Study says cyclists should make themselves seen - but reflective clothing, not hi-vis, is the answer

@andyp - here's a test for you tonight, if it's not too cloudy. Look at the sky - you should see four "types" of light
1) still and steady light
2) still and flashing/flickering
3) moving and steady
4) moving and flashing/flickering.

Which ones catch your attention best?

What about pedestrians?

Would any researchers dare to suggest that they too "should" be wearing certain types of high viz/reflective gear while e.g. crossing a busy street?

Genuine question.

There's clearly lots of opinions about hi vis clothing, but imagine the following experiment.

Get several hundred cyclists (half with a hi vis vest and half without). Now intruct those cyclists to mix things up a bit, by varying their speed and direction at random on an inner city route.

Now imagine you're driving a truck, and trying to spot every cyclist, using all three windows and six or seven mirrors, plus do all the other things you have to do, like keep an eye on cars, pedestrians, traffic lights, signs, weight limits, bridge heights, etc.

I think most people would be far more likely to spot the cyclists wearing hi vis, rather than those who are not wearing hi vis.

Maybe some organisation could recreate this type of experiment, stick it on Youtube, and let people decide for themselves whether they want to ride without any hi vis clothing.

Problem: 90% of the "reflective" cycling clothing available is totally inadequate at night. Reflective piping that is 3mm wide? Reflective dots a couple of centimetres across? Reflective lettering, for Christ's sake, that is 2mm thick and which I would stuggle to read from 5m away? The clothing needs to have big panels of the stuff all over the front, back, sides, arms ands legs. Until a manufacturer starts selling this, I will not feel safely dressed at night.

I wear pretty much all black clothing. When visibility decreases I use front/rear lights. If a driver can't see bright lights in front of him, then he won't see me regardless of what I'm wearing.

Then again some idiot cyclists take it to the extreme, blinding all other road users with their stupidly bright lights pointed at eye level. That's dangerous! The aim isn't to blind, it's to see/be seen!

Contrary to previous comments, most Tarmac appears to the human eye as silver to white. Black clothing actually contrasts pretty well with Tarmac.

I am convinced also that hiviz yellow actually makes motorists pull out on you more often than not. This is precisely because it is associated with cyclists an only cyclists and therefore a. Very small minority of vehicles on the road . There is good research evidence also that in a complex traffic environment, hiviz distracts drivers and leads them to do what is not the safest thing in any situation.

If only more cyclists would learn the importance road positioning in all lighting conditions (most haven't got a clue!) then we might be getting somewhere. It trumps clothing colour , bright lights , the lot!

The conclusions of the Aussie study seem like deja vu. God knows how long ago it was but I read or heard from somewhere that contrast was the biggest factor in improving visibility to an onlooker. From the source I was already aware that depending on light conditions dark clothing or light clothing could be effective. It does seem logical, though where these things are concerned logic is not always the best guide so a study is rather welcome.

In the UK we tend to have a lot of overcast days so even during the day it is probably better to wear light clothing. Also as most urban and rural backgrounds at pedestrian, vehicular and cycle level are darker than hi-viz it is probably better to wear light clothing at all times. However, with many road cyclists having a penchant for black attire and many forums decrying the wearing of anything other than black as wholly unstylish it may be a while before we see anyone other than Dads, Mums, Geeks, and kids wearing reflective Hi-viz. I for one hate the stuff but can't deny it's benefits.

With respect to reflectivity I still think that dark clothes with reflective elements are not as visible as light (White or Hi-viz) clothing with the same reflective elements when riding in subdued light or the dark. I own a few Campagnolo items that are predominantly black with reflective 'IQseen Clearly Visible' elements. I'm yet to be convinced they are merely 'better than nothing'. They are very reflective, being visible at 160m, but unless the driver of a car realises the flash of light is a cyclist they probably won't respond accordingly.

To illustrate the point, I knew a chap who was speeding down a country lane and thought the headlights he saw in the distance were from an approaching car. Turned out it was a reflection of his own headlights from a driveway mirror, located on a sharp bend in the road. He was nearly killed as he hurtled into the drive and it convinced me that drivers can easily be fooled at night when they don't see the whole picture or person. With Hi-Viz the outline of the cyclist is better defined and that can't be a bad thing when you only get one life.

