Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I was trying to find a decent image of a headlight pattern, but this came up instead:

Let me guess, to you his trousers stand out the most right?

GreeBo

conkennedy wrote: »

Maybe so, but it still doesn't stop motorists from running you over becasue they are not looking out for you - even in broad daylight.

Weepsie wrote: »

It's precisely what he is saying. con (I hope you don't mind me saying), was hit in a broad daylight side on, while wearing one of brightest, easiest to see jackets you could possibly imagine.

I've been hit in broad daylight (twice). HiVis is rarely, if ever a factor in any of these accidents that are occuring on our roads. If it were, there would be daily bloodbaths.

Inattentive and careless road users are the problem.

Duckjob wrote: »

You make it sound like that wonderful situation is going to come about by itself shortly, and all we have to do is sit tight for a while and dutifully don our hi-vis while we wait for it to happen. That is not the case.

A pushback is necessary because outside of forums like this there is a concerted effort from certain quarters to dominate the road safety discussion with the question of making hi-vis mandatory as the main way to make our public spaces safer.

As long as the discussion is being dominated by hi-vis discussion, there is no attention, none, being put on other far more pertinent factors such as car-centric infrastructure everywhere and the poor standards of driving and adherance to road laws in this country.

Personally, i don't have any problem with wearing reflective clothing (although as I have posted previous it is not a conventional yellow hi-vis but does the job of reflecting light 10 times better).

I do have a problem with people who should have highest responsibility for duty of care on the road trying to compel me to do so and in doing so diverting attention from where it needs to be directed - bad infrastructure and driver behaviour.

A motorist driving down the road is never going to have his/her life threatened by my not wearing a hi-vis. I have my life theatened on a daily basis by the careless, hostile and sometimes downright aggressive behaviour of some motorists.

So whats your answer, stop wearing reflective clothing because I got hit while wearing it?
A cyclist hit the back of my stopped car when I had my lights on...it doesnt stop me driving with my lights on though.

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

Let me guess, to you his trousers stand out the most right?

Don't you mean: why is there a rain drop on the front of his bike?

magicbastarder

GreeBo wrote: »

Let me guess, to you his trousers stand out the most right?

now i have that image of marty whelan in my head.

conkennedy

GreeBo wrote: »

So whats your answer, stop wearing reflective clothing because I got hit while wearing it?

Nope, HiVis is not a safety panacea; it won't protect the wearer, or cyclist in this case, if a motorist is not paying attention to the road and/or is only looking out for other motorists.



So don't victim blame.

conkennedy

Weepsie wrote: »

It's precisely what he is saying. con (I hope you don't mind me saying), was hit in a broad daylight side on, while wearing one of brightest, easiest to see jackets you could possibly imagine.

I've been hit in broad daylight (twice). HiVis is rarely, if ever a factor in any of these accidents that are occuring on our roads. If it were, there would be daily bloodbaths.

Inattentive and careless road users are the problem.

Yup, that's it - but it's really telling that we have to explain that....

GreeBo

conkennedy wrote: »

Nope, HiVis is not a safety panacea; it won't protect the wearer, or cyclist in this case, if a motorist is not paying attention to the road and/or is only looking out for other motorists.



So don't victim blame.

So I guess you dont wear a seatbelt?

magicbastarder

on a bike? i guess not.

GreeBo

conkennedy wrote: »

Yup, that's it - but it's really telling that we have to explain that....

You dont have to explain that.
What people are asking you to explain is why you would refuse to do something that makes you more visible on the road.
Nobody said reflective clothing was a panacea or that it would protect you (two things it has in common with bike lights btw).

But again the attitude here seems to be "I'm not doing it because its not my fault if a car hits me".

It's a pretty childish attitude and when there is only ever one loser is a car V bike incident, its a foolish and possibly deadly one to maintain.

magicbastarder

GreeBo wrote: »

But again the attitude here seems to be "I'm not doing it because its not my fault if a car hits me".

you're straw-manning.
i can both resent the emphasis placed on hi-vis, while choosing to wear hi-visibility cycling clothing, without it actually being some sort of hypocrisy or logical quandary.

many cyclists do resent the implication that it's their fault if a driver is negligent, but blame transfers to them if they didn't wear something which wouldn't have made a difference in the circumstances.

it's a relatively subtle distinction, by by god, it's not *that* subtle.

blackbox

I cycle occasionally, but mostly drive.

When driving, I always have my dipped beams on in daylight. This is not so that I can see better. It is not a legal requirement.

