There is a widely held misconception that hi-vis helps you to be seen in the dark (or darker light). In low light conditions and after lighting up time (when other vehicles have their lights on) you need retroreflective clothing or panels to reflect the light back at the driver. Of course, a hi-vis with retroreflective bands (like the one you wear) is the best of both worlds.
I actually don't bother with the hi-vis. I have reflectors (including a full set of spoke reflectors, a pair of "slap wrap" wristbands which help to emphasise any hand signals, and a velcro one tied to the frame just behind the head tube) and a good dynamo-powered head and tail light. I'm presently using the same dynohub that originally powered a very feeble halogen headlamp, which I used to have to supplement with a head-mounted lamp on dark nights. The newer LED-based headlight lights up the whole road. I've just ordered a new front wheel built around a new dynohub. The old one, which must have seen at least 17 years of service now, has noticeably increased its resistance over the past few rides - a sure sign that the bearings are shot. It's easier to replace the whole wheel (that is, the hub, spokes, and rim) than to buy a new hub and spokes, then try to reuse the old rim by rebuilding the wheel myself. It's not even a very good rim. I can quite easily transfer the existing tyre, tube, reflectors, speedometer magnet, and of course the headlight connection to the new wheel.
@stevegoodfellow3423 You are of course correct. The 'Hi-Vis' jacket specification actually refers to the reflective parts, not the colour itself. I was taught this on a H&S course. However, a 'reflective' jacket is commonly referred to as 'hi-viz' In daylight, the reflective parts are not as effective, hence the jacket is also made of a bright, eye catching colour. New bikes come fitted with front & rear reflectors. I think it maybe law that they also have to have reflectors on the pedals. All seem a very good idea. Alas the bikey is stupid & arrogant. I saw one post on a bikey group, from a guy proudly showing his new race bike. there was a pile on from the entitled all saying to remove the reflectors so he does not look like a noob. Just found this:- Legally, you MUST have a red reflector to the rear of the cycle and amber reflectors fitted to the front and back of both pedals (unless your bicycle was manufactured before 1985 when do not need pedal reflectors).
@@Kromaatikse the term 'hi-viz' is a blanket term covering both a bright colour and the use of reflective material. Thus the same jacket can be used day or night. The UK Health & Safety specification for these jackets actually only refers to the reflective parts of the jacket. The rest could be all black & comply. Source - My H&S course. I remember the old 'Ever-Ready' bike lights and having to take part of them off, to avoid theft and the problem of replacing the batteries, spending precious pocket money. Times have moved on, LED lights with LiPO batteries are so cheap and can easily be a birthday/Christmas present for a child (or parents just buy them anyway). They clip[ out & can easily be recharged at school or at work. There is no excuse for any bikey not to be riding with lights fitted (a malfunction, may be acceptable mitigation, same as a car, ifa bulb blows, - but get it fixed!) Police should set up road-blocks (start with Croydon, by the junk food shops) and every bike rider found to have no lights fitted should have their bike crushed.
I tend to refer to my hi-vis jacket with reflective bands as my jacket of invisibility. Do not assume that you have been seen. It can be difficult for a cyclist to fully appreciate how difficult it can be for drivers to see cyclists and pedestrians in half light/dusk when they are sitting lower than you with a barrage of oncoming headlights. Good advice throughout your video, thank you.
I agree with almost everything you said, I agree that you can't be diving in and out all the time and it is a fact that some motorists do not understand the reasons for primary/secondary positioning and some even respond aggressively with the horn, shouting abuse, close punishment pass or tailgating, some get triggered just because we are on the road. All of this can be very intimidating and probably is the reason that some cyclists only ride in secondary all the time, I really don't think many do it to entrap motorists.
As with most of these modal disputes (what do we call them?), it is the provocative minority who provide the moral ammunition to those who want to make something of it. That leads to the easily-influenced seeing all transgressions as deliberate. I'm sure there's a simpler way to say that, but I've woken up wordy today.
@@PedroConejo1939 Indeed, and often the "easily-influenced" grasp and focus upon only the evidence that supports their particular belief or point of view, with little to no consideration of the evidence as a whole or the sample size. We see this in all areas of society - politics, religion, health and it's especially fuelled by the uncontrolled nature of social media.
Those that try to entrap are socipaths. Just like those people that twist your words and then hold you to their interpretation of what you didnt say. Its about 2.5%
Last week I had a driver as you describe behind me. She was apoplectic because I decided to wait and drive behind a cyclist. The road was narrow, there were oncoming cars, it was a road bike already doing over 20mph and there was traffic up ahead. Literally no point in overtaking. Some seem to think that a cyclist is just an obstruction to drive around rather than another road user that should only be overtaken if it’s safe and necessary.
This is why I like two tone high vis jackets, the type with a yellow top and blue bottom, because the yellow works great in the low light, and the dark sections work great when you are riding between drivers and the sunset.
Sometimes I use an orange jacket with yellow gloves and headband. also have reflective yellow tape on the back of the trunkbag and a yellow reflective strip on the rear mudguard.
When I cycled, the scenario at around 12:03 I used to leave just over a vehicle length to the car in front and put my thumb up to the driver behind to say they could come passed when safe and go ahead. I wasn't the quickest on the bike and sometimes it just felt like the right thing to do, especially if the road was opening up to a 40mph after the lights. Most of the time the gesture was appreciated but not taken but it showed awareness of those behind that could be going quicker
Cyclists signalling to drivers that it is safe to overtake can be like drivers flashing their lights to give right of way to other vehicles: a menace. It's usually intended in a nice spirit of co-operation, but can have dire consequences. I've had cyclists wave me past when I'm driving but in my opinion it's not safe for an overtake as my view up the road is not clear enough and I'm not going to blindly take anyone else's advice on when to pass. The cyclists can then get annoyed that their "helpful" gesture is ignored, and they wave more frantically which causes them to wobble and increase danger. Signal if you want, but remember it's always the following driver's responsibility and decision about when and where to pass safely.
@ Agreed that those who keep waving drivers passed and get annoyed when drivers don’t are similar to drivers who keep flashing lights at others to go when it isn’t clear. I refuse to pass cyclists unless I am 100% happy to pass even if the cyclist says it is OK to The scenario I was referring to above was when reaching a stationary queue amd a vehicle is behind. I would _offer_ the space in front but only ever wxpect a drivet to take it when safe. The offer was made with a thumbs up gesture rather than an arm wave through signalling “I am happy when you are” rather than “Move in front now”. I beleive that the way we communicate with each other on the road plays a big part into how passes are performed and drivers ability to wait. There are always exceptions as shown with the van in this clip and a few on social media this month. Hopefully soon those exceptions become far fewer
For me the most challenging light conditions is the low level sun, a full sun sitting just above the horizon, either you are being blinded by it or the oncoming traffic is. Thankfully it is usually a short window this happens, but if you're in that window it sucks big time. Because either you're not seeing or you're not being seen. This is one of the many reasons i wear a cycling cap under my helmet, it acts as a sun visor in bright conditions, even with sunglasses on, direct sunlight into your eyes is not good, the best way is to shield your eyes from the sun, which is why cars have sun visors for the driver to block direct sunlight into their eyes and cycling cap is the bike version. Even if a helmet has a built-in peak, the cap is better as it sits just above the eyes so can be pulled a fair bit down to block the low sun, a helmet peak sits too high to help block a low sun.
Excellent take as ever. I support this 100%. I do find it so so tiring to have to mitigate the conduct of drivers on *every* *single* ride. I have changed my attitude regarding primary from watching your videos.
⚠Always wear eye protection when cycling. I got bacterial conjunctivitis during the summer because I had to remove my dark sunglasses in low light and got flies in my eyes. Stone chips could cause irreversible damage to your eyes, so always wear protection. 👀
Got some after riding under some trees on a busy shared cycle path and getting flies in both eyes 😬. Also really good for avoiding dry eyes or watery eyes when it's windy too.
A really good 200lm+ flashing light at the rear makes a massive difference in daylight/halflight conditions my opinion. The sooner you are visible the more thinking time people have and less likely to make impulsive decisions. Same at the front but something brighter to stand out from car DRLs.
This is an excellent educational video for vehicle users, as I bet many don’t know or understand the primary and secondary positions, or why a cyclist may move around so much. Ashley, we need the government to introduce public information videos on road safety, road user education and road politness. Do you know who would get my vote to narrate them 😊
Pedals with reflectors are also very effective at night, they immediately identify you as a cyclist in the headlights of an approaching motorist. Hi Vis really comes into it's own when vehicles have their lights turned on, at other times in poor light you need lights and bright colours.
