Hi vis jacket

[cyclop]

I,ve had this Nike winter jacket for years.It,s still good but I,d like to dye/paint it yellow as its a mid blue.Has anyone done this,particularly paint?

[[XAP]Bob]

Add a Sam Browne belt?

[redfacedbaldfatman]

Add some reflective trim?

This Respro Pressure-Sensitive reflective sticker sheet can be cut to any shape, it's very flexible stuff and hasn't come off in the washing machine yet.

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/respro-hi-vi ... prod18189/

[andrew_s]

I can't imagine paint ending up looking anything other than horrid, even if it stays put rather than flaking off.
Also, if your jacket is breatheable now, it won't be afterwards, so you'll have to recalibrate your work rate/sweatiness trade off.

I'd wear a large size gilet over the top: http://www.decathlon.co.uk/en1150-appro ... 54018.html

[stewartpratt]

Why bother? Research shows that hi-viz wouldn't reduce any risk of injury even if it was proper hi-viz, let alone a blue jacket painted (seriously?!) yellow.

[Mick F]

So why is Hi Vis recommended and sold?
If research shows that it doesn't reduce the chance of injury, why does it exist?
Why do the police and emergency services wear it?

[cyclop]

I can only go on experience of driving and what brings a cyclist or runner into vision the quickest which is yellow or hi vis.Too many bikers are wearing black,doesn,t make sense.Also,a totally yellow top is ,in my opinion,better than a gilet.Agreed,paint,even fabric paint seems a bit outlandish so will look at a dye.Thanks

[beardy]

I have a few garments which are white but were DayGlo yellow before spending years in the sun, I would be interested to know if there was a dye which could replenish them and was worth using.

The jackets that you buy with an EN 471 rating normally stipulate it is only valid for 25 washes.

[stewartpratt]

So why is Hi Vis recommended and sold?
If research shows that it doesn't reduce the chance of injury, why does it exist?
Why do the police and emergency services wear it?

Because people believe it makes a difference*. Because it makes people money. And, arguably, because there are parts of certain industries which are quite happy with the way that PPE dangerises and suppresses certain forms of transport.

Emergency services wear it partly for identification, and no doubt because they too believe that it works. They also work in certain specific scenarios, in which there may well be outcome-based research that shows an effect.

I can only go on experience of driving and what brings a cyclist or runner into vision the quickest which is yellow or hi vis.Too many bikers are wearing black,doesn,t make sense.Also,a totally yellow top is ,in my opinion,better than a gilet.Agreed,paint,even fabric paint seems a bit outlandish so will look at a dye.Thanks

But dying a blue fabric yellow won't end up with a bright colour: you'll get murky green at best. You'd at least have to bleach it first, but even then I doubt you'd be end up with a good result and you may well just knacker a perfectly good jacket.

Your experience may differ, but mine has included numerous situations where a yellow top is no more visible than a blue or even black one: for instance, foliage is often yellowy-green and on occasion even proper hi-viz yellow can blend in. If you look up the case of Ray Elsmore you should notice a collision investigator suggesting that his hi-viz "acted as camouflage" (though collision investigators do appear to have a habit of finding excuses for drivers, so I take that with the same pinch of salt as those who suggest it works in other scenarios).

If you want a visibility benefit that has better evidence for efficacy, I'd suggest lights.



* For the research I've seen (which isn't exhaustive, perception-based studies do show an effect, but studies based on collisions and/or injury acquisition do not (even for reflective hi-viz at night). Which suggests, broadly speaking, that although people may notice hi-viz more quickly, people who look adequately still see non-hi-viz users in sufficient time and those who do not look adequately don't see either group in time.

[rmurphy195]

I suspect that the reason that hi-vis is worn by the emergency services and others, and that it is compulsory to carry-and use - hi-vis in motor vehicles in case of accidents, and the reason I use it is very simple.

It doesn't matter what so-called research or statistics are used to "prove" that hi-vis doesn't work, we can all see for ourselves especially at this time of year that it does!

[MikeF]

...........foliage is often yellowy-green and on occasion even proper hi-viz yellow can blend in.

An orange one won't.

[cyclop]

My mate with whom I ride is an idle swine,he is invariably 50,100,150yds off my back wheel.As I ride with a mirror,I find I,m using it as much to see where idleswine is as anything else and guess what I spot first;his yellow jersey or hi vis jacket,way back in the distance.The simple fact is,despite statistics,studies etc if a driver spots you earlier,then their is less chance of an accident.

[Cunobelin]

So why is Hi Vis recommended and sold?
If research shows that it doesn't reduce the chance of injury, why does it exist?
Why do the police and emergency services wear it?

I know it is impolite to answer a question with a question, but it is appropriate.

Next time you go to Tesco / Asda/ Waitrose/ Lidl / Aldi /Sainsbury etc...

They will have a a risk assessment that states the car park is dangerous and the staff need to wear HiViz because there is a risk they will not be seen

Would you share that risk assessment and insist your family wore HiViz when they walked from the car to the Supermarket and back with the shopping?

That is where the evidence fails... If the evidence really justifies the HiViz vest, then why are customers allowed to cross the area without one?

Why will drivers not see Fred the employee, but miraculously see Fred the customer?

Cyclist A is the one who is Fred wearing HiViz , and cyclist B is Fred not wearing HiViz


There are a lot of drivers out there who don't look or don't see, or even do see, but act inappropriately... HIViz really is a red herring when it comes to road safety.

HiViz is more about finding an excuse for driver stupidity and carelessness

[Bicycler]

it is compulsory to carry-and use - hi-vis in motor vehicles in case of accidents

Which country are you in? No such requirement in the UK.

The only problem I have with cyclists trying to stack the odds in their favour is when they start accepting that to be the duty of the cyclist. A inattentive driver hitting a cyclist becomes an "invisible cyclist" without hi-vis getting hit by a driver who "couldn't see him". We should always remember that cyclists are visible without such aids and we should object whenever somebody seeks to justify inattentive driving by claiming the opposite.

[stewartpratt]

It doesn't matter what so-called research or statistics are used to "prove" that hi-vis doesn't work, we can all see for ourselves especially at this time of year that it does!

Ah, the good old "who needs facts when you have common sense?" line

Like I say, perception-based studies show a difference. Outcome-based studies don't. There are a number of possible explanations: One is that all the outcome-based studies are flawed and the perception-based ones are not. Another is that perception isn't actually a big deal, in the sense that you might see someone in hi-viz and subconsciously note the fact that they're in hi-viz, but you still see a person without, and you avoid driving into both just the same. Another is that hi-viz makes you visibile earlier but that without it you're visible enough that a collision doesn't occur. Another is that the real issue is people failing to look or failing to care, and thus your conspicuity is irrelevant.

Some, none or all of these may be true. What it is fair to say is that there is (as far as I've seen) no evidence to indicate any reduction in collision rates caused by the use of hi-viz. As a subscriber to Occam's Razor I therefore don't see the need to imagine an effect where there is no evidence for one.

I confess I do use reflectives, partly because at night they not only provide a little backup should a rear light fail, but also because they help identify me as a cyclist rather than, say, a car with one failed rear light. This is despite the lack of studies showing effectiveness even at night, but given that the sizes of the studies are reasonably moderate I'll clutch at a straw or two if I like. But individually clutching at straws isn't the same as propagating mass faith in unproven trinkets