"Be Bright - Wear White" vs' "Fight Back - Wear Black"
 

In a previous post (What does it all mean?), JLB wrote:

A couple of decades ago in Bristol (perhaps elsewhere also) cyclists
were officially advised "Be Bright - Wear White". More than a few of us
responded "Fight Back - Wear Black". This inoculated us against any
dangerous delusion that we were visible and therefore somehow safe from
motor vehicles.

I am intrigued by this as I cycle a lot in the dark and despite being lit up
"like the outside of a council house at christmas", I have a near-miss
incident on practically every ride.

Although I'm under no delusions that I'm safe from motor vehicles, do people
believe that the number of near misses would reduce and my overall safety
increase if I switch on the stealth instead of my lights?

On 22/11/04 1:20 pm, in article , "Drinky"
wrote:

In a previous post (What does it all mean?), JLB wrote:

A couple of decades ago in Bristol (perhaps elsewhere also) cyclists
were officially advised "Be Bright - Wear White". More than a few of us
responded "Fight Back - Wear Black". This inoculated us against any
dangerous delusion that we were visible and therefore somehow safe from
motor vehicles.

I am intrigued by this as I cycle a lot in the dark and despite being lit up
"like the outside of a council house at christmas", I have a near-miss
incident on practically every ride.

Although I'm under no delusions that I'm safe from motor vehicles, do people
believe that the number of near misses would reduce and my overall safety
increase if I switch on the stealth instead of my lights?

It isn't so much teh number of the lights as the overall impression of your
place on the road.

Ever wondered why a car will scrape past a wobbling cyclist with inches to
spare, then leave 6ft clearance to pass a pretty much immobile and unlikely
to jump out or fall over skip? If so, then you need to read up on the theory
of BIG.

http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/big.html

...d

Drinky wrote:

I am intrigued by this as I cycle a lot in the dark and despite being lit up
"like the outside of a council house at christmas", I have a near-miss
incident on practically every ride.

Although I'm under no delusions that I'm safe from motor vehicles, do people
believe that the number of near misses would reduce and my overall safety
increase if I switch on the stealth instead of my lights?

In practice I think it's quite likely that your road positioning will
have far more to do with this sort of thing than the lighting. Most
perceived close shaves IME are caused by overtaking very close, and this
in turn is caused by the cyclist riding close enough to the kerb that
the driver can squeeze by without crossing the centre line, so that's
just what they do.

If you're well out from the kerb you force other vehicles to overtake
you properly, as the Highway Code says they should. Where they've got
to take account of what's coming the other way anyway IME most drivers
do do a good job and use the extra room the other side of the road gives
them when they have to use at least some of it.

So I'd start by trying to ride a bit further out, assuming you're not
doing that already. See "Cyclecraft" for more on positioning.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Drinky" wrote in message
...
In a previous post (What does it all mean?), JLB wrote:

A couple of decades ago in Bristol (perhaps elsewhere also) cyclists
were officially advised "Be Bright - Wear White". More than a few of us
responded "Fight Back - Wear Black". This inoculated us against any
dangerous delusion that we were visible and therefore somehow safe from
motor vehicles.

I am intrigued by this as I cycle a lot in the dark and despite being lit
up
"like the outside of a council house at christmas", I have a near-miss
incident on practically every ride.

Although I'm under no delusions that I'm safe from motor vehicles, do
people
believe that the number of near misses would reduce and my overall safety
increase if I switch on the stealth instead of my lights?


Arguably, if all cyclists went for stealth mode motorists would get used to
it and be more careful.

Certainly, if you and you alone went for the stealth look, you would find
your rides became more "interesting".

Drinky wrote:
In a previous post (What does it all mean?), JLB wrote:


A couple of decades ago in Bristol (perhaps elsewhere also) cyclists
were officially advised "Be Bright - Wear White". More than a few of us
responded "Fight Back - Wear Black". This inoculated us against any
dangerous delusion that we were visible and therefore somehow safe from
motor vehicles.


I am intrigued by this as I cycle a lot in the dark and despite being lit up
"like the outside of a council house at christmas", I have a near-miss
incident on practically every ride.

Although I'm under no delusions that I'm safe from motor vehicles, do people
believe that the number of near misses would reduce and my overall safety
increase if I switch on the stealth instead of my lights?

I think there are two ideas behind the slogan. One is that by wearing
black you yourself are under no illusions about your own visibility. You
therefore do not cycle with the assumption you will be seen, you assume
you will not and you cycle accordingly. The second is that if we all
wore black then motorists would have to *look* for cyclists rather than
just seeing those that are lit up. I'm happy for Bristol to test these
theories.

Colin

Drinky wrote:
Although I'm under no delusions that I'm safe from motor vehicles, do people
believe that the number of near misses would reduce and my overall safety
increase if I switch on the stealth instead of my lights?

There's a black (sic) joke in the old motorists' complaint that "I saw
loads of unlit cyclists dressed in black last night, are they trying to
kill themselves?"

