Dragons' Den backs indicators: another dodgy decision from the dragons on a cycling product

ktache wrote:

Did you go to the police car link?

It is the size of an estate car and has the word "Police" emblazoned on it.  Neither of which we can do.

I'm not saying that reflective clothing will prevent all collisions. It obviously won't.

There will be some drivers who are so negligent they will hit you regardless of what you're wearing and where/how you're riding.

I believe that there are some situations in which reflective clothing will reduce my chances of being hit, I believe that research backs up my view.

ktache wrote:

Did you go to the police car link?

It is the size of an estate car and has the word "Police" emblazoned on it.  Neither of which we can do.

I did say nothing helps against drunk or drivers not looking. But it's also possible that the police car was hit on purpose?

Are you suggesting we would be safer with no lights?
Or just the ever ready puny lights of the 80s?

Should we not use reflectives because police cars get hit?

ktache wrote:

Rich-cb, those 44% were not looking, they are not seeing you if you are lit up like a christmas tree and dressed like a reflective clown.

It isn't just cyclists they are hitting, 

Audis seem to like being driven into houses-

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/audis-in-houses/

Vehicles get driven into inanimate objects, many covered in high viz and reflectives-

https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/cyclists-need-more-sit...

And look, some idiot drove into a police car, which tend to be covered in lights both constant and flashing, and the entire thing is reflective and high viz-

https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/800787114724036609/photo/1?ref_src=...

One and a half thousand people will be pointlessly slaughtered this year and to most it will be an acceptable cost to be able to drive wherever and whenever they want.

The research specifically states that although they weren't looking properly that doesn't mean that they didn't look at all, so maybe a glance rather than a proper look.

In that scenario being lit up like the Blackpool illuminations will probably help.

I'm not defending motorists, they are to blame for most fatal accidents, I'm just trying to protect myself from them!

Rich_cb wrote:

In 10% of all fatal collisions involving a cyclist the wearing of dark clothing at night was found to be a contributing factor.

In 44% of fatal collisions the driver not looking properly for the cyclist was a contributing factor.

Drivers are significantly more likely to hit a cyclist from behind after dark. Collisions after dark are far more likely to result in death or serious injury.

Seems to me that in all the 3 scenarios above reflective clothing would make a fatal collision less likely.

This is based on a pretty huge piece of research commissioned by the Department for Transport.

Link:
https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR445

So in 90% of all fatal collisions involving a cyclist the wearing of dark clothing at night was found NOT to be a contributing factor!

atgni wrote:

So in 90% of all fatal collisions involving a cyclist the wearing of dark clothing at night was found NOT to be a contributing factor!

Most fatal collisions occur during the day. It's 10% of the overall figure, it would be a much higher percentage of accidents occurring at night.

Rich_cb wrote:

In 10% of all fatal collisions involving a cyclist the wearing of dark clothing at night was found to be a contributing factor.

In 44% of fatal collisions the driver not looking properly for the cyclist was a contributing factor.

Drivers are significantly more likely to hit a cyclist from behind after dark. Collisions after dark are far more likely to result in death or serious injury.

Seems to me that in all the 3 scenarios above reflective clothing would make a fatal collision less likely.

This is based on a pretty huge piece of research commissioned by the Department for Transport.

Link:
https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR445

1. Does the huge piece of research make your leap that reflectives would have helped for you, or do you have your own huge piece of research for that?

2. Exactly how do reflectives help in the 44% of cases where the driver isn't looking (and in the additional driver error categories, which, combined, make up the majority of cyclist KSIs)?

I get your earlier point about it not being binary - I agree with all of that post, to be fair - but I'd like to see, collectively, proportionately greater effort on campaigning about shit driver behaviour than lecturing other cyclists on taking responsibility for drivers' carelessness.

davel wrote:

1. Does the huge piece of research make your leap that reflectives would have helped for you, or do you have your own huge piece of research for that?

2. Exactly how do reflectives help in the 44% of cases where the driver isn't looking (and in the additional driver error categories, which, combined, make up the majority of cyclist KSIs)?

I get your earlier point about it not being binary, but I'd like to see, collectively, proportionately greater effort on campaigning about shit driver behaviour than lecturing other cyclists on taking responsibility for drivers' carelessness.

