Originally Posted by
jfowler85
Citation? Oh right, this is just opinion based in...well, nothing really.
You the distinction of being the only person on my ignore list but I'll make an exception in this case. How many citations do you want? These the aforementioned
Sheldon Brown page. T
here's this page that makes a pretty good case for how reflectors have to be properly aligned and often aren't. I know that Forrester is mostly persona non grata on the bike forums but he does present a good case for what reflectors have lead to
here and he presents lots of citations on the subject
here. There's also the work of Helmut Zwahlen from the University of Ohio if you are looking for more scholarly work.
Here's one with this nice quote
The crossing path crash simulation results showed that none of the reflector or light treatments tested improved detection or recognition. All treatments were detected andrecognized at less than 200 feet. The results of this portion of the study demonstrate thedifficulties for effective countermeasure for a crossing path collision. Even the large area reflective sheeting target with good angularity characteristics did not perform well. Limitations of a driver's peripheral vision, limited headlight beam spread and background visual noise are known factors that contribute to decreasing detection and recognition distance. CPSC staff believes a bicycle side treatment with significantly increased signal strength may be necessary to improve detection distances under these conditions.
It is somewhat dated...done in the mid 90s...and the "light treatment" they used was a 2.4W halogen light. However, reflector design hasn't changed much since the report was written while active lighting
has changed a whole lot.