There were some studies done [1] that suggested that given a standard
legal lighting setup, vehicles overtook and left most room if you were
wearing a full retroreflective yellow/orange jacket, less room if just a
waistcoat or Sam Browne belt, and least room with nothing
reflective/bright. (And some unofficial studies have suggested that
cars give you most room of all if you look like a policeman. :-)

If your near misses aren't overtaking but pulling out into your path,
then much brighter (than legal minimum) front lights seem to do the
trick, but road positioning is also important - don't hog the gutter,
position yourself in the middle of the lane and you'll be where drivers
are looking.

The other problem with dressing in black is that if you do have a crash,
the other guy's insurance is likely to try to use that against you and
apportion some blame your way for not being lit up like a Christmas tree.

Personally, I think it depends on your route, your riding style and your
preferences. If you ride on well-lit and reasonably quiet suburban back
streets, where drivers are generally (ha!) more sedate and have more
time to think about their driving, you can probably get away with
minimum (but legal) lighting if you don't hog the gutter. Conversely if
I cycled in the back of beyond on unlit country roads, or did the Swiss
Cottage Rotary in the rush hour, I'd prefer to be lit up (and
retroreflectived up) to the eyeballs.

R.

[1] References not to hand, but something DETR-ish.

If only it were true that reps were the only problem !!

Regards
SW (a rep)


"David Martin" wrote in message
...
On 22/11/04 1:20 pm, in article ,
"Drinky"
wrote:

In a previous post (What does it all mean?), JLB wrote:

A couple of decades ago in Bristol (perhaps elsewhere also) cyclists
were officially advised "Be Bright - Wear White". More than a few of us
responded "Fight Back - Wear Black". This inoculated us against any
dangerous delusion that we were visible and therefore somehow safe from
motor vehicles.

I am intrigued by this as I cycle a lot in the dark and despite being
lit up
"like the outside of a council house at christmas", I have a near-miss
incident on practically every ride.

Although I'm under no delusions that I'm safe from motor vehicles, do
people
believe that the number of near misses would reduce and my overall
safety
increase if I switch on the stealth instead of my lights?

It isn't so much teh number of the lights as the overall impression of
your
place on the road.

Ever wondered why a car will scrape past a wobbling cyclist with inches to
spare, then leave 6ft clearance to pass a pretty much immobile and
unlikely
to jump out or fall over skip? If so, then you need to read up on the
theory
of BIG.

http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/big.html

..d

Hello,

My limited experience of night riding has been on unlit lanes and as
such I bought lights to see with as well as being seen.

I don't think stealth mode is for me, I want to get to B without stop
starting. I misjudged how bright the head lamp needed to be the first
night and had to creep home because I couldn't see the potholes, didn't
like that at all.

I have since rectified this and now have two cateye somethings which
give me the confidence to hammer along at almost normal speeds. Cars
seem a bit hesitant when coming towards me, I may be dazzling them, but
on the whole I feel fairly safe with all the flashing LEDs and stuff.

Except for the halfwit pedestrians out walking their dogs or just
wandering around in the dark. Shine a torch on a black coat against a
hedge and you probably won't see anything. My biggest worry now is
hitting one of these muppets or even worse the lunatics with dogs on
20ft leads on opposite sides of the road. One tends to swear alot when
riding (I don't know why) & now I'm finding myself apologising to these
idiots for my language and then thinking I should berate them for their
stupidity.

It'll be fisticuffs I tell you!


--
Fat Lad

I know this "road positioning" thing is the perceived wisdom, and for
cyclists who travel at speed it may well be true, but as I spend most
of my time at 12mph, I'm not so sure it's a good idea. On the few
occasions I have tried it, it generally results in lots of aggressive
revving of engines from the following traffic, horn blowing, and
suicidal overtaking, plus occasional deliberate attempts to run me off
the road.

Now TBH I can understand why a driver who has a reasonable expectation
of travelling at 25 - 35 mph gets mighty annoyed to be held back to
8mph by a vehicle less than two feet wide riding in the middle of a 10
foot wide roadway, especially when there's nothing else ahead. Most of
the time I keep well in to the left and ensure I'm not holding up the
traffic. There are places where I can "command the lane" without
hassle, but they tend to be approaches to splitting junctions in
bus-only areas where the bus drivers seem to accept that I have a right
to be there (possibly aided by the big white bike painted on the
road!). It has to be said that overall Leeds bus drivers, both First
and Arriva, are courteous where cyclists are concerned, at least IME.

Pyromancer wrote:
I know this "road positioning" thing is the perceived wisdom, and for
cyclists who travel at speed it may well be true, but as I spend most
of my time at 12mph, I'm not so sure it's a good idea. On the few
occasions I have tried it, it generally results in lots of aggressive
revving of engines from the following traffic, horn blowing, and
suicidal overtaking, plus occasional deliberate attempts to run me off
the road.

I am a trundlie and mainly doing utility cycling, I'm not that fast,
especially not headed into the prevailing wind on the freight bike with
10+ Kg of shopping in the back.

There's position and there's position. If you're right in the middle of
the road you will be perceived as taking it all up, which a driver will
see as Being Wrong. But if you're far enough out from the kerb to
require Use Of Brain in overtaking then that's enough, and it doesn't
look like you're trying to deny a driver space (stupid concept, but it's
perception we're on about) so there's less aggro potential. If you try
and sit at about the typical left tyre track of most of the car traffic
(i.e., far enough out that the driver /has/ to manoeuvre to pass you)
then IME that works pretty well, at least around here.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/