You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The only cyclists I've nearly hit as a driver are the ones dressed on black on black bikes with no lights riding at night, yes you pick them up right at the last minute and don't mow them down, but the margin for error is very slight.
The ones in Hi-viz you can spot from 1/2 mile away....
i always thought it was because team sky wore black. is black popular for road kit in other countries?
i also think that team sky using black kit was a way to popularize black kit with gringos making them less visible and more vulnerable on the road leading to more accidents in a bid to reduce the number of cyclists on the road. it is a conspiracy. it is the only explanation as you’d only wear black and ride on the road if you’d been brainwashed
I have a fair amount of black gear I wear on the road. All of it, however has reflective trim or decals. As a car driver, I find moving reflective trim more easy to notice in the dark.
As well as lights, obviously.
have been countless cycling accidents day and night in my years of commuting through london clothes don’t make a single bit of difference .
If the people involved in the accidents were wearing a mix of colours but all of the ones not involved in the accidents were wearing One or two colours, say yellow or orange, then you'd say there was probably an effect there.
Lmgtfy
First hit there are more. Google.
Quotes from article you linked to:
riders who believe they are more conspicuous may adopt more exposed positions on the road.
the results “should be treated with caution” however, as they were based on only 76 accidents.
a larger study in Denmark, involving nearly 7,000 cyclists, which found cyclists suffered 47 per cent fewer accidents causing injuries if a bright yellow jacket was worn.
However, they conclude with
Researchers found that “a fluorescent yellow jersey did not significantly improve the cyclist’s conspicuity relative to a black jersey. However, when the cyclist paired the fluorescent jersey with fluorescent yellow leggings, participants responded from a distance 3.3x farther than an identical outfit with black leggings.”
They concluded that “highlighting a cyclist’s biological motion can provide powerful conspicuity enhancements. Thus fluorescent leggings can offer a powerful and low-tech tool for enhancing bicyclists’ daytime conspicuity.”
At the same time, 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.
It looks like leggings have it !
I do know that those ProViz full reflective jackets are a wonderous invention, So much easier to spot a cyclist 1/2 mile aay when their tiny LED is lost in the background clutter.
And I do think this is also a problem / reason / cause of collisions. Drivers are looking for brick sized headlights , as your brain is telling you bad things will happen if you ignore the big lights coming round the roundabout. And the 50p sized LED simply isnt big enpugh to be a danger . Ditto rear lights . Why no one makes a rear light the size of a car number plate you could velcro across your arse I have no idea. Its at most drivers head height. It gives you more 'width' than a 10p sizd LED. Easy to incorperate flashing sections without it switching off then on. Could even do a 'Knight Rider' effect and scroll left to right.
If the people involved in the accidents were wearing a mix of colours but all of the ones not involved in the accidents were wearing One or two colours, say yellow or orange, then you’d say there was probably an effect there.
IF is the key word there and until proven its nothing but an assumption / hypothesis. Personally I have been knocked off my bike 3 times and as you would guess sometimes I was in a bright yellow jacket and hi-viz rain cover on my backpack other times all black.
The brain basically takes a series of photos and stitches them together if you are in the stitch they wont see you, thats why drivers have to look twice, but everyones in a rush so that often doesn't happen.
And I do think this is also a problem / reason / cause of collisions. Drivers are looking for brick sized headlights , as your brain is telling you bad things will happen if you ignore the big lights coming round the roundabout...
I feel like the problem with this is your basically saying if cyclists had bigger lights they wouldn't get hit as "bad things would happen." People are talking as if cyclists don't get killed in the day which is absolute nonsense.
If the people involved in the accidents were wearing a mix of colours but all of the ones not involved in the accidents were wearing One or two colours, say yellow or orange, then you’d say there was probably an effect there
Could say alot of things. But doesn't make it so.
Fwiw the one and only time I've been hit I was wearing high Viz. Driver just wasn't looking. - I know that as she told me after I'd smashed his passengers window with my bike and the windscreen with my head.
always thought it was because team sky wore black. is black popular for road kit in other countries?
