Reflective Tips (Part 2)

[Bicycle]

Photos with aperture, exposure and ISO or BS!!!!

I get the feeling that G-Zero used flash to get his results..

I do like the tone of this, so I won't take offence where none was intended.

I don't carry a camera with me. There's one in my 'phone but it's never been used. I'm not sure I know how...

In truth, no photos are necessary. We all drive and can see what's around us. From the driver's seat we see what works and what doesn't.

I was slightly annoyed by how good the strips were, as I was making the point to younger son that the guy was hard to see without a rear light... but the reflectives made a mockery of my words.

None of us witnesses life and other road users through a camera lense. We see it through our eyes and our brains process the data. On that basis I used eyes and brain to assess that I was able quite clearly to see that cyclist and his reflective strips.

Anyone driving around in these winter evenings will have spotted cyclists from a distance purely because of the reflective strips on their jackets or gilets. No photos, no proof, no nothing.

Similarly, I'm not going to hook myself up to some fancy diagnostic equipment to see if my heart's still beating.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Similarly, I'm not going to hook myself up to some fancy diagnostic equipment to see if my heart's still beating.

Scared of the possible answer?

 

[G-Zero]

Photos with aperture, exposure and ISO or BS!!!!

I get the feeling that G-Zero used flash to get his results..

Absolutely no flash,that would have defeated the object, and as I said previously, the view I had with my eyes was even better than that portrayed by the camera.

I don't get your massive hang up over the fact that reflectives do work and you got yourself in a bit of a jam over your choice of words.

Just let it go and learn from it and please take my word for it, that had my results proved me to be wrong, I'm broad shouldered enough to have come on here and openly said so.

If you don't like reflectives, fine - your choice, don't use them, but they've kept me and colleagues safe for a lot of years at many unlit motorway and dual carriageway incidents; and without working in those conditions, it's easy to underestimate the value of anything that keeps you alive and gets you back to your family at the end of your shift.

All I've done here is shared that experience with fellow cyclists and the worst that can happen is someone spends a bit more cash. I don't need to spell out the worst case scenario if someone doesn't buy some protective gear and finds themselves in a position where they need it.

 

[Norm]

I get the feeling that G-Zero used flash to get his results..

I'd be very surprised, that would have lit up the inside of the car and caused reflections on the screen.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

All I've done here is shared that experience with fellow cyclists and the worst that can happen is someone spends a bit more cash. I don't need to spell out the worst case scenario if someone doesn't buy some protective gear and finds themselves in a position where they need it.

Smacks of victim blaming. The gear you describe is NOT protective. The worst that can happen is that people think hi-viz offers some form of protection and risk compensate in their riding accordingly. Or the courts start blaming injured cyclists for not wearing hi-viz as the sometimes do in respect of not wearing helmets.

So....

Driver, not looking, fails to see cyclist using reflectives. Worse case scenario ensues.

Driver, not looking, fails to see cyclist not using reflectives. Worst case scenario ensues.

How can the worst case scenario arise if the driver is looking, seeing and acting?

Given hi-viz can't influence the behaviour of a driver who is not looking, not unless the garment has some sort of psychic power. If the driver hasn't looked what use are they? Drivers who look and see and act don't run cyclists down. That's why so many unlit ninjas live thrive and survive, because when driving we look, see and act. Drivers who look and see and act don't run road workers down. Et cetera. Et cetera.

We don't have situations where we need reflectives. We have situations where we need better drivers.

 

[fossyant]

Actually a Nightvision is a waste of money because the zips are shite!

And the reflective bits fall off after a few washes.

 

[Mad at urage]

Along similar lines to Greg, the other week I was driving along an unlit country road at night. I saw two dogwalkers in HiViz, walking with their backs to the traffic and trusting entirely to the drivers behind them to be looking and the supposed protective powers of their jackets. Further along I saw an old bloke (yes I saw enough to identify his age group), dressed entirely in black, walking towards the traffic and so able to react if a driver had clearly not seen him. I saw both at about the same distance (because this was a country road and winds a lot). I know who I believe was the safest and most responsible walker of those I saw.

OTOH when cycling at night I use a hi-viz vest and have reflectives on the bike (as well as several bright lamps): Largely because if someone does hit me, I know our current culture will blame me if I don't have these.

 

[Bicycle]

Smacks of victim blaming. The gear you describe is NOT protective. The worst that can happen is that people think hi-viz offers some form of protection and risk compensate in their riding accordingly. Or the courts start blaming injured cyclists for not wearing hi-viz as the sometimes do in respect of not wearing helmets.

