Cycling UK Forum

Yeah... its a tough one, but we now have a situation where its been seen that it is possible for someone who may be more car-centric than others can become a member of this forum and make polls, the results of which might then be used against other forum members in future discussions.

It's a very uncomfortable situation to be in, whether they are moderators or forum members.

I suspect that it might even be possible to manipulate the results by having more than one identity on this forum.

Which is a shame because we should be able to communicate openly and honestly about things like that report that Jonathan flagged, without the concern that somewhere a forum member will type 'oh, that's a good idea, we should all be wearing that, it should be compulsory'.

You have completely misunderstood my comments. My point is that you are not making it easy to be seen by the guy in the deadly car by wearing dark clothing. They don't WANT to run us over, but they do hurt cyclists all the time. We cyclists are very vulnerable, and I personally like the cars to see me. If you don't like that, I am not able to comment any further. I have no agenda.

Ayseven wrote: ↑19 Aug 2023, 3:04am You have completely misunderstood my comments. My point is that you are not making it easy to be seen by the guy in the deadly car by wearing dark clothing.

And speaking as someone who occasionally drives a car, why is that a good thing?

During my time on the local council's roads 'Road complaints telephone line' - I've taken reports about live stock in roads, roads collapsing when old iron or concrete pipes fail, during one storm a roof of a barn flew off and landed in the road, fallen trees, and items (bricks soil hatdcore) which have fallen from the back of lorries and landed in the road.

The point is that when I drive I and constantly looking for hazards. Sometimes I find them, and when I do, I have ready checked my speed and covering my brake, so that I am already prepared.

I am not shocked by the sudden appearance of anyone or anything on the road no matter how they are dressed, because I am driving in a manner for which I have already predicted their presence (even if 8 out of 10 times there is nothing there).

Making something easier to see by wrapping it in day-glo may reduce my ability as a driver to spot other hazards.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 4:19pm

Jdsk wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 4:12pm "The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents"
Lahrmann et al, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.001

Jonathan

I also note those wearing yellow jackets, still had collisions

People who wear sea belts also die but many many many more are saved

Absolute heroes, the RNLI

Pinhead wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 3:19pm "BE SEEN BE SAFE WEAR A LIGHT COLOUR"

Surely that should be:
"BE SEEN BE SAFE WEAR A LIGHT COLOUR"
I can see the difference straight away.

531colin wrote: ↑19 Aug 2023, 4:55pm Absolute heroes, the RNLI

...sometimes I cycle along canals banks and rivers.. perhaps a life jacket rather than hi-vis?

Pinhead wrote: ↑19 Aug 2023, 4:19pm

cycle tramp wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 4:19pm

Jdsk wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 4:12pm "The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents"
Lahrmann et al, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.001

Jonathan

I also note those wearing yellow jackets, still had collisions

People who wear sea belts also die but many many many more are saved

Certainly if I was in a hired tractor and crashed into a car that I did not see, perhaps it was painted black or something, I'd be glad the occupants were forced to wear them. However, I would worry that they may have had a brain injury because they weren't wearing helmets. I think everyone in cars should be made to wear helmets.. y'know in case they were in black cars and I didn't see them while out doing farm contractor stuff.... y'know 4 tonnes of farm machinery just trundling down the road, massive bucket in the front carrying stuff...

cycle tramp wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 4:19pm

Jdsk wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 4:12pm "The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents"
Lahrmann et al, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.001

Jonathan

Thank you - One notes that the study took place outside of the uk, where other factors may have affected the result. One of the factors which I'm unable to see if whether or not they were all riding the same road at the same time under the same conditions? Not much of a test if they've just let have the group in yellow coats cycle around the country and let the other half the group cycle elsewhere or at a different time..... that makes the test barely anecdotal.
I also note those wearing yellow jackets, still had collisions

It's actually quite a good way of testing providing the selection is random and both pools end up representative. Stratifying the samples during the random selection can help reduce the risk of an unlucky bad selection. Certainly vastly better than simply looking at existing users and non users who may well exhibit different behaviours and habits in other respects.

However, usual single study warning and the disparate self only collision rates between the two groups is a bit of a red flag that somethings off with the underlying data. Not convinced the adjustment bodge is a suitable way of providing the necessary confidence to come to the strength of the conclusion they manage.



In my experience, from a driving perspective, good lights add much more to visibility than clothing choice, as does primary positioning.

Pinhead wrote: ↑19 Aug 2023, 4:19pm People who wear sea belts also die but many many many more are saved

Risk. John Adams

Pinhead wrote: ↑19 Aug 2023, 4:19pm

cycle tramp wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 4:19pm

Jdsk wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 4:12pm "The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents"
Lahrmann et al, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.001

Jonathan

I also note those wearing yellow jackets, still had collisions

People who wear sea belts also die but many many many more are saved

My eternal thanks to Axel Knutt, who provided evidence that this was only true for people inside the vehicles. As these occupants felt more safe, so it appears they took more risks, with the results more pedestrians were run over..

