Idiots on bikes

[potsy]

Is this relevant to the question of visibility?

Yes, the train wasn't wearing hi-viz.

 

[Mugshot]

We have on this forum currently an account by a member that was right hooked and is now in hospital with a broken back. Having seen pictures of this mans bike and read his posts on the lighting threads I strongly suspect that he would have resembled the Coca Cola truck.
We have another account on here from a new member who was also right hooked, if we accept the post at face value it doesn't sound as if they were doing anything they shouldn't have been, they were in the cycle lane and they had lights on. Yet they are concerned that they bear some of the responsibilty because they weren't wearing a hi-viz jacket.

[QUOTE 4044784, member: 9609"]If this is your argument for cyclists to take no responsibility for themselves then it is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]
The argument isn't for cyclists taking no responsibilty for themselves, the argument, as I see it, is that it should be a reasonable expectation that motorists have a responsibilty to drive in a manner where cyclists, pedestrians, chickens, cows and fence posts are not continually being pushed to compete in an arms race which they will inevitably lose. Where the question asked in examples such as the ones above isn't automatically what more could the victim have done.

Don't you hate when you're driving down the road and you can't see the hi-viz signage.

Isn't road signage reflective?

Some people on here clearly could learn a thing or two!

You're right Justin, for example one of your supporters could try to learn what a speed limit is. However as this thread is about visibilty and responsibility what lessons do you think the people in the two examples above should take from their experiences?

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 4044784, member: 9609"]of course these incidents will occur, but for every clown that crashes into something so obvious, 1000s will have spotted the hazard earlier and took appropriate action.[/QUOTE]
And for all we know, 1000s will have spotted the hazard TOO early and subconsciously think they've already addressed it by the time when they should take appropriate action, fail to do so (either deliberately - the old "can I fit through there? Yeah, I can fit through there" - or carelessly) and either crash or near-miss.

If this is your argument for cyclists to take no responsibility for themselves then it is ludicrous.

I know it's really difficult, but it is possible to argue that something is incorrect without meaning that the polar opposite is correct - this is not black and white (although actually black and white is more visible than hi-vis, not least because the Norfolk police cycling club wear black and white... )

So can I take it that the consensus of opinion from the cycling community is. Any use of lights, hi-viz, bright colours are a total waste of time, The HSE, The Police, Ambulance, Fire Brigade, The Highway Code, Local Authorities, have all been getting it wrong for years, all wasting money by the bucket full on this nonsense, could it have all been a conspiracy or some get rich plan?

Some of those have evidence, others probably are wasting money. I feel it's unlikely to be a conspiracy and while not deliberately, clothing makers and sellers aren't going to turn away buyers - but because the HSE is involved, most seem quite honest about their hi-vis products, much more so than for helmets (my work hi-viz is quite clear that it's only class 2 and not for situations where class 3 is required). I believe the increasing use in unproven situations is because they are facing unacceptable casualty numbers among their workers, but with no political will to tackle bad motoring effectively, they're clutching at straws: we must do something, this is something, so we will do this.

Is there any peer reviewed scientific evidence that Lights, Hi-Viz and bright colours do not work.?

Yes! Few have disputed lights much since CTC lost their campaign against legal compulsion in 1947, but unlit cycling remains a fairly rare contributory factor for collisions (around 2%) whereas I'd expect it to be higher if it mattered. Also, as usual for when "road safety" measures become compulsory despite not addressing the actual problems (bad motorists), there was no noticeable corresponding fall in cyclist casualties.

There some scientific evidence that hi-vis isn't helpful for cycling, such as http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/ and I have read a few studies saying they DO work for construction and railways (which I don't have bookmarked) but not for roadworks.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

You are quite right, but unfortunately as far as Justin's concerned, if he hasn't heard of it, it doesn't exist.

He's welcome to buy The Invisible Gorilla at his local bookshop. Now he's heard of it. Very thought provoking, not to say worrying, book.

 

[subaqua]

Nobody's saying that, but if it's crap why do the HSE demand it nowadays? I've not got an issue with hi viz, I didn't say the guy in the OP needed it. However tonight whilst taking my son to footy training I passed 3 cyclists and a couple of dog walkers wearing the stuff, stood out amazingly, that's not to say I've never seen it before obviously, just never really studied it. One dog walker didn't have any on and was practically invisible (full darkness) nipping in and out of the hedge.

HSE don't demand it.

the law says you must carry out a risk assessment and apply control measures. on a building site for example there are lots of obstacles obscuring vision so it may be the corner of a jacket gets spotted. hence we say wear it.

on roads for example enhanced Hi Viz is required because vehicles are moving at a greater speed .

the HSE have a great website full of advice and really do like busting myths and stopping people using health and safety as an excuse for not wanting to do something.

on the road however the driver SHOULD be LOOKING at where they are going and driving at a speed where they can safely stop with the visibility they have.

based on your logic we should paint cars in Hi Viz.

 

[Justinslow]

We have on this forum currently an account by a member that was right hooked and is now in hospital with a broken back. Having seen pictures of this mans bike and read his posts on the lighting threads I strongly suspect that he would have resembled the Coca Cola truck.
We have another account on here from a new member who was also right hooked, if we accept the post at face value it doesn't sound as if they were doing anything they shouldn't have been, they were in the cycle lane and they had lights on. Yet they are concerned that they bear some of the responsibilty because they weren't wearing a hi-viz jacket.


