The BBC get it wrong, AGAIN!!!

[Mugshot]

That said, if it were correct that high visibility clothing makes a difference, then of course it makes sense for cyclists to wear it. That's not saying it's their fault, anymore than saying it's my fault if I cut my foot on broken glass on the beach because I wasn't wearing flip-flops.

I don't quite understand this I'm sorry, are you saying that it may be advisable to wear flip flops on the beach in case there is broken glass, even if you would rather walk barefoot?

 

[Mugshot]

Because they are doing the broadcast version of clickbaiting.

It seems to be working

 

[glasgowcyclist]

They're covering this on Radio Scotland today at 12:00. Here's the tweet from the show's presenter:
https://twitter.com/BBCJohnBeattie/status/529934765349421056 followed by the usual drivel.

GC

 

[Turbo Rider]

Hmm...I quite liked the article and I found it fairly balanced, both in presenting the issues and addressing them impartially.

I know that the issues presented within it have probably been churned over to the point of exhaustion in this and many other forums, but if you're not into cycling or chatting on forums, then you probably werent aware of the amount of evidence, pointed to in the article, which contradicts the suppositions of your average driver and / or rider...or any other type for that matter.

Highlighting these bones of contention and pointing them out to the masses as myths, which bare no consequence over whether an accident is caused, or not then, seems to be a perfectly reasonable way of pointing out to drivers and cyclists alike, that the main issues at hand are down do infrastructure, general dicking around or inexperience (on both parts) and heavy handed driving and I think there's a strong possibility that the more people are made to think about these things, the more they will consider how they do things in future.

Definitely didn't get the 'blame the dangerously silly victim' view which seems to have been taken.

Hey ho...

 

[steveindenmark]

I wear Hi vis gear all the time. I have no doubt at all if you dress 2 people, one in hi vis and one not in hi vis, and stand them 500m away. You will see the one in high vis first. That is what high vis clothing clothing is supposed to do.

What happens after that is pot luck. At least you have tried and if you get run down, hopefully your families solicitor has a fighting chance of winning a claim for thosd you leave behind. But dont bank on it.

 

[snorri]

You will see the one in high vis first.

Is it a good thing from the general road safety point of view to have drivers distracted from nearby hazards by conspicuous objects placed well outside the area of potential danger?

 

[GrasB]

Wear Hi vis gear all the time. I have no doubt at all if you dress 2 people, one in hi vis and one not in hi vis, and stand them 500m away. You will see the one in high vis first. That is what high vis clothing clothing is supposed to d0

My commented drives says different! Two pedestrians, cyclists, workers etc. next to each other I'll list as I see them. It's pot luck which one I see first. Hi-viz makes it easier to track them if you're not consciously tracking the item.

 

[bianchi1]

My commented drives says different! Two pedestrians, cyclists, workers etc. next to each other I'll list as I see them. It's pot luck which one I see first. Hi-viz makes it easier to track them if you're not consciously tracking the item.

Which rider is most conspicuous?

 

[400bhp]

"Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly, according to independent research firm the Transport Research Laboratory."........

The issue with the conclusion that cyclists should wear hi viz because of the above is that the study says nothing about the correlation of the 44% and whether /whether not someone was wearing hi viz.

What you need is the 44% broken down further into i)proportion wearning no hi viz and ii)proportion wearing hi viz. That isn't even allowing for night time accidents which I've conveniently ignored. If we had this data we could then have a much better understanding of the relevance of hi viz.

Not only that, some of the other accidents (close passes) could have occured because of the absence (or not) of hi viz.

 

[sidevalve]

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.

 

[steveindenmark]

My commented drives says different! Two pedestrians, cyclists, workers etc. next to each other I'll list as I see them. It's pot luck which one I see first. Hi-viz makes it easier to track them if you're not consciously tracking the item.

First of all I will just comment on my opening post. I meant to write "I wear hi viz" big fingers little keyboard. I was not suggesting you should all wear it. But you can if you want to. I have editer my post.

GrasB, its not pot luck which one you see first. You will see the hi viz one first. How you react afterwards is up to you.

Snorri..." I am sorry m'lud I crashed into the car because a hi viz jacket 200 metres ahead caught my eye and I did not see the vehicle" its not going to happen.

I am not a drum basher about hi viz but I wear it.

 

[summerdays]

Cut and pasted from todays BBC cycling write up, not sure if this bits been posted already,

Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly, according to independent research firm the Transport Research Laboratory.


So it would appear to make sense for cyclists to be as visible as possible. Hordes of lycra-clad cyclists in hi-vis colours indicate that many agree.

Words cannot describe how livid this crap makes me feel, the continual drip, drip, drip of victim blaming is nauseating.

I can say after an awful day that I think the statistic is far too low, I've had multiple near incidents today where the motorists failed to see me and I was wearing hi-vis (well either fluo orange or bright pink depending on how hot it was), with lights.

Basically they are not trying to see cyclists, they are looking for other cars not bikes! If I was doing the Near Miss project today (it's finished now so I can't), then I would have had lots to write but mostly that cars didn't look properly. And that they need to take more of the responsibility, at the moment we have to take avoiding action and cycle defensively assuming potential problems, why don't they do some of that!

 

[Profpointy]

I can say after an awful day that I think the statistic is far too low, I've had multiple near incidents today where the motorists failed to see me and I was wearing hi-vis (well either fluo orange or bright pink depending on how hot it was), with lights.

Basically they are not trying to see cyclists, they are looking for other cars not bikes! If I was doing the Near Miss project today (it's finished now so I can't), then I would have had lots to write but mostly that cars didn't look properly. And that they need to take more of the responsibility, at the moment we have to take avoiding action and cycle defensively assuming potential problems, why don't they do some of that!

Although I usually wear something bright, not necessarily hi-viz per se, I think a much bigger problem is motorists seeing you then actually not giving a f***. Or worse, actual aggression / barging off the road. Left hookings are arguable people who've already done a perfectly reasonable over take, so by definition, have seen you, however much they may then say otherwsie

 

[summerdays]

Although I usually wear something bright, not necessarily hi-viz per se, I think a much bigger problem is motorists seeing you then actually not giving a f***. Or worse, actual aggression / barging off the road. Left hookings are arguable people who've already done a perfectly reasonable over take, so by definition, have seen you, however much they may then say otherwsie

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!

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

Although I usually wear something bright, not necessarily hi-viz per se, I think a much bigger problem is motorists seeing you then actually not giving a f***. Or worse, actual aggression / barging off the road. Left hookings are arguable people who've already done a perfectly reasonable over take, so by definition, have seen you, however much they may then say otherwsie

Agreed. The problem is, it's a lot easier to blame cyclists and push for compulsory wearing of hi-viz (and helmets) than it is to tackle driver behaviour, hence the "war on the motorist" and "cyclists vs. motorists" cobblers we hear so much about. The pieces I've seen on the BBC this week aren't helping matters.