High-Visibility Clothing - Provisional

High-Visibility Clothing - Provisional

Submitted by glen on 27 August, 2011 - 16:28
Policy Statement: 

Wearing high-visibility (e.g. fluorescent, reflective, bright-coloured) clothing when cycling may help other road users to perceive you (and sooner) and take appropriate actions. CAN encourages people to wear such clothing where appropriate when cycling, especially in low-visibility or busy road environments and believes that it may contribute to improved cycle safety.

However CAN is opposed to mandatory requirements for high-visibility clothing, due to:

  • an absence of unequivocal evidence that the use of high-visbility clothing (and more specifically, its mandatory requirement) improves road safety;
  • the likely negative effect it would have on encouraging cycling for everyday trips;
  • difficulties in enforcing such a law.

Other factors are more important influences on cycling safety, such as road design, traffic speeds, cycle positioning on the road, lighting and awareness of other road users.

CAN believes that these factors should have a higher priority than requiring high-visibility clothing, because they are more likely to be effective.

Policy Priority: 
A - High
Release Date: 
Thu, 07/18/2013

 

Background:

Wearing high-visibility (e.g. fluorescent, reflective, bright-coloured) clothing when cycling may help other road users to perceive you (and sooner) and take appropriate actions. CAN encourages people to wear such clothing where appropriate when cycling, especially in low-visibility or busy road environments and believes that it may contribute to improved cycle safety.

However CAN is opposed to mandatory requirements for high-visibility ("hi-vis") clothing, for a variety of reasons:

  • There is inconclusive research evidence with regards to the effect on crash risk of wearing hi-vis clothing (see below). There is evidence that suggests that the movement of a cyclist relative to another road user is more relevant to their detection than what they are wearing.
  • More specifically, there is no evidence worldwide with regards to the efficacy of a mandatory hi-vis clothing law for people cycling.
  • Requiring hi-vis garments when cycling would imply that cycling is a "special" activity requiring special equipment, rather than just an ordinary everyday activity, like walking.
  • People would be less likely to choose to cycle for everyday trips, because of the extra inconvenience of wearing a hi-vis garment, and concern about its effect on their personal clothing style. This would have significant adverse impacts on the general health of our population.
  • Cycling would be perceived as a riskier activity than it actually is, because of the requirement to wear more "safety equipment", regardless of the cycling environment. The relative risk of someone cycling on (say) a high-speed road at night-time is quite different to the risk of cycling on a low-speed local street during the day; yet the law would apply in all cases. Again, this would have an effect on the take-up of cycling.
  • Enforcement of such a law requires a definition of what constitutes hi-vis clothing (e.g. does a yellow or white top count? Does it need fluoro or reflective elements? How big must the hi-vis components be? Does it differ for day or night?) and this is open to mis-interpretation and abuse. It also requires a determination of where the mandatory law would apply (e.g. On road carriageways only? Adjacent paths? Pathways away from roads?), which may cause difficulties practically speaking if someone is riding on a mix of facilities.
  • The visibility of cyclists in low-visibility situations (e.g. night, fog, twilight) is already covered by the legal requirement to have good lights and reflectors on your bike in these situations. Having other additional cycle visibility aids, such as reflectorised tyres and spoke reflectors, may be more effective to improve the visibility of people cycling, especially from side-on.
  • Such a law would place the onus on those who are usually the victims in crashes, rather than requiring other road users (e.g. people driving) to take more responsibility and care when travelling.
  • In a cycle crash, the wearing or otherwise of hi-vis would become an immediate factor identified by other road users, the Police and media, with the potential for it to be seen as "the reason" why the crash occurred, irrespective of other circumstances. This has implications both in terms of Police charges and insurance.
  • High-visibility gear would need to be widely available in a variety of sizes and styles/seasons at a reasonable price for all people in New Zealand wishing to cycle.
  • Many people in New Zealand only occasionally cycle (e.g. less than once a month); yet they would still be required to have available a hi-vis garment should they have an unexpected opportunity to cycle somewhere. Similar obligations would be required by tourists to New Zealand. In practice, it is likely there would be widespread disobedience of such a law in New Zealand, especially for short local trips.

