"Ninjas"

kingstongraham

PBlakeney wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Bill B wrote:

If you cannot see a cyclist wearing any color during the day you are the problem.
At night is a whole other story.

That!

Yup. I have been hit while wearing bright clothing, reflectives and lights. None of it makes any difference if the driver is not paying attention.

Was your response "it didn't make any difference to that driver, so I'll stop doing any of those things"?

craigus89

Shuggy76 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Bill B wrote:

If you cannot see a cyclist wearing any color during the day you are the problem.
At night is a whole other story.

That!

Yup. I have been hit while wearing bright clothing, reflectives and lights. None of it makes any difference if the driver is not paying attention.

So? That's a one off case right? So have I, he didn't see me either; was I wearing bright clothes? Yep...!
You can't mitigate against that, but it's the other case... What if a driver IS being driving with all due care and diligence, but doesn't see a cyclist due to poor choice of attire? In this instance, it is perhaps conceivable that more visible choice of clothing would help.

In that instance they obviously have something wrong with their vision and would need their license taken away.

I simply cannot comprehend a possible situation where both parties are riding/driving within the law, during the day time and the driver is paying due care and attention who wouldn't see a cyclist because they were wearing black, that would have been seen if they had a brighter colour jersey on.

kingstongraham

Craigus89 wrote:

I simply cannot comprehend a possible situation where both parties are riding/driving within the law, during the day time and the driver is paying due care and attention who wouldn't see a cyclist because they were wearing black, that would have been seen if they had a brighter colour jersey on.

I still don't want to be hit by someone who doesn't fall into that category.

Shuggy76

Craigus89 wrote:

Shuggy76 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Bill B wrote:

If you cannot see a cyclist wearing any color during the day you are the problem.
At night is a whole other story.

That!

Yup. I have been hit while wearing bright clothing, reflectives and lights. None of it makes any difference if the driver is not paying attention.

So? That's a one off case right? So have I, he didn't see me either; was I wearing bright clothes? Yep...!
You can't mitigate against that, but it's the other case... What if a driver IS being driving with all due care and diligence, but doesn't see a cyclist due to poor choice of attire? In this instance, it is perhaps conceivable that more visible choice of clothing would help.

In that instance they obviously have something wrong with their vision and would need their license taken away.

I simply cannot comprehend a possible situation where both parties are riding/driving within the law, during the day time and the driver is paying due care and attention who wouldn't see a cyclist because they were wearing black, that would have been seen if they had a brighter colour jersey on.

Exactly right! There is some common agreement here, but as is stated above, being all sanctimonious about it all won't help prevent a cyclist being hit.

craigus89

KingstonGraham wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

I simply cannot comprehend a possible situation where both parties are riding/driving within the law, during the day time and the driver is paying due care and attention who wouldn't see a cyclist because they were wearing black, that would have been seen if they had a brighter colour jersey on.

I still don't want to be hit by someone who doesn't fall into that category.

Then we agree wearing a bright jersey will make no difference?

iPete

KingstonGraham wrote:

trek_dan wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

trek_dan wrote:

Never understood this argument, in daylight a cyclist should be easy enough for anybody to see. If you can't see them get off the road before you kill someone. It just plays into the hands of the motoring moaners who think cyclists should be illuminated like a Christmas tree and dressed like their doing a days work on a building site just to pop to the shops in broad daylight.

Yes, but when I'm cycling, it's not me that is driving. Hope that helps your understanding.

and you honestly think that if someone isn't paying attention wearing yellow rather than black is going to prevent you getting squashed?

Again, it's not an absolute thing, but if someone isn't 100% paying attention, then do I think being marginally more obvious is going to make a marginal difference to whether they notice me? Yes I do. If you don't, that's fair enough.

If you can convince me that wearing all black is going to make me more visible, then I'll go there.

This is nail head.

kingstongraham

Craigus89 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

I simply cannot comprehend a possible situation where both parties are riding/driving within the law, during the day time and the driver is paying due care and attention who wouldn't see a cyclist because they were wearing black, that would have been seen if they had a brighter colour jersey on.

I still don't want to be hit by someone who doesn't fall into that category.

Then we agree wearing a bright jersey will make no difference?

No, and the important part of what you wrote was "where both parties are riding/driving within the law, during the day time and the driver is paying due care and attention". If that is not the case, and wearing a jersey that isn't all black makes a dopey idiot slightly more likely to see me, then it's worth it.

