Irish police lobby for compulsory high-vis for all cyclists

@JimmyRayWill

Largely agree with your conclusions.  I do wonder though whether something can be done by cycling organisations to push back against  the wall of un-supported woo which is pushed as "safety advice".  

If nothing else something needs to be done to support, expand and enhance operations like the WMP close pass initiative.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Based on maintained cycling usage, I'd say half of the 10% of collisions where visibility was highlighted as contributory could have been prevented. That's a 5% reduction... boom.

Not sure what you mean by "maintained cycling usage"?

garuda wrote:

because a flourescent vest is going to protect you from being crushed by a lorry cutting corners?

because the Garda think they'll find it easier to pull over cyclists not wearing hi-viz than HGVs driving carelessly.

brooksby wrote:

garuda wrote:

because a flourescent vest is going to protect you from being crushed by a lorry cutting corners?

because the Garda think they'll find it easier to pull over cyclists not wearing hi-viz than HGVs driving carelessly.

that's if they are able to see them without their hi-viz tabards

davel wrote:

He's trained it to walk on the opposite side of the shared-use path, and when a cyclist almost rides into its 10m retractable lead, or skids on its turd, it'll be the cyclist's fault.

assuming the dig is wearing hi vis, otherwise it's the owners fault for not making the responsible decision for their dog.

Rich_cb wrote:

Hate to back Willo up but there has been a very good piece of research done that suggests brightly coloured cars are involved in fewer collisions.

It controlled for pretty much every variable and demonstrated 9% fewer collisions for yellow cars compared to blue cars.

I think it's reasonable to extrapolate that brighter colours on any road user would therefore make a collision less likely.

It obviously wouldn't make a collision impossible just less likely.

Link:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21718319-avoid-acci...

I edited my previous comment to say this, but the edit vanished....

One reason for my skepticism about high-viz is not really addressed by such studies. It is - how do you know that the comparative advantage of brightly-coloured things would still be the same if _everything_ were brightly-coloured?

It reminds me of the claims before the introduction of tuition-fees about how much more money graduates earn than non-graduates. When that data came from a time when only a tiny proportion of the work-force were graduates, so there was no reason to assume it represented an absolute benefit from having a degree rather than just a comparative advantage over non-graduates.

It also relates to that Michael Mason case with the dismissal of his lights as 'disappearing among all the other lights'.

My suspicion is still that if all cyclists and pedestrians (and all street furniture) were day-glo yellow, drivers would say 'thanks very much, now I can pay even less attention and get on with texting and day-dreaming' and vulnerable road-users would end up no better off in total, just with an extra bit of inconvenience and looking a bit less dignified. (Risk compensation, in other words)

It can easily be that it's a good rational choice for any individual cyclist/ped to wear high-viz (or have a white car), while not actually making any difference at a population level. Which means, wear it if you think it's worth it for you, but don't aggressively promote it and still-less make it compulsory.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I edited my previous comment to say this, but the edit vanished....

One reason for my skepticism about high-viz is not really addressed by such studies. It is - how do you know that the comparative advantage of brightly-coloured things would still be the same if _everything_ were brightly-coloured?

It reminds me of the claims before the introduction of tuition-fees about how much more money graduates earn than non-graduates. When that data came from a time when only a tiny proportion of the work-force were graduates, so there was no reason to assume it represented an absolute benefit from having a degree rather than just a comparative advantage over non-graduates.

It also relates to that Michael Mason case with the dismissal of his lights as 'disappearing among all the other lights'.

My suspicion is still that if all cyclists and pedestrians (and all street furniture) were day-glo yellow, drivers would say 'thanks very much, now I can pay even less attention and get on with texting and day-dreaming' and vulnerable road-users would end up no better off in total, just with an extra bit of inconvenience and looking a bit less dignified. (Risk compensation, in other words)

It can easily be that it's a good rational choice for any individual cyclist/ped to wear high-viz (or have a white car), while not actually making any difference at a population level. Which means, wear it if you think it's worth it for you, but don't aggressively promote it and still-less make it compulsory.

I think there is some merit in the argument that ubiquity of high vis would diminish its impact.

That being said, the study I linked to showed the greatest benefits from a bright car came in low light conditions so it's reasonable to assume the same for cyclists.

High visibility clothing will always be brighter than the majority of your surroundings in low light conditions.

