Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
The other though is where do we stop pandering to bad driving?
There was an item on the TV a while back where a woman had hit a tree.... it was some ten feet back from the road, and on the opposite side of a verge and footpabth
However the problem of course was the tree. She was now complaining about the fact that trees existed along the side of the road , how dangerous these trees were and how they should all be removed!
There was an item on the TV a while back where a woman had hit a tree.... it was some ten feet back from the road, and on the opposite side of a verge and footpabth
However the problem of course was the tree. She was now complaining about the fact that trees existed along the side of the road , how dangerous these trees were and how they should all be removed!
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
I wouldn't be surprised if horses with hi-viz are visible from further away. When I'm cycling in hilly areas I marvel at how I can spot a hi-viz cyclist on the other side of the valley, a mile or more away. I'm totally convinced that hi-viz (flourescence + retro-reflective) normally increases visibility. The main exception would be in sunshine with a rape field background.
But I need to be seen by every motorist who might drive into me, and I need them to take the appropriate action. That's a harder nut to crack.
But I need to be seen by every motorist who might drive into me, and I need them to take the appropriate action. That's a harder nut to crack.
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
I'm a bit dubious about the 3 seconds thing too. You couldn't test this on a winding road or with traffic obstructing the view as they would be the limiting factors on visibility. If tested on a long straight road then three seconds sounds very plausible but not very helpful. Needless to say you need the extra seconds when a car is coming towards you round a blind bend, not when you are a quarter of a mile down the road.
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
I suspect that high-viz helps good drivers who are looking out for other road users, but they'd see us anyway, because if they are in doubt, or driving into bad light etc. they slow down, and so aren't the ones who hit us (on horses or bikes or on foot).
Bad drivers can hit a horse and rider kitted out in high viz and carrying lights, so there isn't much hope for cyclists there.
The exception to this would be in the dark, where wearing black and not carrying lights makes it difficult for even the best driver to see you on an unlit road.
Bad drivers can hit a horse and rider kitted out in high viz and carrying lights, so there isn't much hope for cyclists there.
The exception to this would be in the dark, where wearing black and not carrying lights makes it difficult for even the best driver to see you on an unlit road.
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
Distant visibility isn't an issue with cars...
most (all?) of the "hit from behind" collisions we hear about (possible bias) have the cyclist in plain view for a long while, and a driver not paying attention.
A basic level of visibility is achieved by not wearing camouflage and by using lights/reflectors at night, beyond that we are (vainly imho) hoping to recover the motorist's attention from the stove in the cab, the pornography they are watching or, even more uselessly, from the 'sun in their eyes'.
high viz is useful:
- on railways (huge stopping distances and no directional control)
- on motorways (pedestrians not expected, significant turbulance)
- on school trips (easy to spot 'your' kids, only works if you're the only school trip)
most (all?) of the "hit from behind" collisions we hear about (possible bias) have the cyclist in plain view for a long while, and a driver not paying attention.
A basic level of visibility is achieved by not wearing camouflage and by using lights/reflectors at night, beyond that we are (vainly imho) hoping to recover the motorist's attention from the stove in the cab, the pornography they are watching or, even more uselessly, from the 'sun in their eyes'.
high viz is useful:
- on railways (huge stopping distances and no directional control)
- on motorways (pedestrians not expected, significant turbulance)
- on school trips (easy to spot 'your' kids, only works if you're the only school trip)
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.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
Why don't we have hi viz cars? Always intrerested to see the promoters of hi viz answers to this.
Last edited by MartinC on 5 Nov 2014, 12:26pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
Best idea I saw for a school party, at the zoo, was caps, all had bright caps on, easy for the teacher to spot. If the teacher was looking for them. Easy for the kids to take off though too I suppose.
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
Flinders wrote:I suspect that high-viz helps good drivers who are looking out for other road users, but they'd see us anyway, because if they are in doubt, or driving into bad light etc. they slow down, and so aren't the ones who hit us (on horses or bikes or on foot).
