On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:13:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/20/2017 9:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
Check this out: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/arti...enting-bicycle
Don't ride in Auckland, even with a blinky.

Interesting study, with weird results. Seemed the group that was just
"occasionally conspicuous" had the lowest crash rate.
(...)

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.

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.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558