Also, they look more nicer, don't they?

stifflersmom

The well known slimming effect of black clothing shrinks cyclists so much that they are harder to see and therefore more likely to be hit.

sloppyschleckonds

The person least likely to be knocked off their bike is a policeman/ woman in uniform.

kingstongraham

stifflersmom wrote:

The well known slimming effect of black clothing shrinks cyclists so much that they are harder to see and therefore more likely to be hit.

The vertical stripes of MTN Qubeka must be even worse.

pblakeney

Shuggy76 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Bill B wrote:

If you cannot see a cyclist wearing any color during the day you are the problem.
At night is a whole other story.

That!

Yup. I have been hit while wearing bright clothing, reflectives and lights. None of it makes any difference if the driver is not paying attention.

So? That's a one off case right? So have I, he didn't see me either; was I wearing bright clothes? Yep...!
You can't mitigate against that, but it's the other case... What if a driver IS being driving with all due care and diligence, but doesn't see a cyclist due to poor choice of attire? In this instance, it is perhaps conceivable that more visible choice of clothing would help.

KingstonGraham wrote:

Was your response "it didn't make any difference to that driver, so I'll stop doing any of those things"?

Taught me that it makes very little difference.
If a driver is driving with all due care and diligence they should be able to see any cyclist.

darkhairedlord

Shirley, if you wear all black you will get fewer punishment passes. Thats got to be a good thing right?

bompington

I'm a bit taken aback at the idea, seemingly being promoted here, that all drivers fall into exactly two categories: those who will see even a cyclist wearing a magical cloak of invisibility, and those who couldn't see Chris Hoy's thighs encrusted in diamonds from six inches.
Surely the point is that there are a lot of drivers who that little bit of extra visibility could make all the difference - perhaps they might register a fraction of a second sooner?

jgsi

I'm older than the OP probably and he sounds like the standard grumpy arsed old get.. just like me.. but hey I do wear a black plain jersey and DHB bib tights in black on training rides , ok flashlight version... do I fear getting hit?... NOT A F U CKI N G chance. OP really , no I'm bored already with yu all

webboo

JGSI wrote:

I'm older than the OP probably and he sounds like the standard grumpy arsed old get.. just like me.. but hey I do wear a black plain jersey and DHB bib tights in black on training rides , ok flashlight version... do I fear getting hit?... NOT A F U CKI N G chance. OP really , no I'm bored already with yu all

pblakeney

bompington wrote:

..
Surely the point is that there are a lot of drivers who that little bit of extra visibility could make all the difference - perhaps they might register a fraction of a second sooner?

Not exactly selling it there.
A prime example of marginal gains?

cougie

So given the choice you'd rather be seen later than earlier? Weird.

pblakeney

cougie wrote:

So given the choice you'd rather be seen later than earlier? Weird.

No. My point is that little, could, might, and fraction of a second, make little difference in the real World.
Wear bright clothes if you wish, I do mostly, but don't rely on them for safety.

mfin

bompington wrote:

I'm a bit taken aback at the idea, seemingly being promoted here, that all drivers fall into exactly two categories: those who will see even a cyclist wearing a magical cloak of invisibility, and those who couldn't see Chris Hoy's thighs encrusted in diamonds from six inches.
Surely the point is that there are a lot of drivers who that little bit of extra visibility could make all the difference - perhaps they might register a fraction of a second sooner?

Bang on.

pblakeney

My guess is that all drivers would be able to see this pair even though they are dressed in dark clothing.

cougie

I can only speak from experience.

I've not noticed my training partner riding toward me on a dull winters morning. He was under trees and all in black.

I was looking for him to start the ride.

My eyesight is good. I was alert. I was expecting him. No windscreen to get in the way. No distractions of GPS or phones or radio or misting screens.

After that he wore a fluo top and now has lights on in winter.

Now why would I choose to wear black over something brighter? There's no cost difference. Colour isn't more uncomfortable.

There's crap drivers out there. They manage to crash into everything - so you're never 100% safe - but I'd rather be more visible than less. I don't believe anyone is trying to drive into cyclists on purpose.

bikes`n`guns

But you are no more visible in flouro than in black, so whats your point ?

cougie

You're obviously wrong there.

Why do you think motorway and railway workers have bright coloured vests on?

