UKC

I got a bit sick of wearing a building site hi-vis when out on my bike, so I thought I'd venture into a proper cycling shop and buy a proper cycling top in a nice bright colour.
It was like going to see a goth band. A huge range of clothing, all of it black. They had one single top in hi-vis, that was it. Halfords, on the other hand, have a selection of about four horrible items, all of them with a hi-vis component. I hadn't noticed before (probably hadn't seen them!) but the serious cyclists I see on the road near me follow the goth style too, definitely not a lot of hi-vis around.
So is hi-vis only for amateur bimblers? Do serious cyclists care more about fashion than being seen?
I bought the one hi-vis that the proper shop had, BTW.

In reply to Hooo:

(Grabs popcorn)

In reply to Hooo:

Always wear hi-viz when I'm out. My attitude is that if someone sees me puffing along like some chubby glow stick and thinks "look at that tw*t", then at least it's served it's purpose and they've seen me...

it is same as majority of cars are in black or bleak colours. Very few yellow cars.

In reply to Hooo:

Serious cyclists won't buy their clothing in cycle shops; they'll buy their club's training and race strips. Punters and MAMILs might buy replica team strips.

Shorts, on the other hand, must be black. Other colours are just unpleasant. Especially white...

In reply to captain paranoia:

So clubs and teams tend to have black strips then?

Agree about shorts.

In reply to Hooo:

Hi Viz isn't hi viz once the sun goes down so most cycle clothing has 3M stripes or patches which is visible at all times.

In reply to Hooo:


Some may. But they have all sorts of other colours, too, just like professional teams.

BUT they don't buy their club strips in shops; they are custom printed, bought direct from the custom strip suppliers. Club strips are not available to the public, in normal cycle shops, but are generally bought through or from the club.

Professional team strips come in all sorts of colours; see TdF coverage.

Or are you trolling?

In reply to Hooo:

Must be a shit shop.

The vast majority of cycling tops are not black.

You may be confusing hi-vis, with highly visible. Looking like you have just come off a building site may not be the most effective way of being seen.

In reply to The New NickB:

It looked like a good shop to me, but I wouldn't know really. Condor in Clerkenwell.

To the others, I'm not trolling, I didn't realise this was a contentious issue. I just thought it was odd that a decent looking shop only sold black, and I wondered why there wasn't more demand for bright stuff.

In reply to ThunderCat:

That sums up my attitude too.

In reply to Hooo:

Team sky kit is black for performance reasons - it's more aerodynamic. And this year they even have there own laundry van on the tour - it's called the Marginal Stains Unit. (one of those facts is true...)

Also bear in mind that black is better at hiding a middle-aged paunch better than bright colours.

More seriously there is an argument that states that cycling should be seen as a normal activity for which you wear normal clothing - or at least not the sort of day-glo outfits from the 1980s.

We don't expect pedestrians to wear hi-viz, and we don't expect car occupants to wear helmets - but cyclists who don't are liable to find themselves blamed for their own demise.

Furthermore, the tragic fact is that what little benefit hi-viz provides is completely undermined by the leniency of courts towards errant drivers.

http://road.cc/content/news/197132-birmingham-cyclist-killed-motorist-overt...

In reply to Hooo:
My outfit is not black:

http://silvercyclist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Mamil.jpg

In reply to Hooo:

I think this got done to death a few months ago. I think the problem is that the popular British Team Sky's kit is black, so it's become fashionable. I agree with you though.

In reply to Hooo:

Brings a whole new aspect to the term fashion victim.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Ah. That explains the trolling allegations.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I agree with all the anti hi-vis arguments. I rode motorbikes for 20 years and only ever wore black leather. I will be the first to admit that a big reason I didn't wear hi-vis back then was because I didn't want to look like a dick. I don't feel the same on bicycle, I'm wearing Lycra shorts FFS, I'm going to look ridiculous whatever colour my top is, so I might as well wear something bright just on the off chance that it gets me noticed.

I sort of assumed that cycling being an athletic pastime would welcome bright colours - we like bright clothes in climbing and skydiving for example.

In reply to Hooo:

Look out for kit by the likes of Morvelo - they do all sorts of crazy designs but still cater for an athletic shape.

As an observer, I've been seeing more people in brighter clothing over the past six months or so - hopefully a shift from the 'all black' look which I find troubling (Mr TC now goes out looking like a power ranger...)

In reply to Hooo:

Go online, plenty of choice.