Firstly, if dark clothing at night is a contributing factor then it stands to reason that reflective clothing would reduce that risk.

Secondly, the research specifically emphasises that in the cases where the driver failed to look properly they are not saying that the driver did not look at all, simply that they did not notice the cyclist. Again it stands to reason that in at least some of those collisions if the rider were more visible the collision would not have happened.

I'm not taking the blame away from drivers, they are, as you said, responsible for the vast majority of fatal collisions.

I'm simply saying that as cyclists there are things we can do to reduce our risk of becoming a statistic.

I base my use of reflective clothing on personal experience but this research does back that experience up.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

1. Does the huge piece of research make your leap that reflectives would have helped for you, or do you have your own huge piece of research for that?

2. Exactly how do reflectives help in the 44% of cases where the driver isn't looking (and in the additional driver error categories, which, combined, make up the majority of cyclist KSIs)?

I get your earlier point about it not being binary, but I'd like to see, collectively, proportionately greater effort on campaigning about shit driver behaviour than lecturing other cyclists on taking responsibility for drivers' carelessness.

Firstly, if dark clothing at night is a contributing factor then it stands to reason that reflective clothing would reduce that risk.

Secondly, the research specifically emphasises that in the cases where the driver failed to look properly they are not saying that the driver did not look at all, simply that they did not notice the cyclist. Again it stands to reason that in at least some of those collisions if the rider were more visible the collision would not have happened.

I'm not taking the blame away from drivers, they are, as you said, responsible for the vast majority of fatal collisions.

I'm simply saying that as cyclists there are things we can do to reduce our risk of becoming a statistic.

I base my use of reflective clothing on personal experience but this research does back that experience up.

I'm not entirely disagreeing, but I'm extremely suspicious of reasoning and 'common sense' (ie. personal bias) being applied in lieu of actually diagnosing this problem properly. These arguments are extremely subjective and personal experience is largely irrelevant.

It's much like the 'I had an off and broke my helmet, so imagine what would have happened to my skull' argument that makes a leap that is unfounded and merely reinforces the teller's bias. This bias omits the negatives or alternatives.

The fact is that we don't know how effective reflectives and even lights on bikes are at preventing drivers hitting cyclists. We do know that lights and reflectives make a cyclist more visible in the dark. Going beyond that to 'lights and reflectives stop drivers hitting cyclists' is an unsupported leap. It isn't the only unsupported leap to make from that position - it just happens to be the one you prefer to make. We know that more drivers hit cyclists during the day; couldn't one postulate that drivers have started expecting cyclists to be Blackpool Illuminations on wheels so have stopped noticing them during the day when lights aren't on or are less effective? Do we *know* that drivers aren't becoming complacent and less safe because they expect cyclists and other 'obstacles' to be well-lit? Would it be safer if drivers expected streets full of ninja cyclists apparently emerging from nowhere?

I'm just cautioning on any line of 'common sense' leaps that don't put the onus on drivers to actually make a bit more effort to stop squashing squashy stuff. Don't dismiss the victim-blaming line: I don't think it's that simplistic an argument.

davel wrote:

I'm not entirely disagreeing, but I'm extremely suspicious of reasoning and 'common sense' (ie. personal bias) being applied in lieu of actually diagnosing this problem properly. These arguments are extremely subjective and personal experience is largely irrelevant.

It's much like the 'I had an off and broke my helmet, so imagine what would have happened to my skull' argument that makes a leap that is unfounded and merely reinforces the teller's bias. This bias omits the negatives or alternatives.

The fact is that we don't know how effective reflectives and even lights on bikes are at preventing drivers hitting cyclists. We do know that lights and reflectives make a cyclist more visible in the dark. Going beyond that to 'lights and reflectives stop drivers hitting cyclists' is an unsupported leap. It isn't the only unsupported leap to make from that position - it just happens to be the one you prefer to make. We know that more drivers hit cyclists during the day; couldn't one postulate that drivers have started expecting cyclists to be Blackpool Illuminations on wheels so have stopped noticing them during the day when lights aren't on or are less effective? Do we *know* that drivers aren't becoming complacent and less safe because they expect cyclists and other 'obstacles' to be well-lit? Would it be safer if drivers expected streets full of ninja cyclists apparently emerging from nowhere?