So....

Driver, not looking, fails to see cyclist using reflectives. Worse case scenario ensues.

Driver, not looking, fails to see cyclist not using reflectives. Worst case scenario ensues.

How can the worst case scenario arise if the driver is looking, seeing and acting?

Given hi-viz can't influence the behaviour of a driver who is not looking, not unless the garment has some sort of psychic power. If the driver hasn't looked what use are they? Drivers who look and see and act don't run cyclists down. That's why so many unlit ninjas live thrive and survive, because when driving we look, see and act. Drivers who look and see and act don't run road workers down. Et cetera. Et cetera.

We don't have situations where we need reflectives. We have situations where we need better drivers.

I really don't see any implied tendency towards 'victim blaming' in G-Zero's wording. His syntax is fine and the language isn't loaded. He is explicit in writing of the merits both as a cyclist and as someone who uses them at work.

We may not have situations where we need reflectives. That is not the point. The writer was defending his view that reflectives make sense. He, I and others believe they do.

Clearly, some road users could be more skilled, more courteous, more thoughtful. That sounds to me more like an argument for reflectives than a case for questioning a contributor's use of language.

 

[ushills]

Why with the helmet debate and the reflective debate do people think that it is safer not to use reflective materials.

Assuming that a sensible individual cycles or even walks properly on the road, reflective material must at least be the same or better than wearing all black or non-reflective clothing.

Why not drive/cycle without lights surely that must be safer as well.

Stupid people will always be stupid.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I really don't see any implied tendency towards 'victim blaming' in G-Zero's wording. His syntax is fine and the language isn't loaded. He is explicit in writing of the merits both as a cyclist and as someone who uses them at work.

We may not have situations where we need reflectives. That is not the point. The writer was defending his view that reflectives make sense. He, I and others believe they do.

Clearly, some road users could be more skilled, more courteous, more thoughtful. That sounds to me more like an argument for reflectives than a case for questioning a contributor's use of language.

You are entitled to your opinion, as is G-Zero, as am I.

But not loaded? Are you sure?

I don't need to spell out the worst case scenario if someone doesn't buy some protective gear and finds themselves in a position where they need it.

For the record; I use reflectives and lights at night. Very powerful lights. I even use the lights during daylight. (I draw the line at fluorescing these days though). Why do I use them? Because it makes me feel better. But I don't kid myself it offers me any real protection from drivers who aren't looking. And the ones who are looking? I don't need much protection from them.

I used to wear hi-viz reflectives and use lights. Got hit from behind twice in S. London when stopped at traffic lights, and offed by an mp3 wearing ped (now understand this was largely my fault; going to fast too near the kerb too near peds) who looked straight at me and stepped off the kerb anyway, all between '99 and '04, and once whilst moving at speed down an unlit country lane at night on my current rural commute in 2008. Offed twice since then in broad daylight once on a mini-roundabout and once when a car didn't give way and just pulled out from a side turning.

Reflecting like the Hubble telescope, whilst lit up like a fluorescent Christmas tree makes no difference if the driver isn't looking.

 

[Mad at urage]

Why with the helmet debate and the reflective debate do people think that it is safer not to use reflective materials.

Assuming that a sensible individual cycles or even walks properly on the road, reflective material must at least be the same or better than wearing all black or non-reflective clothing.

Why not drive/cycle without lights surely that must be safer as well.

Stupid people will always be stupid.

Because as Greg says (and as the dog-walkers I saw exemplify), people are being educated to believe they are some form of protection which they are not. It would be far better to educate people to do as the man in black was doing; if they want to add reflectives as well, that's cool. The problem is that (like ever-brighter lights on vehicles) these are portrayed as 'safety gear' that replaces sensible practice. People think that as long as they are wearing reflectives (or driving with all their brightest lights shining), they are safe.

 

[ushills]

Because as Greg says (and as the dog-walkers I saw exemplify), people are being educated to believe they are some form of protection which they are not. It would be far better to educate people to do as the man in black was doing; if they want to add reflectives as well, that's cool. The problem is that (like ever-brighter lights on vehicles) these are portrayed as 'safety gear' that replaces sensible practice. People think that as long as they are wearing reflectives (or driving with all their brightest lights shining), they are safe.

This is the bit I struggle with and goes along with the point raise on Page 1 asking for proof that reflectives make people safer.

When I'm driving along on an unlit road I can see someone wearing reflective before I can see someone who is not. Therefore I am aware of their presence quicker and therefore able to adjust my speed & position quicker or even indicate around them thus advising those behind me of their presence and my intentions. If someone is dressed like a ninja they may not get that courtesy and I will just avoid them if I have insufficent time to do anything else.