I think the key point is to distinguish between offering advice about precautions that may be worth taking, and making out that any cyclist who doesn’t do so is “acting irresponsibly”.

Of course it makes sense to offer sensible, evidence-based advice on how cyclists can maximise their chances of being seen and, perhaps more importantly, noticed (yes, they are different!) in poor light conditions. Of course it makes sense to be lit and to wear something reflective if riding on unlit roads at night. And it should preferably be something that moves, e.g. an ankle-band - this article rightly notes the evidence that this is more likely to catch drivers' eyes than 'static' reflective gear (e.g. jackets).

However it’s another matter altogether to suggest that cyclists who don't dress up like Xmas trees (including on lit streets or in daylight) have only themselves to blame (or even partially to blame) if they get hit. The last thing we should be doing is giving drivers, the legal system or motor insurance companies any excuse for yet more of this kind of atrocious victim-blaming - see http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/node/515.

* * *

While I'm on the subject, let me also share a story I remember seeing years ago on the letters pages of the London Cycling Campaign’s magazine. It was from an LCC member who also rode a motorbike. He described a one-person informal experiment he had conducted, which he felt was equally applicable to cycling.

To test out what difference it made if he was brightly clad / reflective etc etc, he firstly spent a month riding on normal dark-ish clothes, and observed how often other road users infringed his right of way. I don’t remember the number, but let’s say it was 1.9 times per day, for the sake of argument (it was something like that).

He then spent a second month riding in the brightest, most reflective kit he could muster. It made no difference – 1.9 infringements per day.

So he spent a third month riding in clothing which came as close as he could get away with to looking like a police motorcyclist. The number of infringements nose-dived – say, 0.2 per day.

See what I mean about the difference between “being seen” but “being noticed”?

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC

It seems to me that the basic concept of : Are cyclists stupid or what, is in question here.
Do they understand the difference between Hi-Vis in daylight and Reflective in poor light conditions?
If they don't well then they need educating in the most simplistic terms.
There are some Hi-Vis Greens and Yellows that are far more visible at night than others.
A simply resolve to both would be a Hi-Vis jacket with Reflective Edges and a Lightweight Reflective Gillet over the top when light levels begin to diminish.
There will come a time and not so very far away that Flash Harry Lawyers/Barristers will be claiming that the injured or dead cyclists were not Pro-active enough in the preservation of their own well-being/life,they will then be deemed as instrumental in their own injuries or death and be left looking the prats that they doubtless are or were;if dead.

Why do cyclists need to be recognised as cyclists per se? What's wrong with being mistaken for a motorcyclist or being acknowledged as a vehicle on the road in the generic sense? That's one reason I wear black from head to toe and very bright lights .

We should be as pro active in our own self preservation as any other vehicle on the road. The day painting a car bright yellow makes a sods worth of difference is the day I'll think twice about using excessive hi viz and or reflectives.

What about bike manufacturers painting the frame with reflective paint. I think it would also look cool.

Just another couple of thoughts.

Can someone point me in the direction of good quality cycle gear that is not black and is both day-glo and reflective? I don't want over jackets or tabards (I have enough of the later from motorsport). Stuff like shorts, 3/4, even tights, maybe jersey or two. I miss my day-glo sock from the 80's. Very much doubt the likes of Santini, Vermarc even Gore do something.

The second is why, when people instinctively slow down when are they are unsure, do we encourage drivers to continue at speed. Surely if you are wearing black and driver is unsure that they have seen something they will slow down. Slower speed, more time, less likely to have an accident and if they do consequences will be less painful. Safer! No?

Thirdly, yesterday evening I nearly rode into two cyclist. Both had high vis jackets and red lights both flashing and steady. Both rode straight off the pavement and into my path after looking at me. And then apoligised as they "didn't realise I was travelling so fast". Morale: Wear what you like, it doesn't stop you from being a pillock!

I dont think it matter what we wear there are always going to be numpty drivers.

Mind you i was in the car this morning and where the road narrowed there was an old chap cycling towards myself and some young un in an Audi tt in front of me.

The cyclist had right of way but the Audi just kept on going. The cyclist must have thought "bugger it" and kept going playing chicken with the Audi.

Needless to say the cyclist won, the Audi mounted the pavement samcking his lovely alloys off the kerb and slewing to a stop. The cyclist waved as he passed me and i gave him the thumbs up.

