An Italian study has taken a look at “the role of conspicuity in preventing bicycle–motorized vehicle collisions.” Put another way, researchers looked at whether legislation demanding that cyclists wear high-vis had any impact on safety. They found that it did not.
BikeBiz reports that data on the monthly number of vehicles involved in road crashes during the period 2001–2015 were obtained from the Italian National Institute of Statistics.
Results revealed that legislation demanding that cyclists wear high-visibility clothing did not influence the total number of cyclists involved in road collisions and nor did it affect the number of collisions involving cyclists as a proportion of all vehicle collisions.
“The introduction of the legislation did not produce immediate effects, nor did it have any effects over time,” concluded the researchers.
They did however concede that they had not taken account of the extent to which hi-vis laws were being adhered to by cyclists, writing: “Lack of knowledge on how the law was introduced, the degree of enforcement by the police, and behavioural changes in response to the law makes it difficult to attribute the lack of effect on bicycle crashes.”
A study carried out last year by the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and Nottingham University found “increased odds of a collision crash” among cyclists who wear reflective clothing.
The researchers suggested that riders who believe they are more conspicuous may adopt more exposed positions on the road, before going on to point out that the results “should be treated with caution” as they were based on only 76 accidents.
In contrast, a larger study in Denmark, involving nearly 7,000 cyclists, found cyclists suffered 47 per cent fewer accidents causing injuries if a bright yellow jacket was worn.
2013 research from the University of Bath and Brunel University found that no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2 per cent of drivers will pass dangerously close when overtaking.
138 thoughts on “Mandatory hi-vis had no influence on number of cyclists involved in collisions according to Italian study”
It does not matter which
It does not matter which colour clothing I am wearing, if it is reflective, whether it is night or day, how many lights I have either flashing or on constsant glow, how many lumens I am providing, where I ride in the lane, how fast I am travelling, whether I am riding single file or two abreast, in a cycle lane or not, if I use hand signals at junctions and whilst overtaking parked vehicles; I will invaribly have some dick in a motorised vehicle either pull out on me or close pass me anyhow. It is the mentality of the herds that need to be altered, not the colour of the cloth.
Pushing50 wrote:
This.
If people are looking then they will see you no matter what you are wearing. If they aren’t then they won’t.
Bikebikebike wrote:
And if they can’t see a mildly overweight bloke on a bicycle in broad daylight, regardless of whether or not there is also use of flashing lights and/or fluorescent clothing, then they shouldn’t be driving.
Bikebikebike wrote:
I find the surest way to be seen is to not wear hi-viz and have no lights after dark. Not only will drivers absolutely spot you, they will also point you out to all their passengers while making derogatory comments.
Tony wrote:
As well as advising everyone else they come across of your presence
So much attention to hi-viz,
So much attention to hi-viz, and so little mention of H.C. 126.
Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
Is there any data on the
Is there any data on the effect on visibility of cyclists not wearing any clothes at all?
I haven’t heard of many Smidsy incidences with those ‘naked bike ride’ events. But that’s purely anecdotal. Needs some randomised controlled studies I suppose.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
and a couple of strategically placed graphs
These guys are pretty cool
These guys are pretty cool
https://www.eta.co.uk/2017/10/20/the-british-curse-of-high-vis/
I think Atwarwiththemotorist
I think Atwarwiththemotorist has a fine take on high viz
https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2017/10/28/new-road-safety-campaign-calls-for-greater-visibility-on-the-roads/
ktache wrote:
And of course it is not just bright yellow illuminated bollards which are not visible enough for drivers to avoid hitting. Motorists run into many stationary objects which are not hiviz. Walls, bus stops, trees, parked cars, fences, houses etc. These obviously need the hiviz treatment.
A woman in her bath had life changing injuries from an errant driver. Perhaps she needed a yellow tabard?
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/audis-in-houses/
An assortment of houses which were not visible enough for drivers to avoid them.
Here’s a link to the Danish
Here’s a link to the Danish randomised controlled trial mentioned in the article.
The best piece of research done on this topic by a country mile.
They found hi-vis reduced your risk of being in an accident with another road user by a third.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528
Rich_cb wrote:
So, lots of nice percentage data but still inconclusive. A wise man (Churchill) once said that statistics are like a drunk with a lamppost; used more for support than illumination.
You see what you want to see but I do not see anything in the reports conclusion about Hi-Vis reducing risk of being in an accident with another road user by a third. What I see from the report is this:
Quote The external validity of the experiment is challenged by the fact that the effect is assumed to change if the environment changes. For instance, the effect will most likely decrease if an increasing number of cyclists start using a bright-coloured bicycle jacket because the jacket will not attract as much attention when more cyclists use it. In this study, the participants were spread across the country (Fig. 3), and the likelihood of being in a group with multiple bicycle jackets is small. This also means that the found effect represents an average of the effect in big cities, small cities and rural areas, although some variation between these areas is expected. The external validity is also influenced by the fact that other road users’ risk may increase when attention is directed to cyclists with bright-coloured jackets at the expense of other cyclists. These considerations are not specific to bright-coloured jackets but are generally valid. Overall, the assessment of the external validity is that the effect will most likely decrease as jacket use increases, but not to a degree that may compromise a general positive effect of a yellow jacket. Unquote
You still need to change the mentallity of the drivers rather than make a case for Hi-Vis. This was not even a subject case twenty years ago, so why now? By the way, I ride with bright colours on the majority of rides/commutes and sometimes I wear black. In my experience it makes no shred of difference.
Pushing50 wrote:
So you didn’t see the statistically significant difference between the control and the study groups?
Or you chose to give more weight to an assumption?
Even that assumption concludes that the hi vis will continue to offer a protective effect.
Studies into collision rates of cars have found that brightly coloured cars have fewer collisions despite there being a lot of them so perhaps the saturation assumption is not as significant as you think.
I agree that we need to change the mentality of drivers but that is an incredibly difficult task that will take years to achieve, I can decrease my own risk instantly by making myself more visible.
Rich_cb wrote:
When I had a red car people pulled out on me all the time. Bright red like a f***ing fire engine only way it could have been more bright would have been hi vis. I haven’t seen cars on sale like that.
People either dontvlook or they make decisions based on the size of the vehicle and therefore threat of harm to themselves
Rich_cb wrote:
Despite the number of posts aimed at Rich_cb, I’m nor sure I’ve seen any serious criticism of the content of his/her original post.
I do see a lot of whataboutery, strawmen, personal opinion and anecdote as evidence but nothing that seriously challenges the findings of the study.
Some posters raise legitimate wider issues (e.g. the bigger problem is with driver attentiveness and attitudes – I think we all agree) but I don’t see anyone presenting good evidence against the idea that hi-vis reduces certain types of risk by a moderate to significant degree under current circumstances.
Duncann wrote:
Despite the number of posts aimed at Rich_cb, I’m nor sure I’ve seen any serious criticism of the content of his/her original post.
I do see a lot of whataboutery, strawmen, personal opinion and anecdote as evidence but nothing that seriously challenges the findings of the study.
Some posters raise legitimate wider issues (e.g. the bigger problem is with driver attentiveness and attitudes – I think we all agree) but I don’t see anyone presenting good evidence against the idea that hi-vis reduces certain types of risk by a moderate to significant degree under current circumstances.— Rich_cb
I just think that suggests you haven’t been careful in reading the posts disagreeing with Rich_CB.
The question is whether focussing on high-viz, promoting it, or (worst of all, though I acknowledge Rich_CB isn’t arguing for this) making it compulsory, has a net beneficial effect or a net negative effect on overal health-outcomes. The Danish study does not appear to even be asking that question.
Talking about ‘under current circumstances’ ignores the question of how ‘circumstances’ are themselves a concequence of collective behaviour and attitudes.
As other posters have said, whether it’s in the self-interest of any given individual cyclist to choose to wear the stuff, is a different question – and not one that’s any body else’s business but the cyclist concerned (or, arguably, their parent or partner).
Duncann wrote:
Despite the number of posts aimed at Rich_cb, I’m nor sure I’ve seen any serious criticism of the content of his/her original post.
I do see a lot of whataboutery, strawmen, personal opinion and anecdote as evidence but nothing that seriously challenges the findings of the study.
Some posters raise legitimate wider issues (e.g. the bigger problem is with driver attentiveness and attitudes – I think we all agree) but I don’t see anyone presenting good evidence against the idea that hi-vis reduces certain types of risk by a moderate to significant degree under current circumstances.— Rich_cb
Hi-viz may well be effective. Flashing lights, bright colours – even helmets – have their arguments at a micro level. But the argument is about how effective they actually are – and whether the unintended consequences are worth any benefits.
If you believe, as I do, that PPE is only a tiny piece of the puzzle, and that focusing on cyclist PPE while ignoring pedestrian and driver PPE is part of a harmful (even if elements are well-meaning but ignorant) culture that alienates and victim blames cyclists, then you’d see other factors being dragged into the argument as an appeal for prioritisation, not ‘whataboutery’.
Hi-viz works, so what? So we ‘win’ that argument and lose much larger ones. It was accepted* at my former employer, one of the world’s largest engineering firms, that to rely on PPE was to accept that you couldn’t make an environment safe and cross your fingers.
