Cycling UK Forum

cycle tramp wrote: ↑20 Aug 2023, 7:11pm
This is known as risk compensation. The safer one feels, the more risks that one takes.
Consider ...

Rather than consider a hypothetical situation you'll not really encounter it's often easier (and more instructive) to draw on personal experience.

For example, my tourer is a recumbent with full suspension and hydraulic brakes. My Brompton folder... isn't. I will go down technical road descents much faster on the tourer where I know I have more effective braking, am less prone to potholes etc. and going over the bars is much less of a worry.

My old MTB was a 90s rigid one while my current one is 20 years younger and has a decent suspension fork, hydraulic discs and chunkier tyres. I will happily take on far more technical descents on the newer one than I did on the older one.
Since I got some coaching and am now a slightly more skilled MTB rider I've taken to doing more difficult things still.

On skis, my XC track skis are 40mm wide, no sidecut, plastic edges and the boots are like carpet slippers. I'll bail on a downhill much more readily on those than I will on my fell skis (75mm wide, some sidecut, steel edges and pretty chunky boots). On my telemarking skis (90 mm, far more sidecut, more serious bindings, bigger boots) I'll take on black downhill runs I'd be very wary about on the fell skis and wouldn't go close to on the track skis.

When I walk to work and there's been a heavy frost, or some snow down, I walk much more slowly and carefully where I can feel it's slippery underfoot. Judging from the way other people are using the same street, I'm not the only one. If there's old snow down that's slushed up and refrozen I'll wear my microspikes, and then I feel safer again so it's back to normal speed.

And so on.

Pete.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑20 Aug 2023, 7:11pm

Pinhead wrote: ↑19 Aug 2023, 4:19pm

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

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?

Or simply use a hacksaw and get rid of the thing?

Ayseven wrote: ↑19 Aug 2023, 3:04am I personally like the cars to see me.

It's pedantic, but cars cannot see you. *Drivers* need to see you.

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

For what conditions should I endeavor to be seen? How do I make it easy to be seen by someone who is looking at their phone?

...its not enough to be seen by the guy in the car, the trick is to get them to behave in a decent manner around you...

..again, part of me feels like it's almost a school bully thing 'give me all your lunch money or I'll get you at break'* compared with 'wear something bright or i might run you over'...
..er...how about, slow down and not run anyone over?

*and he did , too. Sadly, I hit him with a chair. I had a long talk with my headmaster about that. But we both apologised to each other, and we would have shook hands but his was bandaged...

Vorpal wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 3:32pm
For what conditions should I endeavour to be seen? How do I make it easy to be seen by someone who is looking at their phone?

that's given me an amazing idea, shame I'm not like bezos or Dyson at marketing ideas else I'd be a millionaire in 60 days.

cyclists get a transmitter unit that sends an image of a cyclist (pedestrians send one of a cat) that overrides the miscreant's phone settings, to display that said image on their phone, the image remaining until the person looks up, the accelerometers etc that seem to be embedded in most smartphones now, detect when the person finally looks up to release the phone from remote control.

harriedgary wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 7:57pm

Vorpal wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 3:32pm
For what conditions should I endeavour to be seen? How do I make it easy to be seen by someone who is looking at their phone?

that's given me an amazing idea, shame I'm not like bezos or Dyson at marketing ideas else I'd be a millionaire in 60 days.

cyclists get a transmitter unit that sends an image of a cyclist (pedestrians send one of a cat) that overrides the miscreant's phone settings, to display that said image on their phone, the image remaining until the person looks up, the accelerometers etc that seem to be embedded in most smartphones now, detect when the person finally looks up to release the phone from remote control.

I'd rather cars just blocked all signals, except emergency calls.

Vorpal wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 3:32pm

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

For what conditions should I endeavor to be seen? How do I make it easy to be seen by someone who is looking at their phone?

And if you decide that Vorpal should jump through various hoops to make herself easier to see, exactly how do you determine what hoops should be jumped through, and how high they are? A problem with all such arms-race reactions is that you can always do more, so when do you stop adding just one more light, one more hi-viz accessory, one more flag? When is enough enough, and how do you know that just being a person sized/shaped object where it's meant to be and should be expected isn't enough by itself?

(Oddly enough folk saying that we need to indulge in an arms race always seem to be able to rationalise how their particular choice of lighting & loud clothing is the exact right amount, where any more would be pointless and any less would be significantly dangerous, even if it's different to the next arms-race fan )

Pete.

harriedgary wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 7:57pm

Vorpal wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 3:32pm
For what conditions should I endeavour to be seen? How do I make it easy to be seen by someone who is looking at their phone?

that's given me an amazing idea, shame I'm not like bezos or Dyson at marketing ideas else I'd be a millionaire in 60 days.

cyclists get a transmitter unit that sends an image of a cyclist (pedestrians send one of a cat) that overrides the miscreant's phone settings, to display that said image on their phone, the image remaining until the person looks up, the accelerometers etc that seem to be embedded in most smartphones now, detect when the person finally looks up to release the phone from remote control.

Thing is that this isn't far off what various folk are well on with developing for real (cyclist proximity alarms that rely on a transmitter carried by riders, see e.g. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2011137477A1/en), and the folk coming up with it tout it as a genuine advance in cycle safety. But it requires that every cyclist is tooled up with tech for it to really work (or too easy assumption that no alarm means no cyclist), and the folk doing the development don't seem to be aware that the cycling demographic runs to e.g. school kids from families that don't have much money to spare and who don't treat bikes very carefully.

And so the regular reminder to all these folk trying to save cyclists with tech, that if your idea requires all cyclists to carry some Magic Tech then you've got The Wrong Answer.

