High vis clothing doesn't make cars pass you more safely, says new study

Quote:

Thanks for your input. I think you are missing the point, however, that the study is not 'erroneous and misleading', but the conclusions drawn by the author of this article are.

More pertinent to the conclusions reached is the way that it gets reported.
Media today can't cope with an in-depth article (and readers can't cope with it either!). So a short snappy headline to draw people in and then a very basic precis of the "facts" means everything gets distorted and twisted to fit
a) the space available and
b) the spin that the reporter wants to put on it

Couple a slightly dodgy conclusion (drawn as we've already discussed in a potentially erroneous and misleading way) with an audience that probably won't be bothered to do anything involving the effort of actually reading the original report and you've got the potential there for pretty much anything to be said/taken/understood!

I think a 'few' people don't seem to have grasped the gist of the study. It is moreseo a study of perception rather than hi viz versus not wearing hi viz - which seems to be the main debate ranging over multipe replies/posts....

The study of drivers' perception and observation is the real crux (from my viewpoint)...

...If you perceive the road user to be a 'cyclist' rather than a 'bike user'...so to speak,was one node of the experiment...

One hypothesis is - If the 'cyclist' is wearing 'all the right cycling gear' - minimal/no hi viz then the driver will 'assume' that the rider 'should' have better control and not likely to wobble all over the road...and therefore the driver most likely feels there is adequate space whilst overtaking in close proximity to the 'obstacle' in his path - ie he is comfortable that the cyclist can cope with this close proximity.

Whilst wearing the hi viz gear- with different logo/slogans emblazoned on them - the test was to see with what difference- if any - the drivers would treat the obstacle.

Would a Novice Rider be given a wider berth, would a 'POLICE/POLITE/I'm recording you' slogan alter the drivers behaviour. Seemingly this made no difference. It wasn't a test to see if the driver could 'see' the cyclist.

Where the study falls down is in the repeatability of the experiment. The sample of motorists would not be the same, also differing volumes of traffic would/could skew the results. Time of the day etc are all mitigating factors- not apparent from road.cc's commentary. Perhaps a link to the paper (*edit* at the bottom of the article - must get my eyes tested ***- would be better- allowing the whole study to be taken in it's intended context...and not a singular interpretation (ie no bias- not that there was any inferred in the reporting).

Likewise, many comments from road.cc members/posters are also anecdotal - as everyone has their own experiences (and opinions) of 'close calls' whether it be during night/day whilst wearing all black/pink fairy lights or lit up like a lighthouse, etc...

I have too...no matter what I've been wearing, time of day, width of road or vehicle for that matter. I've no idea what has been going on in the drivers' lives/minds when these incidents have taken place. And neither does the study - how can it? It's not like he tracked down all the drivers and asked them to fill in a survey...!!!

I'm sure if you asked 'any driver' if he had given enough room to a cyclist he would immediately say yes, but if evidence to the contrary were given, perhaps on reflection the driver would reconsider and "heaven forbid" be more considerate in future.

Again this is down to perception - does 'any driver' believe themselves to be superior to the cyclist, does he have any concern/remorse that his actions have endangered another life...or did he simply not even consider that is what has happened??
After all - how many drivers know the actual width of their vehicle or the roads that they travel on

No amount of logo/slogan or hi viz clothing is going to alter that...

...so this study is more surrounding the attitude of vehicle users than the merits of wearing clothing that alerts them to the presence of another more vulnerable road user.

That's my tuppence worth of (anecdotal) meandering...(no diatribe intended)

As a cyclist and motorcyclist, my experience shows that if the driver of a car isn't paying attention (ie: talking on phone, texting, playing with the satnav, in-car entertainment, talking to someone in the car, trying to manage kids, or even eating cereal) then all the hi-vis, lights, horns and body armour in the world won't save you.

I've been "run over" on my bicycle (with lights on and blazing) in a round-a-bout by someone who simply wasn't paying attention to what was going on. The only thing that stopped them from advancing further with their car was the fact that I was able to come to a stop with only half the bike under the car and jump off the bike at the same time, only my screaming at the driver while this was happening got them to stop. Result: bent wheel and loose headset.