I'm just cautioning on any line of 'common sense' leaps that don't put the onus on drivers to actually make a bit more effort to stop squashing squashy stuff. Don't dismiss the victim-blaming line: I don't think it's that simplistic an argument.

I do think you're being deliberately obtuse here.

The research shows dark clothes at night are a contributing factor in 10% of all fatal crashes.

If you can't avoid riding at night then the only part of that contributing factor you can change is the dark clothing.

I don't think it's biased at all to assume that lighter clothing would be beneficial, if there were no difference between light and dark clothing then dark clothing wouldn't be listed as a contributing factor.

Reflective clothing is as light as it gets at night.

In an ideal world car drivers would look carefully before any manoeuvre and if , as you suggested, all cyclists dressed head to toe in black and rode around unlit then maybe they would.

I think a lot of cyclists would have to die before your experiment starting showing results and as human sacrifice has never really interested me I'm afraid I'll have to decline to take part.

I don't think that s/he is being obtruse. The research shows dark clothes* at night are a CONTRIBUTING factor in 10% of all fatal crashes. That does not mean that if you take away that contributing factor that it will reduce those number of fatal crashes, only that it will no longer be listed as a factor. To quote a statistical analogy, just because sales of icecream increase in the summer and so do shark attacks does not mean that sharks are attracted by icecream.
I do think that anyone who cycles at night without any reflective element is an idiot, but I also think that anyone who overdoes the reflective gear and lights also makes it harder to spot everyone else. So in my opinion there is a balance that needs to be made on how visible we make ourselves as well.
The culture and environment need to change significantly to make it safer for the cyclist but that is going to take a long time. In the interim we do need to take counter measure but I also think that we need to be careful of not over doing it either.

* I would also argue that how dark the colour of clothing is irrelevent at night. A black top with reflective elements is far more visible than an orange top without  reflective elements when out on an unlit night in my opinion

ClubSmed wrote:

I don't think that s/he is being obtruse. The research shows dark clothes* at night are a CONTRIBUTING factor in 10% of all fatal crashes. That does not mean that if you take away that contributing factor that it will reduce those number of fatal crashes...

I would also like to see how many of the 10% where dark clothes at night are listed as a contributing factor also did not have working lights. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a significant proportion which would somewhat negate the extent that the contribution of dark clothes makes.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

I'm not entirely disagreeing, but I'm extremely suspicious of reasoning and 'common sense' (ie. personal bias) being applied in lieu of actually diagnosing this problem properly. These arguments are extremely subjective and personal experience is largely irrelevant. It's much like the 'I had an off and broke my helmet, so imagine what would have happened to my skull' argument that makes a leap that is unfounded and merely reinforces the teller's bias. This bias omits the negatives or alternatives. The fact is that we don't know how effective reflectives and even lights on bikes are at preventing drivers hitting cyclists. We do know that lights and reflectives make a cyclist more visible in the dark. Going beyond that to 'lights and reflectives stop drivers hitting cyclists' is an unsupported leap. It isn't the only unsupported leap to make from that position - it just happens to be the one you prefer to make. We know that more drivers hit cyclists during the day; couldn't one postulate that drivers have started expecting cyclists to be Blackpool Illuminations on wheels so have stopped noticing them during the day when lights aren't on or are less effective? Do we *know* that drivers aren't becoming complacent and less safe because they expect cyclists and other 'obstacles' to be well-lit? Would it be safer if drivers expected streets full of ninja cyclists apparently emerging from nowhere? I'm just cautioning on any line of 'common sense' leaps that don't put the onus on drivers to actually make a bit more effort to stop squashing squashy stuff. Don't dismiss the victim-blaming line: I don't think it's that simplistic an argument.