POC I think it was, said they'd never make a black helmet because of safety. A few years ago they started making black and dark grey helmets. It's just a fashion trend isn't it?
Next year's cycling gear.
IF is the key word there and until proven its nothing but an assumption / hypothesis.
Even if hi-viz reduces the chance of being hit it doesn't mean you won't ever be hit wearing hi-viz nor that you'll definitely be hit if you don't wear it.
Given that it's highly unlikely hi-viz makes you less visible, given the choice of buying a hi-viz or a black version of the same jersey etc, I'd just pick the bright coloured one.
It’s just a fashion trend isn’t it?
For years that was pretty much all Rapha did, black and more black...
Even if hi-viz reduces the chance of being hit it doesn’t mean you won’t ever be hit wearing hi-viz nor that you’ll definitely be hit if you don’t wear it.
did you even read the post a few pages up it ends with "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."
Fwiw I also don't own a single black jersey. Not because I've intentionally bought bright stuff but because I've never been presented with a rack of black clothes.....must be a rapha thing.
But I refuse to go down the slippy slope of being victim blamed because of the clothes we wear.
Cycling is already viewed as a sport that needs expensive specialist kit without needing specialist clothing too.
Could say alot of things. But doesn’t make it so.
Exactly my point the plural of anecdote is not data. Lots of people relating how every accident the were on/withessed etc the cyclist was/was not wearing hi-vis/black/a gorilla suit. Without knowing what proportions of the cycling population they made up and what colours others who weren't involved in accidents were wearing it's meaningless.
If you noticed that every cyclist you witnessed in accidents was wearing a gorilla suit, would you conclude that drivers were more likely to hit a cyclist in a gorilla suit, or that one cyclist wearing a gorilla suit kept riding into traffic without looking and got hit a lot?
Rapha even did an abstract grey design a year or two ago that was perfect urban camo. You'd have to be suicidal to wear it. Thankfully the minimalist trend is going and it's all about the EF First x Palace kit which you can't miss.
no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2 per cent of drivers will pass dangerously close when overtaking.“
Oh well that’s all right then. Let’s not bother making ourselves a bit more visible to the other 98% ?!?
feel like the problem with this is your basically saying if cyclists had bigger lights they wouldn’t get hit as “bad things would happen.” People are talking as if cyclists don’t get killed in the day which is absolute nonsense.
There are all sorts of ways that the brain processes visual info thats involved. Flashing lights make it harder for the brain to process distance and direction. A single light source coming toward you is harder to gauge speed/distance/ direction than 2 lights separated by some distance. So in fact the lights on each corner of the car do make it easier to 'see' and perceive properly.
It's long been known that lights/reflectors are good, but lights and reflectors with biomotion are better. I saw a guy who had stuck dots of reflective tape (I assume) on the edges of his crank arms. That was really easy to see.
There’s no perfect answer as the human eye is fallible. The linked article is well worth a read. For what it’s worth I use flashing front and rear lights all the time on the road and wear something that isn’t black (helmet normally and top in dull conditions).
Agree with above poster that proviz and knock offs of them are amazing at night. Grey by day, but then you can see the rest of the kit no bother.
RAF training aircraft (Tucanos/Hawks) used to be bright red but switched to Black as they are easier to see.
Black is a high vis colour!!
1-2 per cent of drivers will pass dangerously close when overtaking.“
Posted 10 minutes ago
That's because they CAN see you not because they can't.
That link that ginkster posted is just brilliant.
I feel like the problem with this is your basically saying if cyclists had bigger lights they wouldn’t get hit as “bad things would happen.” People are talking as if cyclists don’t get killed in the day which is absolute nonsense.
I dont give a flying fig what you feel. Drivers avoid bigger things . JambaFact. Small cars look out for 4x4 sized cars , 4x4 look out for Transits , Transits look out for Tipper Lorries and Busses. Of course cyclist get killed in the daytime , I have 3 x road bikes so yeah I do a few road miles, and I am talking about at night , you know when its dark, so those ProViz jackets light up like Casper the friendly ghost but in my opinion a wider rear light might just be more visable and 'persuade ' drivers to give that extra meter of width ( pre suppoing they have actually seen you in the first place) when overtaking
That would explain my winter bike that I (used to) commute via country road in the dark in.
