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

[Tangled Metal]

There is currently another thread about a BBC news article on the dangers to cyclists on rural roads, which is largely just a regurgitation of a NFU Mutual press release/marketing campaign (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=148899).

Although, as has been noted on that thread, the NFU Mutual has made misleading use of statistics to state that the roads are more hazardous to cyclists, it's associated guidance to drivers does emphasise the importance of not speeding and driving at a speed appropriate to the conditions.

However, as part of the NFU Mutual's campaign, there is also a prize draw of 100 rural road safety kits. Can you guess what the kits might be? (Hint, they are not things which help drivers raise their standard of driving, such as a free/discounted driving skills course.)

https://www.nfumutual.co.uk/campaigns/r ... rize-draw/

Thanks! Just entered, fingers crossed....

[Tangled Metal]

How does the "think bike" campaigns compare? Not too far from when I live there was an issue with race spec bikes and their riders treating country roads as closed race tracks, devil's Bridge area. Those think bike signs were about getting motorists to think about bikers riding round a blind bend on the wrong side two abreast. The Bardon road I used to hate and drive as little at possible. No safe way to take it because of the bikers I have to think of.

Not saying drivers are at risk just that it seems to me that this campaign is ignoring the issues from the more at risk group. A lack of equivalency is what I think was cited upthread. Put the blame on one party without campaigning equally against the issues with the other party.

[Bmblbzzz]

I've seen nothing in the "Think bike" signs that indicates bikers might be coming round blind corners on the wrong side. I've always taken it as a reminder to look very carefully at junctions; bear in mind blind spots and saccading, one glance is not enough.

[Tiggertoo]

I don't think the discussion and disagreement should be about whether 'you' (the motorist) have taken the trouble to see me, or 'you' have paid attention, or even if 'you' (the cyclist) made yourself highly visible to other road users moving a lot faster with bigger vehicles, but rather doing whatever it takes as a cyclist to traverse the roads safely and get home alive. This should never be about us and them. Making drivers into the enemy gets us nowhere.

[Jdsk]

I don't think the discussion and disagreement should be about whether 'you' (the motorist) have taken the trouble to see me, or 'you' have paid attention, or even if 'you' (the cyclist) made yourself highly visible to other road users moving a lot faster with bigger vehicles, but rather doing whatever it takes as a cyclist to traverse the roads safely and get home alive. This should never be about us and them. Making drivers into the enemy gets us nowhere.

It depends on the question!

For my next journey I'll take exactly that approach for positioning, lighting and clothing. Well said.

But as a matter of national policy I'd like to see a lot more attention to driver training, detection of risky drivers, visibility from vehicles etc. But still not anything inimical or tribal!

Jonathan

PS: I wonder if the same separation of questions could apply in another current thread... : - )

[mjr]

I don't think the discussion and disagreement should be about whether 'you' (the motorist) have taken the trouble to see me, or 'you' have paid attention, or even if 'you' (the cyclist) made yourself highly visible to other road users moving a lot faster with bigger vehicles, but rather doing whatever it takes as a cyclist to traverse the roads safely and get home alive. This should never be about us and them. Making drivers into the enemy gets us nowhere.

OK great cool but discouraging hi vis clothing is what it takes to get more of us home alive: there's some evidence that users are more likely to be hit, and it reduces the number of cyclists (even if only a little through well-meaning sadists banning non-hi-vis children from cycling to their schools) which hurts us all through the flipside of the "safety in numbers" effect.

[Jdsk]

OK great cool but discouraging hi vis clothing is what it takes to get more of us home alive: there's some evidence that users are more likely to be hit, and it reduces the number of cyclists (even if only a little through well-meaning sadists banning non-hi-vis children from cycling to their schools) which hurts us all through the flipside of the "safety in numbers" effect.

