High visibility law yields no improvement in safety

On 3/31/2018 12:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

snip

Science still has that problem. 97.1% of scientists publishing
peer-reviewed papers on climate change, confirm that human activity is a
contributor to climate change, but a 2007-2008 poll showed that only 49%
of U.S. residents believe this (South Korea was the highest at 92%,
Japan was at 91%). 65% of South Koreans have a college education,
compared to 33.4% of U.S. residents.

Be very careful about the subject line in this thread. It doesn't say
that high-visibility yields no improvement in safety, it says that
legislation to compel cyclists to wear high-visibility clothing yielded
no improvement in safety--those are very different things indeed.

Is there a study that compares accident rates for those not wearing
conspicuous clothing to those wearing conspicuous clothing, regardless
of any legislation?

Also, when it comes to visibility, don't confuse reflective clothing
with active visibility. Look at the studies on lighting. For both motor
vehicles (cars and motorcycles), and bicycles; a statistically
significant, but not huge, difference has been shown for vehicles with
daytime lighting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850978/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01457512002606

Studies have been conducted for motorcyclists regarding conspicuity but
they did not even attempt to look at conspicuity versus safety. The
conclusions we

• The conspicuity of a motorcycle can be increased by using an
appropriate rider outfit (bright) that distinguishes them from the
surrounding background

• Using a modulating headlight on a motorcycle can increase the
conspicuity of a motorcycle significantly, irrespective of the
background environment

• Increasing the alertness and expectancy of drivers to the presence of
motorcycles can increase conspicuity, as the study revealed that
motorcycles were detected at greater distances in an urban environment
compared to a rural environment

Does it make sense to make yourself more conspicuous while cycling.
Absolutely, regardless of any compulsory laws.

Remember, facts don't matter to many people, they will cite anecdotes or
make up stories that have no basis in fact. Or cite studies like the one
in this thread, which don't actually look at the key question. This is
now official U.S. government policy on a daily basis, just look at what
Trump recently said about Amazon. It didn't matter that it was untrue,
there are people that believe it.

Does making yourself and your bicycle more conspicuous yield an
improvement in safety? Absolutely. The key thing is to make yourself
more visible, in the proper way. Those with an agenda will always find a
way to find fault with any study that shows this.

On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 5:25:11 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:

Does making yourself and your bicycle more conspicuous yield an
improvement in safety? Absolutely. The key thing is to make yourself
more visible, in the proper way.

On a "*.bicycles.tech" newsgroup that should hardly need saying.

Those with an agenda will always find a
way to find fault with any study that shows this.

Surely not! Who on a "*.bicycles.tech" newsgroup could be so ignorant?

Andre Jute

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:25:08 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 3/31/2018 12:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

snip

Science still has that problem. 97.1% of scientists publishing
peer-reviewed papers on climate change, confirm that human activity is a
contributor to climate change, but a 2007-2008 poll showed that only 49%
of U.S. residents believe this (South Korea was the highest at 92%,
Japan was at 91%). 65% of South Koreans have a college education,
compared to 33.4% of U.S. residents.

I don't want to get diverted into an AGW discussion, but I think you
should read this article before offering a 97.1% consensus. The real
number is probably somewhere in the 80% area:
"Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate
Change"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#6c0a44f61157
(3 pages). Enough on global warming.

Be very careful about the subject line in this thread. It doesn't say
that high-visibility yields no improvement in safety, it says that
legislation to compel cyclists to wear high-visibility clothing yielded
no improvement in safety--those are very different things indeed.

Yep. However, since the contents of the article is well hidden behind
a pay wall, it's difficult to determine exactly what the study was
measuring.

Is there a study that compares accident rates for those not wearing
conspicuous clothing to those wearing conspicuous clothing, regardless
of any legislation?

Is there a study the correlates the production of laws, regulations,
ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions with the quality
of life, GDP, mean income, and/or cost of living? There should be a
connection because every time there's a problem, the standard solution
is invariably more laws, regulations, ordinances, executive orders,
and eventually judicial opinions. More generally, do laws do anything
useful? In this case, we have a mandatory high visibility Italian
dress code for cyclists, that is not being enforced, and generally
being ignored. Little wonder there was no change in accident rate
after the law was enacted.

Also, when it comes to visibility, don't confuse reflective clothing
with active visibility. Look at the studies on lighting. For both motor
vehicles (cars and motorcycles), and bicycles; a statistically
significant, but not huge, difference has been shown for vehicles with
daytime lighting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850978/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01457512002606
(...)
Does making yourself and your bicycle more conspicuous yield an
improvement in safety? Absolutely. The key thing is to make yourself
more visible, in the proper way. Those with an agenda will always find a
way to find fault with any study that shows this.

