Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

Jeff

Yes, you are right in that the safest environment for cyclists would be when
all motor vehicles had a maximum speed limit of 0mph!!

With regards to the enrtirely realistic 20mph urban speed limit that already
exists (18.5 mph or 30 kph) in most Norther European towns there are some
excellent reference material at :-

http://www.transport2000.org.uk/camp...p?CampaignID=2
2

http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/

Best regards

Rod King

Chris Malcolm wrote:

Of course lights and light-coloured clothing makes you more easily
seen than if camouflaged in dark clothing,

I wasn't aware that was in dispute. But, as stated, I am still looking
for any credible evidence that this makes a difference. I wish I could
find some.

--
Guy

Jeff Williams wrote:

I was at a seminar given by a member of the corporate security for
Canadian Pacific Rail a few weeks ago. He mentioned that they had
started putting reflective material on the backside of railway crossing
signs (they already had it on the front) and that the effect was
statistically fewer car-train collisions at those locations.

It is direct evidence that reflectives prevent accidents in that case.

Take it as you will concerning car-bike collisions.


see

http://sheldonbrown.com/reflectors.html for a discussion of why
reflectives are not so effective for cycling.

Rod King wrote:
"Rod King" wrote in message
...

Cycling is only about half as dangerous in the UK as walking per km
travelled. Therefore statistically this is of a similar scale.


Typo alert. Should of course be that cycling is only twice.....

Of course, second sentence still holds...


You were right the first time. Well almost; walking is about 50% more
dangerous per km than cycling.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Rod King wrote:
"Rod King" wrote in message
...


Cycling is only about half as dangerous in the UK as walking per km
travelled. Therefore statistically this is of a similar scale.


Typo alert. Should of course be that cycling is only twice.....

Of course, second sentence still holds...


So are you suggesting that a doubling of risk is inconsequential?

Rod King wrote:
"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"Rod King" wrote: (clip) Every time we promote a one sided recomendation
that cyclists need to be careful that they can be seen by cars going too
fast for the circumstances then we are reinforcing the idea that the
responsibility is on the cyclist rather than the driver. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bicycles generally go slower than cars, present a narrower profile, and
have
fewer watts of lighting. It's not a question of BLAME. It's a matter of
survival. You can define excess speed as that which leads to car to rear
end a cyclist in the dark--we could discuss it as a philosophical
question--but, I, for one, recognize that my life is at stake, so I choose
to protect myself against those drivers who may be "wrong" by your
definition.

Solely for the sake of emphasis, I suggest you visualize riding in the
dark
on a straight stretch of highway where the speed limit is, say, 65 MPH.
And, to be sure you don't give up any of your rights, TAKE THE LANE.


Leo

I do take that lane. And the reason is that its the safest place to be.

With life, comes risk. We all weigh up the risk of our actions against both
the consequences and the alternatives. When cycling, experience tells us
that it is often when you appear to be most vulnerable, ie, in the centre of
a lane, that one is the safest. Equally, cycle helmets and conspicuous
clothing are a comfort and fashion thing that will always depend on the
circumstances. If I am racing a cyle then I wear a helmet. If I was riding
off road downhill, I would wear a a helmet. If I cycle on the roads I never
wear a helmet. If I was cycling at night and wanted to be conspicuous then I
would wear a reflective band, however, there are circumstances when I would
not want to or need to use these if cycling along a well lit road within a
slow speed envirionment.

What I am arguing is that the choice of whether to dress up in reflective
clothing, or wear a helmet is a personal one and should be based upon an
objective and experienced assessment of the risks rather than a knee-jerk
"all cyclusts must wear reflective clothing or they are irresponsible".

Cycling is only about half as dangerous in the UK as walking per km
travelled. Therefore statistically this is of a similar scale. In other
communities, "The Netherland and Germany" cycling is much closer to an
alternative to walking rather than a form of exercise or sport. Hence most
people would not dream of weraing anything other than what they would walk
in. I accept that in different communities then there will be different
risk.

I support your right to wear whatever you like when cycling. Do that based
upon your own judgement and experience. But others should and will make up
their own minds.


Best regards


Rod King

While I agree with you that we all do and should use our experience as
a guide I will add that my 50 + years of riding experience my
perspective much closer to Leo's than to yours.