In reply to Lion Bakes:

Anyone got any Rapha kit? Is it worth the extortionate cost or is it just bike gear for hipsters?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Does the job a few friends wear it for ultra endurance cycle rides no probs.

In reply to Hooo:

People wearing black are either Darwin Award contenders, or, just deluded that they can be seen.

In reply to captain paranoia:

So what you're really saying is (excuse the paraphrasing) "Ooo look at that punter in a random jersey, I'm so much better than his because I'm wearing a club kit, what a loser!"
What a brilliant attitude.

Wear what you like out on the bike but personally I prefer something with a bit of colour and not black for various reasons including being seen, not being boring, and not getting roasted in the sun.

In reply to Hooo:

Might relate right back to the early days of cycle racing in the thirties when open road racing was not strictly legal - look at old photos and you will see riders wearing all black gear including black tights, in the delusion this made them less noticeable. The height of cycling fashion seems to have been an alpaca jacket flapping round your chest.

In reply to Hooo: I agree. I see idiiots riding their bikes in full black without lights and think they must be morons. They are complicit in their own death/injury by making those stupid choices.

In reply to altirando:


I think it was to make them less identifiable.

In reply to gethin_allen:


Or they are on a club ride and there is a requirement to be wearing club kit so that pack members are identifiable?

LD

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Yes, it's generally just very nice kit and available in lots of colours. They also have regular sales. Stay away from their 'urban' stuff and you can avoid the hipster label.

In reply to Hooo:

they appear to have plenty not in black https://www.condorcycles.com/collections/jerseys

In reply to Hooo:
At night reflective, rather than hi-viz seems to be effective.
http://road.cc/content/news/95353-study-says-cyclists-should-make-themselve...

During the day it doesn't make any difference:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/uncategorized/bike-visibility...

Apologies if evidence based studies fly in the face of received wisdom.

(& don't get me started on helmets!)

In reply to blurty:

During the day it doesn't make any difference:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/uncategorized/bike-visibility...

Apologies if evidence based studies fly in the face of received wisdom.


I think you're interpreting that in a way that suits the way that you want to read it...
All that article really says, is that some motorists are indeed idiots and will dangerously overtake cyclists no matter what.
What cyclists also need to consider, is that the vast majority of motorists want to make their journey as safe as possible in all respects and that includes overtaking cyclists in a safe manner, etc. As one of those motorists, the earlier I see another user on the road the better. That way, I can plan ahead and ensure any manoeuvre I make is the best one for all road users.
If another road user isn't as visible as they could be, then that decision time is shortened. That's all road users, not just cyclists. i.e. motorists should use lights in poor visibility and cyclists, being relatively small, should do their upmost not to blend into the background.
I don't want to have an accident, especially with a cyclist due to their vulnerability. I'll do my upmost not to make that happen by driving carefully, maybe cyclists could reciprocate by not wearing black or other dull colours?

In reply to Hooo:

Since going over to road cycling six years ago I've bought more and more black clothing. I don't think it makes me a contender for the Darwin award because I don't think it makes any difference at all to incompetent, distracted or short-sighted drivers. Black cycle clothing flatters the, er, less trained figure and is practical in not showing dirt and chain oil. If I was a regular commuter by bicycle I might consider buying a flouro jacket because if that catches the eye of only one distracted driver and prevents them from hitting me, it's done the job. In fact I would argue that on the otherwise empty country roads where I ride, a small black dot a hundred yards away stands out as well as a small yellow or red or blue dot. At twilight or at night, yes, I would agree that black doesn't work but from twilight I use bright lights.

In reply to FactorXXX:

The article I referred to does indeed highlight the most dangerous passing maneuvers, it goes on to make the point though that clothing makes no difference to the passing gap left by motorists. This article explains it better:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/highvisibility-clothing-wont-help-...


If it were true that bright colours make collisions less likely, then the cost of insuring a black car would be higher than a white car - in reality there is no difference.

I gather than the human eye most notices movement, not colour - cyclists should perhaps attach pennants on whip masts to the back of their bikes, to attract motorists attention!

In reply to Hooo:

Rubbish shop, then - or just low on stock? Get online - there's plenty of choice.

Off the top of my head, nearly all my cycling tops have an element of black, but the rest is a mix of bright blue, white and "normal" yellowy-green (not all on the same top!), so should be plenty visible in daylight.

My legwear is all black, but with various degrees of reflective bits.

The only specific hi-viz stuff I've got is a waterproof rucksack cover I use for commuting and a couple of jackets I use when it's really cold - which means winter and, therefore, low light anyway. I have a bright orange long-sleeve running top I sometimes use for tootling around locally if it's a bit fresh.

In reply to Hooo:


A mate of mine only ever wore black on his motorbike because he claims it goes with any colour of bike and, if he's out riding like a loon, it's harder to identify him against other riders! More recently, I think his wife's persuaded him to wear hi-viz commuting - he works in a warehouse and has to wear hi-viz there anyway.

I wear a hi-viz top with my commuting kit - if I get somewhere and don't want to look a dick walking round, it comes off and gets shoved under the seat. If I'm out for fun, my one-piece power ranger suit is mainly blue and white, so stands out enough anyway. It's interesting how drivers in front of me behave differently according to what I'm wearing.

In reply to gethin_allen:


Since that's nothing like what I'm saying, no, I won't excuse the paraphrasing.

I have no idea why the one shop cited as proof that the only cycle clothing available is black, seems to carry predominantly black clothing, other than it is in Clerkenwell which has a bit of a reputation for style-over function hipsterism; maybe their clientele like wearing black.

In my experience, cycle clothing comes in all sorts of colours, and I have never had trouble buying clothing that isn't black. But then I don't shop in chi-chi cycle shops in Clerkenwell.

My point about club members is nothing to do with snobbery; it was addressing the question of whether 'serious' cyclists only wear black. Serious cyclists are likely to be in a club, and buy and wear club strips from their club, not from shops. Most of the club strips I've seen are not black. Neither are most of the replica race team strips (Sky being the popular exception with their black, blue & white strip).

I'm not a member of, nor have I ever been a member of, a cycle club. I am a punter.

I don't wear black cycle clothing, apart from shorts.

I have never had a problem buying non-black cycle clothing.

This is a non-issue.

In reply to ThunderCat:


Maybe attracting attention is actually the wrong thing to do? Drivers (and cyclists) steer where they're looking - wearing bright colours is just asking for trouble. Better not to pedal much either, so people don't notice the movement

In reply to nufkin:


Better turn my lights off as well then

In reply to Hooo:

Oh dear, I appear to have opened a can of worms here.
Let me just make it clear that I wasn't having a go at anyone wearing black, and I don't believe hi-vis is going to protect me from a dick who's not paying attention. Where I ride, mostly twisty roads with alternating bright sun and deep shade and drivers going too fast, being bright might just catch someone's eye a few milliseconds earlier. It seems like it's worth doing, and when I'm driving hi-vis items do catch my eye.
I just thought it was odd that the people I noticed on fancy bikes tended to be all in black, and the most "proper" bike shop I know only sold black clothing. That is all.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I've got quite a few bits of Rapha kit (not paid full price - watched out for their sales & eBay) - and it is excellent, the best I've ever had. And the fit is a bit more 'relaxed' than Assos for example (which is even more expensive) - very carefully cut for their target demographic (i.e. not super fit pro racer kids!). The problem is...once you've bought one bit and compare it to cheaper stuff...there's no way back. Their customer service is very good as well.

At my advanced age (49 going on 50) I now just simply don't care about saving a few pounds to buy inferior kit - I only buy the best and that makes me happy. That means Rapha for cycling, and Arcteryx for climbing, mountaineering.

In reply to 99ster:

On the flip side to this Aldi cycle kit is brilliant (for the money) and perfect for getting trashed on the commute

I do have some Fat Lad at the Back kit to for longer rides on the road bike though.

In reply to Hooo:
How do I explain this without sounding like a bike snob?

Black or pastels or muted colours and jerseys with bands across or discrete logos and Italian brand names are cool. Kit must match or compliment the bike as much as possible.

Non-Italian brand names, bright and flouro colours and anything that shouts "commuter" is uncool.

There's plenty on the web about cycling fashion, this for example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/11492722/David-M...

And here are The Rules:

http://www.sub5century.org/news/the-40-immutable-rules-of-cycling/

In reply to blurty:

Oh go on then, I'll bite


That's not what it says! To quote:
"new research is showing that “high-vis” clothing is not as effective at increasing bicycle safety as is often assumed."
Not as effective as assumed does not mean it doesn't make any difference at all.

