Hi-viz still officially promoted

Raysa wrote (see)

 Seems the authorities remain convinced that bright stuff is helpful.

Just ask them for some evidence that hi-vis is beneficial rather than listen to their supposition.

Then ask them if their dayglo batternbug covered vehicles ever suffer from SMIDSY's.

Then make your own mind up.

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)

Just ask them for some evidence that hi-vis is beneficial rather than listen to their supposition.

Don't think I'll bother. I asked them that when they ran the campaign last year, and they didn't have a compelling case.

Then make your own mind up.

I already have - my conclusion is that a decisive conclusion isn't available. Neither the 'ayes' or the 'nays' of the debate strike me as having a convincing argument.

Raysa wrote (see)

I already have - my conclusion is that a decisive conclusion isn't available. Neither the 'ayes' or the 'nays' of the debate strike me as having a convincing argument.

Have you run into lots of cyclists without lights and pedestrians crossing the road at night or do you see them?  Do you bump into trees in wet weather or can you see them? Do police vehicles suffer from SMIDSYs?

I suspect you can see them.  Police vehicles suffer from SMIDSYs.  Therefore hi-viz is not necessary. 

It's much worse if you consider that it might work.  As that leads to risk compensation.

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)

Police vehicles suffer from SMIDSYs. Therefore hi-viz is not necessary.

The fact that some SMIDSYs happen to hi-viz vehicles doesn't mean that hi-viz is never effective - only that it isn't always effective. We can't know how many accidents might have been avoided by it - any more than we can tell how many accidents might have been avoided by people not wearing hi-viz and therefore not subject to risk compensation.

It's much worse if you consider that it might work. As that leads to risk compensation.

It doesn't have to. Risk compensation, by its nature a subconscious tendency, can be over-ridden by conscious decision. Also it's quite possible to think that hi-viz might work but still not wear it (therefore avoiding the risk of risk compensation). I remain unconvinced either way, but I don't normally wear hi-viz.

But anyway, back to the police assertion - it seems to me that this issue is an important one and I wish those advising the police and highways authorities would look into the 'evidence' more thoroughly and give the whole question more thorough consideration. They could do a lot worse than start by reviewing all the relevant posts on this forum over the last few years!

Raysa wrote (see)

The fact that some SMIDSYs happen to hi-viz vehicles doesn't mean that hi-viz is never effective - only that it isn't always effective. We can't know how many accidents might have been avoided by it - any more than we can tell how many accidents might have been avoided by people not wearing hi-viz and therefore not subject to risk compensation.

I think you're missing my point.  You can see poorly illuminated dark objects without hi-viz and day-glow'd up objects still get hit.  Ergo the need for hi-viz as a safety aid is not demonstrated. 

Sure, people still get run over, trees hit and morons crash into ambulances but I don't think this is largely because they were really not visible.

But I still eagerly await the evidence that hi-viz plays any part in preventing incidents. To date I have seen precisely none.

Raysa wrote (see)

It doesn't have to. Risk compensation, by its nature a subconscious tendency, can be over-ridden by conscious decision. Also it's quite possible to think that hi-viz might work but still not wear it (therefore avoiding the risk of risk compensation). I remain unconvinced either way, but I don't normally wear hi-viz.

I'm not really bothered about what you personally do - it is what the authorities are doing promoting it that does concern me, as you can bet that the people handing out this stuff suggest, if not directly, that it'll make you 'safer'.  Those who accept this and wear it will think it does and therefore risk compensation comes into effect.  

Raysa wrote (see)

But anyway, back to the police assertion - it seems to me that this issue is an important one and I wish those advising the police and highways authorities would look into the 'evidence' more thoroughly and give the whole question more thorough consideration. They could do a lot worse than start by reviewing all the relevant posts on this forum over the last few years!

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)

But I still eagerly await the evidence that hi-viz plays any part in preventing incidents. To date I have seen precisely none.

Have to admit that I don't wear hi-vis / reflective gear, but then i'm on a bike with lights.  I think some of the ninja cyclists that seem to come out of the woodwork at this time of year in the dark mornings wearing stealth-black and no lights might want something a tad more visible.

TongPo wrote (see)

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)

But I still eagerly await the evidence that hi-viz plays any part in preventing incidents. To date I have seen precisely none.

you're not likely to though, people don't report non-incidents.

I would expect to be able to see evidence that shows that the promotion of hi-viz as a safety is relevant.  Especially when subsidised by the tax payer.

TongPo wrote (see)

I don't think it out of the realms of possibilty that on a dark night against a dark background hi-viz can make you more noticeable.

hextal wrote (see)

Have to admit that I don't wear hi-vis / reflective gear, but then i'm on a bike with lights.

I have lights too.  I use them to see where I'm going in the dark - it's what they are for.

hextal wrote (see)

I think some of the ninja cyclists that seem to come out of the woodwork at this time of year in the dark mornings wearing stealth-black and no lights might want something a tad more visible.

