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

"It's not the first time, by the way, that these authors make this mistake."

"...this study is ... completely erroneous and misleading."

"..please be aware of the bias, spin and agenda..."

"The study is pointless bollax."

"What a weird piece of research."

etc, etc.

Dear moaners and whiners,

Rather than sit on your backsides and complain, how about (a) acknowledging that the researchers are trying to make themselves useful, (b) making a constructive, positive suggestion about how the research, article, coverage could be improved and then (c) actually *do* something to make it happen.

Otherwise, please just STFU.

'However, they note that there is surprisingly little evidence that high-visibility clothing for cyclists and motorcyclists offers any safety benefits in daytime'

Pope in 'being catholic' shocker, ursines defecate in tree-rich areas.

One more thing: the person who designed this experiment is also the one that executed it and collected data (or at least this is how I understand it). Therefore it's not a "blind" experiment, which is a major flaw.

For example, we have no guarantee that the author didn't (intentionally or not) ride the bicycle less safely while in a hi-viz kit, which could lead to false results.

It's not the first time, by the way, that these authors make this mistake.

What about a BLUE flashing light ? in the sea of red light and Hi Vis yellow nothing makes the spinkter twitch like a blue light !

Just an idea I had while driving up the M6 last week. I'm not sure how legal it would be but I think a blue flashing light would stand out, and generally signals DANGER . . . POLICE . . . Risk of points on your licence !

What does anyone else think?

.

Saying that there's little cyclists can do to avoid collision is simply untrue.

The solution is simple: just ride in the middle of your lane.

Whenever there's traffic on the adjacent lane, overtaking you is physically impossible if you ride in the middle of your lane. On the other hand, if you leave any space, 1-2% of drivers will try to overtake you anyway, knowingly jeopardizing your safety.

When the adjacent lane is empty, still keep to the middle of your lane. The cars behind you will have to drive wide to overtake you anyway so the chance they won't pass you leaving safe distance is smaller - and even if they do, you still have a lot of space for yourself and you can increase the distance in a split second.

But never, under any circumstances, be a jerk. No matter how heavy traffic is, let people overtake you once they slow down behind you and clearly let the driver behind you know they can pass you.

More on this topic: http://www.kochamrowery.pl/2013/08/bezpieczenstwo-kierowcy-jazda-srodkie... (written in Polish, feel free to translate it).

Works every time in my case.

On my commute I have found that my closest calls with cars come at junctions, particularly roundabouts, mostly SMIDSY's.

The one thing I have found, like Ridgeback rambler, that has made a difference is leaving my lights on day and night.

Perhaps the Dr's Ian can look into that for their next paper

Just anecdotally, I've noticed the opposite. It seems to me that motorists give me more space when either I have lights on during the day or I'm wearing some form of high-viz clothing but maybe it's the cute wobble I also do!

Incidentally much of my cycling is done on back country roads and I'm amazed at the number of motorists who overtake on blind bends etc and then rather than terminate the manoeuvre when they see a car coming the other way, feel that's it OK to squeeze the poor cyclist into a ditch. There definitely needs to be an education campaign.

What can you do when you're togged up in broad daylight with your hi viz sharp yellow jacket clearly visible and some fat old tart in a people carrier passes you within a loaf of bread's touching distance going uphill with a clear lane in front and 300m of clear visibility coming down the other away?

You gesture pointedly to the other unoccupied free lane and she stops in the road angling her vehicle so you can't get past inside or out without exposing yourself to imminent danger (it's very a fast hill coming down!) so that she can harangue you in front of her aged old mother and tell you that you were in the "middle of her lane" and "you cyclists are supposed to ride next to the kerb." Sure thing, cos that's where the potholes are, along with the detritus and debris of motoring and all the winter shale that so easily pierces your tyres. 600mm from the kerb is fine by Nicola Cooke and damn it - she should know!

All I said was: "Couldn't you see me? Just give me a bit more room!" It finished with me wishing that: "I sincerely hope your children are better behaved than you are."

But of course it fell on stoney ground. After all, she has the killer vehicle and by (her) definition has the absolute right of the road.

You can't argue safely with a woman (or man) who displays a serious lack of concern, or consideration and has the blaze of "I'll do you damage" in their eyes - whether you're in hi viz gear, or not!! You just shut up and cycle on, hoping she doesn't hurt anyone and, at some point, gets her comeuppance. But they never do, do they?

Seems to me that people always have put too much faith in hi-vis. Research around motorcycles finds that it isn't really very useful.

I wear bright but contrasting colours, a bright yellow helmet with reflectives on it, I have awesome lights including some on my helmet, I always (yes always - just like when I'm driving) stop at red lights and I ride in good visible positions, make my intentions clear etc. BUT still they don't see.

I think I have the solution to being seen.

I need to wear black trousers, a black hoody, headphones, no lights, no helmet and ride on pavements except when jumping red lights; then miraculously, all of the drivers will see me, and even write to their papers about me and ALL the other cyclists!