Reflective tape on the crank arms to give the “legs up and down” motion. Reflective ankle bands when dark (reversible to yellow when light).
Whilst tempted by a proviz jacket for the dark, it is more or less camoflauge colour at dust as it’s light grey.
The one mistake a made was a very bright lezyne rear light - bright and a point source. Sure cars saw me but I experienced lots of overtakes in to blind corners etc which i realised was the lack that being so blinding they couldnt see past. That was fixed with a simple diffuser (ping ping ball!) but then buying a light with more surface area (aldi copy of a moon light). The lezyne stayed for daylight use though.
The distance thing is (to a great extent) a red herring, though. We know hi-viz generally has greater conspicuity at long distance, particularly against grey backgrounds. That’s why it’s used for workers on rail tracks, for instance, where stopping distances are enormous.
Stopping distances for cars, particularly in urban environments, are much shorter. (Plus, unlike with a train, stopping is not the only evasive action.)
And all that’s needed is to be seen in adequate time to be safely avoided. You simply don’t need to be seen a mile away, it’s irrelevant.
So any studies that show hi-viz to be visible further away have to be put into context: they may well be right, but the difference between being seen at (say) 200m and being seen a billion miles away is of no importance.
Black is a high vis colour!!
When viewed against the sky. FFS
Isadore do a jacket with a light strip along the back....
https://isadore.com/isadore-x-osram
I wear black (the Isadore kit without the lights), but don’t do any night riding in winter. I wear bright Velotoze overshoes and bright gloves, along with a good rear light.
Isadore have a sale starting soon, may be tempted to get the Osram jacket if it goes down to closer to £200.
the difference between being seen at (say) 200m and being seen a billion miles away is of no importance.
But the difference between being seen at 200m and 20m is important.
And that is the difference we’re taking about here.
When viewed against the sky. FFS
Might still be relevant, though!
“I just didn’t see him”, was Ms Purcell’s response in a roadside police interview under caution. Eighteen days later in a further interview, she explained that she heard an impact to the right of her car, but she “didn’t know if it was a pedestrian or if something had come from the sky, a bag of potatoes”
(source)
I doubt there’s much protection against the likes of Ms Purcell, apart from from staying at home on the sofa!
Right, that’s enough arguing about the colour of our trousers for me for one night. Stay safe all.
To expand upon the orange rail hi-viz thing. The reflective strips are different front and rear to allow the driver to gauge if the worker is facing towards or away. The standard yellow stuff doesn't have this.
@gwaelod ZF491 last trip in that one on 30/8/06.... happy days!!
Back to topic, I always have something hi vis on and lights if I'm going to be on the road; doesn't stop the 5% of drivers pulling out on/close passing you, but might help the 95%.
And if I were to get squashed, they can't say "he wasn't even wearing a hi viz"....
I doubt there’s much protection against the likes of Ms Purcell, apart from from staying at home on the sofa
Yes but that's the driver that will hit you. A driver who's driving competently will be looking at the road. The only way you cannot know what you have hit is if you are not looking at the road.
But the difference between being seen at 200m and 20m is important.
And that is the difference we’re taking about here.
I was talking about research studies, though. The one that’s referenced in this thread in terms of conspicuity distance was undertaken in daylight, and if someone’s struggling to see beyond 20m (or whatever) in daylight then the colour of your trousers is not the issue.
The rest of the discussion is largely just opinion and perception, with (inevitably) some people’s opinion and perception in total conflict with the others’.
The big problem with bikes & cars, cars and cars, aeroplanes and aeroplanes etc is that if you're on a collision course, you're on a constant sightline angle in your field of view.
Human vision doesn't pick up objects well that sit in the peripheral vision at a constant sightline angle.
So by definition, if you're on a collision course with a car, the driver has to be actively scanning the road otherwise they simply won't see you regardless of clothing colour. That's where the "I didn't see you" bit comes from.