I think his point that it is not an issue of blame is a key one. To not
recognize the the totally unequal risks to driver vs. rider in a auto
vs. cycle collision is silly. Assigning the blame after such a
collision is a luxury not afforded a dead cyclist.

add on

I apologise for a pet peeve of mine but here goes.

Lots of folks in this newsgroup use the term statistically
insignificant (or significant) improperly. Statistical signifigance
simply means that from the results of sampling that the scores being
compared could have been expected (or not) with a given amount of
statiscal expectation. That is very different from the true
signifigance of the results.

So, in the discussions above it is most likely that the differing
"danger" rates for cycling vs. walking are statisically significant.
Because if the numbers differ by asmuch as 50% as suggested and the
number of examples (the samle sizes) are large then the number
estimated by those samples are likely very different in the
totalp[opulation for walking vs. cycling. That is all that statistical
signifgance tells us.

However, the numbers can be statisically very significantly different
but not practically different. So, if the above "danger" rates are very
small absolute numbers then from a practical matter it doens't matter
to many of us whether or not there is a statisicaly significant
difference. Since I don't know the real numbers I'll just make some up
as an example. Lets say that the "danger" rate for cycling is 1 per
million miles and the "danger" rate for walking is 1.5 per million
miles. For sure these rates are different statistically. However, for
most folks the absolutely small risk would mean that for all practicle
puposes they don't care.

Sorry to be pedantic.

Gary

I am saying that if you knew the risk of being in an accident whilst walking
was x per million kilometres and that on another stretch of road it was 2x
per million kilometres, you would not immediately think that the best course
of action was to wear a helmet and put on reflective clothing whilst walking
on the more dangerous stretch of road.

In absolute terms cycling and walking on roads is very safe and of
comparative danger. If you so believe that you have to wear a cycle helmet
and reflective clothing whilst cycling then it would seem that applying the
same reasoning then you would also do so for walking.

There are other reasons such as culture, fashion, etc which make the
decision a totally subjective one. No-one would try and make the majority ,
ie pedestrians, wear a helmet whilst walking, but many a car oriented
society does feel empowered to try and force a minority, cyclists, to wear
protection "for their own good". In societies such as the Netherlands,
Germany, Denmark, cyclists are not seen as the minority by in fact the norm.
In such society there is far less pressure to make cyclists wear different
clothes or for them to take special responsibility for such a normal act as
cycling. Those same societies also have the lowest accident rates for
cyclists and pedestrians.

I must admit that I take my inspiration from what has been acheived in
Northern Europe for cyclists rather than being put off by conditions in
North America. I will therefore campiagn for the right to space, an equal
sharing of the road and respect for all road users, whether cyclists,
pedestrians or motorists. That means facing up to the real problem of road
sharing rather than pillorying cyclists for daring to ride within the law
but without reflective clothing.

Best regards


Rod King



wrote in message
oups.com...

Rod King wrote:
"Rod King" wrote in message
...


Cycling is only about half as dangerous in the UK as walking per km
travelled. Therefore statistically this is of a similar scale.


Typo alert. Should of course be that cycling is only twice.....

Of course, second sentence still holds...


So are you suggesting that a doubling of risk is inconsequential?

Google is funny today and there are lots of posting delays. In the end
I don't think I disagree with your conclusion that from a practical
point view walking vs. cycling have similar "danger" profiles. But see
my post above for my pedantic reaction to the use ( I believe improper
use) of the term "statiscally insignificant. x and 2x with large sample
will almost surely be statiscally significantly different with the
range of signifigance used by social scientists.

Gary

Yes I think we are on the same lines. I accept that there is for example a
significant difference in the number of KSIs if the risk doubles. I was
more looking at how we make subjective rather than objective judgements
about such risk and our reactions.

Best regards


Rod


"gds" wrote in message
oups.com...
Google is funny today and there are lots of posting delays. In the end
I don't think I disagree with your conclusion that from a practical
point view walking vs. cycling have similar "danger" profiles. But see
my post above for my pedantic reaction to the use ( I believe improper
use) of the term "statiscally insignificant. x and 2x with large sample
will almost surely be statiscally significantly different with the
range of signifigance used by social scientists.