|
|
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
|
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:23:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski All we have here are opinions. Give us some data, Franki-boy. In fact, the nearest thing to a hard fact we see in this article is the predictable opinion, but still on the face of it only an opinion, that the Italians didn't enforce their law. That would invalidate the whole study, and its conclusion. I really must say, Franki-boy, that for someone so keen on arguing whether studies whose results your politics do not approve of were conducted according to the most copacetic rules of statistics, you let the side down when you push out non-specific **** like this article, right down to quoting some wimpish British minister betting five bob each way. Do better, Franki-boy. Unsigned out of contempt for this crap, and its pusher. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 3/30/2018 1:30 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:23:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski All we have here are opinions. Give us some data, Franki-boy. In fact, the nearest thing to a hard fact we see in this article is the predictable opinion, but still on the face of it only an opinion, that the Italians didn't enforce their law. That would invalidate the whole study, and its conclusion. I really must say, Franki-boy, that for someone so keen on arguing whether studies whose results your politics do not approve of were conducted according to the most copacetic rules of statistics, you let the side down when you push out non-specific **** like this article, right down to quoting some wimpish British minister betting five bob each way. Do better, Franki-boy. Unsigned out of contempt for this crap, and its pusher. Jute, I posted a link to an article. I posted no comment on the article, nor on the research described in the article. Your vile spew is triggered only by the imaginary products of your cholesterol-addled brain. -- - Frank Krygowski |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 7:05:25 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/30/2018 1:30 PM, Andre Jute wrote: On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:23:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski All we have here are opinions. Give us some data, Franki-boy. In fact, the nearest thing to a hard fact we see in this article is the predictable opinion, but still on the face of it only an opinion, that the Italians didn't enforce their law. That would invalidate the whole study, and its conclusion. I really must say, Franki-boy, that for someone so keen on arguing whether studies whose results your politics do not approve of were conducted according to the most copacetic rules of statistics, you let the side down when you push out non-specific **** like this article, right down to quoting some wimpish British minister betting five bob each way. Do better, Franki-boy. Unsigned out of contempt for this crap, and its pusher. Jute, I posted a link to an article. I posted no comment on the article, nor on the research described in the article. Your vile spew is triggered only by the imaginary products of your cholesterol-addled brain.. -- - Frank Krygowski So you admit that your positive, definitive headline -- "High visibility law yields no improvement in safety" -- is an outright lie, do you then, Franki-boy? Those words appear nowhere in the article, so you made them up based on complete lack of data, and tried to mislead us. Every time we try to hold you to an irreducible minimum of academic rectitude -- which in these days of slackass, jumped-up welding instructors being made "professors" admittedly is not a high barrier -- you start with your stupid personal attacks. It won't wash, Franki-boy. Give us facts, or **** off. Unsigned out of contempt for a deliberate liar. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:23:18 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski The article says "The study did not evaluate the clothing used by those involved in crashes." So I'm not sure what is being studied in this article. My state recently had a high visibility law proposed. It was defeated, or not voted on. It was for cyclists to wear high visibility, reflective clothing, at ALL times, day and night. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:23:18 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski The article says "The study did not evaluate the clothing used by those involved in crashes." So I'm not sure what is being studied in this article. My state recently had a high visibility law proposed. It was defeated, or not voted on. It was for cyclists to wear high visibility, reflective clothing, at ALL times, day and night. If you follow the links in the article it leads to a reference to a study published by a Laura Thomas, described as a legal expert, that recommends changing the law to tackle the issue of dangerous and careless cycling that causes injury or death. It seems to imply that a substantial number of bicycle accidents are caused by dangerious and careless acts by the cyclist him/her self. -- Cheers, John B. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 3:48:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:23:18 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski The article says "The study did not evaluate the clothing used by those involved in crashes." So I'm not sure what is being studied in this article.. My state recently had a high visibility law proposed. It was defeated, or not voted on. It was for cyclists to wear high visibility, reflective clothing, at ALL times, day and night. I tried to pull the study on LEXIS, but it is not published in a journal yet. I think the study just looked at accident rates pre and post-law. It apparently evaluated the success of the law rather than the success of conspicuous clothing. I don't know how you could possibly control one of these experiments. Around here, the reflective vest folks probably do have a lower injury rate because they ride at six miles an hour, and a wall impact would result in nothing more than a rubber smudge on the wall. Here's some scholarly work on high-viz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZRXlrJ3Mi0 -- Jay Beattie. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:48:52 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:23:18 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski The article says "The study did not evaluate the clothing used by those involved in crashes." So I'm not sure what is being studied in this article.. My state recently had a high visibility law proposed. It was defeated, or not voted on. It was for cyclists to wear high visibility, reflective clothing, at ALL times, day and night. From the article: "The Italian wear-reflectives-at-night-law is poorly enforced and therefore largely ignored. The study did not evaluate the clothing used by those involved in crashes." That leaves another Krygowski nothingburger. Perhaps he thought we'd read his deceptive headline and pass on without checking the article. I don't know how Franki-boy can fall victim to that sort of dumb wishful thinking every time. AJ Come on, Franki-boy! Tell us what that leaves. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 1:24:59 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
I tried to pull the study on LEXIS, but it is not published in a journal yet. I think the study just looked at accident rates pre and post-law. It apparently evaluated the success of the law rather than the success of conspicuous clothing. So what Franki-boy is telling us is that Italians are scofflaws. Much less offensive, stereotyped opinions than that one can get you fired from even a tenured position at American colleges these days. Here's a case in your own backyard: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ias-tribunals/ I don't know how you could possibly control one of these experiments. No problem. In a real experiment, you would compare like with like, for instance you would establish that the law was obeyed or enforced where it was ignored, and that the mandated or available clothing was actually visible at night, and then you would measure the change in cycling rates over the period you're studying, and find a control group (presumably in a country next door with similar cycling conditions but without the visibility law), at which point, after you've made adjustments for all the variables you found, you should be able to make a comparison for your population of interest between two time periods within calculable margins of confidence. All of this sounds like very much more trouble and expense than was undertaken in that Italian academic's makework "study". In fact, her study, and Krygowski's slimy attempt to pass it off as meaningful, both remind me of the Zimmerman "study" of 76 "scientists" on which the lie that "97% of scientist agree that global warming is manmade" was based. However, you mustn't go into the project with unrealistic expectations. This business, common in cycling and government circles, of a hard number to answer such complicated statistical questions exists strictly in the minds of those entirely ignorant of real-life demography and its representation in sampling statistics. I'm looking at you, Franki-boy. Statisticians, sociologists, psychologists, economists and other applied mathematicians who work in these fields -- and who have vastly more financial and human resources available than some random academic more interested in publication-for-promotion than knowledge--soon learn to temper their expectations of results to their understanding that correct formulation of the hypothesis and intelligent interpretation of the situation and the results are together more than half the requirement for formulation of a meaningful policy directive from sampling research. AJ |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 8:24:59 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 3:48:52 PM UTC-7, wrote: On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:23:18 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski The article says "The study did not evaluate the clothing used by those involved in crashes." So I'm not sure what is being studied in this article. My state recently had a high visibility law proposed. It was defeated, or not voted on. It was for cyclists to wear high visibility, reflective clothing, at ALL times, day and night. I tried to pull the study on LEXIS, but it is not published in a journal yet. I think the study just looked at accident rates pre and post-law. It apparently evaluated the success of the law rather than the success of conspicuous clothing. That's the impression I got, too. - Frank Krygowski |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 8:27:21 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