Pedal reflectors are also a MUST in the highway code for bikes made since the 80s. I didn't know that and assumed my expensive (for me) flat pedals would be road legal. I have now stuck some reflective tape on them.
One thing I've found that seems to encourage safe passes by drivers is an obvious helmet camera. Now you can't get much more obvious you're wearing a helmet camera than a 'Jeremy Vine' style 360 jobbie poking out the top of yer noggin. I did try it for a while, but it was impractical for me. The weight was uncomfortable on the road bike and I don't wear a helmet on the town bike. Plus I'm not sure about the safety of it in the event of a crash. I think you'd be far safer with no helmet, than a helmet with a camera mounted on top.
Excellent Many people, and not just cyclists, don’t have a clue. I know people, 1 especially, who when driving her 24y old car…doesn’t use any lights until long after they should be switched on. When I questioned her on this, she said (thru gritted teeth)….”it’s still daylight”. When I said, but look, all those cars have side lights or headlights on…..before you leave, turn them on. She repeated “it’s still daylight” and added “it will run the battery down and I can’t afford a new battery”. Back in ye oldie days, at school we were instructed to use front & back lights on motorbikes and bicycles all the time…even in perfect conditions, in order to make yourself stand out more. Dusk is a light I really don’t like…I prefer driving in the dark. Yesterday I was walking up the town road, rush hour….school run. Cars everywhere.. 2 cyclists. One with lights doing everything correctly. The other, where is the other? there > dropping off the footpath, in front of car, across the road, in front of oncoming cars. No lights, no reflectors. As someone who is used to spotting this as a driver, on foot, I didn’t see him/her. Right in front of 2 cars & kept going. Btw i can’t imagine riding as far as that.
Around here, I would say half of cyclists have no lights, no reflectors, no helmets and wear dark clothing at night; often ride on the wrong side of the road or pull out from side roads without looking, you see them only a few meters away.
I think it was on GCN channel they did a visibility test, the results were the high vis material is best used on moving limbs like legs and shoes. But also wear a high vis bib just to be sure.
Saw that too and got myself some new reflective clips. The movement is key for recognition. I was behind a chap with just red lights today, and it honestly looked as if he was stationary. Not recognisable as a bike at all.
Horse riders put reflectors on the horses legs, really eye catching when approaching them. Alas bikeys will do nothing to help themselves or their image, instead delegating responsibilty for their own safety to everyone but themselves.
That is becasue the eye is attracted to movement, riding at an angleto a car is a way of making yourself easier to see. Pink is supposedly the most visible color , your legs and arms being a shade of pink. You will notice that your eye gets attracted to a cyclists legs as they cycle.
@@DemiGod.. depends on the shape of the legs & what they are attached to 😁 Alas most bikeys seem to be middle aged boring old men playing dress-up in their super-hero costume like they did when they were five.
GCN also encourage a 'racing mentality' on lots of their videos; how often does the average rider ride on closed roads? When riding on the road, safety before strava times........
There is a lot to be said for "creating movement" on a bike as well, if I think a driver hasn't seen me I like to drift left and right if its safe, so that i add some movement, or I might wiggle a bit to create someting notieable for the drivers to see
I have started doing that on the quiet country roads when I see someone coming in my mirror, although my reason for doing it was to try and look "unstable" so they gave me more space when passing :) . Also recently found out that on those country roads you are advised to always stay in primary until someone wants to overtake.
Interesting video, now do one "Be Visible In Half Light Conditions" for drivers. Of those 5 cars you passed at the lights at the start; one only had one brake light, at least two didn't have rear lights on.
Urban environments is fine with me for low light as there is usually enough contrast between differing buildings, side roads and other furniture such as bus stops and car lights (if used). The problem I used to find was along lanes where it is the same shade of green along the edge and other road users are in the shadows where they tend to blend in Something I find that helps is to move the eyes from side to side rather than focussing between the hedges, it helps the brain to pick out shapes and colours that don't quite fit in As for personal visibility, I cycled the way I drive. Lights always on regardless of the time of day, twilight, night or dawn👍
I always use daylight lights and highviz or reflective clothes. I dont do it to be seen as it makes little difference. I do it so I or my family can clam the maxamum when im hit.
I've always tried to balance daylight/night-time visibility with a mix of colours, lights and reflectors. Personally, I love my spoke-reflectors and built-in reflective 'white wall' on the tyres. I've even searched a little bit harder for decent pedals that have reflectors. At 15:20 who else expected Ash to continue with ...🎶take me home?
I wear high viz and also add reflective yellow tape to the back of the trunkbag and mudgaurd, but what I consider most important for visibility is bright lights which work well even in bright sunlight.
We know that hi-viz makes little no difference on average, so understanding that even if you’re lit up like a Xmas tree, there’s still no guarantee you’ll be noticed. But that’s on average though. Worth giving yourself every chance to be seen, but don’t rely on it.
I'd like to see you doing a piece from the Fiveways roundabout when you get the road bike on the go. Just a perspective on position and indication from each entry and exit. That would be interesting to see your approach. As you know, the Childwall Road entry is tricky on a bike when it's busy and you're heading for Childwall Priory or Queens Drive. To offset that, entering from Childwall Priory is almost a doddle as it's downhill 👍
I'm not a fan of camera or light mounts on helmets. This could be a conspiracy theory, but it kind of makes sense to me. The injury to Michael Schumacher was that the impact hit the GoPro mount which went through the helmet hitting his head causing the brain damage. Instead of distributing the force of the impact over the whole helmet, it focuses the force into one small point which the helmet isn't designed for. So i avoid adding any external mounts on my helmet even if it gives a better vantage point for my 360 camera. I know it sounds like i should wear a tin foil hat, but i feel safer this way.
I agree with you and also read about Schumacher's head injury. Unless a helmet is designed for such a mounting with structure designed to distribute the force, it's pretty much the same as strapping a small rock to your helmet.
Following the findings into Michael Schumacher's incident, the BBC carried out research into this topic because they sometimes use helmet cams to film scenes for television documentaries etc, and needed to know if they are safe. Here's the result: "The results were a little surprising. We had anticipated that the placement of a solid object on the helmet would not only provide a single point of impact on the helmet but would also significantly increase the rotational / acceleration forces on the head when it ‘caught’ or impacted on inclined surfaces. The results were expected to be an increase in the transference of these impact forces to the head, potentially sufficient to exceed, or ‘fail’, the injury threshold of the standards. But this wasn’t the case. In fact, in not one of over 70 tests on various helmet types, mounting types or mounting positions did the presence of the camera cause the helmet to ‘fail’ the injury threshold standards. And this wasn’t solely because the camera broke away on impact (as claimed likely by the manufacturer), because this only happened in approximately 40% of tests. It turns out that, as seen on high speed film, when struck by a heavy weight from above, or when a helmeted head-form is dropped from height onto a solid surface, the deformation of the camera mount seems to actually absorb some of the energies involved, meaning that the camera mount may be providing an additional layer of protection to the head in most, but not all, tests. That’s not to say the presence of the camera on the helmet is entirely a good thing. Whilst the injury threshold standards were not exceeded, the camera and its mount did cause a slight increase in the transference of force to the head when the impact was applied at an angle, such as in a glancing blow or fall against a surface - think of a climber falling and the camera catching on the rock face, causing the head to jerk back from its original path before the camera mount rotates or breaks away. And these findings held regardless of the helmet types tested (hardshell, hybrid and EPS foam), although the EPS foam helmets tended to outperform the other two types in reducing the amount of force which was transferred to the head during impact in these conditions. Of course, these tests were done under very carefully controlled laboratory conditions. It is therefore not possible to simply conclude from this one study that using mini-cameras mounted to helmets is going to be safe in every situation. Variables of helmet fit, size, weight, the angle of impact and the energy of the object or fall, will all affect the end result. But the study does provide a good degree of confidence that the mounting of a camera to a climbing helmet will not necessarily compromise its safety performance for the impact scenarios investigated by this study, except with one important exception. Cameras should never be mounted at the front of the helmet looking back towards the wearer - often used to capture the facial expressions or identify the wearer. In any situation where the camera could pivot to below the rim of the helmet, whether on long stalks or mounted right on the rim, any significant frontal impact (such as a fall onto a rock face or the ground) would force the camera into the face, resulting in serious facial injury."
