Mandatory hi-vis had no influence on number of cyclists involved in collisions according to Italian study

davel 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.

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:

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?

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:

Rich_cb wrote:

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?

 

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.

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:

Whatever the number of people put off cycling by Davel and his ilk it's still too many.

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:

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.

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:

davel 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.

Nice diversion. You berate people who use PPE, that will put people off.

...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:

...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.

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:

davel 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.

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, 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:

• we (three) agree that at an individual level, hi-vis can be an effective personal safety aid and that its use should be a free individual choice
• we all agree that there are important wider safety issues which are related to - but distinct from - the hi-vis arguments. There are questions over the extent to which individuals' use, or more general "promotion" (a wide and vague term for conscious and unconscious activity), of high vis and other PPE contributes towards a culture where:

1. cyclists are seen as somehow responsible for others failings (particularly drivers' failure to pay proper attention) if they don't use PPE - even where it is irrelevant to specific cases (e.g. "A cyclist was crushed by a speeding HGV driven by a drunk looking at their phone. The cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet")
2. cycling is seen by the wider public as inherently dangerous (which we agree it isn't) because they see cyclists using PPE and think "looks a bit risky".

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:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

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?

 

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

FluffyKittenofTindalos 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.

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...

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:

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.

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:

As for 'Davel and his ilk' their effect is nebulous and likely immeasurable

This is definitely measurable. It has a graph and everything.

davel wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

As for 'Davel and his ilk' their effect is nebulous and likely immeasurable

This is definitely measurable. It has a graph and everything.

 

Careful you don't argue yourself into a corner again.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

As for 'Davel and his ilk' their effect is nebulous and likely immeasurable

This is definitely measurable. It has a graph and everything.

 

Careful you don't argue yourself into a corner again.

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:

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.

Tell me again about what we should do as a last resort to protect ourselves?

Rich_cb wrote:

davel 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.

Tell me again about what we should do as a last resort to protect ourselves?

Surely the last resort to protect ourselves would be to weaponise and go full vigilante?

Rich_cb wrote:

davel 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.

Tell me again about what we should do as a last resort to protect ourselves?

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:

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?

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:

I happen to disagree that PPE use/promotion has a negative effect. There's no proof of any population level effect.

"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:

Rich_cb wrote:

I happen to disagree that PPE use/promotion has a negative effect. There's no proof of any population level effect.

"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

I wasn't referring to laws. I agree that there is good evidence that mandatory helmet laws decrease participation.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

I happen to disagree that PPE use/promotion has a negative effect. There's no proof of any population level effect.

"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

I wasn't referring to laws. I agree that there is good evidence that mandatory helmet laws decrease participation.

Mandatory helmet laws is just the end point of a government promotion scale though, the extreme form if you will.

ClubSmed wrote:

<

Mandatory helmet laws is just the end point of a government promotion scale though, the extreme form if you will.

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:

ClubSmed wrote:

<

Mandatory helmet laws is just the end point of a government promotion scale though, the extreme form if you will.

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.

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:

Took us a long time to get there.

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:

Rich_cb wrote:

Took us a long time to get there.

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.

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:

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.

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:

As for 'Davel and his ilk' their effect is nebulous and likely immeasurable.

You think that their effect is vague yet too vast to be measured? Or did you perhaps mean "unmeasurable"?

ClubSmed wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

As for 'Davel and his ilk' their effect is nebulous and likely immeasurable.

You think that their effect is vague yet too vast to be measured? Or did you perhaps mean "unmeasurable"?

Clearly the former...