This is known as risk compensation. The safer one feels, the more risks that one takes.
Consider a driver who has been asked to drive a car, which has a steel spike attached from the centre of the steering wheel, ending in a sharp steel spike 2 inches away from their chest. It is an incredible risk to drive this car, but would they do so more carefully, than driving a car with bucket seats, a roll cage and a four point harness?

axel_knutt wrote: ↑20 Aug 2023, 6:36pm

Pinhead wrote: ↑19 Aug 2023, 4:19pm People who wear sea belts also die but many many many more are saved

It would be interesting to know with the countries that didn't belt up in that study, did they however introduce other laws like lowered speed limits, better windshields, dual servo assisted brake systems, and other technical improvements making cars better and safer to handle. I imagine there were many variables out there,

The radial tyre had its breakthrough in the 1970s, and it quickly became the dominant type.

pjclinch wrote: ↑16 Aug 2023, 3:57pm

Ayseven wrote: ↑16 Aug 2023, 2:51pm Eg. Is it really respectful to motorists to fly around on your bike trying to look invisible?

I don't really understand this. When driving and coming across cyclists that might reasonably be described as "sub-optimally visible" I've never felt they were being "disrespectful" of me in my armoured box which could easily kill them.

And again we run in to the problem of absolutes. If it is "disrespectful" to drivers then where, exactly, do we draw the line between "trying to look invisible" and being "respectfully visible"? Do we, for example, take the illustration of the Highway Code's Rule 59 to indicate that anyone wearing dark shoes is "disrespectful" to other road users?



Pete.

Until seeing this post hadn't noticed the white shoes! Must remember to wear my white Specialized road shoes at all times lol

but would they do so more carefully, than driving a car with bucket seats, a roll cage and a four point harness?

They almost certainly would, but you need to be careful in thinking about risk compensation, because what you’ve given is a very good example of a case where the change (removal of impaling spike, adding roll-cage, harness etc) makes for a very real reduction in risk to the driver, so that they can “afford” to drive much more “adventurously” without incurring even the same level, yet alone more, risk to themselves.

So, in that case, the driver isn’t “taking more risk”, they may well be able to drive in a really wild way as compared to before, while taking less risk.

Where it gets interesting is where:

- risk over-compensation occurs, people are over-assured of the effectiveness of a safety measure, so genuinely do take on a greater risk than without it, while being unaware that they’ve done so; and/or,

- where the change in behaviour as a result of the introduction of a safety measure leads to people doing things that impose more risk not to themselves, but to others.

Although there’s a lot of talk about these things, it’s nothing like well established fact that introducing safety measures in any given environment leads to significant risk-compensation, let alone over-compensation, or the imposition of additional risk on others. If it was a firm and solid chain in every circumstance, it would be obvious, from a long history of negative outcomes, things like more train crashes after decent signalling systems were introduced in the late C19th, more industrial injuries after bump-caps became widespread in the 1970s/80s, a rising trend of bike crashes as bike brakes improved over the years, etc. we’d be busily ditching naively introduced “safety features” left right and centre, to improve safety. But we aren’t, because it doesn’t work like that.

In some circumstances over-compensation almost (not absolutely definitely) certainly does occur, and in some cases even partial compensation might lead to an increase to risks to second parties, but we shouldn’t assume that always, or even frequently, happens.

Nearholmer wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 2:53pm
Although there’s a lot of talk about these things, it’s nothing like well established fact that introducing safety measures in any given environment leads to significant risk-compensation, let alone over-compensation, or the imposition of additional risk on others. If it was a firm and solid chain in every circumstance, it would be obvious, from a long history of negative outcomes, things like more train crashes after decent signalling systems were introduced in the late C19th, more industrial injuries after bump-caps became widespread in the 1970s/80s, a rising trend of bike crashes as bike brakes improved over the years, etc. we’d be busily ditching naively introduced “safety features” left right and centre, to improve safety. But we aren’t, because it doesn’t work like that.

In some circumstances over-compensation almost (not absolutely definitely) certainly does occur, and in some cases even partial compensation might lead to an increase to risks to second parties, but we shouldn’t assume that always, or even frequently, happens.

I would suggest the biggest problem isn't establishing if RC happens, but the way it is very hard to predict how it will manifest in any given individual/situation.

Your example of train crashes not going up isn't really about RC, it's about a successfully engineered fail-safe system (railways are significantly safer than roads because everything that happens is far more tightly constrained). With bump caps you're not looking for more injuries, you're looking for more instances of people bumping their heads (irrespective of outcome), but "bumped head, but had bump cap on so didn't bother reporting" isn't really the sort of thing that gets reported.
On brakes, there was a study on German taxis when ABS braking was introduced, and it was found that drivers with ABS didn't crash more but did tend to brake later and sharper. But because they were for the most part still operating within the bounds of safety, they didn't crash. So RC, bit not R-over-C.
But while that suggests that a population of German cabbies tend to stand on the brakes later and harder if they're better brakes doesn't tell you how any particular German cabbie will use ABS brakes. Maybe nobody told them they have ABS brakes and they're a careful driver anyway, maybe they don't trust new-fangled tech and drive more carefully just in case they go wrong. And so on.

The lack of "clear proof" will be influenced by the way people tend to operate within safe boundaries in any case. Getting closer to the edge without going over it is still RC, but doesn't show up as more accidents. You need to look at the behaviour, the safety-bottom-line doesn't tell you if the behaviour changed just by not changing itself.

Gamble & Walker's work on risk taking with extra safety gear is quite interesting as it engineers out the ethical problems of actual danger and simply looks at behaviour (see press release with links to paper here, https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/he ... n-seeking/). Gamble's points in the final paragraphs are sensible and apposite. Much like the fundamental takeaways in Adams' Risk, it's not that safety equipment makes everything more dangerous, but that safety equipment isn't a straightforward "now everything is clearly safer" and may have more side-effects than we might care to assume.

Pete.