OK - one more before bed
Yes but that’s the driver that will hit you. A driver who’s driving competently will be looking at the road. The only way you cannot know what you have hit is if you are not looking at the road.
Yes, agrees that’s the one that will hit you if you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time. And not much you can about it at least clothing wise. We just have accept that if we’re going to ride on the road.
That doesnt mean that it’s not worth trying to avoid the other situations. The other risks don’t all magically go away as they’re magically concentrated in the Ms Purcells of the world. I do worry that a lot of people seem to think that these risks are binary - it’s either a nutter driver who will hit you regardless or it’s zero risk. It’s a lore more “grey” than that. Sure there are the unavoidable nutters (hopefully very few) and there are a majority of good, attentive drivers but there are a range in the middle that aren’t negligent as such but not being quite as attentive as we might like. There’s also the issue of normally attentive drivers just making a mistake (I worked as a vehicle crash safety analysis engineer for a few years and was exposed to many crash incidents - what I learned was that most crashed are not just one factor, they’re several at the same time. E.g. changing radio at the same time as a car unexpectedly pulls out of side junction which didn’t see the car on them main road as they were stressed about a work issue and the low sun made the view less clear. Take away one of those four factors and it could have been a near miss. Most of these ARE near misses. Hand on heart, how many near misses have you had? Right, given that, surely we should weight the odds towards removing a factor?
TLDR - most crashes are a combination of several factors. Removing one of these factors can turn this into a near miss.
I wear a camo cycling jacket on the road or otherwise black when the weather turns. They sheds the winter grime or at least don’t show it; I’ve ruined a couple of pink Rapha jerseys following my club mates too closely in crappy conditions.
I tend to stick lights on most of the time though.
It seems to me it's just an extension of mainstream fashion, most men's clothing is dark and boring. I used to be involved in outdoor retail and always preferred the ladies colours available. Trouble was if you put any colour in the men's selection of clothing we would get comments like "It's too girly". Personally I don't get it, I don't define my gender by colour preference. Strange when in most of the rest of the natural world, the males tend to use flamboyant coloration.
I’d like like to see more side reflectors / shoulder lights (if that’s a thing!?) more than the actual colours they wear - actually had it the other night...raining, on a roundabout, car/street lamps reflecting off the windscreen and didn’t really notice the road biker at the side of me until he was there...and I’m someone that does actively scan around for cyclists
It seems to me it’s just an extension of mainstream fashion, most men’s clothing is dark and boring. I used to be involved in outdoor retail and always preferred the ladies colours available. Trouble was if you put any colour in the men’s selection of clothing we would get comments like “It’s too girly”. Personally I don’t get it, I don’t define my gender by colour preference. Strange when in most of the rest of the natural world, the males tend to use flamboyant coloration.
TBH some of my favoured cycling wardrobe is verging on the 'flamboyant' side and yep it draws the odd comment when I get to work, to which I normally say, "well you saw me didn't you" I still remember the old "be safe, be seen" campaigns from the late 80s(?)...
I don't buy the excuse that you can't buy anything but black/drab clothing for riding a bicycle, because I never go out riding in an entirely black outfit myself...
As for where any responsibility sits? Well obviously it sits primarily with drivers to look out for others.
But there are people rolling about on road bikes (recent converts?) in the currently dwindling light conditions, who either barely meeting the minimum standards for illumination/reflectors, or indeed fall short, for whom cost clearly isn't a barrier to making themselves more visible, who are comfortable relying on driver's vigilance...
That's their choice I suppose...
Of course if I were to go and unintentionally run down a winter ninja, I would definitely be pointing out their dark attire, lack of reflectors and/or lighting to the attending officer... Sorry.
More lights and some colourful clothing would take that option away from a dozy driver...
I don't, well, not except summer. But my commuting kit and lights mean I'm visible from space, and people still manage not to see me.