That leaves another Krygowski nothingburger. Perhaps he thought we'd read his deceptive headline and pass on without checking the article. I thought perhaps people would read the article and we could have an intelligent conversation. Jute, I didn't expect you to take part, since you don't qualify. - Frank Krygowski |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 3:23:28 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 8:27:21 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote: That leaves another Krygowski nothingburger. Perhaps he thought we'd read his deceptive headline and pass on without checking the article. I thought perhaps people would read the article and we could have an intelligent conversation. Jute, I didn't expect you to take part, since you don't qualify. - Frank Krygowski Oh, but we are having an intelligent conversation, Franki-boy. Its purpose is to expose your incompetent and deceitful method of conducting your war on facts you don't like. Here you deceitful headline is again, Franki-boy: "High visibility law yields no improvement in safety". Instead of slinging limp personal insults, why don't you attempt to prove your headline is not deceitful so we can all enjoy a giggle at your floundering in another morass of your own making? Unsigned out of contempt. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:23:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study Chuckle. On the same page that the researcher reports that: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518300045 - A bicycling visibility aids law had no influence on bicycle crash. - A bicycling visibility aids law had no influence on proportion of bicycle crash. - The law did not produce immediate effects, nor did it have any effects over time. is a link pointing to this article with the opposite conclusion: "Randomized trials and self-reported accidents as a method to study safety-enhancing measures for cyclists - two case studies" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457517302543 A large number of studies show that high visibility in traffic is important in the struggle of getting the attention from other road users and thus an important safety factor. Cyclists have a much higher risk of being killed or injured in a traffic accident than car drivers so for them high visibility is particularly important. A number of studies have examined the effect of high visibility, such as reflective clothing, but most studies have been primitive, the data limited and the results very uncertain. (...) A main result from Table 4 is that there were 38% fewer multi-party personal injury accidents in the treatment group compared to the control group, and that the difference is statistically significant (p 0.05). Perhaps someone should design a reversible safety vest. One side would be a bright and reflective color designed for maximum visibility. The reverse site would be in some form of camouflage, for those days when one does not feel like being a target for road rage infected motor vehicle drivers. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 07:19:59 +0700, John B.
wrote: If you follow the links in the article it leads to a reference to a study published by a Laura Thomas, described as a legal expert, that recommends changing the law to tackle the issue of dangerous and careless cycling that causes injury or death. The summary of the article didn't go into much detail as to what was actually measured. Was it hospital admissions, self-reported bicycle accidents, police reports, insurance claims, etc? What the author seemed to be doing is making a simple assumption. If a law that requires wearing colors not found in nature was intended to prevent bicycle accidents, then there should be a noticeable change in the accident rate after the enactment of the law. The article is hidden behind a pay-wall, so I can't offer a critique on the methodology. However, it would be interesting to see how many accidents are involved in the study. My guess(tm) is that the reason there was no obvious change in the accident rate was because the number of bicycle accidents was sufficiently small and subject to radical variations in number, that any change precipitated by safety clothing would disappear in the noise. It seems to imply that a substantial number of bicycle accidents are caused by dangerious and careless acts by the cyclist him/her self. So, if the accident was not caused by a motorist, by default it must have been caused by the bicyclist? Besides the cyclist, there are plenty of other potential culprits, such as trains, airplanes, drones, weather, road hazards, defective bicycle components, etc. High visibility clothing isn't going to do much if you're straddling the railroad tracks. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 6:04:48 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
My guess(tm) is that the reason there was no obvious change in the accident rate was because the number of bicycle accidents was sufficiently small and subject to radical variations in number, that any change precipitated by safety clothing would disappear in the noise. Possible. Also possible that, for entirely random reasons, the number of bicycle accidents could be within a very narrow range over a quite substantial period. An example is nearer home to you than Italy: A few years ago, when I explained to Franki-boy that cycling in the States is actually much safer than he claimed, because he'd done the statistics incompetently, I discovered that annual bicyclist fatalities numbered for years on end in a rather narrow range around, if memory serves, around 700. The trendline was essentially flat, bearing no relationship to the growth in bicycles. In effect, even with large numbers of novice cyclists coming into the numbers every year, one had to conclude that cycling was nonetheless getting to be safer; next you would have to conclude that dedicated cycle-facilities were actually working, that night was day, and other patent foolishness. The kicker is that the numbers that caused me to perform a double-flip were actually the best available government numbers. I have no great expectation of this Italian study proving anything more than that academics want to publish papers. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 22:04:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 07:19:59 +0700, John B. wrote: If you follow the links in the article it leads to a reference to a study published by a Laura Thomas, described as a legal expert, that recommends changing the law to tackle the issue of dangerous and careless cycling that causes injury or death. The summary of the article didn't go into much detail as to what was actually measured. Was it hospital admissions, self-reported bicycle accidents, police reports, insurance claims, etc? What the author seemed to be doing is making a simple assumption. If a law that requires wearing colors not found in nature was intended to prevent bicycle accidents, then there should be a noticeable change in the accident rate after the enactment of the law. The article is hidden behind a pay-wall, so I can't offer a critique on the methodology. However, it would be interesting to see how many accidents are involved in the study. My guess(tm) is that the reason there was no obvious change in the accident rate was because the number of bicycle accidents was sufficiently small and subject to radical variations in number, that any change precipitated by safety clothing would disappear in the noise. It seems to imply that a substantial number of bicycle accidents are caused by dangerious and careless acts by the cyclist him/her self. So, if the accident was not caused by a motorist, by default it must have been caused by the bicyclist? Besides the cyclist, there are plenty of other potential culprits, such as trains, airplanes, drones, weather, road hazards, defective bicycle components, etc. High visibility clothing isn't going to do much if you're straddling the railroad tracks. A number of surveys have shown that a significant portion of bicycle crashes are the fault of the cyclist. From memory, the CHP study in L.A. County showed that more then 50% of the crashes, where fault could be assessed, were the fault of the cyclist. To determine whether colorful clothing, flashing lights, etc., are effective the crashes caused by the cyclist's own misdeeds would have to be factored out of the equation. From my own observations, driving a car, cyclists with bright colored clothing do seem to be far more noticeable then someone wearing dull work clothes, so it seems likely that the idea that bright colors should reduce accidents would be a commonly accepted idea. As an aside, I once came up behind a cyclist wearing bright orange knee socks. His orange legs going up and down were clearly visible, and attracted attention, at a measured 300 Meters. -- Cheers, John B. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
