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

Mike Sales
Posts: 7883
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, 2:26pm Thanks. It was the corresponding that caused the confusion.

Jonathan
I now see why you were talking about something which seemed to me misguided.
I am sorry for causing confusion. As you now realise, I meant corresponding in the sense of the other half of the chain of circumstances which might lead to a driver hitting a cyclist.
Tackling only one side does seem to me a failure to properly address this type of incident, and yet it is, as far as I can see, universal. The implicit assumption that it is acceptable for drivers to flout P.125 and only exhort cyclists to do what they can is very like victim blaming.
Perhaps my night vision is poor, though I have never noticed it otherwise, but my limited experience of night driving is that drivers routinely go faster that they can see to be clear.
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?
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

Thankyou.

How would this score against that requirement, please?

Jonathan

Look Out!

Spring is now upon us, which thankfully means longer days and better weather conditions. During this period, we often see an increase in the number of cyclists on the road. Therefore, it’s more important than ever that all road users look out for one another and consider their own and other’s safety when setting out on a journey.

XXXXXX Safer Roads Partnership’s new campaign ‘Look Out’ aims to educate both cyclists and drivers to look out for each other, to help reduce the number of collisions involving cyclists within YYYYYYYY.

Cyclists: Look Out – Cycle Safely

However you use your bike, whether cycling to work or for weekend bike rides, it’s important to remember the importance of making sure you and your bike are prepared for every ride that you do. By using lights on your bike and wearing high visibility / reflective clothing or accessories at all times you give other road users a better chance of seeing you clearly, to protect yourself and them.

Make yourself safe and visible by wearing the right kit, taking the most appropriate lane position and looking out for hazards and other road users.

Take a look at some useful tips and advice to help you improve your road safety and help drivers to see you more clearly.

Drivers: Look Out – Drive Carefully

Research shows that most collisions with cyclists happen during morning and evening rush hour times – often at junctions and roundabouts. And this is no surprise. Traffic is increased during this time and you may be hurrying to get to or from work. However, it’s important that you give cyclists space and time as rushing and potentially causing a collision is just not worth the risk.

During the Spring and Summer months the number of cyclists on the road increases, so it’s even more important to look out for one another when you’re on the road. By educating yourself on some road safety basics you can help to keep yourself and other road users safe.

Take a look at some useful tips and advice to help you improve your road safety knowledge and practices.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
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 »

Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 1:46pm
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?
High vis does not reduce harm and does reduce cycling, which "safety in numbers" implies will also increase harm to those who continue to cycle, plus there are negative environmental effects. Why support measures that reduce cycling and increase harm?
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.
Mike Sales
Posts: 7883
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

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

Post by Mike Sales »

I guess it depends on what the "useful tips and advice" are.
Apart from that it says to drivers only "be careful" and look out for cyclists.
I really feel that P.125 needs emphasising and explaining. I was about to write that it needs much more stress than merely being one of so many paragraphs, and I suppose that is fair because any stress would be more than none at all.
I feel drivers are led to think that if they cannot see any lights or reflectives than it is fine to drive there without slowing, and that is what they do.
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?
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

Mike Sales wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 2:55pm I guess it depends on what the "useful tips and advice" are.
Apart from that it says to drivers only "be careful" and look out for cyclists.
It gives equal length to what cyclists should do and what drivers should do.

It doesn't only say that. It also mentions specific settings, times of day, and seasons.

Here's the link with the outlinks to the tips and advice for both types of road users:
https://sben.co.uk/2021/03/look-out-cyc ... -campaign/

Jonathan
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Post by Psamathe »

I always worry when "common sense" is the sole justification for something. Many situations can be far more complex than "the obvious" and things like risk compensation can often be a factor and can seem counter to "common sense" e.g. (from my questionable memory) the place in the US where a train road crossing was subject to loads of accidents and it was "obvious" that trees/vegetation should be cut back to give better visibility of approaching trains - except it didn't help because "risk compensation" resulted in vehicles travelling faster ... (and accident rate was not improved) - but it was obvious better visibility would improve safety.

(I must emphasise the rail crossing example is from memory from a TV program so I cannot provide sources and am quite open to others contradicting or "urban myth")

Ian
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Post by Psamathe »

Posted by others on this forum (and not that long ago) but seems relevant?
Surrry Road Policing on Hi-Viz#1.png
Ian
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

Psamathe wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 3:16pm I always worry when "common sense" is the sole justification for something.
I know what you mean.

The best method that we have for making these difficult decisions comes from evidence-based medicine. And one of the first principles is to be aware of the level of available evidence.

Then to use the highest level available.

And then to carry out studies that lift the level.

