Hi viz doesn’t work if a driver isn’t looking & they don’t look

[ivykaty44]

twitter.com/anthonytilghman/status/1489814943859986438?s=21

Wide street, visibility good as from a distance the driver would see the hi viz, the child approaching

Yet none of this worked and the driver failed to stop in time

It’s drivers needing to pay attention as hiviz is just a stick to beat victims with if there not wearing it Aibu

Why are you concentrating on a small amount of drivers who haven't had their license removed?

because they are the most dangerous on the roads, they don't kerb their behaviour but just continue to collect points and the most likely to kill

OP you're like a dog with a bone. Everyone is pointing out that it isn't an either/or situation. Why not just ask "AIBU to want bad drivers off the road?". We'd all agree with you, I don't like that exceptions to driving bans can be abused either. Your current suggestion that High-vis and reflective wear are useless is really bloody irritating. Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between reducing risk and preventing risk?

if its irritating then show me that by wearing high viz prevents and reduces the risk drivers crashing into people and other cars?

because they are the most dangerous on the roads, they don't kerb their behaviour but just continue to collect points and the most likely to kill

Not nessecarily. You are assuming no points = safe driver.

if its irritating then show me that by wearing high viz prevents and reduces the risk drivers crashing into people and other cars?

You want proof, it's safer on roads if people can see you?

You want proof, it's safer on roads if people can see you?

that wasn't what I asked, I asked for proof that high viz reduces the risk of crashes

www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/what-is-the-evidence-that-wearing-hi-vis-clothing-makes-you-a-safer-cyclist-358674

People in urban areas shouldn't have to dress like traffic cones just to go about their business.

Firstly that Hi-vis wouldn't be accepted in industries where one needs to be worn. It doesn't have reflective strips and also doesn't look to be the right orange colour. A lot of people buy knock-off versions which don't meet the standards.

Regardless of the above, the person is wearing bright clothing and the conditions are not too dark so quite clearly this driver wasn't looking where they were driving and were distracted by phone etc. So this is a case of reckless driving, not sure what your hi-vis argument has to do with anything as you've found one example of a poor driver to argue against people taking precautions by wearing high visibility clothing that could save their lives.

Why wouldn't you wear hi-vis clothing if cycling or walking down an unlit country lane at night? It's madness, being more visible increases the chance of someone seeing you. Nothing can rule out the chance you will encounter a driver who isn't paying attention or otherwise not behaving correctly, but hi-vis increases the chance of you being seen by a driver who is only half-concentrating.

A book I read when considering taking up cycling a few years ago (fortunately I saw sense) was Bike by David North. The author listed the causes of accidents involving cyclists, in order of frequency:

1. Exiting a driveway in front of an oncoming vehicle.
2. Turning in front of a passing vehicle.
3. The motorist was overtaking the cyclist, cause unclear.
4. Riding on the wrong side of the road.
5. Riding on the wrong side of the road and then turning across traffic.
6. The motorist was overtaking the cyclist and failed to see him or her.
7. The cyclist lost control and swerved into the path of the vehicle.
8. The cyclist made a normal turn but ignored oncoming traffic.
9. The motorist lost control of the car and struck the cyclist.

As the author goes on to note, the cyclist could have avoided all the above, except perhaps the 3rd and 9th ones. Even then, it's possible that poor visibility could be part of the cause in some of those cases - a driver who is crashing but is aware of where a cyclist is has a better chance of avoiding them.

As PP said, it's important that people wear the right hi-viz clothing. If you buy cheap equipment it might not meet the relevant standards. Stick to reputable brands.

It's impossible to prove it one way or another through a scientific study. The only way they could is to do a study is if they send people down the same roads in the same conditions, wearing high-vis, black clothes or neutral clothes then calculate how many get hit. Hardly an ethical study or one any of us would sign up for!

I work in a rural area that is so dark there's an observatory here so I find it so easy to see the difference. Its a badly lit area and most roads are 60mph rather than the 30mph in a well lit city. The difference between seeing someone from 200m away vs 20m away could be life or death due to the longer stopping distance. Even the most attentive driver in the world can't defy physics.

