Was this bus driver bad?

[magnatom]

(Rejoins 'debate' as the emphases has changed).

I can see where nethalus is coming from. She is absolutely correct that wearing contrasting (exactly what colour depends on background etc) colours can make you more visible even during the day. That is common sense and I am sure science sense as well. Nethalus is not saying that we should all be forced to wear it, but she has suggested that it is not a bad idea.

Of course it is all about risk. How much more risky is it not to wear contrasting colours on a bright day. Probably very little, but yes it probably does improve thet wearers safety if only slightly. On a bright day many other factors will be more important like, cyclist skill, driver skill, road conditions etc.

Using the 'oh should pedestrians wear hi-viz' argument is pretty cheap. Comparing cyclists who (should be) on the road to pedestrians who flirt with the road is just silly. Anyway to some extent the argument is probably true for pedestrians as well, although to a lesser degree.

Using pedestrians as an example, would we all agree that at night when it is dark and raining, that a pedestrian wearing bright colours (in street lighting) is more visible than someone wearing all black? Of course they are. Are they therefore safer? Of course they are. Maybe only slightly but they are.

Of course I don't think the law will ever suggest that we all have to go around at night dressed up like something out of the 70's (funky ), but the fact remains.

I think that is all nethalus is saying. She has pointed out a fact.

I should point out that I would never cycle all in black. In fact I tend to have two contrasting colours on (i.e. black and red, black and blue etc). I don't think an all over black lycra suit would look good on me.....

 

[domtyler]

Just one point to Nethalus, you say that accidents happen when people don't look and manage to hit buses, cars, motorbikes etc., if people don't see these large objects do you really think that wearing day glo clothing is going to help in these circumstances?

 

[gambatte]

Using the 'oh should pedestrians wear hi-viz' argument is pretty cheap. Comparing cyclists who (should be) on the road to pedestrians who flirt with the road is just silly. Anyway to some extent the argument is probably true for pedestrians as well, although to a lesser degree.

Disagree Mag.

pedestrians aren't held by rules like lane discipline. they are capable of quite fast acceleration, can be on the pavement one second and infront of you the next.

 

[magnatom]

Disagree Mag.

pedestrians aren't held by rules like lane discipline. they are capable of quite fast acceleration, can be on the pavement one second and infront of you the next.

True, but drivers know how to deal with pedestrians. They come across them more often and are often pedestrians themselves. This isn't always the case with cyclists.

Anyway, the main point I was trying to make was that contrasting colours do help. Often the benefit is small (sometimes very small), but not zero.

 

[mickle]

True, but drivers know how to deal with pedestrians. They come across them more often and are often pedestrians themselves. This isn't always the case with cyclists.

Anyway, the main point I was trying to make was that contrasting colours do help. Often the benefit is small (sometimes very small), but not zero.

Ever read 'Death on the Streets' Magnatom? One of the issues highlighted in the book is how the onus of responsibility for safety is transferred away from those responsible for the danger onto those most at risk. One common example is the erection of barriers to keep peds on the pavement and away from the danger posed by motor vehicles rather than removing the danger itself by slowing down the cars. Expecting vulnerable road-users to dress up like day-glo xmas trees moves responsibility away from the people actually causing the danger.

 

[magnatom]

Ever read 'Death on the Streets' Magnatom? One of the issues highlighted in the book is how the onus of responsibility for safety is transferred away from those responsible for the danger onto those most at risk. One common example is the erection of barriers to keep peds on the pavement and away from the danger posed by motor vehicles rather than removing the danger itself by slowing down the cars. Expecting vulnerable road-users to dress up like day-glo xmas trees moves responsibility away from the people actually causing the danger.

I haven't mickle but I can see where it is coming from. Absolutely the onus must be on all road users for their own safety and the safety of others. We should continue to try and educate drivers how to drive around cyclists etc.

All I am saying with regards to wearing contrasting colours is that it does improve our safety (although sometimes very minimally). I am certainly not suggesting that we should HAVE to wear it, but that it can help. However, safe cycling technique, driver education etc have a much greater bearing on safety than any colour that we wear.

In an ideal world drivers would all be as aware of their surroundings as they should be. But they are human (sometimes a little below human) after all and concentration can wane. I can just understand why having contrasting colours on, in certain situations, could reduce your risk when another road user would not have seen you.

Of course this does not mean that the non-bright colour wearer bears any fault for not wearing said bright colours. But in certain situations it can help.

On a related note I personally don't buy the theory that because I wear a bright red top cycling that I take more risks. When I cycle, the last thing on my mind is what I am wearing

 

[Brock]

Aren't cyclists who light themselves up like Christmas trees and smother themselves in Dayglo blouses doing the rest of us a disservice by encouraging drivers to be lazy in their observational checks?

 

[magnatom]

Aren't cyclists who light themselves up like Christmas trees and smother themselves in Dayglo blouses doing the rest of us a disservice by encouraging drivers to be lazy in their observational checks?

Mmmmm, it is possible that there could be an effect, but I doubt that the issue would ever enter a typical drivers mind!

On a sub-conscience level, maybe, but does that mean we should ban cyclists from wearing hi-vis ?!

Maybe it would be safer if we all cycled about with invisibility cloaks on. That way drivers would all have to be REALLY REALLY observant if they wanted to avoid hitting cyclists. They would have to look for disturbances in the surrounding air and ground.

On second thoughts I'm not sure about this. This would provide justification for us cycling in the gutter. Our tyres would make more noise passing over the litter and glass, so they would have a better chance of working out where we were.......


(My family has a collective bad cold at the moment, so sleep is severly lacking. This may explain my insane mutterings.....)

 

[magnatom]

P.S. There goes the 500 post barrier......

 

[gambatte]

There are also environmental and lighting condition where wearing dark colours would be the best way of being seen.

 

[magnatom]

There are also environmental and lighting condition where wearing dark colours would be the best way of being seen.

Indeed, which is why in a previous post I mentioned contrasting colours rather than bright (although I may have lapsed into saying bright).

As I said previously I wear two different colours which reduces that issue, although I must admit that is not the reason I wear them. Now that I think of it though it is a good idea (which as I said probably makes little, but some difference).

 

[Cab]

All I am saying with regards to wearing contrasting colours is that it does improve our safety (although sometimes very minimally).

Does it really though?

Is the balance between winding up motorists by being perceived as dayglo, lycra clad street warriors actually not tip things in the other direction? I mean, if I'm in primary position then in ordinary clothing I'm visible. Am I really significantly easier to see in dayglo? And if I'm not am I not just reinforcing the stereotype of the vulnerable but pushy bright coloured cyclist?

 

[Cab]

Aren't cyclists who light themselves up like Christmas trees and smother themselves in Dayglo blouses doing the rest of us a disservice by encouraging drivers to be lazy in their observational checks?

Arguably, yes. But I would maintain that a bigger factor in getting you seen than what you wear is good road positioning. I'd make a case that the biggest disservice generally done by cyclists to other cyclists is the endemic problem of passive road positioning, reinforcing the perception that we're meant to be in the gutter. Next to that, I just can't get so interested in whether mototists get tetchy about us not wearing high-viz.

 

[gambatte]

Because we pass through different environments on our journeys. Should we change clothing several times?
Should we discourage green cars from travelling in rural environments?

 

[magnatom]

Because we pass through different environments on our journeys. Should we change clothing several times?
Should we discourage green cars from travelling in rural environments?

I'm not making any comments about what you or anyone else should wear!! Wear what you want!

I generally wear some black and some colour. In some environments the black will be more visible in some the colour.