Unfortunately, anyone can make a mistake, so it might even be beneficial to make otherwise-good drivers less certain and slow down, rather than allow them to think they've seen you and dealt with you in good time so they can maintain their speed and then whoops clunk splat when it might have been whoops screech swerve if they'd slowed down.
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.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
-
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
MartinC wrote:Why don't we have hi viz cars? Always intrerested to see the promoters of hi viz answers to this.
From the reverse angle I have always thought that silver cars, which were all in vogue up to a couple of years ago, are more difficult to see in gloomy or foggy conditions. And for some reason, when travelling in such conditions, with most drivers using lights or at least sidelights, it seemed a disproportionate numbers of drivers in silver cars would not be using lights. Funnily I think that in such conditions black cars are usually quite visible because they stand out as a 'solid lump'.
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
MartinC wrote:Why don't we have hi viz cars? Always intrerested to see the promoters of hi viz answers to this.
Less need. Cars other than junctions cars are traveling in separate lanes at similar speeds. On rural roads the closing speed of a car catching up with another car may be 5 or 10mph. Plenty of time. With bikes the closing speed could be 50mph.
Also cars are big and in the centre of lanes. Easy to see. What's the frontal area of a cyclist compared to a car? Which is most likely to be hidden by a door pillar?
Anyway isn't the use of daylight running lights in some places the car equivelent of HiViz? So it is promoted in some places.
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
irc wrote:MartinC wrote:Why don't we have hi viz cars? Always intrerested to see the promoters of hi viz answers to this.
Less need. Cars other than junctions cars are traveling in separate lanes at similar speeds. On rural roads the closing speed of a car catching up with another car may be 5 or 10mph. Plenty of time. With bikes the closing speed could be 50mph.
Also cars are big and in the centre of lanes. Easy to see. What's the frontal area of a cyclist compared to a car? Which is most likely to be hidden by a door pillar?
Anyway isn't the use of daylight running lights in some places the car equivelent of HiViz? So it is promoted in some places.
Except we're now in the era of automatic headlights which don't work well when its foggy. Witnessed a near miss not that long ago- T junction, thick fog and silver car approaching at speed with no lights. I could hear it, the car in front of me that pulled out obviously couldn't. Not to say a bright yellow car would stand out better, but white and silver are virtually invisible.
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
irc wrote:Less need. Cars other than junctions cars are traveling in separate lanes at similar speeds. On rural roads the closing speed of a car catching up with another car may be 5 or 10mph. Plenty of time. With bikes the closing speed could be 50mph.
Also cars are big and in the centre of lanes. Easy to see. What's the frontal area of a cyclist compared to a car? Which is most likely to be hidden by a door pillar?
Anyway isn't the use of daylight running lights in some places the car equivelent of HiViz? So it is promoted in some places.
You make my point for me. Very car centric arguments. You're only considering it from the view of other car drivers - given the weight and speed of cars don't they have a greater responsibility to be seen by everyone in the environment they operate in? Your rationale would also seem to predict that the chances of a car running into another is therefore very low - but we know this not to be true in practice, so maybe it's not valid. The mention of DRLs is also illustrative - promotion of these very low key compared to promotion of Hi Viz for cyclists - why so?
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
Like this BBC item, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590 'Would these five changes actually help cyclists?' None of them are anything to do with getting drivers to drive better. Even in the headphone video, the scientist guy points out it's not all about hearing hazards, some of the difference is in being distracted as you may become immersed in the music but it isn't pointed out that this would also happen driving a car.
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
Postboxer wrote:Like this BBC item, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590 'Would these five changes actually help cyclists?' None of them are anything to do with getting drivers to drive better. Even in the headphone video, the scientist guy points out it's not all about hearing hazards, some of the difference is in being distracted as you may become immersed in the music but it isn't pointed out that this would also happen driving a car.
I think that Roger might have mentioned it briefly but it sounded like he was edited.
Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black
MartinC wrote: Your rationale would also seem to predict that the chances of a car running into another is therefore very low - but we know this not to be true in practice,?
On the contrary most people can drive for years or decades without having an accident.