I do think you're being deliberately obtuse here. The research shows dark clothes at night are a contributing factor in 10% of all fatal crashes. If you can't avoid riding at night then the only part of that contributing factor you can change is the dark clothing. I don't think it's biased at all to assume that lighter clothing would be beneficial, if there were no difference between light and dark clothing then dark clothing wouldn't be listed as a contributing factor. Reflective clothing is as light as it gets at night. In an ideal world car drivers would look carefully before any manoeuvre and if , as you suggested, all cyclists dressed head to toe in black and rode around unlit then maybe they would. I think a lot of cyclists would have to die before your experiment starting showing results and as human sacrifice has never really interested me I'm afraid I'll have to decline to take part.

Pointing out biases and showing that there could be alternatives isn't the same as being obtuse.

You not understanding what 'contributing factor' is - are you being obtuse? How about you not realising that 10% is actually a pretty insignificant proportion?

Taking alternative examples as literals (eg the ninja experiment) - that is obtuse.

There are 2 issues here: 1 is that there's loads of woo-woo around cycling safety, and not much evidence of anything. It's a massive, complex subject.

The 2nd one is the emphasis on responsibility. Every time a cyclist joins a debate with another cyclist with something like "those of us who aren't willing to die just to prove a point..." they're actually missing that point, and conflating micro and macro.

So back to your stats. Fix the 10%. Get them all to wear lights and reflectives. How much safer will that make you, someone who already wears lights and reflectives? And when 2 cyclists a week are still dying after that, what magic item will you leap to then?

I'm not saying you don't have a point: you do. You might have already not been hit at night because of lights and/or reflectives - you'll never know, and that's why you do it. I do the same. But what I am saying is that your point, by your own stats, is less than 10% of the big picture. Getting drivers to drive properly is at least 5 times more weighty.

I'm not a fan of this culture almost of appeasement where cyclists wrap themselves in cotton wool and rabbits' feet and don't understand 1. how insignificant they are in keeping them safe and 2. the damage they could be doing by discouraging other potential cyclists and encouraging drivers' perception that cyclists need to take responsibility for the risks that the drivers themselves take. And this is where we disagree on changing driver behaviour - while cars get ever safer for thoae inside, this appeasement isn't helping us, is it? Even your stats say a resounding 'no'.

davel wrote:

Pointing out biases and showing that there could be alternatives isn't the same as being obtuse.

You not understanding what 'contributing factor' is - are you being obtuse? How about you not realising that 10% is actually a pretty insignificant proportion?

Taking alternative examples as literals (eg the ninja experiment) - that is obtuse.

There are 2 issues here: 1 is that there's loads of woo-woo around cycling safety, and not much evidence of anything. It's a massive, complex subject.

The 2nd one is the emphasis on responsibility. Every time a cyclist joins a debate with another cyclist with something like "those of us who aren't willing to die just to prove a point..." they're actually missing that point, and conflating micro and macro.

So back to your stats. Fix the 10%. Get them all to wear lights and reflectives. How much safer will that make you, someone who already wears lights and reflectives? And when 2 cyclists a week are still dying after that, what magic item will you leap to then?

I'm not saying you don't have a point: you do. You might have already not been hit at night because of lights and/or reflectives - you'll never know, and that's why you do it. I do the same. But what I am saying is that your point, by your own stats, is less than 10% of the big picture. Getting drivers to drive properly is at least 5 times more weighty.

I'm not a fan of this culture almost of appeasement where cyclists wrap themselves in cotton wool and rabbits' feet and don't understand 1. how insignificant they are in keeping them safe and 2. the damage they could be doing by discouraging other potential cyclists and encouraging drivers' perception that cyclists need to take responsibility for the risks that the drivers themselves take. And this is where we disagree on changing driver behaviour - while cars get ever safer for thoae inside, this appeasement isn't helping us, is it? Even your stats say a resounding 'no'.

It's not 10% of cyclists It's 10% of fatal collisions, dark clothes are a factor in the death of 12 cyclists a year, 1 a month.

I think that's pretty significant.

I do a fair bit of work in risk modelling/reduction, one of the models used is the 'swiss cheese model'.

You imagine multiple slices of Swiss cheese each representing a safeguard. All safeguards have flaws and the holes in the Swiss cheese represent these flaws.

A negative event can only occur when the holes in all the sheets line up, in other words when every safeguard fails.