And so much of what's sold as visibility kit for bikes is rubbish tbf. Yellow =/ hi viz and in practice isn't much better than black. Retroreflectives only on your logos is barely even better. And unfortunately a lot of the really visible stuff, like my 360 jacket, has other drawbacks like lacking breathability.
I get more confused by people with expensive bikes and rubbish lights. The difference between a bottom end tesco light and even a half-decent modern LED is incredible. And the difference between one half-decent light and two is massive as well. You could be wearing an invisibility cloak and it'd make little difference once you add good lights.
Dressing up all colourful brings the problem of being mobbed by sex-crazed groupies, so dressing in black lets us get on with things in peace and quiet.
I agree with chromolyolly, movement plays a large part in visibility.
As for (mainly) black leggings, it’s to make the big patches of sweat less visible.
Also, it’s worth noting that once lockdown is wound down, the roads are going to be craaaazy!
And that will apply even if you’re just getting out of your car at the supermarket or stepping off the pavement.
Stay safe, folks.
You know there are study’s proving that hiviz doesn’t make an odds and in certain urban cases is worse than black
We don't all ride in urban settings, in fact I have not ridden in an urban setting for more than 10 years. I ride on B roads, many tree lined, loads of shade, no pavements or lights or road markings and many with dark banks or hedges.
I am an observant driver and cyclists dressed in black can pretty much not be seen from 200 metres whereas a bright coloured cyclist can be seen easily and is hard to not spot. That gives the cyclist a lot more chance of actually being noticed before the driver is right behind them and then overtaking more out of last minute panic than any planned overtake.
I dont give a flying fig what you feel. Drivers avoid bigger things. JambaFact. Small cars look out for 4×4 sized cars , 4×4 look out for Transits , Transits look out for Tipper Lorries and Busses.
I really like how you have made up a word in order to prove your "JambaFact." By your logic a small vehicle has never caused an accident with a larger vehicle because "drivers avoid bigger things". I figure when people resort to name calling (or replacing words that sounds like others) they know their argument has fallen apart. good job! 👍
last week a car drove into a shop by where I live, the shops bigger than the car why didn't the driver avoid it after all its a "bigger thing"
If I ever ride on the road (which is rare due to afformentioned idiot drivers) I wear a Pro-vis 360 gillet, which is very visible and am lit up like a Christmas tree with rear helmet and seat post mounted bike light.
If they don’t see me, they wouldn’t have seen a police car on a call. No hope there.
You can always find colourful kit, but it is not as easy and most options are subdued or plain.
When I first bought Ale, the options we like this kit in the wiggle review from 2015: https://blog.wiggle.co.uk/living-ale-cycle-clothing
Now, all black with tiny accents: https://www.wiggle.co.uk/mens/ale/legwear?o=4&f=300394
Same as mens outdoor kit. I bought the Fohn jacket in orange like this one. https://www.wiggle.co.uk/fohn-micro-down-hooded-jacket
I get so many comments about being colourful. I always reply with "I never understand why everyone likes being in plain boring colours."
last week a car drove into a shop by where I live, the shops bigger than the car why didn’t the driver avoid it after all its a “bigger thing”
What colour was the frontage?
I must admit, I feel uncomfortable riding on the road without a light and bright clothing, even in full daylight. Because I know how shit the drivers are around here.
Had 'castelli man' pass me with no lights and low sun yesterday. Was surprised just how quickly I had trouble seeing him, even knowing he was up ahead.
Wearing black is an issue - but down here, nr Brighton, nobody uses lights and they wear black. Obviously drivers in Sussex have cars equipped with night vision.
Fundamentally I think this all boils down to the fact that we’ve been socially conditioned to drive our cars faster than our cognitive capacity really supports, and deep down we know it, which is why we constantly look for ways to offload the blame onto someone else when we drive into them.
I used to be involved in outdoor retail
Anyone else think "I had a Saturday job on a market"? 🤣
I know that's not what you meant
What colour was the frontage?
Well you see here is the problem, It was a pretty crazy accident that thankfully happened at night and how no one was hurt was mental. The car took out a traffic light, street bike locks (you know those u shaped things) and then the shop... Admittedly the shops brown but did have its silver shutter down... what a conundrum! By Singletrackmind's logic the driver was clearly trying to just hit the street bike lock because they are smaller than the other things. Im sure had the all these items been bigger than the card, had a car shaped light on them and been painted hi-vis yellow the accident would have never happened. 🤷♂️
Was the shop wearing a helmet? If not, I hope the insurance payout is suitably reduced.
I am an observant driver and cyclists dressed in black can pretty much not be seen from 200 metres whereas a bright coloured cyclist can be seen easily and is hard to not spot.
lolz. Can anyone else see the problem with this sentence?
lolz. Can anyone else see the problem with this sentence?
Car Lights are broken ? It's not an issue I have but then I live on one of the few main cycling exits from the city and so see alot of cyclists -and see alsorts. It's also a main road heading west so low winter sun I see.
I'd much rather someone had working lights than wore red/high Viz. They bring something to the party 100% of the time. Even in low sun.
I generally wear black or dark clothes on the commuter bike combined with powerful lights front\rear during day or night cycling. In really crappy weather I'll add a reflective gilet or bag.
I've done the whole bright colour thing and found that drivers pay less heed and are more likely to pull out in front of me when I'm in bright colours than when in dark colours, combined with bright lights. Not sure why, personal theory is that when driving (myself included) you sub consciously evaluate other traffic on a "threat" basis rather than just what is more visible. A cyclist in bright clothing is a sensible person therefore less of a physical threat.
lolz. Can anyone else see the problem with this sentence?
It's displayed in black?
Fundamentally I think this all boils down to the fact that we’ve been socially conditioned to drive our cars faster than our cognitive capacity really supports, and deep down we know it, which is why we constantly look for ways to offload the blame onto someone else when we drive into them.
Nail on the head. And the problem is, the "general public" a very happy to shift the responsibility away from them. "You weren't wearing hi-viz, not my fault".
I'm happy to add my voice demanding a change in attitude from drivers who don't give a shit, or are ignorant, unskilled, and complacent. That, after all, is the primary problem, and the primary cause of death and injury on our roads.
At the same time, cyclists can take personal decisions about how they mitigate the risks from other humans with bad skills and attitudes. I wish I could be as relaxed about the deficiencies of the average motorist as some of the other cyclists I see, must be nice. But I guess that's why I favour off-road riding.
lolz. Can anyone else see the problem with this sentence?
It was my sentence so you will need explain the problem with it please.
What I am saying is that I can see the cyclist in all black on a shaded B road but I am looking hard and can only just see them from a distance
A cyclist in a bright colour stands out and I can see them very easily without having to look very hard.
Making yourself harder to see is not that great an idea in my view.
Making yourself harder to see is not that great an idea in my view.
+1
It's a choice. Personally I avoid dressing like tarmac when I go out riding esp on national speedlimit roads / lanes in winter.
It was my sentence so you will need explain the problem with it please.
I think its that you called your self an observant drive but can't really see something 200m away. Its a bit ironic.
It's a driech Aberdeen day today.
I was driving along South deeside (shaded by trees so very grey ) on my way to the merchants to get some.materials.
I met two cyclists coming towards me . Visible from a long long way away. I have no idea what they were wearing. Their lights made them visible in the conditions not their clothes.
Their lights made them visible in the conditions not their clothes.
Should cylists use day running lights?
I don't bother on my commuter, but always use them on my road bikes, costs nothing to use them.
In the hierarchy of safety PPE is the last measure.
I wear black or dark clothes as that's what I like.
I don't ride in positions that leave me vulnerable.
I would rather be alive than "right".
The motto of assuming everyone is an idiot and going to pull out on you makes life easier.
I calculate risk constantly, I will ride in the middle of the lane through road works or past a bit of crap road that I know is coming up.
I ride in Essex on rural and city streets as well as in London through some very busy locations.
Hi-vis won't make a blind bit of difference if you snake down the inside of a driver following sat nav.
I think its that you called your self an observant drive but can’t really see something 200m away. Its a bit ironic.