The local horse riders demonstrate it perfectly. The riders all wear high-vis vests and drape some sort of high vis cloak over their horse's back end. It's rare to see them in bad conditions but I came across one at dusk last year and not only could I see the yellow and reflective patches well in advance, the shape let me know it was a horse. I knew to slow down well ahead of time and pass slowly to avoid spooking it (and potentially injuring the rider).

I'll try that again..

*The only way they could do a study is if they send people down the same roads in the same conditions, wearing high-vis, black clothes or neutral clothes then calculate how many get hit.

It's impossible to prove it one way or another through a scientific study

So why put so much emphasis on something that you don't even know works very well in all areas? Why not concentrate efforts on actions that do work, first and foremost instead of a blanket obsession with high viz, regardless of whether daylight, light streets, city centres or dark country lanes

but hi-vis increases the chance of you being seen by a driver who is only half-concentrating.

How can we try to prevent a driver only half concentrating whilst driving down a country lane at night?

@ivykaty44

It's impossible to prove it one way or another through a scientific study

So why put so much emphasis on something that you don't even know works very well in all areas? Why not concentrate efforts on actions that do work, first and foremost instead of a blanket obsession with high viz, regardless of whether daylight, light streets, city centres or dark country lanes

Because it works well in most areas? I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here? I've never seen a blanket obsession with high-vis. Just an acceptance that it's an improvement on no high-vis. You still haven't bothered to link to evidence of two statements you made that I questioned.

@ivykaty44

It's impossible to prove it one way or another through a scientific study

So why put so much emphasis on something that you don't even know works very well in all areas? Why not concentrate efforts on actions that do work, first and foremost instead of a blanket obsession with high viz, regardless of whether daylight, light streets, city centres or dark country lanes

I repeat.. *The only way they could do a study is if they send people down the same roads in the same conditions, wearing high-vis, black clothes or neutral clothes then calculate how many get hit.

By all means, volunteer to be part of that study if you wish.

It scares me how many drivers I see checking their phones!

Any cyclist or motorcyclist will be well aware of "sorry mate, didn't see you".

@FloBot7

I'll try that again..

*The only way they could do a study is if they send people down the same roads in the same conditions, wearing high-vis, black clothes or neutral clothes then calculate how many get hit.

Well, not exactly. There are lots of ways to avoid such an unethical trial design. Looking at accidents that have happened, working out who was wearing hi vis / reflective clothing and who wasn't, compared to levels of hi vis / non-hi vis use in the general population is one fairly blunt way. There's plenty of other ways to control for conditions and circumstances of incidents.

The cycling link upthread actually refers to a few studies which attempt to do that in various ways, and appear to show benefits for hi vis (and I say appear only because I haven't read the full papers - paywalls etc). The article itself isn't great as they try to use the limitations of hi vis in low light to undermine the study/findings, even though they had previously acknowledged that the study looked at hi vis with reflective strips, which is specifically designed to remedy that limitation.

Being able to see someone reduces the liklihood they will be hit. Because most drivers don't drive in a way where they are trying to hit someone.

Its not just about people not giving driving their full attention. Even giving your full attention is can be difficult to see people in low light in dark clothing. If you can see then easier, it helps avoid an accident.

As I said above, the man who was killed here wasn't ever seen due to the conditions and no lights or high vis. There was a full investigation to ascertain the fault of the driver. No one said 'ah well no hi vis, not the drivers fault' and left it at that.

I, personally, think anyone on the roads, who is found to not be paying attention should face harsher penalties. But that doesn't make hi vis pointless and nowhere do I ever see the emphasis put on people to wear hi vis.

Agreed that it's drivers responsibility BUT scarily, not all hi vis is created equal. We used to live down a very dark country road and sometimes you'd come upon a pedestrian, and you'd only see them when you were up very very close, and they'd be wearing hi vis. It used to really shake me (ps you'd be driving extremely slowly as there was a ditch either side).

