UKC

At least 50% of the road bikers I drive past each and every day are wearing head to toe black. Can anyone explain why these people are going out of their way to be less visible to the drivers that are going to kill, maim or injure them?

It seems like a complete failure of common sense to me.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

They are trying not to get noticed.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


An appropriate colour for people that have a death wish.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

If your eyesight is so bad you can't see someone in black then maybe you shouldn't be driving?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

They're copying team sky.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


You've missed my point. They're less visible than those who (like me) wear dayglo stuff and have lights. It's the apparently concious effort they make to wear a colour that they must(?) know will make them less visible. Obviously some drivers should certainly not be on the road because of their eyesight (just ask the leg-end who is Andy Turner).

In poor light, it's far more difficult to see someone in black - although people in dayglo have obviously been knocked off too. My question is about why they're stacking the odds against themselves?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

fashion above function.. its like the climbers / skiers etc who don't wear helmets cos it may ruin their hair or a trendy beanie is way cooler.. stacking the odds against them..

maybe only when you get knocked off, fall, get hit by rocks do you realise you're not immortal..

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Here is some research

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/10/cycling-high-v...

Black maybe better!

In reply to xyz:



It's a limited study though and about motorbikes. Unless the sun is very bright and low, high vis is more clearly seen than black.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


It's fairly f*cking retarded to be out on a bike all dressed in black, especially at night. End of story.

I see people in black no problem, but I also see people in hi viz from a further distance much more easily and quickly.

Like the OP says, why stack the odds against yourself so much?

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Because when I buy cycling gear I frequently find what fits me best is in black.

The correct question is: why do cycling clothing manufacturers make so much in black.

In reply to darbs:


You reckon middle aged men who dress themselves in lycra are driven by fashion?

In reply to Frank the Husky:
I'm with you all the way. They have no concern for themselves, their families or the poor bugger that hits them. Darwinism?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

All cars should be yellow.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

In Edinburgh they wear black, and when it's dark, have no lights. I think it's an egotistical "I can see you, therefore you must be able to see me"

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I always wear black on my bottom half and have a black waterproof although I wouldn't wear it in the dark! Commuting I wear high vis but when I'm driving I can't say that I'd notice hi vis or colours more than black.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Don't be a dick when you drive and you won't hit them. No excuse for not seeing someone dressed in black. At night there's things called lights I believe cars have them as well, and they do the job more than adequately.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


And the drivers should be dressed yellow head to toe so we can see them when they get out.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Time for your meds Popshot?
I bet when you tell everyone on the number 49 bus of your days in the Special Forces, that you crept around in hi viz?

In reply to Lion Bakes:


I think there are plenty of excuses for not seeing people dressed in black in poor light or on dull days. Perhaps your answer explains why people wear black - because they believe other road users "should" be exemplary and "should" always see them. This is not the reality of life on the roads and so cyclists really ought to adapt to that reality.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Plenty of excuses ! List them.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Well a reason is that human eyes don't discern black on grey at all well. Wearing low visibility clothing while cycling is just stupid.

A related point is that modern automatic headlights on cars are on more than most humans would choose and make them noticeably easier to see.

In reply to xyz:

I wear a top with black side panels and fluorescent body, so that it provides visibility both to dark and light backgrounds.

Looking at bikes for sale at the moment, there seems to be a bit of a black thing going on. It's a fashion I don't understand, as someone who rides on the road every day.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
Meanwhile on a cycling website they discuss those crazies who mess about with ropes rather than cycle up the road at the side.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

It's because they are ninjas!

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Slimming, innit.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

It's just crazy. I'm a regular cyclist and like top think I watch out for bikes... But seriously it is so much harder to see them - especially on a very bright day when you drive from sun to shadow.

My local cycling club re-formed just a few years ago and took the mind-numbingly stupid decision to use a primarily black top with a touch of yellow. (Ilkley) It's the official club kit (which you have to wear for official TTs races etc I believe?) but there are some alternatives available such as a yellow TdF special and a white top. When I see a group of ICC riders out on the road, the full yellow and white tops stand out a mile whilst the black fades into the back ground.

My family have been members since the start but I refuse to let the kids wear the black kit. I wasn't there at the first meetings when they chose the kit but I am told that the debate was heated. I had it personally explained to me by a committee member that the darker kit was chosen as most people thought it reflected the tradition of the club and the old jersey from the 50s I think! When there were very few cars on the road.... I love the club and its gone from strength to strength but still feel it was a very strange decision.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


You're kidding? OK then.

1) Overcast skies.
2) Dusk.
3) Not paying full attention to the road.
4) Being tired.
5) Being distracted by something in the background.
6) Being distracted by somehting in the foreground.
7) Looking out for cars not bikes.
8) The cyclist blending into the dull background.
9) The cyclist blending into the dark background.
10) Cyclists believeing that they should be seen by all road users regardless of their actions or clothing.
11) Have I mentioned low light & dull days?
12) Seriously. Dude.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Someone could make a bomb if they came up with a nice fluorescent black. Not literally, of course.

I don't ride in the dark. Meanwhile in winter I wear black tights, a fluorescent pink top with black panels and always have the blinkies on. The one time I was nearly hit by a car turning out to go right, in the direction I was heading on the A339 -- he totally didn't register me -- I'd forgotten to switch my front blinky on (this is in daylight). It was summer and I had the blue and white kit on. Sobering, and a good reminder why blinkies might be the best visibility tool of all. But then again, who knows?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

3 is the only reason and if you're serious about 7 and 10 then yes as a cyclist (and motorist) we should be seen by all road users. I've never come close to hitting a cyclist in 30 years of driving. It's just another dig at cyclists most of the time and is reeled out along with all the other anti cycling guff. 'I saw a cyclist in black' yes, you saw them but by having a moan it somehow makes you feel a little bit more entitled and superior. If you can't see an object as large as a cyclist in the road in daylight, even 'low' daylight then you really shouldn't be driving.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
Because people put a different hat on when they get on a bike.
"dunce" some might say.
Despite the fact we are ALL cyclists and drivers of cars etc.
DC

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


If you have never noticed some colours are easier.to see than others you haven't been paying much attention.


Don't be ridiculous. Do you think railway workers being required to wear hi vis orange is a "dig" at them?

In reply to MG:


and where have I said that?


do you think trains miss them because of thier hi viz?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


Yes, on occasion.

In reply to MG:

Go and stand on a train track in hi vis then with no other warning in place for the train driver.

In reply to djellworth:


....and there was a cultural prevalence of something better than casual indifference to or contempt for the lives of strangers relative to one's perceived need to get to somewhere a minute earlier.

In reply to djellworth:

Strange. All the Ilkley c.c. riders l see are in green and gold. There are an awful lot of them though, even in black you couldn't miss them if you tried.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I'd fancy my chances much more than in black.

Your sort of attitude is what gives cyclists a bad reputation.

All this sounds like victim blaming to me by daily mail readers.

Whether I'm in black or lit up like a Christmas tree good drivers notice me either to comment on my bright top or good lights or tell me I shouldn't be in black. Careless bad drivers don't.

i have in my 30 years of cycling never not been seen because I was wearing black.

I have been surprised and scared and not seen many times when wearing more high viz kit and lights than usual.

Toby

In reply to MG:

Cyclist are not a collective. And the only people I know who think 'cyclists' have a bad reputation or even refer to a whole diverse group as one are people whos opinions shouldn't be given a second of my time.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Black does do well at hiding the crap that sprays up your arse off the road.

