|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:25:46 +0200, Sepp Ruf
wrote: I was going to suggest riding while wearing night vision goggles: https://www.google.com/search?q=image+intensifier+night+vision+goggles&tb m=isch You might appear rather strange looking, but you'll be able to see the moving black holes on bicycles before you hit them. Black lycra matters, too! "Car crash by colour" https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/articles/car-crash-by-colour/ "One study concluded that black cars are 47% more likely to be involved in road accidents than vehicles of other colours. (...) During daylight hours, black cars were up to 12% more likely be involved in crashes than white vehicles." For the ultimate in invisibility, you need Vantablack, https://www.surreynanosystems.com/super-black-coatings/vantablack-s-vis which offers a non-reflective black that can also become invisible in the infrared spectrum: https://www.surreynanosystems.com/super-black-coatings/vantablack-s-ir Not only will you be invisible to ordinary drivers, but you also will not appear on the LADAR of driverless cars. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 08:42:56 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: I was going to suggest riding while wearing night vision goggles: https://www.google.com/search?q=image+intensifier+night+vision+goggles&tb m=isch You might appear rather strange looking, but you'll be able to see the moving black holes on bicycles before you hit them. "Mountain Biking at Midnight with Top Secret Night Vision Goggles" https://www.wired.com/2015/04/mountain-biking-at-midnight-with-top-secret-night-vision-goggles/ -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:25:50 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Joy Beeson wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: We shouldn't be telling people they have to change clothes before they ride a bike, just as we shouldn't be telling people they need to change clothes before going for a walk. Instead, maybe we should send jbeattie to mullah-land for some attention training. Consulting an ophthalmologist there is cheaper than in Portland, too. When I go for a walk after dark, I always wear light-colored clothing. "Light" colors, in grayscale-value, might not be farther distanced from the visual backdrop than black. So don't feel safe just yet, you also need a strong pedestrian safety flasher. And for a walk in the park in Toxic Theresa's England, this gear is "absolutely" essential, as any guerilla marketing expert knows: At least mullah-land has bright sun. When you go outside and everything is cement colored, including the sky -- and your eyes are doing that switch from cones to rods -- someone in cement and asphalt colors blends right in, particularly when coming down a descending road with the road surface as a back drop -- and particularly with wet pavement and headlight glare or light glare from other sources on the road. And at night, pedestrians in all black might as well be invisible. Why be invisible? I'm no DRL fan, but I use a blinky when there is hard over-cast and low light. -- Jay Beattie. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:25:50 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: We shouldn't be telling people they have to change clothes before they ride a bike, just as we shouldn't be telling people they need to change clothes before going for a walk. Instead, maybe we should send jbeattie to mullah-land for some attention training. Consulting an ophthalmologist there is cheaper than in Portland, too. At least mullah-land has bright sun. When you go outside and everything is cement colored, including the sky -- and your eyes are doing that switch from cones to rods -- someone in cement and asphalt colors blends right in, particularly when coming down a descending road with the road surface as a back drop -- and particularly with wet pavement and headlight glare or light glare from other sources on the road. Agreed. Still, once you are aware of these pitfalls (and of a population of cycling dopeheads), you are obliged to adjust your behavior to account for them. Even if it means moving slower than other traffic and waiting longer to check for subtle clues of ninja movement. And at night, pedestrians in all black might as well be invisible. Why be invisible? I'm no DRL fan, but I use a blinky when there is hard over-cast and low light. Oregon's law seems quite close to a DRL law already in demanding that one switches on a bike light during conditions in which one cannot discern a vehicle or a person -- certainly including a mourning, one-armed midget, on a skateboard, on black asphalt -- from a full 1,000ft distance. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 11:04:49 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:25:50 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: We shouldn't be telling people they have to change clothes before they ride a bike, just as we shouldn't be telling people they need to change clothes before going for a walk. Instead, maybe we should send jbeattie to mullah-land for some attention training. Consulting an ophthalmologist there is cheaper than in Portland, too. At least mullah-land has bright sun. When you go outside and everything is cement colored, including the sky -- and your eyes are doing that switch from cones to rods -- someone in cement and asphalt colors blends right in, particularly when coming down a descending road with the road surface as a back drop -- and particularly with wet pavement and headlight glare or light glare from other sources on the road. Agreed. Still, once you are aware of these pitfalls (and of a population of cycling dopeheads), you are obliged to adjust your behavior to account for them. Even if it means moving slower than other traffic and waiting longer to check for subtle clues of ninja movement. And at night, pedestrians in all black might as well be invisible. Why be invisible? I'm no DRL fan, but I use a blinky when there is hard over-cast and low light. Oregon's law seems quite close to a DRL law already in demanding that one switches on a bike light during conditions in which one cannot discern a vehicle or a person -- certainly including a mourning, one-armed midget, on a skateboard, on black asphalt -- from a full 1,000ft distance. Don't get me going on the skateboarders. The Oregon law is basically just a re-organized version of the UVC provision. http://iamtraffic.org/wp-content/upl...01/UVC2000.pdf (12-201 (when lights required) and 12-702 (lights required)). Oregon: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/815.280 (when lights required) and https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/801.325 (defining "limited visibility conditions") I don't think Oregon is more demanding than most places, and DRLs on sunny days clearly aren't required or SOP in PDX. http://www.dollface.net/post_images/portland-bike.jpg -- Jay Beattie. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 9:52:40 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 4/3/2018 8:16 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:53:35 AM UTC-7, 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!" Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 4/4/2018 7:15 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:57:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: We shouldn't be telling people they have to change clothes before they ride a bike, just as we shouldn't be telling people they need to change clothes before going for a walk. When I go for a walk after dark, I always wear light-colored clothing. This is a big issue in my area. People out walking at night in dark clothing. There have been people killed because of this. But Frank is right, we shouldn't be telling people that they should be wearing visible clothing by law. People should be smart enough to figure this out for themselves. Education is better than legislation. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 4/5/2018 2:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 9:52:40 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 4/3/2018 8:16 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:53:35 AM UTC-7, 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!" Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down. Here's an anecdote -- I just about got whacked by some dumb f*** on a bike tonight with no light and ninja black outfit. I couldn't see him against the background of other gray and black objects like the pavement. It was heavy overcast but still daylight. In a city with lots of dopes on bikes, it's good to be able to see the dopes -- no blinding lights necessary, but something that isn't funeral attire would be appropriate in low-ish light conditions. Wearing highly-visible clothing seems like a good idea, though for vehicles there was no advantage found, in terms of safety, of a more visible color. There have been advantages found for daytime lights, for motorcycles, bicycles, and vehicles. For motorcycles, modulated front daytime lights were found to be more visible than non-modulated, but there was no study comparing accident rates. Contrary to what some people on r.b.t. seem to believe, the absence of a double-blind, case-controlled study, is not a reason to abstain from using common sense. Crap, I'm dumping my lights for night riding: ABSTRACT • Visibility aid prevalence is low among injured bicyclists. • In daylight, white or light upper body clothing decreased the odds of a bicyclist–motor vehicle crash. • In the dark, red/orange/yellow upper body clothing and tail lights increased the odds of a bicyclist–motor vehicle crash. • Using multiple visibility aids is associated with reduced odds of severe injury in bicyclists. 5 Conclusions During daylight conditions, wearing white or light coloured clothing on the upper body reduced the odds of a bicyclist MV collision. During dark conditions, red/orange/yellow clothing on the upper body, and use of a tail light increased the odds of a bicyclist MV collision. Among those struck by a MV, the use of more than one visibility aid reduced the odds of hospitalization (severe injury). These results provide evidence that the use of visibility aids has a role to play in reducing the risk of severe injury from a bicyclist MV collision. Conversely, this research highlights the need to consider other injury prevention strategies such as the separation of bicyclists from MVs or reducing MV speed limits. (2014) 65 ESACAP C 85-96 As for night time visibility, 3.3 The relationship between visibility aids and MV collisions during dark The crude and imputed adjusted ORs for the relationship between visibility aids and MV collision during dark conditions are presented in Table 5. There were 42 cases and 217 controls who reported bicycling during dark conditions at the time of the crash. The crude estimates indicated that reflective clothing (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.01, 4.18), any reflective articles (clothing or other) (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.29, 5.04), red/orange/yellow (OR 4.15; 95% CI 1.17, 14.8) compared with black front upper body clothing, fluorescent clothing (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.07, 8.94), using a headlight (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.48, 6.44) or using a tail light (OR 5.28; 95% CI 2.12, 13.12) all increased the odds of a collision. Due to the small number of cases in this analysis, adjusted estimates could only be calculated from the imputed data. With the imputed data, only the estimates for red/orange/yellow (OR 4.11; 95% CI 1.06, 15.99) front upper body clothing compared with black, and using a tail light (OR 2.54; 95% CI 1.06, 6.07) remained statistically significant. Don't use a tail light! hmmm. For us Cibie & Soubitez glass bulb w/side dynamo riders wearing mostly black, and a red mudguard reflector, crashes are statistically insignificant. Good. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cheap high-visibility vest for cyclists. | Mr. Benn[_4_] | UK | 79 | December 29th 10 12:30 AM |
High visibility vest just £1.35 | Mr Benn[_2_] | UK | 18 | December 11th 09 02:05 PM |
High Visibility Gear for Daylight | Steveal | UK | 21 | July 12th 09 07:23 PM |
Plain high-visibility jerseys...? | Kenneth | General | 9 | August 19th 04 05:29 AM |
leeds afety high visibility clothing | mike | UK | 1 | December 11th 03 11:44 AM |