GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Don't know if this has been posted before http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/RS060062.pdf
Tips to Make Yourself Visible
- Thread starter united4ever
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Tin Pot
Guru
Science is more than just evidence of an answer, it’s about knowing how to ask the question. You’d be better off researching something that was similar to the problem at hand.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
I suspect you're joking but there may be some similarities. Fewer than you may expect would walk into things because most people entering a dark room would move more slowly and cautiously, feeling their way ahead of them with arms (or in my case, my walking stick if I've got it).
Similarly, you may expect unlit cycling to be a factor in many collisions, but it's about 1 in 50, which may be because unlit riders are more cautious and don't assume careless drivers have seen them.
Rationalising sucks sometimesRecently my wife failed to see me on a main road and pulled out in front of me. When I told her about this her response was “your shirt isn’t bright enough.” I know what she would say if I showed her this bit of research
Has there been anything since that can give local riders confidence she won't do the same to some other cyclist wearing ordinary clothes?
Nigel-YZ1
Guru
- Location
- Somewhere else... maybe soon.
Agreed.
How about banning xenon headlights? On anything other than an absolute level road they're burning the retinas out of anyone within a mile coming the other way. Not only is the beam brighter, but it's been raised and widened to give a better impression of power - that now includes reaching the window level of other vehicles. It's a lighting arms race.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
[QUOTE 5062745, member: 9609"]where in that ageist and sexist aussy publication does it say 'making yourself more visible is not worth it' ?
.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't need to. There being no proof from anyone that making oneself more visible via lights and space lemon affects the issue of (drivers) looking-but-failing-to-see.
Sorry if that is counter to your intuition but feel free to read The Invisible Gorilla.
There are 1000's of RTC's every week caused by LBFS, and a couple of UK insurers are now looking to sponsor research I'm told.
.[/QUOTE]It doesn't need to. There being no proof from anyone that making oneself more visible via lights and space lemon affects the issue of (drivers) looking-but-failing-to-see.
Sorry if that is counter to your intuition but feel free to read The Invisible Gorilla.
There are 1000's of RTC's every week caused by LBFS, and a couple of UK insurers are now looking to sponsor research I'm told.
[QUOTE 5062799, member: 9609"]It is certainly highly complex, obviously better drivers, with good eyesight, paying more attention all of the time is the way forward, but I dout we are going to have that eutopia anytime soon.
[/QUOTE]
It's not utopia - it's easily achievable stuff, given the political will.
[/QUOTE]
It's not utopia - it's easily achievable stuff, given the political will.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
This is a common reaction from someone in a SMIDSY situation: blame the victim. And because this is so widespread (along with the 'stands to reason' argument about brighter = better) the myth becomes the accepted truth and we see it even permeate through to our police and court systems.
I've probably bored everyone silly with the picture I posted earlier but it's always relevant in this type of thread where people fall back on the 'common sense' stance for promoting the idea that cyclists will be seen if they dress like a neon Christmas tree and fit eye-searing, pulsing lights. 'Be seen - be safe' and all that.
[QUOTE 5062856, member: 9609"]out of a scale of 0 - 100 where would you rate current politic will towards making the roads safer for cyclists?
My Holyrood MSP only concern seems to be the pot holes are damaging peoples cars, and she has not seen a BUSINESS plan yet to convince her the proposed 20mph speed limit in scotlands built up areas is worth supporting. Obviously the SAFETY plan in reducing casualties is completely lost on her.[/QUOTE]
You're on the Advocacy & Cycling Safety board of a cycling forum, where it ought to be through the roof. Unfortunately even some of our fellow cyclists prefer to collude in a culture of driver-dominance by pretending that it's impossible, rather than just unpopular with drivers, to curb such drivers' freedom to intimidate, maim and kill.
My Holyrood MSP only concern seems to be the pot holes are damaging peoples cars, and she has not seen a BUSINESS plan yet to convince her the proposed 20mph speed limit in scotlands built up areas is worth supporting. Obviously the SAFETY plan in reducing casualties is completely lost on her.[/QUOTE]
You're on the Advocacy & Cycling Safety board of a cycling forum, where it ought to be through the roof. Unfortunately even some of our fellow cyclists prefer to collude in a culture of driver-dominance by pretending that it's impossible, rather than just unpopular with drivers, to curb such drivers' freedom to intimidate, maim and kill.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]I totally accept being more visible is no guarantee of not been seen, but it does improve your chances of been seen. And a driver seeing you is pretty important if they are going to avoid you.[/quote]
Something in that intuitive, common-sense chain doesn't seem to work because there's no data showing that riders using conspicuity aids have better injury outcomes! Personally, I suspect the whole concept of "more visible" and the "improve your chances of being seen" are both bascially complete Horlicks.