There was an interesting article in Cyclist a month or two ago on this subject:

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1016/does-fluoro-kit-make-you-safer

In reply to Frank the Husky:



How do you explain the fact that most RTAs occur between cars, vans etc (great big things) of all sorts of colours?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

So, from a runner's perspective...

When I'm out on the country lanes, night or day, it is absolutely reasonable for me to expect that a driver will see me no matter what I am wearing and no matter what the light conditions. I should absolutely be able to run in black if I like, even at night, as an attentive driver in a well-maintained car will see me in their lights.

But that's not the case, and attentive or not, what you wear and the conditions you wear them in are a contributory factor as to HOW QUICKLY a driver will pick up on the fact that you are there.

So I don't run all in black, not ever. The only times I run in dark clothing is when I'm totally off the road. I run with a bright running top to give drivers a chance to spot me as soon as possible. I could stubbornly insist that I have the right to expect drivers to see me no matter what, but I suspect that stubbornness will see me leaping for a hedge at best and coffin-bound at worst.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Reminds me of the old saying - "he was right, dead right but just as dead as if he'd been wrong"

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Agree, not wise but seems trendy. At the risk of lowering the tone here's one reason for partial black

http://www.wheeledthing.com/a-reminder-to-our-cycling-friends-please-wear-b...

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


This.

In reply to Lusk:


There are lots of them . Obviously.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Which is fine until they are driving a car around a cyclist, then, I sugest, their views are rather important, so perhaps don't reinforce them with ridiculous statements about being visible not being important and a "dig".

In reply to felt:


Someone already has come up with hi-viz reflective black, but only stickers, not clothing.

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/respro-hi-viz-black-diamond-sticker-material-pro...

In reply to MG:

What did you not understand about your opinion not being worth a second of my time?

In reply to MG:


Yep, you missed the point completely there!
The vast majority of accidents are caused by people driving who are completely unaware of what's around them, you could be dressed up and flashing like Trafalgar Square christmas tree and they'd still flatten you.

In reply to Lusk:

Bollocks

In reply to Lusk:

He pops up on every cycling thread with stereotypical anti cycling guff.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


Why do you keep replying then?

You are a dangerous fool who endangers others as well as your self.

In reply to MG:

Why am I dangerous?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


Actually it's the opposite, but you won't understand.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Because in your zealotry you refuse to acknowledge that taking basic measures like being visible when cycling encourages good behaviour and understanding between all road users.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


I'm a cyclist. As my primary transport.

I think wearing dark/dull colours in low light/night is plain stupid. Especially when combined with no lights.

In reply to MG:

How do you know I won't understand?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

You're clearly using the word "excuse" to mean something different to what the person you're replying to understands by that word. (Or what I do.)

I'm a bit surprised you didn't add:

As excuses go, it's about as acceptable as most of the above.

In reply to MG:


So if all cyclists wore yellow there'd be understanding between all road users.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Told you you wouldn't understand.

In reply to MG:

That actually made me laugh out loud.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Mixed black and fluorescent, (IMHO), seems far more visible than head to toe hi vis.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
I wonder if it is confirmation bias or cyclists in black actually are more visible, because unless you are living in some sort of parallel universe, it is pretty clear that the vast majority of cyclist don't dress head to toe in black.

My understanding of the research that has been done on visibility is that contrast is more important that colour and there are light conditions where light clothing is worse than dark clothing is some light conditions and in some light conditions it is the other way around.

Once it starts to get dark, the colour of your clothing matters not one jot, reflective strips etc come into there own and of course you should have lights front and rear as a minimum. I would advocate riding with at least a rear light in all light conditions.

In reply to The New NickB:


Where I live there are what I call green tunnels, where the trees on either side of narrow lanes have arched over the tarmac, creating what can be a very dark area of road, even -- or indeed especially -- on a sunny day. A driver, particularly one with shades on, suddenly entering these tunnels will need a while for their eyesight to adjust, so a blinking front light is de rigueur as well, I'd say.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
At least 50% of the cars I drive past each and every day are coloured head to toe black, or a similar dark shade. Can anyone explain why these people are going out of their way to be less visible to the drivers that are going to kill, maim or injure them?

It seems like a complete failure of common sense to me.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


In some countries there is a law that hi-vis must be carried, accessible to the driver, in case they need to get out in a dangerous location e.g. hard shoulder in emergency. It's not a bad idea.

In reply to Rampikino:
Or another one.

As a homeowner, it is absolutely reasonable for me to expect that people should abide by the law and not seek to enter my property and cause damage or steal items. Therefore I should be able to leave my doors unlocked at all times.

However, this is not the case in the real world, so I have had to spend considerable amounts of my money on locks and alarms.

It's really no different. Your principles, however valid, are useless if you are dead.

In reply to birdie num num:

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/blog/car-crash-by-colour/

In reply to nufkin:


Mudguards are quite good for that as well

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


They are part of a system intended to protect track workers from trains. Bright clothing is part of a system (road laws, headlights on cars, lights on bikes if it's dark etc) intended to protect vulnerable road users from less vulnerable, more dangerous ones.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Well I never knew that !!!!

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I'm sure you did, but your posting implied that safety items can only be validly considered alone.

A hi-vis alone will probably[1] not protect a track-worker from a train, but a track-worker without a hi-vis is less safe than one without.

[1] It's quite possible that on very straight plain line a worker *may* be visible over a long enough distance that it could do so. As one example, from Cheddington station you can see well over a mile along the line north from the platforms.

In reply to The New NickB:


Yup. Husky's seem to favour hyperbole too.

I do notice Team Sky 'reserve' riders, and Rapha wearers, as I find it a bit curious, but each to their own.

In reply to Neil Williams:

My posting implied completely the opposite. Try standing on a train track in just hi viz and see what happens.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Not necessarily true. The hi-vis could instill a false sense of security.
Besides which the track-worker has to wear a specifically selected shade which has been chosen expressly so it doesnt conflict with anything else on the tracks.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

At a guess I'd say that it's like the "increased risk of some rare cancer from doing X" thing, where a 50% increase in your chances of getting some particular class of cancer means diddly squat if your chance of getting it was one in fifty million in the first place. People are probably aware that wearing black increases their chances of being hit by something (and even here I'm not sure how big an increase it is if you're using appropriate lights and cycling in a sensible, predictable, defensive fashion), but rightly or wrongly see that risk as being small enough anyway (again, given appropriate lights and sensible riding) not to be worth worrying about.

We make this sort of trade-off of safety versus comfort and convenience all the time - I mean, we've probably all crossed the road without wearing our pedestrian helmets - but for some reason it's only when cyclists do it that people get all shouty about how safety should be our absolute number one consideration at all times...

In reply to KevinD:


Which is surely the whole point? Orange may or may not be ideal for visibility as a cyclist but dark and dull colours certainly aren't. Given this, why are posters so horrified by the idea that cyclists should perhaps avoid wearing them?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

The voice of reason strikes again.


Very uncalled for on this sort of thread though..

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


So you think rail workers wearing orange hi viz is a complete waste of time and money?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

http://road.cc/content/news/99660-high-vis-clothing-doesnt-make-cars-pass-y...

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

There is no reason to expect passing distance would alter with clothing colour is there? The point of wearing bright colours is to be seen in the first place. The key passage in that to me is "The researchers point out that while they found that wearing high-visibility clothing made no difference to the space left by overtaking drivers, they did not try to find out if it made cyclists more visible..."

Hi Viz identifies you as a person or an object as a hazard.

It's programmed into people's brains that when they see that colour they should automatically take extra care. It's not a concious descision. Unlike seeing a cyclist in black where your brain has to decide what it is seeing and decide whether it's a hazard or part of the surroundings.

There's an awful lot of psycology behind it.

Railway workers? They're not just a hazard that only trains fast have to worry about. There's lots of other people that need to be aware of them.

In reply to MG:

So that goes completely against your previous statement about understanding between all road users

'Because in your zealotry you refuse to acknowledge that taking basic measures like being visible when cycling encourages good behaviour and understanding between all road users.'

I suspect anyone wearing black hasn't really thought about what a driver can see when his screen is starting to mist over while driving in heavy rain.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

No because I wasn't talking on an individual level. Cyclists as a group (and like it or not many perceive them that way) are seen as being indifferent and often intentionally antagonistic towards other road users. In reality it is subset that are like this, as it is a subset of car drivers who pass to close etc. Currently each subset point the other to justify their behaviour. My point was that if the cycling subset (wearing black, jumping lights, riding two abreast etc.) modified their behaviour, it would reduce the scope for finger pointing and justification of bad behaviour on the "other" side.

In reply to Toby_W:


How on earth can you tell that? Perhaps you asked every single driver within 200 yards! I would instead say that you have been lucky, and have probably been riding defensively, and well done to you for that - long may your incident free riding continue.

In reply to MG:

http://www.bikebingo.com/?board=jYlkiNgaJOSDhMeLdCbGoHQX&scored=4096


You win

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

And my other point, of course, was that you are clearly a deliberately antagonistic cyclist...

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Or maybe they have thought about it a bit more than you?
Heavy rain is low light so start switching to rods. As such what counts most is reflective areas which someone wearing "black" can have. I have a grayish looking jacket during the day which is stupidly reflective at night.
Plus given that lights would be on then the colour of clothing would be rather secondary.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Not been visible is a failure of common sense as you say, irrespective of whether drivers should or shouldn't be able to see black clad cyclists on a black night against a black background. Doesn't mean that black can't form a very effective part of a highly visible set up though.

In reply to KevinD:

You're rather working on the assumption that people are clever enough to put their lights on...

Last week, vis was down to 15 metres ( being generous) in thick fog on my drive to work. I saw no less than 3 silver/grey cars ( at the last minute obviously) driving without any sort of lighting over 1.5 miles.

In reply to lummox:

No I am saying that the clothing is secondary to the cyclists other options. I might be wearing black but I then would have some rather unsubtle lights. if someone missed them then a hi-vis jacket aint going to help.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


I suspect many cyclists who do not also regularly drive underestimate just how difficult they are to see. I would much rather they rode two abreast as they present a larger cross-section, in addition to hi-viz clothing, but that is their choice.

That said, the vast majority of near misses I have had when driving around the Peak is not due to hard-to-see cyclists but rather drivers on the other side of the road late-overtaking, or simply not applying the usual overtaking rules as they would to a slow moving car (ie, check that there's nothing coming the other way).

In reply to KevinD:

In complete agreement- all I meant was that I seem many drivers, day in, day out, who don't do anything at all to help themselves either.

In reply to lummox:


ah but they are balanced out by those who have the foglights on all the time

In reply to Ridge:

Funny; we say the same thing, and you get four likes...

In reply to planetmarshall:

I have 4 sisters all who ride horses they once gave me a right earful like over cyclists not wearing hi viz colours.there are other road users than car drivers!

So now I always wear viz yellow tops. They are harder to buy as not a common colour.

In reply to neilh:


True. If you can't see a horse though, you really *shouldn't* be on the road.

In reply to KevinD:

In low light, or twilight, fluorescent colours come into their own, because they make use of the available UV (relative intensity of UV peaks at twilight) to fluoresce, increasing their brightness relative to an equivalent tone, no fluorescent colour. This increases contrast, and makes them more visible.

In the dark, yes, reflective and illuminating technologies are preferred.

In reply to captain paranoia:



I think you have hit on the key word here - CONTRAST. It isn't just about bright colours for visibility. In the middle of a city, high-viz vests may not actually provide that much contrast against all the other colours that are around - buildings, adverts, other road users, shop fronts etc. Where I am out in the countryside it is fairly easy to establish that contrast by putting on a bright yellow or bright red running shirt - this makes me more visible because of that contrast.

There will be times where black can provide that contrast but I would argue that they are limited.

In reply to MG:

I think that what really horrifies cyclists is the tendency to go from "X seems like it ought to somewhat improve safety for cyclists" to "how can cyclists be so RECKLESS and IRRESPONSIBLE as to RISK THEIR LIVES by NOT DOING X?!?"

This is a worrying trend for several reasons:
i) It interferes for no good reason with people's basic freedom to use their own judgement regarding risks.
ii) In event of an accident, it makes it easier for a straight-up bad driver to claim an irrelevant sin of omission on a cyclist's part as a mitigating factor in court.
iii) It acts as smokescreen when people try to campaign for evidence-based changes that will make a positive difference to safety and participation.
iv) It plays up the perceived danger of cycling, which is a massive obstacle to getting people to leave their cars at home.

As a result, there's a tendency to push back against "HOW CAN THEY BE SO STUPID AS TO NOT DO X" rhetoric even if X would fundamentally be a pretty reasonable thing to do.

In reply to KevinD:




Theory and practice are different though.

If someone is wearing black with non reflective coating (which is what we're discussing here) then they're not helping themselves.

Most hi-viz tops should include a wide reflective strip. Many don't but that's beside the point.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I was once driving at night and approached behind a cyclist who was wearing head to toe black, no lights and no reflectors. I still saw him clearly and in plenty of time to pass safely.

I'm obviously not recommending wearing black and being unlit. Just saying that the value of fluorescent yellow clothing is often over-stated.

Often it's hard to find other colours. I dislike black clothes and my cycling gear is colourful, but then I go to the shop I generally have less choice and pay more than ninjas.

P.S.: Same with outdoor trousers. In Cotswolds you can find black and 50 shades of grey, but to get sexy red trousers you have to go to Italy.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Funny; we say the same thing and I get four likes...

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Black isn't actually a bad choice for daylight visibility.

After much experimentation the RAF paint their (mostly flown under VFR in busy class G airspace) Tuccanos black with yellow flashes because that's the most visible scheme against sky (solid flat black is best) and earth (where the high contrast yellow/black edges help).

That said, my guess is fashion over function for the mamil.
jk

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I do see that.


If it is just the cyclist, I agree there is no reason to interfere (helmets for example I think are an entirely individual matter). But with visibility it isn't just the cyclist but potentially a driver who hits them who is affected. And all those claiming people who don't see darkly dressed cyclist shouldn't drive are deluding themselves as to the effectiveness of people's vision. As above it is also other cyclists who get lumped in with those who make no effort to be visible.


Yes fair point generally. However wearing hi vis clothing is recommended in the HWC so not doing so already has evidential status in court.


But this is an example of just such an evidence-based situation. Hi-vis/contrast clothing is easier to see. Hence the adoption of hi-vis in all sorts of other situations, such as railways, building sites etc.


Agree here. It shouldn't be overdone

In reply to planetmarshall:

You miss the point. For them it works both ways, horse riders can see you if you are visible.Believe me riding a horse on a road is far more dangerous than being a cyclist.Both drivers and cyclists are idiots to them.....

As they also say, its drilled into horse riders to also wear high viz clothing.Its just plain safe.