I do it because it makes me more visible and reduces the risk of someone not noticing me - e.g. a pedestrian crossing the road may notice my lights with the corner of his eye and not step out in front of me, or similarly a motorist coming out of a driveway.

It is an aspect of defensive driving. Unfortunately not everyone on the road (pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, horse riders) is concentrating on me 100% all of the time. They may be stupidly using a phone, but also something unexpected may divert their attention - e.g. a police car, a horse - whatever.

Everything a cyclist can do to make himself (or herself) more visible reduces the risk of a collision. Hi-vis is absolutely a significant help especially in dull conditions. Hi-vis has a fluorescent element as well as a reflective one. I am not suggesting that it should replace lights.

Yes, drivers should be better. Yes, cyclists should be better. Yes, there should be better enforcement. To a large extent, these are outside your control.

Do what you can within your control to make yourself safer.

tomasrojo

blackbox wrote: »

Everything a cyclist can do to make himself (or herself) more visible reduces the risk of a collision.

That statistical evidence so far, on balance, shows no reduced likelihood of a collision associated with hiviz use.

magicbastarder

blackbox wrote: »

Do what you can within your control to make yourself safer.

but you see, this is the aggravating part.
most people (at a guess, most people) here *do* do this.
but if they have not done this, and come a cropper, the fact that they have not done this will be used against them even if this is not a factor in whatever incident has transpired.
they will be held partly accountable for the actions of a negligent driver.

how come we can have court cases where the clothing a cyclist is wearing is an absolute de facto piece of evidence, even if the incident occured in broad daylight, but in the same circumstances, an incident where a pedestrian is injured or killed does not delve into their clothing choice to the same extent?
it's a shift of blame from those creating the risk to those experiencing the risk.


the RSA have loads of advice and photos of hi-vis on their website, and in their campaigns about hi-vis jackets, but are essentially silent on advice on use, placement, you name it, of bike lights.

tomasrojo

The two studies I particularly remember are these:

This study found commuter and utility cyclists using conspicuity aids were at increased risk of collision crash involvement when compared to non-users despite adjustment for confounding.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235407582_The_Use_Of_Conspicuity_Aids_By_Cyclists_And_Risk_Of_Crashes_Involving_Other_Road_Users_A_Population_Based_Case-Control_Study

Results revealed that the implementation of legislation imposing high-visibility clothing for cyclist did not influence the number of bicycles involved in road crashes as well as its proportion in the total vehicles involved in road crashes. The introduction of the legislation did not produce immediate effects, nor did it have any effects over time.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518300045

It's possible that there there's a stronger positive effect on rural roads which didn't show up, because most cycling is in cities, so that rural signal vanished in the noise in the Italian study, and the UK study was all in Nottingham city, as far as I know.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

the RSA have loads of advice and photos of hi-vis on their website, and in their campaigns about hi-vis jackets, but are essentially silent on advice on use, placement, you name it, of bike lights.

In fact, there's an implicit endorsement of cycling while wearing a hiviz vest and using lights that would barely illuminate the interior of a shoe.

Duckjob

tomasrojo wrote: »

That statistical evidence so far, on balance, shows no reduced likelihood of a collision associated with hiviz use.

Actually there's a number of studies that Suggest the opposite is true, that due to drivers false perceptions of increased safety when they see someone in hi vis, they take more risks and therefore getting into a collision is more likely.

Similar story with helmets.

tomasrojo

Duckjob wrote: »

Similar story with helmets.

Don't cross the streams

AndrewJRenko

GreeBo wrote: »

So I guess you dont wear a seatbelt?

So I guess you don't wear a driving helmet?

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

In fact, there's an implicit endorsement of cycling while wearing a hiviz vest and using lights that would barely illuminate the interior of a shoe.

I disagree with that totally and think thats in your head.
The RSA videos advise wearing of bright, reflective clothing AND remind you that lights are a legal requirement (and that they should be bright)

The RSA has ads that solely deal with speeding, that doesnt mean they are endorsing driving without a seatbelt or any other silly behaviour.

tomasrojo wrote: »

The two studies I particularly remember are these:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235407582_The_Use_Of_Conspicuity_Aids_By_Cyclists_And_Risk_Of_Crashes_Involving_Other_Road_Users_A_Population_Based_Case-Control_Study


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518300045

It's possible that there there's a stronger positive effect on rural roads which didn't show up, because most cycling is in cities, so that rural signal vanished in the noise in the Italian study, and the UK study was all in Nottingham city, as far as I know.