Instead of heaping the onerous solely on the bicycle users to make themselves visible or protect themselves (high vis, lit up like a christmas tree, helmets and other body armour) it's time to educate drivers and bicycle riders about how to behave. An intensive sensitisation programme that teaches respect from a young age will take time to filter through (a generation of so I would imagine), but it's the only way imo.

Should have tried a hi-viz with 'Please don't kill me' on the back...wonder what response that would have.

Just a wild stab in the dark but might it have something to do with the average road width staying the same but car width is ever increasing. I'm not saying its the only cause but its got to be a big factor. I would like to see stats on what cars are involved in incidents with bikes, would there be a trend or would it get mixed in with all the other causes, ie young inexperienced drivers in smaller cars.

I think we're also getting confused between high-vis and reflectives.

High-vis does nothing at nighttime, unlike clothing with reflective elements.

I seem to remember that the Highway Code used to advise drivers to give a wider berth to cyclists - was it six feet? And now it just says "plenty of room". Is this a coincidence?

Could the author repeat the study but vary his typical distance from the kerb instead of clothing. I hypothesise the more room you take the fewer close passes you'll receive. Unconsciously the brain of the driver assumes that if you only need a foot from the kerb they can pass leaving only a foot, take a yard and a half they give you three or hold back if the road is narrow or beep if they are impatient.

Maybe the point of this is that the 1-2% of drivers who pass too close can see you fine whatever you wear, but CHOOSE to pass too close.

How do you get these drivers to change their behaviour?

But the high vis still means the cars DO SEE YOU!!!! At least they are passing even if too close!! Better they pass you than HIT YOU!!!! You'd be a fool to think hi vis doesn't help. These surveys are sometimes send the wrong message. Don't get too drawn in by them. Use your own experience as a driver and cyclist to draw the sensible conclusion. You need to be seen and well in advance if possible.

The main thing I object to with studies like this is that it sends out what in my opinion is the wrong message. Reading this, especially some of the headlines used by road.cc on twitter to publicise the story, the impression is hi-vis makes no difference to cycling safety. It doesn't take into account junction smidsy's etc but the glaring omission is that it didn't interview the drivers for their opinion and to ask them when they saw the cyclist, when they started their overtaking manoeuvre and crucially how much space they think is appropriate.

I would guess that most of the drivers who we would consider to have passed too close, all think they passed safely. There's a culture in driving that if you don't hit something, then it was safe. We probably all do it when we drive, squeeze through a gap, just miss a lamppost doing a u turn etc

I saw a cyclist from several hundred yards away on a shadowy dual carriage way because he was wearing hi-vis. Because I'm a cyclist I knew what was safe so I moved into the fast lane as soon as possible as I knew it could be difficult later if there was fast moving traffic outside me. I watched 2 other cars stay on the inside lane and pass the cyclist at approx 50mph in the same lane. I can't imagine that they saw the cyclist any later than me (maybe if they weren't concentrating) but the issue imho is that they thought the pass was ok. "I didn't hit him, what's the problem ?"

There are hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted on pointless studies and vanity projects by phd's. Hi vis does / doesn't help, helmets do / don't help. There was a study a few years ago to show that women like flowers and chocolates more than men (I kid you not).

The issue is people drive and cycle badly, but as we know cyclists might kill themselves, drivers will probably kill someone else. We need driver education, old school public information films to show people that actually, 20cms isn't a sufficient gap and this is why. Until we address the standard of driving in this country we will never solve the problems

I notice that none of the riders in the study are wearing the black tarmac camouflage that unfortunately is popular at the moment.
If drivers are to see us and hopefully behave accordingly, there is no excuse for taking measures that means motorists will not see us.

This guys research may be done with the hoped for credibility being gained by being done by a Dr, but the agenda seems to be a deliberate attempt at undermining common sense.

I could have a moan about how close some people get and 'punishment' passing, but I don't feel like I've ever really been put in danger in the same way I have at junctions, roundabouts and at traffic lights; even when sat in an ASL.

Junctions are typically just people pulling out. My own experience is if I'm a 'commuter' (like, proper mudguards, tourer, panniers and looking like I might be slow...) then I often get MORE people pulling out and then just looking the other way as they block traffic. Rarely does this happen at a junction if I'm in roadie gear going at ~20mph.