* accepted in this context means to be the prevalent viewpoint of many prominent engineers, fellows of all-sorts of societies, academics and experts in safety in dangerous workplaces, backed by proper evidence via extensive root-cause analysis and studies.
I did see the statistical
I did see the statistical differences between the two groups and yes, you are right I do give far more weight to the latter material in the report. Statistics are not the be all and end all of a study. There are other factors to take into consideration Rich_cb.
Did you not read these? Some of the psycololgical interpretations between the two groups for starters? I am not disagreeing with the colour science. I am not a colour scientist. All I have stated is that in my experience it makes absolutely no difference what I wear on the road, I will get drivers deliberately or not putting my life at risk. I too make myself visible (see post 1) both day and night but I still maintain that it makes no difference to the majority of others.
By the way, I think that you will find that black is still the most popular colour for cars so (statistically speaking) I am not surprised that they have more accidents than brightly coloured ones. Which is what: red, yellow, pink, green?
Pushing50 wrote:
You are giving more weight to opinion and personal experience than high quality evidence.
That’s a reflection of your own bias.
The trial was large, well designed and the groups well matched. The effect was also large so any small difference between the groups would not have affected the significance of the result.
The study in to cars looked at the difference between yellow and blue cars.
https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21718319-avoid-accidents-flag-down-bananamobile-yellow-cabs-are-less-likely-crash
Rich_cb wrote:
I did see the statistical differences between the two groups and yes, you are right I do give far more weight to the latter material in the report. Statistics are not the be all and end all of a study. There are other factors to take into consideration Rich_cb.
Did you not read these? Some of the psycololgical interpretations between the two groups for starters? I am not disagreeing with the colour science. I am not a colour scientist. All I have stated is that in my experience it makes absolutely no difference what I wear on the road, I will get drivers deliberately or not putting my life at risk. I too make myself visible (see post 1) both day and night but I still maintain that it makes no difference to the majority of others.
By the way, I think that you will find that black is still the most popular colour for cars so (statistically speaking) I am not surprised that they have more accidents than brightly coloured ones. Which is what: red, yellow, pink, green?
— Rich_cb You are giving more weight to opinion and personal experience than high quality evidence. That’s a reflection of your own bias. The trial was large, well designed and the groups well matched. The effect was also large so any small difference between the groups would not have affected the significance of the result. The study in to cars looked at the difference between yellow and blue cars. https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21718319-avoid-accidents-flag-down-bananamobile-yellow-cabs-are-less-likely-crash— Pushing50
Or alternatively you are fetishing one trial, done in a different setting, and hoping that their bias correction worked and ifnoring the difference between the trial participants and thr rest of the population. You are also ignoring the fact that bigger gains might be made by puttting more emphasis on the education and control of drivers, who do, we should remember, cause the danger in the first place.
oldstrath wrote:
Or simply applying an established hierarchy of evidence.
Bigger gains might be made in the way that you describe but how likely do you think that is to occur and how long do you think it will take to have a significant effect.
Compare that to how long it takes to put on a piece of hi vis clothing.
Until you have completely eliminated negligent driving there will always be an argument for increasing your own visibility.
Rich_cb wrote:
Or alternatively you are fetishing one trial, done in a different setting, and hoping that their bias correction worked and ifnoring the difference between the trial participants and thr rest of the population. You are also ignoring the fact that bigger gains might be made by puttting more emphasis on the education and control of drivers, who do, we should remember, cause the danger in the first place.
— Rich_cb Or simply applying an established hierarchy of evidence. Bigger gains might be made in the way that you describe but how likely do you think that is to occur and how long do you think it will take to have a significant effect. Compare that to how long it takes to put on a piece of hi vis clothing. Until you have completely eliminated negligent driving there will always be an argument for increasing your own visibility.— oldstrath
The hierarchy of evidence (yes, I do know about it) doesn’t absolve us from considering the exterrnal validity, nor from questioning whether the biases evident in the study have been dealt with adequately.
I don’t really care whether people wear hivis or not – what worries me is that emphasing helmets, hivis and so on provides an excuse for drivers, police and the weasel system to ignore bad driving in favour of shouting at cyclists.
oldstrath wrote:
The external validity and biases are well addressed by the authors.
Given the size of the study and the methodology used it represents very high quality evidence.
I agree that the emphasis should be on driver education and road safety improvements but on an individual level there is little you can do about that while hi vis is easily accessible and apparently effective.
Rich_cb wrote:
Next time you read or hear an exhortation from some Road Safety professional to cyclists and/or pedestrians to wear hiviz, take note of whether s/he adds any advice to motorists to obey H.C. para. 126. In my experience such advice to motorists is vanishingly rare.
Last time I read a Road Safety Officer advising hiviz in our local paper after a vulnerable road user was hit at night, I e-mailed him asking why he did not bother suggesting drivers obeyed the Highway Code. He replied that such advice was in the H.C.!
May I suggest that you and any other motivated reader take such opportunities to remind road safety professionals, and local newspaper readers, etc. that as a driver, you should..
Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
Rich_cb wrote:
The hierarchy of evidence (yes, I do know about it) doesn’t absolve us from considering the exterrnal validity, nor from questioning whether the biases evident in the study have been dealt with adequately.
I don’t really care whether people wear hivis or not – what worries me is that emphasing helmets, hivis and so on provides an excuse for drivers, police and the weasel system to ignore bad driving in favour of shouting at cyclists.
— Rich_cb The external validity and biases are well addressed by the authors. Given the size of the study and the methodology used it represents very high quality evidence. I agree that the emphasis should be on driver education and road safety improvements but on an individual level there is little you can do about that while hi vis is easily accessible and apparently effective.— oldstrath
They didn’t address the possibility that Danush drivers and UK drivers are different, for the excellent reason that it’s not important to them. They assume that bias can be corrected by assumung that the effect on multi vehicle collisions of changed behaviour is the same as the effect on single agent incidents. There’s no obvious reason this should be true.
I agree this appears to offer good evidence that hivis has some benefit to individuals, but I still think you miss the point that we’re not really arguing about what a cyclist shoukd do given the data. For one person, probably hivis and DRL may well be the best available. We’re (I’m, at least) more concerned about what governments should do, and I believe that focussing on hivis would completely miss the real issue and the real system level gains.
oldstrath wrote:
The best solution for an individual is not necessarily the best solution at systemic level but on a day to day basis we can only control things at the individual level.
If a piece of equipment has evidence to support its use at the individual level then it shouldn’t be dismissed because there are bigger gains available at the systemic level.
Rich_cb wrote:
It is possible that use at the individual level works against the bigger gains available at the system level.
We need to combine, to work together, not to give up and try to save only oneself with a remedy of, at best, very limited effectiveness.
As I post above, the authorities limit themselves to hiviz advice, and seem to see this as the remedy. They don’t even bother to beg drivers to look out a little better, let alone try to improve road conditions.
Hiviz is seen as the remedy, but it is really only an alibi for the dangerous.
felixcat wrote:
The effectiveness is not necessarily ‘limited’.
If the results of the RCT are in anyway accurate then the effect is significant.
Why should an individual opt out of an intervention with evidence to support its effectiveness on the mere ‘possibility’ of a negative systemic effect?
Rich_cb wrote:
The effectiveness is limited because it will never eliminate those cases where the driver is not looking properly. As others have pointed out above, there are many times when a cyclist (or a bollard) is arrayed in reflectives, dayglo, lights like a Christmas tree, and still gets hit.
The act of seeing has two parts. One is that the object needs to be visible. Cyclists are nearly always visible. The other part is that the image on the driver’s retina needs to be processed correctly by the brain. This is usually the problem. S/he is not looking for us, but for something more important.
Your “evidence to support effectiveness” is in fact a “possibilty”.
We are being pushed towards a state where any vulnerable road user is covered in hiviz, as if this were the answer. It will not work, and the more of it there is in the driver’s field of view the less effective it will be, as it becomes the uniform of those who are no threat to the driver, so the driver can concentrate on the real threats to him/her.
This futile process is meanwhile diverting attention and energy from doing something about the real source of danger on the road.
In the bypassed village I live, the children walking from school to the nursery are issued with dayglo tabards. The pensioners rambling club is led and tailed by hiviz clad wardens. Meanwhile I would estimate 90% of the traffic past my door is breaking the speed limit. Occasionally the council put up one of those radar LED signs which merely tell the driver that they are breaking the limit. This, of course, fails to make the slightest difference.
I repeat. Hiviz is the road “safety” industry’s alibi for not doing anything which might discommode the motorist.
felixcat wrote:
Nothing will ever eliminate collisions entirely so every possible road safety measure is ‘limited’ by your definition.
The fact that brighter colours or daylight running lights have been shown to reduce the risk of collisions indicates that your analysis is about simplistic.
There are clearly a number of drivers who will not notice a darkly coloured unlit object but will notice a brightly coloured or lit object.
On an individual basis it therefore makes a lot of sense to improve your visibility.
At a systemic level there are far greater priorities, like enforcing speed limits, but that doesn’t change the evidence at the individual level.