Unless those studies can show obedience to the legislation they are somewhat meaningless. We have lights on the legislation and it doesnt seem to matter to many people. For that matter, are their any studies to show that having lights on your bike makes any statistical difference ?

magicbastarder wrote: »

but you see, this is the aggravating part.
most people (at a guess, most people) here *do* do this.
but if they have not done this, and come a cropper, the fact that they have not done this will be used against them even if this is not a factor in whatever incident has transpired.
they will be held partly accountable for the actions of a negligent driver.

how come we can have court cases where the clothing a cyclist is wearing is an absolute de facto piece of evidence, even if the incident occured in broad daylight, but in the same circumstances, an incident where a pedestrian is injured or killed does not delve into their clothing choice to the same extent?
it's a shift of blame from those creating the risk to those experiencing the risk.


the RSA have loads of advice and photos of hi-vis on their website, and in their campaigns about hi-vis jackets, but are essentially silent on advice on use, placement, you name it, of bike lights.

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're straw-manning.
i can both resent the emphasis placed on hi-vis, while choosing to wear hi-visibility cycling clothing, without it actually being some sort of hypocrisy or logical quandary.

many cyclists do resent the implication that it's their fault if a driver is negligent, but blame transfers to them if they didn't wear something which wouldn't have made a difference in the circumstances.

it's a relatively subtle distinction, by by god, it's not *that* subtle.

Its not strawmanning at all. Unless I have totally misread this thread, there are plenty of people who pretty much refuse to wear reflective gear because they have lights.

GreeBo

Duckjob wrote: »

Actually there's a number of studies that Suggest the opposite is true, that due to drivers false perceptions of increased safety when they see someone in hi vis, they take more risks and therefore getting into a collision is more likely.

Similar story with helmets.

But bike lights have some magical property that prevents the false perception?
You'll have to explain that one to me!

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

But bike lights have some magical property that prevents the false perception?
You'll have to explain that one to me!

It's not the visibility but the object that causes the false perception. That should be, pardon the pun, blindingly obvious, to all.

It's the same reason some road users treat other road users with more grace than others. It is a bias. We think something is safer, without realising, you treat it with the same risk ratio i.e. you treat it with less regard as you perceive it as safer. The highly quoted study in the UK, not without its faults was beautifully simple in how it demonstrated this. It also highlighted other societal issues, aside from perceived safety but the point holds.

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

Unless those studies can show obedience to the legislation they are somewhat meaningless. We have lights on the legislation and it doesnt seem to matter to many people. For that matter, are their any studies to show that having lights on your bike makes any statistical difference ?

The first study is a Ph.D. and it's not about the law. It's a prospective cohort study, where the researcher followed the fates of people who wore hiviz and those who didn't.

That's a good question about lights. I've looked it up before. It's never been investigated in relation to collision frequency, as far as I could see. I might have another look. However, hiviz has, and it didn't do very well.

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

I disagree with that totally and think thats in your head.
The RSA videos advise wearing of bright, reflective clothing AND remind you that lights are a legal requirement (and that they should be bright)

I'm not imagining that the RSA say it's very important to use hiviz and, with less emphasis, lights, and then give out hiviz and lights that cost €1 in Aldi. "Implicit" is doing the work in the sentence; you can say any "implicit" thing is in the witness's head, because if it was blatantly stated it would be "explicit".

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

The first study is a Ph.D. and it's not about the law. It's a prospective cohort study, where the researcher followed the fates of people who wore hiviz and those who didn't.

That's a good question about lights. I've looked it up before. It's never been investigated in relation to collision frequency, as far as I could see. I might have another look. However, hiviz has, and it didn't do very well.

But unless it did worse than lights, the point still stands..right?

In fact unless there is a study actually showing the lights improve cycling safety...

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

But unless it did worse than lights, the point still stands..right?

In fact unless there is a study actually showing the lights improve cycling safety...

There is a difference between a measure that is assumed to be effective and has never been investigated properly, and one that has been investigated and performed poorly.

The essential thing, as far as I recall, that has been discussed in the last ten or so pages, is that people should wear hiviz, and it's dangerous not to. In fact, it's presented almost as a moral failing, and certainly a sign of how unserious or even childish the people who fail to use hiviz are. The evidence to support that attitude is actually quite weak.