[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]visible clothing[/QUOTE]
Cool. I don't go out in invisible clothing - it's too cold for that just now.
[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]and lastly it is part of the highway code, we use this publication all the time to castigate drivers, we can't then say the bits we don't like are nonsense.[/QUOTE]
More often we use their disobediance of the law and failure to drive to the standard required to pass a test. Many of us have long said that there's bits in the Highway Code which are nonsense not backed by evidence which should never have been added to it and should be removed in the next update.
[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]As for the research into accident stats go, it is too complex to come to any conclusion. 20 cyclists in highly visible clothing amassing 100,000 miles a year. I ninja covering a 100 miles. If one of each group are in an accident it could be concluded from the hospital records that the risk is 50/50[/QUOTE]
Except that we have estimates of the proportions of ninjas and hi vis users and so on. We can wish for more robust estimates, but it would need to be pretty massive to overcome the surprisingly low ninja injury rate given how many of them I see! I was over in Norwich a few days ago and ninjas are very plentiful, outnumbering even the tits dazzling oncoming traffic with their lights, the people with tiny weak blinkies (probably batteries dying quickly in the cold this week) or those showing red lights to the front
- and yet, IIRC, ninjas are still a tiny fraction of casualties. I've got a Norfolk casualty reduction briefing somewhere around here and could find it and tell you the top factors if you want...
In a way, it's a good sign that people feel safe enough to cycle as ninjas, isn't it?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XypDTdd4qr0
Something in that intuitive, common-sense chain doesn't seem to work because there's no data showing that riders using conspicuity aids have better injury outcomes! Personally, I suspect the whole concept of "more visible" and the "improve your chances of being seen" are both bascially complete Horlicks.
[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]visible clothing[/QUOTE]
Cool. I don't go out in invisible clothing - it's too cold for that just now.
[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]and lastly it is part of the highway code, we use this publication all the time to castigate drivers, we can't then say the bits we don't like are nonsense.[/QUOTE]
More often we use their disobediance of the law and failure to drive to the standard required to pass a test. Many of us have long said that there's bits in the Highway Code which are nonsense not backed by evidence which should never have been added to it and should be removed in the next update.
[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]As for the research into accident stats go, it is too complex to come to any conclusion. 20 cyclists in highly visible clothing amassing 100,000 miles a year. I ninja covering a 100 miles. If one of each group are in an accident it could be concluded from the hospital records that the risk is 50/50[/QUOTE]
Except that we have estimates of the proportions of ninjas and hi vis users and so on. We can wish for more robust estimates, but it would need to be pretty massive to overcome the surprisingly low ninja injury rate given how many of them I see! I was over in Norwich a few days ago and ninjas are very plentiful, outnumbering even the tits dazzling oncoming traffic with their lights, the people with tiny weak blinkies (probably batteries dying quickly in the cold this week) or those showing red lights to the front
- and yet, IIRC, ninjas are still a tiny fraction of casualties. I've got a Norfolk casualty reduction briefing somewhere around here and could find it and tell you the top factors if you want...In a way, it's a good sign that people feel safe enough to cycle as ninjas, isn't it?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XypDTdd4qr0
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
[QUOTE 5062856, member: 9609"]out of a scale of 0 - 100 where would you rate current politic will towards making the roads safer for cyclists?[/QUOTE]
Somewhere near 15, sadly, even in an area with plenty of people cycling and some politicians who cycle, even some of them are reluctant to annoy the motoring lobby, even in the town centre wards where motorists are actually a minority. There are complex reasons for that, maybe best in another thread?
