Ah. Apparently it's all our fault

arran77

jds_1981 wrote:

Finally, hi-viz/reflectives don't work unless you've got something shining lights at you which isn't always the case.

So why when I'm on a site do I have to wear a hi-viz, there aren't too many car headlights on a building site

Lights or no lights they make a person stand out better.

rolf_f

jds_1981 wrote:

Finally, hi-viz/reflectives don't work unless you've got something shining lights at you which isn't always the case.

Hi viz is not the same thing as reflectives.

Auto Express did a ridiculous survey last year where they had a go at cyclists for not wearing reflectives. This was during the summer........ Probably the reporter also didn't know the difference between Hi vis and reflective.

cyclingprop

arran77 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Finally, hi-viz/reflectives don't work unless you've got something shining lights at you which isn't always the case.

So why when I'm on a site do I have to wear a hi-viz, there aren't too many car headlights on a building site

Lights or no lights they make a person stand out better.

Because, people who work on building sites* are so unimportant that unless they wear hi-vis, they're invisible.

*now replace this with cyclists

pblakeney

jds_1981 wrote:

I agree with BigMatt. I'm yet to miss a cyclist or car at night in London, whether they've got lights or not, or whether they're dressed in black/painted dark.

I am guessing that does not truly convey the intended message?

Pross

arran77 wrote:

Interesting picture there Pross.....who's easier to see in that picture, the lady dressed in head to toe black (with the sunglasses) or one of the three gents on the right of the picture in the lighter coloured clothing?

It's irrelevant. The fact is that for some strange reason it is appears that she is more likely to be seen dressed like that in Copenhagen than she is in dayglo yellow in London.

I'd love to see some research into the effectiveness of hi-vis and whether it has diminished over the last 20 years as every man and (sometimes literally) his dog has taken to wearing it. My own experience is that it has limited impact, especially in yellow, as there is so much of it about. Not just in people's clothing but with signage, posters and other clutter. Retroreflective works at night but I'm not convinced of the daylight effects other than possibly when brand new.

I've got nothing against people wearing bright colours and most of my riding is done in bright red and yellow tops. My winter commuting jacket is a red Night Vision and I use 3 rear lights, 2 front lights plus a blue fibre flare on the top tube.

arran77

Pross wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Interesting picture there Pross.....who's easier to see in that picture, the lady dressed in head to toe black (with the sunglasses) or one of the three gents on the right of the picture in the lighter coloured clothing?

It's irrelevant.

I think it's a highly relevant question and one which you choose not to answer

arran77

cyclingprop wrote:

arran77 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Finally, hi-viz/reflectives don't work unless you've got something shining lights at you which isn't always the case.

So why when I'm on a site do I have to wear a hi-viz, there aren't too many car headlights on a building site

Lights or no lights they make a person stand out better.

Because, people who work on building sites* are so unimportant that unless they wear hi-vis, they're invisible.

*now replace this with cyclists

No.

They (construction workers and cyclists) are in a situation where there is a potential risk to themselves and they are the ones who would come of worst as a consequence .

Kieran_Burns

arran77 wrote:

Pross wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Interesting picture there Pross.....who's easier to see in that picture, the lady dressed in head to toe black (with the sunglasses) or one of the three gents on the right of the picture in the lighter coloured clothing?

It's irrelevant.

I think it's a highly relevant question and one which you choose not to answer

If he can't see your point is it 'cos your not using hi-viz?

(for the record: I got annoyed at the whole thing when you see the original comment made by that uninformed uniformed person stating that it's our fault as we're not careful enough and them lecturing people on not wearing helmets. As I said: why are they not doing the same for drivers committing road infractions?)

slowbike

Pross wrote:

I'd love to see some research into the effectiveness of hi-vis and whether it has diminished over the last 20 years as every man and (sometimes literally) his dog has taken to wearing it. My own experience is that it has limited impact, especially in yellow, as there is so much of it about. Not just in people's clothing but with signage, posters and other clutter.

Exactly ... the purpose of HiVis is to help distinguish the wearer (person, dog or object) from the surroundings. Most of the time HiVis has reflectives built in - but reflectives are only of use in dim/dark conditions - and aren't reliant on the colour of the rest of the garment.

Personally I'm peed off with the sheer volume of hi-vis and reflective clothing/signs that are around these days - there is so much of it that it can be a distraction - to the point of ignoring it - so when that hi-vis you're ignoring happens to be a cyclist then perhaps they'd be better off in black!!

veronese68

BigMat wrote:

When driving around town I can always see cyclists even at night. I have these big light things at the front of my car that light my way. They even have these lights up in the sky (street lamps I think they call them). Even cyclists dressed in black, without lights, I can see - because I have eyes, and everything is well lit.

The reason most cyclists get driven into is because the drivers aren't paying sufficient attention. Fair enough, it makes sense to do what we can to make ourselves more visible, and we should always follow the law re lights, but this whole debate is kind of side-stepping the real issue in my opinion.