This is what I replied to the Road.cc Face Book thread on hi-viz:

"Mmmm...as can be seen from my profile shot, I do wear hi-viz whenever I cycle and while I agree that all cyclists "should" wear some form of hi-viz while cycling, I can really see this going pear shaped far too quickly...!!

Can you imagine the DfT regulations for this:-

1) how much (as a percentage) of a cyclist must have hi-viz clothing worn, when cycling...and should there be a difference for day time / night time riding??

2) should there be a British/ European Standard applied to hi-viz cycling clothing, as in to just "how visible" it is and at what distances it can be differentiated from??

3) if you're not wearing such suitable clothing and you are involved in an accident, how much of the blame should the cyclist share??

3) knowing the DfT how often would this be reviewed to reflect (pardon the pun!?) changes in technology etc??

And I could go on ad nauseam...but personally any cyclist that doesn't wear a at least one item of clothing that is either hi-viz or reflective while cycling on the roads of the UK is being a bit silly...especially in low light or poor weather conditions.

Never the less, even though I am lit up like a Belisha beacon (especially at night), wearing all sorts of hi-viz and >1,000 lumens of front lights and >200lumens of rear lights...motorists either still fail to see me, cannot judge my speed/distance away from them or simply don't give a tinkers cuss is still rather surprising!!

Though admittedly with my motorist's cap on (and not a lid)...often that little bit of hi-viz, reflectives etc that is worn by a cyclist does give me that much more time to calculate what can be done (safely), check the road ahead, slow down, accelerate to overtake (if safe to do so) etc...etc BUT at 30mph this can give me about 15yds a second to make up my mind...so therefore the greater time and distance a motorist has to see a cyclist makes that decision making process a darned sight safer!!

Seriously do the maths...if you can give a motorist 5 or even 10 seconds extra to decide what to do when approaching a cyclist - that is a significant distance, even at 30mph!!

As to lids...well I've commented enough on that one over the years, I think that they should be worn but they are NOT the cycling safety panacea that too many people believe them to be!"

Personally I do believe that wearing hi-viz and reflectives to be more important than wearing a lid as a safety precaution even with the results of this research...though this could be because I am have always cycled even though I passed my driving test in the 80's - and now cycle at least twice the mileage I drive!

A close pass by a driver who has seen you won't harm you. Being taken out from behind by a driver who hasn't seen you probably will.

Wearing high visibility clothing might just make the difference between being seen or not, by an inattentive driver.

The authors assertion that this study is 'a very strong indication that you're not safer wearing high vis in the daytime' is completely erroneous and misleading.

I'm not sure what the agenda is here from road cc, but I suspect it's a reaction to recent calls for helmets, headphones, high vis etc for cyclists, which may be deemed as 'victim blaming' by some here in the context of recent deaths. This attitude is not helpful to our cause.

I'm not against anyone wearing dull clothes, headphones or going bare-headed when they ride, but publishing these articles with a misleading spin to them is not responsible or helpful.

Road cc can be a great source of entertainment and information but please be aware of the bias, spin and agenda pursued by certain authors on here when you come to read 'news' articles like these.

The study is pointless bollax. I don't wear hi-vis because I think I'll get passed safely, I wear it so that the drivers who don't think to look for cyclists will see me, so hopefully avoiding smidsy's. I don't know anyone who wears hi-vis for any other reason than to be seen.

Mate of mine is a research scientist for a major drug company, he was telling me last week about how much pointless study is done because some idiot is willing to give phd's funding. You don't need hours of study or thousands of pounds of funding to work out that you can see a cyclist rom further away if he's wearing hi-vis.

This Tweet backs up the study's finding to a degree: https://twitter.com/niroads/status/405322909649891328/photo/1

If professional drivers can't see a bridge what hope has a humble cyclist got ?

Saeco, sweet. Classic kit, 2002 I think. I love Red Thursdays.

This is why I consider a really good mirror (e.g. the Mirrycle) to be more valuable than a helmet or hi-vis clothing. You can check all the overtaking vehicles without losing concentration on what's happening in front of you. Looking over your shoulder is a poor substitute.

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

What a weird piece of research. Does anyone seriously wear Hi-Vis because they think they will be overtaken with more courtesy?

Why not, get guinea pigs to take a drive in a simulator. Don't tell them the real purpose of the research so that they are not especially on the look out for anything. Project footage of cyclists riding in a variety of traffic and weather conditions onto the screen and into the rear view and side mirrors. Use eye tracking hardware/software to detect how quickly drivers notice them. See if there is a significant difference in response times dependant on the clothing the cyclist is wearing. Make sure you include colour blind drivers as well.

That might answer a real question.

Idiot in a Vauxhall shot past me this evening with a bout 30cm to spare. I noted the car had a baby onboard sticker int he window, so asking others to look out for the vehicle and be careful, but not giving a stuff about anyone else in other words. I caught it up at the next set of lights of course, and considered giving the driver a few suggestions on safe driving techniques, but then couldn't be arsed.