Rich_cb wrote:
I think that you have failed to engage with my arguments. No doubt you think something similar.
I have put what I think is the case, and I am not going to repeat it.
Toodle pip.
Rich_cb wrote:
And some are far more limited than others. Which is the point being made.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
The Danish study suggested that hi vis reduced your chances of a multi party accident by about a third.
As an individual what other intervention has shown similar efficacy?
We can go on and on and on about systemic changes that need to happen but it’s a completely moot point on an individual level.
Rich_cb wrote:
And some are far more limited than others. Which is the point being made.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos The Danish study suggested that hi vis reduced your chances of a multi party accident by about a third. As an individual what other intervention has shown similar efficacy? We can go on and on and on about systemic changes that need to happen but it’s a completely moot point on an individual level.— Rich_cb
Can we stop calling it hi-vis and just start calling it bright yellow? Then I am sure that the arguments and the studies will all seem to look rather ridiculous.
“The Danish study suggested”, so are we basing beliefs on suggestions now or cold hard statistical facts? And was it a multi party accident or personal injury accident that was reduced by a third by wearing yellow?
Rich_cb wrote:
Of course it isn’t.
If we encourage more people to ride bikes, we are all less likely to be hit. That ‘We’ includes ‘me’ and ‘you’. Drivers are more likely to be cyclists or have cyclists in their immediate social circle. Drivers will become accustomed to driving around cyclists. And the poison from the rentagobs in the likes of the Mail will lessen, if not from genuine empathy, from sheer market forces.
One of the main reasons consistently given for non-cyclists not getting on a bike is perception of danger, which they consistently overestimate. Encouraging cyclists to wear PPE has the nasty side-effect of… Well, have a guess. Do you think it a) propagates an image of cycling as a dangerous activity, b) has bugger-all side effects, or c) don’t give a shit because all that matters is YOU, the individual, and a study reported in a journal that you like the cover of said it might make YOU a bit safer, while ignoring a load of other stuff.
If you answered mostly b) or c), congratulations: you are Rich_cb – you refuse to accept that what affects ‘us’ boils down to the ‘me’ and are completely safe from head injury due to it being permanently buried in sand.
If you answered a), pull yourself together, you communist hippy. Watch Wall Street and read missives from Thatcher until all that matters is YOU. And then continue to ignore inconvenient truths that you don’t like which will also make YOU safer, because they don’t suit your argument. Also lunch is for wimps.
davel wrote:
You’re asking me to put myself at greater risk of having an accident on my daily commute because it might make someone else safer at some undefined point in the future.
Get some proof for your little theories and I might just listen. Until then I’ll stick to what I’m doing.
Rich_cb wrote:
I actually agree with both points quoted here (barring the Thatcher stuff, which is a bit off-topic).
But I just don’t get what you, Rich_CB, are trying to accomplish. Are you evangelising for high-viz (which you’ve already admitted is an individual issue, i.e. a decision for an individual, so not a collective issue that requires collective action or campaigning or promotion) or are you just desperately trying to justify and defend your own choice to wear it (because you feel oddly guilty or defensive about it)?
Just wear it if you think it is good for you, I don’t _think_ anyone here wants to ban it or favours abusing those who wear it, but why go on and on about it as if you are eager to persuade everyone else to do the same?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Initially I posted a link to the study mentioned in the article.
I then tried my best to answer a few questions about it.
I’m happy for everybody to make their own decisions and I certainly won’t try and make anyone feel guilty for choosing differently to me.
As far as I’m concerned the more people riding bikes the better regardless of what they wear when they’re doing it.
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re asking me to put myself at greater risk of having an accident on my daily commute because it might make someone else safer at some undefined point in the future.
Get some proof for your little theories and I might just listen. Until then I’ll stick to what I’m doing.— davel
No, it WILL make you safer in the future.
Anyhow, here’s a shedload of links for what puts people off cycling.
https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/barriers-cycling
And this represents your silliness and why people are frustrated with your obsession.
davel wrote:
You are failing to engage with the point I’m making. Look at your little triangle.
How many of those options are available to me before I ride to work in the morning?
I can change the way I cycle. I can use PPE.
That’s it.
On an individual level PPE is one of the only options available to make my journey safer.
You say you want people to feel safer cycling and you want more people to cycle.
Have you ever considered that many of the people who cycle festooned in all manner of PPE may not feel safe enough to cycle without it?
That your crusade against high vis may actually reduce cycling numbers rather than augment them?
Rich_cb wrote:
Quite a few of the people I see wearing hi-viz or ppe or whatever, appear to be cycling in their working clothes. The number of people wearing hi-viz, ppe or whatever may have no consideration for or thought of the relationship between hi-viz, ppe or whatever and cycling safety. Hi-viz, ppe or whatever might not have any effect on their cycling habits.
Low salaries and manual labour appear to be a greater influence on the choice of people cycling, or not, rather than any other middle class choice that we believe.
Rich_cb wrote:
:))
Bit early to be high, Rich.
There is one poster in this thread who consistently fails to address points that are inconvenient or contradictory to their argument. Same with the helmet stuff.
Meanwhile, yes: of course I’ve considered why individuals who wear hi-viz might be doing so. Makes them feel safer. Might make them a bit safer, too, if one or two studies is to be believed. We’ve done that point, haven’t we? Read back through my posts and you can see that I really haven’t failed to engage that.
What you can do as an individual. Well, there’s a question. Instead of – or maybe even as well as! – pontificating about PPE for an activity that the odds are you have to do for thousands of years before you’ll experience a KSI, maybe you do something to campaign against all the things that other posters have mentioned many times as bigger factors in us actually getting killed on the roads. The points that you consistently fail to engage with.
Too much like hard work? Back you go then to your bright green plastic: that’ll make the world a better place for our kids and grandkids.
davel wrote:
The two positions aren’t mutually exclusive.
As I’ve mentioned previously.
There is very high quality evidence that hi vis makes you safer when you’re cycling.
Wearing hi vis doesn’t stop you trying to make cycling safer for everybody in all manner of other ways.
You argue that PPE should be a late resort but fail to acknowledge that it is virtually the only option available to the individual cyclist.
What other options are available to the individual cyclist that will have an immediate effect? (Safe, assertive cycling on a roadworthy bike being a given.)
Answer that question without going on about systemic change and maybe you won’t get accused of not engaging in the discussion.
Rich_cb wrote:
That’s a tiny number of people though. Whether those people cycle or not isn’t going to make any real difference to anything. Why do you believe that it is? What’s the ‘modal share’ of ‘cyclists clad entirely in bright yellow who wouldn’t cycle otherwise’? Bearing in mind they are subgroup of an already very small group that is ‘existing cyclists’.
In any case, I don’t think there’s a ‘crusade against high viz’, so much as a one against the promotion of, and focus on, high-viz.
This Danish study even seems like part of that promotion, regardless of how good the science in it is, because of the decsision to ask that particular question in the first place. It does seem that a bias towards the status quo is inevitable in that respect, as questions that indirectly support it are far easier to ask and academics have to publish as much as possible in order to keep their jobs.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
That’s a tiny number of people though. Whether those people cycle or not isn’t going to make any real difference to anything. Why do you believe that it is? What’s the ‘modal share’ of ‘cyclists clad entirely in bright yellow who wouldn’t cycle otherwise’? Bearing in mind they are subgroup of an already very small group that is ‘existing cyclists’.
In any case, I don’t think there’s a ‘crusade against high viz’, so much as a one against the promotion of, and focus on, high-viz.
This Danish study even seems like part of that promotion, regardless of how good the science in it is, because of the decsision to ask that particular question in the first place. It does seem that a bias towards the status quo is inevitable in that respect, as questions that indirectly support it are far easier to ask and academics have to publish as much as possible in order to keep their jobs.— Rich_cb
I don’t think bias is the right word.
As discussed previously it’s the scientific approach.
Make an observation. Generate hypothesis. Test hypothesis.
If you’re making observations you’re obviously going to observe things that are occurring. That’s inevitable.
If the study had shown hi vis to be ineffective would it have been promotion then?
Whatever the number of people put off cycling by Davel and his ilk it’s still too many.
Rich_cb wrote:
No rabbit hole too small, eh Richie?
Please do explain how arguing against the disproportionate promotion of cycling PPE results in people being put off cycling.
On your other point about immediate steps available to the individual: I’ve never argued against that. I’ve argued against some of the conclusions you’ve made, and the confidence with which you’ve made them. But it’s mainly against the amount of effort and prioritisation that these minimal efforts get, and the unintended consequences that do have an impact on the wider cycling population. That’s my point. As I keep saying. And you keep ignoring.
davel wrote:
Nice diversion. You berate people who use PPE, that will put people off.
I addressed your point. PPE is not a systemic solution. I’ve never argued that it is. I’ve engaged with and agreed with your argument at a systemic level.
You argue PPE is a last resort. I agree. I’ve engaged with and agreed with your argument at a systemic level.
I argue that we have reached that last resort at an individual level.
Can you think of any other resorts available to the individual?
In order to engage with the debate you have to provide an answer to that question.
