Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

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

Research from Australia backs up earlier findings - but does it give SMIDSY drivers an excuse?

A researcher at an Australian university says that cyclists could be exposing themselves to greater danger of being struck by a car due to the driver’s inability to see them, particularly when the light is poor, and says reflective, not high-visibility, clothing is the answer to being seen in the hours of darkness.

Philippe Lacherez, who is a post-doctoral fellow at the School of Optometry and Vision Science at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) conducted his research among 184 cyclists – most of them Australian – who had been involved in a collision with a car.

Their responses highlighted that in a lot of instances the driver “looked, but didn't see” the rider in sufficient time to avoid hitting them.

"We asked the cyclist about the time of day, the weather and general visibility at the time of the collision as well as what they were wearing and the lights on their bikes," commented Dr Lacherez.

"We found that crashes disproportionately occurred during low-light conditions such as at dawn, dusk or at night. Only 34 per cent of cyclists in these low-light crashes were wearing reflective clothing and 19 per cent of them said they weren't using bicycle lights at the time of the crash.

"We're concerned that this means cyclists are making themselves more vulnerable by not being adequately visible to an oncoming driver.”

Some might see that finding as giving an excuse to so-called ‘SMIDSY’ – standing for “Sorry mate, I didn’t see you” – drivers, with the claimed inability to see a cyclist because they were dressed in dark clothing, or the sun was shining in the motorist’s eyes, at times employed as a defence in court.

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."

He said cyclists could make themselves more visible through using reflective clothing but cautioned that high-visibility clothing by itself was ineffective at night.

"Fluorescent clothing needs UV rays to be reflective and so don't work at night," he said.

"Cyclists should add reflective strips to their knees and ankles because the pedalling movement makes light from the headlights bounce back to the driver making it easier to register they are there.

"Cyclists also need to wear a reflective vest and, of course, have lights on their bike to increase their chances of being seen in low-light as well as at night.

"Our previous research has clearly demonstrated that when cyclists add these strategic reflective markings it leads to a large increase in visibility, which in turn leads to motorists recognising a cyclist on the road much earlier. This simple step could make cycling in low-light much safer," he added.

Some of those findings – such as dawn and dusk being particularly dangerous times for cyclists – have been widely reported before, and doubts have also been raised previously about the effectiveness of fluorescent clothing whether during the daytime or at night.

Earlier this year, the Guardian Bike Blog highlighted a report form the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) – with the caveat that it was based on research of motorcyclists, not cyclists – which analysed a dozen studies, some of which had suggested that high visibility clothing could improve rider safety.

However, the TRL said that in many cases, that was based on the hi-viz clad rider being placed against a uniform background, rather than a changing one, as would happen in motion.

Two more recent reports cited by the TRL suggested that what was important was not the use of high-visibility clothing in itself, but rather the contrast against the background, with white or even black clothing found to perform that function.

The TRL said: “The results are interesting in that they show the previously held assertion that a bright reflective jacket will improve rider conspicuity may not always be true ...

“[T]he message seems to be that the most conspicuous outfit will be dictated by the lighting conditions and local environment at the time, which may be extremely variable within the confines of even a fairly short ride.”

It added: “Given that environments may differ over even fairly small changes in time or location, there is not likely to be a one-size-fits-all solution, meaning that motorcyclists need to be aware of the limitations of whichever interventions they use.”

In the United Kingdom, Rule 59 of the Highway Code says, among other things, that cyclists

… should wear…

• light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light

• reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

Some police forces have at times sought to distribute high-visibility vests to cyclists, with Hampshire Constabulary having undertaken a campaign in which it also targeted people riding bikes without lights in November 2009.

Earlier this year, in separate inquiries in New Zealand involving the death of cyclists, two coroners said that bike riders should be required to wear high-visibility clothing.

Following publication of the verdict in one of those cases, a spokesman the country’s Ministry of Transportation said it was giving serious consideration to the coroner’s remarks.

