A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

High visibility law yields no improvement in safety



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 31st 18, 06:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,167
Default 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
Ads
  #22  
Old March 31st 18, 08:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,334
Default 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.
  #23  
Old March 31st 18, 08:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default 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
  #24  
Old March 31st 18, 09:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,653
Default 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


  #25  
Old March 31st 18, 11:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,167
Default High visibility law yields no improvement in safety

On 3/31/2018 3:44 PM, wrote:
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.


"Alluding" has no connotation of falseness. It just means mentioning
something without going into detail.

Here is the text of the bill I referenced.


OK, and now you're no longer alluding. :-)

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.


I'm glad it failed.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #26  
Old March 31st 18, 11:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,705
Default 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
  #27  
Old April 1st 18, 12:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,167
Default 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
  #28  
Old April 1st 18, 12:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,167
Default 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
  #29  
Old April 1st 18, 12:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default 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.

  #30  
Old April 1st 18, 12:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default 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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.