Ah. Apparently it's all our fault

rolf_f

Slowbike wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Wow - the pedants are out in force today!

Oi ... don't rain on our parade!

Rolf F wrote:

Can we just agree that with no light source, it doesn't matter what we wear, the only thing that will save us from being hit by cars is us having not yet found the way up the garden path and that all the cars will have already crashed?

If I don't have a garden path could it be the driveway instead?!

It won't make much difference except you'll have to go further before you fall off it!

slowbike

arran77 wrote:

I said this before people decided to try and get smart with their selective quotes :P

It's hardly selective - you've said something that is blatantly untrue.... the part selected isn't even qualified by the second part of the sentence.

Ok - I'll translate into something equally ludicrous ...

I'm a faster sprinter than Chris Hoy, and beat him by a greater margin if he's got a flat.

Where as the truth would be ...

I'm a faster sprinter than Chris Hoy, but only when he's got a flat.

If you can't see the error in what you've written then I feel sorry for you. It may be pedantic, but it's hardly splitting hairs.

Getting back to the subject ...

Hi Viz - should we wear it?

Break it down into two sections
a) reflectives - these are of use at night when there is a distinct light source - normally vehicle headlights - it seems that most cycle clothing designed with dull/night riding in mind has some sort of reflective areas built in.

b) Hi Viz - the dayglow yellow/orange clothing - the effectiveness of these is more subjective as it depends on surroundings - in bright daylight on an open road with just the sky for background I suggest you're more likely to see a cyclist in black than you are in dayglow clothing. Take that into a dark forest road when it's raining and the dayglow clothing would be far easier to spot.
There isn't an absolute answer - other than the most effective clothing to wear in order that you're seen is the one that contrasts most against your surroundings.

davmaggs

The Police do lots of community advice type gigs ranging from inspecting locks in your home, to security marking bikes in town, to giving out anti-pickpocket flyers at stations, or warning women against using illegal minicabs. I don't think we'd be saying that they are victim blaming, instead we see it as trying to swing the odds back in the favour of the public.

People get complacent in all sorts of things and happily go through life not paying much attention on tasks that are routine. Nearly all information campaigns are pointing out the obvious, but in the hope that it'll wake some people up for a short time and get them to change their behaviour enough to reduce the crime numbers a little.

My conclusion as to why this has panned on here is because some on here see cycling as political so they happily jump on a grievance.

arran77

Slowbike wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I said this before people decided to try and get smart with their selective quotes :P

It's hardly selective - you've said something that is blatantly untrue.... the part selected isn't even qualified by the second part of the sentence.

It is selective isn't it....

notsoblue seems to think I said....

notsoblue wrote:

arran77 wrote:

A high viz does not require a light source to be effective

You wot mate?

Really I said...

arran77 wrote:

A high viz does not require a light source to be effective but it will be more effective with light.

It totally changes what I said if you are selective like notsoblue :roll:

notsoblue

arran77 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I'm sure that it is possible to see a cyclist who is dressed in black with lights but it's a damn sight easier if they are dressed with some sort of reflective clothing .

A much less rational statement.

Which is why that's not my quote :P

In that case you're really just shadowboxing. Nobody is moaning about it being illegal to ride without lights when its dark.

rolf_f

Slowbike wrote:

Hi Viz - the dayglow yellow/orange clothing - the effectiveness of these is more subjective as it depends on surroundings - in bright daylight on an open road with just the sky for background I suggest you're more likely to see a cyclist in black than you are in dayglow clothing. Take that into a dark forest road when it's raining and the dayglow clothing would be far easier to spot.

So sensibly you wear some hi vis and some black?

The thing about this campaign - the Police do need to filter their sample set. So they do it by lack of lights/helmet/hi vis etc. And for those of us who have considered the use of these devices, and decided not to use them, then that should be fine. They should be able to explain this to the Police and the "informed" Police Officer should understand this and let them on their way.

This campaign, for all its clumsiness is, not aimed at this type of rider. It is aimed at the sort who go out in black, lightless, lidless etc and haven't given that a moments thought. And that probably is a good 50% of riders dressed that way. A lot of people just don't think. At all. And they might benefit from being prompted to think about it. Those who do wear reflectives and carry lights etc, presumably must have thought about it by definition so therefore there is not much point stopping them.

notsoblue

davmaggs wrote:

The Police do lots of community advice type gigs ranging from inspecting locks in your home, to security marking bikes in town, to giving out anti-pickpocket flyers at stations, or warning women against using illegal minicabs. I don't think we'd be saying that they are victim blaming, instead we see it as trying to swing the odds back in the favour of the public.

