# The BBC get it wrong, AGAIN!!!



## Mugshot (5 Nov 2014)

Cut and pasted from todays BBC cycling write up, not sure if this bits been posted already,

_Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly, according to independent research firm the Transport Research Laboratory. 


So it would appear to make sense for cyclists to be as visible as possible. Hordes of lycra-clad cyclists in hi-vis colours indicate that many agree._

Words cannot describe how livid this crap makes me feel, the continual drip, drip, drip of victim blaming is nauseating.


----------



## MisterStan (5 Nov 2014)

To be fair, you could link to the article; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590 

And you could have quoted this bit too; 

_But research by Dr Ian Garrard, of Brunel University, casts doubt on assumptions about hi-vis. Dressed in various outfits - from casual clothes to professional high-vis gear - Garrard measured how much space 6,000 motorists gave him as they passed his bike.

Clothing made almost no statistically significant difference - 1-2% of drivers always drove dangerously close. Only two outfits altered driver behaviour - one which said "police", and another with "polite". The latter is an intentional imitation popular with cyclists and horse riders. _


----------



## Mugshot (5 Nov 2014)

I could have done, however that does not detract from the fact that the journo should have written that it would appear to make sense for drivers to look properly, it makes no difference how visible you are if people dont look.
The article is written with, in my opinion, a negative slant and the portion I have posted will be sufficient evidence for many that the responsibilty of avoiding collisions lies not with the people that aren't looking but with the people that aren't being looked for and that is bollocks.


----------



## MisterStan (5 Nov 2014)

_Most personal protective equipment - like helmets or high-vis - places the burden and cost of protection on the rider, they say. There's an ethical incongruence there, Walker says, as riders are effectively paying not to be killed by others.
'SNIP'
"If we really are serious about trying to make cycling part of our culture, either the cars have to be tamed, or the cyclists have to be segregated," Franklin says._

More balance for you...


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Nov 2014)

"Person disagrees with journalist's article national shocker" - Cyclechat


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Nov 2014)

"Reader misquotes journalist who misquoted scientific research debacle" - Cyclechat

"Forum poster antagonises reader who misquoted an article that misrepresented scientific research" - Cyclechat

-----

I'll stop now.


----------



## Mugshot (5 Nov 2014)

MisterStan said:


> _Most personal protective equipment - like helmets or high-vis - places the burden and cost of protection on the rider, they say. There's an ethical incongruence there, Walker says, as riders are effectively paying not to be killed by others.
> 'SNIP'
> "If we really are serious about trying to make cycling part of our culture, either the cars have to be tamed, or the cyclists have to be segregated," Franklin says._
> 
> More balance for you...


Do you think that the onus of looking properly lies with the person doing the looking or the person that is being looked for? Could you perhaps post the section which says that less cyclists would be run over, in this instance killed, if drivers looked properly?
What the comment I posted says is that it is the cyclists responsibilty to ensure they are seen, it does not say it is the motorists responsibilty to look properly, and no matter what steps you take if you are not looked for you _will_ not be seen. If I were a non cyclist reading that then it presents me with all the ammuntion I need to continue with impunity, the rest I can ignore as guff particulalry when we also have the following,

_But it's important to note that this research was carried out in daytime conditions. Even though 80% of accidents occur in daylight, at night it's a different matter - anything that makes you visible is highly recommended._


----------



## PK99 (5 Nov 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Cut and pasted from todays BBC cycling write up, not sure if this bits been posted already,
> 
> _Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly, according to independent research firm the Transport Research Laboratory.
> 
> ...



interesting point made in the NHS Choices article you link to, just below the 44% point you refer to:

"*On average, there were 1.82 contributory factors associated with cyclists involved in a fatal collision and 1.60 contributory factors for drivers.

This suggests that cyclists are slightly more to blame for fatal collisions.* However, this is just one set of figures.
Whatever the true extent of “blame” (if any can or should be laid), it is important to note that cyclists are likely to come off worse from a collision.
Even the safest cyclist cannot avoid all possibility of an accident, and these figures would suggest that greater vigilance on the part of all road users would reduce the chances of a collision."

My point: Selective quoting and knee jerk reactions to individual bits of a report do not advance the argument or understanding

I'd recommend the whole article to all.
*Cycling safety – a special report 
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/02february/pages/cycling-safety-a-special-report.aspx#risk*


*Conclusion*
While there is a great deal that could be done to make our roads safer for cyclists, the risks to your safety should not put you off taking up cycling.

It is cheap and convenient in terms of transport, and has numerous health benefits.