I repeat.. The only way they could do a study is if they send people down the same roads in the same conditions, wearing high-vis, black clothes or neutral clothes then calculate how many get hit.*

The study I put up was how close the drivers got, as they measured the distances and under 1.5 meters is illegal. The findings were that the high viz jackets didn’t make any difference to close passes

But for you that’s not good enough, you want a study that hits people, for it to be valid and no other study is acceptable and believe the findings.

High viz isn’t a magic clock to keep people save & the obsession with putting the victim in high viz is distracting from tackling the real safety measures.

Nothing wrong with high viz having a place in safety measures but it needs to be put in a far lower place and other safety measures brought far higher

*But for you that’s not good enough, you want a study that hits people, for it to be valid and no other study is acceptable and believe the findings.

*Well now I'm confused. I said that because it sounded like you wouldn't be satisfied by anything other than definitive proof that one is better than the other. I also said a study like that would be unethical.

It’s drivers needing to pay attention as hiviz is just a stick to beat victims with if there not wearing it Aibu

👍

Because most drivers don't drive in a way where they are trying to hit someone.

But many drive in a way that hitting people is likely

On Friday I had a driver get way too close to me and he reacted by pulling sharply away, this was on the approach to tower bridge from the north, which is a sketchy junction anyway.

So we pull away from the lights and as we're crossing the bridge the idiot who nearly hit me already is driving about 12" off my back wheel, while we're doing approx 20mph across the bridge, eventually the driver decided they needed to overtake me, despite me doing the speed limit and only having about 1-2 car lengths between me and the vehicle in front, also moving at the same speed, they decided to pass where there's a traffic island 🤦

Some people are just shit drivers, they're the ones that kill people. I have lights on my bike, I have lights on my bag, which has a big reflective panel, the rear triangle on my bike is painted so that the whole section glows under direct light.

All of my collisions have been in daylight and I wear brightly coloured clothes, albeit not hi vis

Do you drive '@ivykaty44 ?

Any cyclist or motorcyclist will be well aware of "sorry mate, didn't see you".

👍

Last time someone said that to me was when they had just pulled away from the lights and straight into the back of me in broad daylight while I waited to cross a junction

Then they drove off while I was checking to see if my bike was alright

How can we try to prevent a driver only half concentrating whilst driving down a country lane at night?

Hopefully in the U.K., the newly amended Highway Code with its hierarchy of vulnerability may help a bit. And at least our driving tests do now include hazard perception tests. I don't know if they become more rigorous now , but after passing our driving tests when we lived in Pennsylvania we were horrified by how lax they were.

Of course, anyone driving on autopilot down a country lane at night is asking for trouble - none of the deer we've ever seen in the road have ever been wearing hi-viz.

But for pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders - simple truth is some drivers are idiots/under the influence. So wearing high viz and being very aware of potential bad drivers is always wise.

As a pedestrian/ runner, it costs me no disadvantage to wear clothing that optimises my visibility in poor conditions.
I can't control the attention that the road users around me have, but I can give myself the best chance of optimum reaction time to reduce the chance/ severity of an incident.

As a driver, I do my best to focus on the road. I don't look at my phone. I don't look at passengers. But I might focus on hazard 1 (e.g. bike on opposite side of road, vehicle overtaking, mind my road position) and have less reaction time for hazard 2 (runner crossing 50m ahead.) There are lots of things vying for our attention even when concentrating. Every metre of visibility that a person gives themselves helps. I have often been startled by the sudden movement of men (it is for some reason 90% of the time men) dressed entirely in black who simply can not be seen until the last moment because black does a bloody good impression of an invisibility cloak when in shadows, between streetlamps etc. Even on a bright day, low sunshine with glare (especially if surfaces are wet), black can be very difficult to see from the wrong angle.

Reflectives, hi-viz and well chosen colours are no guarentee of safety but they are a decent chance of protecting yourself and minimise the excuse that a distracted road user has for not seeing you.

The video clip is irrelevant to OPs argument. The driver was not paying any due care and attention, although any argument of "I didn't see you" is clearly a sign of their negligence when the person on the crossing was wearing a clear bold colour (although not at UK standards)