Otherwise your own position encourages the wearing of hi vis at an individual level.
Rich_cb wrote:
No rabbit hole too small, eh Richie?
Please do explain how arguing against the disproportionate promotion of cycling PPE results in people being put off cycling.
On your other point about immediate steps available to the individual: I’ve never argued against that. I’ve argued against some of the conclusions you’ve made, and the confidence with which you’ve made them. But it’s mainly against the amount of effort and prioritisation that these minimal efforts get, and the unintended consequences that do have an impact on the wider cycling population. That’s my point. As I keep saying. And you keep ignoring.
— Rich_cb Nice diversion. You berate people who use PPE, that will put people off.— davel
…and this particular argument’s fallen at the first hurdle. How is asking YOU to explain a point that YOU made a diversion??
Besides: No. I. Don’t. Read back through this thread, or others, if you like. No berating of people who wear PPE. Quite a few posts where I say I often wear a helmet.
I think I’ll join the lengthy list of posters who are weary of your black-is-white nonsense.
davel wrote:
Why don’t you answer my questions?
Your argument, when followed, encourages the use of hi vis for individuals.
Why on earth would you be avoiding engagement on that point?
Rich_cb wrote:
…and this particular argument’s fallen at the first hurdle. How is asking YOU to explain a point that YOU made a diversion??
Besides: No. I. Don’t. Read back through this thread, or others, if you like. No berating of people who wear PPE. Quite a few posts where I say I often wear a helmet.
I think I’ll join the lengthy list of posters who are weary of your black-is-white nonsense.
— Rich_cb Why don’t you answer my questions? Your argument, when followed, encourages the use of hi vis for individuals. Why on earth would you be avoiding engagement on that point?— davel
Rich, davel,
I think the point has been reached where there isn’t much more to gained from continuing this discussion (although you might be having a great time?).
As far as I can tell:
Unlike the use of hi-vis, I’m not sure that there is even vaguely robust research on the relationship between individuals’ PPE use and wider cultural issues. So any argument as to the strength of the relationship between them or their relative scale (i.e. which is more important) falls almost entirely to subjectivity.
We’re are all entitled to our opinions, of course, and while it’s also OK to respectfully challenge others on this kind of forum, it gets to a point where it’s best agreeing to disagree since: (i) there’s little more to be gained by continuing (no-one is going to concede), and (ii) there are better things to do with the time (IMO almost anything at this point!).
Feel free to disagree but I’ll be too busy sorting out Israel-Palestine to reply.
Rich_cb wrote:
That’s a tiny number of people though. Whether those people cycle or not isn’t going to make any real difference to anything. Why do you believe that it is? What’s the ‘modal share’ of ‘cyclists clad entirely in bright yellow who wouldn’t cycle otherwise’? Bearing in mind they are subgroup of an already very small group that is ‘existing cyclists’.
In any case, I don’t think there’s a ‘crusade against high viz’, so much as a one against the promotion of, and focus on, high-viz.
This Danish study even seems like part of that promotion, regardless of how good the science in it is, because of the decsision to ask that particular question in the first place. It does seem that a bias towards the status quo is inevitable in that respect, as questions that indirectly support it are far easier to ask and academics have to publish as much as possible in order to keep their jobs.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos I don’t think bias is the right word. As discussed previously it’s the scientific approach. Make an observation. Generate hypothesis. Test hypothesis. If you’re making observations you’re obviously going to observe things that are occurring. That’s inevitable. If the study had shown hi vis to be ineffective would it have been promotion then? Whatever the number of people put off cycling by Davel and his ilk it’s still too many.— Rich_cb
And as I pointed out previously, it’s simplistic to simply declare there’s a thing called ‘the scientific approach’ that occurs outside of a political and social context. Certainly when it comes to social questions as opposed to examining physical objects.
(The study didn’t just observe things occuring, it caused things to occur in order to oberve them – cyclists were issued or not issuesd high-viz jackets. That didn’t just ‘occur’. What things you can cause to occur is going to depend on politics – .e.g they didn’t decide to study the outcomes of banning motorised vehicles, say, because that wasn’t in their power to do)
And how many people have been put off ‘by Davel and his ilk’? Do you have some solid figures for that or is it something unscientific you made up? My point is even in the extreme case (that isn’t happening and that nobody has called for) of high-viz being banned, we won’t end up much worse off than we are anyway, in terms of numbers of cyclists. So arguing against high-viz clearly isn’t the problem you claim it is, the issue is those who expend energy on pushing high-viz (including, perhaps, doing experiments that ask such questions as the Danish study does) when they could put that energy into arguging for more restrictions on cars.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I think you’ve confused two separate aspects of the trial process.
The trial itself isn’t the observation, it’s the testing.
The trial has to follow agreed processes in order to be valid.
As an objective measurement of the efficacy of hi vis I don’t see how it could be considered promotion.
If it had shown hi vis to be massively detrimental to safety it would have destroyed the argument for hi vis promotion.
As for ‘Davel and his ilk’ their effect is nebulous and likely immeasurable, much like the effect of hi vis promotion…
Rich_cb wrote:
And as I pointed out previously, it’s simplistic to simply declare there’s a thing called ‘the scientific approach’ that occurs outside of a political and social context. Certainly when it comes to social questions as opposed to examining physical objects.
(The study didn’t just observe things occuring, it caused things to occur in order to oberve them – cyclists were issued or not issuesd high-viz jackets. That didn’t just ‘occur’. What things you can cause to occur is going to depend on politics – .e.g they didn’t decide to study the outcomes of banning motorised vehicles, say, because that wasn’t in their power to do)
And how many people have been put off ‘by Davel and his ilk’? Do you have some solid figures for that or is it something unscientific you made up? My point is even in the extreme case (that isn’t happening and that nobody has called for) of high-viz being banned, we won’t end up much worse off than we are anyway, in terms of numbers of cyclists. So arguing against high-viz clearly isn’t the problem you claim it is, the issue is those who expend energy on pushing high-viz (including, perhaps, doing experiments that ask such questions as the Danish study does) when they could put that energy into arguging for more restrictions on cars.
— Rich_cb I think you’ve confused two separate aspects of the trial process. The trial itself isn’t the observation, it’s the testing. The trial has to follow agreed processes in order to be valid. As an objective measurement of the efficacy of hi vis I don’t see how it could be considered promotion. If it had shown hi vis to be massively detrimental to safety it would have destroyed the argument for hi vis promotion. As for ‘Davel and his ilk’ their effect is nebulous and likely immeasurable, much like the effect of hi vis promotion…— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I think you are the one who is confused. You don’t answer the point I made at all – academics are under a constant pressure to publish things, and some kinds of trial are far easier to carry out than others, namely the kinds that involve changes in behaviour by those with less power rather than those with more.
If you think ‘Davel and his ilk’ making the occasional forum post are somehow on a par with well-funded state and private campaigns pushing high-viz (and helemets) across all forms of media, you are very confused indeed.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
And how many people have been put off by
‘Davel and his ilk’?hi vis promotion; Do you have some solid figures for that or is it something unscientific you made up?You did confuse the two aspects of the process.
You also missed my point.
How can an objective measurement of efficacy be considered promotion?
Rich_cb wrote:
This is definitely measurable. It has a graph and everything.
davel wrote:
This is definitely measurable. It has a graph and everything.
— Rich_cb
Careful you don’t argue yourself into a corner again.
Rich_cb wrote:
This is definitely measurable. It has a graph and everything.
— davel Careful you don’t argue yourself into a corner again.— Rich_cb
Only in Rich_cbland is arguing against the promotion of cycling PPE the same as arguing for it, and equivalent to the promotion of it.
Thankfully, Rich_cbland only has one resident.
davel wrote:
Tell me again about what we should do as a last resort to protect ourselves?
Rich_cb wrote:
Only in Rich_cbland is arguing against the promotion of cycling PPE the same as arguing for it, and equivalent to the promotion of it.
Thankfully, Rich_cbland only has one resident.
— Rich_cb Tell me again about what we should do as a last resort to protect ourselves?— davel
Surely the last resort to protect ourselves would be to weaponise and go full vigilante?
Rich_cb wrote:
Only in Rich_cbland is arguing against the promotion of cycling PPE the same as arguing for it, and equivalent to the promotion of it.
Thankfully, Rich_cbland only has one resident.
— Rich_cb Tell me again about what we should do as a last resort to protect ourselves?— davel
Possibly wear PPE.
I’ve never said that helmets and hi-viz definitely don’t work. I reckon they have some use in certain circumstances – which, as an individual who might find themselves in those circumstances, that’s all you need to be convinced they ‘saved your life’ etc.
I’ve always said that.
I happen to think that any positive benefits they might have when aggregated to population level are outweighed by their promotion dissuading non-cyclists from taking it up, through missing out on the ‘safety in numbers’ effects, and which makes you, as an individual, more likely to get hit. I realise I can’t prove this.
I’ve always said that.
What is it with you trying to trip up posters who hold consistent views through seeking out weird angles?
davel wrote:
Took us a long time to get there.
I happen to disagree that PPE use/promotion has a negative effect.
There’s no proof of any population level effect.