This is like walking through an area rife with knifecrime and telling kids they should be wearing knife-proof vests.

davmaggs wrote:

My conclusion as to why this has panned on here is because some on here see cycling as political so they happily jump on a grievance.

Its panned on here because its not the problem that needs to be solved.

arran77

notsoblue wrote:

arran77 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I'm sure that it is possible to see a cyclist who is dressed in black with lights but it's a damn sight easier if they are dressed with some sort of reflective clothing .

A much less rational statement.

Which is why that's not my quote :P

In that case you're really just shadowboxing. Nobody is moaning about it being illegal to ride without lights when its dark.

Wouldn't be a need to would there if people didn't manipulate what others have said :P

davmaggs

notsoblue wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

The Police do lots of community advice type gigs ranging from inspecting locks in your home, to security marking bikes in town, to giving out anti-pickpocket flyers at stations, or warning women against using illegal minicabs. I don't think we'd be saying that they are victim blaming, instead we see it as trying to swing the odds back in the favour of the public.

This is like walking through an area rife with knifecrime and telling kids they should be wearing knife-proof vests.

davmaggs wrote:

My conclusion as to why this has panned on here is because some on here see cycling as political so they happily jump on a grievance.

Its panned on here because its not the problem that needs to be solved.

Except you've just invented something that doesn't actually happen in an effort to stretch an objection you have that is actually irrational (proves my point about some people seeking a grievance).

Your last point is entirely your opinion. Stating something as fact does not make it so. I'd suggest it's just a form of whataboutery.

lancew

notsoblue wrote:

This is like walking through an area rife with knifecrime and telling kids they should be wearing knife-proof vests.

http://www.bladerunner.tv/

But seriously, what is it that you see as an issue? Are you saying that all cyclists ride safely and don't need to be reminded to be safe occasionally?

I'm a little confused as to what the real issue is here. The man was saying "make sure you can be seen" not "legalize helmets and high viz jackets". (That would pretty much ruin cycling for me.)

veronese68

Rolf F wrote:

The thing about this campaign - the Police do need to filter their sample set. So they do it by lack of lights/helmet/hi vis etc. And for those of us who have considered the use of these devices, and decided not to use them, then that should be fine. They should be able to explain this to the Police and the "informed" Police Officer should understand this and let them on their way.

Whilst that would be great if that could happen that would require the capacity to think for themselves on the part of the policemen involved. Sadly this is beyond the capabilities of a large number.

slowbike

Rolf F wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Hi Viz - the dayglow yellow/orange clothing - the effectiveness of these is more subjective as it depends on surroundings - in bright daylight on an open road with just the sky for background I suggest you're more likely to see a cyclist in black than you are in dayglow clothing. Take that into a dark forest road when it's raining and the dayglow clothing would be far easier to spot.

So sensibly you wear some hi vis and some black?

The thing about this campaign - the Police do need to filter their sample set. So they do it by lack of lights/helmet/hi vis etc. And for those of us who have considered the use of these devices, and decided not to use them, then that should be fine. They should be able to explain this to the Police and the "informed" Police Officer should understand this and let them on their way.

This campaign, for all its clumsiness is, not aimed at this type of rider. It is aimed at the sort who go out in black, lightless, lidless etc and haven't given that a moments thought. And that probably is a good 50% of riders dressed that way. A lot of people just don't think. At all. And they might benefit from being prompted to think about it. Those who do wear reflectives and carry lights etc, presumably must have thought about it by definition so therefore there is not much point stopping them.

I suppose the issue isn't as much the sample set as the statistics then banded about derived from that sample set ...

1000 cyclists were stopped - 50% weren't wearing helmets, 78% had no hiviz, 85% didn't have lights ... doesn't help suggest that 100% were stopped for violations including cycling on the pavement, jumping red lights or not having lights on (in the dark) ... and does nothing to suggest that many 1000's more passed by without being stopped as they weren't violating the law.

