Cycle-pathic: ask the expert, Dr Alastair Ross

Clothing

- Eyes are most sensitive to yellow/green and in low light conditions these colours show up best.

- During the day bright orange may stand out better, particularly against green.

- Fluorescent materials give out more light and will help you to be seen more easily.

Reflectors

- Reflective strips on clothing show up well in car headlights.

- Having reflectors on arms makes your signals clear in the dark.

- The movement of reflectors on spokes, pedals and ankle bands shows drivers that there is a cyclist ahead.

Lights

- The brighter your lights, the greater the distance you can be seen from.

- Flashing lights catch drivers' attention more readily than solid ones.

Scottish ergonomist Dr Alastair Ross is a keen cyclist who has toured through France and the north of Scotland, raced bikes, rode in the Alps, Flanders and Mallorca, commuted on rural and urban roads - including London for three years - and cycles regularly on shared-use paths such as canal/old railway systems.

A lecturer in behavioural science at Glasgow Dental School, Dr Ross shares his views on how use of ergonomics can potentially help make cyclists safer on the roads.

What is ergonomics?

Ergonomics and Human Factors is really about taking a whole systems approach, which includes paying attention to biomechanical, psychological, behavioural, technological, environmental and social/cultural factors.

How can ergonomics be useful to cycling?

Cycling involves all of these factors. And it's useful to think about how they interrelate. Biomechanical issues drive technology which affects behaviour; cultural norms also affect behaviour as well as perceptions of risk, acceptability and so on.

It is your belief that a "whole systems approach" - often used in other industries to promote safety and efficiency - could make a difference. What would this entail?

It's easy to take a simplistic view and address single issues, but such initiatives usually fail due to lack of understanding of interactions and complexity. For example, studies show flashing lights are better for attracting attention. In the west of Scotland, however, a full beam is often necessary to avoid potholes and other obstacles. The idea of using lights simply to "attract attention" only works if the roads are well lit and with good surfaces. This is the kind of area where we need integrated thinking. Some bike lights now have designs which allow for simultaneous beam/pulse.

You equally believe that we need to move away from cyclists blaming motorists for poor driving - and vice versa - by taking into account all factors that can affect how road users interact?

The vast majority of cyclists are motorists and it really doesn't help to talk of two tribes. I think some proper simulation training would help, such as that used in safety in healthcare, the military and aviation. It would be very helpful if cyclists could get some experience behind the wheel of a bus or HGV, to understand more about position, visibility and judging speed/distance from that angle.

Similarly, driver training could easily incorporate some basic experience of cycling and the issues around junctions or turning across traffic. I'd also love some local transport planners and managers to get some experience of how their road layouts feel from the bike cockpit.

What additional advice would you give on clothing, reflectors and lights to that issued by the Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors?

It's easier to buy clothing, mudguards, bags and so on with built in reflectors because that way they don't fall off, annoy you by becoming loose and you don't forget or lose them.

The newer LED lights are amazingly bright - you don't want to go the other way and dazzle drivers or others. I have my front light mounted with a bit of give so I can simply move it into "full beam" or "dip" by hand to suit the oncoming vehicles and pedestrians.

Is there any other areas you would highlight?

Visibility is not just about clothing and light conditions. It's become somehow synonymous with high-vis but it's also about such factors as vehicle design (eg. blind spots), road design as well as the speed and direction of movement.

Olympic champion Chris Boardman said earlier this month that he chooses not to wear a helmet or high visibility clothing because he want "bikes to be for normal people in normal clothes". What is your view on this stance?

We need both "upstream" approaches to transport cultures and "downstream" approaches to being as safe as possible within the system we inhabit at the moment. These are not contradictory. The only danger is if visibility obscures the bigger social/cultural issues, or if imagining a better world means we give up on more proximal factors.

The irony of Chris Boardman commenting on social norms is that cycling in the UK has, for better or for worse, seen a recent surge in popularity associated with success at a sporting level on the track first and subsequently on the road. Thus the "normal" is a bit more performance/fitness related than in places like the Netherlands where in flat, small cities bikes are simply a way to get around easily.

"Normal" clothes include belts, buckles, trouser legs, scarves and handbags all of which are potentially risky. This is especially true on the type of racing/sportive bike Chris wants us to buy: the Dutch utopias he alludes to have mostly "sit up and beg" bikes with fully or partially enclosed chains.

I'm against helmet compulsion for cyclists (and drivers and pedestrians alike). The evidence is clear that public health benefits of cycling outweigh costs and that helmets a) stop people cycling and b) don't prevent injuries in serious road traffic accidents.

I wear a helmet a lot: I would never go mountain biking without one and when commuting I like to have a lid on. But on some hot sunny days, with good roads, clear skies and especially when going uphill, I like to feel the breeze in my hair while I still have some ...

A study by the University of Bath and Brunel University published last year found that high visibility vests and jackets made no difference to the space left by overtaking drivers. It is worth nothing that this research did not look at whether such devices made cyclists more visible at intersections or at night. The paper concentrated only on the use of high-vis clothing during daylight hours. Consequently there is a lot of conflicting views on this topic. What is your opinion?

I'm sure the results are true. The separation distances were not affected by clothing/cyclist type. My main conclusion on reading the paper was that all the "cyclist types" in the study were probably visible. I'm sure that asking drivers would have ascertained this, although the design of the research conducted didn't make this possible.

The design of the study implied a visibility "scale" that would predict more room given to high-vis (more visible = more room). I wonder if it is more digital: you can be seen or not. Accordingly, I think the inference from the study is that, if you are visible, it doesn't really matter what you are wearing. This does not mean that clothing is unrelated to you being visible or not.

Visibility at busy intersections is important and, as above, it is about much more than clothing alone. At night/dark mornings, reflection and lights are certainly vital and evidence-based. Remember cyclists have to perceive and avoid "stealth cyclists" too and it's illuminating (no pun intended) to observe people with no lights or reflective clothing on cycle paths and to see how our own reaction times are affected.

What are your thoughts on the issue? Feel free to share your views in the comments section.