Frank Krygowski wrote:
I thought perhaps people would read the article and we could have an intelligent conversation. Before getting effectively publishedTM, the conversation won't really take off: https://benzinazero.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/perche-la-norma-dei-gilet-riflettenti-per-ciclisti-e-assurda-e-vessatoria/ https://www.bikeitalia.it/2018/03/28/giubbini-catarifrangenti-renderli-obbligatori-non-ha-diminuito-gli-incidenti/ Ironically, the Uni Bologna research seems to be part of http://www.xcycle-h2020.eu/ which itself employs questionable statistical statements to sound relevant: "Cyclists suffer a disproportionate share of serious injuries and fatalities, and indeed in recent years that disadvantage has been growing." (Btw, anyone who happens to attend the Vienna conference, please check if there are ANY researchers from UBER.) In the meanwhile, here is your chance to refresh your Italian by educating yourself about traffic laws in Italy pertaining to cyclists: https://www.bikeitalia.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/bikeitalia-codice-della-strada-e-bici.pdf Note that lights and retroreflectors had already been obligatory: CDS Art. 68 c) per le segnalazioni visive: anteriormente di luci bianche o gialle, posteriormente di luci rosse e di catadiottri rossi; inoltre, sui pedali devono essere applicati catadiottri gialli ed analoghi dispositivi devono essere applicati sui lati. Btw, the French introduced a similarly despotic "gilet jaune" law hampering casual bicycle use by the diminishing proportion of secular law-abiding inhabitants starting on 1/1/2016, and here is the provisional French statistic of Y2016 (and Y2010) vs Y2017: http://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/content/download/37631/358704/version/1/file/ONISR_Accidentalite_routiere_estimations_2017.pdf (The big picture should include mentioning that there were over 900 bicyclist fatalities annually in the 1960's.) -- " Je ne me suis pas battue contre l’Algérie française pour accepter une France algérienne. Je ne touche pas Ã* la culture, Ã* l’identité et aux coutumes des autres. Qu’on ne touche pas aux miennes." - Brigitte Bardot |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 3/31/2018 6:38 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Btw, the French introduced a similarly despotic "gilet jaune" law hampering casual bicycle use by the diminishing proportion of secular law-abiding inhabitants starting on 1/1/2016, and here is the provisional French statistic of Y2016 (and Y2010) vs Y2017: http://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/content/download/37631/358704/version/1/file/ONISR_Accidentalite_routiere_estimations_2017.pdf (The big picture should include mentioning that there were over 900 bicyclist fatalities annually in the 1960's.) Yes, I was aware of the French law. I wasn't aware of an attempt to pass such a law in a U.S. state, to which Russell alluded. This does concern me. These efforts are based, once again, on the assumption that bicycling is so dangerous that it requires special protective equipment. Laws like this open up possibilities for victim blaming. Their proponents also tend to wildly overestimate the protective effect of whatever measure they're selling. And sadly, there's a fairly large contingent of "bicycle advocates" that are happy to sell other cyclists up the river for failing to believe in the magic devices. Taken at its simplest, if the article is correct, such a law wouldn't significantly improve safety. If enforced at all, it would certainly dissuade a certain amount of cycling. FWIW, I'm also against laws requiring pedestrians to carry lights or reflectors, or forbidding them to wear dark clothing at night. The fundamental problem is not generated by the non-motorized travelers. It's generated by those driving motor vehicles. These laws make no more sense to me than mandating bullet-proof vests for residents of large American cities. -- - Frank Krygowski |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:48:29 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote: On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 6:04:48 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote: My guess(tm) is that the reason there was no obvious change in the accident rate was because the number of bicycle accidents was sufficiently small and subject to radical variations in number, that any change precipitated by safety clothing would disappear in the noise. Possible. Hard to tell, but I don't want to burn $30.50 for the report to find out. Also possible that, for entirely random reasons, the number of bicycle accidents could be within a very narrow range over a quite substantial period. Yep. My apologies for the topic drift, but I spent some time dealing with a similar effect when attempting to correlate the effects of cell phone RF exposure with brain cancer. Cell phone use increased dramatically starting in about 1995 and continues to increase today. One might expect there to be a noticeable increase in the incidence of new brain cancer admissions to hospitals if that were the case. "Brain cancer incidence in SEER 9 areas of US" https://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?run=runit&output=1&data=1&statistic =1&year=201701&race=1&sex=1&age=1&series=cancer&ca ncer=76 Hmmm... no dramatic increase since 1995. The slight peak and decrease is caused by the introduction of PET (positron emission tomography) to diagnose brain cancers much earlier than before, which had the side effect of increasing the brain cancer rate. After a while, PET scans became the norm, the curve flattened, and the incidence rate returned to its normal level pre-cell phone levels. So it should be with bicycle accidents. If effective, a large number of riders switching to high visibility clothing should produce a corresponding decrease in accident rate. The key here is the "large number of riders". If the statistical population sample were large, a corresponding decrease in accidents might be considered valid. However, if the number of riders involved were small, which implies a rather jagged and widely varying graph of accidents vs time, then any changes produced by a change of clothing reflectivity would be lost in these variations (i.e. lost in the noise). An example is nearer home to you than Italy: A few years ago, when I explained to Franki-boy that cycling in the States is actually much safer than he claimed, because he'd done the statistics incompetently, I discovered that annual bicyclist fatalities numbered for years on end in a rather narrow range around, if memory serves, around 700. The trendline was essentially flat, bearing no relationship to the growth in bicycles. Yep, very much like the cell phone to brain cancer graph. According to this site: https://www.statista.com/statistics/227415/number-of-cyclists-and-bike-riders-usa/ there are 66 million cyclists in the USA. 700 accidents is a tiny percentage of the bicycle riders who are eligible to becoming a statistic (0.001%). That makes any accident survey susceptible to huge distortions from coincidental sources, such as season, weather, road construction, emergency medical availability, riding habits, etc. My guess(tm) is to establish a minimum test sample of cyclists, I would need to issue standardized reflective clothes to at least 7,000 cyclists (10%), rigorously control their use, and limit external factors. For example, reflective clothes lose much of their effectiveness when filthy. Issuing a reflective vest to a mountain bike rider in winter is guaranteed to produce a dirty vest. So, 7,000 riders would be required to wash their reflective vest after every ride. Ummm... I don't think that will work very well as most people would simply lie and not wash the vest. In effect, even with large numbers of novice cyclists coming into the numbers every year, one had to conclude that cycling was nonetheless getting to be safer; next you would have to conclude that dedicated cycle-facilities were actually working, that night was day, and other patent foolishness. The kicker is that the numbers that caused me to perform a double-flip were actually the best available government numbers. Garbage in, garbage out. However, when obviously deficient statistics are the only numbers available, one has to make do with what is available. I'll take marginal numbers to bad logic, assumptions, and guesswork any day. Did you know that the number of bicyclists killed in collisions with stationary objects correlates well with the number of ABA (american bar association) lawyers? http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=6141 and the rainfall in California: http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=1490 The fallacy also works for the absence of evidence. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). An unchanged accident rate after the introduction of mandatory reflective clothing does not mean that reflective clothing does NOT have an effect on accident rate. There could easily be a counter balancing effect. For example, it might be that riders tend to ride more aggressively when wearing a reflective vest on the assumption that the vest would protect them from harm. At the same time, vehicle drivers would more easily notice bicyclists. The two effects cancel each other resulting in an unchanged accident rate. I have no great expectation of this Italian study proving anything more than that academics want to publish papers. "More research and funding are necessary." All research papers end like that. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 15:35:51 +0700, John B.