ASLs make no difference what I wear. The biggest danger with the ASLs on my commute are the light sequence. Drivers just chance it on red. I'm sat in front of traffic and start off ahead of the queue behind me but the red light jumper coming from the left doesn't really give two hoots. Thanks man; I have been knocked off like this and had one too many close calls. I instinctively have a quick look around these days...

And I was hit yesterday in a roundabout - the bloke admitted he didn't see me; he hadn't even looked until it was too late (even with my joystick front light on). He was too busy pulling around the traffic that HAD seen me (two lanes into the roundabout).

I agree that this is anecdotal, the experience of one (in my own opinion) incredibly safe cyclist; but it makes no odds if driver behaviour is generally atrocious around the country (which is something the study and I agree on).

I found the article very interesting and it tended to support my understanding of peoples view of HiViz. HiViz performs a similar function as road hazard warning signs in that drivers are expected to drive cautiously when they see them. However, we know that some drivers regularly disobey road hazard signs so why would they treat HiViz any differently?

In any event HiViz is the worst possibly option for preventing accidents as anyone with an iota of knowledge about safety will tell you. PPE should only be used as a last resort and never in isolation of other more effective controls. Eliminating or Avoiding the 'hazardous situation' is the best option and the only way we can achieve that, short of stopping driving or cycling, is to physically separate them from each other. If that is not 100% possible then as much separation as can be designed must be the standard to aim for.

We should be looking at more shared footpaths, more well maintained cycle ways, more cycle priorities at junctions and even the allowance of cycles to share pedestrian crossings. I can't understand why the 'red light jumping issue' elicits such a vitriolic reaction from some people. If some road junction designs allowed safe filtering, say when turning left at a T-junction or filtering across the top of the T when pedestrians cross, I don't see how that is a problem. Obviously, cyclists would have to give way to pedestrians in these situations and ride politely and cautiously but I don't see why it should be argued against if it means less contact with motor vehicles. Afterall its only the faster cyclists, who cannot stop quickly, that pose a risk to pedestrians and even then the chances of serious injuries and deaths is ridiculously small compared to consequences of collisions between cycles and motor vehicles.

Someone with a thorough understanding of all these issues needs to get on the News and put these points across. The debate has become too much about ill informed gut reactions and the incompetent views of some high profile individuals and motoring lobby groups. Until we hear a proper detailed reponse from cycling safety experts we are in danger of one of our populist political parties screwing up cycling for everyone and that would be a travesty given how far cycling has come in the past few years.

+1. Hi Vis of no Hi Vis? It's not the issue as it will not change reckless behaviour in some drivers and does nothing to re-enforce to motorists that we have a right to share the road. Once all vehicles are day glo and their drivers too I will don the nanny ware. Until that day I shall continue wearing black, black and white, red white and blue with black and even a touch of pink.

If I'm run down on a public road and killed in any of the above and the judge decides my clothing contributed to my death? Well. Who wants to live in a workd like that? Not I.

It would create all sorts of trouble if it was suggested that a black person dressed in black was less visible at night than a white person dressed in black so they were more liable when run down. The general argument regarding whether Hi Vis will preserve us from careless motorists is that daft to me.

[[[[ I'm a Wobbly Wheeler. If I spot trouble ahead (vehicle pulling out of a side-road), or sense trouble behind me, I wobble just a bit. This helps dopey drivers to notice me, and I believe overtaking drivers do actually give me a bit more room as they pass, seeing my slight weaving as unpredictable. When I'm driving, I notice cyclists whatever they're wearing---or not wearing. I think non-cyclist drivers are now so accustomed to yellow jackets they hardly notice them, in daylight, anymore. Familiarity has bred contempt. It irks me to have to occasionally abandon my admirably smooth straight-line riding style, but hell - Southwest London's potholed "roads" are not helping in that regard anyway. So....do I wear the screaming yellow coat-thingy? Hardly ever. If drivers can't see my large bonkbag, with its diagonal night-reflective strip, or its red diagonal fluorescent dayglo strip (in daylight), then I can only hope they drive smack into the back of that tipper-truck they deserve to SMIDSY. Toodle-oo.
P.R.

