also FYI ... this is the body of the text:

There was also a significant main effect of bicycle light, F(2,21) = 15.93, p < .001, partial η2 = .60, such that the mean response distance was longer in the no-light condition (75.0 m) than in either the static (49.0 m) or flashing (52.1 m) light conditions. The static and flashing conditions did not differ significantly. The primary reason for the significant main effect of bicycle light was that the light, whether it was static or flashing, decreased response distances in the vest, ankle and knee condition relative to the no-light condition. This pattern may have resulted from the bicycle light (mounted on the handlebars) acting as a glare source that reduced the drivers’ ability to see the reflective markings on the ankles and knees. Accordingly, there was also a significant interaction between clothing and bicycle light, F(4,19) = 5.14, p = .006, partial η2 = .52, as can be seen in Fig. 3. Post hoc interaction contrasts showed that the difference between the vest condition and the vest, ankle and knee condition was greater in the absence of lights than in either the static or flashing conditions. The difference between the vest and black condition was also greater in the absence of lights than in either the static or flashing conditions.



that's why the StVZO anti-angle conditions make sense

way to shoot your argument in the foot ... quit trolling pubmed OK

x ∞