You could write a similar story about a drink drive campaign - 1000 drivers were stopped, 75% were drunk - but they were all stopped because they did something to attract the police officers attention - lack of seatbelt, using a mobile, weaving allover the road, running over a cyclist ...

So are we talking about bad journalism rather than bad policing?

It's not against the law to drive with a small amount of alcohol in your blood stream - but police will advise against it. Is that similar to the Police advocating the use of HiViz and/or helmets?

wgwarburton

Hi,
Seems to me the point is that the police shouldn't be stopping people carrying out a normal and safe activity and warning them that they are not taking enough care. It is not and and should not be be necessary to wear fancy dress or ppe to ride a bike.
It's reinforcing the message that cycling is dangerous, which it isn't, and that discourages cycling making it just a little bit more dangerous for those who do ride...
Better to devote resources to telling drivers to keep their eyes open, that way they might avoid other unlit hazards to navigation like bits of exhaust, broken bottles, rocks and wandering animals...

Cheers,
W.

rolf_f

Slowbike wrote:

So are we talking about bad journalism rather than bad policing?

Almost certainly. You can suspect that there is a good chance that the policing was crap - but equally there is a good chance it was carefully thought out and planned over a period of time. But you can almost guarantee that the journalism was incompetent, misleading claptrap written by an idiot in less than 30 minutes.

rick_chasey

A policeman talks sh!t.

Now there's a surprise.

Next you'll be telling me they haven't grasped basic grammar.

awavey

cyclingprop wrote:

Same logic, lots of cyclists are thin so they should be easier to miss. Why didn't the police tell them to put on weight to make them easier to see?

aha but then the extra weight creates a gravitational lens effect that bends light around the cyclist, thus making them more invisible or at least thats how it feels and its at least as much based in scientific fact as the hi-viz stuff :roll:

arran77

awavey wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

Same logic, lots of cyclists are thin so they should be easier to miss. Why didn't the police tell them to put on weight to make them easier to see?

aha but then the extra weight creates a gravitational lens effect that bends light around the cyclist, thus making them more invisible or at least thats how it feels and its at least as much based in scientific fact as the hi-viz stuff :roll:

So what you're saying is that only fat cyclists need to wear a hi viz

Initialised

Fat or thin, Hi vis or not we're all just invisible gorillas if we're riding in the gutter.

Road safety is partly the rider's responsibility but a strong road position is a better way of being seen than hi-vis and dayglo.

Kieran_Burns

Initialised wrote:

Fat or thin, Hi vis or not we're all just invisible gorillas if we're riding in the gutter.

Road safety is partly the rider's responsibility but a strong road position is a better way of being seen than hi-vis and dayglo.

You know the first time I saw that vid I utterly missed it. Completely did my crust when it was shown, I even rewound to make sure they weren't lying!

Initialised

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Initialised wrote:

Fat or thin, Hi vis or not we're all just invisible gorillas if we're riding in the gutter.

Road safety is partly the rider's responsibility but a strong road position is a better way of being seen than hi-vis and dayglo.

You know the first time I saw that vid I utterly missed it. Completely did my crust when it was shown, I even rewound to make sure they weren't lying!

Yeah, me too, that's the point, it's beating it's chest and staring you in the face but you still don't see it because your finite attention resource is being used up counting passes. I bet if it was a guy in hi-vis and day-glo on a hybrid we'd still miss it.

Kieran_Burns

Initialised wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Initialised wrote:

Fat or thin, Hi vis or not we're all just invisible gorillas if we're riding in the gutter.

Road safety is partly the rider's responsibility but a strong road position is a better way of being seen than hi-vis and dayglo.

You know the first time I saw that vid I utterly missed it. Completely did my crust when it was shown, I even rewound to make sure they weren't lying!

Yeah, me too, that's the point, it's beating it's chest and staring you in the face but you still don't see it because your finite attention resource is being used up counting passes. I bet if it was a guy in hi-vis and day-glo on a hybrid we'd still miss it.

and so is born the expression "He came out of nowhere!"

arran77

Initialised wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Initialised wrote:

Fat or thin, Hi vis or not we're all just invisible gorillas if we're riding in the gutter.

Road safety is partly the rider's responsibility but a strong road position is a better way of being seen than hi-vis and dayglo.

You know the first time I saw that vid I utterly missed it. Completely did my crust when it was shown, I even rewound to make sure they weren't lying!

