Police stop Evesham cyclists to warn against dark clothing

oldstrath wrote:

LinusLarrabee wrote:

With the exception of learner drivers and probably people who've recently passed their tests, most people get in a car and drive to their destination mostly on autopilot. Everybody's done it. You get to your destination and can't remember half the journey. That's one of the great things about the human brain - the system 1 part can take over repetitive non-taxing jobs and leave the conscious part of the brain (system 2) to do something else. But system 1 is totally crap at dealing with unexpected events and despite what most people think it should be doing, it hasn't evolved to remain on constant alert for the presence of cyclists (unless you live in an area/city with a high volume of cyclists and it adapts) or other road hazards. That's just the way it is and no amount of moaning about it will change it. You either take responsibility for your own safety or you put it in the hands of strangers who may not even know you're there. Anybody who disregards good safety advice is pretty dumb and probably not much loss to the human gene pool if their actions result in injury or worse.

And a bit of yellow cloth will fix that total lack of attention?

NO! It won't fix anything. What a moronic suggestion. It will however, improve your chances of being seen. Anything that improves your odds improves your odds - regardless. This daft notion that anything that doesn't completely eradicate accidents is not worth doing makes no rational sense.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Quote:

You either take responsibility for your own safety or you put it in the hands of strangers who may not even know you're there. Anybody who disregards good safety advice is pretty dumb and probably not much loss to the human gene pool if their actions result in injury or worse.

Whether we cyclists like it or not, our lives are in the hands of drivers to a large extent.

Under every cycling article in a national newspaper, you get anti-cycling trolls using the line, 'if you don't do X (what I want you to do) you will die, and it'll be your own fault/you'll deserve it'. Thankfully, I haven't seen it often under articles in road.cc, and if there's a troll signed up here making such comments, as far as I'm concerned he/she is not welcome.

Oh dear. I didn't say anyone deserves anything or that not doing 'X' will result in death. Clearly, you are unable to understand basic English. For your benefit and anyone else who is cerebrally challenged, I was expressing a lack of sympathy for people who deliberately avoid helping themselves out of a warped sense of morality that places all blame and responsibility on everyone but themselves - especially those people who spread dangerous ideas and actively encourage other people to increase the risk they are taking when cycling.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

LinusLarrabee wrote:

With the exception of learner drivers and probably people who've recently passed their tests, most people get in a car and drive to their destination mostly on autopilot. Everybody's done it. You get to your destination and can't remember half the journey. That's one of the great things about the human brain - the system 1 part can take over repetitive non-taxing jobs and leave the conscious part of the brain (system 2) to do something else. But system 1 is totally crap at dealing with unexpected events and despite what most people think it should be doing, it hasn't evolved to remain on constant alert for the presence of cyclists (unless you live in an area/city with a high volume of cyclists and it adapts) or other road hazards. That's just the way it is and no amount of moaning about it will change it. You either take responsibility for your own safety or you put it in the hands of strangers who may not even know you're there. Anybody who disregards good safety advice is pretty dumb and probably not much loss to the human gene pool if their actions result in injury or worse.

And a bit of yellow cloth will fix that total lack of attention?

NO! It won't fix anything. What a moronic suggestion. It will however, improve your chances of being seen. Anything that improves your odds improves your odds - regardless. This daft notion that anything that doesn't completely eradicate accidents is not worth doing makes no rational sense.

So leaving aside the insults, we agree that wearing hiviz will not fix the problem, but you want to suggest that it will 'improve the odds'. But your entire previous post was about how drivers are so braindead they don't see things unless they are truly unusual. Which hiviz probably isn't. So the change in odds is probably small, and a distraction from things that might actually help - lights bright enough to cause pain, and a policing environment that made drivers terrified of hitting a vulnerable road user.

Or even better, properly segregated infrastructure, so the braindeads can play in peace.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Your comment did follow exactly the formula I described, talking about 'injury or worse.'

Your subsequent comment to me is personal abuse. If this site were moderated, it would be deleted. In any event, your style of debating is not something to be encouraged.

I wasn't debating you. I expressed my opinion as honestly as I could without feeling the need to sugar-coat it or to comply with this self-censorship, modern PC nonsense of not hurting anybody's feelings. If that jarred you and made you think about what I wrote then it was the right thing to do. After that, I merely corrected the replies that misrepresented what I had said. I didn't batter an eyelid when you attempted to indirectly call me a troll. But why should I? When people take offence at what somebody says it's that person's choice to be offended - I chose not to be. You can choose to be offended or not - it's up to you, but I won't be losing sleep if you are feeling offended.

oldstrath wrote:

So leaving aside the insults, we agree that wearing hiviz will not fix the problem, but you want to suggest that it will 'improve the odds'. But your entire previous post was about how drivers are so braindead they don't see things unless they are truly unusual. Which hiviz probably isn't. So the change in odds is probably small, and a distraction from things that might actually help - lights bright enough to cause pain, and a policing environment that made drivers terrified of hitting a vulnerable road user.

Or even better, properly segregated infrastructure, so the braindeads can play in peace.

I didn't say anybody was braindead, but given some of the comments here I certainly thought it. Again, as with the other guy, this is a misrepresentation of what I actually said.

