Reflective Paint

[LOGAN 5]

If you want to get seen on a bike just ride in primary position, it works every time. Ride out of this position and you'll be blatantly ignored not seen whatever you're wearing. That's the simple truth folks.

I was. It didn't. Got ignored anyway. Not true then.

 

[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?

Isn't the bolded bit a near perfect example of risk compensation? The bit about not using it in summer might also be a good risk compensation example - perhaps you're only using it in winter because light conditions aren't as good?

Surely its a case of assessing the quality of light, and road conditions, and wearing the HiViz cos I want to maximise my visiablity. I do not go down the Muller Road in a daydream, the top is lovely and fast, but for the last mile it is almost stationary traffic, a bus depot, and a hill that forces me to go into secondary position. My speed and the cars is very different quite a bit of the time.

Equally I don't use my lights in those conditions in summer - cos it is much lighter, and road conditions are better. I think motorists drive worse in winter time... whether its steamed up windows, lack of fresh air, dampness on the ground, and it is definately darker, even at midday.

If I had to use the lights in summer cos it was wet/stormy I would add the jacket too or a high vis vest.

 

[Terminator]

However I ride im not having too many problems with my HI-VIZ (touch wood) and long may it continue.

 

[BentMikey]

... in the summer I perceive that the benifits of this reduce significantly, due to the improved contrast available from the additional light.

Ergo you are risk compensating, as is summerdays. You perceive summer riding as less risky, so you feel it's acceptable to abandon the safety gear.

 

[magnatom]

Ergo you are risk compensating, as is summerdays. You perceive summer riding as less risky, so you feel it's acceptable to abandon the safety gear.

I'm sure you have changed your definition of risk compensating. From what I gathered previously this was the act of cycling in a more risky manor. For example cycling faster, weaving in and out of traffic more etc. This is what I would term as risk compensation, as a result of taking the jacket off. I don't understand how taking the jacket off can result in the risk compensation of..... taking the jacket off!?!?

If your using this definition, does this not mean that you risk compensate as well? Do you leave your lights on all of the time?

 

[summerdays]

Ergo you are risk compensating, as is summerdays. You perceive summer riding as less risky, so you feel it's acceptable to abandon the safety gear.

Point is: "it is less risky" from a light levels point of view.

And I wear my high viz cos of the reduced light levels. Summer = sun high in the sky so that even behind clouds the light levels tend to be higher.

 

[Cab]

Maybe, but do you agree that risk compensation is temporary as I have described?

I don't know. Intuitively I'd say yes, provided you're competent enough to re-learn how to ride well; how temporary it is would therefore depend very much on the competence of the rider.

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

Why not do an experiment?

Magna and Mikey - both of you video your commutes. Video one, then swap your normal riding gear for the other one.

Mag goes ninja and Mike goes bananna.

Compare your "before" and "after" videos and see what kind of difference there is. Whack them on Youtube for us to look at.

I dares ya!!

I also ride a motorcycle (600 supersports, was out on it yesterday) so I am well aware of my mortality regarding these bikes also.
I'm not mitigating the fact that (some) people in cars don't look for smaller vehicles, just to try and offer a better understanding of the reasons why.

*drools* what is it what is it!

 

[BentMikey]

I'm sure you have changed your definition of risk compensating. From what I gathered previously this was the act of cycling in a more risky manor. For example cycling faster, weaving in and out of traffic more etc. This is what I would term as risk compensation, as a result of taking the jacket off. I don't understand how taking the jacket off can result in the risk compensation of..... taking the jacket off!?!?

If your using this definition, does this not mean that you risk compensate as well? Do you leave your lights on all of the time?

Nope, I haven't changed my definition at all. You're right, everybody risk compensates, me included. Risk compensation is not about changing just your cycling behaviour, but your overall behaviour to return risk towards your perception of what is acceptably safe.

The bolded bit seems to me like missing comprehension. You feel safer in the summer, so you're happy to take off the hiviz. It's all about what risks you yourself perceive, and how you adapt to them, and there's quite possibly only a limited link with real risk. You clearly perceive the hiviz as a significant factor on your own safety, and I don't believe that it is. In winter you're partly trusting your safety to something that probably has very little effect on it.

Remember the bomb dodgers after 7/7? They swapped very safe tube travel for much less safe cycling because they suddenly perceived cycling to be safer than using the tube, but that's clearly not true.

My problem with hiviz and helmets is that so many cyclists focus on their importance to the exclusion of more important things, and yet they have a tiny effect on real cycling safety. We can argue whether that effect is positive or negative, but the point remains that it's of tiny significance when compared with the other stuff such as lights at night and cyclecraft.

In fairness to you, we all know how important good cycling is to you, so this last bit isn't true of you, though it's true of this debate in general.

 

[magnatom]

I think it probably would come as no surprise that we aren't a million miles away from each other on this one. There are a couple of main differences; I think hi-viz helps more than you do. I have a slightly different definition or risk compensation than you do. We both try and cycle in a manner that is safe and we both realise that although we try our best, there is always room for improvement.

I completely agree about human risk perception being very poor. As a species we always vastly overestimate risk. In that regard people often think cycling is much more dangerous than it really is. Thinking honestly, I would estimate that wearing a banana jacket (thanks Jacomus!) might stop a small number of accidents happening every year. Say for instance 5 (UK). That is probably a small proportion of accidents each year (which is probably small compared to all those cycling each year). However, despite the small advantage, I still see it as an advantage. The cost to me is maybe £40 every 2 or three years and a mild amount of derision for looking a twat. I think it is worth it. It is obviously up to everyone else to judge that one for themselves.


As for helmets, I know the arguments of both sides. I think the jury is still out on that one. I wear mine probably out of habit, probably because my wife likes me wearing it, and probably because it sets an example to my oldest boy (I think kids helmets are justified).

Jacomus, that experiement probably wouldn't work. I would probably compensate for the fact that I knew my cycling was going to be scrutinised!

Anyway, its an interesting discussion....

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

<snip>
I completely agree about human risk perception being very poor. As a species we always vastly overestimate risk. In that regard people often think cycling is much more dangerous than it really is. Thinking honestly, I would estimate that wearing a banana jacket (thanks Jacomus!) might stop a small number of accidents happening every year. Say for instance 5 (UK). That is probably a small proportion of accidents each year (which is probably small compared to all those cycling each year). However, despite the small advantage, I still see it as an advantage. The cost to me is maybe £40 every 2 or three years and a mild amount of derision for looking a twat. I think it is worth it. It is obviously up to everyone else to judge that one for themselves.
<snip>

I think I am of a very small minority in thinking that banana jackets on cyclists actually look very cool, but I sweat so much in mine that it is totally impractical most of the time! I would wear it because I liked the colour rather than any HiVi aspect of it, if I could stand the drenching!

 

[BentMikey]

The biggest debates/arguments sometimes come from the smaller differences!