There are two parts to that statement: “I have this safety vest on because I need it” and “I know I shouldn’t be out here”. The connection between these two thoughts — in motorists’ and bicyclists’ heads — is what this thread is all about, isn’t it?

Thinking about these statements in the context of motorcyclists who wear reflective gear, I have to think that those operators do in fact believe they need the enhanced visibility. I’m sympathetic to bicyclists who feel the same way and act on that feeling. I don’t believe that that most feel they “shouldn’t be out there”.

Many motorists don’t reliably “see” motorcyclists or bicyclists even when they look at them. I’m sure many of us have heard of “inattentional blindness” — here’s one of the best sites I’ve seen on the topic:

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html

John Ciccarelli

I don’t think that wearing “special” clothing will do that. The stranger one looks the one more is treated strangely.

It’s bad enough that motorists (and I include myself) expect that cyclists will ignore traffic control devices and act like children,
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/01/07/no-safety-in-these-numbers/
but to think it is better for all involved if they wear clothing normally reserved for pedestrians working around traffic, I think is wrong headed.

It doesn’t say “Bicycles are behicles, too.” It says, “I know I shouldn’t be out here, so I have this safety vest on because I need it.”

While making a run to Home Depot for a tool to fix a home repair “emergency,” I noticed a cyclist riding in the gutter in the far right westbound lane of Westheimer Road (an arterial with a posted speed limit of 40 m.p.h.).

The cyclist was dressed in dark clothing, wore no helmet, and I couldn’t see his reflectors. Yet, in the poor light, I could see him clearly (only because I was paying close attention to my surroundings because of the fog).

I watched a couple of vehicles pass him. They slowed, but they did not change lanes like vehicles usually do for me when I ride in that lane in the dark. Of course, I ride in the center of the lane (the left tire track puts me within 3 feet of most traffic in the next lane, so I won’t ride there).

Although he was visible, I think being conspicuous would have helped him more. In order of importance, I think he should have:
1. Ridden in the center of the lane to force drivers to pass in the next lane.
2. Had the headlight and rear reflector required by the Texas Transportation Code.
3. Taken whatever other steps he could afford to be more conspicuous.

While I agree that the bottom line for safety is competent operation of the bicycle and compliance with the law (whether we agree with it or not), I also think that, just like in my classroom, more “visual aids” added to our “presentations” will get the point across that bicycles are vehicles, too.

And, in high-heat-and-humidity cities like Houston and Orlando, we’re probably already wearing special clothes for cycling (because our co-workers would lynch us if we didn’t bring something dry and clean for the workplace). Why not make it obnoxiously bright (and, as needed, reflective) since we’re getting the special materials anyway?

Brian also made good points: …I say it’s OK to use a helmet or a vest, and here’s why: the majority of people will not cycle on our current roads, no matter what, and are not even thinking about it. Even if every single person who currently cycles were to get rid of her helmet and vest tomorrow, the message most people in the US would get would not be “cycling is safe,” but rather “those people are unsafe.” John C. makes a good point as well: …I suspect that if a motorist interprets your enhanced visibility choice as an indication that you’re serious about bike-as-transportation (and more likely to be competent), they’re more likely to view you as “just another driver” and do a proper pass.

On a high speed arterial road where cyclists aren’t expected, it can be of benefit (especially in low-light conditions) to wear bright colors. In the daytime, a motorist will see you in plenty of time to yield, even in dark colors. But I like them to see me so far ahead that they clear the lane behind me—that makes for a more pleasant experience than having a big lane-changing shuffle immediately behind me. Left-of-center lane position is more critical than clothing for this. My choice of attire for that purpose is a bright-colored shirt, not a safety vest. (I also like to wear bright colors in general, so it’s not a big shift in attire for me.)

I suspect that in most cases a safety vest is a Talisman. However, I don’t begrudge anyone the right to go through their own process with that, I certainly did.

As for reflective stuff, I’d be interested in a test to determine the distance at which retro-reflective is visible vs a good tail light.

To echo statements made by John Schubert, Mighk and a few others, advocates need be careful with the admonishments about bright clothing. Establishing a paradigm where a careless motorist can blame a cyclist simply for what he was wearing is a bad, bad thing.

All of this reminds me of Blaise Pascal’s “Wager” where he said the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. The same can be said for wearing clothes that make you visible to motorists. What have you got to lose by wearing clothing that makes you visible to other road users? Nothing, and you everything to gain. And for those who argue that wearing such clothing will slow down the progress to achieveing normalcy, I ask, are you willing to risk your life for that? Not me. I’m placing my money on being seen…I have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Joe Mizereck

Joe@3feetplease.com
joe@roadguardian.com

When we start portraying such safety items as very necessary at all times, we run the risk of the contributory negligence problem. While it may not be explicitly written in law that failure to wear brightly-colored clothing is contributory negligence, we might foresee a time when that might be the common belief, and juries might unfairly rule against cyclists in some cases for that reason.

(I also posted the above on the APBP list; the link to this entry was posted there.)

And I second Eddie’s comment. I wore my neon yellow jacket into the produce market some onths back and the owner said, “Man! Ray Charles could see you coming!” I’ll put that in the “Eccentrics have permission” column. ;^)

I own a safety vest, and several other yellow/green/reflective tops.

Much like my attitude towards VC, I don’t bother with the vest anymore. Time and time again, the reality of what creates close calls for me clashes directly with both the VC mantra and what one would otherwise think was common sense.

Trying to be seen is a losing game from my experience. Car drivers don’t see each other. Big cars with big bright lights smack into each other all the time. All the “visibility game” does is give you a false sense of confidence. The safest way for me is to always assume that you cannot be seen at all, and to act accordingly.

I think it says that motor vehicle drivers are not as careful, considerate or safety-minded as they should be.

Cutting the grass along the roadways should not be considered dangerous, yet those workers are wearing vests as well.

Yes, under normal conditions, I think this stuff says: “Yikes! Bicycling is scary and dangerous!”