Cyril Haearn wrote:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (Archaeologists saying)
Unless said evidence *ought* to be visible.
The absence of evidence for a second moon sized satellite of the earth is indeed evidence of absence - because we would expect to see such evidence.
There is no evidence for a massive steel spike in the centre of Stonehenge. That is actually evidence of absence, because we would expect to see it.
We ought to see that those wearing yellow are significantly underrepresented in accident statistics, and we don't - that is evidence that the wearing of yellow doesn't actually make a difference in the real world.
What if cyclists who perceive their cycling environment to be particularly dangerous choose yellow tops more than those who don't? I don't know that to be the case, but it seems likely. And if it is the case, you could even expect to see a higher proportion of yellow top wearers in an ambulance. I don't wear yellow to do the safe and quiet trip to the local shop, but I do wear yellow when I know I will be negotiating a busy junction. Until possible factors like that are factored in, the figures tell us nothing.
If someone produces compelling evidence that it improves safety in normal daylight conditions, then yes. Until that time you may as well place your faith in a rabbits foot.
MIAS L5.1 instructor - advanded road and off road skills, FAST aid and casualty care, defensive tactics, SAR skills, nav, group riding, maintenance, ride and group leader qual'd. Cytec 2 - exponent of hammer applied brute force.
Lance Dopestrong wrote:If someone produces compelling evidence that it improves safety in normal daylight conditions, then yes. Until that time you may as well place your faith in a rabbits foot.
Questionable.... the Rabbit obviously gained little form ownership
... and of course is a yellow rabbit foot more effective?
Common sense suggests that bright colours or high contrast (or lights!) would be help to help the inattentive! That's why utility vehicles, ambulances, police cars are yellow or carry many bright reflective yellow areas. Google " Yellow cars safer?", and the results seem to back that up. Silver is good too. But grey and black are not.
At least as effective as rabbits feet or steel spikes in the centre of Stonehenge.or some other incantation.
Common sense is wrong on the subject of lights. As is often the case, the reality can be totally at odds with common sense, utterly counter intuitive.
Lights during the day make a cyclist or motorcyclist safer? At worst they do no harm? Not as obvious as common sense might leave us to believe.
In the 80s Suzuki did a lot of research into day time headlamp use on motorcycles. They discovered that rather than making the rider safer, it actually increased their chances of being in collision.
Suzuki delved deeper and discovered the reason for this. The human brain calculates the speed of an incoming object by the rate at which the object visibly grows with relation to its surroundings. They discovered that a normal headlamp used during the day breaks up the outline of the vehicle, and deprives the observer of the datum required to make a reasonable speed calculation. These observers were then more likely to muff it up and T bone people.
Honda took this further. Honda own one of the Worlds largest search light manufacturers, so had World class expertise in the field of vision and optics to call upon. They found that two or more relatively low wattage lights spaced apart was the most effective solution, as the lights grow further apart as the approach the observers eye, providing the visual information needed for the observer to calculate the speed.
They agreed with Suzuki's findings that daytime use of actual headlamps made things worse. They also discovered that a single lamp of low power, while it didn't affect the speed calculation in the brains of the observers, made no positive impact on safety. It was completely benign.
Superbikes magazine did a very interesting and in depth presentation on the subject some years back.
So there you have it. Common sense doesn't help us. It hasn't helped the EU either - they mandated day time running lights on all new cars, and the data has shown no decrease in accidents that can be attributed to their introduction, except in the Northern Scandinavian countries where daylight can mean something different entirely.
So no, I won't do anything on the road in the name of 'safety' unless it has been reasonably shown to have a safety benefit, as there is the risk of unintended consequences.
It applies to Florrie's too. Mountain and Lowland rescue discovered that yellow hi vis durong the day actually has a camouflage effect in a green background (the countryside), so MR went back to red and LR to dual yellow and orange hi vis. Imagine not knowing this and donning a yellow hi vis for a gentle pootle along the country lanes with their green hedgerow backgrounds...
Safety is too important to do something blindly simply because 'common sense' tells us to.
MIAS L5.1 instructor - advanded road and off road skills, FAST aid and casualty care, defensive tactics, SAR skills, nav, group riding, maintenance, ride and group leader qual'd. Cytec 2 - exponent of hammer applied brute force.
There's a local fast rural B road which plunges intermittently into heavily tree-lined sections where the sudden shade can make a cyclist almost invisible to the speeding motorist. I use powerful flashing lights on this road. I've also had some heart-stopping close calls here where oncoming overtakers thought they had a clear road, then panic-braked when they realized they realized there was a cyclist approaching. For this reason I now also use my headlamp on this road. I deeply resent having to take these defensive measures against incompetent drivers, but needs must.
james01 wrote:There's a local fast rural B road which plunges intermittently into heavily tree-lined sections where the sudden shade can make a cyclist almost invisible to the speeding motorist. I use powerful flashing lights on this road. I've also had some heart-stopping close calls here where oncoming overtakers thought they had a clear road, then panic-braked when they realized they realized there was a cyclist approaching. For this reason I now also use my headlamp on this road. I deeply resent having to take these defensive measures against incompetent drivers, but needs must.
Yes. Practical experience.! It is exactly this situation that makes "common" sense! One can argue about which colour, it is the contrast that is most important. As my "googled" links suggest some other reseach has found that bright colours are a help.
I know of two vehicle accidents where use of headlights would in all probability prevented them. One is virtually a certainty. A blind mirrored junction where a motorcycist overlooked a correctly approaching car. Pretty severe! In the light (sorry!) of that nothing would persaude me personally not to use dipped headlights.