Each additional safeguard you add is an extra layer and make a negative event less likely.

Reflective clothing represents an additional safeguard, it might have flaws but it is a quick and easy step to take.

That's why it's worth doing even if the gains are only small.

Comprehensive driver education would probably have a far greater impact but it would need to be agreed politically and would take years to begin having an effect.

I've never sought to blame cyclists for anything, I'm simply pointing out ways we can mitigate the effects of poor driving.

Rich_cb wrote:

 It's not 10% of cyclists It's 10% of fatal collisions, dark clothes are a factor in the death of 12 cyclists a year, 1 a month.

I think that's pretty significant.

what's happened here is that 10% of fatalities were wearing dark clothes and it was then assumed to be a contributory factor - there is no possible proof of causality here.

in order for it to be significant, you would have to know exactly what percentage were wearing dark clothes and were not involved in fatal collisions

if 100% of them were wearing clothes - would it then be safer to cycle naked?

beezus fufoon wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

 It's not 10% of cyclists It's 10% of fatal collisions, dark clothes are a factor in the death of 12 cyclists a year, 1 a month.

I think that's pretty significant.

what's happened here is that 10% of fatalities were wearing dark clothes and it was then assumed to be a contributory factor - there is no possible proof of causality here.

in order for it to be significant, you would have to know exactly what percentage were wearing dark clothes and were not involved in fatal collisions

if 100% of them were wearing clothes - would it then be safer to cycle naked?

Well no, not really, analysis of the fatal collisions involving cyclists identified dark clothing as a contributing factor in 10% them.

That doesn't mean that 10% of riders killed were wearing dark clothing.

It means the clothing was found to be a contributing factor in 10% of fatal collisions.

Rich_cb wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

 It's not 10% of cyclists It's 10% of fatal collisions, dark clothes are a factor in the death of 12 cyclists a year, 1 a month.

I think that's pretty significant.

what's happened here is that 10% of fatalities were wearing dark clothes and it was then assumed to be a contributory factor - there is no possible proof of causality here.

in order for it to be significant, you would have to know exactly what percentage were wearing dark clothes and were not involved in fatal collisions

if 100% of them were wearing clothes - would it then be safer to cycle naked?

Well no, not really, analysis of the fatal collisions involving cyclists identified dark clothing as a contributing factor in 10% them.

That doesn't mean that 10% of riders killed were wearing dark clothing.

It means the clothing was found to be a contributing factor in 10% of fatal collisions.

you still haven't explained how they could make such an assessment...

for example - if a cyclist has good lights, but dark clothing, and is then a fatality, it could be said to be a factor, but it isn't really

on the other hand - if someone is riding in the dark, all in black, and with no lights, one could also say it is a factor, but it isn't really

I literally have no idea what basis they are using for such a claim. If a driver fails to see a cyclist then they will try to rationalise that in some way, and even if it is caught on video from 15 different angles - it still sounds speculative at best.

beezus fufoon wrote:

you still haven't explained how they could make such an assessment...

for example - if a cyclist has good lights, but dark clothing, and is then a fatality, it could be said to be a factor, but it isn't really

on the other hand - if someone is riding in the dark, all in black, and with no lights, one could also say it is a factor, but it isn't really

I literally have no idea what basis they are using for such a claim. If a driver fails to see a cyclist then they will try to rationalise that in some way, and even if it is caught on video from 15 different angles - it still sounds speculative at best.

You could always read the research. They explain quite clearly where they are getting their data.

It's mainly based on the STATS19 data collected by the police, also hospital data, coroners reports and 'on the site' reports.

Rich_cb wrote:

You could always read the research. They explain quite clearly where they are getting their data. It's mainly based on the STATS19 data collected by the police, also hospital data, coroners reports and 'on the site' reports.

Well in reality research based mainly on STATS19 needs to be handled with care. The government's own guidance says;

"The factors are largely subjective, reflecting the opinion of the reporting police officer, and are not necessarily the result of extensive investigation. Some factors are less likely to be recorded since evidence may not be available after the event.

While this information is valuable in helping to identify ways of improving safety, care should be taken in its interpretation."

So the data quoted is far from reliable.