Yeah, me too, that's the point, it's beating it's chest and staring you in the face but you still don't see it because your finite attention resource is being used up counting passes. I bet if it was a guy in hi-vis and day-glo on a hybrid we'd still miss it.

Is he fat or not though and what's the level of light?

Mikey23

Then of course there's the Doppler shift ... Has to be taken into account

Initialised

FFS I post some serious, real, propper, peer reviewed science that shows why SMIDYs is a real thing and you start talking about light levels, doppler effect and the cyclists waist line. You must all want to die or summat. Get te feck ye omahdons. And take the lane if you think they ain't seen ye or that London'll be having a die in on your account.

rolf_f

Pross wrote:

I'd love to see some research into the effectiveness of hi-vis and whether it has diminished over the last 20 years as every man and (sometimes literally) his dog has taken to wearing it. My own experience is that it has limited impact, especially in yellow, as there is so much of it about. Not just in people's clothing but with signage, posters and other clutter.

Not research but I'd forgotten all about this thread as I cycled home yesterday afternoon. It was 5pm, the sky was overcast and it was just before that time when people start switching their lights on. So dull but far from dark and with no chance of reflectives standing out.

I rounded a corner and immediately saw, a good quarter mile ahead of me, a couple of pedestrians in high viz tops. Those were the first pedestrians I'd consciously noticed on the ride. Looking more carefully, I could distinguish non hi vis wearing people at a similar distance but not without making a conscious effort. There was no other hi viz to be seen (ie signs, clutter, vehicles etc).

Fact is, there really actually isn't much hi viz or yellow about unless maybe you are cycling along a road lined with kebab shops. I looked for it on the rest of the way home and saw none at all aside from that on some runners and cyclists and they did stand out. So I think that hi viz really is effective. It makes me wonder if some peoples eyes just don't register it very well.

arran77

Rolf F wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'd love to see some research into the effectiveness of hi-vis and whether it has diminished over the last 20 years as every man and (sometimes literally) his dog has taken to wearing it. My own experience is that it has limited impact, especially in yellow, as there is so much of it about. Not just in people's clothing but with signage, posters and other clutter.

Not research but I'd forgotten all about this thread as I cycled home yesterday afternoon. It was 5pm, the sky was overcast and it was just before that time when people start switching their lights on. So dull but far from dark and with no chance of reflectives standing out.

I rounded a corner and immediately saw, a good quarter mile ahead of me, a couple of pedestrians in high viz tops. Those were the first pedestrians I'd consciously noticed on the ride. Looking more carefully, I could distinguish non hi vis wearing people at a similar distance but not without making a conscious effort. There was no other hi viz to be seen (ie signs, clutter, vehicles etc).

Fact is, there really actually isn't much hi viz or yellow about unless maybe you are cycling along a road lined with kebab shops. I looked for it on the rest of the way home and saw none at all aside from that on some runners and cyclists and they did stand out. So I think that hi viz really is effective. It makes me wonder if some peoples eyes just don't register it very well.

Amazing innit

notsoblue

Its pretty ironic that the picture you're using to illustrate a point, Arran77, is of someone riding a Velib hire bike in Paris.

arran77

notsoblue wrote:

Its pretty ironic that the picture you're using to illustrate a point, Arran77, is of someone riding a Velib hire bike in Paris.

How so oh irritating one?

airbag

DJFish wrote:

We quite rightly moan when drivers don't see us but then moan even louder when someone suggests we can help them see us by making ourselves more visible? I fail to understand that logic.......

Then you're a cretin, and/or you haven't tried to understand it. It's remarkably simple.

If you think that's rude, well I think it's bloody rude to join a topic posting loudly about how you don't understand something and therefore should be listened to.

I do not believe any of the PPE-pushers really want to help me with their 'advice'. If they wanted to help me, they'd be joining the LCC or similar and asking for the only strategy known to help, which is making the streets safer, rather than following say New Zealand, where things have not. So I can reasonably conclude that they're either a cretin, that they're really trying to make someone else do their job (managing dangerous drivers) for them, or both.

notsoblue

arran77 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Its pretty ironic that the picture you're using to illustrate a point, Arran77, is of someone riding a Velib hire bike in Paris.

How so oh irritating one?

Something about your tone is telling me you're not open to debate.