@@broadsword6650 good to know. But it didn't prove either way whether it was good or bad it just depends on many factors. For me, my own preference is not to have any mounts on my helmet.
Is the clearly visible helmet camera putting drivers off risky overtakes? I commuted 35 miles a week and sent the police a clip roughly every two weeks. My camera was mounted on my rucksack strap, drives could not see it until they had passed.
@@robertparkinson2102 no, it is the road position and ability that reduces close passes. Look at some Social Media Cyclists, they too have cameras on their helmets and still get close passes which could be avoided.
I have been rear ended three times in my lifetime on the road. Three times I was in a vehicle and one of those times I was completely stationary. I have never been rear ended while cycling
For me clothing helps but i think good lights are a must in all light conditions. It baffles me people who run no lights at all at night. Many times all you see is a glimpse of a silhouette of someone if you're lucky. They must think "if i can see them, they must be able to see me!" but what doesn't come into their mind is that they can see you because you are running lights and that is what they are seeing, not you per se.
The highway code says should leave at least 1.5m. The way i think everyone should approach that is you better have a very good reason why you don't leave that much space. The should leaves the opportunity for judgment passing closer when you cannot leave that much space. It is not an excuse to pass closer when the space exists.
@simonwatson2399 shame the highway code does not tell bikeys to keep 1.5 metres away from peds. Bikeys love to 'punishment pass' peds on zebra crossings as close as they possibly can. Former footpaths, now 'shared' with bikes can be even worse. Bikeys see them as their own raceway, peddling as fast as they can, pushing past peds who do not step out of their way immediately when a ding of entitlement is heard. Maybe the HC does tell bikeys to keep 1.5M from peds, even if it does, bikeys ignore the HC anyway.
@@wibbley1 The law states that cyclists "MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner." That covers a lot of situations! Of course, having a law and enforcing a law are two different things.
Now the cooler days are here, my warmer tops are hi-viz, which I now wear. Together with 3 rear lights, and one or two front lights, depending on light levels. I've started to be more proactive in my primary/secondary positions. Not always, but certainly more often than I used to. I do have one issue, though. Whilst there are many that are Strava speedsters, not all users are solely concerned with speed. I use it to track my fitness or lack of, but also to see what cycling mates across the country are up to, and my daughter in Oz is doing with her running. I'm well past the age and fitness that I'm going to be fastest on any segments.
@AshleyNeal-JustCycling Not at my age Ashley 🤣 Though I know some do. However, when I had to undergo lung surgery, the surgeon was impressed by my lung function, considering I had a tennis ball sized tumour in the right lung.
I agree. There is so much more to Strava than 'speeding'. I find it a bit ironic that Ashley made that comment whilst riding an e-bike at a speed way higher than most cyclists could manage!
I'm surprised Ash didn't mention the effect that the speed bumps can have on where, when and how motor vehicles overtake a cyclist. Drivers will want to straddle the "speed cushions" with their wheels as much as possible but that may mean that they are not able to move as far right as they might otherwise do, effectively pushing them closer to the cyclist and/or increasing the time it takes to complete the overtake. This is an unintended consequence of installing speed cushions: they can make some situations more difficult or dangerous, not less, depending in road width. Cyclists who do not also drive a car might not be aware of this, and leave them wondering why some drivers do what they do. Also, regarding the 1.5 metre space for overtaking cyclists (advice in the Highway Code), the HC also states (Rule 163): "take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather (including high winds) and at night." Would you say this scenario (low light, gloomy conditions) is "bad weather" and therefore drivers should give more space than the 1.5m?
The speed bump thing happened to me recently. On my daily ride to work there's a fairly wide road with vehicles parked on my left. Riding around them I'm still well inside my side of the road. Some guy in a car stopped and gave me a load of abuse telling me I should have stopped to let him through, even though I'm on my own side! He was a boy racer and wanted to swing out like you say to hit the bumps the way he wanted to even though that meant coming onto my side of the road. I was pretty dumbstruck at that one. Then he wheelspan off which confirmed he was a knob.....🙂
18:52 no give way lines for the cycle track there, so under rule 76 & 140, that cyclist would have priority to cross the junction. I would have gone too though as they seemed to hesitate.
Talking about the "seeing" part of seeing and being seen, does anyone have any tips for a glasses wearer when cycling in bad conditions? I've found rain to be fine in daylight, but as soon as headlights are on it becomes near impossible to see sometimes
I hate the cushion style of road hump. If you cycle to the left of them, then there's often a camber as well as mud and debris there. To cycle over them, you have to move into primary each time. Cycling to the right of them, puts you too close to the centre of the road. When driving, many vehicles are now wide enough that they can drive over them without reducing speed, defeating their purpose. If you suffer from back problems however, and you hit one off-centre, then they are a right royal pain in the... back.
See AND be seen, as my old driving instructor used to drum into me. Helps having always ridden a motorbike and cycled too. Why not make yourself as visible as possible?
Britain needs to do something about relaxing the rules about the amount of assist that electric assist bikes can provide. If the bike is heavy it needs to provide better assistance when pulling away and I would say only assisting to 25kmph is too slow.
@04:40 car overtakes the vehicle (Ashley on his cycle) nearest the pedestrian crossing, in the area marked with zigzag lines, contravening Highway Code rule 165. As this is a MUST NOT rule, that's a traffic offence, unless a cycle doesn't count as a vehicle in law. I see drivers parking on the zigzags and overtaking on the zigzags all the time, and the police don't seem to give a damn, such is the poor state of traffic policing these days.
You've made this on an electric bike on reasonably quiet roads where the assistance means you can maintain a reasonable speed About 80% of my cycling is in town traffic on a heavy single speed bike Can I therefore emphasise that for others who do likewise that awareness of what's going on around you is even more paramount If you're aware of a build-up of traffic behind you and you can safely do so pull into a gap and let them pass It only costs a few seconds and 90% of drivers will give you a thankyou wave and go on their way with a better opinion of cyclists
I do wear high size everytime I cycle but it's more of a habit I spent years wearing high viz at work. I due have lights that come on automatically when visibility is low on my bike but I don't trust them to come on so like u have a helmet with a light on as well.
if my daily driver can disappear into the grey background, imagine how easy it is for a pedestrian or cyclist. and for you who say it's the driver's job to see you - why make it harder for them?
This is something which really annoys me. No lights & the cyclists are wearing black! Although wearing hi-vis seems to be more acceptable now, just wearing something a little better than dark like red or blue will help drivers to see you earlier. The more help you can give others, the easier it is for them to plan their way around you.
I think winter fashion is a contributing factor .. Unless you want to look like a neon-bright snowboarder, most options are so dark they might as well be black. There's also how bright winter clothing might end up being visibly more dirty, which most people don't like. My hi-viz vest, however, can look dirty, since it's only used while cycling. No excuses for having no lights, tho.
I wear a pastel yellow helmet and a high vis vest on the bike. My dad says people see me from miles away. Well, that is what I was going for. My dad sayd "Everyone sees you." My reply was: "Only when they look and I am not in a blind corner to them." But yes, every bit of visibility helps.
15:25 "country roads" makes me chuckle every time. They aren't country roads at all. Try some of the roads north of Bolton. Make these look like dual carriageways!
@Ash, wasting your time mate. On other tubes/books, I have suggested to bikeys that hi-viz might be a good idea. There is just a pile-on with the entitled saying things like 'I don't see cars wearing hi-viz' and the all time classic 'we don't have to' I have no idea why the mentality of people changes when they get on a bike. So many also say 'well most bike riders also drive a car' which makes it all the more astonishing how they act when on a bike. As you know, your name is hated in the bikey world, often with jibes directed at yourself, one recent tube, where a really bad/reckless car driver drove on the opposite carriageway to make their right turn as an innocent bike was peddling towards them were met with 'I bet Ash says the bike could have done better' failing to acknowledge the bikey was wearing all dark clothing (bike did have lights) and rather than brake sooner to keep distance and away from this moronic driver, braked only just enough to swerve round the car at the lass second. Posting educational cycling videos is just a waste of time.
