Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Mike Sales
Posts: 7860
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by Mike Sales »

Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 8:25pm

because I was immediately able to find a counterexample. The advice to cycles was accompanied by "the corresponding advice to drivers." It didn't only "tackle one side". This isn't a situation where exaggeration helps.

Jonathan
I was not talking about what an internet search can find. It would be strange if there was no good advice to be found there.
The sort of driver in need of reminding about p.126 is unlikely to go searching for it.
I was referring to the annual advice appearing in our media, prompted by a press release from a "Road Safety Officer".
I have often noted that this consists of advice to cyclists, and does not emphasise the need "to always drive at such a speed....
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4612
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by slowster »

There is currently another thread about a BBC news article on the dangers to cyclists on rural roads, which is largely just a regurgitation of a NFU Mutual press release/marketing campaign (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=148899).

Although, as has been noted on that thread, the NFU Mutual has made misleading use of statistics to state that the roads are more hazardous to cyclists, it's associated guidance to drivers does emphasise the importance of not speeding and driving at a speed appropriate to the conditions.

However, as part of the NFU Mutual's campaign, there is also a prize draw of 100 rural road safety kits. Can you guess what the kits might be? (Hint, they are not things which help drivers raise their standard of driving, such as a free/discounted driving skills course.)

https://www.nfumutual.co.uk/campaigns/r ... rize-draw/
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6249
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by Bmblbzzz »

mattheus wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 7:27pm
thirdcrank wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 1:48pm Threads like this tend to be common sense -v- dogma.
Try to imagine a safety campaign aimed at other out-groups, using similar vicitm-blaming. See how it sounds.

I'd suggest women out on a Friday night at risk of rape; and non-whites who are the victims of racist attacks.


For bonus marks; show me such a campaign run in modern times, and the public reaction. Discuss the role of common sense -vs- dogma in those reactions.
Really? Focus on rape victims' clothing, behaviour and even past sexual history is common place, both in media speculation and in court proceedings. Minority ethnic and particularly religious groups are routinely told to 'integrate'.

Blaming out-groups for not being part of the majority group and thus failing to avoid anything from rape to close passes is all variations on a common formula, which the perpetrators are mostly unaware of.
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by mattheus »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 4 Dec 2021, 12:56pm
Really? Focus on rape victims' clothing, behaviour and even past sexual history is common place, both in media speculation and in court proceedings. Minority ethnic and particularly religious groups are routinely told to 'integrate'.
I didn't mention media speculation in my post, nor court proceedings.
But now you've mentioned them (and it is an important issue):
would you not agree that such things rightly meet with a strong backlash in the society of 2021? (at least in western Europe) If you can dig one up in this forum, I'd strongly hope that members would condemn that sort of advice.
Bmblbzzz wrote: 4 Dec 2021, 12:56pm
Blaming out-groups for not being part of the majority group and thus failing to avoid anything from rape to close passes is all variations on a common formula, which the perpetrators are mostly unaware of.
Yes I agree. I hope we agree this is not a good thing!
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6249
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Met with a backlash in some quarters, accepted and propagated in others, but has an effect on the thinking of all and the societies in which we live. "She should have known not to go there at that time" and "they should not dress in that foreign way" are alive and well and the latter at least is official policy in eg France and Belgium. Neither of them that different from "he should have been wearing hi-viz" or "what were you doing on that busy road?"
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by mattheus »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 4 Dec 2021, 2:32pm Met with a backlash in some quarters, accepted and propagated in others, but has an effect on the thinking of all and the societies in which we live. "She should have known not to go there at that time" and "they should not dress in that foreign way" are alive and well and the latter at least is official policy in eg France and Belgium. Neither of them that different from "he should have been wearing hi-viz" or "what were you doing on that busy road?"
What are you trying to prove/disprove?

