fullupandslowingdown wrote:True, true. They are all accidents that should never have happened.
I fully acknowledge that hi vis and flashing lights make no difference if the driver chooses to drive above the speed limit, tailgates the vehicle in front, doesn't keep their windshield clean and free from obstructions, chooses to distract themselves with a phone, laptop, eating and drinking or passengers, takes drugs and or alcohol, doesn't maintain their vehicle correctly or exceeds it's safe limits, has no real understanding of the forces of nature i.e the distance it takes to stop a vehicle from 80mph, or the limit of road holding when steering hard, or the significant increase in stopping distance in snow and ice.
I also accept, and have previously argued the very fact that if we keep improving the visibility of people through lighting and clothing, then it becomes an arms race where those left behind become increasingly vulnerable, where as years ago they would have been perfectly safe. Human propensity for adaption is unfortunately a two edged sword, it often works for our benefit, but sometimes also to weaken us when we are lazy or shortsighted or greedy.
But it's hardly going to make road side workers any safer if they throw away their hi viz and wear black or camo. Hi viz is only one aspect of road safety such as proper education and training, enforcement and public campaigning,road and vehicle design. But if hi viz saves just one fatality, one family's grief, then it's worth every penny.
Eliot Field 1992 - 2011
Where is the supporting evidence for such a claim? You simply don't know this for a fact. What does improve safety is focusing on who and what is doing the harm in the first instant, those who go about doing what they do with a blase, reckless and dangerous attitude towards their actions and how they see what they do in terms of presenting threat of harm as a non issue. Modifying that behaviour or removing them completely is proven to work, unlike hi-vis et al.
fastpedaller wrote:Saw a guy at local supermarket, all dressed in black, and got chatting to him about his nice alloy frame 90's bike he'd picked up as a bargain. He put a H on his head, and then started up a flashing rear light on his saddle before he departed. I left shortly after (driving) and a few hundred yards away caught him up , and we were facing a bright sky with damp road, and it was apparent that the black of his clothing showed up long before the rear light!
As has been oft said, it is the contrast
You would need a pannier full of different colour tops and be changing two or three times on each commute
The traditional white socks, black shoes combo is the way to go. High contrast and constantly moving. Old school is best.
Tonight I needed to use my car. As I turned into the main road my lights caught a reflection from a high viz stripe on a jacket worn by a dog walker. He was some distance away. It wasn't until I was almost upon him that I saw his companion dressed entirely in dark colours. They were on the footpath so we're totally safe even though in an area without streetlights.
By almost upon them - you were still in stoppable distance and despite the dazzling light from the inconsiderate walker could see their normally dressed partner easily enough.
Had they both been dressed normally, and had been taken I’ll and fallen into the road - you’d have been able to see them and stop... right???
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.
[XAP]Bob wrote:By almost upon them - you were still in stoppable distance and despite the dazzling light from the inconsiderate walker could see their normally dressed partner easily enough.
Had they both been dressed normally, and had been taken I’ll and fallen into the road - you’d have been able to see them and stop... right???
Who said there was dazzling light? I did not see the "normally" dressed partner easily enough. Your post makes little sense.
fastpedaller wrote:Saw a guy at local supermarket, all dressed in black, and got chatting to him about his nice alloy frame 90's bike he'd picked up as a bargain. He put a H on his head, and then started up a flashing rear light on his saddle before he departed. I left shortly after (driving) and a few hundred yards away caught him up , and we were facing a bright sky with damp road, and it was apparent that the black of his clothing showed up long before the rear light!
As has been oft said, it is the contrast
You would need a pannier full of different colour tops and be changing two or three times on each commute
The traditional white socks, black shoes combo is the way to go. High contrast and constantly moving. Old school is best.
Hmm - I didn't notice what socks he was wearing - I'll have to me more observant
I was driving this afternoon and I did not see a jogger until she was almost on top of me. It had nothing to do with what she was wearing (light pink and grey training clothes), and everything to do with where I was looking. She was on a wooded path that came out near the junction. I had not realised there was a path there, so I wasn't looking for anyone there. I was looking for road users on the road.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
[XAP]Bob wrote:By almost upon them - you were still in stoppable distance and despite the dazzling light from the inconsiderate walker could see their normally dressed partner easily enough.
Had they both been dressed normally, and had been taken I’ll and fallen into the road - you’d have been able to see them and stop... right???
Who said there was dazzling light? I did not see the "normally" dressed partner easily enough. Your post makes little sense.
On the basis that the reflection was sufficient to obscure your vision of the surrounding area it was (locally) dazzling.
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.
fullupandslowingdown wrote:But if <intervention> saves just one fatality, one family's grief, then it's worth every penny.
Eliot Field 1992 - 2011
ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK!
Else we'd ban smoking, drinking, and cycling, walking as well. We'd also have to ban driving (although at that point we wouldn't need to ban cycling and walking...)
(Don't go down that route in this thread - it's linked and mentioned PURELY to illustrate the idiocy of the "if it saves one life it's worth it" logic)
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.
[XAP]Bob wrote:By almost upon them - you were still in stoppable distance and despite the dazzling light from the inconsiderate walker could see their normally dressed partner easily enough.
Had they both been dressed normally, and had been taken I’ll and fallen into the road - you’d have been able to see them and stop... right???
Who said there was dazzling light? I did not see the "normally" dressed partner easily enough. Your post makes little sense.
On the basis that the reflection was sufficient to obscure your vision of the surrounding area it was (locally) dazzling.
I wasn't aware that my vision of the surrounding area was obscured. Parallel universe?
Oldjohnw wrote:Tonight I needed to use my car. As I turned into the main road my lights caught a reflection from a high viz stripe on a jacket worn by a dog walker. He was some distance away. It wasn't until I was almost upon him that I saw his companion dressed entirely in dark colours. They were on the footpath so we're totally safe even though in an area without streetlights.
Which brings us back to the uncontrolled cars sliding around corners earlier in the thread...
The important part here is whether you were driving at a speed where you could stop when you "was almost upon him that I saw his companion dressed entirely in dark colours"
I also dispute your statement that they were safe on the pavement, depending on the year, up to 200 pedestrians are killed or seriously injured by cars on pavements
Who said there was dazzling light? I did not see the "normally" dressed partner easily enough. Your post makes little sense.
On the basis that the reflection was sufficient to obscure your vision of the surrounding area it was (locally) dazzling.
I wasn't aware that my vision of the surrounding area was obscured. Parallel universe?
And yet you said that you hadn’t seen the person adjacent - presumably because the high vis prevented you seeing anything adjacent
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.
Oldjohnw wrote:Tonight I needed to use my car. As I turned into the main road my lights caught a reflection from a high viz stripe on a jacket worn by a dog walker. He was some distance away. It wasn't until I was almost upon him that I saw his companion dressed entirely in dark colours. They were on the footpath so we're totally safe even though in an area without streetlights.
Which brings us back to the uncontrolled cars sliding around corners earlier in the thread...
The important part here is whether you were driving at a speed where you could stop when you "was almost upon him that I saw his companion dressed entirely in dark colours"
I also dispute your statement that they were safe on the pavement, depending on the year, up to 200 pedestrians are killed or seriously injured by cars on pavements
Good b***dy gracious! I was going about 10 mph max. It was my own road and I wasn't on the pavement. I can hardly believe how so many people think they were there!
Last edited by Oldjohnw on 22 Jan 2020, 7:41pm, edited 1 time in total.
.
