We’ve reached that time of year again, when the clocks have changed and many riders are now riding home in the dark.
Probably not entirely by coincidence, it seems Sussex Police are involved in a new ’safety’ campaign which involves stopping riders who aren’t wearing hi-vis kit and handing out “a free neon jacket”.
A sceptic might say that compared with the costs of running “Bikesafe” courses, handing out cheap dayglo vests costs peanuts, whilst at the same time they are “seen to be doing something”.
Anyway, are these vests any use? I’ve posted on this issue time and again, but it seems a good time to review it.
First thing I’ll point up is that if you have a fairing or a top box/passenger/ruck sack, then the a vest (as opposed to a sleeved jacket) is just about useless.
Second thing I’ll point out is that the most visible bits of the rider are helmet, tops of shoulder, the arms and the legs. It should be obvious a vest isn’t ideal, even if you don’t have a screen or some obstruction on the rear. You’d be better with flourescent gloves, lids and boots, and a full sleeved jacket, rather than a vest which is just about the worst design garment for a motorcycle rider.
One forum member suggested: “On my commutes I’ve been impressed how much visible bikes are at a distance as most seem to have some sort of reflective that catches the cars headlights. It may be a little on the boots, in the seams of the clothing, on a high viz vest, on a helmet etc but to my mind it makes them much more visible.”
OK, retro reflective for night time – the fluorescent materials that make a hi vis garment work in daytime rely on UV light from the sun, so the body of the garment fades at night; in fact orange bibs appear brown under sodium lighting.
And if it’s dark enough for retro reflective to work, you have your lights on, in any case.
But anyway, what makes retro reflective work is a light source shining directly onto the material. Now think where the source of light is… it’s a set of headlights SHINING DIRECTLY at the retroreflective material.
Yes retro reflective gear will show up miles away when the car is on full beam and there’s nothing around you, but just how often do you have to take evasive action when the car is miles away? It might JUST help the driver remember he saw something (pedestrian? cycle? can you be sure at a distance?) that would be useful to remember a few moments later, but the ability of the driver to see, interpret and pigeon hole for future use is not something I’d rely on. Oh, and if there’s nothing else around you, won’t they see your lights, in any case?
So what about the situation where you’re blending in with other vehicles, where your lights might be ‘masked’ by other vehicles’ lights as is likely to be the case in traffic?
Well, a moment’s thought should show you that the driver shining light in your direction is on dip. If that’s the case, then your bit of retro-reflective kit needs to be low down to reflect the light! High up like a vest, a Sam Browne belt or a jacket and it’ll be above the dip cut off and any reflected glow will be feeble at best. And in urban areas with a lot of street lighting the effectiveness of the retro reflective gear is further diminished.
Yes, there will be a bit of light scatter from the dip beam as no reflector is perfect, but you want the reflective stuff to shine bright.
Let’s look at some likely situations that riders think retro reflective is useful.
If the car is coming towards you, then it’s in the other carriageway anyway and as such it’s unlikely to be a problem unless it’s overtaking into a clear road, in which case the retro reflective kit could help if you’ve got a feeble headlight.
But if the oncoming driver is looking into a row of vehicles, how likely is your reflective stuff to outshine the HID headlights on the car behind? Simple answer is that “it won’t”.
And does it really matter if they are just going straight on because they’ll pass in the other carriageway? There might be a problem near a junction if you are the “gap” through which an oncoming driver intends to turn right, but realistically, if he’s not seen your lights, he probably won’t spot your retro reflective – it’s likely to be below the line of his dipped lights. So it’s your wits that will save you from the other driver’s mistake, not your retro reflective gear.
But if you’re worried about being seen from behind, then ask yourself, If the car is behind you, your bike should already be visible ahead via your outline, reflective numberplate and your rear lights.
But, rear end collisions DO happen, so there’s no harm in stacking the odds in your favour. From the rear, retro reflective is much more likely to be visible in a stream of traffic, as directly ahead of you will be other red tail lights, which aren’t nearly as bright as the oncoming HIDs.
So, with a view to being seen from behind, my aerostich has two big panels on the backs of the calves and they show up spectacularly well compared with “traffic pattern” vests.
I’ve got a pic of me on the bike being followed by another bike with a camera at twilight, when vision is often most difficult. You can clearly see the retro-reflective in the calves, but the “traffic pattern” vest I’m also wearing too doesn’t work at all – the retro-reflective material at shoulder height is far too high for the dip beam from the chase bike to land on.
Instructor buddy Malc has retro reflective stickers on the panniers, which again are low down enough to be in the dip beam.
Unfortunately, retro reflective riding kit is almost totally useless in the situation where most riders come to grief.
Most accidents happen at urban junctions where the car emerges across the bike’s path. The car’s lights are now pointing at right angles to the bike.
There’s no light shining on the retro-reflective at all. It’s useless, wherever it is, high up, low down, on the bike, on the rider.