DfT figures released last week reveal that in Great Britain in 2012, some 2,091 cyclists were killed or seriously injured in incidents that happened from Monday-Thursday.

The most dangerous times of day were between 7am and 9am, and from 3pm to 8pm, when each hour saw serious casualties reach three figures in aggregate across the year.

That’s partly explained by the fact that those hours coincide with the morning and evening commuting peaks, as well as rush hour.

Lighting conditions do vary across the year – in Manchester in midsummer, for instance the sun rises at around 4.4am and sets at approximately 9.4pm, while in midwinter, sunrise and sunset times are roughly 8.25am and 3.50pm.

While many cyclist casualties, even at peak times, will happen in hours of daylight – the summer months tend to see a higher number than winter ones, for example – changing light conditions at dawn and dusk are believed to be a factor as road users’ eyes adjust.

In 2009, the TRL published a study into cyclist casualties based in part on STATS19 forms completed by police after a road traffic incident, which are also used to compile DfT road casualty statistics.

It found that cyclists wearing dark clothing, or riding at night without lights were considered by police to be a factor in just 2.5 per cent and 2 per cent, respectively, of incidents in which the rider suffered serious injury.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

75 comments

Avatar
Neil753 | 11 years ago
0 likes

There are so many drivers out there, not paying attention, maybe texting or even checking Facebook, I feel much safer wearing a hi vis vest.

They weigh virtually nothing and I carry two different sizes so I can still be fairly aero even if I strip down to just one layer. If you have a needle and thread, you can make any cheap hi vis a custom fit, so it doesn't flap about.

Avatar
Bedfordshire Clanger | 11 years ago
0 likes

Like it or not we are all responsible for our own safety. I'm not convinced of the efficacy of hi-viz but I do think that reflectives and good lights make a huge difference in low light and in the dark. I certainly don't want to see a law that mandates that we all have to wear the YJA but if you ride outside of well lit town centres in poor light or in the dark then using reflectives and bright lights is just common sense.

Avatar
b3nharris | 11 years ago
0 likes

I'm reminded of a poem which applies to sailing:

"Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day
Who died Preserving His Right of Way.

He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."

Drivers may be in the wrong for the vast majority of SMIDSY accidents but that doesn't help much when you're lying under the from wheels of a car. It's plain stupid to not to do something which is likely to improve your safety on the basis that someone else should be responsible.

Avatar
shay cycles replied to b3nharris | 11 years ago
0 likes
b3nharris wrote:

Drivers may be in the wrong for the vast majority of SMIDSY accidents but that doesn't help much when you're lying under the from wheels of a car. It's plain stupid to not to do something which is likely to improve your safety on the basis that someone else should be responsible.

The problem is in knowing what to do. Research tends to suggest that hi-viz is not very effective and that black and white clothing is best during daylight. So how does the rider know what is best to wear when the advice and research are neither consistent or reliable?

At the end of the day there could be anything on the road, a child, an animal, a skip, a big hole but it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the driver to be sure every piece of road is clear before driving onto it.

Avatar
Crankwinder replied to b3nharris | 11 years ago
0 likes
b3nharris wrote:

It's plain stupid to not to do something which is likely to improve your safety on the basis that someone else should be responsible.

Be careful where you go with that. It's the same line of reasoning used to criticise women wearing normal western clothes.

I don't mind being told to fit this or that safety device to the bike, but how I choose to cover my body is personal. And personally, I prefer to look like a normal person when I'm on and off the bike, rather than an alien from the planet Hiviz!

Avatar
BBB | 11 years ago
0 likes

Incredible.

Almost every study concludes that it's the cyclists who "should" be doing something, in order not to get killed. The most ridiculous being the one on body armour...

No wonder that judges love using lack of reflective gear or a helmet as a mitigation when "sentencing" drivers.

What I would like to find out is why even with high-viz/reflective gear and 900lumen flashing light(s), drivers still pull out at the front of me, regardless of the time of the day/night.

Avatar
northstar replied to BBB | 11 years ago
0 likes
BBB wrote:

Incredible.

