oldandslow
Guru
I think history says that that is exactly what happens. It reminds me of what I've read about the CTC resistance to compulsory rear lights during WWII. Headlights were dimmed to avoid enemy pilots using the road network for navigation, so cyclist casualties increased and rear lights (being red and less visible from above) were proposed. Before then, cyclists had only used headlights. The CTC was concerned that what would happen in practice was an increase not so much in visibility as in the minimum requirements to be regarded as "visible". They were right in that of course, because everyone here is going to respond that anyone who rides without one is an idiot. Well I always have one too, and I wear hi vis, but cyclists with lights are still being hit and are still being told that they need more visibility aids.
I suppose you could say that the test of whether something is providing "extra" visibility is that the consequences of hitting a cyclist who is "extra" visible are an "extra" penalty in court, because you have failed not just to see a visible cyclist, but to see an "extra" visible one.
The basic issue of course is that the talk of visibility tends to lose track of the fact that I'm not trying to be visible; I am trying to be seen. Visibility helps with that but, if you only attack the problem from one end, you don't tend to solve it. In the same way, it's a good thing if I can be employable, but that's not really my goal; I want to be employed. And that takes someone else to act as well.
