Perhaps houses should be painted a lurid yellow?
Bez has a collection of such incidents.
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... in-houses/
Radio show on Hi-Vis.
-
- Posts: 7898
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
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?
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
Always good to wake up See what I did?Jdsk wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 8:21pmIt took me two goes... but I was puzzled about how the wakers wore the dogs.kylecycler wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 8:16pmHow do the dogs... Oh right, their owners put them on... for... them...
: - )
Jonathan
John
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
I must have been thinking of Christmas!
: - )
Jonathan
: - )
Jonathan
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
So have collision figures gone up since this reduction in the standards of observation expected of drivers, or down?drossall wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 8:36pm I'd recommend it too. But the issue is that hi-vis,and lights, were introduced to provide extra visibility. But what happens in reality is that the victims become idiots for not using it, and the standards expected of them go up. Meantime, it's quite natural that drivers don't see pedestrians (or cyclists) who aren't using it. So expectations of drivers go down. It doesn't seem to provide extra visibility; rather, it lowers the standards of observation required.
Of course, whats also relevant here is that we don’t do things in isolation, be safe, be seen, or the green cross code (for example) is one of a variety of arrows in the quiver, but I’m I’m about as convinced of your logic on lights as I am that encouraging children to follow the green cross code is a bad thing because it shifts the onus from drivers to children, or that bikeability reduces the onus on drivers either.
If it's providing extra visibility, then you'd expect drivers who hit pedestrians using it to incur extra fines because of the extra culpability.
no, I would expect a reduction in collisions.
once again, the proof is in the pudding - are cyclists less likely to be hit by a car when using a rear light or not, that’s the ultimate test of “providing extra visibility”, not who gets blamed for the accident afterwards.That, roughly, is why the CTC opposed compulsory rear lights for cyclists around the end of WWII. And they were right - now, if a cyclist without a rear light is hit, the fault lies mostly with the cyclist, so the rear lights are not, as was claimed, providing extra visibility.
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
Oh blimey, now you're asking.
There were some figures knocking around that showed that lit cyclists were disproportionately involved in night-time accidents, on any reasonable estimate of the proportion of cyclists who use lights at night. So it's about as clear as h*****s.
I'm not using those figures alone to claim that lights are a bad idea. I always use lights, and bright ones. But you asked, and I don't do it because the figures are convincing. Frankly, I can't understand those figures. But it's no good rejecting figures just because you don't like what they say.
I think it's important to remember a few things:
There were some figures knocking around that showed that lit cyclists were disproportionately involved in night-time accidents, on any reasonable estimate of the proportion of cyclists who use lights at night. So it's about as clear as h*****s.
I'm not using those figures alone to claim that lights are a bad idea. I always use lights, and bright ones. But you asked, and I don't do it because the figures are convincing. Frankly, I can't understand those figures. But it's no good rejecting figures just because you don't like what they say.
I think it's important to remember a few things:
- I'm not interesting in being visible, in the end; I want to be seen. Visibility is part of the process, and not to be underestimated.
- But I'm competing with everything else on the road to attract and keep attention. Who knows, with street lights around to make me reasonably visible, maybe not having lights makes me annoying, which will certainly work as a way of keeping and attracting attention. If that's not the answer to such statistics, then I'm not sure what to suggest.
- Safety measures are rarely introduced alone, but in packages. So you can't just say that the figures changed after such-and-such a law came in. Well, you can if you're a politician, because certain politicians (sorry) will happily claim the entire benefit for one measure this week, and for a different one next.
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
I do not... though I have seen dogs with stuff and lights on.
Thinking about it I do occasionally see joggers etc in brightly coloured wear but it's not obvious whether that's a conscious choice or they just liked it/it was going cheap in the discounter supermarket middle aisle. Late 80s/early 90s florescence has been through a bit of a revival recently...
Regardless the overwhelming majority of pedestrianing I see is done in normal clothes and none of them have any additional protective armour either.
My point remains that labrat's abuse is not logically consistent when considering the known relative risks of the two methods of transport.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
However the overwhelming majority of pedestrianising is undertaken on part of our huge network of segregated pedestrian infrastructure, both alongside and away from roads. Only about 8% pedestrian/vehicle fatalities take place on pavements etc., the remaining 92% of fatalities involve pedestrians in the road
So there’s a very clear distinction here between the risks to a pedestrian walking alongside or away from the road, and the risk to a pedestrian walking *in* the road for some reason (eg. Country lanes with no pavements) and the much lower (but not non existent, however arguably in this scenario significantly less likely to be mitigated by improved visibility) risk to pedestrians walking on pavements and other areas away from roads.
Of course, as cyclists, we spent a much higher proportion of our time *in* the road/carriageway (rather than on segregated infrastructure) than most pedestrians do, so ‘pedestrians’ is not a relevant comparator - the discreet subset of pedestrians regularly walking in the carriageway is a better comparator.
So I’m essentially saying that, yes, it’s not only entirely sensible for both cyclists and pedestrians who are cycling or walking in the carriageway rather than away from them to wear high visibility clothing, (including lighting where relevant), and anyone choosing not to do so deserves a level of incredulity and ridicule similar to that that I would express towards the cranks, loons and nutters who are out there actively opposing vaccination and mask wearing
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
Unless you want to spend your life as zoolander you cannot get very far without being 'in the road' at some point.
The gap by which the fatality rate of pedestrians is higher than that of cyclists is actually greater in London than the GB average.
These are not people dying on country roads, they're crossing roads in built up areas, a necessary and frequent part of any journey by foot. (Or they've been forced into the road due to pavement parking etc).
The gap by which the fatality rate of pedestrians is higher than that of cyclists is actually greater in London than the GB average.
These are not people dying on country roads, they're crossing roads in built up areas, a necessary and frequent part of any journey by foot. (Or they've been forced into the road due to pavement parking etc).
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop