Reflective Paint

[domtyler]

I tend to think that even if I was dressed as a giant Banana, a smidsy would still be a smidsy. Some drivers are just not vigilant behind the wheel and accidents will still happen. It takes no extra time or effort to put on a lid and hi-viz and in certain circumstances they are effective.

I wouldn't take Ms tdr1nka on the tandem without either, it doesn't make me any less vigilant or cautious in my riding. All our Hi-Vis have the 3M reflectors and it is proven that at impacts around 30mph wearing a well fitting lid can seriously limit potential damage to the skull.

Maybe I'm just erring on the side of caution but I would never let my guard down just because I choose to wear these items.


T x

Interesting. Can you show me where you got this fact from tdr1nka?

 

[Cab]

For the first few days (maybe even the first couple of weeks) I might actually be concerned about not wearing my jacket at night. I might try cycling more conservatively, i.e. more submissively.

I think your analysis falls down right here at the start. If you're concerned that you're less visible, surely that means you'll take a more assertive road position to make sure that you're visible? Its what I do when I have such a concern.

 

[summerdays]

I don't see why you also think HiViz = work men, surely the first thing to think of in a road situation is one of the emergency services (particulary police if you are a motorist with a phone glued to your ear). And our cycling beat bobby wears HiViz too.

I know that yesterday I noticed (whilst standing next to the road with my HiViz jacket) a motorist smiling, looking apologetic and pulling on his seat beat - I'm assuming he thought I was someone else.

 

[Wolf04]

Bear with me here. A thought experiment:

I wear a hi-viz jacket in the winter. What would happen if I took it off and didn't wear it. I'll try and be honest here.

For the first few days (maybe even the first couple of weeks) I might actually be concerned about not wearing my jacket at night. I might try cycling more conservatively, i.e. more submissively. As time progresses, however, I would get used to not wearing the hi-viz and I would probably forget what it was like to wear it. At this point I would expect that my cycling would return to normal, i.e. I would cycle the same way I did with the hi-viz on. This would be because I would no longer think about what I was or was not wearing as I would be getting on with the job of cycling and enjoying it.

I would suggest that the time I would be in greatest danger would be during the transition, where I would be riding more submissively. I probably would not take my road position as I should etc because I was worried about my visibility.

However, this effect would be temporary.

Going the other way it is possible for a short while that someone might feel safer for a couple of weeks because of wearing a jacket. But, similar to my example this effect would disappear once it became the norm.

In fact it could be the case that changing either way is just as dangerous, and it would be the change itself that would be dangerous and not the fact that you were moving to hi-viz that was the problem


So in conclusion changing may cause transitory reduction in safety, but in the long term no effect.

So if you conclude (as I do) that hi-viz improves your visibility under certain circumstances then I suggest that long term safety is improved at the expense of a short term reduction in safety. Of course if you are just starting cycling the transitory period would not matter as the major risks of learning a new skill would result in far greater risks (so long as you wore hi-viz at the start).


Discuss.....

You seem to be effectively reiterating BentMickey's point about risk compensation. My feeling would be that if I stopped wearing Hi-Viz my cycling wouldn't change in either the short or long term and didn't when I started to wear it.
Pete

 

[LLB]

The biggest problem is not just based on your road position in a genuine smidsy (not 'I don't give a toss'), it is the drivers ability to see you before they pull out. The only way you can influence their decision making process behind the wheel is to make sure that they see you long before your paths cross.

It really is that simple !

 

[domtyler]

Bear with me here. A thought experiment:

Pointless drivel snipped

Discuss.....

It's been a while since I read a bigger load of crap than this. Thanks Magna, you've made my day.

 

[magnatom]

I think this is where urban camo arguments fall down, as the speed of the vehicle is not taken into account. At low closing speed, a moving blob of HiVi is not any use, because compared to the approaching driver, it is moving little, and once registered becomes redundant as the whole cyclist is in view for the whole approach.