The young lad in the Audi just got out of his car and stared at his now heavily scraped alloys - oh joy i wish i had a head cam at the time.

I know its got nothing to do with the article but i thought it might bring a smile to a few faces.

I entirely disagree that hi-viz doesn't really work, in whatever light condition.
Black/charcoal is the colour of shadow and tarmac.

As I am a cyclist, runner, motorist and a lorry driver, I entirely agree that it is the responsibility of the most vulnerable of road-users to ensure, by whatever means possible and in whatever lighting condition they are in, that they are seen.
However, it is as much as it is the responsibility of motorists and drivers of large vehicles (buses, coaches, trams, etc) to look more than once, using driver aids such as mirrors and possessing an attentive & tolerant attitude, for the most vulnerable road-users (including pedestrians, joggers/runners, cyclists, motorcyclists, horse-riders, et al).
Most incidents could have been avoided.
Cyclists should be aware of driver's blind-spots and not ride there and should NEVER, EVER cut down the near-side of a large vehicle ANYWHERE, whether the vehicle is stationary or moving. It's only common-sense and survival instinct.

These 5 Smith Keys to safer driving/riding might help:

1. Aim High in Steering
Look 15 seconds into your future. (Don’t just look at the vehicle in front of you)

2. Get the Big Picture
Look for Hazards. (Other Motorists, Pedestrians, Vehicle doors opening)

3. Keep Your Eyes Moving
Don’t stare: Use your peripheral vision and stop the fixed-stare habit

4. Leave Yourself an Out
Monitor the space cushion around you and your bike.

5. Make sure They See You
Use your Lights, Bell/Horn, Hand SignalsWear light and/or reflective clothing & accessories, Make Eye Contact.

Here's a pic of a cyclist with two LED lights and a hi-vis vest, taken though the windsreen in the rain. They haven't got mudguards, so there's no muguard reflector and no pedal reflectors either. The led lights are probably cheap ones. Notice that even though the hi-vis is bright yellow, it is only the reflective part of the garment that is visible in the photo.
The hi-vis vest makes the cyclist far more visible, and also helps the driver to recognise that this is a person in front of them, rather than possibly misjudging the distance and mistaking the led lights as maybe lights further down the road.

why are some people who comment on road.cc so stubborn minded?

as a more vulnerable road user (cyclist, horse rider, motorcyclist) its your responsibility to help yourself be seen, that includes reflective stripes on your t-shirt / trousers. so why not help prevent a collision ? Whether it is your fault or not it doesnt matter, i dont know many people who WANT to crash!

fine, dont help yourself, but when the motorist says "SMIDSY" dont be surprised when the judge gives a lenient sentence (if it evern gets that far!!!) because you were wearing black at dusk.

as for lights, it doesnt matter how bright and amazingly expensive your helmet light is, get a little one for the handlebar and seat stem too! they are 99p on ebay. oh, and its the law (highway code tells you where you MUST position your lights, its not on your helmet. by all means stick one there too, but help yourself out and stick to the letter of the law as well).

as for reflectors, if the highway code says orange ones on your pedals then do it! if you get hit and you dont have all of the legal requirements you wont have a leg to stand on, (excuse the pun) which might be literal in some cases.

moving on to helmets. yea, motorists shouldnt "blame the victim". but as a more vulnerable road user if you chose not to wear extra protection and then you are in a minor low speed collision in which you bump your head then the EXTENT of the injury will be increased because you were so stubborn minded and wouldnt wear a helmet!
why not do everything you can to protect yourself, including giving way when its your right of way, or wearing a helmet even if you think "its the other persons fault you got hit"..... better to do it than be dead.

Like most studies this one seems skewed to achieve a certain result. It doesn't clearly state here that this applies to night or low light situations. Yet it implies that the findings apply to all light situations. I find reflective gear of little use in daylight. The study author even declares his 'surprise' at findings. Dr Lacherez went on: “What is surprising is that 61 per cent of cyclists attributed the crash to driver inattention,” he added. “Only two of the 184 directly attributed the crash to their own visibility."

To me it boils down to looking for more ways to blame the cyclist and I'm sick of it. This past weekend I lost an old friend when a driver (suspected of being drunk) took out 2 of the 3 riders with such force one rider crushed the car roof killing a passenger as well. This driver who police suspect of being drunk crossed a double solid centre line to take out these riders on a sweeping curve with good visibility midday with clear skies. Amazingly some people have started going on about how the cyclists shouldn't have been on this quiet rural roadway as if that's the problem.

