The sea of hi-viz. Everyone is wearing so you don't have to

Greg T

Always Tyred wrote:

Red is not a good colour, btw, hence why red and (I think) blue cars are more likely to be involved in accidents. Most accidents happen on country roads. QED.

Causality and correlation are dangerous bed fellows.

Cities with lots of crime have lots of police, ergo police cause crime.

spen666

Greg T wrote:

,,,, police cause crime.

I concurr

UndercoverElephant

Always Tyred wrote:

Fair enough.

Red is not a good colour, btw, hence why red and (I think) blue cars are more likely to be involved in accidents. Most accidents happen on country roads. QED.

I call bullshit on that one.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300804/

Silver cars are the "safest", white cars are the least safe. Red cars are somewhat mid-table.

Agent57

Always Tyred wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Hi Viz has basically become a form of urban camouflage.

Did you ever see that road safety ad with the guys playing basketball?

Did you spot the chap wearing a gorilla costume, or not?

I remember a similar thing with a dancing bear and some people playing catch. And no, the first time round I didn't notice the bear as I was too busy counting the passes.

always_tyred

Greg T wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Red is not a good colour, btw, hence why red and (I think) blue cars are more likely to be involved in accidents. Most accidents happen on country roads. QED.

Causality and correlation are dangerous bed fellows.

Cities with lots of crime have lots of police, ergo police cause crime.

Fortunately, this isn't medical research, merely accident statistics. You can draw whatever conclusions you wish - for example, most Ferraris are red, Ferraris are generally driven quickly, blah. However the simplest explanation is that these colours are least noticable.

Occam's Safety Razor.

always_tyred

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Fair enough.

Red is not a good colour, btw, hence why red and (I think) blue cars are more likely to be involved in accidents. Most accidents happen on country roads. QED.

I call bullshit on that one.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300804/

Silver cars are the "safest", white cars are the least safe. Red cars are somewhat mid-table.

I think you misread that. Seems to suggest that its much of a muchness, other than silver. Ho hum. Not too many fluorescent cars though, one has to say.

Brown and green are discounted due to the large pigment ranges these represent, although the figures indicate that these are about the worst.

But brown.... British Leyland are the only company I can remember actually selling a brown car......therefore, brown cars are much much more likely to suffer some sort of mechanical failure or simply fall apart at an inopportune moment due to excessive rust.

You see, there is an explanation for everything.

rjsterry

Always Tyred wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Red is not a good colour, btw, hence why red and (I think) blue cars are more likely to be involved in accidents. Most accidents happen on country roads. QED.

Causality and correlation are dangerous bed fellows.

Cities with lots of crime have lots of police, ergo police cause crime.

Fortunately, this isn't medical research, merely accident statistics. You can draw whatever conclusions you wish - for example, most Ferraris are red, Ferraris are generally driven quickly, blah. However the simplest explanation is that these colours are least noticable.

Occam's Safety Razor.

Or, more likely, that red and blue cars are more common than other colours, maybe?

UndercoverElephant

Always Tyred wrote:

I think you misread that. Seems to suggest that its much of a muchness, other than silver. Ho hum. Not too many fluorescent cars though, one has to say.

Brown and green are discounted due to the large pigment ranges these represent, although the figures indicate that these are about the worst.

But brown.... British Leyland are the only company I can remember actually selling a brown car......therefore, brown cars are much much more likely to suffer some sort of mechanical failure or simply fall apart at an inopportune moment due to excessive rust.

You see, there is an explanation for everything.

'Cept when you take into account the population control values, yellow cars seem to come out worst. Are they as close to hi-viz as you can get?

Agent57

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I think you misread that. Seems to suggest that its much of a muchness, other than silver. Ho hum. Not too many fluorescent cars though, one has to say.

Brown and green are discounted due to the large pigment ranges these represent, although the figures indicate that these are about the worst.

But brown.... British Leyland are the only company I can remember actually selling a brown car......therefore, brown cars are much much more likely to suffer some sort of mechanical failure or simply fall apart at an inopportune moment due to excessive rust.

You see, there is an explanation for everything.

'Cept when you take into account the population control values, yellow cars seem to come out worst. Are they as close to hi-viz as you can get?

They're mistaken for cyclists, so other drivers leave less room and end up smashing into them.

bails87

Is that because anyone who'd choose to buy a yellow car must be blind as a bat to start with.

