Cyclists' responsibility for their own safety *warning* infractions given liberally for trolling etc

So you've fitted hiviz panels on your vehicle, presumably? You do practice what you preach, right?

I'm not preaching anything, the scientists who wrote the study have comes to a conclusion which you don't like, so you're deflecting, as usual.

I don't think anyone should be blamed for being hit, if they wear black clothing, and are otherwise using good lights. But the science is clear.

For what it's worth, I used dipped beams at all times (no "auto-lights" rubbish which are notoriously unreliable in rain/low sun). I specifically bought a car with factory upgraded LED lights, and avoided a dark colored car since my last one didn't stand out as much as I thought it could.

Care to comment on the study I posted?

With all the high profile accidents with cars this year, it's likely the attention of road of road safely will be on cars.

"However, it is alarming to see a reversal in this trend, and we are working hard to deliver and reprioritise certain actions within the Government’s ten-year (2021-2030) Road Safety Strategy."

Theres a certain Irony in some people not being able to see the limitations of hi Viz.

They are trying to hold back the tide. Theres now more segrated cycle lanes than ever, dedicated road space taken away from cars that will do far more than any vest.

You're not going to get someone who refuses to use a light at night to wear a vest. It's up to the cops to enforce the law. Which they didn't do in this case. This is a story that hits every branch on the road safety tree.

That's not the claim. Making it black and white to try to undermine someones point isn't reasonable.

It's about introducing behaviours, road design, equipment which first reduce the risk of a collision, and secondly reduce the risk of injury should one occur.

Provided that the idiot behind the wheel knows how to use them.

Once the dark evenings come in, I'll see one or two drivers each day with no back lights because they don't know how their DRLs work. When I tell them about, they generally react with great confusion. I remember the Lexus driver telling me that he'd been driving like this for eight months, all through winter, since he bought the car. I've seen in with Garda cars too, squad car and unmarked.

This is why all cars should have mandatory hiviz panels on all sides. When are drivers going to take responsibility for being seen?

The weaknesses of the Danish study, particularly the reliance on self reporting, were well teased out in the hiviz megathread.

It's hard to take hiviz shaming of cyclists seriously from those who are driving black and navy cars around.

But then....

"...Research has revealed that a staggering 60% of red cars have reportedly been in accidents, making it the most dangerous colour vehicle to drive.

The next most dangerous car colour is brown, where 59% of car owners have reportedly been in an accident.

Motorists with a black car should also take extra care, as 57% of drivers with the car colour have reported incidents.

For both black and brown cars, visibility seems to contribute to why so many accidents were reported.

Owners of darker-coloured vehicles could pay a higher insurance premium as insurers factor visibility into their calculations of likelihood of having an accident...."

Is that to say, if people were more inclined to take their own safety more seriously, that there could be between a 40-50% reduction in collisions?

All studies have biases, and they do address some of them and make compensation.

What I find amusing is that there is none of this scientific rigor applied to a previously posted statistic from police in Scotland, where only 1% of collisions were attributed to clothing, an answer people on this thread tend to be far more agreeable to. Even with the dutch study, if we were to analyse the causes for any individual collision, I doubt the clothing visibility would ever come up as an assignable cause - it would be unfair to do so. But that wouldn't be telling the larger story.

As for the car colour - Ferrari would be the literal red herring there. Brown and black, absolutely agreed. Less light reflected = harder to see. If the actuaries can justify charging them more money, fine. As I said, my last car was black, and I thought it was a bit dull.

I think inconsistent implementation, and objectively confusing design from manufacturers play a huge part here. I am forever flashing drivers with no rear lights. So much so that I think Hyundai should do a recall. Grey Hyundai, in the rain, on the motorway in spray. Genuinely very difficult to see.

My current car uses the same symbol for dipped beams, as my last car did for parking lights, all to save a few cents. Glancing at the dashboard of a car you're unfamiliar with, you could be falsely led to believe that your lights are on. Synchronisation with wipers / light sensor / rear lights is another minefield. You have to take out the manual and read it each time.