To reduce your risk of being involved in a serious accident:

Never cycle drunk and always pay attention to your road position and that of other road users
Wear appropriate clothing and make sure your bike is kitted out with lights. This ensures you are seen at all times of the day and night
If you are an inexperienced cyclist, practice in a park or a similar place of safety before venturing out on the roads
Read and learn the Highway Code – it applies to all road users, not just motorists
Get trained – those cycling proficiency classes you had back in school are probably not going to cut it for urban cycling
The DfT offers Bikeability training schemes – described as “cycling proficiency for the 21st century”!

Read more cycling tips for beginners and we hope you have many happy and safe cycle journeys.


----------



## KneesUp (5 Nov 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Cut and pasted from todays BBC cycling write up, not sure if this bits been posted already,
> 
> _Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly, according to independent research firm the Transport Research Laboratory.
> 
> ...




There is a prima facie case that this is correct. 

Obviously the research shows that the general instinct that wearing high visibility clothing makes a difference is incorrect, but I think most people would assume it would. As the journalist is aware of that research, it's pretty poor journalism.

That said, if it were correct that high visibility clothing makes a difference, then of course it makes sense for cyclists to wear it. That's not saying it's their fault, anymore than saying it's my fault if I cut my foot on broken glass on the beach because I wasn't wearing flip-flops.


----------



## MisterStan (5 Nov 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Do you think that the onus of looking properly lies with the person doing the looking or the person that is being looked for? Could you perhaps post the section which says that less cyclists would be run over, in this instance killed, if drivers looked properly?
> What the comment I posted says is that it is the cyclists responsibilty to ensure they are seen, it does not say it is the motorists responsibilty to look properly, and no matter what steps you take if you are not looked for you _will_ not be seen. If I were a non cyclist reading that then it presents me with all the ammuntion I need to continue with impunity, the rest I can ignore as guff particulalry when we also have the following,
> 
> _But it's important to note that this research was carried out in daytime conditions. Even though 80% of accidents occur in daylight, at night it's a different matter - anything that makes you visible is highly recommended._


If you say so.


----------



## glenn forger (5 Nov 2014)

The Beeb today devoted the entire bike segment to riding with earphones in. A practice not implicated in a single death. Why? It's not even in the top twenty ways of making cycling safer.


----------



## Dan B (5 Nov 2014)

PK99 said:


> *Conclusion*
> [...]
> To reduce your risk of being involved in a serious accident:



This does not seem to include the obvious recommendation: "Stop driving your motor vehicle into cyclists"


----------



## Mugshot (5 Nov 2014)

PK99 said:


> My point: Selective quoting and knee jerk reactions to individual bits of a report do not advance the argument or understanding


I don't disagree with this, nor am I (I hope) misunderstanding @MisterStan. My point, which I may be making very badly, is that as is pointed out in the quote from NHS choices article greater vigilance is needed, but you and I have read that article, if I were only to read the BBC journos bit, as I suspect most people will, then it doesn't say that and it would be supremely easy to have incuded just that as a quote at the start of the section on hi-viz to have totally changed the way it reads, whilst still providing a link to the whole report. As @KneesUp has said it's poor journalism. The section on helmets mentions the compulsion in other countries, one additional sentence would have told us the basic impact that compulsion has had there.
At the outset the article states that

_Many cyclists believe improving culture among drivers and boosting infrastructure are the only meaningful ways to save lives._

Perfect, lets have an article outlining some of those, the things which Boardman was actually trying to talk about, instead we get straight into helmets, hi-viz and headphones. It may be impossibly naive of me, but it would be nice if the whole issue could be broadened rather than continually getting bogged down by the three Hs which does nothing to challenge but merely supports the attitude of drivers.


----------



## benb (5 Nov 2014)

PK99 said:


> interesting point made in the NHS Choices article you link to, just below the 44% point you refer to:
> 
> "*On average, there were 1.82 contributory factors associated with cyclists involved in a fatal collision and 1.60 contributory factors for drivers.
> 
> This suggests that cyclists are slightly more to blame for fatal collisions.*



The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.
It could well be that as the cyclist has been killed, the driver is simply free to make up whatever story he likes about the circumstances.

We already know that overall drivers are solely responsible for 70% of driver/cyclist collisions (with cyclists solely responsible for 15% and 15% shared or unclear) and I cannot see a plausible mechanism where that ration would so drastically change for fatals.


----------



## benb (5 Nov 2014)

glenn forger said:


> The Beeb today devoted the entire bike segment to riding with earphones in. A practice not implicated in a single death. Why? It's not even in the top twenty ways of making cycling safer.



Because they are doing the broadcast version of clickbaiting.


----------



## Mugshot (5 Nov 2014)

KneesUp said:


> That said, if it were correct that high visibility clothing makes a difference, then of course it makes sense for cyclists to wear it. That's not saying it's their fault, anymore than saying it's my fault if I cut my foot on broken glass on the beach because I wasn't wearing flip-flops.


