Hi Viz jackets

[tykeboy2003]

Why are we still focusing on modifying the behaviour of the vulnerable, this is ludicrous and just paves the way for more victim blaming and pushing the focus away from those presenting the danger, their responsibilities and the blame that should lie directly at their doorstep.

Totally agree mate. Not hi-vis related, but the other day a van came very close to me on the A511 near Burton on Trent, slowed down, lowered the passenger window and the driver said "Wear a hat mate". I was speechless, as if that's going to prevent the broken arms and legs caused by this numpty hitting me because I wobbled or swerved to avoid a pot-hole or he answered his phone while passing me far too close......

[thirdcrank]

We are also living in a society which has established a framework for how we are expected to interact with each other, a hierarchy of laws, official advice and custom. All OK until it isn't, and then it's a matter of who did what, rather than philosophy.

Agreed, it's a framework increasing built around the perceived needs of motor vehicle users but that's reality.

[mjr]

Agreed, it's a framework increasing built around the perceived needs of motor vehicle users but that's reality.

Another world is possible.

But no-one said it'll be easy to make.

But the only constant is change, so we may as well try to make the change one we would like.

Thank you to pjclinch and The utility cyclist for helping motivate me to make a more powerful response to a consultation on the latest THINK! Norfolk draft video, which sadly includes hi-vis again, when I thought we were moving beyond that to evidence-led measures.

As for the being laughed out of court stuff, it's a sad day when our courts rule based on prejudice rather than evidence. Whatever changed world we end up in, I hope it's not one where that is widespread or accepted.

[mjr]

Yes but as a "businessman" who does walk rural roads in darkness when using a bus I carry either slapstraps or a tabard in my laptop bag. This isn't because I pander to the inadequacies of uk drivers( and they aren't great ) but rather I pander to the inadequacies of the human brain to regulate the speed of a car, drive within seeing distance of headlights. Being seen at greater distance by a biological machine with inherent flaws is preferable I feel. Humans cannot even obey the simple round 30 signs through villages at any time of day. I'm acting in my own self preservation by attempting to offer greater visibility beyond the reach of any headlight.

I just wanted to respond to this in two ways:

Firstly, reflectives cannot "offer greater visibility beyond the reach of any headlight" because they only reflect light, so no headlight reach means no reflection means no effect. They can appear brighter than non-reflective surfaces (which is most surfaces) but still rely on headlights.

Secondly, the problem is summarised by the belief "I'm acting in my own self preservation". This is a game of beggar-thy-neighbour with no upside. Please think this through: there's little evidence for additional reflectives making a cyclist less likely to be a casualty (which is reasonably common-sense because if a motorist is close enough to collide with you, then they were usually easily close enough to see you or at least the legally-required bicycle reflectors) but it helps create an expectation that anyone cycling or walking will wear additional reflectives, which may help reduce the compensation paid to other road casualties and reduce the punishments for unsafe motorists who injure others. So if you do ever walk or cycle without hi-vis, it could be you who doesn't get full compensation, or it could be your death that goes unpunished. So how is this acting in one's own self-preservation? It's not, so we should reject this and similar unproven measures.

[old_windbag]

Firstly, reflectives cannot "offer greater visibility beyond the reach of any headlight" because they only reflect light, so no headlight reach means no reflection means no effect. They can appear brighter than non-reflective surfaces (which is most surfaces) but still rely on headlights.

I'm fully aware of that but the light reflected by reflectives is from low level light relative to the central beam. The light cast by the headlight at that distance is not picked up by our eyes in the same way as that of the area on road where the higher intensity light is cast( in the beam pattern ). The reflectives allow that low level of light to be reflected back to us whereas it would only dimly light the typical environment around at that distance, walls, bushes... these not being inherently reflective. The reflectivity of reflectives probably being close to 100%, a bush probably very low.