And if you ever want to talk to one of my nieces about the time she was horse riding early one morning down a country lane to be faced with a local cycling club peleton hurtling toward her on both sides of the road then I am more than happy to arrange. Apart from nearly throwing her of the horse, there were numerous wrecked bikes and minor injuries caused as a result of the cyclists stupidity.Their comment along the lines of " we never expected a horse" sums it up.All was sorted with grace and humour and a lesson learnt by the cyclists.

In reply to neilh:

So her Hi vis worked then !

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

well maybe if they had been looking it might have saved them a lot of trouble ...........

In reply to neilh:

That's people driving (cycling) at a speed at which they could not have stopped in the distance they could see to be clear. It makes no difference what you *expect*. You have to drive or ride such that you could stop if the road ended immediately past what you can actually see.

They needed prosecuting, if a suitable offence exists for cyclists, for that. For a car driver it's clear DWDCAA.

In reply to neilh:

Lot of horses and riders where I live.

I'll typically be about to grab a segment when I see 'Cheyenne' ahead. Good manners obvsly immediately take over -- I'll slow right down, switch off the blinky and soft pedal. By and large the rider will greet me with an effusive "Thanks!!!", I'll curse quietly after I've passed and the seg will have to wait until the next time.

In reply to MG:


This seems like a bit of a weird red herring. I'm not talking about people wanting to commit suicide by car. I'd assume that not being killed or maimed is pretty high on almost everyone's priorities, and avoiding causing someone else the psychological distress of killing or maiming you is fortunately a side-effect of not being killed or maimed.


And does it consequently result in a meaningful reduction in your chances of being involved in a serious accident? I don't think that this is at all obvious. Serious bike accidents are mercifully rare to start with - what proportion of them involve a cyclist wearing black or grey clothing and would have been avoided if they were wearing high viz?

In reply to Dogwatch:



Because you keep buying it?

In reply to Ramblin dave:



Well hi viz work is know to work in other sectors where seeing people is important (unless they all are just using anecdote) and a lot of accidents with cyclists result from drivers not seeing them, so I would be surprised if greater visibility didn't have a significant effect in reducing the number

In reply to MG:

But there's a difference between "evidence based" and "wouldn't-surprise-some-bloke-on-the-internet based"!

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Well, OK, I am assuming the risk industry wide adoption of hi-viz isn't based on anecdote!

In reply to MG:
The case for hi viz for cyclists isn't very clear cut, it makes them more visible without actually reducing collisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-visibility_clothing#Cyclists

Risk compensation?

I tend to wear hi-viz & helmet when cycling but it's like psychological protection when climbing. It makes me feel better but it might just be a dangerously false sense of security.

This morning I was thinking about this thread. I noticed the woman in a nice black coat getting her kid in a mostly brown school uniform out of the car. Unlike me, neither of them were wearing hi-viz or a helmet and nor were the kids in the other school uniform which was entirely black.

People wouldn't be blaming the kids for wearing school uniform or the woman for her formal work clothes so why blame cyclists?

Similarly drivers and passengers aren't blamed for not wearing helmets although traffic collisions are a major cause of brain injury.

In reply to MG:



As Ramblin Dave says, just because people do it, doesn't mean it works.

I work in construction, we all wear hi-viz vests on site. Worthwhile? - I personally doubt it, but it give management a nice warm fuzzy feeling that they are doing something practical about safety.

I'm sure it's been said further up the thread - but why aren't cars painted hi-viz?

It's all about appropriateness. Personally I wouldn't wear black at night (& I would have lots of lights). During the day I think a dark colour may actually be more visible (& I still use flashing lights, even during the day).

In reply to MG:

That isn't as safe an assumption as it really should be. There are lots of places where hi-viz is compulsory for no logical reason at all.

Perhaps as something of a backlash against that, there is also quite a lot of industrial "hi-viz" clothing around these days that actually isn't. Often black, sometimes other colours, with the same retro-reflective tape on as proper hi-viz.
(So probably as effective as genuine hi-viz for picking someone out in the headlights of an oncoming vehicle in the dark, otherwise utterly useless.)

Sometimes the faux hi-viz has a label in saying something along the lines of "corporate-wear only", sometimes, because it's made in the same dodgy sweat-shop it'll just have the same label in saying that it meets EN-whateverthenumberis that the real hi-viz has. Even though EN-istillcantrememberthenumber specifies that a class II garment has to have half a square meter of fluorescent material within a certain area in a symmetrical pattern and blah-di-blah blah.

In reply to elsewhere:



I am not sure that Wiki article is a good summary of the evidence. Its citation 9, for example, has as published highlights

"Visibility aid prevalence is low among injured bicyclists.
£
In daylight, white or light upper body clothing decreased the odds of a bicyclist£motor vehicle crash.
£
In the dark, red/orange/yellow upper body clothing and tail lights increased the odds of a bicyclist£motor vehicle crash.
£
Using multiple visibility aids is associated with reduced odds of severe injury in bicyclists."

The second and fourth, at least, seem to confirm common sense.



Probably because bumping into another pedestrian doesn't normally result in injury or death. I think deliberately choosing dark clothing to walk down country lanes would be pretty stupid though.

In reply to MG:


I don't think so!
You can either see or hear vehicles approaching and get out of the way in time.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Why do so many people drive drizzle-grey coloured cars in a country where drizzle and grey are pretty much constant and the roads and many buildings are also grey?

In reply to Lusk:

That's a bit irresponsible because, if you DON'T get out the way because you're on your iPhone or just plain distracted, it's their fault when they hit you and there's no way they'll see you!

I come from a South Africa, a country where the people are generally dark and dark clothes are popular and street lights are not to be expected. I've very nearly cancelled someone who ran across a national road (120 km/h) in the middle of the night mere metres in front of my bonnet. If I had been slower to react by mere milliseconds, the outcome would have been culpable homicide!

In reply to MG:
It's UKC not the BMJ!

Less than half? That's what I meant by "not very clear cut".


I didn't realise you thought pedestrian hi-viz was for pavements rather than crossing the road.


Most daily journeys on foot are urban and the clothing is mainly dark but nobody blames commuters.

https://www.google.nl/search?tbm=isch&q=uk+commuters

In reply to elsewhere:


On a pavement i.e physically separated from things that will kill them! IMO, this is the best approach for cyclists too, as in Denmark, mostly.

In reply to MG:
You do realise that people cross roads don't you?

In reply to elsewhere:

Yes. Carefully and quickly so perhaps 1% their journey shares roadspace with cars, rather than 100% as with bikes.

In reply to MG:

So all pedestrians now cross roads carefully and quickly.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I'm guessing you periodically mow down the odd goth for the same reason...

In reply to Frank the Husky:

anecdotal evidence from having never worn hi vis jacket cycling until recently - I've found that I am spotted sooner by cars and they are much less likely to miss me at junctions etc. YMMV

In reply to CurlyStevo:



How could you know that? Do you ask them all?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


Cars very often miss seeing you when cycling. The most common occurrence is at t junctions (when its my right of way to continue cycling) and they may start to pull out only to suddenly see you. As a defensive cyclist I very often slow / stop / give a wide berth in these type of situations until I am sure I've been spotted. Since wearing hi vis this is happening a lot less often.

In reply to MG:

'Probably because bumping into another pedestrian doesn't normally result in injury or death. I think deliberately choosing dark clothing to walk down country lanes would be pretty stupid though.'

Exactly. We live in an unlit area and you just don't see folk as well when they're in dark clothes. Fact. And I've 20/10 vision.
Even years ago there was an advert ' wear something bright at night', even carrying a newspaper was advised .

