A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by irc »

I knew the OP would be shot down when I saw that post. Having said that I can see a scenario where a bright top would help. On open roads I see bright yellow or similar tops from much further away than black tops. So depending on the roads bends hills and roadside hedges a driver might catch a glimpse of a yellow top from several hundred yards away after which the cyclist might not be in clear sight until the driver had almost caught up with him. If at that time the cyclist went into deep shade the driver would already know there was a cyclist ahead and a good driver would have taken appropriate action.

Most of the time a driver will see cyclist regardless of what they are wearing. If he is looking. I can see rare circumstances where it could make a difference. Unlike a helmet a bright top is as comfortable as a black top so I see no reason not to wear one.

The visibility doesn't always work though. Orange on orange here.

B-Me-canyonwall.jpg
sjs
Posts: 1306
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 10:08pm
Location: Hitchin

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by sjs »

661-Pete wrote:I, too, am not going to be lectured to, on what to wear. But I do let common sense prevail. I wear a jacket when weather dictates, and it does happen to be a yellow hi-viz one. There are conditions where it helps a bit.

Incidentally, the OP has a post count of 7, but only two come up on his/her profile: the two on this thread. Where are the other 5? I can guess....


I had noticed that but unlike you, can't guess. What's the explanation?
User avatar
Tigger
Posts: 491
Joined: 3 Jun 2012, 12:00pm
Location: Isle of Lewis

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by Tigger »

Posted then deleted?
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by Vorpal »

Or sales items that were automatically removed after 30 days of inactivity.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by 661-Pete »

Vorpal wrote:Or sales items that were automatically removed after 30 days of inactivity.

Thanks for that clarification. I suppose I nearly lapsed into a bit of 'victim blaming' for my own part - seeing as I assumed that Moderator intervention was involved. I'm glad this was not the case.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
User avatar
paulcuthbert
Posts: 163
Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 12:18am
Location: Belfast IRE/Glasgow SCO
Contact:

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by paulcuthbert »

Hi-viz clothing is useless in the dark anyway. It's only effective in reflecting natural light, not artificial light.

I don't own any Hi-viz clothing. I think it looks absolutely daft. Road position and effective bike lights are much better at making other road users aware that you are there. Most of my cycle clothing is dark, and I ride my bike to uni and back in normal clothes, and I never have a problem being seen - because I ride where people will see me / my lights (1 flashing / 1 solid, front and rear - sometimes even with flashing light on the helmet too - pretty hard to miss if you ask me!) :)
Pain is temporary. Quitting is forever
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by Cunobelin »

Spaeleoman wrote:Well well, I an astounded by the response so far. I really thought it in the best interests of us cyclists to be responsible about our visibility. I dare say you who that argue against my commen sense approach also drive cars - have you never been in a situation where you are suddenly aware of a cyclist in black? The one that you could have mown down? Same applies to the idiots who walk at night on unlit roards with dark clothing and no torch.

You amaze me frankly.

Thsi is the last I have to say on this subject. I have no wish, need or desire to continue with a dialogue that goes nowhere.

Yours, A responsible cyclist who only goes out in hi-vis gear.


The accident happened because a driver was traveling in a manner that was unsafe

However you may have a point..... had this been a broken down or parked black or dark blue car
Lets be logical here and ban the sale of dark coloured cars and of dark coloured clothing ... full stop


After all only an idiot would go out in a dark coloured car?
User avatar
anniesboy
Posts: 789
Joined: 16 Feb 2007, 10:16pm
Location: South Oxon

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by anniesboy »

Please take into account rule 59 of the Highway Code.

59

Clothing. You should wear

a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

I'm well aware you don't have to follow this "rule", but if you ignore it any action against a motorist will for sure take this into account.
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by irc »

Cunobelin wrote:
The accident happened because a driver was traveling in a manner that was unsafe


Nobody is disputing that.

Cunobelin wrote:However you may have a point..... had this been a broken down or parked black or dark blue car
Lets be logical here and ban the sale of dark coloured cars and of dark coloured clothing ... full stop


After all only an idiot would go out in a dark coloured car?


The OP overstated the case but there is a good argument that visibility matters. Even for cars. A New Zealand study published in the BMJ 2003 (paywalled) found silver cars were less likely to be involved in crashes. From the BMJ responses

"silver cars were about 50% less likely to be involved in a crash resulting in serious injury than white cars"

"In an unpublished project many years ago, using data from the Road Accident Research Unit at this university, a student used records of crashed cars where the police report described the vehicle as an innocent victim. Standardising on one make of car (a Ford Escort, as it happens), because of the possibility that different kinds of driver use different kinds of car, and using only side-impact crashes (between 60 and 120 degrees), he found that the relative risk of being an innocent victim of this kind was 1.6 for "dark" vehicles compared with "light" vehicles. "

http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1455?tab=responses
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by mjr »

anniesboy wrote:Please take into account rule 59 of the Highway Code.

I did - I campaigned against it at the last revision because there is insufficient evidence that any of its clothing "advice" makes a significant difference. Helmets have their own forum on here, clothing tangles are best avoided by appropriate guards, TRL reports say light or fluo clothing is not always most visible, and vehicles (bicycles) should have reflectors not people.

I'm saddened by the abuse of the highway code to cut liability of those who cause harm.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Cunobelin wrote:
Spaeleoman wrote:Well well, I an astounded by the response so far. I really thought it in the best interests of us cyclists to be responsible about our visibility. I dare say you who that argue against my commen sense approach also drive cars - have you never been in a situation where you are suddenly aware of a cyclist in black? The one that you could have mown down? Same applies to the idiots who walk at night on unlit roards with dark clothing and no torch.

You amaze me frankly.