I may well die on our roads but rather than walk/cycle around like a ninja expecting that people should see me and drive at a speed accordingly I choose not to. I know that the world is not like that and therefore take some responsibility on my part to aid being "seen" by others. You can wait for a long time to get the evidence-led measures that you desire but what if the eventual outcome of evidence was that hi-vis is beneficial..... would you adopt it, I don't think so.

So we'll always be a split camp hi-viz, no hi-viz, helmets, no-helmets. It's all light hearted debate in most part but sad that we as cyclists are so divided, but we are just a reflection of society as a whole.... just we ride bikes.

[thirdcrank]

... It's not, so we should reject this and similar unproven measures.

What's the mechanism for doing that effectively?

[[XAP]Bob]

So we'll always be a split camp hi-viz, no hi-viz, helmets, no-helmets. It's all light hearted debate in most part but sad that we as cyclists are so divided, but we are just a reflection of society as a whole.... just we ride bikes.

It's not light hearted debate though - the debate has serious implications on the behaviour of others.

If it becomes common place to have people wielding knives in public do you protest against it or buy a string vest with a label in the back saying 'may be stab resistant'?

People are wielding lethal weapons and the expected response is to have other people buy and use equipment which has no evidence supported protective qualities.
That is what should be being fought...

[thirdcrank]

I see a difference between doing something intrinsically dangerous and something that can be done safely but often isn't. It's a grey area, especially as the results tend to be the same. However, society can try to encourage/ persuade / train people to do the latter more safely, even if that's not always done well.

IMO, One thing that helps in campaigning is a principled approach which includes consistency. I'm reminded of my recent post including "...I only hit him with a stick..."

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=116644&p=1158232&hilit=stick#p1158232

[old_windbag]

It's not light hearted debate though

I meant that in the sense that you aren't likely to need a stab proof vest by disagreeing with me . No one so far in the responses has thrown a hissy fit and called for moderator assistance as sometimes happens.

[mjr]

... It's not, so we should reject this and similar unproven measures.

What's the mechanism for doing that effectively?

I'm still trying to figure that one out. Any bright ideas?

Members of Diss Cycling Club, Norwich Cycling Campaign, KLWNBUG, Sustrans and other related non-profits have been engaging with the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership for I think a year or more now, trying to make this sort of point, to try to reverse a worrying trend in absolute casualties (which may or may not reflect a long-term increase in casualty rates, but we get casualty data a year or more before we get the associated cycling data... and that's just one of the more obvious problems with the evidence-gathering!... but it's been happening long enough now that at least the early results suggest a rate increase) by doing things that evidence suggests will actually work, instead of continuing the usual sort of unhelpful stuff that comes out of "THINK!" for cycling.

We've had some support for increasing evidence-gathering, which I think helped persuade Norfolk Constabulary to go look at North Wales and start accepting dash/bar camera evidence in a similar way although I'm sure there were other factors motivating that. There's also other stuff that sounds good to me coming soon, but I don't think I should steal the authorities' thunder.

It's not smooth forwards progress, though. There have been relapses - I guess we've had decades of the same old failed "common sense" bike-bashing measures and they're seen as a safe option because only cyclists criticise such measures... but almost everyone criticises the casualty numbers increasing, so hopefully the bigger concern will override the fear of following the data because it would be a bit poor to say "well, we stuck to doing the obvious despite what the evidence says and that still didn't work".

There might be another relapse soon, but we're challenging it with logic and a little bit of emotional appeal. Even if we can't stop them entirely, I hope we can at least divert some resources away from such relapses and towards the evidence-based measures, whose outcomes should themselves be measured as much as reasonably possible, hopefully to form a virtuous circle.

If we can't stop the relapse, does the forum think we should try getting the ASA to ban the adverts for being unsubstantiated? It might upset the council but might create a news story and get people to wake up and stop thinking hi-vis is proven

Will a coalition of cycling campaigns engaging with councils/police/fire/etc work? Ask me next year, when hopefully I'm looking at charts of the start of a downward casualty trend instead of an upwards one.