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


You really are painful! No, they don't.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Its also true cycling at night that you can more clearly see other cyclists at a distance when they are wearing hi vis and ascertain how far away they are.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

You can see them at night if they have reflective material which is very different to daylight 'High Vis'

In reply to MG:


It was you who said they did!

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
no actually I didn't mean the reflective strips - you can see the hi vis non reflective outline from a distance much better also (this is based on urban cycling at night).

Anecdotally I certainly feel like I am getting spotted much better the majority of the time in the day as well as the night since wearing hi vis. Its now gone from quite common to extremely rare that I don't get spotted as soon as I should do by car drivers.

Bear in mind the reason I wear hi vis now is I was knocked off my bike not wearing hi vis about 6 months ago by a car turning across the road in to me (in drizzly grey daylight conditions).

I commute to / from work about 40 mins per day through the middle of the city BTW.

At night I also have lights on my helmet and my bike as well as reflectors on my bag and bike. I often use the lights in the day also. The helmet lights are great as whatever I look at sees me better even if its not in front and obviously being at a different height helps massively. They aren't too bright being a fair bit dimmer than my last gen front light.

In reply to MG:

But how daft and reactionary must somebody have to be to see cyclists more negatively as a result of somebody posting about cyclists having to wear hi-vis being some kind of dig?

The mind boggles - kinda.

Edit: I always wear a bright yellow top when cycling anywhere near cars or cycling where they're likely to be.

In reply to MG:

And you fail to realise that the vast majority of accidents are not down to lack of visibility but c@ckwombles not looking when they pull out of junctions. Doesn't matter what someone wears if an idiot isn't looking.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Then there's the very small minority who see the cyclist perfectly clearly, but pull out anyway: 'might is right'. Wouldn't matter what clothing you were wearing...

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I wear black when cycling, but since I never go through red lights or cycle on the pavement, no driver could ever fail to notice me because my halo is so intense.

In reply to EddInaBox:

Not an oval polystyrene halo by any chance, with air ducts and a chin strap?

In reply to elsewhere:

The point is not the person you did see in black - its the one you didn't

In reply to....

FWIW. I've cycled a bit, I'm pretty aware of cyclists on the road etc. But the other day I was turning into my road, and nearly knocked a guy off his bike. He was wearing all black, and underneath a tree at dusk with no lights was pretty much invisible. If you wear all black, get those lights on.

In reply to elsewhere:
Because no one blames the cyclist.

The highway code is very clear and suggests cyclists AND pedestrians should wear bright clothing at night.

If a cyclist or a pedestrian is injured and they haven't taken those precautions then any payout will be reduced.

A drunk cyclist was hit and killed locally to me. It was found he had no lights, was wearing dark clothing and was cycling in the middle of a national speed limit road. No action was taken against the driver.

That's not blaming the cyclist. It's not blaming the driver. There's a difference.

In reply to Dogwatch:

my neighbour who is closing on 50 wears snide team sky gear (which incidentally is black) from ebay... If it was functional gear he craved then I'm sure he wouldn't be browsing ebay for it.. arguably only one example but there is a market for it and most cyclists are covered in branding.. maybe even some of it is hi vis but not all middle aged men dodge about in cardigans and slippers.. some are still into a bit of fashion, cycling is no exception..

In reply to darbs: "most cyclists are covered in branding"

You've missed the point. A middle aged man might indeed want to dress well but few are sufficiently delusional to think they look good in lycra. Cycling gear is functional.

In reply to darbs:


Last year's Tinkoff strip was particularly eye-catching...


...but not really 'fashionable'.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Then again if the cyclists had been lit up like a f*cking christmas tree the driver would have probably blamed sun in their eyes and got away with it anyway.

In reply to KevinD:


There's not a lot of sun at 11pm at night.

It is the responsibility of the cyclist to make sure he can be seen.

It is the responsibility of the driver to watch for cyclists.

It's not an either/or situation.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

150 posts worth of circular argument, what a thread! Can't it just be boiled down to:

- Motorists should look out for cyclists at all times
- Cyclists should make every effort to make themselves as visible as possible

and we could all just concede that we all make mistakes and have lapses in concentration (drivers and cyclists) and that making ourselves as visible as possible probably improves our (the cyclists) chances?

The only actual collision I've had on a bike was a motorist turning left across a cycle lane without indicating (sped past me then cut across). I managed to stop but the cyclist behind me didn't a rear ended me.....

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I just found it depressing that you seem to think that even if a cyclist was well lit that would count in a court of law.

In reply to KevinD:


What would?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


judging from many court cases sweet f*ck all. Particularly if the cyclist gets killed so they cant give their version of events.

In reply to KevinD:

I find it depressing you've bought into the idea that there's some conspiracy against cyclists in which the legal system actively colludes with offenders.

There will be many cases where people get 'let off' with all sorts of things during the legal process which seem deeply wrong to most people. It's not a deliberate pogrom against one type of vehicle user.

In reply to Ridge:


Now who said conspiracy as opposed to institutional bias or, indeed, a problem with the jury system. I mean you only need to view some of these threads to see people taking the "could happen to anyone" line. Doesnt really take more than a minutes thought to see how that could bias the system.

In reply to Ridge:
I don't think there's necessarily a conspiracy against cyclists but I do think that most jurys will be made up of car driving non cyclists who will naturally gravitate towards the car drivers point of view as that is what they can relate to and sympathise with.

In reply to KevinD:


That's the idea of juries though, a representative sample of the the population who will collectively see things from the point of view of an "average" person. If the collective view is that drivers are human and will make errors that occasionally result in dead cyclists through no fault of their own, that is the system working, not evidence that it is biased.

In reply to MG:


I love the casual "no fault of their own". Sadly though I suspect many people do have the same underlying fear that really they arent a very competent or careful driver and hence excuse peoples faults in fear it would happen to them as well. Since the choice of actually concentrating when in charge of a ton of steel is clearly too much effort to bother about.

One of the several issues with the jury system, another obvious one is the difficulty in dealing with certain complex case types.

In reply to KevinD:


That was just for you

Sadly though I suspect many people do have the same underlying fear that really they arent a very competent or careful driver and hence excuse peoples faults in fear it would happen to them as well.

Quite possibly but again is that not the idea of a jury? If, for example, they judge a standard of driving not to be careless but a result of a "normal" level of competence at driving, then that is their role, not a flaw in the system


It's a bit like democracy. Not perfect but perhaps the best of the available systems. (Or are the continental systems better??).

In reply to KevinD:

The problem with the British system is it is an adversarial system locked in placing blame and seeking to prosecute someone or absolve them.

This means that any court case is doomed to never find out the truth of what happened because the person being prosecuted is facing heavy penalties.

A jury full of angry men seeking vengeance or retribution wouldn't improve the situation.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Maybe some people can't afford head-to-toe dayglo so are just cycling in what they own?

I don't wear dayglo, but do use lights. To be honest I cycle as if I am invisible - I don't leave it to car drivers to see me, I cycle in a way that it is less important to be seen.

In reply to Frank the Husky:














You didn't mention being dazzled by the lights of an oncoming car being driven by some Dick who hasn't dipped or has badly adjusted lights.

Sadly my neighbour hit and killed a pedestrian walking in the road dressed in black in just such circumstances. The Inquest exonerated him and found that the pedestrian had failed to take sufficient care to protect himself by wearing dark clothing at night whilst walking on the side of the road.

Although it hadn't been his fault my neighbour was a broken man and became deeply depressed eventually taking his own life. A terrible tragedy.

Those who walk/cycle in black on roads at night are total idiots, as are those on this thread who can't grasp why it's so stupid to dress like that.