There is very high quality evidence that it works on an individual level.
So, on balance, I’ll take the position with evidence to support it.
I haven’t tried to trip you up, merely followed your own argument to its conclusion.
Rich_cb wrote:
“Our main contribution is to show that in addition to the increase in helmet use, there is
also robust evidence for an unintended and previously undocumented mechanism: helmet laws
produced modest but statistically significant reductions in youth bicycling participation of 4-5
percent.”
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15658.pdf
ClubSmed wrote:
“Our main contribution is to show that in addition to the increase in helmet use, there is
also robust evidence for an unintended and previously undocumented mechanism: helmet laws
produced modest but statistically significant reductions in youth bicycling participation of 4-5
percent.”
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15658.pdf— Rich_cb
I wasn’t referring to laws. I agree that there is good evidence that mandatory helmet laws decrease participation.
Rich_cb wrote:
“Our main contribution is to show that in addition to the increase in helmet use, there is
also robust evidence for an unintended and previously undocumented mechanism: helmet laws
produced modest but statistically significant reductions in youth bicycling participation of 4-5
percent.”
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15658.pdf
— ClubSmed I wasn’t referring to laws. I agree that there is good evidence that mandatory helmet laws decrease participation.— Rich_cb
Mandatory helmet laws is just the end point of a government promotion scale though, the extreme form if you will.
ClubSmed wrote:
I disagree. They’re very different beasts.
A look at helmet/seatbelt wearing rates before and after legislation shows the relative powers of persuasion.
Carrot Vs Stick.
While we have pretty good evidence for the effects of laws we have very little for the effects of promotion.
We don’t even have an agreed definition of what constitutes promotion.
Rich_cb wrote:
Mandatory helmet laws is just the end point of a government promotion scale though, the extreme form if you will.
— Rich_cb I disagree. They’re very different beasts. A look at helmet/seatbelt wearing rates before and after legislation shows the relative powers of persuasion. Carrot Vs Stick. While we have pretty good evidence for the effects of laws we have very little for the effects of promotion. We don’t even have an agreed definition of what constitutes promotion.— ClubSmed
No but as highlighted earlier, we have clear examples of what constitutes victim blaming.
Speeding, not paying attention, breaking the law in an unsafe car, flee the scene in broad daylight, unsafe road infrastructure… Get the defence lawyer and media outlets to focus on what the cyclist was or was not wearing.
Hmmm, flawed logic!
Rich_cb wrote:
What are you on?! My first post on page 1 of this thread – ‘PPE is the last resort’. 100 perfuckingcent consistent with what I’ve said on every other page.
I’ll just leave myself a note in case I ever feel like being pulled into this sort of silliness in future: go and bang your head against an actual wall. It’s more rewarding and much more immediate.
davel wrote:
What are you on?! My first post on page 1 of this thread – ‘PPE is the last resort’. 100 perfuckingcent consistent with what I’ve said on every other page.
I’ll just leave myself a note in case I ever feel like being pulled into this sort of silliness in future: go and bang your head against an actual wall. It’s more rewarding and much more immediate.— Rich_cb
WOW!!
Now then gentlemen, are we talking about all the hi-vis (PPE) colours or just about yellow (as was the Danish jacket in question)
davel wrote:
Yep. I agreed with you but asked what other resort an individual had.
You avoided answering directly and went on about campaigning for systemic changes.
I left the discussion not wanting to waste my time.
You then chipped in to another discussion with a bizarre rant about Thatcher and Wall Street.
You continued to avoid the question about what other option an individual had.
You finally acknowledged that as an individual PPE was the only remaining resort whilst claiming ( without any evidence) that systemically it caused harm when individuals chose to wear it.
You then claimed to have held the same position throughout despite avoiding answering the question on the choices available to an individual for virtually the entire thread.
I think we’ve come as close as we ever will to agreeing on this so I’m going to leave it there.
Have a wonderful day.
Rich_cb wrote:
You think that their effect is vague yet too vast to be measured? Or did you perhaps mean “unmeasurable”?
ClubSmed wrote:
You think that their effect is vague yet too vast to be measured? Or did you perhaps mean “unmeasurable”?— Rich_cb
Clearly the former…
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
*
Rich Cb.
Rich Cb.
If a single study from around the world found that fewer woman were raped if they wore a specific type of garment would you make it compulsory to wear such? Going by your thinking that’s exactly what you would do.
If women who weren’t wearing it you’d blame them if they were then raped right!
Hi-vis just like helmets promotes victim blaming (michael mason being an extreme but very valid example) and continues to lower the responsibility, the awareness by those that kill and maim as well as changing the mindset of society as a whole.
You need only look at how children are being targetted in schools with ‘safety’ campaigns and finger pointing as those at fault for death and injury by government when struck by dangerous/speeding/Inattentive motorists.
Does this reduce child deaths/injuries by wearing hi-vis, no, it only serves to validate piss poor driving, same as its always done when others are askked to modify their behaviour as a concession to safety so those presenting the harm have less too consider.
As the report notes and is highlighted by Pushing50, once you flood the scene with same the effect to stand out it is negated.
The authors clearly underestimate this. You only have to look at how having DRLs have failed as a safety feature, having a red rear light allowed motorists to drive with less care at night to the point we have police stating in incidents were a cyclist was travelling lawfully that the “lights weren’t very bright”, to the point that even like minded people who ride bikes see a 200m range of seeing a red rear light as “poor” or insufficient.
Continuing to go in this direction has not only not saved more lives, it’s a heinous crime against society.
Frankly you and your disgusting notions that make my life/wellbeing more at threat of harm and push blame/responsibility on to me whilst taking that away from those that kill, maim and threaten harm can go to hell.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Have I argued for compulsion?
You’ve made the same mistake in drawing an equivalence between the evidence and the author’s opinion.
If the findings of the trial are correct then hi vis should reduce injuries and fatalities as fewer collisions will occur.
Campaigning for safer roads and believing that hi vis is effective are not mutually exclusive positions.
Until we have eliminated negligent drivers there will always be a safety argument for increasing your own visibility.
Also there is good evidence that Daylight Running Lights reduce accidents.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457512002606
I can see that you are going
I can see that you are going to be pig headed in your belief that hi-vis is as much a neccessity as wearing a helmet. I did not get involved in that debate, so I am wondering why I am getting involved in this one. Believe what you want. The statistics you present are flawed (shit just look at the correction adjustment algorythms) and the report even suggests this could be so. Opinion does count and I do put this ahead of this study. You have your opinions, I have mine. There are various reasons for not being seen in hi-vis yellow for certain situations, as has been well documented. You ignore these studies and pick out the one the one that suits your belief and agenda, I do not care. This is not an exact science and this is what people have been trying to point out to you. Also the report does not categorically state that wearing hi-vis reduced your risk of being in an accident with another road user by a third.
Pushing50 wrote:
It states that the corrected reduction in multiparty accidents was 38%.
You can put opinion ahead of an RCT if you want but that is the complete opposite of how evidence is normally ranked.
That choice reflects your own bias.
Rich, I see your
Rich, I see your unquestionable evidence but provide this:
The rate of fatal injury per 100,000 construction workers dropped from 2.12 in 2015/16 to 1.37 in 2016/17.
However, this was still well above the all-industry average for the latest year of 0.43
Hard hats and hi viz appears to make it more dangerous. FACT.
alansmurphy wrote:
A helpful demonstration of your ignorance. Thank you.
Rich_cb wrote:
A helpful demonstration of your ignorance. Thank you.— alansmurphy
Yeah but I’m not dead because I’m not wearing hi viz and a hard hat am I, therefore you are wrong.
I followed your methodology to the letter of the law. Find a big sample size, find something that shows a correlation to your own bias, correlate, present as irrefutable and attack with total stupidity anyone who points out the flaws…
alansmurphy wrote:
Total stupidity is at least something you’ve had plenty of practice with.
Ask any engineering or
Ask any engineering or construction grown-up: PPE is the last resort, the ‘just in case’ when everything else has been dealt with.
davel wrote:
I’d agree that PPE is the last resort but unfortunately on an individual level that’s where we are.
On an individual level what other resort do you have?
You cycle assertively and safely but that is absolutely no guarantee of avoiding an accident.
Rich_cb wrote:
Well, I wonder whether you’re devoting your time to the threats to our safety proportionately.
I have no idea what other Web debates or campaigns you might be involved in, and it’s your time, and this isn’t an attempt to guilt-trip or smother you any other way.
But if I spent, say, 1 hour espousing the virtues of cyclist PPE, I’d probably then feel the need to spend a couple of hundred hours campaigning for things that might actually make a noticeable difference, to our safety, like improvements in driving standard, or car-free zones, or more traffic cops, or strict liability, or the removal of useless and biased transport ministers, or proper infrastructure.
That’s one available option as an individual.
[/quote] I’d agree that PPE
[/quote] I’d agree that PPE is the last resort but unfortunately on an individual level that’s where we are. On an individual level what other resort do you have? You cycle assertively and safely but that is absolutely no guarantee of avoiding an accident.
Correct; we agree. You ride assertively and safely but that is ablolutely no guarantee of avoiding an accident.