I don't like using analogies, because most examples people use are pretty poor and usually not relevant. That said, I'm going to offer one in the context of discussing odds, because people are so bad at making rational decisions: roulette. Put a chip on any number from 1 to 36 and if you win you get back 36 times your stake. All things being equal the house and gambler should both break even over a long enough period of time. What gives the house the marginal advantage is the 0 and 00 slots. It's only a marginal advantage but one that means the house always comes out on top. Rationally speaking, it's not the size of the odds that matter, it's whether they are in your favour or not. But, few people rationally analyse the odds - instead they go with their gut reaction, which rather than actually coming from their guts, comes from the same fast thinking system 1 part of the brain the drivers are using when driving on autopilot. If anything, the system 2 part of the brain is only called upon to invent a reason why their gut feeling is correct.

tonylen wrote:

Here's how it works-the cops work to detect crime after its happened ,and at the same time to prevent crime before it does-if giving out some high viz either helps a cyclist to be seen on a dark night,or makes the cyclist think a bit about his own safety,then how can that be a bad thing ?

the point is it doesnt help at all, not one iota IMO, your opinion on its effectiveness may vary, but on the great big to do list of things they could do to help cyclists stay safe, its a long long way down the list of things that they could do that they should do, that would actually make an impact, would actually save lives.

but its really easy one to do, stand at a junction for a few hours with 50 hi viz vests, you can pick them up for about £1 each at builders trade. so total cost £50 + plus time, safety box ticked and everyones home by teatime...except maybe the cyclists who are still getting hit by cars/trucks/buses every day, but we dont want to fix that problem thats too tricky to solve and we cant do it for £50 quid, so lets hand out some more hi-vis & pretend we are doing something

yay for hi-vis!!!

Not really bizarre, although obviously not an exact analogy.

The point is that drivers may not have seen" who or what they are supposed to precisely because the responsibility to do so has been eroded by the constant pressure for actual or potential victims to wear hi-viz, irrespective of evidence.

It becomes part of the problem that way.

And yes, it is thus victim-blaming.

After all, there are all kinds of things you can do which may. or may not, help you. But being told to do some of them by people who are not fulfilling their duty to enforce laws controlling the SMIDSY mob is, well, victim-blaming

oozaveared wrote:

farrell wrote:

Zermattjohn wrote:

And all those dark pedestrians??!

My experience tells me that the plod actually take great delight in frequently pulling them over for "a quiet word"....

oh, you mean....

Well actually when pedestrians are dressed up in dark clothes and crossing the road they can be in danger. But the thing is they are crossing the road. Hoprefully when there's nothing coming. So they are in the road briefly.

And the difference is cyclists are in the road most of the time.

see how that might be pertinent?

Actually, it isn't really. Pedestrians will cross roads and will get hit by drivers who use the SMIDSY excuse. It really is the same point at issue.

mrmo wrote:

on the burglary point, there is evidence that the police try and catch burglars, there is evidence that the legal system doesn't give a **** about drivers and dangerous driving.

Exactly!

The problem is when the people giving advice don't know what they are talking about. Here in NZ, for example, a coroner, stated that all cyclists should wear high vis to keep them safer. There was massive publicity at the time, all unquestioning of his conclusion, despite the fact he had not the slightest evidence to support his view.
As a result of this a LOT of cyclists now ride around with high viz thinking that they are safe with no lights when light is poor or even when it is dark.
In my experience (having nearly hit a few of these idiots), when you come up behind someone with high vis in the dark, it makes no difference whatsoever.

ChairRDRF wrote:

mrmo wrote:

on the burglary point, there is evidence that the police try and catch burglars, there is evidence that the legal system doesn't give a **** about drivers and dangerous driving.

Exactly!

If the official position of the RDRF is that cyclists shouldn't do anything to help themselves however marginal that help might be, simply because those actions do not fit in with the RDRF agenda, then it seems to me they do not have cyclists interests at heart and rightfully deserve to be saddled with the modified acronym: Really Dangerous Retarded F***wits. See above if you feel offended.

The RDRF position seems to be akin to telling people not to even attempt to make healthy food choices because it is entirely the supermarket's responsibility to ensure everything they sell you is healthy and then blaming government and regulators for not ensuring junk food is kept off the supermarket shelves. Meanwhile, in the real world, innocent people, who could have taken some action, are being unnessesarily harmed because they don't know who to believe or what to do.

imaca wrote:

The problem is when the people giving advice don't know what they are talking about. Here in NZ, for example, a coroner, stated that all cyclists should wear high vis to keep them safer. There was massive publicity at the time, all unquestioning of his conclusion, despite the fact he had not the slightest evidence to support his view.

Is this the case where the cyclist WAS wearing hi-viz and still got hit and killed by a driver???

andyp wrote:

'there is evidence that the legal system doesn't give a **** about drivers and dangerous driving.'

That is, of course, absolute shite.

