Full face helmet colour?

[ian5708]

I want to get a full face helmet. 

I cannot decide whether to get a black one to blend in or a bright colour one to be more visible to traffic from behind when I'm riding on the road. 

With a black helmet I can blend in better which could have its advantages also. 

What are you thoughts? 

[Rehab1]

4 hours ago, ian5708 said:

I want to get a full face helmet. 

I cannot decide whether to get a black one to blend in or a bright colour one to be more visible to traffic from behind when I'm riding on the road. 

With a black helmet I can blend in better which could have its advantages also. 

What are you thoughts? 

Such an individual preference. Black is neutral so naturally it will match whatever you wear but I’ve seen some dynamic helmet/ riding gear combos that pop with color and look less menacing.  Buy both and your problem is solved. 

[FlyboyEUC]

I aim to be seen by cars and others. I wear a white/neon orange helmet, a high visibility vest, and any color of pants (depends on the day). I will say that generally I am a colorful person. There is too much darkness in the world so I try to add color to the world and brighten people's day  

I also feel it's less intimidating.

[Unventor]

These days I use a black MC helmet, only because it wasn't avaliable in high visual colours. 

But this video are from when I rode in traffic yellow/green. If you notive the other rider in black helmet you might see the answer you seek ´:

This is how I look now after I upgraded my ride suit ( upgraded to get all weather, rain and heal friendly suit):

[scotchtape]

Hi Viz all the way  

Anything I can do to be seen by these sleepy drivers is a plus.

[Biped Phil]

I notice some helmets with a chin element do not appear to have air vents.  Does helmet color make a big difference to comfort in sunny tropical climates?

[Unventor]

If you read through the helmet thread I think you will find many valid input ventilation issues. 

[LanghamP]

Using bright disparate clothing to be more easily seen is incorrect, as study after study has shown. Humans can see patterns and movement best; the best camouflage, through testing and operative experience, is that of disruptive camouflage where a recognizable pattern is broken up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_coloration

Almost all bikers and cyclists use bright colors (bright colors working better than grey shades) in irregular patterns in order to disrupt the human ability to see and recognize them. Because using bright irregular patterns is the most effective way of not being seen, I can only conclude that bikers (and EUC riders here) do not want to be seen by drivers. That is, given the choice between being recognized as a person and being nearly invisible, people like @Unventorin his second picture would prefer not to be seen, because his choice of protective clothing exactly imitates disruptive camouflage. Since virtually all bicycle and motorcycle manufacturers make almost exclusively disruptive colors (or black) in their protective clothing (the worst possible choice), then I can only conclude that both users and manufacturers want to get hit by drivers, with their clothing then providing maximum impact protection. 

[FlyboyEUC]

Not trying to contend but I don't see how warships using "camo" to confuse enemies from killing them and cyclist being seen by drivers are tied together. People will see a red object faster than a black object. In the dark of night, when I want to be seen the most, do everything to be seen. Lights, reflection, etc. Hence why cars must have headlights and cyclist must have reflectors by law. In the day it is easy to see a black blur flying by sidewalks and cars but still a rainbow or solid red blur would be easier to see and thus avoid. Cars aren't trying to launch torpedoes at cyclists.

Again not trying to contend, I just don't see the connection. 

(This video was cool though. I was not aware of this military tactic.)

[LanghamP]

16 minutes ago, Flyboy10 said:

Not trying to contend but I don't see how warships using "camo" to confuse enemies from killing them and cyclist being seen by drivers are tied together. People will see a red object faster than a black object. In the dark of night, when I want to be seen the most, do everything to be seen. Lights, reflection, etc. Hence why cars must have headlights and cyclist must have reflectors by law. In the day it is easy to see a black blur flying by sidewalks and cars but still a rainbow or solid red blur would be easier to see and thus avoid. Cars aren't trying to launch torpedoes at cyclists.

Again not trying to contend, I just don't see the connection. 

(This video was cool though. I was not aware of this military tactic.)

If at night then of course you want lights. I'd even wager that you with lights at night is safer than any situation in the daytime, because lights stand out like nothing else, but reflectors would be horribly ineffective since they are outside the cone of light put out by a car.

In the daytime, however, you're fighting three problems that make human vision ineffective.

1. The stereo vision humans have to detect anything doesn't work very well beyond 30 meters. Inside this range, humans are deadly predators, capable of detecting creatures that don't move. This presents a problem to the automobile driver, because a vehicle can cover that distance in a time that is under the reaction time of the driver.

2. That means stereo vision is ineffective in many (most) driving situations and therefore drivers are depending another trait of predator vision...that of movement. Humans, being able to see in color, are able to detect anything that moves extremely well under almost any lighting condition. This presents a problem to the driver because anything moving in the same direction is effectively invisible. It is for this reason that even a slow tennis ball returned directly at your head is so damned hard to spot (ouch) or MLB players seem to have laughably slow reaction times before they get bonked on the head.

3. That means, finally and worryingly, the human predator defaults to the final and least effective form of spotting...that of pattern recognition. That is, the driver will recognize there is person in front of him, and then based upon the driver's experience on how big things should be at various distances, will then calculate how far away the rider is. If the pattern is broken up then the driver won't recognize the rider until 2 and then finally 1 kicks in!

You are riding a vehicle that is much slower than a car (condition 1), usually traveling in the same direction as the driver (condition 2), and so do you really really want to wear razzle dazzle camouflage (condition 3)?

