep track of them and the sun wasn't blinding you or they were being somehow obscured then yes, that points to an eye problem.
If they appeared from nowhere but then you could keep track of them then that is more likely to be saccadic masking, especially if the high vis cyclist was immediately visible but the one wearing dark colours was virtually invisible.
If it was purely an issue of low light or being blinded then the one in high-vis might be easier to see but it would be struggle to see both.
It's not that I'm trying to question your eyesight, it's just that one being immediately obvious and one being invisible sounds unlikely during daytime from a purely vision point of view.
Lovely words aren’t they. I think that’s mostly why they get used so much, cos they sound clever. Also it’s a **** SUPERB EXCUSE for drivers – I mean anyone can understand “Oh the sun was in my eyes” and like, nope, you were there; cyclist was there; sun wasn’t a factor… but something as clever and sexy sounding as saccadic masking?
It's an explanation, not an excuse. Understanding how SMIDSY happens means that you can take action to mitigate ie, slow down, look near medium far, move your head, etc.
Have a look at the links posted earlier.
It’s an explanation, not an excuse.
As a road user (driver and cyclist) that's exactly what I'm disputing. Sorry if my post was a bit too sarky for you.
It's quite obvious the photo has been saturated to make a point. IRL I've never seen fluorescent yellow grass.
I do take the general point, however; certain backgrounds can result in any colour or pattern jacket being camouflaged. However, this seems to be arguing the margin and looking for an excuse not to wear hi-vis which is better than a dark matt colour in most circumstances in practice.