Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

[snibgo]

... and wearing the wrong things can make the whole process take longer.

Yeah, fine, but what is the "wrong thing"?

It depends on circumstances. Different parts of the ride might need different clothing. If the counter-intuitive idea that cyclists who are seen later are less likely to get squished is correct, then what? Should I pander to misinformed motorists, even if that increases my chances of being squished?

[Edwards]

... and wearing the wrong things can make the whole process take longer.

Yeah, fine, but what is the "wrong thing"?

It depends on circumstances. Different parts of the ride might need different clothing. If the counter-intuitive idea that cyclists who are seen later are less likely to get squished is correct, then what? Should I pander to misinformed motorists, even if that increases my chances of being squished?

The problem is that the onus is on you to show you were not wearing the wrong thing. I do not believe that we should pander to anybody but we have to be pragmatic and work with what we have.

I would love it if what you wear was never questioned and I could ride any road at any time with all road uses showing due care and diligence but that is not going to happen.
When it goes wrong what you were wearing is questioned by the solicitors working for you. Even the CTC ones, right or wrong that is the way things are.
Unless somebody can say something that is going to get done? Nothing is going to change.

So I have to wear something that is seen from a distance and hope it makes a difference. Having the knowledge that what I choose to wear will be questioned if it all goes wrong.

When we go out on a bike the one thing we have left is the hope we will be alright as the law is not being used to help us.
The way it works in this country is to blame the victim if they are not is a motor vehicle. I do not like this either but I feel we must put up with this at the moment.

[Phil Fouracre]

This all sounds like a version of the helmet debate. Entrenched views all round! I think everyone should decide for themselves what they feel suits them. Just as with helmets, you can read all the reports/statistics you want, but, you as an individual have to make 'that' decision. Personally, I will never wear a helmet, and am not keen on fluorescent, but, having ridden, walked and driven for decades, I have to admit to noticing hi-vis more easily (obviously why it is named so) I know some will argue that it is not perfect, but, against my local cycling backgrounds, brown fields, hedges and trees it does make a moving object stand out. So I have bowed to my wife's request to wear it, incorporating reflective for night riding.

[Bicycler]

If you are happy that is great. Like helmets, no-one objects to you or anyone else wearing hi-vis. The problem is that some people who view these items as valuable will not extend the rest of us the same courtesy.

[661-Pete]

I see the two issues as different. Maybe it's all down to the fact that I, personally, prefer to wear hi-viz, but on the other hand I don't wear a helmet.

With hi-viz, you are (according to some views) trying to avoid a collision in the first place. Wearing a helmet only serves (again, according to some views) to mitigate the effects of a collision, it does nothing to prevent that collision in the first place. I know what I'd rather!

My own observation is that hi-viz helps at night on a poorly-lit road, but good lights help more. But lights can fail unexpectedly (and Sod's law says, it'll happen when you haven't got your spare). I wear my hi-viz, no arguments.

But when driving, I do my very best to see everything, including cyclists not in hi-viz. After all, pedestrians don't wear hi-viz as a rule (read about the wartime advice to 'leave your shirt-tail hanging out'). Nor do animals or other obstructions.

[drossall]

The similarity is the issue of whether people depend on their beliefs of what is effective, or on statistical evidence. Both have issues. There is significant statistical evidence to question whether each works - which is not to say that all, or even necessarily most of, the evidence is that way, but enough to cause questions to be asked.

On the other side, large numbers assume that each must work - it's common sense, isn't it?

Discarding common sense in all cases is not really, well, common sense. However, we all know of cases where common sense is indeed not reliable - for example, riding out of the way of traffic in the gutter is dangerous, and smooth tyres have more grip than treaded.

So the question is whether common sense is reliable in these cases.

[TonyR]

On the other side, large numbers assume that each must work - it's common sense, isn't it?

Large numbers of people believed the earth was flat, the sun went round the earth and that carrying herbs protected you from the plague. Which shows the evidential value of large numbers of people believing something.

[reohn2]

Yesterday I was wearing Hi Viz and black(Hi Viz top with a Hi Viz gilet over it,the gilet had a black mesh back to it)due to riding into a lowish sun I also had a bright rear light on.
Later in the ride when I was't riding into the sun I had three close overtakes,two at about -1m,one at about 0.5m,the closest one was on a clear straight stretch of wide road with no oncoming traffic definitely,IMO deliberate.
I sometimes wear a mid blue top with a gilet over,again with a black mesh back.
The results are the same.
I also have a gilet/tabard with POLITE pass slow and wide on the back and blue and white checkered strips on it.The difference is amazing,it's like a reverse polarity magnet.

It's not that the motorists can't see me it's that a significant minority couldn't give a monkeys whether they cause me harm or not.
Unless I'm some kind of threat to them.
The issue is bad driving,not,not been seen.

[Vantage]

I don't think it's that they don't care about causing us harm, but about lack of exercise.
The amount of muscle required to turn that big heavy powered steering wheel enough to move the vehicle into the next lane for a safe pass must be phenomenal for someone who rarely even walks let alone exercises. I also believe the bigger the vehicle, the heavier it is and so the harder it is to move. That probably explains why I have more close passes with big 4x4's and such than cars.
Downforce and grip are other considerations to think about. I've notice that driving standards decline rapidly in the wet. I have no doubt that these people are probably cold and wet in their heated and sheltered luxury cabins and that the thought of easing off the accelerator AND turning at the same time is quite horrifying. Remember what happened to Senna? He eased off on a corner. Then bang.
Then you add the consequences of some clown on a two wheeled non powered vehicle with dazzling lights and blindingly bright dayglo green top destroying their vision and its no wonder we dent and scratch their vehicles through getting hit and killed.
Poor drivers. My heart bleeds for them.

[Phil Fouracre]

Sarcasm?

[mrjemm]

I know that 'hi-viz' stands out to me in many situations. I have experience of seeing, I've been doing it for over 44 years. I choose to use 'hi viz' clothing, depending on circumstance.

I don't know if cycle helmets have any use, I have no experience of testable comparison. I suspect they have drawbacks as discussed. I choose not to use one.

I know that these topics cause great amounts of high blood pressure.

I don't know why.

For now, I'll keep making my choices. These are my choices, and I won't try to influence others, including those I care about, as I trust them to make their own choices.

[Cunobelin]

My own observation is that hi-viz helps at night on a poorly-lit road, but good lights help more. But lights can fail unexpectedly (and Sod's law says, it'll happen when you haven't got your spare). I wear my hi-viz, no arguments.

Unfortunately the experience flies in the face of evidence.

HiViz is ineffective at night because the contrast between yellow (or even worse- orange) and the background is poor to be visible you should wear white at night

[beardy]

A bit of a semantic argument as here (as is common to most times it is used) the term Hi-viz was referring to a composite HI-viz jacket which is more about its large reflective bands than its fluorescent colouring.

[Bicycler]

My understanding is that Hi-vis means clothing featuring both fluorescent material (for the day) and reflective stripes (for the night)

[mjr]

OK, if you're going to play dictionary lawyer, can we agree that no-one has much complaint about having some reflectors/reflectives on the bike and/or rider, but fluorescent clothing is obnoxious and makes riders look like detained terrorists?