Those Vini-sponsored Italian pro conti kits are visible from helicopter cameras solo or in a mass of moving riders, so I'm going to maintain that it works in motion, too.
That's because the colour is simply a contrast to the others in what is perceptibly an 'object' with little relative motion. The helicopter is viewing one body, more or less together and more or less moving the same speed therefore relative motion to each other is negligible, and again contrast of color is visible. The viewer (you or camera shot) is also stationary relative to the objects in motion. If it was a quick pan shot and the camera was going one way and the peloton in the opposite direction, you'll notice that high-viz isn't any more perceptible than other colours or patterns which offer contrast. If you were specifically looking for high-viz knowing that that is what you'll be trying to prove, you're just falling into the confirmation bias scenario. If properly tested however your response to "what did you see?" would be fairly equal among anything that provided contrast. High-viz for cyclists is just fashion, sorry to burst your bubble, and appealing to false beliefs of how the human eye actually works. In selling you give people what they want, not necessarily what is actually correct. People want high-viz because they think it's safer? Sure, I'll sell that to you. You want a mirror on your helmet? I'll sell you one. You want a clock? I've got a famous clock to sell you too, it's in London and is often called "Ben."
Your example exemplifies confirmation bias, not actual science unfortunately.
When it comes to stationary objects, contrast if in form of a bright colour is visible. Sure. Which is why most 'stationary' or low-movement workers wear high-viz colours. The actual objects moving around? No need for high vis. The cones? Hi-viz. They aren't moving. Objects in motion which are not moving at an equal speed or significant relative speed to the viewer? Colour is not a signficant factor, and never will be, sorry. If it was you're going to need to contradict thousands of years of evolution across multiple species (not just humans) because it pertains to the way light is detected by the eye. Cones or rods, it doesn't matter: contrast makes the difference, not colour.
|| Other projects in the works.