Conspicuity and safety

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

nniff wrote:

Just an observation, but when I changed from standard blackish sunglasses on my commute into London to a pair with gold mirror lenses people didn’t pull out on me as much – ‘eye’ contact seemed better  B-)

It’s well worth trying to make eye contact with drivers who are about to pull out. If you can make eye contact, then they’ve definitely seen you and hopefully won’t pull out anyway (I’ve never had a driver pull out on me when I’ve made prior eye contact).

Sorry but this is absolutely untrue, do not ever, ever rely on this bit of misinformation. So many times people including myself have looked at drivers (and indeed pedestrians) and thought they were looking at you but far too often you’ve got your invisibility cloak on and they don’t see you at all.

NEVER believe that a person has seen you because you’ve ‘eyeballed’ them!

Maybe my stare is intimidating enough to stop them in their tracks, but so far it has worked for me. I don’t assume that they won’t still pull out, so I do maintain caution.

It wouldn’t surprise me if some drivers see cyclists and yet don’t care at all and still pull out despite making eye contact, so you make a valid point. I still think it’s worthwhile trying to make eye contact, though.

[Fenix: “As the studies don’t

[Fenix: “As the studies don’t seem to be conclusive – I’m carrying on with wearing bright colours and running lights. It’s no extra hardship or cost to me.”] = Sensible.

An observation re visibility: Last autumn I was out ridding on one of those late year sunny days where the contrast between light and shade seem particularly high. As I rounded a corner a pair of cyclists where just disappearing around the following corner which was under tree cover. They were ridding side by side. One of the pair was wearing a high viz jacket, the other ninja black. I saw both of them but the high viz gentleman was the one that registered. (I was keeping an eye out for cyclists and I’d seen one – job done)

If I’d been Ronnie Runt, the boy racer, yacking away to the unfortunate Waynetta* & keeping ½ an eye on the road, I might well have ticked off ‘High Viz’ as ‘cyclist seen’ and once having done that subconsciously stopped looking & thus missed ‘Ninja Road Warrior’ (until the point of impact)

Summmerised as:

• High Viz + High Viz = Both Seen & Registered.
• High Viz + Low Viz = High viz Seen & Registered & Low Viz Seen, but not Registered
• Low Viz + Low Viz = Both seen & Registerd (but possibly not so easily/soon)

A second tedious observation: Some boldly patterned cycling jerseys can make for effective dazzle/disruptive camouflage at a moderate distance.

* With apologies to any Waynetta’s who may read this.

nniff wrote:

Just an observation, but when I changed from standard blackish sunglasses on my commute into London to a pair with gold mirror lenses people didn’t pull out on me as much – ‘eye’ contact seemed better  B-)

It’s well worth trying to make eye contact with drivers who are about to pull out. If you can make eye contact, then they’ve definitely seen you and hopefully won’t pull out anyway (I’ve never had a driver pull out on me when I’ve made prior eye contact).

I’m not convinced that these

I’m not convinced that these studies are of much use.

There’s a cognitive theory that basically says that brains are always running predictive models and things that don’t fit the predictions cause spikes in brain activity and presumably attract more attention. This would suggest that it’s the unexpected that will draw attention rather than specific colours, so if everyone wears hi-viz, people will just expect to see it and thus not focus attention on it.

(Here’s a nicely readable summary of the ideas: https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-make-sense-of-the-present-brains-may-predict-the-future-20180710/)

The trick to being seen is thus to behave erratically. The number of car drivers that will complain about cyclists weaving dangerously would re-enforce this view as they can’t usually spot cyclists that behave predictably.

That’s the rationalisation that I use for wearing a squirrel suit and cutting up as many cars as possible.

I ride on rural roads in

I ride on rural roads in daylight and my observation is that I see cyclists in bright colours earlier than those in black, particularly when they are riding between high hedges or under cover of trees.

Last week I actually lost sight of a rider in black when he entered an avenue of trees.   

As the studies don’t seem to

As the studies don’t seem to be conclusive – I’m carrying on with wearing bright colours and running lights. It’s no extra hardship or cost to me. 

When I’m driving – I’m looking out for cyclists.  I’ll not hit someone I’ve seen. 

Out on the bike – brighter colour cyclists are more visible in the distance than someone blending in with a hedge. 

I’ve actually missed my cycling pal one dull morning – he was riding towards me and under the tres all in black.  I was riding and looking out for him so we can begin. He didn’t stand out at all and ended up chasing me for about a mile.  He had a bit more colour on him the next time we rode. 

hirsute wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Firstly making yourself more visible isn’t common sense, it’s perceived wisdom, unfortunately this is totally incorrect as it has a cumulative negative effect on safety, this applies not just to the vulnerable but to everyone.

That would just lead to pedestrians, cyclists, drivers not using lights and relying on moonlight to

see.

“perceived wisdom” – I’m not really sure what that is supposed to convey.

you out yourself as clueless, where did I say not to use a front light for motorists? IF one is going slow enough that you can stop in time for the distance you can see which is exactly what the HC states then yes, lights would not be required. However every motorist want to go faster than 10mph at night so have front lights. And as the need, no actually greed and selfishness to go faster (which in itself poses greater threat of harm to others) brighter lights have been brought in, yet this has reduced safety of motorists AND importantly safety of other road users because it does indice faster driving, to a point that drivers do not drive at a speed they can stop in that distance they can see to be clear. This is all too apparent with the night time crashes. You’re basically saying that if its unlit then that absolves the motorist of their responsiblity which contradicts one of the most important aspects of the HC!

My argument as you’ve clearly missed completely is that telling those most at risk and travelling slower to put on supposed conspicuousy aids (so that those posing the harm can travel faster/pose more harm) does not and never has increased safety, it diverts responsibility away from those posing the danger and as we’ve seen, this forces wearing special uniform, special equipment and absolving blame when someone is injured or killed. Even the police, government and many organisations as indeed individuals like you and the person I responded to believe this, as I said, it’s classic victim blaming, and precisely why the then CTC in the 1920s/30s objected vehemently against the Act of parliament (it’s NOT a law) to force people to use a rear light under threat of penalty. This rear light/conspicuousy hasn’t done dick to change safety.

Maybe you think kids walking home from scchool with no hi-vis/flashlight during winter months deserve to get run over by criminal motorists, maybe you think women who are raped on the streets should have been wearing multi layered outfits, had an anti rape device and a scream alarm or not even bother leaving the home at all otherwise they’d be at fault for being raped … well?