It is accepted that wearing hi-vis garments is a requirement of many work places (e.g. roadworks, construction, postal delivery, shopping carparks). However that is a Health & Safety condition of employment, for the protection of both employers and employees, which is quite different to private activities often undertaken in the same locations (e.g. pedestrian crossing a road, customer walking across a carpark).

It is important to also recognise the differences between fluorescent clothing (which shows up well under UV light like sunlight) and reflective clothing (which shows up well under reflected lights such as headlights and street-lights). Thus, hi-vis garments appropriate for daytime riding may not be appropriate for night-time riding (and vice versa). The picture is further complicated by other brightly-coloured clothing that may not meet either requirement yet still be quite conspicuous.

A recent review of cycling fatalities in NZ between 2006-2012 (Koorey 2013) found that (of those where clothing colour was recorded) more than half were already wearing bright-coloured or reflective clothing; clearly this did not guarantee a safer outcome. The majority of drivers had not noticed the cyclist prior to the crash, even when they were wearing reflective or bright colours. In fact the proportion of drivers not noticing a cyclist prior to a crash was no different regardless of whether they were wearing high-visibility ("hi-vis") clothing or not.

There is some research about the safety effects of wearing hi-vis gear, but the results are generally inconclusive:

  • Kwan & Mapstone (2009) reviewed studies investigating the effect of pedestrian and cyclist visibility aids on detection and recognition responses by observers. The 42 studies reviewed generally found improvements to detection distance or recognition time with the use of stronger visibility aids, including fluorescent and retro-reflective clothing. Interestingly, no studies were found that related visibility aids to actual pedestrian/cyclist crash risk.
  • An Australian study (Wood et al 2009) found that fluorescent vests were not a significant improvement on black clothing at night, and that retro-reflective strips were more effective when attached to knees and ankles than on a more-or-less static jacket.
  • Wood et al (2010) highlighted the problem of "looked but did not see" crashes, where the driver of the vehicle failed to detect the cyclist in time to prevent the crash, even though they reported that they correctly looked in the direction of the cyclist (a similar effect has also been found for motorcyclist crashes). This could suggest shortcomings in driver attention processes, or an expectancy effect (i.e. only scanning for cars). It was not clear whether cyclists wearing hi-vis clothing would reduce these crashes, but drivers and cyclists surveyed generally believed it would help (e.g. 95% of drivers and 72% of cyclists agreed that cyclists should wear reflective clothing in low lighting environments).
  • In a study of the habits of 2500 adult Queenslanders who cycle (Washington et al 2011), it was found that "never wearing bright coloured clothing" correlated with increased crash risk; however the use of fluorescent and reflective clothing had no effect.
  • Thornley et al (2008) found that cyclists who "always" wore fluourescent clothing had an eightfold reduction in crash risk (in terms of days off work) than those who "never" wore it. However, the authors acknowledged the methodological problems with their study, being based on a self-selected sample of those training for the Lake Taupo Cycle Race.

Other factors are considered more important influences on cycling safety, such as:

  • good road design and provision for cycling
  • lower traffic speeds
  • cycle positioning on the road and training of good cycle riding behaviours
  • lighting of the street environment at night
  • good lighting and reflectors on bicycles when cycling in dark/low-visibility conditions
  • vigilance and awareness of other road users at all times when on the road

CAN believes that:

  • Wearing high-visibility (e.g. fluorescent, reflective) clothing when cycling may contribute to improved cycle safety, but the evidence is not conclusive.
  • Wearing high-visibility clothing when cycling should be encouraged where appropriate but not made mandatory.
  • Other cycling safety factors should have a higher priority than requiring high-visibility clothing, because they are more likely to be effective.

References:

Groups audience: 
Technical/Policy Portfolio
CAN Forum
- Private group -

Comments

Submitted by adrian on 29 August, 2011 - 08:45
  • Didn't Glen's recent analysis of cycle crashes indicate that most people who were killed were wearing hi-vis anyway?
  • Perhaps we should also point out other ways you can improve your safety besides hi-vis, which are probably more effective- e.g. doing cycle skills training if you need it, or at least knowing a few basics like where to position yourself on the road.  Also that 'safety in numbers' indicates one of the best things you can do to improve cycle safety is to ride your bike.