In reply to Trangia:

I don't think anyone has said it's OK to be in dark clothing at night without adequate lighting anywhere on this thread.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton: Maybe that's part of it, but the people I see (and there were quite a few on the way over to Giggleswick today) are wearing black cycling clothing with team logos (sky etc) and so they have the cash. I'm not sure what the porice difference is between a bright top and a black one.

Cycling as you do is wise because, despite what drivers "should" see, you are usually invisible because drivers don't see.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:


What technique do you use so as not to be hit from behind if not seen?

I always consider a rear light to be far more important than a front light; I can see what's in front of me, and I can take evasive action. I can't see behind me, and have to rely on hearing, and on being seen by drivers prepared to drive round me. I suspect most bike fatalities are hit from behind.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

No but they have defended the darker clothing stance as opposed to the higher visibility clothing stance. It's as simple as that.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Not sure. Quite a few deaths seem to be crushing by large vehicles turning left.

I semi-agree with rear light being more important but I'm most often worried at a certain crossroad whether cars are about to turn into or cross the road I'm already on and they ahead/to the side of me waiting to turn.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


BOTH good lights and light reflective clothing are important. Dark clothing is plain stupid as is no or poor lights..

In reply to Trangia:

Not always, it's this entrenched position of dark = stupid, death wish, idiot cyclist etc etc that is the problem. If I am popping down the shops on my bike at night in just my normal jeans and fleece jacket I ensure that i have good lights on my bike, I'm not going to hunt out specific reflective clothing for a ten minute trip but I am more than visible with the good lights I have.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

10 mins? It takes a micro second to be hit by a driver that hasn't seen you.

The time your journey takes is irrelevant. It's the same flawed thinking behind not putting your seat belts on for a short local journey.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Yes, it's such a chore to slip on a reflective waistcoat as you go out of the door.

In reply to Trangia:


Didnt you read what they said? With modern lights a f*cking jacket will make bugger all difference.

In reply to Trangia:

It's not flawed thinking at all, completely the opposite. I've got good lights, I can be seen by all drivers and I have thought about my trip. Again it's this attitude that stops many people cycling thinking its too much hassle and too dangerous. I shouldn't and don't need to put high viz on for a quick trip to the shops as I have good lights.

In reply to KevinD:
Didn't you read what I've written further up either?

Well it's your life, I just feel sorry for anyone who might kill you or yesbutetc on your bike.

You just keep your heads in the sand and go on convincing yourself that black is white, so it's pointless continuing this discussion

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That's not the point. The refective waistcoat isn't needed due to having decent lights. I'd like to see it becoming the norm that people pop to the shops on bikes rather than using cars all the time. If you can grab your bike turn on the lights and go then it's more likely to happen rather than have people pointlessly moaning that you're not wearing a refective vest despite seeing you due to having more than adequate lights. This country has massive issues with clogged roads, obesity, air pollution and every time someone uses a bike rather than a car these issues are addressed in a small way, the more that are encouraged to do it the better.

In reply to KevinD:


That's simply not true. Reflective clothing is far more visible than many modern lights (which are sometimes so small and dim as to be pointless)

In reply to Trangia:


yes I did. I am not sure of the relevance of an unlit pedestrian to a well lit bike? Although admittedly if a driver cant see and keeps going then even my rather unsubtle lights might lose out. Only to some of the insanely over powered headlights on full beam though.


I wouldnt advise it. Since the idiot would be failing to see lights that are easily as capable as a cars.

However I am sure some morons on the jury will sit there like you and make excuses for being incompetent in charge of a car.
Just like the f*cking moron who killed a cyclist whilst pissed out of their little head and then tried blaming the lack of a helmet.

In reply to MG:

Change it to 'good modern lights' and it's perfectly true. No one is saying that riding at night in dark clothing with lights the size of a pin head and the brightness of a candle is a good idea.

In reply to MG:


I am not fussed about the lights others used. I can guarantee my lights are far more visible.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Ah, it was this "I'm not going to hunt out specific reflective clothing for a ten minute trip" that made it seem like it was all too much effort for you. And while I'm sure your lights make you highly visible from the side, a lot of people's don't and some extra visibility from a reflective bit of clothing (that you could even have hanging on the handlebars ready to put on) might help.

In reply to KevinD:

Well I am as I dont want to hit them. £20 for a reflective jacket ofr undreds for powerful lights...

This also started as discussion of daytime wear, where visible clothing, rather than black, makes even more sense.

In reply to MG:

You don't need to spend 'hundreds' to get very good lights that can be seen from a good distance.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

To get anything approaching car brightness you do. I really think the cyclists here don't appreciate, or forget, how difficult it is for them to be seen. Driving on a busy street at night there will hundreds of lights in view, it is incredibly easy to miss, or misjudge, a small light on a bike. In rain it is even worse. The simple addition of reflective clothing makes things massively safer for all involved.

In reply to MG:


a)it isnt hundreds and b)how do you know that £20 pound jacket will remain effective?


so the purpose of a reflective jacket during the day is what exactly?

In reply to MG:


no you dont. Stop talking about things you dont understand.


Bet you the vast majority of the cyclists are drivers as well. Unlike you who is clearly clueless about cycling the cyclists arent about driving.

In reply to KevinD:


By looking at it?


More high contrast that is important on daylight, but reflective still works to an extent.

In reply to KevinD:


Show me an example then.


Well firstly I have cycled quite a lot and secondly I drive quite a lot so you are wrong.

In reply to MG:

You really do say some guff. If you can't judge a cyclist in an area with 'hundreds of lights' in view and everything is lit up then there really is no hope for you. It's on pitch black country roads with no other lights around that that the benefits of reflective clothing come into their own and you need drivers to made much more aware of 'what' you are.

In reply to MG:

Erm, no you don't.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


Speaking as another person who just cycles in whatever I'm going out in, often a black or tweed coat the lights are only of limited value when viewed from the side which is where retroflective material is really useful.
jk

In reply to MG:

Google is your friend :

try " magicshine "

just for a start....

In reply to lummox:

They seem to come in at about £60-150 per light, which is what I thought.

In reply to MG:


you seem to be redefining hundreds there.

In reply to MG:


nope. It is fairly obvious you are clueless about cycling.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Well it's more there is no hope for *you* as a cyclist who fails to recognise the difficulties. I am certainly no worse than the average driver - good vision, always had a clean licence, no accidents - and I am very aware of difficulties of seeing cyclists. You should be too, for you own good.

In reply to MG:

.. so not hundreds of pounds at all ? FYI, you can get a set of Knog lights, for example, which are visible from half a mile away for £50. Maybe less. There are plenty of similar examples, btw.

Hope that helps.

In reply to KevinD:

You can say that again and again, it doesn't make it true.

In reply to KevinD:

Come on, we talking a minimum of £120, plus batteries, chargers etc. Good lights are pricey.

In reply to MG:

Why not help us out ? Are you a regular cycle commuter ? Leisure cyclist ? MTBer ? Cafe cyclist ?

Context always helps doesn't it ?

In reply to lummox:

I was a daily cycle commuter for three years in Nottingham and Edinburgh, not currently. Always used decent but not spectacular lights at night. Wore hiviz/reflective clothing always. Going back a bit have toured in Ireland and Belgium. Lived in cycling friendly Denmark for six months. Not sure how that helps but there you are.

In reply to Timmd:


Erm, perhaps you do.

If you want a small point source that is as bright as the same sized piece of a car light, you don't.

If you want the same amount of light coming out as a decent main beam headlight, I'm not sure if such a thing is even on the market?