Also; we make ourselves as visible as possible with hundreds of lumens flashing and wearing bright colours (not neccessarily hi-vis) and this is also absolutely no guarantee of avoiding an accident.
So, what is the point? I try to do exactly what you try to do, and alert my presence to drivers (I tend to wear red (FYI)). Statistically, according to the Danish report, this should reduce the risk of me having a PIA by 1/3 (suggesting that bright red is as conspicuous a colour as bright yellow). I have not had a PIA for a dozen or more years even when I did not give thought to colour. The report is not scientific but based on maybes, perhaps and the luck and perception of the riders involved is it not?
Pushing50 wrote:
This is a good example of a strawman.
Neither Rich_cb nor the Danish research nor anything I’ve ever read about hi-vis (or any kind of safety measure) claimed anything was a guarantee of avoiding an accident.
Duncann wrote:
This is a good example of a strawman.
Neither Rich_cb nor the Danish research nor anything I’ve ever read about hi-vis (or any kind of safety measure) claimed anything was a guarantee of avoiding an accident.— Pushing50
I got that straight from a Rich_cb comment
Pushing50 wrote:
The report is scientific. It’s about as scientific as it’s possible to be when looking at hi vis.
Thankfully injuries in collisions with cars are rare (not rare enough granted) so you need to study a very large number of cyclists to determine if a particular intervention has an effect.
The Danish study looked at nearly 7000 cyclists over the course of an entire year. The vast majority of them had no accidents whatsoever but there was a big enough difference between the two groups to be able to show a beneficial effect from wearing a hi vis jacket.
Rich_cb wrote:
Correct; we agree. You ride assertively and safely but that is ablolutely no guarantee of avoiding an accident.
Also; we make ourselves as visible as possible with hundreds of lumens flashing and wearing bright colours (not neccessarily hi-vis) and this is also absolutely no guarantee of avoiding an accident.
So, what is the point? I try to do exactly what you try to do, and alert my presence to drivers (I tend to wear red (FYI)). Statistically, according to the Danish report, this should reduce the risk of me having a PIA by 1/3 (suggesting that bright red is as conspicuous a colour as bright yellow). I have not had a PIA for a dozen or more years even when I did not give thought to colour. The report is not scientific but based on maybes, perhaps and the luck and perception of the riders involved is it not?
— Rich_cb The report is scientific. It’s about as scientific as it’s possible to be when looking at hi vis. Thankfully injuries in collisions with cars are rare (not rare enough granted) so you need to study a very large number of cyclists to determine if a particular intervention has an effect. The Danish study looked at nearly 7000 cyclists over the course of an entire year. The vast majority of them had no accidents whatsoever but there was a big enough difference between the two groups to be able to show a beneficial effect from wearing a hi vis jacket.— Pushing50
Yes, it was ‘scientific’ within its terms, but, as with so much of the social sciences, its terms were so limited that it’s hard to say what the results actually mean. All it says it what happens in terms of RTCs (not entirely sure I like the paper’s use of the word ‘accident’) when existing cyclists within the existing population, with the existing context, voluntarily wear or don’t wear, high-viz.
It says nothing about the effects (on total health outcomes, not just RTCs) of the authorities or anyone with any degreee of power or influence focussing on high viz or promoting it, or (worse) making it compulsory.
At most it’s a bit of data to consider if you as an invididual are deciding whether you want to wear the stuff or not (I don’t, and all the study tells me is that a lot more work needs to be done to make the roads safe, even in Denmark – which is not up there with the Netherlands in any case, as I understand it, and personally I think even the Netherlands doesn’t go far enough).
It’s not really that important an issue though, and I question why you put so much emphasis on it.
Bias is not the word you are
Bias is not the word you are looking for. Experience is. Please read post 1 again. Your bias towards regarding this report as carte blanche evidence that wearing hi-vis will reduce your risk of a multiparty accident by 1/3 is somewhat flawed.
Maybe it is time for us all to start leaning up against lampposts.
Pushing50 wrote:
Bias is the exact right word.
Anecdotes and opinion are not reliable sources of evidence.
Post 1 is an anecdote. As evidence it’s close to worthless.
Thinking about it, it seems
Thinking about it, it seems to me that the choice of what questions to ask is not a neutral, scientific one, it depends on what sorts of studies the political context makes possible. The social sciences are intrinsically political, for that reason, and hence are always limited in how truly ‘scientific’ they can be.
If you are just attempting to
If you are just attempting to put forward a scientific argument on numbers alone then yes, the Danish did a comprehnsive job. However I am still to be convinced that the element of luck,circumstance and misconception was taken out of the equation. Humans are easily manipulated, especially by numbers, statistics and rules.
Can I please make this clear. I am not against people wearing hi-vis for their perception of added safety. I am looking at this with a clear and unbiased view and cannot (at the moment) understand why it is, that no matter what I wear, how I ride etc. that wearing yellow (the colour of the jacket concerned) is going to change the opinion of (possibly) the majority of drivers towards me whilst I ride on the public highway.
Pushing50 wrote:
A large enough RCT should minimise the effects of chance and statistical analysis will be used to confirm this has taken place.
Of the other studies, the Italian study didn’t look at the effect of hi vis itself, just the effect of the law.
The Bath study didn’t look at collisions, just close passes and the other study was far smaller and a case control study.
These are widely accepted to produce poorer quality evidence than RCTs especially when small.
Rich_cb wrote:
If you are just attempting to put forward a scientific argument on numbers alone then yes, the Danish did a comprehnsive job. However I am still to be convinced that the element of luck,circumstance and misconception was taken out of the equation. Humans are easily manipulated, especially by numbers, statistics and rules.
Can I please make this clear. I am not against people wearing hi-vis for their perception of added safety. I am looking at this with a clear and unbiased view and cannot (at the moment) understand why it is, that no matter what I wear, how I ride etc. that wearing yellow (the colour of the jacket concerned) is going to change the opinion of (possibly) the majority of drivers towards me whilst I ride on the public highway.
— Rich_cb A large enough RCT should minimise the effects of chance and statistical analysis will be used to confirm this has taken place. Of the other studies, the Italian study didn’t look at the effect of hi vis itself, just the effect of the law. The Bath study didn’t look at collisions, just close passes and the other study was far smaller and a case control study. These are widely accepted to produce poorer quality evidence than RCTs especially when small.— Pushing50
Yes, the Danish study is statistically well done, but I would have thought that hi-vis wearing In Denmark was so unusual that it was bound to catch drivers’ eyes and so lead to better safety figures. The study needs replicating in a situation where hi-vis is much more common, and possibly therefore more easily ignored: i.e the UK.
When I say opinion take that
When I say opinion take that as; if I am wearing yellow, red, black, white, blue, green etc.
I know that yellow is considered the brightest (although as stated I am not a colour scientist) however a cyclist wearing any of the other colours imaginable is still generally visible from a long way off.
If I go back to the original article, are the counter studies from Bath and Nottingham and Italy not valid?
I look forward to your education.
Rich, as I have said before I
Rich, as I have said before I am not a colour scientist and I appreciate the argument that you put forward about hi-vis, however this study of 7000 was for one coloured jacket only. As I have also said my colour of choice is bright red. I am wondering if the same results would have been found for bright red, day glo orange, shocking pink, electric blue. If the same results would be assumed, then surely more work needs to be done on the Danish experiment? I also accept the point that a previous poster alludes but would hate to wish for. What is the driving mentality differences between U.K. and Danish motorists and should the same study be done here?
Pushing50 wrote:
In an ideal world we’d have a similar study for every colour and piece of equipment (even helmets…) in every country.
Unfortunately we’re very unlikely to get anything approaching that so as you said we have to make assumptions.
Cycling is more common in Denmark than the UK so drivers will be more used to looking for cyclists at junctions etc.
The country has approximately the same latitude as the UK so day length etc will be roughly equivalent.
The findings were so significant that even if a jacket was only half as effective as the one studied it would still be worthwhile wearing it.
Given the anti-cyclist
Given the anti-cyclist mentality of some drivers, I’d be concerned hi-vis would mark me out as a target to hit as opposed to a person to avoid.
I think the best, and at the same time worst argument for wearing hi-vis (and helmets) is that if you’re KSI’d, the driver will have a better chance of having to face some kind of realistic justice and their insurance company may pay out a more realistic amount of compensation.
We live in a car-centric society in which the police investigating, the CPS prosecuting, the magistrates/judge presiding and the jury deciding will more than likely be drivers and less than likely be cyclists. As such they already have a bias as they consider how easy it is to make a split-second mistake and how it could just as easily have been them on trial.
We know that if a cyclist is killed in broad daylight from crushing abdominal injuries, it will be noted at the scene and brought up at trial as to whether they were wearing hi-vis and a helmet. This gives many the excuse they’re looking for to aquit, or at least to soften the sentence to the point of being no more than a slap in the wrist.
Thank you to Rich_cb for the
Thank you to Rich_cb for the most reasoned, collected, non-inflammatory, cogent set of answers to serious questions on any thread I’ve seen ever.