In my opinion, about the only time retroreflective is really useful is on slow bikes with poor lights on fast roads, in full dark conditions where drivers are on main beam much of the time, or in conditions like rain, spray or fog when drivers might be on main beam trying to see where they are going, and you need any help you can get to be seen in the murk – and that last one is about the only time I tend to wear a high vis jacket as well as the ‘Stich.
There’s many an argument about the value of hi-viz on the bike. One thing that nobody can claim is that it makes you any less visible. The most that can be said is that hypothetically, risk compensation may cause certain individuals who are two bricks short of a load to ride as if hi-viz kit is ‘the armour of god’ and thus be more at risk than they would be dressed like motorcycling ninja. So… don’t assume, then. Just ride normally, continue to assume you are invisible, and accept any possible benefit that may or may not accrue from wearing it gratefully.
However, I’d have thought that one area where Hi-Viz would be an undisputed rock solid nailed on life saver is what happens if you are unfortunate enough to come off the bike on a dark and nasty night. If the bike is upside down in a ditch and you are laying in the road half-way round the corner you failed to negotiate for whatever reason, you want the driver of the next car down the road to find you with his or her eyes, not with their front slam panel. Retro reflective clothing would surely be the difference between these two outcomes in a lot of cases…
Comment by Ken Haylock — November 1, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Actually, any visibility aid relies on contrast against the background.
I have an excellent picture of a black RAF Hawk trainer, clearly visible against the greeny/yellow grass of a dry summer. If you look closely… very closely… you’ll spot the ground crew person in “hi vis” saturn yellow. They are almost completely invisible.
So, against yellow spring foliage or an AA van, a yellow bib might actually camouflage you. Likewise an orange vest won’t show up in autumn foliage or if you have an RAC van beside you!
The problem is that authoritative bodies keep telling us we’re more visible with hi vis kit on, and so riders who don’t do anything daft simply fail to react to dangerous situations, happy in the knowledge that they WILL be seen… because the Highway Code, their CBT instructor, the DSA and now Sussex police have told them so.
Is that a good thing?
I REALLY don’t think so.
Comment by survivalskills — November 1, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
Right, so the problem is rider’s choosing to assume that wearing a dayglo helmet/having a headlight on/whatever guarantees being seen. Not that they are, on average, any less likely to be seen. I find it frustrating that in certain specific circumstances, when I feel that a lit headlight is likely to make me less visible not more visible, I cannot turn it off any more. However, flouro clothing has never has an off switch, so you either wear it or you don’t, assuming you have it.
I could point out to you that in a very large percentage of car crashes, wearing a seat belt makes no substantive difference to the outcome (car park shunts etc) and that in some cases (motorist trapped in burning wreckage type scenarios) a seatbelt will cause fatalities. I could also rail against the folly of risk compensation and complain that sensible drivers who start driving like loons the first time they get to wear a seatbelt due to unreasonable faith in their protective efficacy are more at risk than they were before seatbelts were made available. Are any of these credible arguments against the safety case for the use of seatbelts?
Comment by Ken Haylock — November 1, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
And I could equally say that in many bike accidents, the rider survives to bleat “but I had my lights and hi vis on – he must have seen me”.
Clearly he didn’t.
Your seatbelt argument unfortunately is just as fallacious too – what about the unarmoured road users on the wrong side of the large safety cage and the safety harnesses? Just because you are protected inside your box doesn’t negate the idea that road safety stops at passive aids.
And why not fit a switch to the lights? That’s what I did with a US import I bought some years back.
Comment by survivalskills — November 1, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Purely anecdotally, I now spend more hours per week on the electric mountain bike than Fazer. Since adopting the LED ‘headlight’ (aka torch on knicker elastic on my forehead) I’ve had far fewer people miss my presence on the road, mainly from cars changing lane / pulling out from parked in a busy urban scenario. With low current LED tech being readily available, maybe more ‘active’ lighting solutions should be looked at?
Not sure if this whole hi-vis thing isn’t the biggest red herring in the history of 2-wheeler road safety. Personally I see it as best a way of making your life a bit easier – it lowers the risk overall of people not seeing you, so less evasive action required (maybe). Whether you can be seen or not – drivers WILL sometimes do stuff without looking properly, whether you can be seen or not.
With so little protection compared to ‘cagers’ we have to be ready to brake or swerve competently at very short notice either way.
Comment by wasabi — November 1, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
I think it is something of a red herring. What conspicuity aids MIGHT alter is the chance that someone sees/fails to see you.
What conspicuity aids in general CAN’T alter is the RISK that arises from the situation that develops subsequent to someone not seeing you. That depends entirely on how you react to the situation.
It might be badly thought out and ill-executed, but this ability to take evasive action is at least something the swerve test on Module One of the revised motorcycle test seeks to address. Unfortunately, rather than explain the need for the ability to swerve and why it might come in useful, then practice it (why not make it part of CBT like the emergency stop already is?) they’ve turned it into “performing seal” exercise that’s disassociated from the real world.