I personally think that the evidence for high visibility clothing is strong enough to support its use.

However making it compulsory would almost certainly reduce the number of people cycling so would actually have a negative effect on public health.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I edited my previous comment to say this, but the edit vanished.... One reason for my skepticism about high-viz is not really addressed by such studies. It is - how do you know that the comparative advantage of brightly-coloured things would still be the same if _everything_ were brightly-coloured? It reminds me of the claims before the introduction of tuition-fees about how much more money graduates earn than non-graduates. When that data came from a time when only a tiny proportion of the work-force were graduates, so there was no reason to assume it represented an absolute benefit from having a degree rather than just a comparative advantage over non-graduates. It also relates to that Michael Mason case with the dismissal of his lights as 'disappearing among all the other lights'. My suspicion is still that if all cyclists and pedestrians (and all street furniture) were day-glo yellow, drivers would say 'thanks very much, now I can pay even less attention and get on with texting and day-dreaming' and vulnerable road-users would end up no better off in total, just with an extra bit of inconvenience and looking a bit less dignified. (Risk compensation, in other words) It can easily be that it's a good rational choice for any individual cyclist/ped to wear high-viz (or have a white car), while not actually making any difference at a population level. Which means, wear it if you think it's worth it for you, but don't aggressively promote it and still-less make it compulsory.

I think there is some merit in the argument that ubiquity of high vis would diminish its impact. That being said, the study I linked to showed the greatest benefits from a bright car came in low light conditions so it's reasonable to assume the same for cyclists. High visibility clothing will always be brighter than the majority of your surroundings in low light conditions. I personally think that the evidence for high visibility clothing is strong enough to support its use. However making it compulsory would almost certainly reduce the number of people cycling so would actually have a negative effect on public health.

You make a lot of unquantifiable points there that the evidence so far does not back up, since when is a car a bicycle or vice versa, the solid colour of a motorvehicle and crash evidence has no relevance to seeing/acting toward a person on a bike with/without hi-vis.

It is not "reasonable" at all to suggest a correlation, quite the opposite, i find it totally unreasonable to make any jpined up thinking between the two.

"High visibility clothing will always be brighter than the majority of your surroundings in low light conditions" ALWAYS and then you go on to say the majority, which is it, can you give a specific number because that's very relevant isn't it, which colour hi-vis for which conditions/background environ?

it certainly does not make a "strong enough case to support its use", not even close.

And all the time you are pushing this you lower the safety of ALL vunerable road users and decrease the responsibility of those causing the harm, it's totally and utterly bonkers and can never possibly work to increase afety overall/in the long run as has being proven time and again.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You make a lot of unquantifiable points there that the evidence so far does not back up, since when is a car a bicycle or vice versa, the solid colour of a motorvehicle and crash evidence has no relevance to seeing/acting toward a person on a bike with/without hi-vis.

It is not "reasonable" at all to suggest a correlation, quite the opposite, i find it totally unreasonable to make any jpined up thinking between the two.

"High visibility clothing will always be brighter than the majority of your surroundings in low light conditions" ALWAYS and then you go on to say the majority, which is it, can you give a specific number because that's very relevant isn't it, which colour hi-vis for which conditions/background environ?

it certainly does not make a "strong enough case to support its use", not even close.

And all the time you are pushing this you lower the safety of ALL vunerable road users and decrease the responsibility of those causing the harm, it's totally and utterly bonkers and can never possibly work to increase afety overall/in the long run as has being proven time and again.

You've had a failure of basic comprehension there with the always/majority quote.

Read the sentence again and you might get it.

The study on yellow/blue cars clearly demonstrates that there are a significant number of drivers who are lookin​ng but are doing so inadequately.

They notice brighter objects but not darker objects.

If those same drivers are looking inadequately in my direction I would like to be as bright as possible to increase the likelihood of them seeing me.

From my own experience reflective clothing is the brightest in low light conditions so I generally opt for that.

If I choose to wear reflective or high visibility clothing I'm not lowering the safety of others or decreasing the responsibility of poor drivers.

Locking my doors at night doesn't make me responsible for my neighbour getting burgled or decrease the responsibility of the burglar.

We know that brightly coloured cars are involved in 9% fewer collisions. We know this effect is particularly marked in low light conditions.