Quite simply, Rich_cb didn’t push any case for mandation of hi-vis (thanks BTBS), and hasn’t evens suggested that it should be the focus of efforts in reducing accidents (thanks Fluffy kitten, Pushing 50, and Davel) but has simply said that there is good science to suggest that the wearing of hi-viz yellow has an effect in reducing accidents to individual cyclists. This is a simple, demonstrable point.
DO go out there and campaign for higher driver awareness (start with compulsory lights on bikes and all vehicles in day or night time), but don’t waste your time trying to make people look more carefully – it makes no difference;
DO go out and encourage as many people as possible to take up cycling as a means of recreation and transport;
DO foment for safer infrastructure design
DO chase your local MP to enshrine cycling and other non-motorised transports in the same cocoon of self -righteous entitlement currently enjoyed by most drivers
DO protest, campaign, march, peacefully obstruct, educate and positively facilitate all efforts to raise our collective safety
but in the same way as you might eat 5 helpings of fruit and veg each day, or take your folic acid, or pop an aspirin as a prophylactic against heart disease, DON’T decry the efforts of those who seek to augment our individual safeties with such methods as recommending the wearing of Hi-Vis, helmets, bells or neck mounted air bags with the argument that there is more should be done in other directions. There is always more that can be done, generally on a community level, but this should not distract from the importance of taking your own individual safety to heart, and making the best decision you can based on the available evidence
madcarew wrote:
I agree largely with that. I think one point misses the mark by some way. The encouragement of cyclists to wear PPE creates the impression of a dangerous activity. One of the main reasons given for people not taking up cycling is their impression that it’s dangerous. Good luck ‘persuading as many people as possible’ to take up cycling.
But my main problem is, the stuff you mention is not happening proportionately, is it? The best-selling rags in this country don’t print an article about a cyclist being killed on page 4, quoting a lawyer saying that the cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet or fluorescent green, then fills the rest of the paper with the reasons drivers actually kill cyclists. PPE and victim-blaming is being given damagingly disproportionate attention, and used as a shitty stick to beat cyclists and those who might become cyclists.
I don’t know what Rich_cb does with the rest of his time, but the odds are that he doesn’t spend a proportionate amount of the time that he spends on here obsessing over PPE doing all the other stuff you mention.
In a nutshell, “fuck hi-viz til the stuff that will actually kill you is sorted”. Which could be the tagline of the enormous engineering firm that I worked for.
Of course it’s more nuanced than that. The studies he’s quoting have, of course, been done. I disagree with a lot of the leaps he then makes. But it’s a propaganda war. If you’re going to get a message over on the ADD, binary world of the Web, I’d much rather it was that, than ‘oh, but hang on, hi-viz has been proven to be effective in a set of conditions which you will never find yourself riding in’.
madcarew wrote:
In the same way that Rich_cb isn’t arguing for compulsory hi-vis, I haven’t seen anyone arguing for a ban on it. I have seen arguments for why it’s advantages might be overstated and for why there are counter-intuitive arguments as to why hi-vis may have negative and unintended consequences.
There’s the argument to suggest that the more ubiquitous hi-vis is, the less effective it becomes.
Then there’s how, much like with helmets, the perception for the need to wear PPE makes cycling seem far more dangerous than it actually is.
Or how about how it perpetuates a victim-blaming culture that absolves drivers of some or all of their responsibility to drive with due care and attention.
So while we can all agree that it is a matter of personal choice, that choice should where possible be made with as much information as possible.
madcarew wrote:
But Rich_CB has consistently gone on about high-viz and pushed people to use it, he clearly is on the team of those promoting it, why else does he keep banging on about it?
And the analogy with ‘5 fruit and veg a day’ doesn’t make any sense at all. In what way are the two issues supposed to be analogous? In your ‘fruit and veg’ analogy, what’s the parallel for bad-driving or poor road design? You seem to be equating human action and choices with the facts of natural processes. Doing the usual thing of treating drivers and road-planners as if they aren’t moral agents but just aspects of the natural world that can’t possibly change.
That’s a very poor analogy indeed. Almost dishonest, even.
madcarew wrote:
Stupid malfunctioning browser = double post.
[Maybe I’ll eventually think of something else to say here. Just have to wait for someone to say something I disagree with.]
My point that I was trying to
My point that I was trying to demonstrate and have healthy discussion with Rich_cb was my reluctance to accept that the wearing of yellow reduced the liklihood of having a PIA by a third. That is all, no more, no less. I realise that Rich has a far more analytical intelligence than I do and I am genuinely interested in this article. The study was for wearing a yellow jacket. I have doubts that blindly following the results of the study is a good thing.
For example (and I know that this is a very weak analysis and anecdotal) I have just got back from a ride with friends in the South Downs. One of the group was wearing hi-vis yellow and one was wearing bright blue. Seeing as Rich mentioned the car (actually taxi firm) study in singapore about yellow and blue vehicles, I thought that it might be fun to see which one I thought stood out best against the backdrop of the South Downs hills, daffodils, primroses etc. Without a doubt the blue one stood out the most. Now was this just bias, a misconception, an un-scientific and narrow study on my part? Probably but who really cares? Now, when the summer arrives and some of those same hills are covered in Rape crops, is the yellow or blue jacket going to be more visible. You make up your mind. I go back to post 1 (again agreed to be anecdotal) where I said that it does not matter what colour I wear, if it is reflective etc. and changing mentalities not the colour of the cloth.
I wholeheartedly agree that it is a responsibilty of mine to make myself as visible on the public highway as I can. I do this by wearing what I consider to be bright clothing during the day, reflectives (including full reflective rucksack for commute) at night, and use daylight flashing lumens. The only thing that I cannot physically do is make myself as big as a car.
You will have to excuse me if I am still dubious about wearing a yellow jacket as was done in this study. Finally Rich_cb, thank you for entering the discussion and putting over your points so eloquently and I feel that it was healthy and I understood other peoples points of view as well as yours and learned from it. I will still be wearing red though ;0)
I think we’ve all agreed that
I think we’ve all agreed that we agree on the main points, and agreed to disagree on the finer details.
My work here is done 🙂
I work in highway maintenance
I work in highway maintenance and construction, everyone thinks hi viz is a good idea. I ride horses, everyone thinks wearing hi viz if you go out on the road is a good idea. It seems self evident that wearing something eye catching *may* just mean you’re seen, or seen a few moments sooner, can’t see how it can make me less visible anyhow.
Maybe I’m more attuned to it but I certainly spot cyclists sooner in hi viz when I’m driving or cycling myself, and there are plenty of circumstances where you can struggle to spot the ninjas.
Cycling on British roads is dangerous, and I assume everyone is out to get me every time I go out. So if I can do any small things that might just skew the odds in my favour I will, regardless of what some bloke with an axe to grind and questionable statistics says on the web.
Yrcm wrote:
Do you mean hi-vis or yellow? Does your horse wear hi-vis or yellow? Or do you think that you wearing hi-vis (or yellow)on your horse make you more visible than the hulking great mass that you are sat astride?
Yrcm wrote:
This sound a lot like the ‘a cycle helmet saved my life’ anecdote. Given you saw the cyclists wearing hi-vis and the ones not wearing hi-vis, how do you know that you would have seen the non hi-vis ones sooner if they were wearing it and the hi-vis ones later if they weren’t?
This reminds me of photos taken by drivers of cyclists not wearing hi-vis complaining how difficult they are to see, apparently completely oblivious to the irony and the fact they are actually endangering themselves and others by using their phones at the wheel.
Pushing50 wrote:
It does if the horse is a dark colour. Especially if I happen to be in the shade on a sunny day or in low light.
Errrm, no to all of those. Hunts seem to operate on the basis that everyone else has to wait or get out of their way, if there are thirty horses on a narrow country lane there’s no way of missing them or getting past them.
Because hi viz / flourescent generally stands out from a dull background and dark colours don’t.
Yrcm wrote:
Do you mean hi-vis or yellow? Do you think that you on your horse, nine feet in the air with a large mass beneath you will not be visible if you are not wearing yellow? Why would you not be visible if wearing lilac, white, blue, green? The point that I am trying to make is that the Danish study that is being discussed is about the findings of wearing a yellow jacket. I simply cannot believe that you would not be visible on the UK country roads if you were wearing anything but yellow.
Yrcm wrote:
Because hi viz / flourescent generally stands out from a dull background and dark colours don’t.— Pudsey Pedaller
So my point stands. Previously you stated you were certain you saw the cyclists wearing hi-vis sooner because they were wearing hi-vis. You cannot know this without recreating the conditions exactly except for removing the hi-vis from the cyclists. This is analogous to someone starting that a cycle helmet saved their life.
Also, darker clothing generally stands out from a bright background.
Pudsey Pedaller wrote:
So my point stands. Previously you stated you were certain you saw the cyclists wearing hi-vis sooner because they were wearing hi-vis. You cannot know this without recreating the conditions exactly except for removing the hi-vis from the cyclists. This is analogous to someone starting that a cycle helmet saved their life. Also, darker clothing generally stands out from a bright background.[/quote]
You better tell the british army to go back to wearing red coats, camouflage is a waste of time.