Brightness and total optical power out aren't the same. Perfectly possible for people to be arguing about different things here.

In reply to MG:


Massive overkill for road cycling. I would advocate multiple lights including blinking lights, but these only need cost a few pounds each. A front light to see the road is probably the biggest expense, but still can be had for less than £20.

Of course you can spend more, but you can light yourself up like a Christmas Tree and light the road ahead of you for £30-40.

In reply to The New NickB:

I know, but this was all going back to the claim bright lights make good clothing redundant, which isn't really true at all but certainly only so if you spend a lot. Better I would say to have decent lights and good clothing.

In reply to KevinD:





Have you ever been one of those morons on a jury?

In reply to MG:


You appear to be saying lights cost hundreds, that is only true if you buy lights that cost hundreds. What is 'good' clothing? At night colour makes absolutely no difference. Reflective materials are good, I've seen black cycling clothing that virtually turns in to a ball of light when headlights are on it, but equally multiple light sources, some of them blinking is the best way to maximise your chances of being seen.

In reply to The New NickB:


I was saying lights of comparable notice ability to car headlights cost hundreds - OK £150+ appears to be the numbers.

What is 'good' clothing? At night colour makes absolutely no difference. Reflective materials are good,

Reflective at night, high contrast/vis in daylight. Not dark colours that fade in to the background. Somehow this is controversial...

In reply to MG:


that's simply not true.

I've tried to give you examples.. try Bike Radar for comparisons.

In reply to lummox:

Your examples are nothing like car lights. E.g.
http://www.halfords.com/cycling/bike-lights-locks/bike-lights/knog-blinder-...

In reply to MG:


Again, though, the argument isn't that reflective and high vis clothing doesn't reduce the risk of someone hitting you at all. It's that for a lot of rides, it reduces that risk from "negligible" to "very negligible" rather than from "unacceptable" to "acceptable".

In reply to MG:


I don't think getting hung-up on car lights is very helpful. It's perfectly possible to have decent bike lights which are highly visible, even in daylight, which don't costs hundreds. From my observations as cyclist and driver, flashing bike lights are very effective for improving visibility. Decent bright flashing lights need not be expensive.
You also need to consider the conditions under which the lights are being used. Busy city centres are often well lit anyway and bright lights are less important than in less well-lit areas or on rural roads.

In reply to MG:

From 25 years experience of cycle and car commuting, they are far more noticeable than car lights.

In reply to tony:



Traffic speed and conditions also make a difference, I think. I'd be happier on a quiet lane or a residential backstreet with just my regular lights and ordinary clothes than I would somewhere faster or more chaotic.

In reply to MG:


As someone who rides more miles than most people drive (12,000 incident free miles in 2015) I'm more than aware of most 'difficulties' that apply to cyclists in all sorts of situations both from a cyclists and a drivers perspective. You are posting a lot of guff as I say. Have you ever hit a cyclist whilst driving, I'm assuming you have because cyclists are so incredibly hard to see we must be getting knocked off our bikes almost every time we ride them.

In reply to MG:
Does anyone else think that "The Blinder" is a completely inappropriate name for a bicycle light, and if the lights are as described they should not be road legal?

No road user should be seeking to "blind" other road users.

The ideal is to be seen while not affecting the night vision of other road users at all. This is why car headlamps are fitted with dim-dip, and so should be this kind of bicycle light.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
Hi there

I normally wear a very bright luminous yellow top when I'm cycling, but... within the range of risks people take relative to the benefits they derive from said risk, I don't think this is a big issue.

Getting knocked off your bike is fairly unlikely event. Getting knocked off your bike in the day because you weren't seen in the day is even more unlikely. Getting knocked off your bike because you weren't seen AND you would have been seen if you were wearing brighter clothes is more unlikely.

(At night, if you have proper lights, what your wearing really shouldn't be an issue. Proper lights are bright, and flash. So, we're talking about in the day..)

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


Which part of "no accidents" is causing you problems?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


You clearly aren't. In fact you are ignoring testimony of quite of few on this thread saying similar things about cyclists being hard to see. Do you think we are all liars?

In reply to Donald82:

Except that lights tend to shine front and back whereas cars tend to pull out of side roads or pull across cyclists. Also a cyclists upper nody is considerably higher off the road than the lights. So it shouldn't really be either or, for me its about not increasing risk unneccessarily

In reply to MG:

Further, The probability is that a cyclist that is still alive and able to post (which is most of us), they won't have been involved in a major incident. Also just because they haven't been hit doesn't mean that car driver(s) haven't seen them or saw them dangerously late.

In reply to MG:


Exactly. Despite all the invisible cyclists everywhere!

In reply to MG:


If I wasn't I can assure you I wouldn't be here now. How many of these testimony giving experts have knocked down invisible cyclists?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I can testify that cyclists wearing black in the dark can be hard to see. I can explain why if you like...

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Take lycra out of the question and I wonder if resentment still runs so high? This morning I cycled to work wearing a navy blue sports jacket and dark jeans because that's what I wear for work. I appreciate this combo may be a bit of a fashion crime at my age, but along with most the population of Denmark and Holland, I don't think my safety on the road should dictate I wear a helmet and hi-viz clothes. For cycling to stand a chance of proper mass take-up we need to ditch the fetishistic paraphernalia and embrace the trouser-clip.

Obviously, on a Sunday morning, I'm as fetishistic as the next MAMIL and like nothing more than black doning lycra and slathering my under-carriage in chamois cream!

In reply to FrankBooth:


And will you be getting on a bike at any time over the weekend...?

In reply to GrahamD:

sure, you're more visible with bright stuff at night, as in the day. points above still apply - not wearing a bright jacket's not a big additional risk

I'm with you though, i normally wear a bright jacket. i just don't think it's a biggie if other folks don't

In reply to KevinD:



What's this talk about juries?

The fact that a driver was incompetent and hit you won't be of much help to you when your lying on a mortuary slab. The jury's decision becomes pretty irrelevant to you, so if you think that there are such drivers out there is all the more reason to take your own sensible precautions like not wearing dark clothing and having good lights.

Do you only use one anchor point when constructing a belay? Or do you take the recommended procedure of always trying to find three anchor points?

The safety principles are the same when cycling at night. Why take risks and rely on only lights, or only reflective high viz clothing when both are readily available to purchase?

In reply to FrankBooth:

Nothing to do with Lycra. That Mecca of cycling that is Cambridge City is heavily populated by hard to see cyclists in dark jeans and jackets.

In reply to GrahamD:

Just done a wee forty miler on a gloriously sunny evening in Northumberland / Cumbria.

In the spirit of this thread I wore a black windproof and black shorts ( left my wee blinky seat post light off too)

No one failed to see me.

It's good to be alive!

In reply to Trangia:


Out of interest, how many of the people taking this line of argument wear crash helmets when they're in a car?

In reply to Ramblin dave:


It's a case of practicality. A hi viz takes second to put in and doesn't have any downsides.

Crash helmets limit visibility and head injuries are not a high cause of death in car accidents due to seat belts and air bags.

If it's dark and I'm running or cycling, I put on a light colour top. It's fairly simple.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Motor vehicles are one of the primary causes of head injury.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


You may feel safer doing that, you probably arn't.

Lights and reflective garments or strips / dots in the dark.

In reply to petellis:

Motor vehicles are one of the primary causes of head injury.

To the occupants?

In reply to FactorXXX:

yes- most motor vehicle accident deaths are due to head injuries.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=vicars+cycling

Pretty obvious really. Was a comon sight when I was young, and appears to me making a comeback, headed by ex-Communard Richard Coles. There's a recent letter in Viz too.