I don't quite understand this I'm sorry, are you saying that it may be advisable to wear flip flops on the beach in case there is broken glass, even if you would rather walk barefoot?


----------



## Mugshot (5 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> Because they are doing the broadcast version of clickbaiting.


It seems to be working


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Nov 2014)

They're covering this on Radio Scotland today at 12:00. Here's the tweet from the show's presenter:
https://twitter.com/BBCJohnBeattie/status/529934765349421056 followed by the usual drivel.

GC


----------



## Turbo Rider (5 Nov 2014)

Hmm...I quite liked the article and I found it fairly balanced, both in presenting the issues and addressing them impartially.

I know that the issues presented within it have probably been churned over to the point of exhaustion in this and many other forums, but if you're not into cycling or chatting on forums, then you probably werent aware of the amount of evidence, pointed to in the article, which contradicts the suppositions of your average driver and / or rider...or any other type for that matter.

Highlighting these bones of contention and pointing them out to the masses as myths, which bare no consequence over whether an accident is caused, or not then, seems to be a perfectly reasonable way of pointing out to drivers and cyclists alike, that the main issues at hand are down do infrastructure, general dicking around or inexperience (on both parts) and heavy handed driving and I think there's a strong possibility that the more people are made to think about these things, the more they will consider how they do things in future.

Definitely didn't get the 'blame the dangerously silly victim' view which seems to have been taken.

Hey ho...


----------



## steveindenmark (5 Nov 2014)

I wear Hi vis gear all the time. I have no doubt at all if you dress 2 people, one in hi vis and one not in hi vis, and stand them 500m away. You will see the one in high vis first. That is what high vis clothing clothing is supposed to do.

What happens after that is pot luck. At least you have tried and if you get run down, hopefully your families solicitor has a fighting chance of winning a claim for thosd you leave behind. But dont bank on it.


----------



## snorri (5 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> You will see the one in high vis first.


Is it a good thing from the general road safety point of view to have drivers distracted from nearby hazards by conspicuous objects placed well outside the area of potential danger?


----------



## GrasB (5 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> Wear Hi vis gear all the time. I have no doubt at all if you dress 2 people, one in hi vis and one not in hi vis, and stand them 500m away. You will see the one in high vis first. That is what high vis clothing clothing is supposed to d0


My commented drives says different! Two pedestrians, cyclists, workers etc. next to each other I'll list as I see them. It's pot luck which one I see first. Hi-viz makes it easier to track them if you're not consciously tracking the item.


----------



## bianchi1 (5 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> My commented drives says different! Two pedestrians, cyclists, workers etc. next to each other I'll list as I see them. It's pot luck which one I see first. Hi-viz makes it easier to track them if you're not consciously tracking the item.



Which rider is most conspicuous?


----------



## 400bhp (5 Nov 2014)

"Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly, according to independent research firm the Transport Research Laboratory."........

The issue with the conclusion that cyclists should wear hi viz because of the above is that the study says nothing about the correlation of the 44% and whether /whether not someone was wearing hi viz.

What you need is the 44% broken down further into i)proportion wearning no hi viz and ii)proportion wearing hi viz. That isn't even allowing for night time accidents which I've conveniently ignored. If we had this data we could then have a much better understanding of the relevance of hi viz.

Not only that, some of the other accidents (close passes) could have occured because of the absence (or not) of hi viz.


----------



## sidevalve (5 Nov 2014)

Having worn hi vis gear at work for thirty years and seen the difference, especially at night or poor light I can't see a reasoned argument for not wearing it.
Not to wear - 1 - I don't see why I should take responsibility for my own safety - it's always someone else’s fault and of course 2 - I want to prove a point [even if it kills me].
Reasons to wear 1- you have to wear something anyway [if not it can get a bit chilly]. If you ride to work cycling gear and most work gear are not the same so you can't usually use the same stuff. 2 - it just isn't expensive. 3 - it might save your life - especially at night reflective strips etc really do work. Finally there are no statistics for accidents that don't happen. To say "oh x number of motorists passed just as close" is irrelevant - the point is they saw you anyway however close they came. Only by being involved in an accident and then duplicating the exact circumstances again [impossible] with different riding gear can the theory be in anyway proved.


----------



## steveindenmark (5 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> My commented drives says different! Two pedestrians, cyclists, workers etc. next to each other I'll list as I see them. It's pot luck which one I see first. Hi-viz makes it easier to track them if you're not consciously tracking the item.



First of all I will just comment on my opening post. I meant to write "I wear hi viz" big fingers little keyboard. I was not suggesting you should all wear it. But you can if you want to. I have editer my post.

GrasB, its not pot luck which one you see first. You will see the hi viz one first. How you react afterwards is up to you.