The argument isn't for cyclists taking no responsibilty for themselves, the argument, as I see it, is that it should be a reasonable expectation that motorists have a responsibilty to drive in a manner where cyclists, pedestrians, chickens, cows and fence posts are not continually being pushed to compete in an arms race which they will inevitably lose. Where the question asked in examples such as the ones above isn't automatically what more could the victim have done.


Isn't road signage reflective?


You're right Justin, for example one of your supporters could try to learn what a speed limit is. However as this thread is about visibilty and responsibility what lessons do you think the people in the two examples above should take from their experiences?

Haven't read the one about the broken back, but the other lad with the broken scaphoid some have suggested it could be partially to blame?
It's all irrelevant anyway, nobody's saying it will give you a "magic force field" just that it may help you be seen! As has been said there are idiots in cars aswell as idiots on bikes as well as idiots in bin lorries.
The way some of you lot are carrying on its as if any colourful set up will make no difference. Did you not see @User9609 s pic of his pink woolly hat and the bridge clearly visible in his quite dark picture?
Whether people act on this visual information is another story but you can't deny the fact that the person is more visible.

 

[theclaud]

Can someone ping me if Justin comes up with anything that shouldn't have been put to bed on Page 1?

 

[Justinslow]

on roads for example enhanced Hi Viz is required because vehicles are moving at a greater speed .

This does not apply to cyclists then but to everybody else working in the roads, what's the difference?

 

[mjr]

This does not apply to cyclists then but to everybody else working in the roads, what's the difference?

Many cyclists are wearing class one (basically, a few reflective bands) or class two (two horizontals, two verticals), whereas roadworkers usually wear class three (full body, more bands). Most retailers of proper hi-vis have pages describing it. If you've had any involvement with work hi-vis, then it's quite noticeable that cycling hi-vis retailers often don't explain the types and uses to potential customers - much cycling hi-vis is a fashion accessory, not protective equipment.

 

[Justinslow]

You're right Justin, for example one of your supporters could try to learn what a speed limit is. However as

These people are not "my supporters" they have views which are similar to mine, and are different to yours and others on here.
I'm not running for some sort of presidency!

 

[Justinslow]

I hope you've got something to occupy your time.... Translating War & Peace into txt spk should do it.

Lol there we go, same old names.....like I said on the helmet debate thread it's tediously boring, if you don't want to read it, jog on.

 

[mjr]

The way some of you lot are carrying on its as if any colourful set up will make no difference. Did you not see @User9609 s pic of his pink woolly hat and the bridge clearly visible in his quite dark picture?
Whether people act on this visual information is another story but you can't deny the fact that the person is more visible.

Actually, I'll deny it two ways: a pink blob and white railings does not communicate "person" to anyone; and a person is visible or not so I deny that "more visible" has a useful meaning.

If you read back, it's not that colours make no difference, but that the effective colours depends on the background the viewer sees behind you, so you can't win unless you're changing clothes every few yards and the common choice of yellow is poor is many cycling environments.

I didn't comment at the time because I couldn't see anything except white railings on my phone screen, but now I'm at my desk, so let's have a look:
[QUOTE 4043562, member: 9609"]here is a still from my video, I don't have lights on the front of my bike, but look how that pink hat stands out, bright red shirt is not very good, and black track suit bottoms are utterly useless. That pink is wonderful in fading light, far better than my hi viz yellow -

and just look at those white railings[/QUOTE]
Which seems to suggest that white would be best for those low-light conditions, doesn't it?

Why don't you have a light on the front of the bike? Surely that would knock everything else in that picture into a cocked pink hat!

 

[Mugshot]

These people are not "my supporters" they have views which are similar to mine, and are different to yours and others on here.
I'm not running for some sort of presidency!

And there was me thinking there was some kind of "them and us" can't think where I got that idea from.

 

[Mugshot]

The way some of you lot are carrying on its as if any colourful set up will make no difference.

Here's a very sad story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-35024197

Do you think the people in this story should have been wearing lights or hi-viz or brightly coloured reflective clothing or do you think the driver should have ben paying more attention? Where do you think the responsibilty of a driver not to run somebody over starts?
As has been said it isn't the case of taking no responsibility for our own safety it's recognising that it is not acceptable that all of the onus is on the vunerable, at some point it has to come down to drivers paying attention and looking properly and if visibilty is compromised due to weather conditions or light levels for them to slow down and be even more attentive not, as has been suggested up thread, to drive at the speed limit no matter what.

 

[Justinslow]

Actually, I'll deny it two ways: a pink blob and white railings does not communicate "person" to anyone; and a person is visible or not so I deny that "more visible" has a useful meaning.

If you read back, it's not that colours make no difference, but that the effective colours depends on the background the viewer sees behind you, so you can't win unless you're changing clothes every few yards and the common choice of yellow is poor is many cycling environments.

I didn't comment at the time because I couldn't see anything except white railings on my phone screen, but now I'm at my desk, so let's have a look:

Which seems to suggest that white would be best for those low-light conditions, doesn't it?

Why don't you have a light on the front of the bike? Surely that would knock everything else in that picture into a cocked pink hat!

Except a zillion pages ago you told me my white van was useless!!! Make your mind up, is it any wonder we get confused at your ramblings?