Jonathan
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
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 »

Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 3:27pm
Psamathe wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 3:16pm I always worry when "common sense" is the sole justification for something.
I know what you mean.

The best method that we have for making these difficult decisions comes from evidence-based medicine. And one of the first principles is to be aware of the level of available evidence.

Then to use the highest level available.

And then to carry out studies that lift the level.
But at what point do you conclude that shooting oneself in the foot is painful and not worth further studies?
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.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

mjr wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 5:16pm
Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 3:27pm
Psamathe wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 3:16pm I always worry when "common sense" is the sole justification for something.
I know what you mean.

The best method that we have for making these difficult decisions comes from evidence-based medicine. And one of the first principles is to be aware of the level of available evidence.

Then to use the highest level available.

And then to carry out studies that lift the level.
But at what point do you conclude that shooting oneself in the foot is painful and not worth further studies?
This is traditionally expressed as how many randomised controlled trials are needed before wearing a parachute.

But it's a confusion between using the hierarchy of evidence to understand what we know and the need to make decisions in the real world either as individuals or groups.

Better studies are always needed but that's not a reason not to make those decisions.

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5044
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, 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.
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4629
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

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

Post by slowster »

Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 2:59pm It gives equal length to what cyclists should do and what drivers should do.
An equal length, with consequently an implicit false equivalence. A vastly greater risk to the cyclist; a vastly greater risk which is created by the driver, because of the nature of the vehicle (speed, size and mass), which is under the complete and sole control of the driver.

The advice to motorists ought to be given before the advice to cyclists. There is an implicit bias in stating first what the cyclist must do to make themselves more visible, before telling motorists to look out for cyclists. The implication is that cyclists must make themselves more visible, before motorists need to pay more attention.
Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 2:59pm Here's the link with the outlinks to the tips and advice for both types of road users:
https://sben.co.uk/2021/03/look-out-cyc ... -campaign/
Again the advice for cyclists is given first. Moreover, whereas there are 10 items of advice for cyclists, there are only 6 for motorists. The guidance for motorists does not include what is probably some of the most important advice for driving safely: don't speed and drive at a speed appropriate to the road conditions.

The guidance for cyclists includes advice for planning their route to avoid roads.

Cyclists are also advised to get Bikeability training. There is no corresponding advice to drivers to get training to improve, despite the fact that the driving standards of many (most?) drivers would probably result in a fail if they were being assessed during a driving test.
Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 3:27pm The best method that we have for making these difficult decisions comes from evidence-based medicine. And one of the first principles is to be aware of the level of available evidence.
My own view where the issue in question is one of safety and safe behaviour, is that people behave they way they are trained to behave. A situation where widespread deviation from the trained behaviour is explicitly or tacitly tolerated results in non-compliance becoming more pervasive and ingrained. In professional situations such non-compliance is typically addressed by disciplinary measures and/or further training, combined sometimes with further testing. If someone is guilty of careless driving or (say more than one) speeding offence, they have fallen short of the standard required in order to be permitted to drive on the road, and it would be appropriate to require them to pass the test again (or the enhanced test) to demonstrate that they are capable of meeting the standard again.

'News' articles and campaigns which focus on what cyclists wear - or do not wear - are a distraction from the root causes of the problem and the solutions that flow from focusing on the root causes.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

slowster wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 7:57pm
Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 2:59pm It gives equal length to what cyclists should do and what drivers should do.
An equal length, with consequently an implicit false equivalence. A vastly greater risk to the cyclist; a vastly greater risk which is created by the driver, because of the nature of the vehicle (speed, size and mass), which is under the complete and sole control of the driver.

The advice to motorists ought to be given before the advice to cyclists. There is an implicit bias in stating first what the cyclist must do to make themselves more visible, before telling motorists to look out for cyclists. The implication is that cyclists must make themselves more visible, before motorists need to pay more attention.
I'm not going to argue against either of those. But what I was addressing was:
I have posted before that I have never seen this piece of advice to cyclists accompanied by the corresponding advice to drivers.
Tackling only one side does seem to me a failure to properly address this type of incident, and yet it is, as far as I can see, universal.
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
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

slowster wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 7:57pmIn professional situations such non-compliance is typically addressed by disciplinary measures and/or further training, combined sometimes with further testing. If someone is guilty of careless driving or (say more than one) speeding offence, they have fallen short of the standard required in order to be permitted to drive on the road, and it would be appropriate to require them to pass the test again (or the enhanced test) to demonstrate that they are capable of meeting the standard again.
I think we'd be a lot better off if we treated more of this as proven competence to be granted permission to use the roads or not than as criminal offences.

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

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

Post by thirdcrank »

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.
Post Reply