"Our study suggests that, no matter what you wear, it will do nothing to prevent a small minority of people from getting dangerously close when they overtake you"
A small minority will always be dicks.
My experience suggests that hi-vis might help in some situations, with drivers who aren't total dicks. Note the "might" and "some" in that sentence. So I'm going to wear it. I'm not going to try and persuade anyone else to follow suit though, that's their decision.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

That explains everything, thank you. And you don't sound like a bike snob
I don't think I'll get any more serious about cycling though, I can't be dealing with all that.

In reply to blurty:

The article I referred to does indeed highlight the most dangerous passing maneuvers, it goes on to make the point though that clothing makes no difference to the passing gap left by motorists.

Again, you seem to be reading exactly what you want to hear in both my reply to you and the articles that you have linked.
I readily acknowledged that some motorists will pass too close to cyclists regarding of what they're wearing. They probably think they're passing at a safe distance, whereas, they probably aren't. They probably won't change unless forced to do so.
However, I also said that as a motorist that tries his hardest to be safe, I would like all road users to be as visible as possible so that I see them at the earliest possible moment and thus plan any subsequent actions. That's why I think cyclists, being small and relatively unnoticeable, should wear clothing other than black.

If it were true that bright colours make collisions less likely, then the cost of insuring a black car would be higher than a white car - in reality there is no difference.

Cars are bigger and can put their lights on...
Saying that, I would have no objection to banning silver/grey cars.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

In fact I would argue that on the otherwise empty country roads where I ride, a small black dot a hundred yards away stands out as well as a small yellow or red or blue dot.

I wonder why the British Army changed from red tunics to khaki ones?
Hardly seems to be any reason for it...

In reply to Hooo:

It's the lowest form of wit, my friend!

Next time you're cruising along in your car, watch out for cyclists and think about it. A black body against a regular rural background stands out as well as a coloured body. OK, from a mile or two away a small black dot might well disappear into the jumble of detail and a floro colour does stand out better.

Actually I think the best stand-out cycle clothing has a horizontal band of a contrasting colour across the back and chest, in the style of Team Sky.

In reply to FactorXXX:




I don't agree with your logic. Not all drivers pass too close, so the 'good' drivers, who make an effort to leave a decent passing space should, by your logic, tend to leave more space if the rider is wearing vivid coloured clothing. The study shows that the colour of the clothing makes no difference.


Why do you think that vivid coloured clothing is more visible?


If colour had a material affect on collision/ RTA rates, then insurers would reflect that in their pricing, partially depending on the colour of the car/ van/ motorbike etc. They don't however do this.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

I wasn't being sarcastic, and I liked your post!
You summed it up perfectly, and you really didn't sound like you were being a snob.
I do always look out for cyclists, and one thing that struck me is that when I go from bright sun into deep shade under trees, and there is a cyclist in the shade, I spot them earlier if they are wearing a bright colour.

In reply to blurty:

I don't agree with your logic. Not all drivers pass too close, so the 'good' drivers, who make an effort to leave a decent passing space should, by your logic, tend to leave more space if the rider is wearing vivid coloured clothing. The study shows that the colour of the clothing makes no difference.

No, my logic is that any given motorist, will give the same space to any cyclist regardless of their clothing. i.e. a safe motorist will give the same room for a cyclist dressed in black as they would for one dressed in day-glo orange. The same applies to the dangerous motorist.


Why do you think that vivid coloured clothing is more visible?

Because it's vivid?
Actually, the important thing is that it contrasts against it's background. It would be pretty pointless wearing a yellow Hi-Vis top whilst cycling alongside a field of rapeseed, etc. However, one of the worst colours overall is black as there are few circumstances where it would be better.


If colour had a material affect on collision/ RTA rates, then insurers would reflect that in their pricing, partially depending on the colour of the car/ van/ motorbike etc. They don't however do this.

As said previously, cars are bigger and have lights.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Makes you wonder why they call hi-viz, well, hi-viz...

In reply to nutme:


Thats good, because if you don't wear black as a cyclist you will be seen better amongst the cars.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

I'm not sure what you mean by a "regular rural background", but when I'm driving I'm seeing cyclists from behind, not from the side. They're not seen against a background of green grass or waving corn, they have to stand out against a dark tarmac road, dark stone walls, or dark hedgerows. That's without taking into account shadows or poor light, let alone rain. I'm fairly bike-aware, but if you believe you're easily visible in dark clothing then I'm afraid you're mistaken.

In reply to Lurking Dave:

It's a bit shit crew if you don't recognise people riding with you without wearing special clothes...