Lance Dopestrong wrote:Common sense is wrong on the subject of lights. As is often the case, the reality can be totally at odds with common sense, utterly counter intuitive.
Lights during the day make a cyclist or motorcyclist safer? At worst they do no harm? Not as obvious as common sense might leave us to believe.
In the 80s Suzuki did a lot of research into day time headlamp use on motorcycles. They discovered that rather than making the rider safer, it actually increased their chances of being in collision.
Suzuki delved deeper and discovered the reason for this. The human brain calculates the speed of an incoming object by the rate at which the object visibly grows with relation to its surroundings. They discovered that a normal headlamp used during the day breaks up the outline of the vehicle, and deprives the observer of the datum required to make a reasonable speed calculation. These observers were then more likely to muff it up and T bone people.
Honda took this further. Honda own one of the Worlds largest search light manufacturers, so had World class expertise in the field of vision and optics to call upon. They found that two or more relatively low wattage lights spaced apart was the most effective solution, as the lights grow further apart as the approach the observers eye, providing the visual information needed for the observer to calculate the speed.
They agreed with Suzuki's findings that daytime use of actual headlamps made things worse. They also discovered that a single lamp of low power, while it didn't affect the speed calculation in the brains of the observers, made no positive impact on safety. It was completely benign.
Superbikes magazine did a very interesting and in depth presentation on the subject some years back.
So there you have it. Common sense doesn't help us. It hasn't helped the EU either - they mandated day time running lights on all new cars, and the data has shown no decrease in accidents that can be attributed to their introduction, except in the Northern Scandinavian countries where daylight can mean something different entirely.
So no, I won't do anything on the road in the name of 'safety' unless it has been reasonably shown to have a safety benefit, as there is the risk of unintended consequences.
It applies to Florrie's too. Mountain and Lowland rescue discovered that yellow hi vis durong the day actually has a camouflage effect in a green background (the countryside), so MR went back to red and LR to dual yellow and orange hi vis. Imagine not knowing this and donning a yellow hi vis for a gentle pootle along the country lanes with their green hedgerow backgrounds...
Safety is too important to do something blindly simply because 'common sense' tells us to.
"Common sense" is actually a complex thing that is partly down to previously acquired knowledge and experience, so it shouldn't be discounted as a tool. It is a starting point, from which you can progress with further information.
Your motorcycle example actually tallies neatly with some of my "common sense" view of the subject in that it shows the importance of appearing "blocky" to the viewer, not broken up by unnecessary stripes or big logos on clothing. Or, as in your example, by points of light.
james01 wrote:There's a local fast rural B road which plunges intermittently into heavily tree-lined sections where the sudden shade can make a cyclist almost invisible to the speeding motorist. I use powerful flashing lights on this road. I've also had some heart-stopping close calls here where oncoming overtakers thought they had a clear road, then panic-braked when they realized they realized there was a cyclist approaching. For this reason I now also use my headlamp on this road. I deeply resent having to take these defensive measures against incompetent drivers, but needs must.
There is also a difference betweem ‘daylight’ and ‘in and out of shadows’ which I think we can pretty much all agree is a ‘reduced visibilty’ condition.
I’ve had people think it was clear to overtake, or to drive on - even with lights on. Surely that means that it’s dangerous to have lights on? The plural of anecdote isn’t data - when making a suggestion like DLRs we really ought to look at data... the motorbike data cited above is particularly interesting.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
PDQ Mobile wrote:Common sense suggests that bright colours or high contrast (or lights!) would be help to help the inattentive! That's why utility vehicles, ambulances, police cars are yellow or carry many bright reflective yellow areas. Google " Yellow cars safer?", and the results seem to back that up. Silver is good too. But grey and black are not.
At least as effective as rabbits feet or steel spikes in the centre of Stonehenge.or some other incantation.
See Humberside police car being crashed into by another car despite having flashy lights, reflectives and hi-vis This is not unusual BTW.
The utility cyclist wrote:See Humberside police car being crashed into by another car despite having flashy lights, reflectives and hi-vis This is not unusual BTW. Capture.JPG
PDQ Mobile wrote:Common sense suggests that bright colours or high contrast (or lights!) would be help to help the inattentive! That's why utility vehicles, ambulances, police cars are yellow or carry many bright reflective yellow areas. Google " Yellow cars safer?", and the results seem to back that up. Silver is good too. But grey and black are not.
At least as effective as rabbits feet or steel spikes in the centre of Stonehenge.or some other incantation.
See Humberside police car being crashed into by another car despite having flashy lights, reflectives and hi-vis This is not unusual BTW. Capture.JPG
Nothing's bright enough if you're not looking I was told by a Paramedic that their Ambulance was rear ended whilst driving slowly along a street with blue beacons flashing whilst looking for a house number.The errant driver said they didn't see the Ambulance and in any case they shouldn't have been there
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Indeed! How dare they drive a motor vehicle on a road!
MIAS L5.1 instructor - advanded road and off road skills, FAST aid and casualty care, defensive tactics, SAR skills, nav, group riding, maintenance, ride and group leader qual'd. Cytec 2 - exponent of hammer applied brute force.
I've got a see-sense light on the back and if I have it lit during the day people definitely behave differently around me - leave more room. I think it's because the strobing is a changeable sequence and that registers on drivers' brains whether they want it to or not.
This is not unusual BTW.