Snorri..." I am sorry m'lud I crashed into the car because a hi viz jacket 200 metres ahead caught my eye and I did not see the vehicle" its not going to happen.

I am not a drum basher about hi viz but I wear it.


----------



## summerdays (5 Nov 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Cut and pasted from todays BBC cycling write up, not sure if this bits been posted already,
> 
> _Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly, according to independent research firm the Transport Research Laboratory.
> 
> ...


I can say after an awful day that I think the statistic is far too low, I've had multiple near incidents today where the motorists failed to see me and I was wearing hi-vis (well either fluo orange or bright pink depending on how hot it was), with lights.

Basically they are not trying to see cyclists, they are looking for other cars not bikes! If I was doing the Near Miss project today (it's finished now so I can't), then I would have had lots to write but mostly that cars didn't look properly. And that they need to take more of the responsibility, at the moment we have to take avoiding action and cycle defensively assuming potential problems, why don't they do some of that!


----------



## Profpointy (5 Nov 2014)

summerdays said:


> I can say after an awful day that I think the statistic is far too low, I've had multiple near incidents today where the motorists failed to see me and I was wearing hi-vis (well either fluo orange or bright pink depending on how hot it was), with lights.
> 
> Basically they are not trying to see cyclists, they are looking for other cars not bikes! If I was doing the Near Miss project today (it's finished now so I can't), then I would have had lots to write but mostly that cars didn't look properly. And that they need to take more of the responsibility, at the moment we have to take avoiding action and cycle defensively assuming potential problems, why don't they do some of that!



Although I usually wear something bright, not necessarily hi-viz per se, I think a much bigger problem is motorists seeing you then actually not giving a f***. Or worse, actual aggression / barging off the road. Left hookings are arguable people who've already done a perfectly reasonable over take, so by definition, have seen you, however much they may then say otherwsie


----------



## summerdays (5 Nov 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Although I usually wear something bright, not necessarily hi-viz per se, I think a much bigger problem is motorists seeing you then actually not giving a f***. Or worse, actual aggression / barging off the road. Left hookings are arguable people who've already done a perfectly reasonable over take, so by definition, have seen you, however much they may then say otherwsie


Yep saw a left hook this morning too - luckily the cyclist slowed down, but it happens all the time at that particular junction, the motorist doesn't think, they are aware enough to overtake them, but then they are forgotten as they turn!


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (5 Nov 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Although I usually wear something bright, not necessarily hi-viz per se, I think a much bigger problem is motorists seeing you then actually not giving a f***. Or worse, actual aggression / barging off the road. Left hookings are arguable people who've already done a perfectly reasonable over take, so by definition, have seen you, however much they may then say otherwsie



Agreed. The problem is, it's a lot easier to blame cyclists and push for compulsory wearing of hi-viz (and helmets) than it is to tackle driver behaviour, hence the "war on the motorist" and "cyclists vs. motorists" cobblers we hear so much about. The pieces I've seen on the BBC this week aren't helping matters.


----------



## Origamist (5 Nov 2014)

sidevalve said:


> *Having worn hi vis gear at work for thirty years and seen the difference, especially at night or poor light I can't see a reasoned argument for not wearing it.*
> Not to wear - 1 - I don't see why I should take responsibility for my own safety - it's always someone else’s fault and of course 2 - I want to prove a point [even if it kills me].
> Reasons to wear 1- you have to wear something anyway [if not it can get a bit chilly]. If you ride to work cycling gear and most work gear are not the same so you can't usually use the same stuff. 2 - it just isn't expensive. 3 - it might save your life - especially at night reflective strips etc really do work. Finally there are no statistics for accidents that don't happen. To say "oh x number of motorists passed just as close" is irrelevant - the point is they saw you anyway however close they came. Only by being involved in an accident and then duplicating the exact circumstances again [impossible] with different riding gear can the theory be in anyway proved.


 
It doesn't seem to make you less likely to be involved in a collision?


----------



## summerdays (5 Nov 2014)

If we all wore hi-vis, helmets and lights all the time, what would be the next thing they would use to transfer the blame for any subsequent accident. All the above are not going to guarantee that you won't have an accident.

At some point the motorist has to take responsibility.


----------



## MisterStan (5 Nov 2014)

summerdays said:


> At some point the motorist has to take responsibility.


Preferably the point they start the engine.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Nov 2014)

summerdays said:


> If we all wore hi-vis, helmets and lights all the time, what would be the next thing they would use to transfer the blame for any subsequent accident. All the above are not going to guarantee that you won't have an accident.
> 
> At some point the motorist has to take responsibility.



But the nub of all this is, if we all did wear hi-viz, would the 44% quoted in the report materially decrease.