Pete.

pjclinch wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 9:00am

(Oddly enough folk saying that we need to indulge in an arms race always seem to be able to rationalise how their particular choice of lighting & loud clothing is the exact right amount, where any more would be pointless and any less would be significantly dangerous, even if it's different to the next arms-race fan )

Pete.

Good point, well made.... I use an orange sticky out flag on my bike when I cycle. I think throughout my 25 ish years cycling I have never seen anyone else use one... should I leap to the forum pages and demand that everyone else use one too?

Lordy, no.

You're an adult, i'm an adult... Make your own choices based on those factors that you believe relevant

pjclinch wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 9:00am (Oddly enough folk saying that we need to indulge in an arms race always seem to be able to rationalise how their particular choice of lighting & loud clothing is the exact right amount, where any more would be pointless and any less would be significantly dangerous, even if it's different to the next arms-race fan )

Pete.

I once saw a bloke riding on the pavement with hiviz, strobe light and helmet.

Audax67 wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 7:44am

pjclinch wrote: ↑16 Aug 2023, 3:57pm

Pete.

Both of them wrong: cycling in floppy trousers is asking for trouble.

Downside of caution: walked into a restaurant a week back with a clothes-peg on each cuff.

Perfectly acceptable, as long as pegs and cuffs were coordinated.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 9:14am

pjclinch wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 9:00am

(Oddly enough folk saying that we need to indulge in an arms race always seem to be able to rationalise how their particular choice of lighting & loud clothing is the exact right amount, where any more would be pointless and any less would be significantly dangerous, even if it's different to the next arms-race fan )

Good point, well made.... I use an orange sticky out flag on my bike when I cycle. I think throughout my 25 ish years cycling I have never seen anyone else use one... should I leap to the forum pages and demand that everyone else use one too?

Lordy, no.

You're an adult, i'm an adult... Make your own choices based on those factors that you believe relevant

Fact is a lot of our "safety" choices are really down to gut feeling.
There's not actually much wrong with that for making a personal decision as to what one decides to wear on a bike, but assuming my guts feel the same as anyone else's guts is firmly in the realms of Not That Smart, and assuming my guts are a reliable guide as to what others should be forced to do is quite a few shades less bright again.

Pete.

pjclinch wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 9:11am

harriedgary wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 7:57pm

Vorpal wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 3:32pm For what conditions should I endeavour to be seen? How do I make it easy to be seen by someone who is looking at their phone?

...
cyclists get a transmitter unit that sends an image of a cyclist (pedestrians send one of a cat) that overrides the miscreant's phone settings, to display that said image on their phone, the image remaining until the person looks up, the accelerometers etc that seem to be embedded in most smartphones now, detect when the person finally looks up to release the phone from remote control.

...
And so the regular reminder to all these folk trying to save cyclists with tech, that if your idea requires all cyclists to carry some Magic Tech then you've got The Wrong Answer.

Continuing the silliness, surely in all cases the image should be of not a cat but a kitten. People don't run over kittens. I am less confident an image of someone on a bike would be helpful. In Britain some drivers might react to an image of a cyclist in undesirable ways.

As I wrote way up thread: I ride in normal clothes with good lights and reflective trouser bands (needed to keep them from getting mucky). I expect other road users to behave in a way that keeps me and all the other people on wheels or feet safe. That is what happens in the Netherlands and parts of some other countries. In practice that seems to require building separated infrastructure. It doesn't need competitive visibility technology; that just creates more visual complexity and makes us all less safe - consider signpost proliferation.

Some nice fat fines and long driving bans for using a phone or the in-car distraction system while driving would do wonders. I read somewhere that computer image recognition is being used to spot drivers doing things they shouldn't. More please.

plancashire wrote: ↑27 Aug 2023, 3:00pm
As I wrote way up thread: I ride in normal clothes with good lights and reflective trouser bands (needed to keep them from getting mucky). I expect other road users to behave in a way that keeps me and all the other people on wheels or feet safe. That is what happens in the Netherlands and parts of some other countries. In practice that seems to require building separated infrastructure.

"Infrastructure" tends to conjure up an image segregated fietspad, but the reality is there's far more to it than that, and in some ways far less. My brother-in-law's family live on a normal residential street in Den Haag and there's no obvious infra but it's quite safe for children to play in the street and ride where they need to because of stuff like traffic organisation: you'll only be on their street in a car if you live there or nearby as otherwise it would just be a rather slow detour. Lots of Dutch roads have no fietspads, because the traffic doesn't warrant it.

In the UK a competent and experienced rider can navigate roads in reasonable safety as a general case... but if the traffic is fast and/or heavy there is a high bar on "competent and experienced" that many potential cyclists can't reach. I can ride round the Dundee ring-road dual carriageway fine, I very much wouldn't want primary school children doing that by themselves, and plenty of inexperienced adults wouldn't believe they could be safe on it, so are effectively scared off, and plenty of folk wouldn't ride it anyway because it's just not very nice.
Infra is in large part about widening access to anyone on a bike, more than it is about making it possible for anyone at all. This is why in NL cycling has a much wider and more general demographic than in the UK, where it's dominated by enthusiasts. There is a sub-group of these who feel that if they can ride on roads with fast/heavy motor traffic, then anyone can... but reality is they often can't, or at least they feel they can't, or won't, which is effectively the same thing.

Pete.

pjclinch wrote: ↑28 Aug 2023, 10:50am Infra is in large part about widening access to anyone on a bike, more than it is about making it possible for anyone at all.

I think you make an important point that enabling cycling, walking, playing and so on, doesn't necessarily require a separate space for those activities, just that the existing space be made safe eg by removing most of the current motor traffic. But I'm not clear what the above line means. What's the difference between "widening access to anyone" and "making it possible for anyone"?