How many drivers are penalised after killing someone? There is the evidence, it is accepted that people will die and drivers will be allowed to continue on their way. It is accepted that depriving drivers of a licence may cause hardship so we have drivers on the road legally with 30 points on their licences. From personal experience the Police are not interested in accidents. My BiL was hit by a drunk driver and lost a leg as a result, it was the drivers second serious accident whilst drunk, he went on to have a third because he did not have his licence withdrawn. Look around at how many drivers are still using mobile phones, still speeding, driving recklessly, etc etc etc. I see no evidence of the police cracking down. I look at the recent court cases where judges declare that the highway code should be ignored and that driving at speed whilst blinded into a low sun is acceptable behaviour.

TheSpaniard wrote:

Oh FFS....

Can we talk about helmets for a bit instead...?

Good point, was West Mercia advising the cyclists to wear helmets in addition to lights and hi viz?

Northernbike wrote:

Tinternet_tim wrote:

Why do so many user of this forum so frequently criticise authority or see it as a personal attack at them? Yes, I understand that it often feels like everyone is against cyclist, yes I understand that safety improvements need to be across the whole spectrum. And yes, I understand that there are SO MANY bad drivers out there who pay so little attention to other road users OR more worryingly don't care about other road users. But surely a little extra visibility is a good thing to help you become a little more obvious to the good drivers out there.

it is fair to criticise the police for stopping people who are not breaking the law

it is fair to criticise the police for trying to enforce something which is neither a legal requirement nor of any proven practical value

it is fair to criticise the police for blaming accidents on cyclist's clothing and not dangerous driving

it is fair to criticise the police for targeting members of a minority group because it is easy rather than the majority in vehicles who actually cause the harm and do most of the law breaking, a policy of 'criminalise the catchable rather than catch the criminal'

it is fair to criticise the police for targeting the victims not the perpetrators of criminal behaviour

Though to be fair to the police, the highway code does state that (59) [cyclists should wear] light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light. So perhaps this comes under the heading 'education'. Personally I don't wear head-to-toe dark clothing, and do often daylight run a flashing rear LED.

bendertherobot wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

farrell wrote:

Zermattjohn wrote:

And all those dark pedestrians??!

My experience tells me that the plod actually take great delight in frequently pulling them over for "a quiet word"....

oh, you mean....

Well actually when pedestrians are dressed up in dark clothes and crossing the road they can be in danger. But the thing is they are crossing the road. Hoprefully when there's nothing coming. So they are in the road briefly.

And the difference is cyclists are in the road most of the time.

see how that might be pertinent?

WHOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHHH!

Indeed. To paraphrase Cool Runnings, 'In fact, if oozaveared ever come across a pretty girl, he probably yell, "eins, zwei, drei" and try to push her down some ice...."

dassie wrote:

Personally I don't wear head-to-toe dark clothing, and do often daylight run a flashing rear LED.

Do you know who do wear top to toe dark clothing, and very frequently?

http://legacymedia.localworld.co.uk/275788/Article/images/13611007/32670...

I double dare you to smash in to one of those on your bike and then claim you couldn't see them due to their lack of yellow.

See how far the argument goes when the jackboot is on the other foot.

andyp wrote:

'there is evidence that the legal system doesn't give a **** about drivers and dangerous driving.'

That is, of course, absolute shite.

Feel free to continue living in your delusional bubble. But you could try reading the news occasionally.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

Oh dear, the morons are back with their anti-everything, flat earth, Austrian economics, retarded view of the 6,000 year old earth. Seriously, how people take you wing-nuts seriously is beyond me.

Austrian economics? That would be the type favoured by Ayn Rand types, the very types who go in for your kind of victim-blaming, yes? I think you have this back-to-front.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

mrmo wrote:

on the burglary point, there is evidence that the police try and catch burglars, there is evidence that the legal system doesn't give a **** about drivers and dangerous driving.

Exactly!

If the official position of the RDRF is that cyclists shouldn't do anything to help themselves however marginal that help might be, simply because those actions do not fit in with the RDRF agenda, then it seems to me they do not have cyclists interests at heart and rightfully deserve to be saddled with the modified acronym: Really Dangerous Retarded F***wits. See above if you feel offended.

The RDRF position seems to be akin to telling people not to even attempt to make healthy food choices because it is entirely the supermarket's responsibility to ensure everything they sell you is healthy and then blaming government and regulators for not ensuring junk food is kept off the supermarket shelves. Meanwhile, in the real world, innocent people, who could have taken some action, are being unnessesarily harmed because they don't know who to believe or what to do.

Drivel. First you lie about your opponent's stance, then you invoke an analogy that doesn't remotely work. Is that the best you can come up with?

I mean, where is your evidence that harassing one party (the vulnerable one) and constantly sending the message that if they get killed its their own fault, and that cycling (and even walking) is inherently dangerous requiring special equipment, preventing harm?

On the contrary the end result is likely to be to (a) dissuade people from cycling at all, and (b) encourage drivers in thinking its everyone else's responsibility to stay out of their way. The end result is likely to be more mortality, not less (not least via heart disease and pollution effects).

In reality, this one stunt is quite a minor one, and not really worth getting so worked up about (and I think asking cyclists to use lights is fair, as that is actually the law) but what irritates me is your unthinking assumption that it must be a good thing and no-one can have doubts about it.