That's a different argument and there's a different thread for the specific item, so I will comment only on two aspects of the specific scientific method claim embodied in the above: first of all, you say "on the balance of probability it seems like a good idea" but I think you haven't actually estimated any probabilities there, let alone tried to balance them. For example, what's the probability of hitting the protective area rather than another body part? What's the probability that the impact speed will be less than 12mph? What's the increase in probability of an impact from the increased size and weight?
Fair enough. Common sense tells me that something padded between by head and what my head is going to hit, will stop my head hitting it as hard. This seems to be borne out by anecdotal evidence from doctors who treat people who have been mashed up after coming of bicycles. It also seems to be supported by the use of helmets for motorcyclists, mountain climbers, skiiers, racing drivers, almost any outward bound activity for children, sky divers etc. They can't all be wearing them for fun.
Simple retort: if you can't see well enough to be doing 40mph, you must slow down. To do otherwise is to at best careless driving. Highway Code Rule 126.
Simple response: I agree. However this is a binary argument again. Seeing well enough to be doing 40mph is not easily defined. It also does not correlate to your ability to see a non-reflective object easily, which is established by science. Physics tells is that dark objects reflect less light thus there is less information coming back to our retina when light is pointed toward a dark object than a highly reflective one. Hence the legal requirement to have working lights on a bicycle. There is always a risk however that your lights will stop working / fall off / become obscured and you won't be aware. It's definitely happened to me.
I really hope I've misunderstood that and you're not suggesting that going faster means you can close-pass people!
Nope! What I meant to say was that when travelling at a faster speed you need more time and information to plan how to safely pass a much slower object
Making the car environment like sitting in the living room is a personal choice
This is true. But most people having purchased a car, are going to choose to keep it snug, warm and comfortable. Very few are going to actively turn the radio off, dial down the heater and open the windows. Again, we are looking at "all cars" not the subset of "cars being driven well" or "cars where the driver is paying attention".
By all means, continue to waste your time. Just don't encourage others to waste theirs, and definitely don't blame anyone else for not wasting theirs, please!
How about we agree that people should read the evidence for and against, and make up their own minds as to whether or not they should use reflective equipment, and accept that a positive discourse about those pros and cons is more useful than discouraging discussion? I leave you with a 2018 study (randomised controlled trial in Denmark) that found that the incidence of cycling accidents was reduced when wearing a hi-viz reflective jacket:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528
I have not found a single scientific study that has found that it is more dangerous to wear high viz or reflective clothing. There does seem to be a bit of anecdotal reporting that it might not do as much as you might think, dependent on environment, but even those reports said that at worst you were going to be no worse off generally wearing high-visibility clothing and possibly better off. That being the case, I personally endorse the "well it doesn't hurt to be seen" argument.
I look forward to your rebuttal supporting the argument that "high viz and reflectivity" is a waste of time when cycling, and look forward very much to analysing the supporting randomised controlled trials and studies.