How do you know, you may not have seen them?
I completely agree with the second paragraph. But as in the example I gave earlier is spite of looking quite carefully this guy was a complete ninja until he got in the way of another light by pure chance. I may not have hit him if I'd pulled out, had that been the case I would have had no idea he'd been there.

veronese68

Just looked at Road CC and I think police time would be far better spent dealing with this kind of thing:
http://road.cc/content/news/111809-video-gone-six-seconds-—-thief-no-tools-yanks-bike-railing

roger_merriman

jds_1981 wrote:

arran77 wrote:

What a load of bullshit bigmat :roll:

I'm sure that it is possible to see a cyclist who is dressed in black with no lights but it's a damn sight easier if they do have lights and are dressed with some sort of reflective clothing .

Not paying attention on the part of the driver is no doubt a factor, and one which you have no control over as as cyclist, this makes it even more important to do what you can as a cyclist to reduce risks!!

I agree with BigMatt. I'm yet to miss a cyclist or car at night in London, whether they've got lights or not, or whether they're dressed in black/painted dark.
When a car bonnet interrupted my journey the other day as I was cycling along at 25 mph, it wasn't due to lack of hi-viz or lights.

Finally, hi-viz/reflectives don't work unless you've got something shining lights at you which isn't always the case.

In urban areas I've had no problem spotting cyclists when driving, with few exceptions lack of lights or hi vis not a problem, but very tight filtering and/or gutter running they can for a mls or so disappear.

I grew up driving in a area I'd have to go some distance to find street lights etc. think it's where Pross organised bike races? So you get used to road that may have livestock/farm machinery, or fallen rocks/trees none of which will do a car any good, so a bit of imagination as to what might be is a handy trait.

Pross

I think it is essential to split this by light conditions. In darkness / poor lighting then in will obviously be difficult to see a cyclist. Colour of clothing may have a minimal effect but even a cyclist dressed all in white is going to be hard to spot in the dark and lights are essential but it's far less clear cut in daytime. Background colours can have an impact - red won't be as effective if you are riding with a mainly red brick background, white can blend into the background as much as black, yellow is less effective in a rural setting etc. etc.

As for hi-vis on a construction site - like all PPE it is often just an easy get out when undertaking a risk assessment. In recent years road operatives have go from no hi-vis to hi-vis vests to hi-vis long sleeved jackets and now to hi-vis long sleeved jackets with hi-vis trousers. I strongly suspect that this is due to over-use of this type of clothing making it less effective.

Kieran_Burns

Pross wrote:

<snip>

As for hi-vis on a construction site - like all PPE it is often just an easy get out when undertaking a risk assessment. In recent years road operatives have go from no hi-vis to hi-vis vests to hi-vis long sleeved jackets and now to hi-vis long sleeved jackets with hi-vis trousers. I strongly suspect that this is due to over-use of this type of clothing making it less effective.

You know where it's going to end up:

lancew

I think we may be missing the point here.

Basically the copper was trying to say:

"Be careful, you're vulnerable on a bike so take precautions, if not for yourself then do it for your family."

So:
- Ride safely
- Be defensive
- Wear protective gear

If a car messes up they get points, or maybe some time. If we mess up we die. No-one wants the visit to say their relative has been knocked off and killed in a bike accident.

Also if you read the article they are also targeting motorists to try and get them to look more carefully for bikes.

jds_1981

arran77 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Finally, hi-viz/reflectives don't work unless you've got something shining lights at you which isn't always the case.

So why when I'm on a site do I have to wear a hi-viz, there aren't too many car headlights on a building site

Lights or no lights they make a person stand out better.

They require a light source. On building sites this will tend to be the sun or bright light. Without a light shining on them at an angle where it will be reflected back they're pretty poor. They were no use when the guy pulled out on me as there were no lights pointed at me which weren't behind me. I have plenty of high viz/reflectives on me and my bike.

The Rookie

Slowbike wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

The obvious one - lack of lights - this does need to be addressed. Cyclists (anyone who rides a bike - just like a driver is anyone who drives a car) need to at least adhere to the highway code. I've seen a few cyclists without lights on - or even inadequate lights on and you wonder what their thought process is ..

Can I just ask if you have pedal reflectors as required by the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations then?

P.S. the Highway code isn't the law but is guidance as to what the law requires.

Yes - I do ....

[edit]
btw - I never said the highway code was law - just that we should adhere to it ...

I'll agree though that the pedal reflectors one is less than ideal - I use SPDs so I can use those flat converters underneath and still clip in - but I would suggest that reflective strips on shoes/overshoes/legs of tights should be considered equal.

Fair enough, but I'm sure you'll agree that the odds were that you wouldn't, I also agree with your comment, I have yellow reflective tape on my crank arms so they show yellow behind while they are visible below my panniers (above that they wouldn't be seen anyway!)

Kieran_Burns

Lancew wrote:

I think we may be missing the point here.

Basically the copper was trying to say:

"cycling is DANGEROUS. You will DIE. We will have to tell your family that you are DEAD!!!"

So:
- Ride safely
- Be defensive
- Wear protective gear

If a car messes up they get points, or maybe some time. If we mess up we die. No-one wants the visit to say their relative has been knocked off and killed in a bike accident.