Then there's the 'moods' of colours. Is red an 'aggressive' colour? If so, do aggressive drivers prefer red cars, and do aggressive drivers have more crashes?

shouldbeinbed

Not enormous amounts of hi Vizzed cyclists round my way but plenty of other people not on bikes wearing it.

I've been saying for a while its better (and even less cool) to be marked out as a cyclist to be wearing a Sam Browne belt than a Hi Viz top

still all the reflectiveness after dark but far less chance of being a dog walker or workman on the pavement.

meanredspider

I think the biggest risk is that motorists will be expecting Hi-Viz and a non-Hi-Vizer is actually therefore marginally more at risk as a result of so many others wearing Hi-Viz. The logic is similar to that of Sat Navs where people get used to the Sat Nav announcing forthcoming junctions - people start relying (subconciously) on the Sat Nav to tell them when a junction is coming.

meanredspider

bails87 wrote:

Is that because anyone who'd choose to buy a yellow car must be blind as a bat to start with.

Then there's the 'moods' of colours. Is red an 'aggressive' colour? If so, do aggressive drivers prefer red cars, and do aggressive drivers have more crashes?

A bit OT but grey/dark/silver car drivers are definitely more reluctant to turn on their lights during the day (in heavy rain, snow or fog).

bails87

meanredspider wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Is that because anyone who'd choose to buy a yellow car must be blind as a bat to start with.

Then there's the 'moods' of colours. Is red an 'aggressive' colour? If so, do aggressive drivers prefer red cars, and do aggressive drivers have more crashes?

A bit OT but grey/dark/silver car drivers are definitely more reluctant to turn on their lights during the day (in heavy rain, snow or fog).

Actually, or anecdotally?

I probably agree, although maybe it's more noticable when they do (or should that be when they don't), because they 'appear' out of the fog much closer than a red car would, for example.

I'll never understand why someone in a fog coloured range rover, driving at 60 mph, in fog, at dusk, can't grasp why I'm flashing my lights at them. :roll:

I drive a black car, and always err on the side of caution, even when it's light, if it's raining I'll at least have my side lights on.

meanredspider

bails87 wrote:

Actually, or anecdotally?

Just my observation (a couple of miles of my commute is on a path heading towards oncoming dual carriageway - lots of cars to observe.

bails87 wrote:

I drive a black car, and always err on the side of caution, even when it's light, if it's raining I'll at least have my side lights on.

Ah - you're probably another one of my observations. I never understood why anybody drives with "side" (or "parking" as they're also known) lights on. I don't think you'll find anywhere in the Highway Code it says it's OK to have just your sides on. In most daytime low visibility situations, you'll see the car (coming towards you) before you see the side lights - the exception being the latest LEDs. Why not stick the heads on?

always_tyred

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I think you misread that. Seems to suggest that its much of a muchness, other than silver. Ho hum. Not too many fluorescent cars though, one has to say.

Brown and green are discounted due to the large pigment ranges these represent, although the figures indicate that these are about the worst.

But brown.... British Leyland are the only company I can remember actually selling a brown car......therefore, brown cars are much much more likely to suffer some sort of mechanical failure or simply fall apart at an inopportune moment due to excessive rust.

You see, there is an explanation for everything.

'Cept when you take into account the population control values, yellow cars seem to come out worst. Are they as close to hi-viz as you can get?

I was reading the normalised normalised figures in the final column.

Honestly, I haven't a clue. Seems to me that you've only got 600 accidents across 9 colour classifications and that the data and the confidence limits are all over the place.

I can only dimly recollect a news story a couple of years ago about this based on UK statistics which was probably also hopeless, like my memory.

holybinch

it's well known anyway, 95% of all stats are wrong.

Soul Boy

meanredspider wrote:

I think the biggest risk is that motorists will be expecting Hi-Viz and a non-Hi-Vizer is actually therefore marginally more at risk as a result of so many others wearing Hi-Viz. The logic is similar to that of Sat Navs where people get used to the Sat Nav announcing forthcoming junctions - people start relying (subconciously) on the Sat Nav to tell them when a junction is coming.