We know that dark clothing worn in low light conditions was cited as a contributory factor in 10% of all cycling fatalities in the UK from 2005-2007. (https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR445)

I don't think it's unreasonable to draw the conclusion that being more visible on the road is a good thing.

Rich_cb wrote:

If I choose to wear reflective or high visibility clothing I'm not lowering the safety of others or decreasing the responsibility of poor drivers.

Strictly speaking, I'd say you are doing the first of those things. Though I'd also say it's going way too far to hold that against you, as in the end, everyone has the right to try and cope with a sub-optimal situation as best they can. Can't blame someone for doing what they feel they have to to not be killed, even if it might have unfortunate knock-on effects.

Everyone has the right to try and find what works for them in such a situation.

Rich_cb wrote:

Locking my doors at night doesn't make me responsible for my neighbour getting burgled or decrease the responsibility of the burglar.

I don't think that's a good analogy. Burglars don't become any more prone to committing burglary because most doors are locked. But drivers do have a tendency to reduce the attention they pay if everything is highlighted for them.

Rich_cb wrote:

I don't think it's unreasonable to draw the conclusion that being more visible on the road is a good thing.

...for the individual. Not necessarily collectively though.

The way I see it, the difference between wearing high-viz and promoting it akin to the difference between accepting a woman's right to make a personal choice to 'dress down' in the hope of avoiding street harassment (an ex-gf used to wear baggy shapeless sacks most of the time for that reason) and giving lectures on the desirability of all women 'dressing modestly'.

(In both cases, come to think of it, it's a fine-line. There's a difference between someone having that discussion with their own daughter, or women friends talking about it among themselves, and a Muslim cleric or a police chief lecturing women in general about it - same probably applies to high-viz)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

If I choose to wear reflective or high visibility clothing I'm not lowering the safety of others or decreasing the responsibility of poor drivers.

Strictly speaking, I'd say you are doing the first of those things. Though I'd also say it's going way too far to hold that against you, as in the end, everyone has the right to try and cope with a sub-optimal situation as best they can. Can't blame someone for doing what they feel they have to to not be killed, even if it might have unfortunate knock-on effects.

Everyone has the right to try and find what works for them in such a situation.

Rich_cb wrote:

Locking my doors at night doesn't make me responsible for my neighbour getting burgled or decrease the responsibility of the burglar.

I don't think that's a good analogy. Burglars don't become any more prone to committing burglary because most doors are locked. But drivers do have a tendency to reduce the attention they pay if everything is highlighted for them.

Rich_cb wrote:

I don't think it's unreasonable to draw the conclusion that being more visible on the road is a good thing.

...for the individual. Not necessarily collectively though.

The way I see it, the difference between wearing high-viz and promoting it akin to the difference between accepting a woman's right to make a personal choice to 'dress down' in the hope of avoiding street harassment (an ex-gf used to wear baggy shapeless sacks most of the time for that reason) and giving lectures on the desirability of all women 'dressing modestly'.

(In both cases, come to think of it, it's a fine-line. There's a difference between someone having that discussion with their own daughter, or women friends talking about it among themselves, and a Muslim cleric or a police chief lecturing women in general about it - same probably applies to high-viz)

I think it's a far better analogy than yours. Using highly emotive subjects as analogies is never a good idea, it tends to muddy the waters unnecessarily.

If a burglar tries my door first, finds it locked and moves to my neighbours unlocked house, am I responsible in any way?

By locking my own door I'm making myself safer but increasing the risk to my neighbour.

Should we all unlock our doors to dilute the risk?

I have not seen any evidence that widespread high visibility clothing leads to more negligent driving.

The car study backs this up. Nobody expects every car to be brightly coloured. Dark cars are very common. Yet drivers still fail to anticipate their presence and hit them more often than bright cars.

Seeing as cars hugely outnumber bicycles and are much easier to see it seems very optimistic to assume that more darkly clothed cyclists would improve driver's observation levels when a huge number of darkly coloured cars have failed to do so.

Rich_cb wrote:

I think it's a far better analogy than yours. Using highly emotive subjects as analogies is never a good idea, it tends to muddy the waters unnecessarily.

If a burglar tries my door first, finds it locked and moves to my neighbours unlocked house, am I responsible in any way?

I do actually take your point about emotive analogies. Though road deaths is a pretty emotive subject itself, and I can't off-hand, think of any non-emotive issue that works in the same way.