Who are you arguing with?? I suspect we may be in furious agreement on the main point here!
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by mattheus »

thirdcrank wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 9:09pm
mattheus wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 7:27pm
thirdcrank wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 1:48pm Threads like this tend to be common sense -v- dogma.
Try to imagine a safety campaign aimed at other out-groups, using similar vicitm-blaming. See how it sounds.

I'd suggest women out on a Friday night at risk of rape; and non-whites who are the victims of racist attacks.


For bonus marks; show me such a campaign run in modern times, and the public reaction. Discuss the role of common sense -vs- dogma in those reactions.
I don't go in for quoting big areas of text so perhaps I'm expecting too much when I post in response to a post without quoting it. To save anybody going back to see what I was commenting on here it is with my bold
Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 1:46pm
VinceLedge wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 1:07pm I find it very strange how people can argue against making yourself as visible as possible when cycling.
I would rather minimise the chance of being hit than not make my visible on the basis of a principle!
Also , like most people on this forum I suspect , I drive a car as well as cycle and cyclists in dark clothing during the day and poorly or unlit at night are not always easy to see , especially when driving on dipped headlights.
You're not alone in supporting interventions that would reduce harm.

mjr wrote: 2 Dec 2021, 2:34pm Exactly what danger is a cyclist in from wearing black but correctly lit, if drivers are competent and obey the bit of the Highway Code posted by Mike Sales?
But that's two enormous ifs. And if they aren't going to happen immediately for all vehicle drivers at all times why use them to oppose measures that will reduce harm until perfection is achieved?
(My emphasis)
Jonathan
What I was trying to say is that on one side of these polarised discussions of hi-viz we get "common sense" which may not be supported by evidence. Indeed, the suggestion in this type of thread is sometimes that the evidence is at best contradictory. It's widely accepted that appealing to common sense is a way of avoiding looking for evidence. (In discussions more generally, common sense is often put in quotes to negate it.)

Then, on the other hand, we have what I called dogma, by which I meant belief based on principles. The principle in this case being something like motor vehicle drivers having an overriding duty of care towards vulnerable road users. (With my apologies to anybody who feels I am misrepresenting them.) I don't feel any need to establish my credentials here.

In this scenario, what I was commenting on was what I interpreted as Jonathan's allusion to what I hesitate to call a third way.
Ah OK - that makes more sense!

Sometimes brevity can lead to confusion (especially on a forum where brevity tends to be a signpost for pithy simplistic attempted putdowns)
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6249
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by Bmblbzzz »

mattheus wrote: 4 Dec 2021, 2:44pm
Bmblbzzz wrote: 4 Dec 2021, 2:32pm Met with a backlash in some quarters, accepted and propagated in others, but has an effect on the thinking of all and the societies in which we live. "She should have known not to go there at that time" and "they should not dress in that foreign way" are alive and well and the latter at least is official policy in eg France and Belgium. Neither of them that different from "he should have been wearing hi-viz" or "what were you doing on that busy road?"
What are you trying to prove/disprove?

Who are you arguing with?? I suspect we may be in furious agreement on the main point here!
Posting does not have to be arguing!

It might also be an argument in the other sense.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14640
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by gaz »

Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 5:21pm ...
This is traditionally expressed as how many randomised controlled trials are needed before wearing a parachute.
...
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial
Not a problem, so long as you set the right test parameters ... :wink: .
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by mjr »

So does this mean that no-one has noticed any other Cycling UK areas or regions running or supporting the motorists' "be seen" BS campaigns?
VinceLedge wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 1:07pm I find it very strange how people can argue against making yourself as visible as possible when cycling.
So do you have legal lights and reflectors, including pedal reflectors, plus a white rear mudguard, head-to-toe Proviz clothing and amber marker lights on all extremities of your bike and body, then? If not, why not?
I would rather minimise the chance of being hit than not make my visible on the basis of a principle!
Me too, as far as it's reasonably possible. I remain unconvinced that clothing has a significant effect on the probability of a collision. It seems to be more about blameshifting and compensation.
Also , like most people on this forum I suspect , I drive a car as well as cycle and cyclists in dark clothing during the day and poorly or unlit at night are not always easy to see , especially when driving on dipped headlights.
I drive a car as well. Lots of things aren't easy to see, which is why we have to keep a speed where we can stop within what we can see to be clear, not merely what we can't see to be occupied.