Also if you read the article they are also targeting motorists to try and get them to look more carefully for bikes.

FTFY.

Read it again and tell me I'm wrong.

arran77

jds_1981 wrote:

arran77 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Finally, hi-viz/reflectives don't work unless you've got something shining lights at you which isn't always the case.

So why when I'm on a site do I have to wear a hi-viz, there aren't too many car headlights on a building site

Lights or no lights they make a person stand out better.

They require a light source. On building sites this will tend to be the sun or bright light. Without a light shining on them at an angle where it will be reflected back they're pretty poor. They were no use when the guy pulled out on me as there were no lights pointed at me which weren't behind me. I have plenty of high viz/reflectives on me and my bike.

A high viz does not require a light source to be effective but it will be more effective with light.

Even in very low light conditions it will still be easier to see than a dark colour simply because it's a bright colour.

notsoblue

arran77 wrote:

A high viz does not require a light source to be effective

You wot mate?

slowbike

arran77 wrote:

A high viz does not require a light source to be effective but it will be more effective with light.

Even in very low light conditions it will still be easier to see than a dark colour simply because it's a bright colour.

Hmm - why can't I see my HiViz jacket hanging in the wardrobe at night with the curtains closed and no lights on then ....

Oh - that'll be because I need a light source to SEE ...

Twonk!

arran77

notsoblue wrote:

arran77 wrote:

A high viz does not require a light source to be effective

You wot mate?

Nice selective use of a quote there :roll:

What I said was

arran77 wrote:

A high viz does not require a light source to be effective but it will be more effective with light.

slowbike

arran77 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

arran77 wrote:

A high viz does not require a light source to be effective

You wot mate?

Nice selective use of a quote there :roll:

What I said was

arran77 wrote:

A high viz does not require a light source to be effective but it will be more effective with light.

Well - I concede - if the effect you're requiring of the High Viz is to keep you from being naked ...

Have you never been in a black room where you can't see your hands in front of your face? HiViz would make no difference ...

arran77

Slowbike wrote:

arran77 wrote:

A high viz does not require a light source to be effective but it will be more effective with light.

Even in very low light conditions it will still be easier to see than a dark colour simply because it's a bright colour.

Hmm - why can't I see my HiViz jacket hanging in the wardrobe at night with the curtains closed and no lights on then ....

Oh - that'll be because I need a light source to SEE ...

Twonk!

You're as bad as the other one, I said MORE effective

slowbike

arran77 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

arran77 wrote:

A high viz does not require a light source to be effective but it will be more effective with light.

Even in very low light conditions it will still be easier to see than a dark colour simply because it's a bright colour.

Hmm - why can't I see my HiViz jacket hanging in the wardrobe at night with the curtains closed and no lights on then ....

Oh - that'll be because I need a light source to SEE ...

Twonk!

You're as bad as the other one, I said MORE effective

RTFP

Don't disagree that it'll be more effective with light - that way you could actually see it ... same effect can be replicated in bright sunlight by opening your eyes ....

notsoblue

arran77 wrote:

I'm sure that it is possible to see a cyclist who is dressed in black with no lights but it's a damn sight easier if they do have lights and are dressed with some sort of reflective clothing .

I don't think anyone is arguing that cyclists shouldn't have lights (which is already against the law). This is about hi-viz. Taking that into account, the above becomes:

arran77 wrote:

I'm sure that it is possible to see a cyclist who is dressed in black with lights but it's a damn sight easier if they are dressed with some sort of reflective clothing .

A much less rational statement.

rolf_f

Wow - the pedants are out in force today!

Can we just agree that with no light source, it doesn't matter what we wear, the only thing that will save us from being hit by cars is us having not yet found the way up the garden path and that all the cars will have already crashed?

slowbike

Rolf F wrote:

Wow - the pedants are out in force today!

Oi ... don't rain on our parade!

Rolf F wrote:

Can we just agree that with no light source, it doesn't matter what we wear, the only thing that will save us from being hit by cars is us having not yet found the way up the garden path and that all the cars will have already crashed?

If I don't have a garden path could it be the driveway instead?!

arran77

Slowbike wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

arran77 wrote:

A high viz does not require a light source to be effective but it will be more effective with light.

Even in very low light conditions it will still be easier to see than a dark colour simply because it's a bright colour.

Hmm - why can't I see my HiViz jacket hanging in the wardrobe at night with the curtains closed and no lights on then ....

Oh - that'll be because I need a light source to SEE ...

Twonk!

You're as bad as the other one, I said MORE effective

RTFP

Don't disagree that it'll be more effective with light - that way you could actually see it ... same effect can be replicated in bright sunlight by opening your eyes ....

I have read the post thanks :roll:

I said this before people decided to try and get smart with their selective quotes :P

arran77

notsoblue wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I'm sure that it is possible to see a cyclist who is dressed in black with lights but it's a damn sight easier if they are dressed with some sort of reflective clothing .

A much less rational statement.

Which is why that's not my quote :P