Why do emergency service vehicles use hiviz? I've no idea why you'd be contriving so strenuously to absolve cyclists drivers of any modicum whatsoever of responsibility to help keep themselves safe.

I think these studies are interesting.. Often you get counter intuitive results. Which I find fascinating.

Same with quirks of implementation and user interfaces.

I end up looking through large datasets often enough at work to know not to assume.

My take on all theses studies is usually it's someone not paying attention. I can't fix that. Can't fix people who cycle on a rural road in the dark with no lights either. Only the fear of enforcement will change that behaviour.

In the meanwhile I'll look after me.

As do I, I spend much of my time trying to standardise user interfaces, data presentation and output results so that people can efficiently and safely work across various machinery.

Perhaps in the spirit of this thread (or maybe not) I think we need a real change of tack from the RSA - including putting "victim blaming" secondary to honest investigation and publication of the factors which contributed to a collision. If I wear black, cycle with no lights, up the inside of a truck with it's left indicator on, at nigh, with the best will in the world, I have completely disregarded my own safety. A heirarchy of responsibility only goes so far.

Tow anectodes - I've lost count of the number of fellow mountain bikers who have commented on how far away they could see my hi-vis helmet through the trees, so I'll be buying the same again when it needs to be replaced.

Second, I was recently in an industrial site. One of the engineers walked between a reversing forklift and a wall. The driver saw them, stopped, and told them not to do that. Argument ensued, with the walker saying "you should be looking out for me". The engineer walking got absolutely roasted by everyone present, and by Health and Safety afterward. Everyone agreed that it was the drivers responsibility, but that they nevertheless should not be putting their safety in the hands of the forklift driver, unnecessarily.

Anyone likely to be swayed by these arguments is probably already doing all this stuff.

But it's not the panacea people assume it to be.

Something bright being seen in a dark wood is very different to a city street with a thousand lights and hundreds of moving objects many also brightly colored. Something alluded to in the study.

The more visible you are, the less likely you are to be hit.

This even applies where a motorist is illegally using a phone and not concentrating on his or her driving - something highly visible is more likely to be noticed by peripheral vision. It doesn't make the motorist right, but it might save the cyclist.

Prefer my odds on a segrated lane, and 30kph speed limit than a driver's peripheral vision.

Why wouldn't you believe that dark coloured cars should wear hiviz to make them more visible? Why are we often so quick to come up with great ideas for things pedestrians and cyclists have to do, while we're generally hands-offish in our approach to getting drivers to stop killing people?

For Dublin...

"....Looking at the top 5% most rainy hours of the year in Dublin, usage rates dropped to 81% of the average..."

Then more generally...

"... in 38 of the 40 cities, weather wasn’t the most significant factor that affected bike share usage — time of day was. In most places, weekend usage tends to peak around 2-3pm, while weekday usage usually has two peaks, corresponding with morning and evening commutes. ..."

Getting "drivers to stop killing people?" You do realise there are 2.8 million "drivers" in Ireland. Can you be a little more specific?

To my mind motion is the be all and end all of being noticed. I remember back in the day when they were more ubiquitous i'd notice pedal reflectors instantly even without a cyclist being lit.

Which brings me to my second point, flashing. The law about fixed lighting is ancient, for me a flashing light is way more effective than a fixed one, and i'd argue that that should be encouraged and even go so far as to say that the law should be updated to flashing lights on a bike.

The simple proof for this is emergency vehicles, would anyone argue that they'd be just as noticeable with fixed blue lights?

On visibility, given most collisions happen when a cyclist is either behind or adjacent to a vehicle, attributing lack of hi-vis as a significant cause is nonsense. And to further muddy the waters, i find when driving i notice cyclists in dark clothing better on a bright day and cyclists in bright clothing on a dark day, and apply that logic when i'm cycling. It's all about the contrast.