Two "cycling fallacies" there! Quotes: 1. Hi-Vis (not Viz, that's a smutty comic)... "It's received wisdom that high-visibility garments make people cycling easily visible, and therefore safe. But unfortunately the evidence just doesn't show this at all. Studies suggest that high-visibility clothing has little or no effect on cycling safety, or on the behaviour of people driving. In some studies, the wearing of high-visibility clothing is even correlated with higher crash risk. Equally, there may be some instances where such clothing actually worsens visibility - there have been instances where high-visibility clothing has been cited as an exacerbating factor in road deaths. Rather than insisting that people wear special clothing when cycling or walking, we should be designing roads and streets that keep all users safe, all the time." 2. Education (I agree it's mostly a waste of time): "Higher standards of driving, due to improved training and more stringent testing, may help to make cycling a little safer. However, countless attempts have been made for over 80 years to get people to “share the road” safely, with little or no success. While there will always be an anti-social and aggressive minority who will resist ‘education’, even the best-trained and best-intentioned people can make genuine mistakes when driving - human beings are not perfect, and motor vehicles are potentially dangerous machines. It is fear of motor traffic itself that overwhelmingly discourages people from cycling, not just bad driving specifically. No amount of driver training will relieve these genuine worries, because the end result still involves someone on a light, low-powered machine trying to share roads which are dominated by high-powered vehicles weighing hundreds of kilograms and travelling much faster. Even if 100% perfect driving could be achieved, cycling in motor traffic would remain an unpleasant and intimidating experience for most people, as it involves interacting with fast, heavy machines at close range. The most sensible - and proven to be safest - strategy to enable cycling is to limit the number of interactions with motor vehicles, through good design which separates cycling from driving as much as possible."
@@shm5547 Could you cite references for your 'facts' else they are just make-believe. Only the terminally stupid (or entitled) would ride wearing dark clothing, no lights and no roadcraft. Coppers & stewards, for example, wear hi-viz, are you saying this does not make them more visible? All workers on building sites have to wear hi-vizz, are you saying the HSE is wrong to include this in their legislation? All motor vehicles are required to have reflectors fitted to the rear. Are you saying this does nothing to aid their visibility? Horse riders, not being entitled idiots always wear hi vizzz. tHey also put reflectors round the horses legs. These are really eye catching from a distance. horse riders in contrast to bikeys, see the sense in making themselves seen and interacting with other road users in a polite & courteous way. Maybe bike riders should be the ones to have training. Educate them that wearing all black, as seems the norm in London & riding without lights is a bad idea. Maybe teach them the highway code, how to correctly stop at zebra crossings & wait till all peds have finished crossing. It always seems that bikeys bleat on about being vulnerable and the big bad car is out to get them, but then they all ride like complete knobbers on the road, selfishly refusing to use bike lanes, weaving in & around traffic, refusing to stop or slow to give way & help traffic flow for all. Then to cap it all, refuse to use lights or wear hi-vizzzz clothing. The entitlement, stupidity and arrogance of bikeys is truly astounding.
The mistake you're making is the distinction between high vis and high contrast. Yellow clothing at dusk in street lights does nothing for your visibility. Same for yellow clothing in the dark. Lights with a mixture of solid and flashing and road positioning are how you become visible and is effective in all light conditions.
@@maskofsan1ty Yes, exactly. The term 'hi-viz' is often confused and/or amalgamated with reflective. Often 'hi-viz' clothing will combine bright colours for day use and reflectors for night. This is why lawfully, bikes since the eighties must be fitted with front and rear reflectors and reflectors on the pedals. Bikey should then of course add suitable front & rear lights. The rising/falling effect of the pedals is the most effective way of being seen (and fitting proper lights of course) at night, when reflected by a car's headlight. Adding to this a jacket of bright colour, which is then highlighted by the car's headlights and additional reflective material, gives a bikey the best chance of being seen. Unfortunately, most bikeys are either terminally stupid or too arrogant and entitled to a level beyond belief. Preferring to say 'well I don't see cars wearing hi-viz' than take sensible safety precautions themselves. Then we have pedestrians........
It would actually be quite interesting to have both JustCycling and JusteCycling videos - - show some good examples of differing decisions & - demonstrate to motorists how they can spot if it's an ebike or bike and where and how their overtake needs to be calculated differently.
The law when overtaking 1.5m is a minimum safe distance for overtaking in slow moving traffic. If you cannot allow the minimum distance, do not overtake until you can. At speeds of 30mph or above, the Highway Code recommends a car width may be needed to overtake safely.i would check the 1.5m law if i was you Ashley
What law is broken _if_ someone passes a cyclist closer than 1.5m? Is it a specific close pass law that explicitly defines the safe distance or is it another offence that uses other factors as guidance? If it was law, why are so many passes closer than 1.5m that are reported deemed to be safe with no further action to be taken as the driver showed appropriate care?
@@smilerbob The HC is not statute. You do not have to follow it. However, much of the information within it is taken from statute. The writers cleverly do not state which parts are statute and which are not. Of course, if one is riding/driving in accordance with the HC and is involved in a incident, adhering to the HC can be used in mitigation. An example maybe passing a bike, who then swerved into you & they ended up injured or worse. If one was passing at 1.5 metres and there was no reasonable way to predict the bike would swerve (bike scared by dog jumping out of bushes & instinctive swerved away, for example) a court may find no responsibility on your part. The same scenario, but passing at 0.5M a court could decide that had the recommended 1.5M space been given, collision & injury may have been avoided. I just wish bikeys would give 1.5M when weaving through peds on zebras or on shared paths, but of course bikeys want it all their own way.
@ Completely understand that one and fully aware the Highway Code _can_ be used to make a judgement. However, the quote from some saying “1.5m is the legal minimum” is incorrect as it is a recommendation for speeds up to 30mph. Am I saying it is fine to pass with less than 1.5m space regardless? Of course not Would I pass a cyclist with less than 1.5m space in a normal drive? No. Have I passed with less than 1.5m space? Yes, but the rider had indicated to me that they were happy for me to do so, I didn’t assume they were happy for me to do so
@@smilerbob It boils down to being a benchmark against which a driver's behaviour can be measured. Fail to follow the HC and you are more likely to open yourself up to charges of careless or dangerous driving.
I got beeped at (today - 3hr ride) for riding in what Ashley would call primary' prior to a double roundabout in Leigh, so I stopped in front of her, quite unlike me but I'd been pissed all over for a good few mls, stupid mare didn't want to have a conversation & 💩 out, just mouthed a few lovely friendly obscenities.. What's the rush with drivers anyway, they're sitting on their mostly fat lazy backsides and they're giving it BIGTIME to cyclists the majority of the proper ones other than the children & tossers on electric bikes (which aren't bikes) abide by the rules upper 90% of the time...
Wow dude you are a greater fool. Fair play if it helps just 1, job successful. I do love your great and frequent shoulder checks, im much taller, on bigger bike generally, so mine can be armpit checks. But 1 big tip, right knee on handle bar, fingers on brake, take right hand off and take a full gander behind, particularly on the 60. Before tight bends, after straights.
There is a widely held misconception that hi-vis helps you to be seen in the dark (or darker light). In low light conditions and after lighting up time (when other vehicles have their lights on) you need retroreflective clothing or panels to reflect the light back at the driver. Of course, a hi-vis with retroreflective bands (like the one you wear) is the best of both worlds.
I actually don't bother with the hi-vis. I have reflectors (including a full set of spoke reflectors, a pair of "slap wrap" wristbands which help to emphasise any hand signals, and a velcro one tied to the frame just behind the head tube) and a good dynamo-powered head and tail light. I'm presently using the same dynohub that originally powered a very feeble halogen headlamp, which I used to have to supplement with a head-mounted lamp on dark nights. The newer LED-based headlight lights up the whole road.
I've just ordered a new front wheel built around a new dynohub. The old one, which must have seen at least 17 years of service now, has noticeably increased its resistance over the past few rides - a sure sign that the bearings are shot. It's easier to replace the whole wheel (that is, the hub, spokes, and rim) than to buy a new hub and spokes, then try to reuse the old rim by rebuilding the wheel myself. It's not even a very good rim. I can quite easily transfer the existing tyre, tube, reflectors, speedometer magnet, and of course the headlight connection to the new wheel.
While retro reflective materials are best, light coloured clothes are better than dark.
@stevegoodfellow3423 You are of course correct.
The 'Hi-Vis' jacket specification actually refers to the reflective parts, not the colour itself. I was taught this on a H&S course. However, a 'reflective' jacket is commonly referred to as 'hi-viz'
In daylight, the reflective parts are not as effective, hence the jacket is also made of a bright, eye catching colour.
New bikes come fitted with front & rear reflectors. I think it maybe law that they also have to have reflectors on the pedals. All seem a very good idea.
Alas the bikey is stupid & arrogant. I saw one post on a bikey group, from a guy proudly showing his new race bike. there was a pile on from the entitled all saying to remove the reflectors so he does not look like a noob.