So you cannot reasonably claim that dark clothing was a contributary factor in 10% of fatalities - whether a University study says so or not.

shay cycles wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

You could always read the research. They explain quite clearly where they are getting their data. It's mainly based on the STATS19 data collected by the police, also hospital data, coroners reports and 'on the site' reports.

Well in reality research based mainly on STATS19 needs to be handles with care. The government's own guidance says;

"The factors are largely subjective, reflecting the opinion of the reporting police officer, and are not necessarily the result of extensive investigation. Some factors are less likely to be recorded since evidence may not be available after the event.

While this information is valuable in helping to identify ways of improving safety, care should be taken in its interpretation."

So the data quoted is far from reliable.

So you cannot reasonably claim that dark clothing was a contributary factor in 10% of fatalities - whether a University study says so or not.

 

equally, if it is just raw data, then it is clearly 10% of fatalities who are wearing dark clothing - if it's a different percentage and discouted in some instances, then it's a question of interpreting that data - in which case they will have certain criteria which can be validated and replicated...

I suspect they have just used a certain phrasing - "it is a contributory factor" - to make their common sense assumptions appear scientific...

I wonder whether dark coloured cars are involved in proportionately more collisions - or if they discovered that neon green cars were, would they then count colour as a contributory factor?

I also suspect that we might find that the amount of people who wear dark clothes is upwards of 30% and that they are under represented by the 10% figure - it is of course possible that those who wear hi-viz tabards are more safety conscious and more cautious riders, so the clothing is not actually causal, simply a reflection of other factors - there are so many possibilities and other factors to consider here.

beezus fufoon wrote:

shay cycles wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

You could always read the research. They explain quite clearly where they are getting their data. It's mainly based on the STATS19 data collected by the police, also hospital data, coroners reports and 'on the site' reports.

Well in reality research based mainly on STATS19 needs to be handles with care. The government's own guidance says;

"The factors are largely subjective, reflecting the opinion of the reporting police officer, and are not necessarily the result of extensive investigation. Some factors are less likely to be recorded since evidence may not be available after the event.

While this information is valuable in helping to identify ways of improving safety, care should be taken in its interpretation."

So the data quoted is far from reliable.

So you cannot reasonably claim that dark clothing was a contributary factor in 10% of fatalities - whether a University study says so or not.

 

equally, if it is just raw data, then it is clearly 10% of fatalities who are wearing dark clothing - if it's a different percentage and discouted in some instances, then it's a question of interpreting that data - in which case they will have certain criteria which can be validated and replicated...

I suspect they have just used a certain phrasing - "it is a contributory factor" - to make their common sense assumptions appear scientific...

I wonder whether dark coloured cars are involved in proportionately more collisions - or if they discovered that neon green cars were, would they then count colour as a contributory factor?

I also suspect that we might find that the amount of people who wear dark clothes is upwards of 30% and that they are under represented by the 10% figure - it is of course possible that those who wear hi-viz tabards are more safety conscious and more cautious riders, so the clothing is not actually causal, simply a reflection of other factors - there are so many possibilities and other factors to consider here.

Just read the research.

Stop pontificating about how you think they did it and just read it.

Rich_cb wrote:

Just read the research. Stop pontificating about how you think they did it and just read it.

nowhere does it say that it was "found to be a contributing factor" - the report clearly says "attributed" in the 10% figure (p.34)  - elsewhere it mentions both dark clothing and no lights together (p.23) - and in the conclusion it points to this being a factor on rural roads (p.45) and recommends promotion of both the use of lights and clothing...

so, unlike the report itself, you've taken one variable out of context and turned it into a definitively causal factor

beezus fufoon wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Just read the research. Stop pontificating about how you think they did it and just read it.

nowhere does it say that it was "found to be a contributing factor" - the report clearly says "attributed" in the 10% figure (p.34)  - elsewhere it mentions both dark clothing and no lights together (p.23) - and in the conclusion it points to this being a factor on rural roads (p.45) and recommends promotion of both the use of lights and clothing...

so, unlike the report itself, you've taken one variable out of context and turned it into a definitively causal factor

 

Not at all.

Table 7 on page 23 clearly show dark clothes at night to be a contributing factor in 10% of fatal collisions.