But I disagree 100% with _your_ analogy. What you describe is in no possible sense analogous to the high-viz case. Drivers don't try to run some-one over, find they have high-viz, then move on to the next target.

It's an entirely different issue and the "mechanism" is entirely different.

A better break-in-based analogy might be if many householders have guns, burglars are more likely to arm themselves when breaking in, potentially making things worse for those householders who don't have guns.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

I think it's a far better analogy than yours. Using highly emotive subjects as analogies is never a good idea, it tends to muddy the waters unnecessarily. If a burglar tries my door first, finds it locked and moves to my neighbours unlocked house, am I responsible in any way?

I do actually take your point about emotive analogies. Though road deaths is a pretty emotive subject itself, and I can't off-hand, think of any non-emotive issue that works in the same way. But I disagree 100% with _your_ analogy. What you describe is in no possible sense analogous to the high-viz case. Drivers don't try to run some-one over, find they have high-viz, then move on to the next target. It's an entirely different issue and the "mechanism" is entirely different. A better break-in-based analogy might be if many householders have guns, burglars are more likely to arm themselves when breaking in, potentially making things worse for those householders who don't have guns.

it's a good analogy, as those who carry guns in the US justify it with recourse to their personal saftey - the net result produces an unsafe environment

equally with seat belts, adding to the personal safety of individuals has been demonstrably shown to make the overall environment less safe for everyone

we are all familiar with the road user at a give way junction having a quick glance rather than a proper pause to look, and this would seem to encourage that behaviour rather than addressing it properly - it is a classic instance of treating the symptom rather than the cause

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I do actually take your point about emotive analogies. Though road deaths is a pretty emotive subject itself, and I can't off-hand, think of any non-emotive issue that works in the same way.

But I disagree 100% with _your_ analogy. What you describe is in no possible sense analogous to the high-viz case. Drivers don't try to run some-one over, find they have high-viz, then move on to the next target.

It's an entirely different issue and the "mechanism" is entirely different.

A better break-in-based analogy might be if many householders have guns, burglars are more likely to arm themselves when breaking in, potentially making things worse for those householders who don't have guns.

If an inattentive driver approaches a junction and only just notices a cyclist in high visibility clothes he may then proceed to the next junction where he will hit a cyclist wearing dark clothes.

If the first cyclist had been dressed in dark colours the driver would have hit him instead saving the second cyclist.

The problem with your argument against high visibility clothing is that you can apply it to all forms of defensive cycling.

If you avoid the door zone are you decreasing safety for all?

If you take primary position at narrow points in the road are you decreasing safety for all?

Both of the above remove responsibility from the motorist in much the same way that high visibility clothing does.

Your first point warps the analogy even more. It just doesn't work like that. Drivers don't 'move on' to an easier target because they can't 'get' the first one, so if only they'd been able to run over the first guy they'd have let the second one off.

They cultivate a general habit and expectation - that's not at all analogous to the burglar vs locks case.

Your second point is essentially my point as to why I think you have to take a middle-ground between aggressively advocating it for all and criticising those who choose it for themselves.

Choosing to wear it yourself is fine, discussing the issue with family-members or close friends who cycle is OK, but instead of going on about it publicly and feeding victim-blaming, I think it's better to try and address the real issues.

I feel pretty much the same about those who push vehicular cycling in an aggressive way, implying anyone who doesn't 'take the lane' is responsible for their own misfortune, or implying that doing so is a panacea with no downsides.

I learned to 'take the lane' through experience, but, frankly, I don't think it helps all that much. I'd suggest others consider thinking about it, but I'm not going to bang on about it if they don't feel able to. Generally those who find that too scary tend to give up cycling anyway - and I don't blame them.

Furthermore neither that nor avoiding the door-zone require the same degree of downside and special precautions as wearing high-viz. It's not the same category of thing.

We just see this in a different way, is all. I'm not sure we really disagree _that_ hugely.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Your first point warps the analogy even more. It just doesn't work like that. Drivers don't 'move on' to an easier target because they can't 'get' the first one, so if only they'd been able to run over the first guy they'd have let the second one off.

They cultivate a general habit and expectation - that's not at all analogous to the burglar vs locks case.