Just found this:-
Legally, you MUST have a red reflector to the rear of the cycle and amber reflectors fitted to the front and back of both pedals (unless your bicycle was manufactured before 1985 when do not need pedal reflectors).
@@Kromaatikse the term 'hi-viz' is a blanket term covering both a bright colour and the use of reflective material. Thus the same jacket can be used day or night.
The UK Health & Safety specification for these jackets actually only refers to the reflective parts of the jacket. The rest could be all black & comply. Source - My H&S course.
I remember the old 'Ever-Ready' bike lights and having to take part of them off, to avoid theft and the problem of replacing the batteries, spending precious pocket money.
Times have moved on, LED lights with LiPO batteries are so cheap and can easily be a birthday/Christmas present for a child (or parents just buy them anyway). They clip[ out & can easily be recharged at school or at work.
There is no excuse for any bikey not to be riding with lights fitted (a malfunction, may be acceptable mitigation, same as a car, ifa bulb blows, - but get it fixed!)
Police should set up road-blocks (start with Croydon, by the junk food shops) and every bike rider found to have no lights fitted should have their bike crushed.
I tend to refer to my hi-vis jacket with reflective bands as my jacket of invisibility. Do not assume that you have been seen. It can be difficult for a cyclist to fully appreciate how difficult it can be for drivers to see cyclists and pedestrians in half light/dusk when they are sitting lower than you with a barrage of oncoming headlights.
Good advice throughout your video, thank you.
I agree with almost everything you said, I agree that you can't be diving in and out all the time and it is a fact that some motorists do not understand the reasons for primary/secondary positioning and some even respond aggressively with the horn, shouting abuse, close punishment pass or tailgating, some get triggered just because we are on the road. All of this can be very intimidating and probably is the reason that some cyclists only ride in secondary all the time, I really don't think many do it to entrap motorists.
As with most of these modal disputes (what do we call them?), it is the provocative minority who provide the moral ammunition to those who want to make something of it. That leads to the easily-influenced seeing all transgressions as deliberate. I'm sure there's a simpler way to say that, but I've woken up wordy today.
@@PedroConejo1939 Indeed, and often the "easily-influenced" grasp and focus upon only the evidence that supports their particular belief or point of view, with little to no consideration of the evidence as a whole or the sample size. We see this in all areas of society - politics, religion, health and it's especially fuelled by the uncontrolled nature of social media.
@@grahambonner508 Exactly. And the gutter press.
Those that try to entrap are socipaths. Just like those people that twist your words and then hold you to their interpretation of what you didnt say. Its about 2.5%
Last week I had a driver as you describe behind me. She was apoplectic because I decided to wait and drive behind a cyclist. The road was narrow, there were oncoming cars, it was a road bike already doing over 20mph and there was traffic up ahead. Literally no point in overtaking. Some seem to think that a cyclist is just an obstruction to drive around rather than another road user that should only be overtaken if it’s safe and necessary.
I appreciate that you actively learn the needs of road users and the issues they face other than just car drivers.
This is why I like two tone high vis jackets, the type with a yellow top and blue bottom, because the yellow works great in the low light, and the dark sections work great when you are riding between drivers and the sunset.
Sometimes I use an orange jacket with yellow gloves and headband. also have reflective yellow tape on the back of the trunkbag and a yellow reflective strip on the rear mudguard.
in cooler weather im in my motorway Rated Hi-vis, it helps. If light touches me in that you can see me from space.
When I cycled, the scenario at around 12:03 I used to leave just over a vehicle length to the car in front and put my thumb up to the driver behind to say they could come passed when safe and go ahead. I wasn't the quickest on the bike and sometimes it just felt like the right thing to do, especially if the road was opening up to a 40mph after the lights. Most of the time the gesture was appreciated but not taken but it showed awareness of those behind that could be going quicker
Cyclists signalling to drivers that it is safe to overtake can be like drivers flashing their lights to give right of way to other vehicles: a menace.
It's usually intended in a nice spirit of co-operation, but can have dire consequences.
I've had cyclists wave me past when I'm driving but in my opinion it's not safe for an overtake as my view up the road is not clear enough and I'm not going to blindly take anyone else's advice on when to pass. The cyclists can then get annoyed that their "helpful" gesture is ignored, and they wave more frantically which causes them to wobble and increase danger.
Signal if you want, but remember it's always the following driver's responsibility and decision about when and where to pass safely.
@ Agreed that those who keep waving drivers passed and get annoyed when drivers don’t are similar to drivers who keep flashing lights at others to go when it isn’t clear. I refuse to pass cyclists unless I am 100% happy to pass even if the cyclist says it is OK to
The scenario I was referring to above was when reaching a stationary queue amd a vehicle is behind. I would _offer_ the space in front but only ever wxpect a drivet to take it when safe. The offer was made with a thumbs up gesture rather than an arm wave through signalling “I am happy when you are” rather than “Move in front now”. I beleive that the way we communicate with each other on the road plays a big part into how passes are performed and drivers ability to wait. There are always exceptions as shown with the van in this clip and a few on social media this month. Hopefully soon those exceptions become far fewer
For me the most challenging light conditions is the low level sun, a full sun sitting just above the horizon, either you are being blinded by it or the oncoming traffic is. Thankfully it is usually a short window this happens, but if you're in that window it sucks big time. Because either you're not seeing or you're not being seen.
This is one of the many reasons i wear a cycling cap under my helmet, it acts as a sun visor in bright conditions, even with sunglasses on, direct sunlight into your eyes is not good, the best way is to shield your eyes from the sun, which is why cars have sun visors for the driver to block direct sunlight into their eyes and cycling cap is the bike version.
Even if a helmet has a built-in peak, the cap is better as it sits just above the eyes so can be pulled a fair bit down to block the low sun, a helmet peak sits too high to help block a low sun.
I love the friendly wave reinforcing good behaviour. That helps bring everyone’s standards up.
Excellent take as ever. I support this 100%. I do find it so so tiring to have to mitigate the conduct of drivers on *every* *single* ride. I have changed my attitude regarding primary from watching your videos.
⚠Always wear eye protection when cycling. I got bacterial conjunctivitis during the summer because I had to remove my dark sunglasses in low light and got flies in my eyes. Stone chips could cause irreversible damage to your eyes, so always wear protection. 👀
One of the best bits of advice here.
@@zippyisking I should add that I recently bought a couple of pairs of cheap 3M safety glasses off Amazon for cycling in low light conditions.
Got some after riding under some trees on a busy shared cycle path and getting flies in both eyes 😬.
Also really good for avoiding dry eyes or watery eyes when it's windy too.
A really good 200lm+ flashing light at the rear makes a massive difference in daylight/halflight conditions my opinion. The sooner you are visible the more thinking time people have and less likely to make impulsive decisions. Same at the front but something brighter to stand out from car DRLs.
My daylight rear' stopped working (today), I wondered why I was getting close passes - I also wonder why I have to have 1 on in the day nowadays...
This is an excellent educational video for vehicle users, as I bet many don’t know or understand the primary and secondary positions, or why a cyclist may move around so much. Ashley, we need the government to introduce public information videos on road safety, road user education and road politness. Do you know who would get my vote to narrate them 😊
Pedals with reflectors are also very effective at night, they immediately identify you as a cyclist in the headlights of an approaching motorist.
Hi Vis really comes into it's own when vehicles have their lights turned on, at other times in poor light you need lights and bright colours.
Pedal reflectors are also a MUST in the highway code for bikes made since the 80s. I didn't know that and assumed my expensive (for me) flat pedals would be road legal. I have now stuck some reflective tape on them.
I really like that when you see an oncoming vehicle you instinctively check your 6 to assess if you need to alter what you're doing.
One thing I've found that seems to encourage safe passes by drivers is an obvious helmet camera. Now you can't get much more obvious you're wearing a helmet camera than a 'Jeremy Vine' style 360 jobbie poking out the top of yer noggin.
I did try it for a while, but it was impractical for me. The weight was uncomfortable on the road bike and I don't wear a helmet on the town bike. Plus I'm not sure about the safety of it in the event of a crash. I think you'd be far safer with no helmet, than a helmet with a camera mounted on top.
I’ve a PassPixie reflective panel on my panniers that is an image of a camera. Works to an extent. Still have some wing nuts who ignore it.
Excellent
Many people, and not just cyclists, don’t have a clue.
I know people, 1 especially, who when driving her 24y old car…doesn’t use any lights until long after they should be switched on.