We can make an educated guess but if policy was to be changed then we should expect to see real evidence to back this up. We don't have any evidence AFAIK, apart from a study which suggests (albeit it really isn't testing the correct thing) the clothing you wear has no bearing on how a vehicle passes you.


----------



## Inertia (5 Nov 2014)

Another article about cycling from the BBC, it seems lot more balanced though

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590


----------



## GrasB (5 Nov 2014)

bianchi1 said:


> Which rider is most conspicuous?
> 
> View attachment 60927


I picked up the dark clothed horse rider first due to my search pattern.


----------



## summerdays (5 Nov 2014)

400bhp said:


> But the nub of all this is, if we all did wear hi-viz, would the 44% quoted in the report materially decrease.
> 
> We can make an educated guess but if policy was to be changed then we should expect to see real evidence to back this up. We don't have any evidence AFAIK, apart from a study which suggests (albeit it really isn't testing the correct thing) the clothing you wear has no bearing on how a vehicle passes you.


We know it wouldn't but equally they would need to blame something else because at the moment that is what happens.


----------



## Origamist (5 Nov 2014)

400bhp said:


> But the nub of all this is, if we all did wear hi-viz, would the 44% quoted in the report materially decrease.
> 
> We can make an educated guess but if policy was to be changed then we should expect to see real evidence to back this up. We don't have any evidence AFAIK, apart from a study which suggests (albeit it really isn't testing the correct thing) the clothing you wear has no bearing on how a vehicle passes you.


 
Have you seen this recent study:

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/

Worth a read of the thesis, if you've got time on your hands!


----------



## PK99 (5 Nov 2014)

summerdays said:


> Yep saw a left hook this morning too - luckily the cyclist slowed down, but it happens all the time at that particular junction, the motorist doesn't think, t*hey are aware enough to overtake* them, but then they are forgotten as they turn!



Overtake (ie cyclist far enough out to require car to change line to overtake) or pass (ie cyclist close enough to kerb to allow pass without adjusting line?


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Nov 2014)

bianchi1 said:


> Which rider is most conspicuous?
> 
> View attachment 60927




Now put a black car and bright yellow car in the same place...... which one is more obvious and what does it prove that having a dark couloured car is silly?

Equally.... putting lights on these two riders woul have made them far more visible than the yellow jacket does


----------



## Scoosh (5 Nov 2014)

bianchi1 said:


> Which rider is most conspicuous?
> 
> View attachment 60927


I'm still looking for the 3rd or 4th one ... 



[pedant mode: more/ most ]


----------



## summerdays (5 Nov 2014)

PK99 said:


> Overtake (ie cyclist far enough out to require car to change line to overtake) or pass (ie cyclist close enough to kerb to allow pass without adjusting line?


They change position slightly and though the corner radius is relatively tight so could be for that reason instead.


----------



## Pale Rider (5 Nov 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Words cannot describe how livid this crap makes me feel, the continual drip, drip, drip of victim blaming is nauseating.



Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me.

(With a nod to the Carry On team).


----------



## 400bhp (5 Nov 2014)

Origamist said:


> Have you seen this recent study:
> 
> http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/
> 
> Worth a read of the thesis, if you've got time on your hands!



Well, so far I have read 3/4 of the inernet page (not the report)

But:



> No reduction in crash risk could be demonstrated.



Says a lot.

From my skim reading a lot of thought seems to have been put into the study by the student.


----------



## mjr (5 Nov 2014)

sidevalve said:


> Having worn hi vis gear at work for thirty years and seen the difference, especially at night or poor light I can't see a reasoned argument for not wearing it.
> Not to wear - 1 - I don't see why I should take responsibility for my own safety - it's always someone else’s fault and of course 2 - I want to prove a point [even if it kills me].
> Reasons to wear 1- you have to wear something anyway [if not it can get a bit chilly]. If you ride to work cycling gear and most work gear are not the same so you can't usually use the same stuff. 2 - it just isn't expensive. 3 - it might save your life - especially at night reflective strips etc really do work. Finally there are no statistics for accidents that don't happen. To say "oh x number of motorists passed just as close" is irrelevant - the point is they saw you anyway however close they came. Only by being involved in an accident and then duplicating the exact circumstances again [impossible] with different riding gear can the theory be in anyway proved.


The closer they come, the more slight the misjudgement that would result in a collision.

Reflective strips are not hi-vis. I have subtle reflective elements even on dark jackets. I don't mind that. It's the builder-style yellow red herring jackets I no longer wear unless I'm doing something unusual, like a site inspection or marshalling.