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)

hextal wrote (see)

I think some of the ninja cyclists that seem to come out of the woodwork at this time of year in the dark mornings wearing stealth-black and no lights might want something a tad more visible.

How do you know they come out at this time of year?

hextal wrote (see)

Yeah - I generally base my figures on what I wipe off the front fairing / front bumper.

Seems that summer is big for midgies and autumn its mainly ninja-cyclists, those shurriken marks take some T-Cutting out!!

I've actually had incidents with three cyclists, one I didn't see, two I did...

The first was about 14/15 years ago, coming home across the Marsh from Lydd in the evening, as the sun was setting. A cyclist was heading in my direction and I simply didn't see her because I turned into the sun and did the dumb trick of deciding that would be a good time to use the windscreen washer. Entirely my fault.

The second was at night. The cyclist concerned was wearing a head-mounted high intensity light. I could see him coming round the bend ahead of me, but when he looked straight at me, he dazzled me completely and I barely missed him as I ran wide in the bend.

The third was at night when I was waiting to turn right. After the car I was waiting for passed, the road seemed clear except for a couple of vehicles some distance off. I started to pull forward then stopped - something about the motion of the lights wasn't right and rang alarm bells. A moment or two later I realised I was looking at a cyclist with totally three different beam patterns from high intensity lights, two mounted up on the bars and one down on the fork leg. They might have been showing him where he was cycling, but they also did a perfect job of disguising what I was looking at.

All original contributions to this forum by Kevin Williams are subject to a (cc) Creative Commons deed.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales
Full terms are available here but in brief if you use the author's work for any purpose, it's under the following conditions:
* Attribution. You must give the original author credit.
* Non-Commercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
* Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one.
VD DEALS Blog Courses Books Facebook Twitter FREE STUFF

"Force has no place where there is need of skill" Herodotus 450BC :burnout:

Intresting Kev, I read that as the ones that distracted you with lamps helped cause the incident?

Thinking back - if they had been using just a 'normal' cycle lamp do you think you would have reacted differently?  Would them being dressed up in hi-viz have helped?

The helmet mounted lights are intended for off-road use (yes, people do go mountain biking at night!) so you can aim your light where you intend to go next. Fine off-road but bloody stupid to use them on the road. I could see him perfectly - I just couldn't see where I was supposed to go, and as I know there is a bit of sticky out hedge on that particular corner, I fear I ran wider towards him than the corner actually demanded... he obviously thought so anyway, as he did a bit of shouting about me being a blind f*ck or something along those lines!

The guy with three lights simply didn't look like a cyclist. I couldn't see the silhouette of the rider because there was nothing behind him to illuminate him and the lights were bright enough to mask the outline of bike and rider, so the information I was 'reading' was the pattern of the lights, which I must have taken to look like a car, perhaps with another car partly visible behind it, some distance away. It certainly didn't shout "BICYCLE" at me.

If he was wearing retroreflective, I certainly didn't notice it. If he wasn't, then it MIGHT have helped, although I'm far from certain. As I was on dipped beam it would only have been the diffracted light outside the beam pattern that would have been bounced back to me, so I suspect his hi-intensity lights would actually have masked it, just as they masked his silhouette. 

All original contributions to this forum by Kevin Williams are subject to a (cc) Creative Commons deed.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales
Full terms are available here but in brief if you use the author's work for any purpose, it's under the following conditions:
* Attribution. You must give the original author credit.
* Non-Commercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
* Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one.
VD DEALS Blog Courses Books Facebook Twitter FREE STUFF

"Force has no place where there is need of skill" Herodotus 450BC :burnout:

I'd disagree about the head lights being stupid on the road. On their own, maybe not so good as they're not where expected.  But given the extremely narrow focus of most bike lights you can get real problems if you need to make a sharp left / right or pretty much in any dealings with pedestrians.

hextal wrote (see)

FJS - you are correct in that I did (in seriousness) avoid them. The issue being that I wasn't able to see them (or more accurately identify them) until much later than had they been lit or wearing something reflective which would have given more advance notice.

How much 'advance notice' do you need?  You can see unlit cyclists in dark clothing at night. 

Which was kind of my point.

hextal wrote (see)

I think the issue is that by wearing dark colours and no lights/reflectors in unlit areas cyclists are throwing more of the responsibility for their own safety at the other road users. Which is their perogative, as long as they don't go moaning if they get clipped by someone that didn't see them in time to take adequate avoiding action.

hextal wrote (see)

Not sure of the legal side, but I have a feeling that If I were to run over a guy in hi-viz with lights front and rear I would get into more trouble than if it were one of the aforementioned 'ninjas', as I would expect that to be used as a mitigating factor in any defence arguments (rightly or wrongly).

Best of luck with that one.  There is some requirements for bicycles to have lights at night so you might have some mitigation - although your confession above suggests that you can see unlit cyclists so that might not help you in court. 

Do you think any punishment you receive should be lessened if any pedestrians you run over were not well illuminated too?