On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 11:23:35 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I see one problem with the study. There's little correlation between
accident crash rate and being conspicuous. The problem that drives of
vehicles that hit bicyclists almost always proclaim that they didn't
see the bicyclist. That might be because the bicyclist was not easily
visible, but could also be because the driver wasn't paying attention,
was distracted, in desperate need of corrective vision, or was under
the influence of booze, drugs, or passengers. For these drivers no
amount of conspicuous clothing or flashing lights will improve their
driving.

Let's remember that the most common excuse for a car accident is, "I didn't see him." So why should it be any different for a car-bicycle crash with equal invalidity?


That begs the question of what is the ratio of attentive drivers to
impaired losers? I don't know. If I arbitrarily assign a 50/50
distribution, then I'll probably find that the overwhelming majority
of bicycle crashes are caused by the impaired losers. That means that
visibility has little effect on the conscientious drivers, who will
probably be paying attention to their driving, and little effect on
the impaired losers, who will probably be immune to any improvements
in visibility.

I was pulled over by a cop and given a mechanical ticket (out of date tag). How did he pick me out of the lot of San Mateo Bridge traffic? I was the only one driving the speed limit and attentive. This says an awful lot about the attentiveness of the average driver.