It's fun to make up silly reasons that are easy to knock down, but not very useful. Here are some actual reasons not to wear - 1 hi-vis doesn't improve safety: there's no reduction in collisions or injury found in studies yet, 2 - yellow and orange are basically low-contrast camouflage against the low winter sun common at this time of year, 3 - IMO it's less visible than even black under the newest LED streetlights (it shows up grey - this surprised me, but it's understandable because the lights are blueish-white), 4- it doesn't matter if the driver sees you slightly earlier as long as they see you in time, 5 - it might actually be worse if the driver sees you so early that they feel they have dealt with you by the time they pass, 6 - it's antisocial because it distracts drivers from other riders/walkers/animals who may be nearer but aren't dressed like a lemon, 7 - it's a bit of an arms race - once everything is hi-vis yellow, then we're all back to square one and there'll be calls to wear something else - maybe a lit yellow star? 8 - it's ugly and spoils tourist photos (tourism is important to Norfolk), 9 - it's another thing to carry around with you all day, 10 - after a few washes (varies by jacket - check the label - I've seen as low as ten washes), it's no longer hi-vis so you have to keep buying new ones.

Calls for people to wear hi-vis are either deliberate attempts or clueless help to distract from the bigger source of danger: bad motorists.


----------



## Poacher (5 Nov 2014)

400bhp said:


> From my skim reading a lot of thought seems to have been put into the study by the student.



As one of the controls, and having recruited further controls, I think you're right - he seemed very professional in his attitude.


----------



## glenn forger (5 Nov 2014)

Wot MJ said.


----------



## GrasB (5 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> GrasB, its not pot luck which one you see first. You will see the hi viz one first.


The one I see first is the person that enters my visual search pattern first, pot luck really.





My search pattern started at the red blob & went along the red line toward the bar. It then jumped to the green blob & ran along the line to the bar. Finally I jumped to the blue blob followed the nearside line of the road round the corner.

As I encounter the darker horse rider first they were identified first, swap the horse riders round so the hi-viz was at the back you'd be saying that it was because they were wearing hi-viz but actually no, they were simply encountered first on my search pattern. The hi-viz horse rider was down as a bit of field for a split second!


----------



## Drago (5 Nov 2014)

I wouldn't trust the TRL to manage a good s***. Recently they were doing some motorbike crash analysis. The only bike they could lay their hands on was a BMW with a boxer engine. Being a fairly unusual layout they simply removed the engine, and crash tested the rolling chassis. Seeing as most motorbikes that crash, even BMW boxers, usually have an engine in them, and these days that engine tends to be structural member they were slaughtered by the motorcyling press over that one. It's scary to think the evidence these guys scrape up is used to guide government policy, or is quoted by the Beeb to further ill inform a public with an already skewed view.


----------



## Mugshot (5 Nov 2014)

sidevalve said:


> Having worn hi vis gear at work for thirty years and seen the difference, especially at night or poor light I can't see a reasoned argument for not wearing it.
> Not to wear - 1 - I don't see why I should take responsibility for my own safety - it's always someone else’s fault and of course 2 - I want to prove a point [even if it kills me].
> Reasons to wear 1- you have to wear something anyway [if not it can get a bit chilly]. If you ride to work cycling gear and most work gear are not the same so you can't usually use the same stuff. 2 - it just isn't expensive. 3 - it might save your life - especially at night reflective strips etc really do work. Finally there are no statistics for accidents that don't happen. To say "oh x number of motorists passed just as close" is irrelevant - the point is they saw you anyway however close they came. Only by being involved in an accident and then duplicating the exact circumstances again [impossible] with different riding gear can the theory be in anyway proved.


What the report says is that the driver didn't look properly, maybe I'm over simplifying it but to my mind its seems rather obvious that if they did look properly they would see you hi-viz or not, that doesn't have anything to do with a cyclist not taking any responsibility for their own safety but it has an awful lot to do with other road users accepting that they at least have a share in the responsibility.


----------



## Mugshot (5 Nov 2014)

bianchi1 said:


> Which rider is most conspicuous?
> 
> View attachment 60927


If I don't look properly I can't see either of them.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Nov 2014)

bianchi1 said:


> Which rider is most conspicuous?
> 
> View attachment 60927


 
_"Call that music? Where's Radio Clyde? Oh look, Becky on Facebook can't believe how fast the weekend's gone! LOL
Fark, where'd those bloody horses come from?!?!"_​ 

GC


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (5 Nov 2014)

In July of this year I was cycling home and a car pulled out in front of me from a road on my left. I went through the drivers window at 30mph. The first thing it said on her witness statement was that she didnt see me. It then went on to say I was doing about 25mph and was in the middle of the road and if I was not in the middle of the road I would have gone around her. She also stated I my clothing was black.
The police officer told her the reason I was in the midde of my side of the road was to stop cars overtaking me on the blind corner I had just gone around, my speed was under the speed limit and that it doesnt matter what colour clothing I wear. His report put 100% of the blame on her.
If I had done what she had done, I would hold my hands up, I didnt look, Its my fault rather than trying to shift the blame. That seems to be how people think now. How can I shift the blame for my actions. The top I was wearing and the kit should have caught her eye as there was no block colours. Basically (and she admitted it in her statement) she didnt look.