In reply to felt:

I nearly got knocked off yesterday by a car pulling out on me at a roundabout.

I was wearing a bright red top and had a flourescent yellow rucksack on.


Last week I did the same roundabout in black and didn't get nearly knocked off.


Conclusive proof and we can now end this thread.

In reply to Parrys_apprentice:



You've got to dress according to the season and planting schemes. At this time of year roundabouts are mostly tulips and daffs. I'd go for a non-cherry blossom pink. Or what about a nice cadmium orange?

In reply to lummox:


Head injury or brain injury?

In reply to The New NickB:



No. I definitley am.

A simple experiment confirms it. Drive down the road at night and look at the pedestrians on the pavement. I guarantee the ones in white tops will be easier to see than those in black. Regardless of the lighting levels.

People have already mentioned switching to rods from cones.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I have, ive looked at a couple of studies on it as well.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
You can pretty much guarantee that the pedestrians dressed in black will far outnumber those dressed in white but that doesn't seem to raise any hackles or create a thread on UKC.

In reply to elsewhere:

We went through this above. Walking on country lanes while deliberately wearing drab clothing, or at night on the road, would lead to just the same comments, in fact probably more direct ones. The fact is pedestrians use pavements and thus remove themselves from interacting with traffic by and large

In reply to MG:
Pedestrian deaths far exceed cyclist deaths so traffic interaction with pedestrians is far from benign. Why no concern for pedestrians?

In reply to elsewhere:

I'm a cyclist as well as a driver. The closest I've been to killing someone was a cyclist on a country road at night dressed in black with no lights. I saw him wwith literally a nanosecond before I hit him and reacted fast enough to just miss him. Still makes me shudder.

As a boy, the police would stop us on our bikes if we were'nt wearing bright clothing, and we'd be given a lecture about safety. I also recall being stopped in my 20s by the police and being told to cycle home on the pavement as it woas the lesser of two evils.

In reply to elsewhere:


? I do have concern. If you want to a thread resisting the idea that pedestrians use the pavement, for example, I will happily oppose you.

In reply to elsewhere:


It's a cycling forum?

I mentioned upthread as a pedestrian/runner I wear light clothing if I'm going out in the dark.

The concern is there.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

You've probably heard this already but originally racing on British roads was illegal so instead of mass start races the time trial was invented. Cyclist work black to make them less obvious to the authorities and so black became a tradition. When trade teams came along for professional cycling the shorts remained plain black and the tops different colours according to the sponsor or team. Black shorts and tights are still the most common colour.

In reply to rossn:


interesting. I'd assumed the reason was aesthetic, to mask the grotesque bulges and chasms. I'd wear white shorts if I dared -- as Gullit argued at Chelsea, white is the supreme kit colour -- but I don't.

In reply to rossn:

Cyclist wore black to make them less obvious to the authorities

Delusional fools!

In reply to coinneach:





What you mean is that noone failed to see you, or if they did, they didn't hit you You can't know whether someone didn't see you. By the way lucky sod for getting the ride in !

In reply to felt:


That's all very well until you get a visit from the gingerbread man.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

My point is it's not very good well before.

In reply to captain paranoia:


I try to cycle at the speed of the traffic, or take roads where there's less chance of a high speed differential.


I always have my back light on from dusk till dawn, might get another one at some point.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:


I don't see how that's possible unless you're in a traffic jam or able to hold 30mph + on the flat.


Well that's sensible. Do you turn it off when you get home

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I like wearing black - sometimes i don't change my clothes to get on a bike - i just keep wearing my clothes, so ya know i've got them when i get off again.

and wearing dark colours isn't unique to me - look around you - what colour are people wearing?

In reply to MG:


Not lying - more attempting to shift the blame, rather than looking at your own driving practises (eg slowing down and looking more, and maybe even getting glasses)

In reply to BelleVedere:


No blame shifting. Most of us would rather not run cyclists over. It would help in this if cyclists took a bit of responsibility towards their own safety. Especially given that drivers are telling them they're difficult to see even when we are driving slowly with our glasses on.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Yet presumably you do see them and avoid hitting them? Particularly if they're cycling in an otherwise sensible way, have reasonable lights and so on?

In reply to BelleVedere:


I know, the Surrey hills are like post-revolution Tehran.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
And yet none of these drivers have atually hit a cyclist even they were apparently really hard to see. Most adult cyclists are also car drivers and are well aware how to 'take responsibility'. I don't think anyone here has actually said 'black is better' it's the whole tone of 'cyclists not taking responsibility' attitude that is out of all proportion. Cyclists are not getting run over left right and centre regardless of what they're wearing because they are being seen. by all means moan about crapppy or no lights at night which is completely different but this whole irresponsible cyclist stuff is rubbish, if it wasn't there'd be dead cyclists all over the place.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Yes. Quite often at the last minute causing the car driver to take avoiding action and a bad scare in the process.

Just because an accident didn't happen doesn't mean it won't.

If you can identify potential accidents by acting on near misses, surely that's a good thing. Or is it better to wait for loads of dead cyclists wearing black to fill the stats sheets?

In reply to DancingOnRock:
Rubbish, with the amount of cyclists there are now it would be happening as we speak and there would be 'dead cyclists everywhere'. I've never come close to hitting a cyclist in 30 years of driving.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

If all cyclists were riding with no lights dressed in black they would be.

Hence the advice in the Highway Code which the vast majority of cyclists, horse riders, pedestrians and runners follow.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

If if if. But they're not are they, what is it you don't get ?


Is that the same highway code that says we should all drive to the speed limit. I wonder which would have the greater impact on road deaths, the advise about cycling clothing or the law about speed limits which we've all broken. You really shouldn't cherry pick the highway code, especially when it's 'should' rather than 'must'.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

The only accident I've had on a bike involving a car was when the motorist deliberately drove straight at me.

Had I been less visible, preferably invisible, that accident would never have happened.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I completely get it.

The thread title should have read. "Why do some cyclists refuse to wear light clothing when the Highway Code recommends they do?"

I think if you are wearing light clothing, it really doesn't apply to you. Does it?

Some posters seem to think that wearing light clothing makes no difference.

That's the bit I don't get.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


This has been explained umpteen times in the thread already - eg me at 10:31 and 14:21 on Monday and 12:17 on Wednesday, and Donald82 at 14:43 on Wednesday. Each time, the explanation has been largely ignored and people have carried on saying "YES BUT IT MAKES YOU HARD TO SEE AND IF YOU'RE HARD TO SEE THEN YOU'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO DIE!!!"

If you still don't get it then I'm not sure that someone saying the same thing again is going to help, to be honest.

In reply to Ramblin dave:



Really? Who has said that?

Just because car drivers don't pass any wider when you're wearing hi viz doesn't mean it doesn't affect your safety at other times.

The point is it may only make marginal safety improvements to you personally, but when scaled up, it makes a difference to people who are trying to drive their cars safely.

If I can see a cyclist 100m ahead I can start slowing down and plan my overtake.

If I don't see him until he his in my headlights I have only the option to slow down suddenly to avoid hitting him.

There's more to it than just avoiding being runn down and killed. And it all contributes to how cyclists are perceived by the non cycling motorist.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Would you like a spade ?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Head meet desk, desk meet head. Bang Bang Bang.

You're now talking about not seeing a cyclist until they're in your headlights so you are now refering to night driving.

No one in the whole of this thread has said it's ok to be on the road at night without adequate lighting.