- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Cyclists in high-vis (CC licensed image by garryknight)High vis clothing doesn't make cars pass you more safely, says new study
If you feel like some drivers will pass too close no matter that you wear and that you’re being given less space on the road than you used to, a new study says you’re right, and indicates very strongly that you’re not safer if you wear high-vis in the daytime.
Researchers from the University of Bath and Brunel University found that no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2% of drivers will pass dangerously close when overtaking. They also found that compared to Transport Research Laboratory findings in 1979, drivers today on average pass 61cm (2ft) closer to cyclists - 118cm compared to 179cm.
The researchers conclude that there is little a rider can do, by altering their outfit or donning a high-visibility jacket, to prevent the most dangerous overtakes from happening. Instead, they suggest, if we want to make cyclists safer, it is our roads, or driver behaviour, that need to change.
The research was conducted by Dr Ian Garrard from Brunel University and the project led by Dr Ian Walker from Bath University. Ian Walker is famous as the sometime wig-wearer who discovered in 2006 that cyclists are afforded more space by drivers if they appear to be female or are not wearing a helmet.
In this study, the two Dr Ians were trying to find out if drivers gave cyclists more room depending how skilled and experienced they looked. They expected that drivers would give more space to a rider who seemed inexperienced and less space to a rider who looked highly skilled.
The range of outfits worn during the research
Dr Garrard used an ultrasonic distance sensor to record how close each vehicle passed during his daily commute in Berkshire and outer London. Each day, he chose one of seven outfits at random, ranging from tight lycra racing cyclist clothes (signalling high experience) to a hi-viz vest with “novice cyclist” printed on the back (signalling low experience).
He sometimes also wore a vest that said he was video-recording his journey, or a vest modelled on a police jacket but with “POLITE” printed on the back. He rode the same bike, in the same way, every day and over several months collected data from 5690 passing vehicles.
The vest that mentioned video recording persuaded drivers to pass a little wider on average, tallying with anecdotes from helmet-cam users that drivers behave better when they know they are being recorded. However, there was no difference between the outfits in the most dangerous overtakes, where motorists passed within 50 cm of the rider. Whatever was worn, around 1-2% of motorists overtook within this extremely close zone.
Dr Ian Walker said: “Many people have theories to say that cyclists can make themselves safer if they wear this or that. Our study suggests that, no matter what you wear, it will do nothing to prevent a small minority of people from getting dangerously close when they overtake you.
“This means the solution to stopping cyclists being hurt by overtaking vehicles has to lie outside the cyclist. We can’t make cycling safer by telling cyclists what they should wear. Rather, we should be creating safer spaces for cycling – perhaps by building high-quality separate cycle paths, by encouraging gentler roads with less stop-start traffic, or by making drivers more aware of how it feels to cycle on our roads and the consequences of impatient overtaking.”
The researchers point out that while they found that wearing high-visibility clothing made no difference to the space left by overtaking drivers, they did not try to find out if it made cyclists more visible at junctions or at night.
However, they note that there is surprisingly little evidence that high-visibility clothing for cyclists and motorcyclists offers any safety benefits in daytime. This would further support the idea that there is no easy fix for riders’ safety from asking them to wear bright clothing.
The reduction in average passing distance between 1979 and today “could be a result of greater traffic volumes since the 1970s,” say the researchers, “or reduced levels of bicycling which mean that the average motorist is less likely to have experience of bicycling themselves, and so is less understanding of a bicyclist’s needs.”
It occurs to us that it could also be linked to the increased width of modern cars. A 1979 Ford Escort Mk II was 1570mm wide (5ft 2in) while the modern equivalent Ford Focus is 1823mm wide (5ft 11 1/2in). However, Ian Walker points out that there was no difference in passing distance between wide four-wheel drive vehicles and standard cars in his 2007 study.
The paper - The influence of a bicycle commuter’s appearance on drivers’ overtaking proximities: An on-road test of bicyclist stereotypes, high-visibility clothing and safety aids in the United Kingdom - will be published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- open_roads 2 sec ago
the sentence needs referring for review under the leniant sentences review scheme. 4 years is a complete joke - it needs a 0 on the end for any...
- Veloism 9 min 15 sec ago
They don't deserve any payment, but the rebrand was done before Ashley got his stinky hands on it, so they probably did.
- chrisonabike 11 min 37 sec ago
There's a book that can help you with that! I can't remember if it covers traffic jams on the Via Appia specifically but I'm sure there are some...
- hawkinspeter 33 min 3 sec ago
Totally agree - that's a very nice route for walking along by the river when you're not forced onto Crews Hole Rd.