wrote: A number of surveys have shown that a significant portion of bicycle crashes are the fault of the cyclist. From memory, the CHP study in L.A. County showed that more then 50% of the crashes, where fault could be assessed, were the fault of the cyclist. I don't have time to chase this down to the source. Maybe later. "Cyclists faulted most in bike-car crashes" http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-bicyclists-drivers-crashes-statistics-2014nov22-story.html Only crashes between bicyclists and motorists in which a cyclist was injured or killed were included in the 2,515 accident reports from 2011-Sept. 2014. Solo bicycle crashes, collisions between cyclists, crashes between cyclists and pedestrians or crashes in which fault wasn't determined were excluded. Those types of collisions accounted for 30 percent of 3,767 bicyclist crashes. To determine whether colorful clothing, flashing lights, etc., are effective the crashes caused by the cyclist's own misdeeds would have to be factored out of the equation. In a court-o-law, the percentage of responsibility is divided up among the various parties in order to equitably divide up the judgment. I'm not sure, but I don't think it's done that way on California police accident reports. It also seems to vary depending on State: https://www.esurance.com/info/car/how-fault-is-determined-after-a-car-accident From my own observations, driving a car, cyclists with bright colored clothing do seem to be far more noticeable then someone wearing dull work clothes, so it seems likely that the idea that bright colors should reduce accidents would be a commonly accepted idea. Yep. Visibility improves safety is one of the many assumptions made simply because it is so difficult to conclusively prove the connection. As an aside, I once came up behind a cyclist wearing bright orange knee socks. His orange legs going up and down were clearly visible, and attracted attention, at a measured 300 Meters. Good idea. I have two retro reflective 3M cards with clips on the back that I fabricated. I clip them onto the back pockets of my pants or jacket when riding. These reflectors have an odd side effect. When drivers pass me, they often slow down more than I might expect to take a closer look at my whatever is producing the randomly flashing reflections. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 3/31/2018 12:00 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The fallacy also works for the absence of evidence. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). An unchanged accident rate after the introduction of mandatory reflective clothing does not mean that reflective clothing does NOT have an effect on accident rate. There could easily be a counter balancing effect. For example, it might be that riders tend to ride more aggressively when wearing a reflective vest on the assumption that the vest would protect them from harm. At the same time, vehicle drivers would more easily notice bicyclists. The two effects cancel each other resulting in an unchanged accident rate. In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!" Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down. -- - Frank Krygowski |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:35:01 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/31/2018 6:38 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote: Btw, the French introduced a similarly despotic "gilet jaune" law hampering casual bicycle use by the diminishing proportion of secular law-abiding inhabitants starting on 1/1/2016, and here is the provisional French statistic of Y2016 (and Y2010) vs Y2017: http://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/content/download/37631/358704/version/1/file/ONISR_Accidentalite_routiere_estimations_2017.pdf (The big picture should include mentioning that there were over 900 bicyclist fatalities annually in the 1960's.) Yes, I was aware of the French law. I wasn't aware of an attempt to pass such a law in a U.S. state, to which Russell alluded. -- - Frank Krygowski I was not alluding. I was telling the TRUTH. Here is the text of the bill I referenced. Requiring 144 square inches of reflective material on clothing. It was defeated, or not voted on. The reflective clothing portion was added by a lawmaker who did not want to pall any law that required a motorist to pass a bicyclist on the highway at a safe distance. He wanted to punish bicyclists by making them wear reflective clothing if he was going to punish his car driving voters by making them pass a cyclist by driving in the other lane. He wants to make sure its legal to pass bicyclists by driving within one inch of the cyclist. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislati...a=87&ba=HF2341 Go to end of page 3, beginning of page 4 for the reflective clothing portion. It reads: H.F. 2341 high-visibility or reflective clothing. 1 A person riding a bicycle on a highway with a speed limit of 2 forty-five miles per hour or more, other than for the purpose 3 of crossing the highway at a crosswalk, shall wear clothing 4 and equipment which together contain at least one hundred 5 forty-four square inches of high-visibility or reflective 6 material visible to the rear of the bicycle. This section 7 shall not apply to a person riding a bicycle as part of an 8 organized bicycle riding event involving five hundred or more 9 bicycle riders at which one or more certified peace officers 10 are providing traffic control and direction. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:53:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 3/31/2018 12:00 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: The fallacy also works for the absence of evidence. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). An unchanged accident rate after the introduction of mandatory reflective clothing does not mean that reflective clothing does NOT have an effect on accident rate. There could easily be a counter balancing effect. For example, it might be that riders tend to ride more aggressively when wearing a reflective vest on the assumption that the vest would protect them from harm. At the same time, vehicle drivers would more easily notice bicyclists. The two effects cancel each other resulting in an unchanged accident rate. In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!" I think you mean phosphorescent, not fluorescent. https://www.thoughtco.com/fluorescence-versus-phosphorescence-4063769 When in doubt, I suggest photoluminescent, which covers both types. Incidentally, most phosphorescent materials do NOT contain phosphors. A few hundred years ago, science had a problem. In vast expanses of Asia, distances were sufficiently large that it was very difficult to verify anyone's claims that contradicted the local leader, alchemist, healer, or even one's own observations. When observation met dogma, dogma would usually win because observation was subject to trickery, spells, magic, and witchcraft, while dogma had the endorsement of known local authorities that were beyond any need of having their pontifications verified. While most of the planet no longer practice science in this manner, the effect hasn't completely disappeared. In college, more than one of my friends reported that the local villagers would not believe a word that he was saying, unless it was confirmed by their village leader, and only deemed safe to touch after their witch doctor had exorcised any lingering demons. Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down. Magic talisman, charms, and safety equipment are also equally effective. Much depends on whether the user is a true believer. For example, at a former employer, we had an Amp wire crimper. The crump lugs would arrive on a large reel, which was fed into the machine. The operator would prepare a wire with the insulation stripped back a few mm, feed it to the machine, stomp on a foot pedal, and the mechanism would crimp the lug onto the end of the wire. The machine had been operating for about 8 years without a single accident. One day, the priests of the OSHA religion arrived and declared that the machine was "unsafe". We were instructed to "make it safe" or face a rather expensive fine. We contacted Amp and ordered a rather expensive safety kit consisting of a pneumatically powered clear plastic fence and a tangle of pneumatics to move the fence. There was also dual safety buttons and a controller. The safe way to crimp wire was now to insert the stripped wire, press the two buttons simultaneously, which would drop the plastic fence, and enable the foot switch, which could then be used to crimp the lug onto the wire. I vaguely recall that it took about 3 months to generate 5 trips to the local emergency room for a variety of odd injuries. Most involved having the plastic fence simulate a guillotine to some body part. Fortunately, we had reduced the air pressure at the fence to the minimum, so injuries were more like bruises and not broken bones or amputations. I'll spare you the details. The problem was that operators now believed that the addition of two buttons and a plastic safety fence would protect them from the machine. They took chances, they made modifications to the machinery, they became sloppy, and they had accidents, all because they felt that they were safe. A plastic safety fence is a rather odd looking talisman, but functions in the same manner. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 3/31/2018 2:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:53:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/31/2018 12:00 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: The fallacy also works for the absence of evidence. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). An unchanged accident rate after the introduction of mandatory reflective clothing does not mean that reflective clothing does NOT have an effect on accident rate. There could easily be a counter balancing effect. For example, it might be that riders tend to ride more aggressively when wearing a reflective vest on the assumption that the vest would protect them from harm. At the same time, vehicle drivers would more easily notice bicyclists. The two effects cancel each other resulting in an unchanged accident rate. In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!" I think you mean phosphorescent, not fluorescent. https://www.thoughtco.com/fluorescence-versus-phosphorescence-4063769 When in doubt, I suggest photoluminescent, which covers both types. Incidentally, most phosphorescent materials do NOT contain phosphors. A few hundred years ago, science had a problem. In vast expanses of Asia, distances were sufficiently large that it was very difficult to verify anyone's claims that contradicted the local leader, alchemist, healer, or even one's own observations. When observation met dogma, dogma would usually win because observation was subject to trickery, spells, magic, and witchcraft, while dogma had the endorsement of known local authorities that were beyond any need of having their pontifications verified. While most of the planet no longer practice science in this manner, the effect hasn't completely disappeared. In college, more than one of my friends reported that the local villagers would not believe a word that he was saying, unless it was confirmed by their village leader, and only deemed safe to touch after their witch doctor had exorcised any lingering demons. Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down. Magic talisman, charms, and safety equipment are also equally effective. Much depends on whether the user is a true believer. For example, at a former employer, we had an Amp wire crimper. The crump lugs would arrive on a large reel, which was fed into the machine. The operator would prepare a wire with the insulation stripped back a few mm, feed it to the machine, stomp on a foot pedal, and the mechanism would crimp the lug onto the end of the wire. The machine had been operating for about 8 years without a single accident. One day, the priests of the OSHA religion arrived and declared that the machine was "unsafe". We were instructed to "make it safe" or face a rather expensive fine. We contacted Amp and ordered a rather expensive safety kit consisting of a pneumatically powered clear plastic fence and a tangle of pneumatics to move the fence. There was also dual safety buttons and a controller. The safe way to crimp wire was now to insert the stripped wire, press the two buttons simultaneously, which would drop the plastic fence, and enable the foot switch, which could then be used to crimp the lug onto the wire. I vaguely recall that it took about 3 months to generate 5 trips to the local emergency room for a variety of odd injuries. Most involved having the plastic fence simulate a guillotine to some body part. Fortunately, we had reduced the air pressure at the fence to the minimum, so injuries were more like bruises and not broken bones or amputations. I'll spare you the details. The problem was that operators now believed that the addition of two buttons and a plastic safety fence would protect them from the machine. They took chances, they made modifications to the machinery, they became sloppy, and they had accidents, all because they felt that they were safe. A plastic safety fence is a rather odd looking talisman, but functions in the same manner. Speaking technically of fluorescence and phosphorescence misses the modern vernacular meaning, 'brightly colored'. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fluorescen...ages&ia=images c.f. 'neon colors' which contain no actual neon. Regarding safety, I read last week that crocodile egg gatherers in Australia (going rate AU$35 per viable croc egg) trudge through wetlands & swamps looking for eggs unattended. The Australian worksman safety nannies have now required steel toed boots for that occupation. An employed egg gatherer noted that if he screwed up and found himself between eggs and irate mother, she would as soon take his whole leg as a toe. He added that accepted industry technique consists of running very fast and climbing a tree, which actions are impeded by heavy boots. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 5:00:22 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:48:29 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote: My guess(tm) is to establish a minimum test sample of cyclists, I would need to issue standardized reflective clothes to at least 7,000 cyclists (10%), rigorously control their use, and limit external factors. Professionals who do demographic (i.e. market) research in order to arrive at investment decisions usually assume that a correctly stratified sample of 3000 respondents can represent any universe, right up to the population of the entire country of (back when I did it) about 260m people, or so, give or take a few illegal immigrants. The key is "correctly stratified" -- you'd better identify your market right, or the results will be garbage. But even a proper geographic distribution of 3000 interviews is already a very, very expensive venture, which is why Gallup and others essentially ran cooperative ventures with questions from several research projects tacked on to a proven sample distribution. Did you know that the number of bicyclists killed in collisions with stationary objects correlates well with the number of ABA (american bar association) lawyers? http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=6141 and the rainfall in California: http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=1490 You're wicked, Jeff. I used to do a popular guest lecture at business schools in whichever city I found myself, an entire hour of totally false but amusingly plausible correlations. Grad students with a few years of business experience usually caught the false note before the academics from the economics and psychology faculties who would come sit in; women, on the other hand, were not amused at being deceived even in the service of instructive entertainment. I wish I'd known those two false correlates because they easily pass the "entertainment" test. AJ If only you hadn't told all the world, I could've trolled a clown who deserves to be made a fool of |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 3/31/2018 3:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:53:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!" I think you mean phosphorescent, not fluorescent. https://www.thoughtco.com/fluorescence-versus-phosphorescence-4063769 When in doubt, I suggest photoluminescent, which covers both types. Well, I'm pretty sure fluorescent is more accurate. The garish clothing doesn't glow after light is taken away. But I'll have to take a quick look and see if the electrons change spin or not. First I'll have to borrow some of the stuff. I don't think I own any. Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down. Magic talisman, charms, and safety equipment are also equally effective. Much depends on whether the user is a true believer. I've read a fair amount lately about the fact that placebos really can work pretty well, especially for believers. AFAIK, this hasn't been studied in bike "safety" equipment. Maybe there's PhD thesis lurking there! For example, at a former employer, we had an Amp wire crimper. The crump lugs would arrive on a large reel, which was fed into the machine. The operator would prepare a wire with the insulation stripped back a few mm, feed it to the machine, stomp on a foot pedal, and the mechanism would crimp the lug onto the end of the wire. The machine had been operating for about 8 years without a single accident. One day, the priests of the OSHA religion arrived and declared that the machine was "unsafe". We were instructed to "make it safe" or face a rather expensive fine. We contacted Amp and ordered a rather expensive safety kit consisting of a pneumatically powered clear plastic fence and a tangle of pneumatics to move the fence. There was also dual safety buttons and a controller. The safe way to crimp wire was now to insert the stripped wire, press the two buttons simultaneously, which would drop the plastic fence, and enable the foot switch, which could then be used to crimp the lug onto the wire. I vaguely recall that it took about 3 months to generate 5 trips to the local emergency room for a variety of odd injuries. Most involved having the plastic fence simulate a guillotine to some body part. Fortunately, we had reduced the air pressure at the fence to the minimum, so injuries were more like bruises and not broken bones or amputations. I'll spare you the details. The problem was that operators now believed that the addition of two buttons and a plastic safety fence would protect them from the machine. They took chances, they made modifications to the machinery, they became sloppy, and they had accidents, all because they felt that they were safe. A plastic safety fence is a rather odd looking talisman, but functions in the same manner. That tale resonated well. I once worked in a facility that did lots of crimped connectors (although they were almost all highly automatic, sometimes thousands per minute); and my best friend was, at one time, an OSHA inspector. One of my first projects, when working as a plant engineer, was installation of a tall machine with pinch rollers way up at the top. I was proud of my job, and quite confident when the plant safety committee visited. To check out the pinch rollers, they got a very tall guy to perch on a step of some kind and