Your second point is essentially my point as to why I think you have to take a middle-ground between aggressively advocating it for all and criticising those who choose it for themselves.

Choosing to wear it yourself is fine, discussing the issue with family-members or close friends who cycle is OK, but instead of going on about it publicly and feeding victim-blaming, I think it's better to try and address the real issues.

I feel pretty much the same about those who push vehicular cycling in an aggressive way, implying anyone who doesn't 'take the lane' is responsible for their own misfortune, or implying that doing so is a panacea with no downsides.

I learned to 'take the lane' through experience, but, frankly, I don't think it helps all that much. I'd suggest others consider thinking about it, but I'm not going to bang on about it if they don't feel able to. Generally those who find that too scary tend to give up cycling anyway - and I don't blame them.

Furthermore neither that nor avoiding the door-zone require the same degree of downside and special precautions as wearing high-viz. It's not the same category of thing.

We just see this in a different way, is all. I'm not sure we really disagree _that_ hugely.

You're focussing on intent but that's not really relevant to the analogy. If a negligent driver has a near miss and doesn't change their behaviour they are essentially 'moving on' to the next one. At some point a near miss becomes a collision.

A burglar trying a door and finding it locked is the near miss. A burglar trying an unlocked door is the collision.

Avoiding the door zone leads drivers to expect the door zone to be free of cyclists allowing them to open doors without looking.

Taking primary position when it is unsafe to pass leads drivers to assume that any cyclist not in primary position is safe to pass.

You could add any number of sensible cycling practices to that list.

I'm not going to cycle around in a way that I know is dangerous for the tiny possibility of future benefit.

That seems hopelessly naïve.

davel wrote:

.... And there is jack-all control or further analysis of other risk factors: type of car, driver age and behaviour. It doesn't even acknowledge them, or the purchasing preferences of driver groups. It categorises colours into groups and attributes a scale of risk, yes. Does it satisfactorily conclude that that risk is based on how visible they are? No.

The study linked to attempted to control for that by comparing crashes between vehicles, and vehicles hitting pedestrians on the one hand, with vehicles crashing into stationary objects on the other. The latter are obviously not going to be affected by visibility of the moving car, so serve as a kind of control.

But still, the conclusion would surely be that we need laws about the colours of motorised vehicles? Particularly as the study seemed to suggest the colour of the car even affected the chances of it hitting a pedestrian.

The other point that occurs to me is - the study doesn't say whether the effect would hold true if _all_ cars were white.

One objection I have to high-vis is that it may lead to risk-compensation - if peds and cyclists (and street furniture) are all clad in high-viz all the time, drivers may just say 'thank you very much, that means I can pay even less attention and have even more time to text and day-dream' ...and we'll end up no better off than before, just all being that much more inconvenienced and badly-dressed.

High-viz might be a benefit for the individual ped/cyclist in a context where most don't where it, but not actually make any difference if it becomes universal.

The comment in the Michael Mason death investigation about lights being lost 'among all the other lights' would seem to be a similar phenomenon.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

davel wrote:

.... And there is jack-all control or further analysis of other risk factors: type of car, driver age and behaviour. It doesn't even acknowledge them, or the purchasing preferences of driver groups. It categorises colours into groups and attributes a scale of risk, yes. Does it satisfactorily conclude that that risk is based on how visible they are? No.

The study linked to attempted to control for that by comparing crashes between vehicles, and vehicles hitting pedestrians on the one hand, with vehicles crashing into stationary objects on the other. The latter are obviously not going to be affected by visibility of the moving car, so serve as a kind of control.

But still, the conclusion would surely be that we need laws about the colours of motorised vehicles? Particularly as the study seemed to suggest the colour of the car even affected the chances of it hitting a pedestrian.

The control is muddled, and no, I don't follow the conclusion either.

I'm not sure how applicable this is to hi-viz on cyclists (the colours of the peds and street furniture hit must be the topic of another study!), but I'm sure Willo will be along soon to enlighten us, or throw another diversion into the mix.

Edit: @rich_cb - that's the one I was looking for. Only saw that first a few weeks ago when you linked to it, and it's a more convincing study, restricted as it has to be than just 'all vehicles driven by all people'.

I still think:
1 it's a leap to apply that logic to cyclists, us not being big lumps of metal and
2 prioritising the visibility of cyclists over other, more sizeable, risk factors, is questionable at best.