The top I was wearing was indeed black, but it did also have fluorescent yellow stripes on the sleeves, shoulders and chest as well as a red sleeve and neck. (excuse the pics below, I have washed the shirt and all the blood has gone now!) I was wearing a white rucksack at the time as well and my helmet was a light silver/brown colour.


----------



## Mugshot (5 Nov 2014)

mjray said:


> Calls for people to wear hi-vis are either deliberate attempts or clueless help to distract from the bigger source of danger: bad motorists.


Exactly this. Halfway through the BBC article we are told that 44% of fatalities are caused by drivers not looking properly, surrounding this we have various pieces about helmets, hi-viz, headphones and flashing or steady lights. None of this addresses the issue which is relegated to a single sentence, where is the BBC article which discusses whether looking properly would improve cyclist safety?


----------



## summerdays (5 Nov 2014)

Has anyone found that it seems to be worse out there this week in terms of motorists /cyclists relationships and behaviour.

Even Mr Summerdays was having to defend cyclists in his office today!


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (5 Nov 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Exactly this. Halfway through the BBC article we are told that 44% of fatalities are caused by drivers not looking properly, surrounding this we have various pieces about helmets, hi-viz, headphones and flashing or steady lights. None of this addresses the issue which is relegated to a single sentence, where is the BBC article which discusses whether looking properly would improve cyclist safety?



It would improve the roads for everyone not just cyclists.


----------



## Mugshot (5 Nov 2014)

Martin Archer said:


> It would improve the roads for everyone not just cyclists.


You are absolutely right!


----------



## PK99 (5 Nov 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Exactly this. Halfway through the BBC article we are told that 44% of fatalities are caused by drivers not looking properly,



Actually we are told in the nhs article that in 44% of fatal accidents driver not looking properly was A contributory factor not THE cause


----------



## Mugshot (5 Nov 2014)

PK99 said:


> Actually we are told in the nhs article that in 44% of fatal accidents driver not looking properly was A contributory factor not THE cause


Yes, sorry, you're quite correct.

Edit: Apologies, I misread your reply, I was quoting the BBC article, not the NHS article. The BBC does not say a contributory factor.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Nov 2014)

summerdays said:


> Has anyone found that it seems to be worse out there this week in terms of motorists /cyclists relationships and behaviour.
> 
> Even Mr Summerdays was having to defend cyclists in his office today!



Driving standards have been poor this week for me. Nothing to do with them vs us, just simply bad driving. Some of this, I suspect, is down to a load of roadworks they have on the M60/M62 and it is clogging up south Manchester badly. Drivers get impatient and/or lose focus.


----------



## benb (6 Nov 2014)

Martin Archer said:


> In July of this year I was cycling home and a car pulled out in front of me from a road on my left. I went through the drivers window at 30mph. The first thing it said on her witness statement was that she didnt see me. It then went on to say I was doing about 25mph and was in the middle of the road and if I was not in the middle of the road I would have gone around her. She also stated I my clothing was black.



If she didn't see you, how did she know how fast you were going and your road positioning?


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (6 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> If she didn't see you, how did she know how fast you were going and your road positioning?


 
That was one of the questions I asked the policeman. Never did get an answer.


----------



## psmiffy (6 Nov 2014)

My thoughts both as a cyclist and driver is how early im seen or I see - no good being seen or seeing too late


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Nov 2014)

Shared on twitter by Carlton Reid:
Leaked – BBC Breakfast running order for cycling safety week (goes to Flickr)


GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Nov 2014)

The hypocrisy of the BBC, compelling presenters to wear helmets if cycling but it's fine for them to travel in a car without wearing a seatbelt. They distract real road safety efforts by promoting helmets yet eschew the proven effectiveness of seatbelts. Besides which, it's an offence and has been for many years!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29933556 (skip to 45sec)

GC


----------



## Mugshot (6 Nov 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Shared on twitter by Carlton Reid:
> Leaked – BBC Breakfast running order for cycling safety week (goes to Flickr)
> 
> 
> GC


Is that real?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Nov 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Is that real?
> View attachment 61034


 
No, but it's spreading fast and many think it is!

GC


----------



## Mugshot (6 Nov 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> No, but it's spreading fast and many think it is!
> 
> GC


Didn't think it could be, although in fairness it may as well be.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3365276, member: 9609"]concentrations fell by 10% whilst *listing* to music[/QUOTE]

_Port_ishead?