The first paper there was Tin Tin et al 2014.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8003/c ... 1638874196

The reviewer says:

Verdict: wearing hi-viz was correlated with higher risk of crashes, especially in Auckland.

but the original paper says:

... the most physically conspicuous group had a higher risk in Auckland but a lower risk in other regions.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

And the second is Rogé et al. (2018). Does a yellow jacket enhance cyclists’ sensory conspicuity for car drivers during daylight hours?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3518309871

The reviewer says

Verdict: hi-viz made no difference in avoiding crashes.

but the original paper says

Motorists detected cyclists wearing a yellow jacket at a greater distance only in high cyclist visibility situations.

Jonathan

[Slowtwitch]

I avoid hiviz like the plague, as a driver its normally the motion and outline of a cyclist which is most prominent to me, that's what the human brain does best : pattern recognition, based on previous experience.

[Bmblbzzz]

And the second is Rogé et al. (2018). Does a yellow jacket enhance cyclists’ sensory conspicuity for car drivers during daylight hours?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3518309871

The reviewer says

Verdict: hi-viz made no difference in avoiding crashes.

but the original paper says

Motorists detected cyclists wearing a yellow jacket at a greater distance only in high cyclist visibility situations.

Jonathan

Why the "but"?

[Pebble]

And the second is Rogé et al. (2018). Does a yellow jacket enhance cyclists’ sensory conspicuity for car drivers during daylight hours?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3518309871

The reviewer says

Verdict: hi-viz made no difference in avoiding crashes.

but the original paper says

Motorists detected cyclists wearing a yellow jacket at a greater distance only in high cyclist visibility situations.

Jonathan

only in high cyclist visibility situations
what does that mean ?


May be our eyes see things slightly differenntly, but for me these hi-viz colours stnd out like a soar thumb, spot them through hedge rows half a mile away - that is why I chose to wear them - bit disturbing when I hear others hardly see them and notice dark silhouettes better.

[mattheus]

And the second is Rogé et al. (2018). Does a yellow jacket enhance cyclists’ sensory conspicuity for car drivers during daylight hours?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3518309871
...<snip> ...
Motorists detected cyclists wearing a yellow jacket at a greater distance only in high cyclist visibility situations.

Jonathan

only in high cyclist visibility situations
what does that mean ?


May be our eyes see things slightly differenntly, but for me these hi-viz colours stnd out like a soar thumb, spot them through hedge rows half a mile away - that is why I chose to wear them - bit disturbing when I hear others hardly see them and notice dark silhouettes better.

I'm sure jdsk would tell you to "read the original paper quoted!"

My *guess* is that when it's too dark to easily see, yellow jackets are no more visible.
When it's quiet easy to see any cyclist, the yellow ones get seen a little further away.
/guess

[Malky 1422]

I think what is a bit concerning is the amount of cyclists now sporting flashing rear lights in daylight. It is only a matter of time untill they cry after an accident as now with helmets "where was your flashing light,,,, contributery negligence" I can see why people do it but you have to be careful which road you are going down here. In good daylight they are not needed and hinder greatly following cyclist when group riding who have to drop back or be binded by annoying flashing on the ride. It is especially didfficult in Audax when you finish up in a group and cant get rid of them. The strobing isnt so bad but the flashing is a nuisence.

[TrevA]

I think what is a bit concerning is the amount of cyclists now sporting flashing rear lights in daylight. It is only a matter of time untill they cry after an accident as now with helmets "where was your flashing light,,,, contributery negligence" I can see why people do it but you have to be careful which road you are going down here. In good daylight they are not needed and hinder greatly following cyclist when group riding who have to drop back or be binded by annoying flashing on the ride. It is especially didfficult in Audax when you finish up in a group and cant get rid of them. The strobing isnt so bad but the flashing is a nuisence.

I have a Cycliq rear camera on my bike, as I film all of my rides, just in case of a close pass or incident. It’s a combined camera and light, so I might as well have the light on too. My wife has a Garmin Varia on her bike, which picks up cars via radar. Again it’s combined with a light, which flashes and gets brighter as the car approaches from behind, whilst giving a warning of the approaching car on your Garmin head unit.