It is a separate contributory factor to lights.

The word attributed is used to describe whether the contributory factor was on the part of the cyclist or motorist.

Rich_cb wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

shay cycles wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

You could always read the research. They explain quite clearly where they are getting their data. It's mainly based on the STATS19 data collected by the police, also hospital data, coroners reports and 'on the site' reports.

Well in reality research based mainly on STATS19 needs to be handles with care. The government's own guidance says;

"The factors are largely subjective, reflecting the opinion of the reporting police officer, and are not necessarily the result of extensive investigation. Some factors are less likely to be recorded since evidence may not be available after the event.

While this information is valuable in helping to identify ways of improving safety, care should be taken in its interpretation."

So the data quoted is far from reliable.

So you cannot reasonably claim that dark clothing was a contributary factor in 10% of fatalities - whether a University study says so or not.

 

equally, if it is just raw data, then it is clearly 10% of fatalities who are wearing dark clothing - if it's a different percentage and discouted in some instances, then it's a question of interpreting that data - in which case they will have certain criteria which can be validated and replicated...

I suspect they have just used a certain phrasing - "it is a contributory factor" - to make their common sense assumptions appear scientific...

I wonder whether dark coloured cars are involved in proportionately more collisions - or if they discovered that neon green cars were, would they then count colour as a contributory factor?

I also suspect that we might find that the amount of people who wear dark clothes is upwards of 30% and that they are under represented by the 10% figure - it is of course possible that those who wear hi-viz tabards are more safety conscious and more cautious riders, so the clothing is not actually causal, simply a reflection of other factors - there are so many possibilities and other factors to consider here.

Just read the research.

Stop pontificating about how you think they did it and just read it.

You are the one citing it in support, why don't you read it and explain it? It shouldn't be that hard to give the gist of the argument, i.e. how they arrived at the conclusion and how they allowed for other possible explanations of the data.

I went to download it and decided I didn't feel like giving them all my personal details to be able to see it...I'm assuming they then do let anyone download it rather than then insisting you have to have some professional justification for doing so?

Maybe I'll give it a go at some point. But in the meantime, you are the one citing it in support so seems to me the onus is on you to explain what it says, given they don't just put it up for anyone to read.

It might be convincing and sound, but in the absence of a clear outline of the paper, I don't feel inclined to take the TRL's conclusions on faith. It is, after all, now a private think-tank for-hire, owned by 'members of the transport industry'.

Seems to me that set up might tend to produce reports saying what those paying for the reports want to hear. So the methodology is pretty important.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

...a private think-tank for-hire, owned by 'members of the transport industry'.

Seems to me that set up might tend to produce reports saying what those paying for the reports want to hear...

more likely the sort who need a report to tell them that it's a bad idea to ride an unlit bicycle around country lanes in the middle of the night

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You are the one citing it in support, why don't you read it and explain it? It shouldn't be that hard to give the gist of the argument, i.e. how they arrived at the conclusion and how they allowed for other possible explanations of the data.

I went to download it and decided I didn't feel like giving them all my personal details to be able to see it...I'm assuming they then do let anyone download it rather than then insisting you have to have some professional justification for doing so?

Maybe I'll give it a go at some point. But in the meantime, you are the one citing it in support so seems to me the onus is on you to explain what it says, given they don't just put it up for anyone to read.

It might be convincing and sound, but in the absence of a clear outline of the paper, I don't feel inclined to take the TRL's conclusions on faith. It is, after all, now a private think-tank for-hire, owned by 'members of the transport industry'.

Seems to me that set up might tend to produce reports saying what those paying for the reports want to hear. So the methodology is pretty important.

I've provided you with a link to a free full text copy of the report.

I'm not going to read it to you word for word because you can't figure out how to download it anonymously.

I've provided the evidence, the onus is on you to read it before drawing conclusions.

Rich_cb wrote:

Just read the research.

Stop pontificating about how you think they did it and just read it.

But didn't you comment/elaborate about how you thought they meant it?

Rich_cb wrote:

I don't know exactly what they meant by 'dark clothing' but I'd imagine they meant dark colours and non reflective.