When I questioned her on this, she said (thru gritted teeth)….”it’s still daylight”.
When I said, but look, all those cars have side lights or headlights on…..before you leave, turn them on.
She repeated “it’s still daylight” and added “it will run the battery down and I can’t afford a new battery”.
Back in ye oldie days, at school we were instructed to use front & back lights on motorbikes and bicycles all the time…even in perfect conditions, in order to make yourself stand out more.
Dusk is a light I really don’t like…I prefer driving in the dark.
Yesterday I was walking up the town road, rush hour….school run. Cars everywhere..
2 cyclists.
One with lights doing everything correctly.
The other, where is the other? there > dropping off the footpath, in front of car, across the road, in front of oncoming cars. No lights, no reflectors. As someone who is used to spotting this as a driver, on foot, I didn’t see him/her. Right in front of 2 cars & kept going.
Btw i can’t imagine riding as far as that.
Around here, I would say half of cyclists have no lights, no reflectors, no helmets and wear dark clothing at night; often ride on the wrong side of the road or pull out from side roads without looking, you see them only a few meters away.
Like cars then...
I think it was on GCN channel they did a visibility test, the results were the high vis material is best used on moving limbs like legs and shoes. But also wear a high vis bib just to be sure.
Saw that too and got myself some new reflective clips. The movement is key for recognition. I was behind a chap with just red lights today, and it honestly looked as if he was stationary. Not recognisable as a bike at all.
Horse riders put reflectors on the horses legs, really eye catching when approaching them.
Alas bikeys will do nothing to help themselves or their image, instead delegating responsibilty for their own safety to everyone but themselves.
That is becasue the eye is attracted to movement, riding at an angleto a car is a way of making yourself easier to see. Pink is supposedly the most visible color , your legs and arms being a shade of pink. You will notice that your eye gets attracted to a cyclists legs as they cycle.
@@DemiGod.. depends on the shape of the legs & what they are attached to 😁
Alas most bikeys seem to be middle aged boring old men playing dress-up in their super-hero costume like they did when they were five.
GCN also encourage a 'racing mentality' on lots of their videos; how often does the average rider ride on closed roads? When riding on the road, safety before strava times........
Fully agree, low light is much worse than full night. Much worse contrast, hi-viz is a must.
There is a lot to be said for "creating movement" on a bike as well, if I think a driver hasn't seen me I like to drift left and right if its safe, so that i add some movement, or I might wiggle a bit to create someting notieable for the drivers to see
Fully agree, "motion stealthing", where your relative motion makes you apparently stationary is a real problem and gets people killed.
I have started doing that on the quiet country roads when I see someone coming in my mirror, although my reason for doing it was to try and look "unstable" so they gave me more space when passing :) .
Also recently found out that on those country roads you are advised to always stay in primary until someone wants to overtake.
The human eye is more sensitive to lateral motion than a looming object - so wiggle to be visible!
Interesting video, now do one "Be Visible In Half Light Conditions" for drivers. Of those 5 cars you passed at the lights at the start; one only had one brake light, at least two didn't have rear lights on.
Urban environments is fine with me for low light as there is usually enough contrast between differing buildings, side roads and other furniture such as bus stops and car lights (if used). The problem I used to find was along lanes where it is the same shade of green along the edge and other road users are in the shadows where they tend to blend in
Something I find that helps is to move the eyes from side to side rather than focussing between the hedges, it helps the brain to pick out shapes and colours that don't quite fit in
As for personal visibility, I cycled the way I drive. Lights always on regardless of the time of day, twilight, night or dawn👍
I always use daylight lights and highviz or reflective clothes. I dont do it to be seen as it makes little difference. I do it so I or my family can clam the maxamum when im hit.
Great riding, exactly how I've commuted for the last 20 years. Keep safe. Looking forward to seem you on a road bike.
I've always tried to balance daylight/night-time visibility with a mix of colours, lights and reflectors. Personally, I love my spoke-reflectors and built-in reflective 'white wall' on the tyres. I've even searched a little bit harder for decent pedals that have reflectors.
At 15:20 who else expected Ash to continue with ...🎶take me home?
I wear high viz and also add reflective yellow tape to the back of the trunkbag and mudgaurd, but what I consider most important for visibility is bright lights which work well even in bright sunlight.
To be legal the tape needs to be red. I picked up a roll from Halfords. Have it on my guards with reflector and also on my seat stays.
We know that hi-viz makes little no difference on average, so understanding that even if you’re lit up like a Xmas tree, there’s still no guarantee you’ll be noticed. But that’s on average though. Worth giving yourself every chance to be seen, but don’t rely on it.
I’d say a Hiviz is one of the most important things for any cyclist on uk roads in any type of dark weather
@@RichZor-p9c And you're welcome to have that view. Statistically insignificant in reducing accidents though.
I'd like to see you doing a piece from the Fiveways roundabout when you get the road bike on the go. Just a perspective on position and indication from each entry and exit. That would be interesting to see your approach. As you know, the Childwall Road entry is tricky on a bike when it's busy and you're heading for Childwall Priory or Queens Drive. To offset that, entering from Childwall Priory is almost a doddle as it's downhill 👍
Consider it done!
@AshleyNeal-JustCycling Top man 👍
I'm not a fan of camera or light mounts on helmets.
This could be a conspiracy theory, but it kind of makes sense to me. The injury to Michael Schumacher was that the impact hit the GoPro mount which went through the helmet hitting his head causing the brain damage.
Instead of distributing the force of the impact over the whole helmet, it focuses the force into one small point which the helmet isn't designed for.
So i avoid adding any external mounts on my helmet even if it gives a better vantage point for my 360 camera.
I know it sounds like i should wear a tin foil hat, but i feel safer this way.
I agree with you and also read about Schumacher's head injury.
Unless a helmet is designed for such a mounting with structure designed to distribute the force, it's pretty much the same as strapping a small rock to your helmet.
Following the findings into Michael Schumacher's incident, the BBC carried out research into this topic because they sometimes use helmet cams to film scenes for television documentaries etc, and needed to know if they are safe. Here's the result:
"The results were a little surprising. We had anticipated that the placement of a solid object on the helmet would not only provide a single point of impact on the helmet but would also significantly increase the rotational / acceleration forces on the head when it ‘caught’ or impacted on inclined surfaces. The results were expected to be an increase in the transference of these impact forces to the head, potentially sufficient to exceed, or ‘fail’, the injury threshold of the standards. But this wasn’t the case.
In fact, in not one of over 70 tests on various helmet types, mounting types or mounting positions did the presence of the camera cause the helmet to ‘fail’ the injury threshold standards. And this wasn’t solely because the camera broke away on impact (as claimed likely by the manufacturer), because this only happened in approximately 40% of tests. It turns out that, as seen on high speed film, when struck by a heavy weight from above, or when a helmeted head-form is dropped from height onto a solid surface, the deformation of the camera mount seems to actually absorb some of the energies involved, meaning that the camera mount may be providing an additional layer of protection to the head in most, but not all, tests.
That’s not to say the presence of the camera on the helmet is entirely a good thing. Whilst the injury threshold standards were not exceeded, the camera and its mount did cause a slight increase in the transference of force to the head when the impact was applied at an angle, such as in a glancing blow or fall against a surface - think of a climber falling and the camera catching on the rock face, causing the head to jerk back from its original path before the camera mount rotates or breaks away. And these findings held regardless of the helmet types tested (hardshell, hybrid and EPS foam), although the EPS foam helmets tended to outperform the other two types in reducing the amount of force which was transferred to the head during impact in these conditions.
Of course, these tests were done under very carefully controlled laboratory conditions. It is therefore not possible to simply conclude from this one study that using mini-cameras mounted to helmets is going to be safe in every situation. Variables of helmet fit, size, weight, the angle of impact and the energy of the object or fall, will all affect the end result. But the study does provide a good degree of confidence that the mounting of a camera to a climbing helmet will not necessarily compromise its safety performance for the impact scenarios investigated by this study, except with one important exception. Cameras should never be mounted at the front of the helmet looking back towards the wearer - often used to capture the facial expressions or identify the wearer. In any situation where the camera could pivot to below the rim of the helmet, whether on long stalks or mounted right on the rim, any significant frontal impact (such as a fall onto a rock face or the ground) would force the camera into the face, resulting in serious facial injury."
@@broadsword6650 good to know. But it didn't prove either way whether it was good or bad it just depends on many factors.