As a driver, I know that dipped headlights correctly aligned (top edge of the beam hitting level ground 100-200m ahead) will not put more than the tiniest amount of light on a cyclist's upper body, which makes their clothing pretty much irrelevant compared to their lights and bike reflectors. And you should always be on dipped headlights when a cyclist is ahead.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
axel_knutt
Posts: 2869
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:20pm

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by axel_knutt »

Psamathe wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 3:18pm Posted by others on this forum (and not that long ago) but seems relevant?

Surrry Road Policing on Hi-Viz#1.png

Ian
Relevant in the same sense that some vaccinated people still get covid and some locked houses still get burgled, you mean?

FWIW I've only bought two Hi Viz yellow jackets in my life, and both faded to creamy white within about a couple of months.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by mattheus »

axel_knutt wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 3:08pm
Psamathe wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 3:18pm Posted by others on this forum (and not that long ago) but seems relevant?

Surrry Road Policing on Hi-Viz#1.png

Ian
Relevant in the same sense that some vaccinated people still get covid and some locked houses still get burgled, you mean?
Do the pictures of Hi-viz emergency vehicles hit by drivers really make no impression on you? I find it strange to dismiss them as unlikely unfortunate events - whereas a cyclist with a yellow vest is much much safer than one without.

(Have you ever struggled to see a police car covered in Hi-Viz? )
Pebble
Posts: 1930
Joined: 7 Jun 2020, 11:59pm

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by Pebble »

mjr wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 2:25pm
As a driver, I know that dipped headlights correctly aligned (top edge of the beam hitting level ground 100-200m ahead) will not put more than the tiniest amount of light on a cyclist's upper body, which makes their clothing pretty much irrelevant compared to their lights and bike reflectors. And you should always be on dipped headlights when a cyclist is ahead.
And thats why hi reflective clothing is a must at night. I took a video of myself from the dashcam in my van, the van was parked with lights on dip (and they are not the best of lights)


and here is a still from the video at a moment when both of the rear flashing lights are momentarily off. The reflective tape seems invaluable to me - yes I know it is not an absolute guarantee that I will always be seen, but for me it gives more of a chance that I will be seen
Image


Constructive comments including criticisms of my 'be seen tactics' are most welcome. I ride at night a lot and want to give myself the best chance of not been mowed down
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by mjr »

I've not seen the video yet (I'm posting from my phone) but I am not confident that drivers would recognise the whiteish rectangle on posts in the still image as a person rather than a road sign. I feel that if you do use reflective clothing despite the drawbacks, human-shaped stuff like Proviz or a skeletal pattern is far better than the ISO standard hoops and bars patterns. People operating heavy machinery on building sites might be looking out for the ISO pattern, but ignorant drivers won't be.

As for both flashing lights being off at times, maybe consider using a steady light with a big illuminated surface and wide viewing angle instead of one of them?

The best chance of not being mowed down comes from good road positioning and tactics. Do Bikeability level 3 if you haven't.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
irc
Posts: 5189
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Cycling UK Norfolk joins in "Be Bright Be Seen" victim-blaming!

Post by irc »

Funny how some think visibility for cyclists doesn't matter while over in the helmet section a contributor says it is hard to see cyclists dressed in black even when he is a time trial timekeeper looking for them.

"by TrevA » 6 Dec 2021, 3:08pm
Yes, front lights compulsory too. It will make my job as a timekeeper easier - not easy to see black skinsuit clad rider, with a black helmet, in an aero tuck, riding a black bike against a background of black tarmac"

In a perfect world it wouldn't matter. In this world the sooner a driver sees me the better.
Post Reply