Watch this video - http://www.globalcyclingnetwork.com/vid ... they-work/

In low light they reckon a fluo jacket is visible 100m off. That's five times the distance that a cyclist in black was visible at. And even more visible than a cyclist with a cheapish rear light on.

SME

cougie wrote:

You're obviously wrong there.

Why do you think motorway and railway workers have bright coloured vests on?

Watch this video - http://www.globalcyclingnetwork.com/vid ... they-work/

In low light they reckon a fluo jacket is visible 100m off. That's five times the distance that a cyclist in black was visible at. And even more visible than a cyclist with a cheapish rear light on.

I would have liked to have seen the light test with flashing / pulsating lights - movement or sudden change catches the eye more than a steady object, especially in our periphery vision.

But for me that video only confirms my own thoughts... use your noddle and dress for the conditions.

smudgerii

cougie wrote:

You're obviously wrong there.

Why do you think motorway and railway workers have bright coloured vests on?

Watch this video - http://www.globalcyclingnetwork.com/vid ... they-work/

In low light they reckon a fluo jacket is visible 100m off. That's five times the distance that a cyclist in black was visible at. And even more visible than a cyclist with a cheapish rear light on.

When it comes to H&S in the work place the colour is secondary to the % of reflective material, cat2 & cat3 are generally used in differing situations. You can even get them in black!

bikes`n`guns

That shows that reflective material is visible at 100m Bright yellow is not more visible than black.

When will people realise that it is CONTRAST that makes people notice you.

smudgerii

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

That shows that reflective material is visible at 100m Bright yellow is not more visible than black.

When will people realise that it is CONTRAST that makes people notice you.

They won't listen.

mfin

Fluro colours out in the lanes often make you stand out. It's the lack of that kind of colour naturally occurring in those environments that makes it so. It is pretty obvious.

Whether you choose to wear stuff like this is up to you. There are so many variables involved in accidents that it is too difficult to generalise.

I can think of plenty of times which riders in dark clothing I haven't seen until quite late when driving in the day, but I can't think of a single example of the same happening when a rider is dressed 'loud'. Now I know that's not in any way a statistic that proves anything, and we're talking B-roads and lanes here, but I am constantly aware of the potential presence of cyclists as I am one.

I'll never understand how people can say all colours are the same, as it's proven with car colours, green get accidents more in this country for example, so do black.

I've got no agenda here as I don't wear fluro myself, and do wear some black kit, but I also lessen the chances of being hit by not riding like a turd who assumes for one second people have seen me (an amazing amount of people don't do this).

bikes`n`guns

mfin wrote:

Fluro colours out in the lanes often make you stand out. It's the lack of that kind of colour naturally occurring in those environments that makes it so. It is pretty obvious.

Whether you choose to wear stuff like this is up to you. There are so many variables involved in accidents that it is too difficult to generalise.

I can think of plenty of times which riders in dark clothing I haven't seen until quite late when driving in the day, but I can't think of a single example of the same happening when a rider is dressed 'loud'. Now I know that's not in any way a statistic that proves anything, and we're talking B-roads and lanes here, but I am constantly aware of the potential presence of cyclists as I am one.

I'll never understand how people can say all colours are the same, as it's proven with car colours, green get accidents more in this country for example, so do black.

I've got no agenda here as I don't wear fluro myself, and do wear some black kit, but I also lessen the chances of being hit by not riding like a turd who assumes for one second people have seen me (an amazing amount of people don't do this).

Contrast.

mfin

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

mfin wrote:

Fluro colours out in the lanes often make you stand out. It's the lack of that kind of colour naturally occurring in those environments that makes it so. It is pretty obvious.

Whether you choose to wear stuff like this is up to you. There are so many variables involved in accidents that it is too difficult to generalise.

I can think of plenty of times which riders in dark clothing I haven't seen until quite late when driving in the day, but I can't think of a single example of the same happening when a rider is dressed 'loud'. Now I know that's not in any way a statistic that proves anything, and we're talking B-roads and lanes here, but I am constantly aware of the potential presence of cyclists as I am one.

I'll never understand how people can say all colours are the same, as it's proven with car colours, green get accidents more in this country for example, so do black.

I've got no agenda here as I don't wear fluro myself, and do wear some black kit, but I also lessen the chances of being hit by not riding like a turd who assumes for one second people have seen me (an amazing amount of people don't do this).

Contrast.

Yep, the contrast being that I've articulated it reasonably well using basic communication skills and you haven't at all