As I’ve said, you’re looking at a couple of seconds. At 30mph, that’s 23m (or 88ft in old money).

Add in our half second reaction time. Another 6m or so.

And you’ve got to stop. Around an extra 10m on a reasonable surface. That’s 39m total.

It actually makes the Highway Code’s stopping distances, which many people would suggest are outdated and easily beaten by a modern car or bike, just a little bit optimistic!

It’s not always a clear cut decision what to do – occasionally there will be a choice. A few years ago I was two up on the Dominator on a group ride, when I saw a car start to pull out from a side road in front of me. Now, I knew the junction was there (signs as well as local knowledge) and I also knew it was difficult to see something coming from the side turning. So I’d already slowed a bit on the approach.

But I also had in mind my two “outs” as I saw the car at the juncion. Brake and stop, or swerve left behind the car. In the event, I opted for the swerve, because the car left me the space and because of the group behind me.

I’m not sure that “decision time” cost me a great deal in real terms as I was prepared, compared with the necessary “perception time” that would have elapsed if I hadn’t been aware of the junction, whilst I :
- spotted the car
- detected it was moving
- thought “I’m going to hit it if I don’t do something”
- and THEN had to choose “what can I do?”
before finally doing it!

Which is why you need to keep your “escape route”, whether it be braking, swerving or either/or in mind, fully agreed on that point.

“That’s about as fast as you can physically manage. Crash investigators commonly find a delay of 1.5 to 2 seconds before the driver brakes in an emergency, simply because it takes drivers that long to actually detect the emergency in the first place.”

There’s reaction times, and reaction times.

Your 0.5s was, as you say, quick and it is only possible when there are no choices involved. Anything quicker is more luck than judgement, 0.4s is about the fastes most people will manage.

The longest reaction times involve both a reaction and a decision which itself involves a choice.

That’s why being prepared for situations is so critical – the ‘choice’ is removed.

- 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.

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?

A little point I would add to your final sentence is that people should listen carefully, then incorporate skills and advice based on their own decisions. We shouldn’t assume we know it all already, but similarly – we shouldn’t do ourselves down if we can’t do certain things that others find easy.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.