Yrcm wrote:
I’ll tell them next time they are fighting straw men.
Yrcm wrote:
However there are different patterns and shades of camoflage depending on which environment they are fighting in. Desert is so different to the normal Green.
Now, is it any bright colour you are promoting, or just yellow?
You will see, the sport company POC have spent a lot of time and investment on their AVIP (Attention Visibility Interaction Protection) range of clothing. Not one thread of yellow appears in the range. They work on contrasting colours to a host of backgrounds and have found that the best colours for this purpose are orange, white and very dark blue (vitrtually black). Are these claims not as valid as your presumptions?
As for roadside construction workers, are they not just as visible wearing red than they are wearing yellow?
Pushing50 wrote:
At the risk of meddling in someone else’s argument, I recall reading that contrast is the key point. Fluoro yellow is often a vivid contrast to its surroundings on the road but light, bright colours also reflect light well to a greater or lesser degree (rail workers seem to wear orange). Darker colours would be good for being seen while skiing in a whiteout.
Movement is also helpful in catching the eye, e.g. pedal reflectors catch the attention more than seatpost or mudguard-mounted equivalents. Perhaps flashing lights use some similar logic.
Duncann wrote:
At the risk of meddling in someone else’s argument, I recall reading that contrast is the key point. Fluoro yellow is often a vivid contrast to its surroundings on the road but light, bright colours also reflect light well to a greater or lesser degree (rail workers seem to wear orange). Darker colours would be good for being seen while skiing in a whiteout.
Movement is also helpful in catching the eye, e.g. pedal reflectors catch the attention more than seatpost or mudguard-mounted equivalents. Perhaps flashing lights use some similar logic.
— Pushing50
Discussion, not argument (you cannot meddle in a discussion, just add to it
).
Your comment is the point that I am trying to make throughout. From what I know (which is little) the best contrasting colours for a power point presentation is yellow writing on a blue background. I think this is the same reason that the police use these same colours for their fleet’s chequered design. As far as I am aware, cones to segregate traffic in contra-flows are orange for daylight and reflective for night. If fluro yellow was so much more visible in daylight conditions on the road, then wouldn’t someone have thought about changing the colour of the cones by now, or have I just hit on something?
The obsession with yellow is overrated in my opinion (and it is opinion). All drivers can see red, red/white, brown, blue and green roadsigns if they are looking at them (even at night) so why not a red, red/white etc coloured jacket? We do not even see fluro yellow roadsigns but this is the most highly visible colour to some people…. Right?
Movement as you say is also helpful. Most cyclists when passed too closely are moving; are they not? I get the pedal movement idea which is why I wear Castelli Reflex overshoes at night and in dull conditions. I might start wearing flamingo pink knee length socks as I am sure that this will make me extremely visible on the bike during the day.
I am not a colour scientist,but colour has become a bit of a fascination over the past 48 hours
Pudsey Pedaller wrote:
I’ll tell them next time they are fighting straw men.[/quote]
Presumably in a snowstorm. Wearing colours that blend into your surroundings either makes you less conspicuous or it doesn’t, you can’t have it both ways.
We wear orange at work, and I do have some red / orange kit for the bike.
Yrcm wrote:
I’ll tell them next time they are fighting straw men.— Yrcm
Presumably in a snowstorm. Wearing colours that blend into your surroundings either makes you less conspicuous or it doesn’t, you can’t have it both ways.— Pudsey Pedaller
I’m not trying to have it both ways, that would be another straw man. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don’t understand my argument as opposed to you deliberately misrepresenting what I said.
When you said ‘I certainly spot cyclists sooner in hi viz when I’m driving or cycling myself’, I merely pointed out that you cannot know this. You have no way of knowing whether you would have spotted them sooner, later or at the exact same time if those same cyclists weren’t wearing hi-vis.
Any certainty you place on this belief is fallacious. It could be the fallacy of a self-evident truth that you alluded to in your original post. Alternatively, it could be the sunk-cost fallacy whereby you have spent time, effort and money in kitting yourself in hi-vis that you have to justify that investment to yourself by overstating its effectiveness to the point of it being magical.
Yrcm wrote:
That proves it then.
Yrcm wrote:
1. Hi-viz might be a ‘good idea’, but there are loads that are orders of magnitude better.
2. One death per 30 million miles does not a dangerous activity make.
I use lights all the time.
I use lights all the time. That means I can avoid the inconvenient stuff about *having* to wear a bright jacket and I can wear whatever I want as per the weather conditions.
Anyway, there’s only one sure fire way to be seen when you’re on a bike. Jump every red light and ride on the pavement. Miraculously, every motorist for miles around will see you (even if you’re dressed all in black, in fact *especially* if you’re dressed all in black!). They’ll then take to the comments pages of their local rag to tell everyone else how dangerous cyclists are, what a bunch of rule-breaking hooligans we all are…
Ride round lit up like a Christmas tree looking like you’ve been dipped in glue and rolled through a road safety campaign and you’ll get ignored and close passed!
Another thought just occured
Another thought just occured to me. Do you do the hunting thing on your horse. If so is it a good idea for the men on their mounts to be clad in red tunics and the woment to be ninjas (I take it you mean the wearing of black). These riders are seen on country roads. Has there been a study of the amount of riders dressed/not dressed in yellow on horses ever been conducted? If not, why does everyone think it is such a good idea when you are not fox hunting and just trotting slowly around the lanes?
Unfortunatly red is one of
Unfortunatly red is one of the most common colours colourblind people have difficulty in seeing.
I remember reading in the CTC magazine about a case of a colour blind driver getting off because the cyclist was in red. They of course must have had great diffuculty with Royal Mail artics and those pesky London double decker buses.
ktache wrote:
Now I am seriously thinking of ditching the red jacket and just going with the knee high flamingo pink socks in all circumstances! Or can pink not be seen through a certain make of sunlasses?
Pushing50 wrote:
Red-Green colour blindness is more common than Blue-Yellow, however the most common in the Red-Green bracket is *Deuteranomaly which the green cone photopigment is abnormal. Yellow and green appear redder and it is difficult to tell violet from blue. This condition is mild and doesn’t interfere with daily living.
*Protanomaly: In males with protanomaly, the red cone photopigment is abnormal. Red, orange, and yellow appear greener and colors are not as bright. This condition is mild and doesn’t usually interfere with daily living. Protanomaly is an X-linked disorder estimated to affect 1 percent of males.
*Protanopia: In males with protanopia, there are no working red cone cells. Red appears as black. Certain shades of orange, yellow, and green all appear as yellow. Protanopia is an X-linked disorder that is estimated to affect 1 percent of males.
Seeing as this is so rare a condition and such a low percentage (following my new found love for percentages and statistics), I think that I will change my mind and go back to the red jacket.
I am so fickle.
*National Eye Institute
Think this is being
Think this is being approached from the wrong direction, motorists have no apparent difficulty in seeing naked cyclists. I could be wrong but haven’t read of any KSI data relating to naked cycling, even with large groups such as The World Naked Cycling Day.
It’s worth reading the Danish
It’s worth reading the Danish study, which is available for free on the web. The first thing to recognise is that the “jacket” group were mostly not wearing the garment for about half the year when it was warmer. The second important observation is that for outcomes that might be considered important and verifiable, that is collisions with third parties that required medical attention or that resulted in a report to the police, there was no difference between the jacket and control groups. This is, of course, the sort of data that will have been analysed in the Italian study.
PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!
PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!
CygnusX1 wrote:
I have a cunning plan for you Cygnus.
If you do not click on this thread, then as far you are concerned it will have stopped!
felixcat wrote:
I began to feel really sick. But I could not shut my glazzies and even if I tried to move my glazballs about I still not get out of the line of fire of this thread.
Let me be sick… I want to get up. Get me something to be sick in… Stop the comments… Please stop it… I can’t stand it any more. Stop it please… please.
CLOCKWORK HI-VIS ORANGE
CygnusX1 wrote:
You can’t leave it alone, can you? You have only yourself to blame.
But whatever our opinions on
But whatever our opinions on hi viz, surely we can agree that only a fool would cycle without a helmet.
Bikebikebike wrote:
Sir, you have truly been sent from A Higher Place to save us mere mortals from our foolishness.
I beg you, allow me to bow down before you and kiss your big ring.
Is everyone wearing high viz
Is everyone wearing high viz yet?
My theory is that you’ve all cut your chances by a third, good news. Also, I’m wearing black so stand out against all your day-glo yellow so I’m safer too, just because you’re all different (I’m not)…
In fact given Rich’s views on helmets we are close to becoming indestructible – can we ride on motorways yet?
Rich CB, you ARE the
Rich CB, you ARE the definition of insidious, the sick thing is you actually believe your bullshit spin, you truly are a dangerous oerson with respect to safety for people on bikes. Congratulations! (that’s scarcasm btw).
I pray that you have no influence on anything other than if the toilet seat is lifted at your abode!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Evidence based decision making is a pretty dangerous thing.
Better to stick to more reliable sources of information right?
Tell me again about how the secret UN migration plot works?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
The question really is whether he has a hi viz bog seat and a helmet helmet..