GC


----------



## Dan B (6 Nov 2014)

summerdays said:


> Has anyone found that it seems to be worse out there this week


The driving on my commute I've seen this week has been fcking awful. But I assumed this was just due to Clocks-Go-Back than any new developments on the Road Wars front. Hopefully in a few more days everyone will have remembered how to drive in the dark again.


----------



## mjr (6 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3365276, member: 9609"]I would have loved to raise the question does music also affect concentration levels of car van and wagon drivers, and should they also be advised to stop listening to music whilst driving?[/QUOTE]
http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/news/drivers-distracted-by-loud-music-1833 says "As many as 22 per cent of male drivers and 12 per cent of women motorists [in a survey of 1000] had had, or almost had, an accident due to listening to music."

Motorists, heal thyselves?


----------



## classic33 (6 Nov 2014)

sidevalve said:


> Having worn hi vis gear at work for thirty years and seen the difference, especially at night or poor light I can't see a reasoned argument for not wearing it.
> Not to wear - 1 - I don't see why I should take responsibility for my own safety - it's always someone else’s fault and of course 2 - I want to prove a point [even if it kills me].
> Reasons to wear 1- you have to wear something anyway [if not it can get a bit chilly]. If you ride to work cycling gear and most work gear are not the same so you can't usually use the same stuff. 2 - it just isn't expensive. 3 - it might save your life - especially at night reflective strips etc really do work. Finally there are no statistics for accidents that don't happen. To say "oh x number of motorists passed just as close" is irrelevant - the point is they saw you anyway however close they came. Only by being involved in an accident and then duplicating the exact circumstances again [impossible] with different riding gear can the theory be in anyway proved.


 Hi-Vis can't work at night due to the simple fact that the UV light in natural daylight isn't present. Hi-Vis also went by the name of dayglo for a few years. Why that name and why the change to Hi-Vis?


----------



## summerdays (6 Nov 2014)

classic33 said:


> Hi-Vis can't work at night due to the simple fact that the UV light in natural daylight isn't present. Hi-Vis also went by the name of dayglo for a few years. Why that name and why the change to Hi-Vis?


I normally assume the word Hi-Vis is a combination of bright colour and reflective bands. And that in some instances the size of the band etc is specified.


----------



## snorri (6 Nov 2014)

classic33 said:


> Why that name and why the change to Hi-Vis?


Dayglo is a registered trade mark so should not be used for all products of that type.


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I wear Hi vis gear all the time.


In Denmark? That would certainly make you stand out...


----------



## Scoosh (6 Nov 2014)

In the last few days (and I don't drive much at all) I've seen at least 4 drivers with earplugs in, either listening to music or phone and 1 with full ear-covering earphones. How can they expect to hear a cyclist's bell, a shout or even an emergency vehicle ?


----------



## mjr (6 Nov 2014)

Scoosh said:


> In the last few days (and I don't drive much at all) I've seen at least 4 drivers with earplugs in, either listening to music or phone and 1 with full ear-covering earphones. How can they expect to hear a cyclist's bell, a shout or even an emergency vehicle ?


Yeah I noticed the first one of these yesterday. Driving along with white ipoddish earplugs in. I wonder how common it is and why this isn't all over the news. It seems far more dangerous than riding a bike while listening to music and Lord knows that gets enough coverage.


----------



## young Ed (6 Nov 2014)

everyone loves to have a good dig at cyclists whenever possible, also farmers are often complained about. although both farmers and cyclists are the good people!
Cheers Ed


----------



## Shut Up Legs (6 Nov 2014)

Scoosh said:


> In the last few days (and I don't drive much at all) I've seen at least 4 drivers with earplugs in, either listening to music or phone and 1 with full ear-covering earphones. How can they expect to hear a cyclist's bell, a shout or even an emergency vehicle ?


Perhaps they don't want to?


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Nov 2014)

Rodney and Delboy are making a million selling off that hi-viz paint for clothes.


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Nov 2014)

Hi-viz makes you a much easier target for The Terrorists.


----------



## classic33 (7 Nov 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> Hi-viz makes you a much easier target for The Terrorists.


How about using some of this? http://www.uvglowstore.com/


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Nov 2014)

classic33 said:


> How about using some of this? http://www.uvglowstore.com/



We have also neglected the Risk of lip cancer.

Dayglo lip screen should be mandatory for all, and only, cyclists.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Nov 2014)

Scoosh said:


> In the last few days (and I don't drive much at all) I've seen at least 4 drivers with earplugs in, either listening to music or phone and 1 with full ear-covering earphones. How can they expect to hear a cyclist's bell, a shout or even an emergency vehicle ?


Headphone wearing drivers are increasingly common in these parts too. One tried to run me over on a pedestrian crossing earlier this week.


----------



## classic33 (9 Nov 2014)

User said:


> That's the World Naked Bike Ride sorted...


Didn't need it in broad daylight!


----------

