Common sense

[glasgowcyclist]

Sure thing.

Safety is less to do with being dressed as an aircraft marshal at Heathrow and more to do with how drivers observe their surroundings and then how they negotiate vulnerable users.

Hi-vis is no guarantee that a driver won't still risk your life by driving badly around you.

 

[steveindenmark]

Sure thing.

Safety is less to do with being dressed as an aircraft marshal at Heathrow and more to do with how drivers observe their surroundings and then how they negotiate vulnerable users.

Hi-vis is no guarantee that a driver won't still risk your life by driving badly around you.

View attachment 492880

You are right. If they are driving like a twonker it makes no difference what you are wearing. But high viz and reflective gear does get you seen earlier by those not driving like a twonker. As a cyclist I have no control over how people drive But I can make it as easier for drivers to see me.

 

[Drago]

Sure thing.

Safety is less to do with being dressed as an aircraft marshal at Heathrow and more to do with how drivers observe their surroundings and then how they negotiate vulnerable users.

Hi-vis is no guarantee that a driver won't still risk your life by driving badly around you.

View attachment 492880

Indeed. According to the DoT's own numbers there is no casualty reduction among road workers that correlates to the mandatory use of fluorries.

They're not killing road workers because they can't see them.

 

[mjr]

You are right. If they are driving like a twonker it makes no difference what you are wearing. But high viz and reflective gear does get you seen earlier by those not driving like a twonker. As a cyclist I have no control over how people drive But I can make it as easier for drivers to see me.

And I can stop wasting my time on stuff that doesn't seem to help (at best) and challenge people encouraging such time-wasting. Put decent lights and reflectives on your bike, then push for motorist education and regulation long before faffing with ugly clothes and bags.

 

[swansonj]

....
They're not killing road workers because they can't see them.

A fascinating sentence. It means exactly what you meant it to, but simultaneously something very different...

 

[Threevok]

Popped up on my Facebook feed, I’ll just leave it here.

View attachment 492862

View attachment 492862

View attachment 492863

If i was the parent of that second child, I wouldn't be letting them near any drains with a paper boat

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

They're not killing road workers because they can't see them.

A fascinating sentence. It means exactly what you meant it to, but simultaneously something very different...

Indeed - the twonks are not looking or engaging the soft grey stuff

 

[Justinslow]

I think we’re all twonks deep down even if you don’t believe you are. Everyone will at some point in their life be a “twonk” even if you don’t intend to unfortunately, just like cyclists who ride into people because they weren’t looking. Human nature.

 

[mjr]

I think we’re all twonks deep down even if you don’t believe you are. Everyone will at some point in their life be a “twonk” even if you don’t intend to unfortunately, just like cyclists who ride into people because they weren’t looking. Human nature.

I don't believe that it's human nature to operate lethal machinery recklessly or carelessly and hope I never do it. Honest mistakes happen but a driver not looking out the big glass rectangle in front of them is negligence, not an honest mistake.

Resharing an obviously doctored image to blame some children and parents for child road deaths is more likely to be an honest mistake, but I'm not even sure that is!

 

[steveindenmark]

Indeed. According to the DoT's own numbers there is no casualty reduction among road workers that correlates to the mandatory use of fluorries.

They're not killing road workers because they can't see them.

I dont know how they worked that out. Did they decide that half the roadworkers wore dark clothing and the other half wore high viz. Then they waited to see who got run over first.

 

[AndyRM]

Seems like an appropriate thread to share this: twitter.com/but_cyclists

 

[mjr]

I dont know how they worked that out. Did they decide that half the roadworkers wore dark clothing and the other half wore high viz. Then they waited to see who got run over first.

I don't know either but I suspect there was some date before which roadworkers didn't have to dress like oompa-loompas and the casualty trend shows no step change at the date of introduction. Or they may have compared different country practices to see what factors may explain any differences. There are loads of ways to test it without the ethically-questionable step of deliberately sending half the workforce out with what some believe to be less protection (which half would depend on whether you believe it helps or hinders).

 

[Justinslow]

Seems like an appropriate thread to share this: twitter.com/but_cyclists

Yeah that’s interesting, think I might start following it.

 

[Justinslow]

I don't believe that it's human nature to operate lethal machinery recklessly or carelessly and hope I never do it. Honest mistakes happen but a driver not looking out the big glass rectangle in front of them is negligence, not an honest mistake.

Resharing an obviously doctored image to blame some children and parents for child road deaths is more likely to be an honest mistake, but I'm not even sure that is!

Define “honest mistake”?

 

[Drago]

Define “honest mistake”?

Only when you ask Buckingham Trumpton to define "obviously photoshopped".