For me, my own preference is not to have any mounts on my helmet.
Is the clearly visible helmet camera putting drivers off risky overtakes? I commuted 35 miles a week and sent the police a clip roughly every two weeks. My camera was mounted on my rucksack strap, drives could not see it until they had passed.
@@robertparkinson2102 no, it is the road position and ability that reduces close passes. Look at some Social Media Cyclists, they too have cameras on their helmets and still get close passes which could be avoided.
I have been rear ended three times in my lifetime on the road. Three times I was in a vehicle and one of those times I was completely stationary. I have never been rear ended while cycling
@smilerbob You have never worked at the BBC then.........
For me clothing helps but i think good lights are a must in all light conditions.
It baffles me people who run no lights at all at night. Many times all you see is a glimpse of a silhouette of someone if you're lucky. They must think "if i can see them, they must be able to see me!" but what doesn't come into their mind is that they can see you because you are running lights and that is what they are seeing, not you per se.
The highway code says should leave at least 1.5m. The way i think everyone should approach that is you better have a very good reason why you don't leave that much space.
The should leaves the opportunity for judgment passing closer when you cannot leave that much space. It is not an excuse to pass closer when the space exists.
@simonwatson2399 shame the highway code does not tell bikeys to keep 1.5 metres away from peds.
Bikeys love to 'punishment pass' peds on zebra crossings as close as they possibly can. Former footpaths, now 'shared' with bikes can be even worse. Bikeys see them as their own raceway, peddling as fast as they can, pushing past peds who do not step out of their way immediately when a ding of entitlement is heard.
Maybe the HC does tell bikeys to keep 1.5M from peds, even if it does, bikeys ignore the HC anyway.
@wibbley1 we get it. You hate cyclists. How sad. Life's much more fun if you define it by what you like and enjoy. Give it a try.
@@wibbley1 The law states that cyclists "MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner."
That covers a lot of situations! Of course, having a law and enforcing a law are two different things.
Now the cooler days are here, my warmer tops are hi-viz, which I now wear. Together with 3 rear lights, and one or two front lights, depending on light levels. I've started to be more proactive in my primary/secondary positions. Not always, but certainly more often than I used to.
I do have one issue, though. Whilst there are many that are Strava speedsters, not all users are solely concerned with speed. I use it to track my fitness or lack of, but also to see what cycling mates across the country are up to, and my daughter in Oz is doing with her running. I'm well past the age and fitness that I'm going to be fastest on any segments.
I understand the use for fitness however, increased fitness is usually an increase in pace on a bicycle
@AshleyNeal-JustCycling Not at my age Ashley 🤣 Though I know some do. However, when I had to undergo lung surgery, the surgeon was impressed by my lung function, considering I had a tennis ball sized tumour in the right lung.
I agree. There is so much more to Strava than 'speeding'. I find it a bit ironic that Ashley made that comment whilst riding an e-bike at a speed way higher than most cyclists could manage!
Most of the time beyond its Electrical assistance also!
thanks for this
I'm surprised Ash didn't mention the effect that the speed bumps can have on where, when and how motor vehicles overtake a cyclist.
Drivers will want to straddle the "speed cushions" with their wheels as much as possible but that may mean that they are not able to move as far right as they might otherwise do, effectively pushing them closer to the cyclist and/or increasing the time it takes to complete the overtake. This is an unintended consequence of installing speed cushions: they can make some situations more difficult or dangerous, not less, depending in road width. Cyclists who do not also drive a car might not be aware of this, and leave them wondering why some drivers do what they do.
Also, regarding the 1.5 metre space for overtaking cyclists (advice in the Highway Code), the HC also states (Rule 163): "take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather (including high winds) and at night."
Would you say this scenario (low light, gloomy conditions) is "bad weather" and therefore drivers should give more space than the 1.5m?
The speed bump thing happened to me recently. On my daily ride to work there's a fairly wide road with vehicles parked on my left. Riding around them I'm still well inside my side of the road. Some guy in a car stopped and gave me a load of abuse telling me I should have stopped to let him through, even though I'm on my own side! He was a boy racer and wanted to swing out like you say to hit the bumps the way he wanted to even though that meant coming onto my side of the road. I was pretty dumbstruck at that one. Then he wheelspan off which confirmed he was a knob.....🙂
18:52 no give way lines for the cycle track there, so under rule 76 & 140, that cyclist would have priority to cross the junction.
I would have gone too though as they seemed to hesitate.
Talking about the "seeing" part of seeing and being seen, does anyone have any tips for a glasses wearer when cycling in bad conditions? I've found rain to be fine in daylight, but as soon as headlights are on it becomes near impossible to see sometimes
I hate the cushion style of road hump. If you cycle to the left of them, then there's often a camber as well as mud and debris there. To cycle over them, you have to move into primary each time. Cycling to the right of them, puts you too close to the centre of the road.
When driving, many vehicles are now wide enough that they can drive over them without reducing speed, defeating their purpose. If you suffer from back problems however, and you hit one off-centre, then they are a right royal pain in the... back.
See AND be seen, as my old driving instructor used to drum into me. Helps having always ridden a motorbike and cycled too. Why not make yourself as visible as possible?
Britain needs to do something about relaxing the rules about the amount of assist that electric assist bikes can provide. If the bike is heavy it needs to provide better assistance when pulling away and I would say only assisting to 25kmph is too slow.
@Mw9d-m8n oh sorry! 24kmph, or did you not fully read my comment.
@@iallso1 Sorry, I misread the comment.
@Mw9d-m8n 25mph would be too fast imo, but we have electric assist Lime scooter that are limited to between 30 and 35kmph which seems reasonable.
@04:40 car overtakes the vehicle (Ashley on his cycle) nearest the pedestrian crossing, in the area marked with zigzag lines, contravening Highway Code rule 165. As this is a MUST NOT rule, that's a traffic offence, unless a cycle doesn't count as a vehicle in law.
I see drivers parking on the zigzags and overtaking on the zigzags all the time, and the police don't seem to give a damn, such is the poor state of traffic policing these days.
It's not an offence, David. It only applies to motorised vehicles, and my vehicle I was operating is still classed as a cycle.
You've made this on an electric bike on reasonably quiet roads where the assistance means you can maintain a reasonable speed
About 80% of my cycling is in town traffic on a heavy single speed bike
Can I therefore emphasise that for others who do likewise that awareness of what's going on around you is even more paramount If you're aware of a build-up of traffic behind you and you can safely do so pull into a gap and let them pass It only costs a few seconds and 90% of drivers will give you a thankyou wave and go on their way with a better opinion of cyclists
That’s also why drivers need to take extra care in these conditions - to be prepared for cyclists who don’t wear fluorescent clothing as advised
I do wear high size everytime I cycle but it's more of a habit I spent years wearing high viz at work.
I due have lights that come on automatically when visibility is low on my bike but I don't trust them to come on so like u have a helmet with a light on as well.
Hivis in the dark I’d say is your most important but if gear when jumping on a bike, can be really hard to see cyclists in the dark
if my daily driver can disappear into the grey background, imagine how easy it is for a pedestrian or cyclist. and for you who say it's the driver's job to see you - why make it harder for them?
Psycho Path. I mean Cycle Path!
Always aware
People dont relise what impact they have on children because they are contestable
This is something which really annoys me. No lights & the cyclists are wearing black!
Although wearing hi-vis seems to be more acceptable now, just wearing something a little better than dark like red or blue will help drivers to see you earlier. The more help you can give others, the easier it is for them to plan their way around you.
Excatly. As a regular 🚴 cyclist, I always make sure I can be seen by other road users !....
I think winter fashion is a contributing factor .. Unless you want to look like a neon-bright snowboarder, most options are so dark they might as well be black. There's also how bright winter clothing might end up being visibly more dirty, which most people don't like. My hi-viz vest, however, can look dirty, since it's only used while cycling. No excuses for having no lights, tho.
I wear a pastel yellow helmet and a high vis vest on the bike.
My dad says people see me from miles away.
Well, that is what I was going for.
My dad sayd "Everyone sees you."
My reply was: "Only when they look and I am not in a blind corner to them."
But yes, every bit of visibility helps.
Lights and road positioning will do much more for visibility than the colour of your clothing.
This is literally some of the most stereotypical UK weather ever.
'Be Visible In Half Light Conditions' so Audi drivers can see who they've hit
😂 I am guessing that you are taking the piss - Mickey !..
15:25 "country roads" makes me chuckle every time. They aren't country roads at all. Try some of the roads north of Bolton. Make these look like dual carriageways!