Submitted by stephenw on 3 September, 2011 - 08:03

I don't think Glen's released his accident analysis yet, but he  did mention that  several cyclists who were wearing high-vis were killed or injured. The definitive statistic would be whether the crash, injury,death rates for  cyclists wearing hi-vis clothing are noticeably   better/lower   than the rates for all cyclists or those that were not wearing high vis. I know there  would be difficulties with small sample numbers and perhaps with data gathering, but if we could determine statistically whether high-vis has been or is effective then our policy would look a lot stronger.

 

 

 

Submitted by stephenw on 4 September, 2011 - 07:18

OK, thanks for adding the Thornley reference, Glen.  it looks like there is an effect in reduced crash/injury rate for cyclists wearing hi-vis in that study, along with reductions for faster riding speeds and higher body mass index! The authors do discuss the limitations of the study design.

It's still jump from it being a good idea to wear hi-vis to making it compulsory, and that what the policy is trying to address.

Submitted by weisshb on 3 September, 2011 - 16:37

You did well with a difficult situation. The only thing you might add is to leave the policy open to change if better evidence comes out. There is no random (blinded is obviously impossible) trial I know of but that doesn't mean that evidence might not appear sometime in the future.

The occasional cycler and tourist is a weak argument in my opinion and should be dropped. Would we say it's OK for the "occasional" motorcycle rider to ride without a helmet? If it is a risk (and I am not arguing that, I agree we don't know enough) it shouldn't matter, especially if much of the biking miles are done by occasional cyclists.

The argument that the NZ Police already have a considerable workload is also weak and full of political connation about other laws of dubious merit. It seems more like a political statements then a strong rationale. Again, I suggest letting it  stand on the other arguments that we don't know enough about its efficacy. Until such time we do, I don't think we need to look into much detail at implementation issues.

Submitted by stephenw on 4 September, 2011 - 07:37

I think these are good points, removing the arguments you've identified here will make the policy look stronger and more consistent.

Submitted by binsull on 4 September, 2011 - 09:22

I ride my bike for transport in Auckland everyday.

I make a conscious choice to wear clothing that will make motorists see me.

Smartly dressed (usually going to business meetings), high heels (because I prefer them), short skirt for convenience and bright colours- scarlett red is my favourite. I make myself as bright and distinctive on the road as I can. I also sit upright and make eye contact with drivers and use gestures and smiles of acknowledgement.

Everyday cyclists using their bikes for transport will dress for their destination - we encourage them to wear brighter colours to enhance visibility.

The onus must be on all road users to LOOK for  other road users and anticipate hazards. The defence "I didn't see the cyclist/car should not be an excuse or defence.

 

I endorse Waiheke's code of conduct for road users on Wiaheke.

Submitted by kbarr on 4 September, 2011 - 13:06

Glen you've done a great job on this, it's really comprehensive ... but you always are...

I felt the last two bullet points and the first two paragraphs (in the section after the bullet points) were really salient points, and wondered if these could be higher up on the list of reasons ?

I agree with Adrian's comments.  I can see how making hi viz mandatory would counter the idea of there being safety in numbers... What we don't need is another barrier to cycling, if cycling is going to be perceived as a transport option, then we need to continue working on removing the barriers not creating more.  And obviously there is not sufficient causal link between not wearing hi viz and crash stats.  Whether people think riding without hi viz is right or wrong, it won't change the fact that people will choose not to cycle because there is a law that makes it harder for them to make impromptu choices. 

I'm also wondering if hi viz is made mandatory what would this mean for recreational cyclists who use paths instead of roads?  (ie don't encounter traffic), they may still be required to wear hi viz.  This is where your analogy with pedestrians works really well, as it could be argued that pedestrians who are more vulnerable need to wear hi viz in order to protect themselves. Same analogy applies for pedestrians generally too of course and you've already covered that and it's clearly impractical and perhaps irrelevant. 