reach way, way up over the machine to try to touch a roller. He reported in a strained voice "Yeah, I can barely touch it..." and they immediately said "We need an E-stop trip wire up there." sigh So we installed one. I doubt it was ever used. The standard these days seems to be the company must make even deliberate self-damage impossible. Maybe it makes economic sense in a litigious society, but it's still weird. -- - Frank Krygowski |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 3/31/2018 4:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Regarding safety, I read last week that crocodile egg gatherers in Australia (going rate AU$35 per viable croc egg) trudge through wetlands & swamps looking for eggs unattended. The Australian worksman safety nannies have now required steel toed boots for that occupation. An employed egg gatherer noted that if he screwed up and found himself between eggs and irate mother, she would as soon take his whole leg as a toe. He added that accepted industry technique consists of running very fast and climbing a tree, which actions are impeded by heavy boots. There's lots of weirdness out there. In the first report I heard about this sad incident https://nypost.com/2018/03/29/moms-o...tory-of-abuse/ the news reporter said "The children were not wearing seat belts." -- - Frank Krygowski |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 15:15:02 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/31/2018 2:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:53:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/31/2018 12:00 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: The fallacy also works for the absence of evidence. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). An unchanged accident rate after the introduction of mandatory reflective clothing does not mean that reflective clothing does NOT have an effect on accident rate. There could easily be a counter balancing effect. For example, it might be that riders tend to ride more aggressively when wearing a reflective vest on the assumption that the vest would protect them from harm. At the same time, vehicle drivers would more easily notice bicyclists. The two effects cancel each other resulting in an unchanged accident rate. In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!" I think you mean phosphorescent, not fluorescent. https://www.thoughtco.com/fluorescence-versus-phosphorescence-4063769 When in doubt, I suggest photoluminescent, which covers both types. Incidentally, most phosphorescent materials do NOT contain phosphors. A few hundred years ago, science had a problem. In vast expanses of Asia, distances were sufficiently large that it was very difficult to verify anyone's claims that contradicted the local leader, alchemist, healer, or even one's own observations. When observation met dogma, dogma would usually win because observation was subject to trickery, spells, magic, and witchcraft, while dogma had the endorsement of known local authorities that were beyond any need of having their pontifications verified. While most of the planet no longer practice science in this manner, the effect hasn't completely disappeared. In college, more than one of my friends reported that the local villagers would not believe a word that he was saying, unless it was confirmed by their village leader, and only deemed safe to touch after their witch doctor had exorcised any lingering demons. Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down. Magic talisman, charms, and safety equipment are also equally effective. Much depends on whether the user is a true believer. For example, at a former employer, we had an Amp wire crimper. The crump lugs would arrive on a large reel, which was fed into the machine. The operator would prepare a wire with the insulation stripped back a few mm, feed it to the machine, stomp on a foot pedal, and the mechanism would crimp the lug onto the end of the wire. The machine had been operating for about 8 years without a single accident. One day, the priests of the OSHA religion arrived and declared that the machine was "unsafe". We were instructed to "make it safe" or face a rather expensive fine. We contacted Amp and ordered a rather expensive safety kit consisting of a pneumatically powered clear plastic fence and a tangle of pneumatics to move the fence. There was also dual safety buttons and a controller. The safe way to crimp wire was now to insert the stripped wire, press the two buttons simultaneously, which would drop the plastic fence, and enable the foot switch, which could then be used to crimp the lug onto the wire. I vaguely recall that it took about 3 months to generate 5 trips to the local emergency room for a variety of odd injuries. Most involved having the plastic fence simulate a guillotine to some body part. Fortunately, we had reduced the air pressure at the fence to the minimum, so injuries were more like bruises and not broken bones or amputations. I'll spare you the details. The problem was that operators now believed that the addition of two buttons and a plastic safety fence would protect them from the machine. They took chances, they made modifications to the machinery, they became sloppy, and they had accidents, all because they felt that they were safe. A plastic safety fence is a rather odd looking talisman, but functions in the same manner. Speaking technically of fluorescence and phosphorescence misses the modern vernacular meaning, 'brightly colored'. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fluorescen...ages&ia=images c.f. 'neon colors' which contain no actual neon. Regarding safety, I read last week that crocodile egg gatherers in Australia (going rate AU$35 per viable croc egg) trudge through wetlands & swamps looking for eggs unattended. The Australian worksman safety nannies have now required steel toed boots for that occupation. An employed egg gatherer noted that if he screwed up and found himself between eggs and irate mother, she would as soon take his whole leg as a toe. He added that accepted industry technique consists of running very fast and climbing a tree, which actions are impeded by heavy boots. On the metal working site there was a post from a guy that runs a small workshop. The Safety Demon arrived and mandated that the yellow painted lines that denoted a walk way were the wrong shade. One of the other inhabitants of the site wrote back assuming that the original poster had taken the Safety Man to task over that ruling and the O.P. wrote back saying that "No, I went out and bought a new can of yellow paint and started painting lines on the floor. The Safety Inspector has the power to shut down your whole shop." -- Cheers, John B. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:30:21 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 15:35:51 +0700, John B. wrote: A number of surveys have shown that a significant portion of bicycle crashes are the fault of the cyclist. From memory, the CHP study in L.A. County showed that more then 50% of the crashes, where fault could be assessed, were the fault of the cyclist. I don't have time to chase this down to the source. Maybe later. "Cyclists faulted most in bike-car crashes" http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-bicyclists-drivers-crashes-statistics-2014nov22-story.html Only crashes between bicyclists and motorists in which a cyclist was injured or killed were included in the 2,515 accident reports from 2011-Sept. 2014. Solo bicycle crashes, collisions between cyclists, crashes between cyclists and pedestrians or crashes in which fault wasn't determined were excluded. Those types of collisions accounted for 30 percent of 3,767 bicyclist crashes. To determine whether colorful clothing, flashing lights, etc., are effective the crashes caused by the cyclist's own misdeeds would have to be factored out of the equation. In a court-o-law, the percentage of responsibility is divided up among the various parties in order to equitably divide up the judgment. I'm not sure, but I don't think it's done that way on California police accident reports. It also seems to vary depending on State: https://www.esurance.com/info/car/how-fault-is-determined-after-a-car-accident From my own observations, driving a car, cyclists with bright colored clothing do seem to be far more noticeable then someone wearing dull work clothes, so it seems likely that the idea that bright colors should reduce accidents would be a commonly accepted idea. Yep. Visibility improves safety is one of the many assumptions made simply because it is so difficult to conclusively prove the connection. As an aside, I once came up behind a cyclist wearing bright orange knee socks. His orange legs going up and down were clearly visible, and attracted attention, at a measured 300 Meters. Good idea. I have two retro reflective 3M cards with clips on the back that I fabricated. I clip them onto the back pockets of my pants or jacket when riding. These reflectors have an odd side effect. When drivers pass me, they often slow down more than I might expect to take a closer look at my whatever is producing the randomly flashing reflections. Perhaps that is the secret. Wear cloths that makes you look like something else. A Styrofoam wolf's head as a helmet or a jersey with long ribbons fluttering in the wind. The new safety slogan will be "the more ridiculous you look, the safer you are". -- Cheers, John B. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:00:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 3/31/2018 3:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:53:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!" I think you mean phosphorescent, not fluorescent. https://www.thoughtco.com/fluorescence-versus-phosphorescence-4063769 When in doubt, I suggest photoluminescent, which covers both types. Well, I'm pretty sure fluorescent is more accurate. The garish clothing doesn't glow after light is taken away. But I'll have to take a quick look and see if the electrons change spin or not. First I'll have to borrow some of the stuff. I don't think I own any. They make both fluorescent and phosphorescent socks. No clue which type is more common: https://www.google.com/search?q=socks+that+glow+in+the+dark&tbm=isch My current vest is fluorescent. I was thinking of trying a vest with long persistence phosphorescent stripes. http://vizreflectivesna.com I've read a fair amount lately about the fact that placebos really can work pretty well, especially for believers. AFAIK, this hasn't been studied in bike "safety" equipment. Maybe there's PhD thesis lurking there! Placebos work rather well. Prior to roughly WWI, the medical profession didn't really have drugs that were strong enough to do anything useful. I read somewhere that somewhat recent studies of the active ingredients in commonly used remedies and drugs were at best marginally effective. As patients continued to pay for such ineffective drugs, I can only assume that they did produce the desired results, mostly from the placebo effect. As for safety research, I suspect there already have been papers written on the top and published in the Journal of Safety Research. However, I couldn't find anything mentioning placebo. It would probably be rather difficult to objectively test bicycle helmet effectiveness using invisible or virtual helmets. That tale resonated well. I once worked in a facility that did lots of crimped connectors (although they were almost all highly automatic, sometimes thousands per minute); and my best friend was, at one time, an OSHA inspector. Here's what the machine looked like: http://cavlon.com/zcstore/images/2674_02.jpg I couldn't find a photo showing the plastic safety panels and push buttons. It was eventually replaced by a fully automated crimper, which was capable of producing 200 pieces of recyclable scrap copper per minute, or about 50 decent crimps in the same amount of time. One of my first projects, when working as a plant engineer, was installation of a tall machine with pinch rollers way up at the top. I was proud of my job, and quite confident when the plant safety committee visited. To check out the pinch rollers, they got a very tall guy to perch on a step of some kind and reach way, way up over the machine to try to touch a roller. He reported in a strained voice "Yeah, I can barely touch it..." and they immediately said "We need an E-stop trip wire up there." sigh So we installed one. I doubt it was ever used. The standard these days seems to be the company must make even deliberate self-damage impossible. Maybe it makes economic sense in a litigious society, but it's still weird. That might be because we've bred the self-preservation instinct out of your workers. One reason why we had no accidents with the original Amp-o-Lectric machine was because every operator was given a loud lecture by the production manager about not stuffing their hands in the machinery. There was no equivocation in the lecture. They were told in no uncertain terms that they would get hurt if they screwed up. So, they paid attention, learned to protect themselves, and live to complain about loud lectures. Operators after the safety equipment was installed did not get the lecture because everything thought that the safety hazards were eliminated and therefore no lecture was needed. Your anecdote about the pinch rollers illustrates the problem. Instead of lecturing the operators not to climb up on a ladder and stuff their fingers in the mechanism, the experts prefer to make the machinery fool proof. We are better and producing fools than making fool proof machinery. Overall, the system is as effective as warning labels. I would hate to see what a bicycle blessed by OSHA would look like. Probably would have training wheels, seat belts, air bags, ejection seat, padded roll bar, armor plating, bullet proof tires, a parachute for brake failures, padded handle bars, etc. It might actually be safe, but would also be unridable. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 06:33:48 +0700, John B.
wrote: Perhaps that is the secret. Wear cloths that makes you look like something else. A Styrofoam wolf's head as a helmet or a jersey with long ribbons fluttering in the wind. The new safety slogan will be "the more ridiculous you look, the safer you are". Such clothing would be an improvement over Spandex, which looks even more ridiculous. No need for a Styrofoam wolf head. I'm into the "natural" look. Once per month, on the night of the full moon, which happens to be tonite, I look like this: http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/slides/jeffl-wolf.html Unfortunately, things don't always go as planned: http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/nooze/werewolf.txt One hour to go before the sun sets. Should be an interesting evening. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 3/31/2018 9:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:00:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: That tale resonated well. I once worked in a facility that did lots of crimped connectors (although they were almost all highly automatic, sometimes thousands per minute); and my best friend was, at one time, an OSHA inspector. Here's what the machine looked like: http://cavlon.com/zcstore/images/2674_02.jpg I couldn't find a photo showing the plastic safety panels and push buttons. It was eventually replaced by a fully automated crimper, which was capable of producing 200 pieces of recyclable scrap copper per minute, or about 50 decent crimps in the same amount of time. Wow. The place I worked had excellent results with automatic crimping presses. And they did 100% inspection using force sensors in the anvil. They could detect if even one strand of wire was not caught in the crimp. One of the press brands was named "Hummingbird" because it cycled so fast - actually, far faster than a hummingbird's wings. And it was later superseded by an even faster design. I would hate to see what a bicycle blessed by OSHA would look like. Probably would have training wheels, seat belts, air bags, ejection seat, padded roll bar, armor plating, bullet proof tires, a parachute for brake failures, padded handle bars, etc. It might actually be safe, but would also be unridable. Well, there's this: https://nationalsafety.files.wordpre...o11.jpg?w=1020 But it's sadly out of date. Can you imagine? It still allows caliper brakes! ;-) -- - Frank Krygowski |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 15:35:51 +0700, John B.
wrote: A number of surveys have shown that a significant portion of bicycle crashes are the fault of the cyclist. From memory, the CHP study in L.A. County showed that more then 50% of the crashes, where fault could be assessed, were the fault of the cyclist. I'm surprised that it's that low, since hardly any bike riders even know that there is something to learn, and substantial numbers "know" that riding in the oncoming lane, darting across streets without warning, etc. make one safe. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 15:35:51 +0700, John B wrote:
From my own observations, driving a car, cyclists with bright colored clothing do seem to be far more noticeable then someone wearing dull work clothes, so it seems likely that the idea that bright colors should reduce accidents would be a commonly accepted idea. "Commonly accepted" != true. I think the best way to reduce accidents would be to require that cell phones be disabled when traveling faster than 5 mph. Then they are no longer distractions for drivers. To observation at least half of drivers are on the edge of their operational competence just driving a car at 55 mph. Add a cell phone into that mix and 100% of drivers are on the edge of their operational competence. Since there are far more car-car collisions than car-bike collisions, perhaps we should turn our attention regarding colors to a more needed area of accident reduction... every car should be blaze orange, lime green, lemon yellow. Hey, the AMC Gremlin was way ahead of its time! |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 21:36:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: Wow. The place I worked had excellent results with automatic crimping presses. And they did 100% inspection using force sensors in the anvil. They could detect if even one strand of wire was not caught in the crimp. One of the press brands was named "Hummingbird" because it cycled so fast - actually, far faster than a hummingbird's wings. And it was later superseded by an even faster design. There's a short horror story behind the crimper which someone in management had bought at an auction. I forgot the maker and model. Upon arrival, I had it installed and running in about 2 days. It looked quite clean and well maintained. It was soon discovered that the manufacturer no longer supplied dies for what appeared to be an obsolete model. They did supply drawings for various dies, which we sent out for fabrication. I didn't want to wait, so I used a die grinder and water spray to modify one of the useless dies into something that would crimp one of the Amp terminals. Ugly, sloppy, cheap, but it mostly worked. However, it was not very fast because the pneumatic timing seemed to be all wrong. One month later, we were still waiting for the dies to arrive from the machine shop. After the Amp-o-lectric finally died, it was decided that I should "clean up" my modified dies and use them for production. I did my best, but it was still depressingly slow. When I ran it near