This is a very well , but despite them feeling uncomfortable , close overtakes are not what causes most accidents.

Most accidents are caused by look but didn't see at junctions. Could we have some proper research on the effect of attire on this please? Not much out there.....although my suspicion is that hiviz actually makes it worse not better!

Interesting guardian article:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/10/cycling-hig...
And before you thought flashing lights at night help , cop a load of this :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7571470/

I think the failure of hi viz is linked th the above (siccadic masking)

Damned, but mostly by ourselves.

I think this thread is great and raises many of the most pertinent issues that we cyclists have to contend with on the road - to be seen by drivers and passed safely, but...

... why do we persist in riding in BLACK all of the time????

As a rider and driver, it truly is insane.

I was passed the other day by a guy togged head to toe in black- helmet, gloves, jacket - the lot - riding a black Boardman, deep in a wooded area of Berkshire. It was a dull, damp, dark, drizzly day - swallocky, they call it where I come from - and against the drab, dark, muddy coloured trees that offered no light whatsoever, I could barely see him - and I was on a bike doing a streaky 18mph!! He had no lights on and it was practically impossible for me to pick him out easily.

What chance then for a driver tootling along at anything between 30-70mph?????

WE must give drivers a fair chance - especially in the ugly, grey and dark winter weather - and wear clothing that will help them to see us - especially in those out of the way wooded areas - otherwise we are gambling with our lives - and the odds are seriously stacked against us.

And it's not just out in the country either. I almost pulled out in my car from the kerb on a cyclist who was riding IN THE DARK with no lights, no hi viz kit, no helmet and yes you guessed - dark clothing - hammering down a short hill, but expecting that "driver's good sense" would take care of him (or her)!!!

How utterly insane is that? If I had hit that rider I have no doubt I would have done serious damage to them and who would have been to blame? Not me ... but tell the law that - and then try to prove it. What a mess it would have been - and why? Rider stupidity which simply fosters the attitude: "If you don't care, why should I?" After all, who can help an idiot?

If you don't have lights and reflectives in the dark, the colour of your clothing won't make any difference.

I ride in whatever I'm wearing. Lately that's usually either a blue or black and white coat. The bike is festooned with reflectors and if it's gloomy, I'll switch the lights on. If any driver can't see all that, they ain't gonna see a yellow jacket instead of a blue one.

I have one of those Polite Notice jackets with the blue and white reflective bands just like the police jackets and when I wear it in the winter nights I notice that drivers do drive further away from me.

Neil, your ridiculous over-analysis of what I said shows how desperately you want acceptance of your view as you knit pick every contrary opinon. It seems like every post you have made on this site is HiViz related, I see no evidence that you are a committed cyclist or care about cyclists beyond forcing them into yellow jackets.
If "Forums, blogs, social networks, cycle cafes, sportives; even the cycling press seem keen to promote scorn and ridicule sometimes" as you say then it would seem that the cycling community and especially those who cycle the most are against HiViz and use the tools they have to oppose it; yet you persist in accusing us of some dirty campaign to harm other people.
People are vocal against HiViz because they see compulsion as a possibility, if you don't like what they say but are pro-choice the solution is to stop going on about it then we won't have to. Choice means freedom not to agree with you; analyse that.

You think that your comments are measured and reasonable but your accusations are just distasteful at best.

[[[[ Zzzzz....think I've heard enough on sickly-jackets for now. Oooh! ---can we have a Helmet argument instead?
P.R.

A small point about riding in high-vis is that many of us have a destination when we cycle and this destination may be less suited to high-vis gear.

For example, a dark soft-shell cycle jacket will not look out of place walking around the shops or even in and around the office. Swap it for a dayglow version and your clothing choice becomes a little less multipurpose. Even on a Sunday morning run out to a nice coffee shop I'd prefer not to be sipping my expresso surrounding by dayglow monsters. Add to this the fact that high-vis colours get visibly dirty more easily and you can see why many people opt for less brightly coloured kit.

In countries where utility cycling is widespread nobody sees the need for any special clothing, they simply wear what is approprite for thier destination. Whilst I'm not ready to ditch my clippless pedals and fit a chainguard just yet I'm happy to comprimise by wearing clothing that works off of the bike as well as on.