Compulsory Lights & Hi-viz.

[Ming the Merciless]

2) by attentive drivers who dont see dark colours till to late...

What you theorise about what someone wears and chance of being hit, simply doesn’t come out of the accident stats.

 

[Jameshow]

What you theorise about what someone wears and chance of being hit, simply doesn’t come out of the accident stats.

Why??

 

[Jameshow]

Yes your more likely to be hit by absent minded driver but your also less likely to be hit by a driver who didn't see you due to dark clothing / low light conditions
So to reduce the second I'll wear hi Viz.

 

[Drago]

Yes your more likely to be hit by absent minded driver but your also less likely to be hit by a driver who didn't see you due to dark clothing / low light conditions

Then why do the stats not reflect that?

If visibility is crap you should be showing lights anyway.

There is little evidence that florries make you safer on the road, either scientific or statistical (some smaller studies show a slight improvement the largest single study, by the DoT no less, none at all). Indeed, the evidence is so lacking that many police forces have moved away from their mandatory use fpby officers.

People tend to run over cyclists because they were driving like tits or simply weren't paying sufficient diligence to the task at hand, not because they're blind. Dark coloured cars, pedestrians and roadside furniture do not suffer unduly because of their hue.

If something has not unequivocally been shown to have a positive affect on safety then it almost certainly doesn't, regardless of what 'common sense' might tell you. If you get hung up on stuff like that it's usually to the detriment of tactics that genuinely could keep you safer.

You may as well carry a lucky rabbits foot for all the proven benefit they bring. The only real advantage you have is that if a driver does scoop you off then they have one less legal stick to attempt to beat you with - that's the only reason I do so, not through any expectation of being safer.

It's clear from your response that you have become complacent and are simply through the safety motions, rather than genuinely taking matter seriously.

 

[numbnuts]

With the amount of "sorry mate I didn't see you" it would not matter one bit what your wearing.

 

[Jameshow]

Then why do the stats not reflect that?

If visibility is crap you should be showing lights anyway.

There is little evidence that florries make you safer on the road, either scientific or statistical (some smaller studies show a slight improvement the largest single study, by the DoT no less, none at all). Indeed, the evidence is so lacking that many police forces have moved away from their mandatory use fpby officers.

People tend to run over cyclists because they were driving like tits or simply weren't paying sufficient diligence to the task at hand, not because they're blind. Dark coloured cars, pedestrians and roadside furniture do not suffer unduly because of their hue.

If something has not unequivocally been shown to have a positive affect on safety then it almost certainly doesn't, regardless of what 'common sense' might tell you. If you get hung up on stuff like that it's usually to the detriment of tactics that genuinely could keep you safer.

You may as well carry a lucky rabbits foot for all the proven benefit they bring. The only real advantage you have is that if a driver does scoop you off then they have one less legal stick to attempt to beat you with - that's the only reason I do so, not through any expectation of being safer.

It's clear from your response that you have become complacent and are simply through the safety motions, rather than genuinely taking matter seriously.

Wow just a bit harsh... Try harder to kick next time..

 

[classic33]

Then why do the stats not reflect that?

If visibility is crap you should be showing lights anyway.

There is little evidence that florries make you safer on the road, either scientific or statistical (some smaller studies show a slight improvement the largest single study, by the DoT no less, none at all). Indeed, the evidence is so lacking that many police forces have moved away from their mandatory use fpby officers.

People tend to run over cyclists because they were driving like tits or simply weren't paying sufficient diligence to the task at hand, not because they're blind. Dark coloured cars, pedestrians and roadside furniture do not suffer unduly because of their hue.

If something has not unequivocally been shown to have a positive affect on safety then it almost certainly doesn't, regardless of what 'common sense' might tell you. If you get hung up on stuff like that it's usually to the detriment of tactics that genuinely could keep you safer.

You may as well carry a lucky rabbits foot for all the proven benefit they bring. The only real advantage you have is that if a driver does scoop you off then they have one less legal stick to attempt to beat you with - that's the only reason I do so, not through any expectation of being safer.

It's clear from your response that you have become complacent and are simply through the safety motions, rather than genuinely taking matter seriously.

You mean they don't wear it to help give those up to summat time to see them and get away!

 

[Slick]

I'm sure I posted this previously, but I was flying to London early one morning and parked in one of those long stay car parks bus you to the airport and pick you up on your return.

The driver was a very nice young lady who was very friendly and was chatting away which was quite unusual in itself. As she pulled out the junction I just caught sight of a cyclist in dark clothing and no lights that she must have missed by the thickness of a rizzla and I was so shocked, I couldn't even let her know how close she came to injuring someone. She obviously never saw him yet, and by the time I regained my composure, the moment was gone, although I know that really should of let her know.

Point of my story is, I'm lit up like a Christmas tree when out early morning, and whilst I freely admit that will not save me from inattentive drivers, anyone looking at the circumstances will have a good mental image of just how distracted a driver needs to be to not notice me.

I remember this being cited in mitigation when Mike Hall (RIP) was killed.

 

[classic33]

Wonder if the fact that there's elections in the offing that has two city councillors, not a TD, with marginal seats, sounding off on cyclists.

 

[BoldonLad]

Haven't been able to find any UK wide studies, or statistics, but, this https://www.wales247.co.uk/this-colour-car-is-more-likely-to-end-up-in-accidents-research-reveals, would appear to show that car colour has a bearing on accident risk. May not apply to cyclists or pedestrians of course.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Yes your more likely to be hit by absent minded driver but your also less likely to be hit by a driver who didn't see you due to dark clothing / low light conditions
So to reduce the second I'll wear hi Viz.

That’s not proven.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

The driver was a very nice young lady who was very friendly and was chatting away

That’s the problem right there. Distracted by the conversation rather than fully concentrating on the driving.

 

[Drago]

Its well known that certain demographics are more likely to go for certain shades - my daughter would choose a bright red or yellow, my Dad a sombre silver or beige (yes, they're making cars in beige again), and those different demographics bring their own risks quite separate from the vehicles colour.

It's not as if the average car driver is a homogeneous being distributed evenly across all colours of vehicle. If they were then a simple analysis of accident rates v colours would be revealing. They aren't, and they aren't.

That analysis fails to establish cause to go along with effect. Even M Buzells (whoever they are) hints at their understanding of this towards the end of the piece, which makes the entire article rather moot.

 

[Slick]

That’s the problem right there. Distracted by the conversation rather than fully concentrating on the driving.

Absolutely.

She did look, but didn't see anything which probably accounts for nearly every accident but its quite scary when you see it in action.

My theory is she was looking for car lights and proceeded when there were none.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

My theory is she was looking for car lights and proceeded when there were none.

Seeing and paying attention to something are quite different. ADHD being an extreme example. It’s not that someone didn’t see something, it’s that their brain didn’t consider it important enough to pay attention to and it got discarded in rapid order to concentrate on something else.

Think about the person doing something on their phone who you ask to do something. Later, when you ask why they didn’t do the something you asked, they say you never asked. You say you did, and they say they didn’t hear you. They did hear you, but weren’t listening. A crucial difference and the same can happen with sight.