Study shows that colour of clothing makes no difference to night-time visibility

There was a study recently that suggested wearing or not wearing high viz clothing made no difference to drivers behavior towards cyclists. Is that the study you are looking for?

rab!dmonkey wrote: »

It probably does, anyway: I'm certain I saw some study making the rounds on the major cycling websites a few months ago which stated that bright clothing was no more visible at night than dark clothing. I'm having absolutely no luck trying to find it now, does anyone here remember seeing a study along those lines?

The closest I could find was this Australian study which demonstrated that the fluorescent aspect of hi-vis was of limited use. It seems to follow naturally that if the non-reflective element of so-called 'hi vis' is effectively useless, bright coloured clothing would indeed be completely useless, but it would be nice to have a study which states this directly.

This may or may not be true but during dull day time or in areas with tree cover, brighter colours help - without question.
So please don't go suggesting everyone wears black kit because although it's no less safe in the dark, it is DEFINITELY less safe.
Lights and reflective strips are all that matters in the "dark". We knew this as children, it's just in recent years hi-vis safety gear from eg building sites has been pushed upon pedestrians and cyclists like it is a help in the dark. It is not. It is a help in the bright!!!!

Rant over!!

That's the thing about the internet....look hard enough and you'll find a study that will prove anything.

monument wrote: »

Article covering a study from Bath and Brunel late last year; with fresh quotes from one of the authors and the Irish RSA...

http://irishcycle.com/2013/11/30/high-vis-on-cyclists-unlikely-to-stop-dangerous-overtaking/




After reading more and more of stories of cyclists "lit like Christmas trees" being passed closely etc, I started a thread on such on here and even more people came forward confirming this.

Any good scientist worth their salt would file your "simple science" as missing the point. The goal is not to be seen it's to be noticed and heeded.

Isn't this more to do with the fact that far more cyclists are wearing appropriate high-vis stuff now? To my eyes (disclaimer - anecdotal evidence), the vast majority of cyclists wear high vis stuff. That makes the likelihood of a high vis wearing cyclist being struck, as opposed to a non high-vis wearing cyclist, far higher.

I take the point above on background - if you blend in with it, you're fairly invisible. If you pass by a row of high vis wearing builders, wearing similar high vis, you may not be clearly seen. However, on a dark road, you just might. Just my 2c.

Ironlungs wrote: »

How come burglars don't wear high vis vests and white jeans then??? Black Ops should become High-Vis Ops!

Seriously, in my own view based on anectodal evidence collected by my good self, it is easier to see cyclists and pedestrians wearing bright, reflective colours (not talking about strips) at night when you are driving. It's simple science - black and dark colours absorb the light, bright colours reflect it back - increasing the chance of being detected by ones eyes. It goes against all reasoning to say that wearing bright colours wouldn't help with visibility.

Maybe they meant that a cyclist wearing bright colours at night wouldn't be able to see any better than a cyclist wearing black???

Very humorous, but true.

This discussion may belong here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057136508

There isn't a lot of evidence that hi-viz material makes people safer during daylight. I don't doubt that you are more conspicuous wearing fluorescent or "dayglo" materials, but you are also adequately visible without it. The likelihood of it making enough of an effect to turn up in a statistical study is probably low.

In times of poor visibility, it might well make a difference. Not sure it helps much more than having excellent lights though.

The Ian Walker study (which deserves the same caveats as his close pass/helmet study; the small number of participants) suggests that close passes are predominantly not down to drivers failing to see cyclists. I assume many people here find that plausible.

All pussies are black in the dark. Fact.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That's a dangerous assumption.

Because not all Hi-Viz includes reflective surfaces.

At night reflective surfaces would stand out better against a black background because of higher contrast. So Hi-Viz could even be worse at night.

Fair enough, but my assumption is that while the terms get used in various ways what is usually described as hi-viz includes both fluorescent material and reflective stripes. What you're describing as hi-viz to me is fluorescent or dayglo.

I do see a lot of fluorescent cycling tops that have only reflective dots or piping. I'm not sure whether these are advertised as "hi-viz".

Actually, looking up Wikipedia:

High-visibility (HV) clothing, a type of personal protective equipment (PPE), is any clothing worn that has highly reflective properties or a colour that is easily discernible from any background

So I guess hi-viz is a rather vague term that could mean dayglo+reflective, dayglo or just reflective.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

At night reflective surfaces would stand out better against a black background because of higher contrast. So Hi-Viz could even be worse at night.

The contrast between fluorescent material and reflective stripes is pretty good at night, because the fluorescent material isn't very bright at night anyway, due to it not fluorescing in the absence of u.v. radiation.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The whole point of this thread is that Hi-Viz works best when there is a lot of ambient light and retro-reflective surfaces work when the main light source is headlights. Chalk and cheese.

I've discerned fluorescent materials at dawn or dusk quite well. While they don't fluoresce all that strongly they still glow somewhat from the residual u.v., which makes them stand out quite well in the low light conditions. Of course, not as well as excellent lights would.

In practice, I think hi-viz, however you define it, isn't all that relevant to cycling safety (as Wikipedia summarises one study: "These results show a large safety effect in simulated or experimental conditions but little if any benefit of conspicuity aids use in observations of actual utility cyclists."). As such, it is promoted inappropriately in this country.

From experience, reflective piping works very very well, did a night time trail running event in the middle of nowhere a few years ago. My team mate was wearing all black running gear with a black running pack but in my head torch light it was like running behind a UFO.