[QUOTE 5062856, member: 9609"]My Holyrood MSP only concern seems to be the pot holes are damaging peoples cars, and she has not seen a BUSINESS plan yet to convince her the proposed 20mph speed limit in scotlands built up areas is worth supporting. Obviously the SAFETY plan in reducing casualties is completely lost on her.[/QUOTE]
The safety plan is also a business plan. In Norfolk, population about 900,000, injuries while cycling cost £14.4m a year and most of that's an avoidable cost to the local economy, but the current cycling budget is well under £2m and most of that is central government grants restricted to the Norwich city district. Despite a couple of high-profile cockups discussed elsewhere on this site, the first phase of the main Norwich project still returned about £10m of benefits for £4m of spending (source). It's such a mind-bogglingly good business case, even for a place which wasn't awful before!
Somewhere near 15, sadly, even in an area with plenty of people cycling and some politicians who cycle, even some of them are reluctant to annoy the motoring lobby, even in the town centre wards where motorists are actually a minority. There are complex reasons for that, maybe best in another thread?
[QUOTE 5062856, member: 9609"]My Holyrood MSP only concern seems to be the pot holes are damaging peoples cars, and she has not seen a BUSINESS plan yet to convince her the proposed 20mph speed limit in scotlands built up areas is worth supporting. Obviously the SAFETY plan in reducing casualties is completely lost on her.[/QUOTE]
The safety plan is also a business plan. In Norfolk, population about 900,000, injuries while cycling cost £14.4m a year and most of that's an avoidable cost to the local economy, but the current cycling budget is well under £2m and most of that is central government grants restricted to the Norwich city district. Despite a couple of high-profile cockups discussed elsewhere on this site, the first phase of the main Norwich project still returned about £10m of benefits for £4m of spending (source). It's such a mind-bogglingly good business case, even for a place which wasn't awful before!
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
[QUOTE 5062901, member: 9609"]I am near the 100 but am I wrong to say that I think most drivers are less than 5 ? and then build my cycling around their uncaring idiotic driving ?[/QUOTE]
Oh hang on, rather than the politicians, do you mean the public will for improving cycling conditions? The recent Sustrans BikeLife survey estimated it at something like 78% in favour, but that's just one estimate.
Oh hang on, rather than the politicians, do you mean the public will for improving cycling conditions? The recent Sustrans BikeLife survey estimated it at something like 78% in favour, but that's just one estimate.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
[QUOTE 5062799, member: 9609"]It is certainly highly complex, obviously better drivers, with good eyesight, paying more attention all of the time is the way forward, but I dout we are going to have that eutopia anytime soon.
Even in my little world of quiet unlit country roads there is no perfect one off solution, what works best in good light is not the best choice in the twighlight. Some sort of inverse Chameleon approach is what is needed.[/QUOTE]
But if they look-and-fail-to-see any approach is futile. And too many of them look-and-fail-to-see.
Even in my little world of quiet unlit country roads there is no perfect one off solution, what works best in good light is not the best choice in the twighlight. Some sort of inverse Chameleon approach is what is needed.[/QUOTE]
But if they look-and-fail-to-see any approach is futile. And too many of them look-and-fail-to-see.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
We moved to inappropriate steps in about 1968, when the first rule about light-coloured clothing (for walkers) was added, the word "suitable" was omitted from in front of "cycle path" in the rule telling you to use it and the 1959 edition's "These mistakes, which take lives, are made because in most cases we simply do not realize[sic] what we are doing until it is too late" style preamble was replaced with the inane "This is a new and bigger Highway Code. It has been completely revised and re-written. We've tried to make it easy to read and understand."
In 1954, the preamble included "we can so easily come to grief ourselves or, still worse, kill or maim somebody else. We can in a split second do something which we will regret all our lives."
2015? "Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share. The Highway Code can help us discharge that responsibility."
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
[QUOTE 5062846, member: 9609"]I totally accept being more visible is no guarantee of not been seen, but it does improve your chances of been seen. And a driver seeing you is pretty important if they are going to avoid you.[/QUOTE]
Nay, nay, and thrice nay.
If they look-but-don't-see nothing you do improves your chances of being seen.
If they look-and-do-see you don't need to do anything to improve your chances.
Nay, nay, and thrice nay.
If they look-but-don't-see nothing you do improves your chances of being seen.
If they look-and-do-see you don't need to do anything to improve your chances.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
I love this one.
http://road.cc/content/news/231075-video-sorry-mate-i-didnt-see-you-day
As soon as you see what car is approaching you know how it will go down.
http://road.cc/content/news/231075-video-sorry-mate-i-didnt-see-you-day
As soon as you see what car is approaching you know how it will go down.