Used in conjuntion with sensible practice they will always be safer than not wearing them, however, they are not a suit of armour and will do nothing to protect agaist those who are not looking. However my experience of reflectives and reflectors is that they can generally be seen from 500-600 metres away and give more opportunity to be seen rather than the fraction of a second one gets with some of the ninjas out there.

Lights work far better in my opinion but reflective give a good indication of the biometrics of the vehicle and avoid the is it a motorbike, scooter or cycle question and therefore gives a better indication of the likely speed.

According to an australian study reflectives on the ankle/knees were the best possible solution.

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38338/1/c38338.pdf

 

[Bicycle]

Because as Greg says (and as the dog-walkers I saw exemplify), people are being educated to believe they are some form of protection which they are not. It would be far better to educate people to do as the man in black was doing; if they want to add reflectives as well, that's cool. The problem is that (like ever-brighter lights on vehicles) these are portrayed as 'safety gear' that replaces sensible practice. People think that as long as they are wearing reflectives (or driving with all their brightest lights shining), they are safe.

I do see my own visibility on a bicycle as a safety issue. When I choose to cycle in clothing that makes me more visible, I do so for my own safety. The gear that I wear for safety's sake is 'safety gear'.

Similarly, I have lamps on my bicycle which I switch on when the quality of light is poor. It's a safety thing. I take a road position that I believe improves my chances of being seen and avoiding unintended contact. I don't believe that by taking that road position I make all other safety issues superfluous.

I wear gloves and (very rarely) a helmet. That is protective clothing. It doesn't make me more visible, but it keeps skin and bone away from tarmac. It may be refered to also as 'safety gear', but its primary function is to form a barrier between me and other objects (also to make me look like a mushroom).

No-one has ever tried to 'educate' me to believe that the bright colours and the odd bit of reflective clothing I wear are protective clothing. Nor has anyone even implied the merest hint of a breath of a suggestion to me that 'safety gear' replaces safe practice. I'm not sure who in their right mind would ever make such a suggestion.

As to your last sentence, I dare say it's true. People think many things: People think the Royal Family are lizards and that it makes sense to import strawberries from South Africa. I dare say there are even people who think the Royal Family are South African Strawberries. But... no-one with more brain cells than a turnip really thinks that illumination and safety are synonymous. One may affect the other, but that's not the same thing.

I realise you're not anti-reflectives per se, but I really don't think people are so monumentally and unremittingly stupid that they'd believe (as Descartes did): "Je brille donc je suis (sure)".

(From one of the great philosopher's lesser-known and less successful works).

 

[Norm]

I do see my own visibility on a bicycle as a safety issue.

Indeed, I think that there is a confusion in common terminology between safety gear and protective gear.

Whilst they might be strict definitions in law, I'd agree with Bicycle that I would say that something which is worn to increase (perceived) levels of primary safety and reduce the (perceived) risk of an incident occurring is "safety gear" and something which is worn to reduce the impact of an incident (secondary safety) is protective gear.

However, any official documents (accident reports, risk assessments) that I write would have the official terms so any difference between the phrases "safety gear" and "protective gear" is down to personal use and it is (irony warning) not something that I'd be able to convincingly argue either way.

I think Descartes' quote is relevant to the colour of hi-viz here, as it translates to "I'm pink therefore I am".

 

[GrumpyGregry]

This is the bit I struggle with and goes along with the point raise on Page 1 asking for proof that reflectives make people safer.

When I'm driving along on an unlit road I can see someone wearing reflective before I can see someone who is not. Therefore I am aware of their presence quicker and therefore able to adjust my speed & position quicker or even indicate around them thus advising those behind me of their presence and my intentions. If someone is dressed like a ninja they may not get that courtesy and I will just avoid them if I have insufficent time to do anything else.

Proof was asked for because data beats anecdote every time. Why do I need to see a cyclist at 600yds when my braking distance is a fraction of that? Why aren't pedestrians encouraged to dress this way? Why aren't cars (oh so many of which around here have filthy number plates and defective lights) all bright yellow and covered in diamond tape?

So...

How many ninja's have you run down when driving? I'll wager the answer is near zero.
How many hi-viz types have you run down when driving? I'll wager the answer is near zero.

I think the answer is simple. You're looking. (Probably, I'll wager, because you are a cyclist) You aren't the problem.

Why do hi-viz types and ninja's alike suffer close passes in broad daylight?