The BBC get it wrong, AGAIN!!!

[Origamist]

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]

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]

At some point the motorist has to take responsibility.

Preferably the point they start the engine.

 

[400bhp]

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]

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

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

 

[GrasB]

Which rider is most conspicuous?

View attachment 60927

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

 

[summerdays]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

Which rider is most conspicuous?

View attachment 60927

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



[pedant mode: more/ most ]

 

[summerdays]

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]

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]

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]

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.