rated speed, it would make a mess. I once calculated that the job could be done by hand faster than using this machine. Lacking any other options, it was run slowly and 24x7 which amazingly worked quite well. Eventually, the proper tooling arrived and it was discovered that the machine ran only slightly faster with proper dies. Management finally called the factory, found someone with some experience with the machine, and discovered that all the first generation models ran very slow. It was deemed too expensive to update the older machines, which explains what it was doing at an equipment auction. I would hate to see what a bicycle blessed by OSHA would look like. Probably would have training wheels, seat belts, air bags, ejection seat, padded roll bar, armor plating, bullet proof tires, a parachute for brake failures, padded handle bars, etc. It might actually be safe, but would also be unridable. Well, there's this: https://nationalsafety.files.wordpre...o11.jpg?w=1020 More of the same: https://nationalsafetyinc.org/2009/07/28/osha-cowboy-osha-bullrider-osha-santa-osha-streaker-and-more%e2%80%a6/ My opinion of OSHA hit an all time low when they declared my office bookshelves were a safety hazard. My bookshelves were flimsy steel instrial bookshelf purchased at the local hardware store. Behind it was a movable partition wall made from 2x4's and plywood. Free standing bookshelves were required to be fastened to a wall, which would normally be a good idea since mine was carrying at least twice the rated load. Just one problem. The movable partition wall was supported by my bookshelf, not the other way around. I said nothing, bolted the bookshelves to the partition wall, and quietly chuckled while I worked. But it's sadly out of date. Can you imagine? It still allows caliper brakes! ;-) Yeah, that's bad. The safety bicycle should use railroad style safety brakes. Just attach a small air compressor that will charge a small pressure tank with enough compressed air to keep the brakes open while riding. Just pedal backward to operate the pump. This is much safer because the rider becomes too tired pumping up the air pressure to do anything unsafe while riding. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:40:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 21:36:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Wow. The place I worked had excellent results with automatic crimping presses. And they did 100% inspection using force sensors in the anvil. They could detect if even one strand of wire was not caught in the crimp. One of the press brands was named "Hummingbird" because it cycled so fast - actually, far faster than a hummingbird's wings. And it was later superseded by an even faster design. There's a short horror story behind the crimper which someone in management had bought at an auction. I forgot the maker and model. Upon arrival, I had it installed and running in about 2 days. It looked quite clean and well maintained. It was soon discovered that the manufacturer no longer supplied dies for what appeared to be an obsolete model. They did supply drawings for various dies, which we sent out for fabrication. I didn't want to wait, so I used a die grinder and water spray to modify one of the useless dies into something that would crimp one of the Amp terminals. Ugly, sloppy, cheap, but it mostly worked. However, it was not very fast because the pneumatic timing seemed to be all wrong. One month later, we were still waiting for the dies to arrive from the machine shop. After the Amp-o-lectric finally died, it was decided that I should "clean up" my modified dies and use them for production. I did my best, but it was still depressingly slow. When I ran it near rated speed, it would make a mess. I once calculated that the job could be done by hand faster than using this machine. Lacking any other options, it was run slowly and 24x7 which amazingly worked quite well. Eventually, the proper tooling arrived and it was discovered that the machine ran only slightly faster with proper dies. Management finally called the factory, found someone with some experience with the machine, and discovered that all the first generation models ran very slow. It was deemed too expensive to update the older machines, which explains what it was doing at an equipment auction. I would hate to see what a bicycle blessed by OSHA would look like. Probably would have training wheels, seat belts, air bags, ejection seat, padded roll bar, armor plating, bullet proof tires, a parachute for brake failures, padded handle bars, etc. It might actually be safe, but would also be unridable. Well, there's this: https://nationalsafety.files.wordpre...o11.jpg?w=1020 More of the same: https://nationalsafetyinc.org/2009/07/28/osha-cowboy-osha-bullrider-osha-santa-osha-streaker-and-more%e2%80%a6/ My opinion of OSHA hit an all time low when they declared my office bookshelves were a safety hazard. My bookshelves were flimsy steel instrial bookshelf purchased at the local hardware store. Behind it was a movable partition wall made from 2x4's and plywood. Free standing bookshelves were required to be fastened to a wall, which would normally be a good idea since mine was carrying at least twice the rated load. Just one problem. The movable partition wall was supported by my bookshelf, not the other way around. I said nothing, bolted the bookshelves to the partition wall, and quietly chuckled while I worked. But it's sadly out of date. Can you imagine? It still allows caliper brakes! ;-) Yeah, that's bad. The safety bicycle should use railroad style safety brakes. Just attach a small air compressor that will charge a small pressure tank with enough compressed air to keep the brakes open while riding. Just pedal backward to operate the pump. This is much safer because the rider becomes too tired pumping up the air pressure to do anything unsafe while riding. I was once "written up" by an Air Force safety inspector for not wearing safety glasses in the machine shop. He said, "I've got to write you up for not wearing safety glasses". I said, "well, O.K., but write your self up also as you aren't wearing glasses either." He replied, "I don't need to. I'm the safety inspector." -- Cheers, John B. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 23:30:20 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote: On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 15:35:51 +0700, John B. wrote: A number of surveys have shown that a significant portion of bicycle crashes are the fault of the cyclist. From memory, the CHP study in L.A. County showed that more then 50% of the crashes, where fault could be assessed, were the fault of the cyclist. I'm surprised that it's that low, since hardly any bike riders even know that there is something to learn, and substantial numbers "know" that riding in the oncoming lane, darting across streets without warning, etc. make one safe. A paper, "THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BICYCLES AND TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR ALL ROAD USERS", A Thesis presented to the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo States in part, "A study in Orlando found that between 2003 and 2004 nearly two thirds of the 803 cyclist crashes involved riding on the sidewalk, an act that is not only known to be unsafe but is against the law in most jurisdictions. These studies and others suggest that the majority of cycling deaths are avoidable. It also suggests that while most people know that cycling is a potentially dangerous activity, this knowledge does not translate into bikers behaving cautiously or safely." What was it that Pogo said? "We have met the enemy and he is us". -- Cheers, John B. |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 4/1/2018 12:11 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
Since there are far more car-car collisions than car-bike collisions, perhaps we should turn our attention regarding colors to a more needed area of accident reduction... every car should be blaze orange, lime green, lemon yellow. Hey, the AMC Gremlin was way ahead of its time! Good idea! -- - Frank Krygowski |
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 4/1/2018 2:40 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 23:30:20 -0400, Joy Beeson wrote: On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 15:35:51 +0700, John B. wrote: A number of surveys have shown that a significant portion of bicycle crashes are the fault of the cyclist. From memory, the CHP study in L.A. County showed that more then 50% of the crashes, where fault could be assessed, were the fault of the cyclist. I'm surprised that it's that low, since hardly any bike riders even know that there is something to learn, and substantial numbers "know" that riding in the oncoming lane, darting across streets without warning, etc. make one safe. A paper, "THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BICYCLES AND TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR ALL ROAD USERS", A Thesis presented to the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo States in part, "A study in Orlando found that between 2003 and 2004 nearly two thirds of the 803 cyclist crashes involved riding on the sidewalk, an act that is not only known to be unsafe but is against the law in most jurisdictions. These studies and others suggest that the majority of cycling deaths are avoidable. It also suggests that while most people know that cycling is a potentially dangerous activity, this knowledge does not translate into bikers behaving cautiously or safely." What was it that Pogo said? "We have met the enemy and he is us". I prefer St. Augustine, "Lord make me chaste. But not yet." -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com