1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tips to Make Yourself Visible

Discussion in 'Advocacy and Cycling Safety' started by united4ever, 24 Nov 2017.

  1. Reiver

    Reiver Whistling down the hills, tearing up the climbs

    Location:
    Middle Marches
    where are these conclusive studies ? think there have been two put forward in this thread which are about as inconclusive as it gets.
    I go from what I see as a driver and the space lemon / bright reds during the day on rural roads, and Hi-refl at night catch my eye very well and at a good distance, I guess most will see what I see so these are what I feel safest in (granted others may not see exactly what I see and I don't know how to deal with that other than following official advice)

    I agree it is an unwanted arms race and the intoduction of DRLs was most unwelcome advancement ever. But I think the problem here is some cyclists don't want to come out of the 60s and feel their safety is everyone else's responsibility.
     
  2. YukonBoy

    YukonBoy Veteran

    Location:
    Mars
    If drivers are not seeing vulnerable road users or obstructions early enough for them to react appropriately then the correct response is lower speed limits for that section of road.
     
  3. Adrian

    Adrian Heed the elf's wisdom

    If you have legal lights and reflectors it is someone else's responsibility. The question is why is that not being enforced?
     
  4. GrumpyGregry

    GrumpyGregry More gruff than grumpy

    Location:
    West Sussex
    The safety of other road users IS everyone else's responsibility.

    And as wearing space lemon or having uber lights doesn't affect my safety one jot so far as I can tell (school of hard knocks) and none of the space lights and uber lemon advocates can put forward a shred of evidence (pelmets anyone?) that they do improve my safety I'll carry on insisting that drivers drive responsibly, and arguing with the lemonistas.
     
    classic33 likes this.
  5. GrumpyGregry

    GrumpyGregry More gruff than grumpy

    Location:
    West Sussex
    Because an Englishman's car is his castle?
     
    Reiver and Adrian like this.
  6. raleighnut

    raleighnut Guru

    Location:
    On 3 Wheels

    FTFY. ^_^
     
    GrumpyGregry likes this.
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Whistling down the hills, tearing up the climbs

    Location:
    Middle Marches
    what would be the point of that, they won't even enforce the ones we have

    Our politics were purchased in the same manner we buy on fleebay - we just want the cheapest going no matter how crap it might be.

    May be you mean it should be? becacause at the moment not many of them are thinking that way.

    I hope you continue to argue with the drivers, Im very much on your side - but think you're wrong to criticise those who are just trying to make the best of a bad situation.
     
    raleighnut likes this.
  8. Adrian

    Adrian Heed the elf's wisdom

    The problem is that, the more we make the best of a bad situation, the more that reinforces it as the norm.
     
    theclaud and mjr like this.
  9. Fine. If hi viz works, please produce the studies that show it prevents injuries and save lives.

    Do you know how often they get hit? Do you have any data to compare with the other stopped vehicles on the motorway?

    I see a fair number of unlit cyclists. They are also rarely hit. Does shows how effective not being lit and wearing dark clothes is?

    The apparent truth is that if a driver looks properly, they will see you, and if they don't they won't - and what you wear changes nothing.
     
    theclaud and glasgowcyclist like this.
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Whistling down the hills, tearing up the climbs

    Location:
    Middle Marches
    please produce the studies that show it does not.

    with probably every health and safety body within europe if not the world advising that it is the best way to be seen, I think the onus is on you to show that it does not help.
     
  11. Adrian

    Adrian Heed the elf's wisdom

    That is nonsense. For anything anyone wants to introduce or impose, the onus is on them to justify that.
     
    theclaud and mjr like this.
  12. GrumpyGregry

    GrumpyGregry More gruff than grumpy

    Location:
    West Sussex
    I mean it is. That people are not held accountable for failing in their responsibilities is

    a) a separate debate
    b) No reason to increase my burden of responsibility via visibilism, nor to insist or imply I'm accountable if I don't subscribe to the lemon way.


    I believe I am right, and somewhat entitled, to criticise anyone who, by their dress or specific equipment, portrays to non-cyclists that cycling is an unduly hazardous activity.

    The benefits of cycling far outweigh the small risks involved, but the non-cyclist never knows that if riders either wear special sports clothes, indicating that only athletes need apply, or PPE, indicating that the riders health and safety are at significant risk whilst riding, or sport nuclear powered lights "to be seen".

    On top of that I strongly feel that the "devolution" for road safety to the more vulnerable road users is an inherently motor-centric position, at best thoughtless, and worse, brainwashed, that needs to be constantly challenged. I can't abide the UK's motor-centrism.
     
    theclaud likes this.
  13. Hitchington

    Hitchington Lovely stuff

    Location:
    That London
    keep a pasty complexion by avoiding going on holiday to sunny places.
     
    theclaud and raleighnut like this.
  14. GrumpyGregry

    GrumpyGregry More gruff than grumpy

    Location:
    West Sussex
    PPE is at the bottom of the pyramid. Anyone who ascribes the reduction in H&S injuries and deaths to the use of PPE because it is "the best way to be seen" can reasonably expect to be challenged that they appear not to understand how that pyramid works.
     
    theclaud likes this.
  15. mjr

    mjr Wanting to Keep My EU Citizenship

    It is rarely possible to conclusively prove that something is definitely useless. It should be easy to show that something has a significant effect if it does, yet no-one can for hi-vis.

    I think the claim about "probably every health and safety body within europe if not the world advising that it is the best way to be seen" might be misleading: the UK's HSE only advises use of hi-vis jackets for people who have stopped their vehicles in traffic, doesn't it? Or have I missed where they say people walking and cycling on the roads should wear it? It doesn't seem to be in the last Report of the Work-related Road Safety Task Group.