Maybe so, in any event. They are very narrow for vehicles to pass you on safely !...
There seem to be a lot more idiot's on the roads these days that's why i don't ride a bike anymore
@Ash, wasting your time mate. On other tubes/books, I have suggested to bikeys that hi-viz might be a good idea.
There is just a pile-on with the entitled saying things like 'I don't see cars wearing hi-viz' and the all time classic 'we don't have to'
I have no idea why the mentality of people changes when they get on a bike. So many also say 'well most bike riders also drive a car' which makes it all the more astonishing how they act when on a bike.
As you know, your name is hated in the bikey world, often with jibes directed at yourself, one recent tube, where a really bad/reckless car driver drove on the opposite carriageway to make their right turn as an innocent bike was peddling towards them were met with 'I bet Ash says the bike could have done better' failing to acknowledge the bikey was wearing all dark clothing (bike did have lights) and rather than brake sooner to keep distance and away from this moronic driver, braked only just enough to swerve round the car at the lass second.
Posting educational cycling videos is just a waste of time.
Two "cycling fallacies" there! Quotes:
1. Hi-Vis (not Viz, that's a smutty comic)...
"It's received wisdom that high-visibility garments make people cycling easily visible, and therefore safe.
But unfortunately the evidence just doesn't show this at all. Studies suggest that high-visibility clothing has little or no effect on cycling safety, or on the behaviour of people driving. In some studies, the wearing of high-visibility clothing is even correlated with higher crash risk. Equally, there may be some instances where such clothing actually worsens visibility - there have been instances where high-visibility clothing has been cited as an exacerbating factor in road deaths.
Rather than insisting that people wear special clothing when cycling or walking, we should be designing roads and streets that keep all users safe, all the time."
2. Education (I agree it's mostly a waste of time):
"Higher standards of driving, due to improved training and more stringent testing, may help to make cycling a little safer. However, countless attempts have been made for over 80 years to get people to “share the road” safely, with little or no success.
While there will always be an anti-social and aggressive minority who will resist ‘education’, even the best-trained and best-intentioned people can make genuine mistakes when driving - human beings are not perfect, and motor vehicles are potentially dangerous machines.
It is fear of motor traffic itself that overwhelmingly discourages people from cycling, not just bad driving specifically. No amount of driver training will relieve these genuine worries, because the end result still involves someone on a light, low-powered machine trying to share roads which are dominated by high-powered vehicles weighing hundreds of kilograms and travelling much faster.
Even if 100% perfect driving could be achieved, cycling in motor traffic would remain an unpleasant and intimidating experience for most people, as it involves interacting with fast, heavy machines at close range. The most sensible - and proven to be safest - strategy to enable cycling is to limit the number of interactions with motor vehicles, through good design which separates cycling from driving as much as possible."
@@shm5547 Could you cite references for your 'facts' else they are just make-believe.
Only the terminally stupid (or entitled) would ride wearing dark clothing, no lights and no roadcraft.
Coppers & stewards, for example, wear hi-viz, are you saying this does not make them more visible?
All workers on building sites have to wear hi-vizz, are you saying the HSE is wrong to include this in their legislation?
All motor vehicles are required to have reflectors fitted to the rear. Are you saying this does nothing to aid their visibility?
Horse riders, not being entitled idiots always wear hi vizzz. tHey also put reflectors round the horses legs. These are really eye catching from a distance. horse riders in contrast to bikeys, see the sense in making themselves seen and interacting with other road users in a polite & courteous way.
Maybe bike riders should be the ones to have training. Educate them that wearing all black, as seems the norm in London & riding without lights is a bad idea.
Maybe teach them the highway code, how to correctly stop at zebra crossings & wait till all peds have finished crossing.
It always seems that bikeys bleat on about being vulnerable and the big bad car is out to get them, but then they all ride like complete knobbers on the road, selfishly refusing to use bike lanes, weaving in & around traffic, refusing to stop or slow to give way & help traffic flow for all. Then to cap it all, refuse to use lights or wear hi-vizzzz clothing.
The entitlement, stupidity and arrogance of bikeys is truly astounding.
The mistake you're making is the distinction between high vis and high contrast. Yellow clothing at dusk in street lights does nothing for your visibility. Same for yellow clothing in the dark. Lights with a mixture of solid and flashing and road positioning are how you become visible and is effective in all light conditions.
@@maskofsan1ty Yes, exactly. The term 'hi-viz' is often confused and/or amalgamated with reflective. Often 'hi-viz' clothing will combine bright colours for day use and reflectors for night.
This is why lawfully, bikes since the eighties must be fitted with front and rear reflectors and reflectors on the pedals. Bikey should then of course add suitable front & rear lights.
The rising/falling effect of the pedals is the most effective way of being seen (and fitting proper lights of course) at night, when reflected by a car's headlight.
Adding to this a jacket of bright colour, which is then highlighted by the car's headlights and additional reflective material, gives a bikey the best chance of being seen.
Unfortunately, most bikeys are either terminally stupid or too arrogant and entitled to a level beyond belief. Preferring to say 'well I don't see cars wearing hi-viz' than take sensible safety precautions themselves.
Then we have pedestrians........
@wibbley1 most bikers? Most cyclists i see are fine. And pedestrians of course don't need to use high viz clothing. That would be stupid...
It would actually be quite interesting to have both JustCycling and JusteCycling videos -
- show some good examples of differing decisions
&
- demonstrate to motorists how they can spot if it's an ebike or bike and where and how their overtake needs to be calculated differently.
The law when overtaking
1.5m is a minimum safe distance for overtaking in slow moving traffic.
If you cannot allow the minimum distance, do not overtake until you can. At speeds of 30mph or above, the Highway Code recommends a car width may be needed to overtake safely.i would check the 1.5m law if i was you Ashley
What law is broken _if_ someone passes a cyclist closer than 1.5m? Is it a specific close pass law that explicitly defines the safe distance or is it another offence that uses other factors as guidance?
If it was law, why are so many passes closer than 1.5m that are reported deemed to be safe with no further action to be taken as the driver showed appropriate care?
@@smilerbob The HC is not statute. You do not have to follow it. However, much of the information within it is taken from statute. The writers cleverly do not state which parts are statute and which are not.
Of course, if one is riding/driving in accordance with the HC and is involved in a incident, adhering to the HC can be used in mitigation.
An example maybe passing a bike, who then swerved into you & they ended up injured or worse.
If one was passing at 1.5 metres and there was no reasonable way to predict the bike would swerve (bike scared by dog jumping out of bushes & instinctive swerved away, for example) a court may find no responsibility on your part.
The same scenario, but passing at 0.5M a court could decide that had the recommended 1.5M space been given, collision & injury may have been avoided.
I just wish bikeys would give 1.5M when weaving through peds on zebras or on shared paths, but of course bikeys want it all their own way.
@ Completely understand that one and fully aware the Highway Code _can_ be used to make a judgement. However, the quote from some saying “1.5m is the legal minimum” is incorrect as it is a recommendation for speeds up to 30mph. Am I saying it is fine to pass with less than 1.5m space regardless? Of course not
Would I pass a cyclist with less than 1.5m space in a normal drive? No. Have I passed with less than 1.5m space? Yes, but the rider had indicated to me that they were happy for me to do so, I didn’t assume they were happy for me to do so
@@smilerbob It boils down to being a benchmark against which a driver's behaviour can be measured. Fail to follow the HC and you are more likely to open yourself up to charges of careless or dangerous driving.
I got beeped at (today - 3hr ride) for riding in what Ashley would call primary' prior to a double roundabout in Leigh, so I stopped in front of her, quite unlike me but I'd been pissed all over for a good few mls, stupid mare didn't want to have a conversation & 💩 out, just mouthed a few lovely friendly obscenities..
What's the rush with drivers anyway, they're sitting on their mostly fat lazy backsides and they're giving it BIGTIME to cyclists the majority of the proper ones other than the children & tossers on electric bikes (which aren't bikes) abide by the rules upper 90% of the time...
A relatively drama free ride.
Unlike certain other content creators who I won't bother naming/shaming; you don't go out looking for trouble.
Wow dude you are a greater fool. Fair play if it helps just 1, job successful. I do love your great and frequent shoulder checks, im much taller, on bigger bike generally, so mine can be armpit checks. But 1 big tip, right knee on handle bar, fingers on brake, take right hand off and take a full gander behind, particularly on the 60. Before tight bends, after straights.