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