This culture of blaming the cyclist no matter what has to stop. Drivers need to take responsibility. Not to say a cyclist can't cause their own problems but studies like this just feed ways to blame the cyclist for an inattentive driver. I think this is valid for night riding but the findings or article should clearly state that not imply otherwise with sweeping statements. I don't ride at night, I've turned around in heavy fog and gotten off the road in bad forest fire smoke as well. I do not want to be hit neither because I can't be seen or because someone just can't be bothered to see me SMILBIDSY or whatever that stupid acronym is they used.

Like most studies this one seems skewed to achieve a certain result. It doesn't clearly state here that this applies to night or low light situations. Yet it implies that the findings apply to all light situations. I find reflective gear of little use in daylight. The study author even declares his 'surprise' at findings. Dr Lacherez went on: “What is surprising is that 61 per cent of cyclists attributed the crash to driver inattention,” he added. “Only two of the 184 directly attributed the crash to their own visibility."

To me it boils down to looking for more ways to blame the cyclist and I'm sick of it. This past weekend I lost an old friend when a driver (suspected of being drunk) took out 2 of the 3 riders with such force one rider crushed the car roof killing a passenger as well. This driver who police suspect of being drunk crossed a double solid centre line to take out these riders on a sweeping curve with good visibility midday with clear skies. Amazingly some people have started going on about how the cyclists shouldn't have been on this quiet rural roadway as if that's the problem.

This culture of blaming the cyclist no matter what has to stop. Drivers need to take responsibility. Not to say a cyclist can't cause their own problems but studies like this just feed ways to blame the cyclist for an inattentive driver. I think this is valid for night riding but the findings or article should clearly state that not imply otherwise with sweeping statements. I don't ride at night, I've turned around in heavy fog and gotten off the road in bad forest fire smoke as well. I do not want to be hit neither because I can't be seen or because someone just can't be bothered to see me SMILBIDSY or whatever that stupid acronym is they used.

Lights > Reflectives > 'Hi-Viz'. Simple.

'So a flashing red light is always more visible to another road user than a constant one'

Is, of course, absolute toss. Have you ever asked yourself why all the other vehicles on the road don't have flashing lights? a *moving* light is more visible, not a flashing one. Flashing lights are only good for battery life.

I fully agree with those comments about driver attitude it's got little to do with what you are wearing/light up with.

Yes being seen will help, however I am increasingly getting fed up with cyclist blinding me, both as driver and fellow cyclist, with their mega super bright lights. Hello people, time to realise drivers can not see you if they are blinded by your lights. Do we really need to head down bigger/brighter is better? Also how far a head do you need to be before you become background? By this I mean do people really focus on what's happening a mile in front at 30mph or 2 minutes away. Or do we focus mainly on the next 10 seconds or the next corner. Therefore how far a head do you need to telegraph your presence to be safe?

I was stopped the other day by a driver who ranted at me for wearing black on a day of clear blue sky. They shut up when I pointed that they had seen me, not once but twice, therefore their arguement was null and void. I've had more close calls on the bright yellow and green frame than the dark blue one. Strangely enough I feel safer wearing the black "Blood Cyclist" shirt than I do with a red and white Katusha or a plain white shirt.

(RE)Educating all drivers to look out for the hazard called "a cyclist" and to give the cyclist space and time to sort themselves out would be the best start. Not forcing all road users to be lit up with 2 million candle power and only wearing day-glo yellow or orange.

Jeez, think of the environment and where does the power come from.

**Opinion Alert**

Speaking as a driver, if in daylight, you can't pick a cyclist out wearing whatever the feck they want, you are not driving with due care and attention, and deserve to have your license revoked. The same can be said in poor visibilty if the cyclist has adequate levels of lighting.

The argument of 'that is not going to save you when someone doesn't notice you' can be applied to every level of preventative action you take, and ranks about as high as the playground jibe 'I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?'.

Whatever your mode of transport, if you use the roads;

i. pay attention,
ii. abide by the current laws,
iii. behave with courtesy

and people will get hurt less. As jason timothy jones said, all it needs then is for those behaivours to be politely and professionally enforced.