- brooksby 36 min 29 sec ago
There are a lot of people out there who seem to think exactly that. It's like all those times that the traffic lights change as you are halfway...
- brooksby 1 hour 42 min ago
No, you're not missing anything. I've just re-read the original article and I clearly just presumed they would hand in their licence…
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 53 min ago
That still annoys me about the BBC - iplayer only keeps some programmes available for a short time, so we have to rely on people making copies to...
- nextSibling 2 hours 43 min ago
The point of limited-run models like these isn't to make a profit. It's a marketing exercise to get the brand in the media via filler articles that...
- FionaJJ 3 hours 14 min ago
Seems like a flaw. I wonder who decided that? Surely it's in everyone's interests to come up with an agreement that a portion of the car-park be...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 19 min ago
Don't forget the hour record!...
Add new comment
105 comments
The sock is a cheaper option. Or go hipster and roll your trouser up to the knee...
This is sometimes known as the Fallacy of the Lonely Fact.
So the driver, we suppose, would have done it even if you'd been wearing some HiViz clothing ? Is that what you mean ? In which case this is less about HiViz or not and more about the driver.
Also what, pray, does this have to do with whether HiViz is useful in getting noticed in the first place - or perhaps you think that is not relevant to safety ?
After that, your argument sort of staggers about a while - what, exactly, are you trying to say here in relation to HiViz ? Drivers "would miss out half the things going on around them if asked", so HiViz could not have any effect on the number and type of things they notice .... really ?
Congratulations to you for your uniquely perfect vision. The rest of humanity, who haven't reached the genetic peak you have, will have to cope with using contrast to detect objects more quickly and more easily. We can see dark uniforms and grey cars, of course, but may still prefer to have a earlier warnings of such things. YMMV
Yes, motorists are so caught up in their little cocoon that they are oblivious to what is happening at the roadside or on the road be it cyclists, horse riders, pedestrians or other vehicles. Personally I would like to see a proper eye test included in driving tests.
As for the bus driver, well he and his colleagues have very little regard for vulnerable road users should they wear hi viz or not.
'uniquely perfect vision' - if not running over schoolchildren is so unusual where you live you should move, really
'may prefer to have earlier warning of such thing'- I prefer this too. I call it 'paying attention to the road ahead'
I'm not asking whether the general populous of motor vehicle drivers have piss poor observation skills, i'm all too aware of that, i'm asking whether you honestly think that HiViz (during daylight, likewise reflectives at night) have absolutely no effect on whether you are noticed by people in the first place ? In particular, having worked for TNT in operations for a number of years and listened to HGV drivers over the years (interesting video link posted somewhere on here recently too) about the effectiveness of them - i'm inclined to believe they have their uses. You clearly can't differentiate the argument between being visible or not, or seem to indicate that all motorists behave the same once you are. On the bike, or on motorbikes, i've always treated road users as idiots by default - that's a survival mechanism.. but it does NOT mean that they'll all actually blind or malicious bastards - nor does it have anything to do with visibility.
Me too - not just focus tests but decent contrast, motion, colour and peripheral vision tests.
Nice generalisation - well done. The driver was acting like a twat from what you said, so obviously everyone else doing the same job is one as well.. this discussion clearly needs more intelligent insight from people like you.
OK then, reflectors/reflective trim and lights at night. You are very much in an environment where you need to make your self noticed. This is a must.
Hi Viz during the day. Pointless. If a motorist cannot see a pedestrian/cyclist at 100 feet they shouldn't be on the road. Like Northernbike I can see what's in the road regardless of what they wear. I was taught to look not just 6 feet ahead but also up to a mile ahead depending on the road I'm on.
Maybe I'm being too subjective, but the region I live in drivers just do not pay any attention. Yet I go to my parents and it's a different story all together. As for my friend the bus driver, that company has a poor track record in interaction with the vulnerable road user. Other bus companies in the region are actually pretty good.
The evidence appears to be that drivers take whatever safety measures they are given and use them as a means of paying still less attention and driving still more carelessly. This is, it seems to me, just human nature, not something unique to drivers.
Therefore the net benefit of everyone wearing high-viz is likely to be negligible in terms of the safety of those outside the vehicle. And morally as far as I'm concerned its a step too far in putting the burden of safety on people other than the driver.
Now I think its possible that if the penalties for not paying attention were far, far higher for the driver, that _then_ high-viz might make a difference. If cyclists were known to explode with the force of a IED if you hit them even at low speed, for example, then motorists would concentrate fully on looking for them and take full advantage of any aid to spotting them, and so high-viz might then make a difference. But I don't think motorists take the whole issue seriously enough that such measures would improve the safety of the cyclist rather than just giving the motorist an excuse to pay still less attention.