[Unventor]

8 hours ago, LanghamP said:

Almost all bikers and cyclists use bright colors (bright colors working better than grey shades) in irregular patterns in order to disrupt the human ability to see and recognize them. Because using bright irregular patterns is the most effective way of not being seen, I can only conclude that bikers (and EUC riders here) do not want to be seen by drivers. That is, given the choice between being recognized as a person and being nearly invisible, people like @Unventorin his second picture would prefer not to be seen, because his choice of protective clothing exactly imitates disruptive camouflage. Since virtually all bicycle and motorcycle manufacturers make almost exclusively disruptive colors (or black) in their protective clothing (the worst possible choice), then I can only conclude that both users and manufacturers want to get hit by drivers, with their clothing then providing maximum impact protection. 

A lot of things are how eyes work in theory. Put into practice is a bit of a different matter. 

Then combine that with practicality and ease of use and given what choices you can find, and within the price range you are willing to pay.

I agree it is not 100 % ideal in my picture, but I didn't want all black nor white so the 2nd best was the grey-sand-black suit I got. I can always mix it with my acid yellow TSG Pas helmet.

In the dark I always wear light on me/backpack, front and rear. I tend to signal a lot more with my hands as standing still on an EUC down by my sides is proceed as a static shade.

[ian5708]

Brilliant response! Thanks to everyone who posted. I couldn't like them all as the number of likes seem to be restricted. 

I think I will but a bright yellow/lime green n full face. 

[Rehab1]

12 minutes ago, ian5708 said:

Brilliant response! Thanks to everyone who posted. I couldn't like them all as the number of likes seem to be restricted. 

I think I will but a bright yellow/lime green n full face. 

Please post a photo when your helmet arrives.

[LanghamP]

7 hours ago, Unventor said:

lot of things are how eyes work in theory. Put into practice is a bit of a different matter

Are you using "theory" in the scientific sense?

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.

The information I gave to you is been confirmed again and again in evolutionary biology, and in practical applications mostly war-related. Is this insufficient for you? That is, what higher level of proof would you find satisfactory?

[Unventor]

1 minute ago, LanghamP said:

Are you using "theory" in the scientific sense?

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.

The information I gave to you is been confirmed again and again in evolutionary biology, and in practical applications mostly war-related. Is this insufficient for you? That is, what higher level of proof would you find satisfactory?

Nvm.... You win happy? 

However, do mind posting a picture of how you look riding your EUC?

And please consider someone asked a question about fullface helmet. That was what I tried to supply info in the first place. 

For the record, most things are tested one thing at a time but mixing a lot of variables together, it does not always add up as expected. And I don't think my MC suit could class as camouflage clothing. 

Now I know when I drive a car whom I spot first, black clothing people with no light or traffic yellow/green/orange coloured clothing with reflective markings and lighting. 

So please give me more war scientific data... Just for the fun of it. 

[LanghamP]

1 hour ago, Unventor said:

For the record, most things are tested one thing at a time but mixing a lot of variables together, it does not always add up as expected. And I don't think my MC suit could class as camouflage clothing. 

Now I know when I drive a car whom I spot first, black clothing people with no light or traffic yellow/green/orange coloured clothing with reflective markings and lighting. 

I am going to add another thing that occasionally (often) invalidates that being seen is useful.

As stereo vision predators, we naturally and very quickly align our bodies towards whatever we see. That is, the human startle response results in the human facing towards the threat! You can confirm this; whenever you startle someone they instantly face you (or just scare your cat).

That means that whenever something suddenly appears the driver will aim towards it; training and experience makes people swerve or dodge away from the threat but it is not the initial instinct.

This term is called Target Fixation. 

It is associated with scenarios in which the observer is in control of a high-speed vehicle or other mode of transportation, such as fighter pilots, race-car drivers and motorcyclists.[1] In such cases, the observer may fixate so intently on the target that they steer in the direction of their gaze, which is often the ultimate cause of a collision.[1] 

It is for this reason I strongly suggest lower speed limits within city limits (or being on streets with low speed traffic); the human predator has more time to process you (the rider) without invoking the startle reflex.

I'm guessing (not a theory but a postulation) that a lot of bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists that get killed are because they weren't recognized until too late, and then the driver swerved into them. If you look at car crashes on stroads, you'll notice an awful lot of them seem to aim at each other. My dashcam of my recent crash shows the two drivers apparently aiming at each other. If you look at rear-ended collisions, almost all could be avoided simply by turning the steering wheel 1 degree to the left or the right; the fact that almost no driver does so is a good indication the startle response made the driver run into the car/vehicle/person in front of them.

To sum up, you as a rider want two different things.

1. You want to be seen at long distances so the driver will calmly avoid you.

2. You don't want to be seen at short distances if that means the driver will be target fixated on you. Although...if you're directly in front of him you're screwed.

[Unventor]

You seriously belive yourself? 

[LanghamP]

3 minutes ago, Unventor said:

You seriously belive yourself? 

You are welcome to refute any or all these arguments while providing a better alternative.

[Olav]

5 hours ago, ian5708 said:

Brilliant response! Thanks to everyone who posted. I couldn't like them all as the number of likes seem to be restricted. 

I think I will but a bright yellow/lime green n full face. 

I'm sporting this one, which I like very well: https://www.amazon.co.uk/BELL-Super-MIPS-Cycling-Helmet/dp/B07CR4571Q/ref=cts_sp_1_vtp
Not very cheep, but its a good helmet.

Happy hunting 

[ian5708]

1 hour ago, Olav said:

I'm sporting this one, which I like very well: https://www.amazon.co.uk/BELL-Super-MIPS-Cycling-Helmet/dp/B07CR4571Q/ref=cts_sp_1_vtp
Not very cheep, but its a good helmet.

Happy hunting 

Very nice indeed Olav! However If hate to come off and bash it and need a replacement, but I'm sure the protection provided is way better than a cheaper one. I would think, nice and light too.