I don't personally care who decides to wear hiviz and who doesn't. I do mind hiviz being brought up as if it's the most essential weapon in a campaign against road deaths. It would be very convenient if it were a silver bullet, because it's cheap, and it doesn't require pissing off motorists. But, on the evidence so far, if it's effective at all, it's pretty minimally so, and its promotion as it's currently done also has what they call "second-round effects" that are inimical to the common good.

GreeBo

CramCycle wrote: »

It's not the visibility but the object that causes the false perception. That should be, pardon the pun, blindingly obvious, to all.

It's the same reason some road users treat other road users with more grace than others. It is a bias. We think something is safer, without realising, you treat it with the same risk ratio i.e. you treat it with less regard as you perceive it as safer. The highly quoted study in the UK, not without its faults was beautifully simple in how it demonstrated this. It also highlighted other societal issues, aside from perceived safety but the point holds.

I didnt say it was the visibility. I asked whats special about lights than they dont have this issue. Is there a study that shows this difference?

Interestingly, France which is known for its cycling (the motorist is always to blame in any collision) a reflective/hi-vis gilet is mandatory in poor visibility conditions and outside urban areas.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

There is a difference between a measure that is assumed to be effective and has never been investigated properly, and one that has been investigated and performed poorly.

"poorly" when compared to what though?
Perhaps bright lights are even more dangerous as motorists confuse them with other vehicles and give them less respect?
Perhaps they dazzle drivers and are actually causing collisions?
Until you see the study and its result, you frankly dont know.

tomasrojo wrote: »

The essential thing, as far as I recall, that has been discussed in the last ten or so pages, is that people should wear hiviz, and it's dangerous not to. In fact, it's presented almost as a moral failing, and certainly a sign of how unserious or even childish the people who fail to use hiviz are. The evidence to support that attitude is actually quite weak.

Whats been presented, by me at least, is that reflective/hi-viz gear complements good lights. neither on their own is sufficient as they each perform better in difference circumstance and one faces a multitude of circumstances on a trip such as your daily commute.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't personally care who decides to wear hiviz and who doesn't. I do mind hiviz being brought up as if it's the most essential weapon in a campaign against road deaths. It would be very convenient if it were a silver bullet, because it's cheap, and it doesn't require pissing off motorists. But, on the evidence so far, if it's effective at all, it's pretty minimally so, and its promotion as it's currently done also has what they call "second-round effects" that are inimical to the common good.

This to mean just sounds like you are annoyed that someone is telling you to wear reflective/hi-viz gear because instead you want them to completely change the transport culture in Ireland.

Even they way you say "it would be very convenient"...its like you still wouldn't wear it even if it was a silver bullet, just to spite someone.
No one cares what you wear (unlike as already mentioned, they do in France)

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

"poorly" when compared to what though?
Perhaps bright lights are even more dangerous as motorists confuse them with other vehicles and give them less respect?
Perhaps they dazzle drivers and are actually causing collisions?
Until you see the study and its result, you frankly dont know.

This is entering the realms of metaphysics.

GreeBo wrote: »

This to mean just sounds like you are annoyed that someone is telling you to wear reflective/hi-viz gear because instead you want them to completely change the transport culture in Ireland.

I'm not personally bothered by messages directed at *me* per se, because I'm very well informed and quite willing to disregard advice I have evidence is poorly founded.

GreeBo wrote: »

No one cares what you wear (unlike as already mentioned, they do in France)

That law only applies to rural roads. Basically when you pass the sign with the name of a town with the red stripe through it.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is entering the realms of metaphysics.

What an interesting way of avoiding answering the question.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm not personally bothered by messages directed at *me* per se, because I'm very well informed and quite willing to disregard advice I have evidence is poorly founded.

I wasnt trying to bother you, I was explaining how your post(s) come across to others.

tomasrojo wrote: »

That law only applies to rural roads. Basically when you pass the sign with the name of a town with the red stripe through it.

Correct. Like I said, in France its the law to wear them.

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

What an interesting way of avoiding answering the question.

Well, it's hard to know what to say. There is a detailed, extensive study that found hiviz didn't reduce the likelihood of collisions compared to an absence of hiviz. Then you say, well, maybe lights would do poorly in an analogous study. Theoretically, yes, that's possible. But it's not an argument that brings "everyone should wear hiviz because it strongly reduces the likelihood of collisions" roaring back.

GreeBo wrote: »

Correct. Like I said, in France its the law to wear them.

On rural roads. It's an important distinction. Rural roads tend to have faster moving traffic, and are somewhat closer to the railway-worker scenario that hiviz was initially designed for, though they're far from perfectly analogous.