In short, I don't think motorists fail to see non-high-viz wearing cyclists in day light because its literally impossible to see them, I think motorists make a choice about how carefully to drive vs going faster or multi-tasking. Wear high-viz and that choice will just be shifted to "consume" any improved visibility.
This is why I personally think lights at night (or even reflective items at night) are different - a totally unlit cyclist in the dark is difficult for even a careful driver to see, and I accept its not reasonable to expect a driver to pay _that_ much attention and drive _that_ slowly as would be necessary to compensate for ninja cyclists in the dark. But high-vis in daylight hours is a step too far as far as I am concerned.
I actually agree with much of what you say, but I differ in this regard - I consider hiviz/reflectives as just another aid to being noticed in the first place. What a driver does after having seen someone is another matter, and that's generally out of the cyclists control. I not saying you have to wear hiviz etc to be noticed, nor should there be any compulsion, but I do believe it can have a beneficial effect - namely sometimes being seen when you otherwise wouldn't have. It's just another tool to use, in the end it's entirely up to the rider to decide whether they do or not.
How do you draw that conclusion from the survey? Half the outfits weren't hi viz.
It's fashion (and money), pure and simple, largely influenced by pro teams, cycling industry, and the cycling media (who would have a lot less to talk about if everyone just decided to wear safety gear).
It's also because of a small, but determined, group of cyclists (and even journalists) continually making irresponsible comments about "hi-viz", and deterring inexperienced cyclists from making an informed choice about their personal safety.
You certainly shouldn't study for a sociology degree. Fashion it may be but their is no sphere in design where black is not a universally popular choice. People would not normally choose to were an unnatural colour if it were not for the supposed safety factor.
You criticize people for making snarky comments about HiViz colours and imply we are doing something wrong and harming young people. That is an outrageous slur. Firstly you totally overestimate the effect of a few internet forum posts; secondly social pressure is one of the few avenues that people have to object about HiViz. We have a right to voice our opinion. Your position moves us towards compulsion to wear HiViz and criminalizing those who do not wear it. This would cause a drop in cycling rates especially in the winter.
If the non-HiViz wearers of the world feel that their safety is diminished because you are training motorists to not look out for them (or anybody else) by wearing HiViz and trying to get the majority to do so, then don't be surprised when people are vocally against it. The Herd Immunity were no one is wearing HiViz is dissolved every time you put on that jacket, so you are making other people less safe too, if only by a fraction of a percentage.
So get off your high horse and stop attacking people who oppose HiViz or support genuine choice, OR nail your colours to the mast and come clean that you do want compulsory HiViz not choice, if you are not worried about a few internet comments.
If you really want people to 'make an informed choice' then you shouldn't imply that the informed choice is your choice. Otherwise you don't really understand the 'choice' bit.
Yes there is - the sphere of personal safety clothing design. Isn't that what we're talking about here?
In a hazardous environment, hi-viz colours are a natural choice.
I didn't say young people. I said inexperienced cyclists. But, yes, I do criticise people that make "snarky" comments about hi viz colours. People are influenced by the comments of others. I'm careful to promote the benefits of hi viz, in measured terms, but draw people's attention to the derogatory, and often bizarre, remarks made by those who may infuence those who may wish to wear hi viz, but not do so, for fear of being ridiculed. There's nothing wrong with discussing the merits of visibility, but we must be careful not to spread ridicule in a public forum.
It's rather more than that, isn't it? Forums, blogs, social networks, cycle cafes, sportives; even the cycling press seem keen to promote scorn and ridicule sometimes. And yet, can you imagine the backlash if people started to make widespread derogatory remarks about cycle helmets, with the associated risk that would come if inexperienced cyclists decided not to wear one?
On the contrary. My position is to defend the right of people to make their own informed choice, but unimpeded by the raucous cachophony of ribald anti hi viz sentiment staring up at them from the pages of every forum. In fact, far from my position moving us towards compulsion, it may well be that people are becoming increasingly concerned about these widespread adverse comments. And that, my friend, will undoubtedly be moving us towards compulsion, even if you cannot see it coming. Can you imagine what you cycling buddies would say, if your anti hi viz comments were used by legislators as part of the gathered evidence for a legislative proposal? That would be interesting, wouldn't it?
I agree, so button it.