Thsi is the last I have to say on this subject. I have no wish, need or desire to continue with a dialogue that goes nowhere.

Yours, A responsible cyclist who only goes out in hi-vis gear.


The accident happened because a driver was traveling in a manner that was unsafe

However you may have a point..... had this been a broken down or parked black or dark blue car
Lets be logical here and ban the sale of dark coloured cars and of dark coloured clothing ... full stop


After all only an idiot would go out in a dark coloured car?

Surely the logical response is to ban the sale or use of cars?
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
paulcuthbert
Posts: 163
Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 12:18am
Location: Belfast IRE/Glasgow SCO
Contact:

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by paulcuthbert »

[XAP]Bob wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:
Spaeleoman wrote:Well well, I an astounded by the response so far. I really thought it in the best interests of us cyclists to be responsible about our visibility. I dare say you who that argue against my commen sense approach also drive cars - have you never been in a situation where you are suddenly aware of a cyclist in black? The one that you could have mown down? Same applies to the idiots who walk at night on unlit roards with dark clothing and no torch.

You amaze me frankly.

Thsi is the last I have to say on this subject. I have no wish, need or desire to continue with a dialogue that goes nowhere.

Yours, A responsible cyclist who only goes out in hi-vis gear.


The accident happened because a driver was traveling in a manner that was unsafe

However you may have a point..... had this been a broken down or parked black or dark blue car
Lets be logical here and ban the sale of dark coloured cars and of dark coloured clothing ... full stop


After all only an idiot would go out in a dark coloured car?

Surely the logical response is to ban the sale or use of cars?


+1 :lol:
Pain is temporary. Quitting is forever
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by horizon »

I feel the OP was a bit harshly treated. For many people the idea of not wearing so-called safety equipment has a very different connotation. It has to be explained carefully and gently why putting the responsibility on the cyclist and not on the driver is wrong. To be fair to the OP he was simply taking the position adopted by most people, however misguided.

I do wear a hi-viz waistcoat: that's to lend me some authority when taking the primary position. Psychologically it says, "He abides by the rules as I can see his Highway Code approved hi-viz vest so what he is doing must also be by the rules...". Who knows? :)

It also keeps my clothes clean. I also agree with irc that it may even provide some distant visibility so that's a plus.

But where I really disagree with the OP is that he has blamed the cyclist for the wrong reason. I will now blame the cyclist for another reason (but unlike the OP I won't feel offended when I get shot down and won't be leaving the forum anytime soon... :D) :

As cyclists we must deal with the problem of low sunlight and shaded areas of the road, whatever the rights and wrongs of it. That means learning to spot where drivers are likely to be blinded by low sun (and won't be slowing down but keeping their fingers crossed) and sudden areas of shade (where the same applies). And remember, we don't have a dirty windscreen in front of us. As soon as I'm in this situation I take primary, do a car capture, get it firmly behind me and ensure I have protection through the blind spot. These cyclists should have ridden two abreast and got hold of the following car before they went into the shade. Cars are our best friends in these situations and we are throwing away a useful safety measure by not using them.

Let me know what you think. I may agree with you and may accept your contrary opinion but even if I don't, rest assured I won't take it personally, feel aggrieved or complain to the mods - I leave all of that to my solicitors :wink: .
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by AlaninWales »

Another vote against bright clothing here: The wearing of it gives a false sense of security since it does not help with your visibility in the way that most (including the OP apparently) believe.

Since anecdote seems to be evidence today, a little (true) story:
Last autumn I was driving to Carmarthen with my wife, it was a wet, dark evening on the narrow roads winding through the hills. At one point an oncoming bus rounded the bend ahead and dazzled me with his headlights. As I braked, I noticed a dark shadow moving behind his lights - and pushed the brake pedal more firmly. After a collected stop (without involving ABS) and as the bus drew away behind us, I saw that about three car-lengths ahead was a lady of some age, walking in the road.
With hazard lights on, I drew alongside her and asked if she was OK: Apparently she was walking to Carmathen (about 12 miles away), so we offered her a lift which she accepted. As she got into the car, she pointed to her (bright yellow, with retro-reflective stripes) 'Hiviz' top and asked if it had helped me to see her; it was the first time I had even noticed it!

So, if the driver is looking then (s)he will see what is in front of the car, even if only as a dark shadow; if driving correctly, (s)he will avoid colliding with anyone. 'Hi-viz' does not necessarily show up at all.

Separately, when cycling I have had my own share of people driving at me, sybsequently claiming not to have seen me when I have been wearing several 'hi-viz' items (vest, hat, armband, legbands, gloves) in daylight and at night: When a driver is not paying attention, no magic fabric exists which causes you to be noticed. The incident the OP posted seems to me to be a classic (and tragic, in the literary sense) case of a driver simply not paying sufficient attention to the task of driving; no other cause is involved.
ian s
Posts: 121
Joined: 24 Jun 2008, 12:59pm

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by ian s »

Slightly off the main point of this thread, but mentioned here is the difference in visibility of flashing versus steady lights. My back light flashes quite fast, and it has been observed to me that it is very noticeable, whereas some flash much more slowly, with a significant off time between flashes. I do wonder if the studies concerning flashing versus steady lights have also studied the different flash frequencies. As regards the wearing of lightish clothing, I usually do, but that is a matter of choice. Likewise I always have white helmets, and don't see why anyone buying a helmet would not do likewise; but again it is up to the individual. What really annoys me is the people using lights on bicycles in broad daylight; I fear it won't be long before some half witted politician makes doing so compulsory like these infernal day time lights on cars. People should drive (and ride) according to what they can see by their own lights or by daylight, and not rely upon light emitted by others on the road. The point here, of course, is that not all obstructions will have lights on them, even if all vehicles do.
Post Reply