At high closing speed, the HiVi blob that registers makes perople think "What's that?" and serves as a reference that they are going to be approaching something that is either stationary / as good as staionary compared to the approaching vehicle.

I see where you are coming from for this, and you are right that a stationery blob is less visible than a moving blob.

However, where a cyclist is moving across the path of a car, i.e. at a junction, their speed (even if they are traveling relatively slowly) will be fast compared to the driver, because they will be moving across the drivers field of vision. Therefore, I would suggest that a yellow moving blob would be detected very well in this situation.

 

[magnatom]

It's been a while since I read a bigger load of crap than this. Thanks Magna, you've made my day.

Come on Dom, you can't just say that. Where do you think I am talking crap?

Oh and don't just say all of it!

 

[summerdays]

And I cycled the second half my route this morning without my HiViz. I wanted maximum visibility for the first part on the really busy road (Muller Rd) with queueing traffic, but after the M32 motorway roundabout I took it off. I didn't notice any difference in the way I cycled (other than I was cooler). I don't use HiViz in summer either so do I stop risk compensating then?

 

[magnatom]

I think your analysis falls down right here at the start. If you're concerned that you're less visible, surely that means you'll take a more assertive road position to make sure that you're visible? Its what I do when I have such a concern.

Maybe I would. But shouldn't I already be cycling in the optimum road position anyway. What I am trying to say is that it is possible that I would ride differently for a short while (and this could increase my risk). However, over time this would cancel out and the overall effect would be zero.

What I am trying to say is that I think risk compensation is always transitory and never permanent.

 

[domtyler]

Come on Dom, you can't just say that. Where do you think I am talking crap?

Oh and don't just say all of it!

You claim to be a skilled and cycle-crafty cyclist and yet you admit that getting rid of your day-glo 'safety' vest would see you cycling in the gutter. What's that about?

 

[magnatom]

You seem to be effectively reiterating BentMickey's point about risk compensation. My feeling would be that if I stopped wearing Hi-Viz my cycling wouldn't change in either the short or long term and didn't when I started to wear it.
Pete

Not really, I am saying that at most the effect of risk compensation is temporary. I might not do what I described above, but I think the worst case scenario is what I described.

 

[tdr1nka]

Interesting. Can you show me where you got this fact from tdr1nka?

I was told this by a friend who was an A & E nurse at the time, just figured that someone who was both a cyclist and on the recieving end of RTA's might have known their onions. If I am mistaken, forgive me.
anyway, as has been said this is the subject for a whole other thread.

T x

 

[magnatom]

You claim to be a skilled and cycle-crafty cyclist and yet you admit that getting rid of your day-glo 'safety' vest would see you cycling in the gutter. What's that about?

I've never claimed to be skilled, your assumption I think . I'd like to think I am fairly clued up though and I do try and cycle as best I can to be safe.

I'm not claiming I would suddenly cycle in the gutter, but I might subconsciously be a little more wary at the trouble spots in my commute. I might subconsciously wonder if, for example, a following car has seen my signal, has that car over there actually seen me etc.

Yes this would probably be unjustified (most of the time) but I am after all human and it is possible that feeling more vulnerable would affect my riding. I'm just trying to be honest. However, as I have said this would be transitory at most.

 

[Cab]

Maybe I would. But shouldn't I already be cycling in the optimum road position anyway. What I am trying to say is that it is possible that I would ride differently for a short while (and this could increase my risk). However, over time this would cancel out and the overall effect would be zero.

What I am trying to say is that I think risk compensation is always transitory and never permanent.

You should of course be riding where you're visible regardless of whether you're in high-viz, but you seem to be saying that you think you might stop doing this if you're not wearing high viz. My response is that, intuitively, I think that if you change your behaviour if not wearing high viz then surely you'd be takiong different risks instead, you'd be riding maybe further out, you'd be in primary position even more often. There may be some risk compensation going on, only I don't agree that you'd be acting more timidly when you should, to compensate for that risk, be acting more assertively.