Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by Mick F »

It's all to do with what you do and when and where.
I wear a funny hat and mitts and bright clothing when I go out - like today on a blast of 40miles into the mist and rain and damp using main roads.

However, if I ride into the village maybe half a mile there and half a mile back along the lanes, I'll be wearing normal clothes, no gloves, no helmet, no eyewear, no special shoes, no safety lights.
Mick F. Cornwall
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by [XAP]Bob »

mjr wrote:
Mick F wrote:I dress like a banana with a funny hat, plus wear mitts and have a mirror, plus have "visibility lights".
None of this can do any harm, and if it helps, that's good innit?

It can do harm... by helping to make cycling look like the sort of activity that is so dangerous it requires special protective clothing. We should join forces with walker safety organisations and reject this assault by motoring intersts.

+1
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.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by TonyR »

Sagwagon wrote:I never said it was equal responsibility but a cyclist can help themselves and should.


Given that hi-viz has been shown to have no effect on cyclist safety exactly how does it help a cyclist help themselves?
Ellieb
Posts: 905
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by Ellieb »

Do you really think that a study which involves only 76 crashes is conclusive proof?
Perhaps it is if you want it to be.
User avatar
TrevA
Posts: 3551
Joined: 1 Jun 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by TrevA »

Many sporting riders are Rapha clones or Team Sky wannabes. Team Sky kit is black, so is the kit of the Rapha-Condor racing team. Go into any bike shop and you are faced with a choice of ill-fitting Hi-viz or figure-hugging black lycra.

There are other coloured tops available but you have to shop around for them. Try buying bottoms in any colour that isn't black - you may be there some time.
Sherwood CC and Notts CTC.
A cart horse trapped in the body of a man.
http://www.jogler2009.blogspot.com
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Ellieb wrote:Do you really think that a study which involves only 76 crashes is conclusive proof?
Perhaps it is if you want it to be.

Which way?

Some of the studies which have looked at high vis didn't look at any crashes...
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.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by TonyR »

Ellieb wrote:Do you really think that a study which involves only 76 crashes is conclusive proof?
Perhaps it is if you want it to be.


With a 95% confounding adjusted CI of 1.06 to 5.7, its pretty strong evidence and a lot better than "because I think so"
stewartpratt
Posts: 2566
Joined: 27 Dec 2007, 5:12pm

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by stewartpratt »

[XAP]Bob wrote:Nearly all of the studies which have looked at high vis didn't look at any crashes...


FTFY
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by gaz »

[XAP]Bob wrote:Amazingly men in business suits are visible, ....

No they're not.
Mr Farley wrote:..."I didn't see David Cameron"...

The collision was inevitable from the moment he chose not to wear something to EN471:Class 3 :wink: .
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by Flinders »

gaz wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:Amazingly men in business suits are visible, ....

No they're not.
Mr Farley wrote:..."I didn't see David Cameron"...

The collision was inevitable from the moment he chose not to wear something to EN471:Class 3 :wink: .



Well played, Sir!
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by squeaker »

TrevA wrote: Try buying bottoms in any colour that isn't black - you may be there some time.

There are several reasons for that: this is one of them :roll: :lol:
"42"
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by [XAP]Bob »

gaz wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:Amazingly men in business suits are visible, ....

No they're not.
Mr Farley wrote:..."I didn't see David Cameron"...

The collision was inevitable from the moment he chose not to wear something to EN471:Class 3 :wink: .


He saw the men in suits, and ran through - he didn't see that it was David Cameron, nr did he see the person concealed behind someone else - that's not all that surprising.

The "men in suits" were visible to him - as he freely admits. But running through a group of men in suits doesn't normally end up with the jogger being arrested for police incompetence.
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.
Ellieb
Posts: 905
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by Ellieb »

TonyR wrote:
Ellieb wrote:Do you really think that a study which involves only 76 crashes is conclusive proof?
Perhaps it is if you want it to be.


With a 95% confounding adjusted CI of 1.06 to 5.7, its pretty strong evidence and a lot better than "because I think so"


The odds ratio was not significantly affected by adjustment for possession of a driving licence, reported bicycle safety training in childhood, psychometric associates of risk taking behaviour, cycle helmet wearing, years of experience of cycling, distance or number of trips cycled in the previous seven days, type of bicycle, the use of bike-mounted lights or reflectors, weather or lighting conditions, familiarity with the route or alcohol consumption within 8 hours prior to the recorded journey.

The fact remains that on the basis of 76 crashes they managed to rule out all of these variables. That is a pretty impressive use of statistics. Do you really think that, for example, cycling experience has no influence on whether you have an accident? That weather conditions have no impact at all? I'm all for decent science, but at the end of the day you have to look at what the results seem to be saying. I'm sorry, but when you think of accident causation, to say that you can reliably rule out each individual potential factor, let alone account for the interaction of all these factors, I think is stretching it a bit. On the basis of 76 crashes.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by mjr »

Ellieb wrote:The fact remains that on the basis of 76 crashes they managed to rule out all of these variables. That is a pretty impressive use of statistics. Do you really think that, for example, cycling experience has no influence on whether you have an accident? That weather conditions have no impact at all? I'm all for decent science, but at the end of the day you have to look at what the results seem to be saying. I'm sorry, but when you think of accident causation, to say that you can reliably rule out each individual potential factor, let alone account for the interaction of all these factors, I think is stretching it a bit. On the basis of 76 crashes.

I think you have to look at what the report says: "was not significantly affected" is not the same as "has no influence".

It's seems quite reasonable for a study including 76 crashes to fail to detect a significant effect of those factors. If I've remembered the method they use correctly (my statistics postgrad was a while ago and I've not reread the report this morning), it depends on the variance among the results. Given that the police estimate that something 80% of crashes involving riders aged over 25 are solely/partly the motorist's fault (Source: http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/w ... -motorists ) and I doubt anything the cyclist does can help all that much in those (the most experienced riders on their favourite routes might avoid a few by backing off when they think "that car looks like it's about to do something daft", but how many?), that'll increase the variance and make it harder to detect any effect.

Basically, the best things we can do to make cyclists safer at the moment may well be to improve driving standards, or redesign the most dangerous locations with safety of all road users foremost in mind. Hi-vis is a red herring... or at least a fluorescent yellow herring.
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.
snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

Post by snibgo »

Ellieb wrote:Do you really think that, for example, cycling experience has no influence on whether you have an accident? That weather conditions have no impact at all?

I think you misunderstand the report. The author says (p134) that cycling experience does decrease the risk of a crash. However, this (and other factors) does not significantly affect the odds ratio of conspicuous clothing. In other words, the effectiveness of hi-viz for experienced riders is the same as for inexperienced riders.

The smallish sample is reflected in the wide confidence intervals. The study found that hi-viz increased the crash odds by 20%, but this was not significant because of the wide CI. A larger study would reduce the CI and perhaps give a definitive result.
Post Reply