Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
What has Star Trek to do with cycling though?
How was your cycle commute?
- Thread starter ChrisFilter
- Start date
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
That's a different page from the one linked to above.
Herbert.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
I've just cycled to the doctors in a herringbone tweed blazer and brogues. I guess that makes me a Herbert (George Wells).
It is, but if you scroll down on the page that was previously linked you will find the same definition.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
The poster was saying that people who wear high viz are uncool gradgrinds.
I don't think it's an attitude that cares much about road safety.
Sigmund Fraud
893 all the way.
Not in the context were using here, so you're making assumptions and posting videos of man in chimp suit that you watch on a computer screen as scientific evidence. I rode to work this morning in all black kit with a 200 lumen front light and two 1w LED flashing lights out back. Can you prove I was less visible than someone wearing hi-viz or someone bollock naked with the same lights? Can you fuck.
Sigmund Fraud
893 all the way.
put some goalposts in there why dontcha.
Sigmund Fraud
893 all the way.
quite the opposite!
steeeve
Well-Known Member
I'm sure I could if I trawled the internet for studies.. I bought the black jersey BTW
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
The ability of the human eye to detect contrast decreases as the angle from the direction of vision increases, as does the ability to resolve detail. Therefore, if you want to be seen in someone else's peripheral vision, you should present a large, contrasting colour target. If you're cycling in a blizzard, black would make sense. I can't see an argument for wearing black in low light levels.
Sigmund Fraud
893 all the way.
apart from the fact you look badass?
Sigmund Fraud
893 all the way.
Who mentioned low light levels?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Me, just then
steeeve
Well-Known Member
Me, just then
and me when I said especially when it's overcast
Sigmund Fraud
893 all the way.
I'm such a lucky so and so. All these years with no hi-viz and I'm still here.
From what you're saying if if I wear more hi-viz I will be more here.
Thats got to be a good thing right? Unless you like arguing with me that is...
From what you're saying if if I wear more hi-viz I will be more here.
Thats got to be a good thing right? Unless you like arguing with me that is...
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Sigmund Fraud
893 all the way.
you'd have to explain that formula to me Crispy, given as you are a man of science and all.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
A sample size of one makes for poor data
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
Hi-viz does make you a herbert. I hate wearing my hi-viz stuff, but I wear it at night.
Sigmund Fraud
893 all the way.
I hardly think your quasi scientic explanation of visibility levels in correlation to clothing colour is that great either love
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
quasi is better than nothingI hardly think your quasi scientic explanation of visibility levels in correlation to clothing colour is that great either love
Sigmund Fraud
893 all the way.
Sigmund Fraud
893 all the way.
quasi is better than nothing
tell that to the native population of Bikini atoll
Ted Striker
Foot's on the other hand
It's like GG was the lead out train for OU in the Tour D'HERBERT 
Wearing the Maillot Viz Grande...
Wearing the Maillot Viz Grande...
Biddlybee
making knots with sticks
I'm going to get one! I will look so good.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
I'm sure I could if I trawled the internet for studies.. I bought the black jersey BTW
I'd love to see them. As far as a I know there are no studies around cyclists visibility to drivers regarding hi-vis/not hi-vis. That guy from Bath or Bristol uni did a really poor (but still useful) test and he found that drivers only give more space if you have a hi-vis with POLITE or POLICE on the back. The test was bad though, and only really useful to say that there might be something interesting to look at in more detail, not as any kind of comprehensive answer.
Problem comes in how on earth you design a test. You can't blind it at all. There was this Danish study last year, but it's also massively flawed. I'm not sure you could do a study on this and not have it massively flawed tbh.
The biggest issue though is that even if we assume (fairly) that hi-vis does make you more visible, the question becomes - are drivers looking at all? Are drivers looking where cyclists are? Are drivers looking properly to get past the thing in your brain where it fills in gaps in your vision?
If the answer to the first question is no, then lights, hi-vis and anything else are not going to help. If the answer to the second is no, then lights & hi-vis won't help but using primary position will (because you put yourself where cars are, and that's where drivers are looking). If the answer to the third is no, then lights & hi-vis will help along with road positioning because they are more unusual and your brain is more likely to not fill those gaps in and actually make you look to see what is there.
Crispy's point about vision / contrast / colours also plays out in this question.
(There's a proper name for the effect where you pan across a field of vision and your brain just takes a few snapshots then fills in the bits in between them, but I cannot for the life of me remember what it is, I keep on thinking it's called the Cicada effect, but those are insects or something!)
To me the best answer comes in looking at the places where cycling is safest - NL and Copenhagen - and see how many people wear hi-vis there. Answer is bugger all. Reason is because of infrastructure. So if the question is about making cyclists safest, the answer is not hi-vis.
If the question is whether it's safer to wear hi-vis or not, you have the problem of the individual vs collective answer. Individually I can't see how wearing hi-vis can make things more dangerous - there's an argument about risk compensation, but I'm not convinced by that at all. It may make marginal differences to preventing collisions. On the other hand, the pressure to wear hi-vis puts people off cycling (both because it makes them think it's riskier than it is, and because they want to look cool and hi-vis ain't cool) and this creates more danger on the roads because there are fewer cyclists (the "safety in numbers" argument).
So wearing hi-vis might make your journey safer in the immediate sense, but make it more dangerous in the non-immediate sense.
It's also impossible to test out this hypothesis in any reasonable way, it's a pure logical argument.
In any case, the proposition "Hi vis makes you more visible, therefore you are less likely to be in a collision" is definitely not simply correct.
steeeve
Well-Known Member
I spent the day in Copenhagen recently and also only saw one bike with drophandle bars out of several thousand, not one piece of lycra and no-one going above 15mph (estimated obviously) maybe that also plays a part?