I see the confusion. Being able to see something and being observant are not the same thing.
Observant means I am actively looking ahead (rather than day dreaming or staring at my phone)
The ability to see an object from a distance based on colour of that object is a different thing all together no matter how observantly I am driving.
I see the confusion.
What confuses me is despite all the threads about speed awareness courses and points, apparently all STW drivers are above average and perfect in every way.....
Should cylists use day running lights?
I'd rather see that mandatory than the clothes I wear being mandated.
Given DRLs are part of new cars.
I habitually turn on the lights in all my old cars as it's so ubiquitous now that a car with no lights could easily be mistaken for parked at a glance.
What I am saying is that I can see the cyclist in all black on a shaded B road but I am looking hard and can only just see them from a distance
A cyclist in a bright colour stands out and I can see them very easily without having to look very hard.
See, to me that just says, “when I drive, I don’t want to feel obliged to look very hard.”
Which is true of all of us, don’t get me wrong. It’s a human trait. But again it’s right at the heart of the issue, and most people are in denial about it. Behavioural safety can’t really improve without acknowledging psychological/cognitive traits like this.
There is a spectrum of dangerous driver running all the way from 'don't give a shit if you live or die' to 'really don't want to hurt anyone but ignorant/incompetent/complacent'.
Ideally, you'd manage to break into the bubble of people who can't see why concentrating at the wheel is a good plan. But you won't in many cases, because they're also not concentrating on public safety messages, and, as posted, they are in denial.
A big flashing light, good positioning and bright clothing is a poor substitute, but it's the only other thing we've got.
footflaps.. "dressing like tarmac" Brilliant, I'm using that line.
See, to me that just says, “when I drive, I don’t want to feel obliged to look very hard.”
Unfortunately, that does seem to be the attitude of a range of drivers, and for the moment at least we’re stuck with it.
Given that, would you choose to be the cyclist who was spotted early or the cyclist who was not?
Given that, would you choose to be the cyclist who was spotted early or the cyclist who was not?
In line with the “not wanting to look hard” trait, I gave it some consideration, set my bikes up with dynamo lights, and then never bother thinking much about what I wear, because I’m always illuminated.
But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to argue against the filthy tide of “I can’t see you easily enough and I don’t want to slow down, so wear something lurid for me”.
As I entered the village on my return there was a woman at the other end.
I clocked her flashing light.
As the light dipped behind a parked car she went back to being almost invisible- how ever as I had clocked her highly visible light from significant distance I knew she was there already and was able to make out her shape above the car.
When we were along side it became apparent that she was in a high Viz gilet. It did not help her be seen at all. We actually had to be fairly close before the colour could be determined even with her light Hiden behind the cars.
set my bikes up with dynamo lights, and then never bother thinking much about what I wear, because I’m always illuminated.
That's where I live these days. Both my utility bikes have dynamo lighting....it's so cheap to do these days can get a Shimano Dyno Hub for 20 quid and an svtzo lightest for 25. And it just works.
I am guilty of this. Most of the stuff I wear has some small reflective detail on it, but it's predominantly black. I've been conscious of how dangerous it is, but not got round to doing anything about it. This thread has prompted me to give it some thought, though, so now looking around for a hi-viz gilet or similar, if anyone has a recommendation? Been looking at the Endura Hummvee - https://www.endurasport.com/Hummvee-Gilet/p/E9134-Hi-Viz-Yellow
but not got round to doing anything about it.
I'd say Day running lights (eg 200 lumen flashing LEDs) are the best first move. Then brighter clothing....
We actually had to be fairly close before the colour could be determined even with her light Hiden behind the cars.
Its why I like to use helmet mounted lights as well. Meets my "one is none, two is one" approach, gives a multiple angles and I think in some cases it makes drivers more wary than they would be with just a handlebar light since they cant quite be sure what it is coming the other way (handy on backroads sometimes).
Helmet lights are also handy for junctions and cars coming in from the side since can direct the light as needed.
Coloured clothing not so much although when I did commute I was a fan of reflective clothing.