Selfish sods. So it's the hi-vizzers that are putting my life at risk! :evil:

shouldbeinbed

Il Principe wrote:

,snip. On a bright day I'm inclined to think that bright red is better than yellow - especially when riding in the countryside where red (or garish team kit as is some people's wont) stands out over yellow and yellow can often blend into roadside foliage....

missed this before

my father in law and eldest son are colour blind. red and green to them look a uniformly purply brown colour.

to my FiL you're completely invisible your red top against the roadside foliage.

meanredspider

Soul Boy wrote:

Selfish sods. So it's the hi-vizzers that are putting my life at risk! :evil:

Yup! To paraphrase the old joke, you don't need to outrun the grizzly, you just need to outrun the other guy!

tailwindhome

Greg T wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

The Hi Viz debate is sooo Autumn Winter....

I say Spring Summer 2010 will be all about the Ipod

I disagree - I think cyclists should pay road tax.

And pass tests and be registered and stuff.

Numberplates

Make the louts wear numberplates, they'll be easier to track down

Eau Rouge

meanredspider wrote:

Ah - you're probably another one of my observations. I never understood why anybody drives with "side" (or "parking" as they're also known) lights on. I don't think you'll find anywhere in the Highway Code it says it's OK to have just your sides on. In most daytime low visibility situations, you'll see the car (coming towards you) before you see the side lights - the exception being the latest LEDs. Why not stick the heads on?

The main point of them is to turn on the rear lights to just help make your car that little bit more noticable (note: this is different to visible) in lower light levels to cars behind you.
Having low-powered lights up front doing the same thing is just sensible, without the need to turn on the headlights, which can be annoying when it's not really dark enough for them. I use the side-lights a lot on the car, especially in rainy conditions where they are much better than using headlights.

meanredspider

Eau Rouge wrote:

I use the side-lights a lot on the car, especially in rainy conditions where they are much better than using headlights.

I entirely disagree. Two points:

The car behind you is going in the same direction as you and, probably, at broadly the same speed. Why do you want to be more "noticeable" to them than the car coming the other way (closing at probably twice your speed) or the cyclist looking to cross the road?

Secondly, I drive down the A9 quite a bit. It must be close to being the longest mainly single carriageway roads (just from Inverness to Perth it's 115 miles). Because folk don't use their headlights when they should (even the matrix display signs tell you to), situations where I should be confident to overtake, I daren't at the risk of some poorly lit car emerging from the gloom. I'm sure others, less patient, take the chance. There's certainly plenty of head-ons on the A9 each year.

I've never once been irritated or inconvenienced by someone using their (properly adjusted) headlights. In fact, I believe in both Holland and Sweden it's mandatory to use headlights. I can't for the life of me see why you wouldn't. Front side-lights, at 5W, are virtually useless.

meanredspider

To quote the Highway Code

[Law RVLR reg 27]


Driving in adverse weather conditions (226-237)115
You should also

•use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen

_Brun_

meanredspider wrote:

I never understood why anybody drives with "side" (or "parking" as they're also known) lights on. I don't think you'll find anywhere in the Highway Code it says it's OK to have just your sides on. In most daytime low visibility situations, you'll see the car (coming towards you) before you see the side lights - the exception being the latest LEDs. Why not stick the heads on?

I'm pretty sure the Highway Code says you only have to use headlights if the road is unlit.

meanredspider

_Brun_ wrote:

I'm pretty sure the Highway Code says you only have to use headlights if the road is unlit.

Correct but ONLY at night. It says you MUST use headlights in poor visibility situations.

As quoted above - it says you SHOULD use headlights at night in built-up areas and in dim daytime conditions - ie you aren't breaking the law in not doing so.

davmaggs

there's a whole piece on daylight running lamps on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp

The army uses sidelights on vehicles during the day because a vehicle painted in matt camo is going to be harder to see than a white van. Doesn't take a genuis to work that one out.

Again it's often about people seeing you in mirrors or when they're edging out from the side rather than somehow running you over from behind.

rhann

sea of yellow what stands out... Dark Clothes!!

prj45

Saw a motorcyclist with some hi viz on the other day, on the back it said "I'm wearing this to cover somebody else's arse" which about sums up my opinion of the stuff.

fastercyclist

If you don't fancy it because everyone else is wearing it try some liquigas or other highly vis pro tour jerseys - it'll be different so less chance of being ignored but its kind of hard to ignore a cyclist in screaming lime green

Nothing wrong with hi-vis for a short commute though - definitely better then all black. Even if its only to ensure that a motorist that kills you/puts you in hospital gets a thumping from the courts. After all "I didn't see the cyclist wearing high vis" doesn't really sound right.

That's why I wear liquigas anyway, to spite anyone that does hurt me. I'd like to see them locked up