Almost every study concludes that it's the cyclists who "should" be doing something, in order not to get killed. The most ridiculous being the one on body armour...

No wonder that judges love using lack of reflective gear or a helmet as a mitigation when "sentencing" drivers.

What I would like to find out is why even with high-viz/reflective gear and 900lumen flashing light(s), drivers still pull out at the front of me, regardless of the time of the day/night.

This, i wonder who funded this nonsense.

Reflective clothing is not needed.

Avatar
ribena | 11 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Only 34 per cent of cyclists in these low-light crashes were wearing reflective clothing and 19 per cent of them said they weren't using bicycle lights at the time of the crash.

So were cyclists with reflective clothing under or over-represented in this sample, or does the 34% figure also represent cyclists who weren't in crashes? This is the most important piece of information yet seems to be missing.

Quote:

“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."

Yet it could be entirely accurate, there is seemingly nothing in the research to prove or disprove the statement.

This seems like a poor piece of research.

Where was it published and who has reviewed it??

Avatar
Gkam84 | 11 years ago
0 likes

I have at least 3 rear lights, one is on whenever I am out, no matter the time or day or weather.

As for the comment about the black car.....They have powerful lights....making them visible in dark conditions.

They way this "research" is going, all cyclists are going to need a follow car shortly, with flashing lights and a sign warning of cyclists ahead.

Avatar
mrmo replied to Gkam84 | 11 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

As for the comment about the black car.....They have powerful lights....making them visible in dark conditions.

And silver/grey cars in thick fog who don't bother using their lights!!!!

Avatar
m0rjc replied to Gkam84 | 11 years ago
0 likes

A problem with cars having powerful lights is that the bike light can be easily lost in the noise. The one SMIDSY I had was such a situation. I was a small light source with a load of very big ones further up the road behind me.

Cyclists with helmet lights are very visible due to the movement, but they can be very bright for motorists.

I have high visibility orange clothing, steady and flashing lights, and retroflect tape on places like the cranks to make up for lack of pedal reflectors riding clip-in shoes. I also have spoke reflectors and reflective rims on the tyres. I think the moving reflectives such as pedals and spokes work well.

I need to replace my bar tape soon. I wonder why there's no retroflective bar tape on the market.

Avatar
jollygoodvelo | 11 years ago
1 like

I've mentioned this before, but when I had my SMIDSY accident I was wearing all black. My own fault then? Well, not in my view. It was shortly before noon on a bright sunny day, the 'background' that the driver didn't see me against was bright early-summer green. I happen to believe that all black is more more visible than high-vis (or reflective) in such situations... having said that I'll be riding with a flashing front light even in daylight in future.

Avatar
TheHatter replied to jollygoodvelo | 11 years ago
0 likes
Gizmo_ wrote:

I've mentioned this before, but when I had my SMIDSY accident I was wearing all black. My own fault then? Well, not in my view. It was shortly before noon on a bright sunny day, the 'background' that the driver didn't see me against was bright early-summer green. I happen to believe that all black is more more visible than high-vis (or reflective) in such situations... having said that I'll be riding with a flashing front light even in daylight in future.

sorry to hear you had an accident but surely at least some of your background would have been black tarmac?

Avatar
jollygoodvelo replied to TheHatter | 11 years ago
0 likes
TheHatter wrote:
Gizmo_ wrote:

I've mentioned this before, but when I had my SMIDSY accident I was wearing all black. My own fault then? Well, not in my view. It was shortly before noon on a bright sunny day, the 'background' that the driver didn't see me against was bright early-summer green. I happen to believe that all black is more more visible than high-vis (or reflective) in such situations... having said that I'll be riding with a flashing front light even in daylight in future.

sorry to hear you had an accident but surely at least some of your background would have been black tarmac?

Not from the height of a car driver's seat. And when was the last time you saw beautiful clean new tarmac in this country?

Avatar
andybwhite | 11 years ago
1 like

And black cars? Do we see the same level of discussion about the likelihood of them being involved in a collision?

Pages

Latest Comments