People who use hi viz know that the efficacy of the material can fade quickly under UV light.  The brightness of the hi viz is another confusion as to whether a garment would be compliant, and presents another barrier - the cost in keeping cyclists wardrobes updated!

Having it mandatory endorses the view that cycling is inherently unsafe and not a convenient way to get about. If health benefits far outweigh the risks, and there is safety in numbers (both of these statements I think can be referenced) then it will only serve to show a decrease in cycling numbers.  Am I right in thinking that there was a similar downturn in teenage riders when the helmet law came in?  I don't want to muddy the waters here, but wondered if other laws could be linked to usage numbers...

Thanks for all the work you've done Glen.

Submitted by Patrick on 17 October, 2011 - 17:36

I support Kirsty's comments.
Let's not add another barrier to mass cycling.
I'd hesitate to even encouage high-vis without strong evidence of a safety benefit at a population level.

A high-viz requirement would make it harder for public bike schemes to work.

My recent ramblings in places with mass cycling indicate that high-vis is not a priority in these places.

I recall that high vis may be mandatory for motorists in the UK, in the event that they have to leave the vehicle at a breakdown or crash.

A discussion at http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=52130&start=120 is pertinent.

Patrick

Submitted by glen on 11 December, 2011 - 18:04

I've updated the first draft of this Policy, based on the feedback so far and your comments - thanks. Let me know what you think and then we can roll this out for public CAN consultation.

Submitted by DavidHawke on 11 December, 2011 - 21:25

I think that the absence of evidence that hiv-vis clothing actually works needs to be highlighted. I've put my suggested change in capitals


thanks

David H

Policy Statement: 

Wearing high-visibility (e.g. fluorescent, reflective, bright-coloured) clothing when cycling may help other road users to perceive you (and sooner) and take appropriate actions. CAN encourages people to wear such clothing where appropriate when cycling, especially in low-visibility or busy road environments and believes that it may contribute to improved cycle safety.

However CAN is opposed to mandatory requirements for high-visibility clothing, FOR THREE REASONS:

1. AN ABSENCE OF UNEQUIVOCAL EVIDENCE THAT USE OF HI-VIS CLOTHING IMPROVES ROAD SAFETY

2. [DELETEdue to] the LIKELY NEGATIVE effect [DELETE it would have] on [DELETE encouraging anyone to cycle] CYCLING for everyday trips,

3. [DELETE as well as] difficulties in enforcing such a law.

Other factors are more important influences on cycling safety, such as road design, traffic speeds, cycle positioning on the road, lighting and awareness of other road users. CAN BELIEVES THAT THESE FACTORS SHOULD HAVE A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN REQUIRING HI-VIS CLOTHING, BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE EFFECTIVE.

Submitted by Patrick on 12 December, 2011 - 11:45

1. I'd move this to the top of the list:

There is inconclusive research evidence with regards to the effect on crash risk of wearing hi-vis clothing (see below). There is evidence that suggests that the movement of a cyclist relative to another road user is more relevant to their detection than what they are wearing.

2. Note: A Wellington teenager who has twice been hit by a car while biking to school in high-visibility clothing says the gear does little to keep cyclists safe. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5344064/Cyclist-queries-worth-of-high-vi...

3. This study suggests the current ankle or pedal relectors are more effective: A 2009 Australian study found that fluorescent vests were not a significant improvement on black clothing at night, and that retro-reflective strips were more effective when attached to knees and ankles than on a more or less static jacket.[4] Reference: Wood, J.M. et al. 2009. Drivers' and cyclists' experiences of sharing the road: Incidents, attitudes and perceptions of visibility. Accident Analysis & Prevention 41: 772-776. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.014.

4. CTC's discussion thread: http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55948

5. We risk a 'cry wolf' effect. When every road worker, postie, school patrol and cyclist wears high vis, its warning effect is diluted and less effective. We also face risk compensation, where the wearer of high vis feels safer and subconsciously is slightly less careful.

Submitted by Graeme on 18 July, 2013 - 08:40

The CAN committee at its meeting of the 9th July 2013 approved this policy as it is now to be a final CAN Policy.  I will now prepare a clean version of this and archive off this policy developement series.  Also a PDF version of the policy will be prepared and attached to the new version.