[thirdcrank]

... . Any bright ideas?.

I have none, apart from being facetious by mentioning hi-viz etc. That was my reason for asking you because it's where theory gives way to practice. I know from personal observation that I can spot hi-viz from further away than I can less-conspicuous clothing. I see that's circular, but only because I couldn't think of a different expression to replace "less-conspicuous." I could not argue with conviction that hi-viz was useless, even less more dangerous, as some on here suggest. So I'd not try. And I'd certainly not stop wearing it.

Cycle campaigners can only fight a limited number of battles and they might do well to concentrate on the stuff where there's a realistic expectation of a good result. Obviously, everybody chooses their own causes and I'm not trying to dictate to others.

[mjr]

I know from personal observation that I can spot hi-viz from further away than I can less-conspicuous clothing. I see that's circular, but only because I couldn't think of a different expression to replace "less-conspicuous." I could not argue with conviction that hi-viz was useless, even less more dangerous, as some on here suggest. So I'd not try. And I'd certainly not stop wearing it.

Here's my more-diplomatic (but still not very!) version, pasted from elsewhere: There's conflicting evidence on whether hi-vis or helmets reduce road casualties. Undeniably, they work on a physical level, phosphorescing, reflecting and offering impact protection, but usage levels do not correlate with casualty numbers. As far as casualty reduction goes, promotion of these measures seems irrelevant and shouldn't be primary advice in a casualty-reduction campaign. The longstanding national official advice about them hasn't reduced casualty rates and isn't worth wasting our resources repeating.

Cycle campaigners can only fight a limited number of battles and they might do well to concentrate on the stuff where there's a realistic expectation of a good result. Obviously, everybody chooses their own causes and I'm not trying to dictate to others.

What is that stuff and how to choose, though? If I thought I was low on evidence of what works for casualty reduction, I suspect we've even less evidence about what cycling campaigners can achieve most effectively and how individual campaigners can best decide between all the many possibilities put in front of us, so we resort to vague wooly things like power analysis. I think we've an opportunity to help this CReP actually help people and I've some statistical training that could be useful, plus it builds on some other statistics that I was collecting already.

The only thing that I feel I can do that seems more certain to have a good result is to get more people out cycling, but the skills I have seem not as effective for that, as what rides or events I promote and how seems only weakly connected lately with how many people take part - even the weather seems to have a bigger effect. But that's probably another topic for discussion.

[thirdcrank]

How about things like this?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=117165&p=1161995#p1161995

PS

I do know that compo is after the horse has bolted, but it's a big issue which seems to have been unopposed.

[Flinders]

I'm pretty sure that dressing as a gorilla would have a beneficial effect in terms of drivers noticing you. Well, at least some drivers.
But I really don't want to have to wear a gorilla outfit every time I cycle, especially in hot weather.

My car is black. Should I take the blame for other drivers pulling out into me just because my car is not bright yellow?

[old_windbag]

My car is black. Should I take the blame for other drivers pulling out into me just because my car is not bright yellow?

You may find your insurance premium varies according to things like this, they have the detail from your reg number. May only be a pound here or there but it may be accounted for in terms of accident stats as well as general repair costs i.e flat colours versus metallics. You wouldn't take the blame for a driver pulling out but nor could you say that driver was stupid for not seeing you if it were statistically shown that a car of that colour didn't cause a response in our vision system like an alternate colour would. People only react to what their senses and brain provide them to work on.

Actually on a side note a documentary showed a conjurer doing a trick from beyond the conjurer and participant. You could see easily how blatant the hiding of an object was, but to the participants they saw nothing..... it was magic the object dissappeared. Basically the brain excluded that information from the persons conscious mind as not being relevant, the focus being on the conjurers other hand. So our conscious reactions don't always have all the information that is coming in through our senses, it's filtered perhaps sometimes leading to accidents?