Yet at the same time we’re told by authority that conspicuity aids make you ’safer’ because (so the implication is) you don’t have to do anything – people will see you and keep out of your way.
Mixed messages?
Incidentally, on the headlight thing on the cycle, watch out you don’t dazzle oncoming drivers with it. An LED one should be OK but I know you can get HID headlights.
A couple of winters ago, a local cyclist (I seem him around from time to time) was riding around with one of the HID headlights that are intended for off-road use on the road.
One night I came around one narrow left hand corner where there is an awkward sticky-out bit of wall and hedge that’s already easy to hit in dark when I encountered him mid-bend.
The problems arose when he looked directly at me.
I was instantly blinded – I couldn’t see a thing… particularly the sticky-out bit of wall!
So I stuck main beam on myself, no doubt dazzling him, and generally took a wide line to avoid the wall, which ended up being rather closer to the cycle than the rider would have liked, I’m sure.
Comment by survivalskills — November 2, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Commercial air crashes these days are usually caused by the ‘Swiss Cheese effect’ – i.e. when all the holes line up, or a long series of things all go wrong at once, very bad things happen. I was working on the industrial estate next to Buncefield when that blew up, taking down several buildings and dropping a ceiling and a tonne of broken glass on my desk (I’m glad I wasn’t in the office!) so I’ve read the report on what happened, and the number of unlikely things that all had to happen at once in order for that incident to occur is quite staggering. If any one of them had not happened, or of the atmospheric conditions had been different when they did, then there would have been no incident at all beyond a few brown trousers at the oil terminal. Thus I suggest it is with Hi-Viz. Hi-Viz clothing is what you are left with after you’ve screwed up badly enough that your safety depends on somebody else seeing you and not driving through you. And since we are all human, and thus all fallible, one day if we ride for long enough we will make a mistake that puts us in harms way, and hi-viz clothing might be the thing that closes the hole in the swiss cheese that was marked ‘and I just didn’t see him’.
Plus I still reckon that if I’m laying in the middle of a ‘B’ road after dark, sans motorcycle, hi-viz is quite likely to save my life. Clearly falling off and ending up laying in the middle of the road at night isn’t in my riding plan most days, but if I didn’t regard it as a realistic if hopefully remote possibility, why would I bother putting any of that protective gear I wear on?
Comment by Ken Haylock — November 6, 2009 @ 1:01 am
What you’re talking about is what Nato apparently call the “Charlie Foxtrot” or the US Airforce rather more prosaically, the ‘Clusterfuck’, and I’ve discussed elsewhere how many cornering accidents are ‘clusterfucks’ where a series of small, avoidable AND correctable errors eventually lead the rider into a situation he/she can’t get out of:
- in a little too hot, braked a little too late, braked a little too gently, turned in a little too early, steered a little too softly…
Now you’re running off the road.
I wouldn’t dispute that many junction accidents are the same. The rider’s a bit slow on recognising the situtation, the driver’s a bit rushed or distracted or looks when the bike’s hidden…
But the facts remain. If you’re hidden or the driver’s looking the wrong way, conspicuity aids are useless. Retro-reflective is almost 100% ineffectual in a SMIDSY incident because the driver’s lights are shining the wrong way.
So if you rely on conspicuity aids to get you OUT of a ‘clusterfuck’, you’re relying on those very holes in your Swiss cheese to line up… the driver has to look at the right moment, the bike/rider has to be in sight, the driver has to recognise he’s seeing a bike and make the right decision. It MIGHT save you if you fail to do anything about the situation – but the evidence across 30-odd years of accident surveys from the days when virtually no-one used hi-vis kit or DRLs suggests that the pattern of accidents is unchanged, riders still have SMIDSYs that these aids are supposed to prevent in virtually the same % as was found 30 years ago.
And it’s not surprising that there’s no major change in fatalities either. Urban accidents precipitated by OTHER road users rarely kill riders, yet that’s where it’s claimed that conspicuity aids make you ’safer’. The reality is that riders STILL kill themselves by hitting hard objects at the side of the road, and making overtakes that go wrong, both accidents that the rider precipitates.
Your final point again consists of two totally different issues. Protective clothing is supposed to protect you from abrasion and impact. The first job decent kit does well – that’s why I wear the ‘Stich. But if you think body armour has much of a role to play on the road in a collision (as opposed to falling from the height of the bike to the ground) have a look at the energy absorbtion figures.
I can’t deny the outside possibility you might be seen lying in the road – but how often does it happen? Can you ever recall seeing a “unconscious rider killed by car” story? You’ve probably more chance of being hit by a falling tree whilst riding in a gale – at least I’ve seen THAT story on the news. I’ll throw in “broken down at the side of the road” as a time it would help (batteries go flat), and as I said, if there is one time I think retro-reflective gear DOES help it’s in conditions of poor visibility, when everyone is struggling to see.
Comment by survivalskills — November 6, 2009 @ 10:38 am