Drivers aren't being "trained" to look out for hi viz, but I can certainly agree that it makes things slightly more dangerous for those in less visible clothing. But how many cyclists who get sucked into the LED lights "arms race" really give any thought to the fact that their brighter lights will make other cyclists' lights less visible to drivers? However, when cyclists who claim that hi viz has no beneficial effect, suddenly realise that their own visibility is indeed becoming slightly reduced when other cyclists wear hi viz, there's lots of cries that it's unfair. Cyclists can't have it both ways. It's as farcical as a home owner complaining that his house is targeted more regularly by thieves after other homes in his street have had their security upgraded. I agree with you, the more hi viz is seen, the less prominent every other cyclist becomes but, if you're asking me to adopt the ubiquitous "uban look", just so you can save your own skin, the answer would be no. Everyone has a choice. I prefer not to wear a helmet - that is my choice. I wear hi viz - that is my choice. If I'm in a street full of cyclists wearing hi viz, and I'm less visible by not wearing hi viz - that would also theorically be a choice, even though it might be a seen by a coroner as a poor one.
I don't see myself as attacking people who oppose hi viz because, as previously mentioned, I defend the right for people to make an informed choice. In fact, many of my posts are designed to provide a wider perspective, by writing from hgv driver's point of view for instance. But, as we know, there are very few posters who argue the case for hi viz, and I'm sure you would agree that people who read these forums might wish to see both sides of the argument.
As a cyclist, when I am in the car, I am naturally more aware of cyclists on the road.
Even with that awareness, over the last few weeks i've ended up getting closer behind than i'd like (not dangerously so) to idiots dressed all in black, riding with no lights after dark. If they had something high-vis on, i'd have had far more chance of seeing them much earlier than I did (obviously them having lights would be even better).
Of course some drivers will pass too close regardless of what someone is wearing. This is because there are a lot of ar*eholes on the road who think they've got more right to be there than the cyclist. That is vastly different from helping make yourself more visible to drivers in order to lessen the chance of you simply not being seen.
Thought i would just throw into the mix the French.
Not sure where they are at the moment, but there are very strong suggestions if not law that you have to wear Hi Viz, seem to remember reading the PBP riders had to wear compliant Hi-Viz. (EN?????)
Suitable hi-viz is mandatory during the hours of darkness in France. EN1150, I think.
it's entirely true. a close pass won't harm you. A collision, on the other hand, may well harm you.
I didn't even need a review or study - some time ago I bought a ex police cyclist hi viz rain jacket which is the obligatory bright yellow and, apart from the insignia's and badges, when I am wearing it I have often had it commented on that I look like a police officer and if it just had POLICE in a blue rectangle on my back then the illusion would be complete.
It is a shame it is Hi Viz yellow, because it is a damned fine jacket and it performs even better than certain other very costly branded jackets that I have owned and used for rainy weather, one of which began falling apart in less than a month. The fact that it cost me less than £20 off eBay makes it seem even more of a bargain and I even look forward to rain because I know it will keep me dry.
BUT - I am under no illusion and I am not constantly amazed by the number of drivers who come so close to tipping me off my bike that it as if they did not care - like the bloke driving the Arriva No 37 bus between Sandbach and Middlewich this morning who very obviously deliberately tried to use his vehicle as a weapon and force me off the road, despite the fact that just a few yards and few seconds further along the road widens and he could have overtaken me with bags of space to spare. You can wear as much high viz as you like... you could even look like you could be a police officer... non of that will make a blind bit of difference.
And as a follow up: Part of the reason I wear hi-viz is so if I do end up on the tarmac as a result of a motorist's actions I can see the look on their face as they tell a copper wearing very similar hi-viz that they didn't see me!
I have evidence that it's a driver choice over how close they pass, be it conscious or unconscious, and I spoke to Ian about this.
I heard him speak about the research a couple of weeks after being given the 'POLITE' version of the hi-viz in the graphic. For a couple of weeks I felt like I was given loads of space, to the extent that some passing drivers were crossing the centre line of the road even though I was in a cycle lane. Then the effect diminished. My theory is that as I commute the same route every day that drivers learned that I wasn't a copper, so it was OK to return to their normal behaviour, or possibly even throw in a little 'You're a dick' punishment if they thought I was trying to mislead them!
Although Ian said they had varied the time of the commute in their research it is still a long enough distance that many of the passing motorists will have seen him every day and gone through the same acclimatisation process as I think I experienced.
Bottom line? Drivers do see cyclists, but their perception of the amount of space needed varies and is mostly inadequate.
Pretty much what Ive always thought. The majority of drivers are fine with cyclists, but its a small percentage of morons who cause the trouble. Likewise there are a similar number of morons on bikes who get us all a bad name
In terms of drivers we need to make insurance too expensive for them to encourage them off the road. This is why I support car monitoring devices from insurers as they would give a measurable estimate of the associated risk for drivers. Why should law abiding drivers pay for these morons?
Thing is though, as others have pointed out, this is not a scientifically sound study for any number of reasons - the authors were the ones doing the experiments, collating and interpreting the data therefore it's open to all kinds of bias; there may well be other variables not listed (weather, traffic density, time of year, light levels) and it was done on one route in one location. Hardly what you'd call conclusive either one way or the other. Useful possibly on where to go from here in terms of designing a proper scientific study but other than that, it's main purpose seems to be to clog up internet message boards with stuff that once again detracts from the main debate.
It's been well covered - 6 cyclists in London have lost their lives in the space of a fortnight (almost all due to buses/trucks) yet Boris and co have managed to get a debate going about helmets, hi-vis and headphones. Police are out having a "crackdown" on pavement cycling and RLJing. A report comes out about hi-vis maybe not being the cure-all that it's made out to be.
NONE of that is the point - shit infrastructure and shit driving (and riding) standards is the point coupled with a total lack of political will to do anything. All the rest just serves as overwhelming white noise designed to get politicians off the hook in terms of actually doing anything and give the media another excuse to bash cyclists and engage in some good old victim blaming. It's worked perfectly.
I wear Hi-Viz clothing so ALL road users have the opportunity to see me earlier than they would have if I had been wearing black kit and rideing a black bike. This (hopefully) gives the vehicle operator a longer period of time to decide what avoiding action to take. I don't wear high viz so another driver will think that he has to pass me at a greater distance than he would otherwise, and if I see a cyclist wearing hi-viz when I'm in my car, I don't think "I must pass him leaving more room than I normally would". There will always be a very small percentage of drivers will always pass cyclists/horses/any other slow road user too close. Its the ones who don't see you at all that will kill you
+ 1
I actually think the study's quite interesting (flaws not withstanding), it's the erroneous conclusion drawn about safety that worry me, both in the piece and the headline which links from the main page.
Before we start putting off people from wearing clothing that might make them easier to be seen by drivers of lethal motor vehicles, can Road CC please update the article?
This study presents no evidence that wearing high visibility clothing 'does not make you safer', since safety is about many things including visibility, and is more than just driver behaviour when they overtake.
Headline seams to be true, from my experience. Though one benefit from High-Vis clothing is that in case of accident driver can not use the excuse: "I could not see him!".
I would like to see a similar study done on overtaking speed. My theory is that High-Vis clothing alerts drivers much earlier that there is cyclist or a road-worker on the road thus giving more time to safely slow down. There are drivers who will always pass cyclists dangerously close, but they would do that at lower speed.
In my experience, you are given more space by overtaking cars if you ride like novice cyclist and appear to be "wobbly". We always put a wobbly guy at the back of the group
Maybe people should show the stop and advice police on the capitol's streets this paper so they can stop totting out you should wear hi-viz.
Their actual advice should be, you should wear a wig and no helmet...
I read the "wig" study so I won't bother with this one. While the authors do provide some useful information, the conclusions drawn are ridiculous, IMO. IIRC, their work betrays a certain anti-helmet/safety bias (probably, as suggested, a way to get grant money).
I prefer to have overtaking vehicles leave my entire lane free, but that doesn't mean one giving half as much space is more dangerous.
And, as pointed out by other commenters, the purpose of hi-viz (should you choose) is to be seen. I would expect "good" drivers to give adequate space regardless of what I wear (providing they have seen me!) and bad drivers? The ones on the mobile eating soup? Good luck.
I use high viz sometimes, but most often on autumn rides where parts of the road will be in bright sun (drivers eyes will be adjusted) with patches of deep shade (where a "low-viz" cyclist will disappear).
I suspect a lot of unsafe cyclists are non-drivers or poor drivers, and just don't have the experience of being surprised by other vehicles when we didn't expect or see them. Such as the idiots who drive out of a setting sun (sun behind them) without their headlamps on. They can see just fine, but the cars coming toward them are blinded by the sun. This happens twice a day in clear weather - much of it commuting time. That's one reason why many countries went to Daytime Running Lights (now on all new cars in the EU) despite the usual (much of it British) grumbling "We don't need that safety crap here".
Except that the note in the paper says "The authors ... received no specific funding for this project" so can anyone explain how it helps get grant money? They could probably publish any results and have about the same effect on their research ratings.
It's quite simple actually. As long as you provide unexpected results, you're more attractive as a researcher because you provide "new information" and "a new approach to the problem". It's easy to notice once you spend some time in any research lab.
Not that I'm blaming the authors, I'm just answering your question!
Pages