Have you considered what might happen if every cyclists adopts high
visibility lighting, attention getting flashers, garish clothing, and
other devices intended to attract the attention of drivers to the
cyclist? Such devices might be useful if the density of cyclists were
low, but if everyone showed up for a Critical Mass ride:
https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+mass+ride&tbm=isch
with megalumen lighting, garish colored clothing, and multiple
flashers, the resultant visual confusion and distraction would be
worse than invisibility. It would probably look like a daytime
fireworks display.

Suggestion: If you have a great idea, give a little thought to how
well it might scale if everyone adopted it.

Drivel #1: Perhaps an illuminated bicycle helmet?
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=illuminated+bicycle+helmet
Probably a good idea. But, how does on power the LED's with a dynamo?

Drivel #2: What we need is a cheap, simple, and legal vehicle
deterrent. I propose a sign, that is readable at a long distance,
inscribed with "Camera on Board". If a driver understands that I'm
recording his actions, which might later be present in court, he might
be inclined to operate his vehicle with fewer homicidal intentions.

Enough warped humor for today. Gotta work on my taxes. My annual
exercise in lying and cheating is quite appropriate for April Fools
Day.


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

On 4/1/2018 2:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:25:08 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 3/31/2018 12:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

snip

Science still has that problem. 97.1% of scientists publishing
peer-reviewed papers on climate change, confirm that human activity is a
contributor to climate change, but a 2007-2008 poll showed that only 49%
of U.S. residents believe this (South Korea was the highest at 92%,
Japan was at 91%). 65% of South Koreans have a college education,
compared to 33.4% of U.S. residents.

I don't want to get diverted into an AGW discussion, but I think you
should read this article before offering a 97.1% consensus. The real
number is probably somewhere in the 80% area:
"Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate
Change"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#6c0a44f61157
(3 pages). Enough on global warming.

Be very careful about the subject line in this thread. It doesn't say
that high-visibility yields no improvement in safety, it says that
legislation to compel cyclists to wear high-visibility clothing yielded
no improvement in safety--those are very different things indeed.

Yep. However, since the contents of the article is well hidden behind
a pay wall, it's difficult to determine exactly what the study was
measuring.

Is there a study that compares accident rates for those not wearing
conspicuous clothing to those wearing conspicuous clothing, regardless
of any legislation?

Is there a study the correlates the production of laws, regulations,
ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions with the quality
of life, GDP, mean income, and/or cost of living? There should be a
connection because every time there's a problem, the standard solution
is invariably more laws, regulations, ordinances, executive orders,
and eventually judicial opinions. More generally, do laws do anything
useful? In this case, we have a mandatory high visibility Italian
dress code for cyclists, that is not being enforced, and generally
being ignored. Little wonder there was no change in accident rate
after the law was enacted.

Also, when it comes to visibility, don't confuse reflective clothing
with active visibility. Look at the studies on lighting. For both motor
vehicles (cars and motorcycles), and bicycles; a statistically
significant, but not huge, difference has been shown for vehicles with
daytime lighting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850978/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01457512002606
(...)
Does making yourself and your bicycle more conspicuous yield an
improvement in safety? Absolutely. The key thing is to make yourself
more visible, in the proper way. Those with an agenda will always find a
way to find fault with any study that shows this.

Have you considered what might happen if every cyclists adopts high
visibility lighting, attention getting flashers, garish clothing, and
other devices intended to attract the attention of drivers to the
cyclist? Such devices might be useful if the density of cyclists were
low, but if everyone showed up for a Critical Mass ride:
https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+mass+ride&tbm=isch
with megalumen lighting, garish colored clothing, and multiple
flashers, the resultant visual confusion and distraction would be
worse than invisibility. It would probably look like a daytime
fireworks display.

Suggestion: If you have a great idea, give a little thought to how
well it might scale if everyone adopted it.

Drivel #1: Perhaps an illuminated bicycle helmet?
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=illuminated+bicycle+helmet
Probably a good idea. But, how does on power the LED's with a dynamo?

Drivel #2: What we need is a cheap, simple, and legal vehicle
deterrent. I propose a sign, that is readable at a long distance,
inscribed with "Camera on Board". If a driver understands that I'm
recording his actions, which might later be present in court, he might
be inclined to operate his vehicle with fewer homicidal intentions.

Enough warped humor for today. Gotta work on my taxes. My annual
exercise in lying and cheating is quite appropriate for April Fools
Day.




Is there a study the correlates the production of laws,
regulations,
ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions with
the quality
of life, GDP, mean income, and/or cost of living?

How's that 100+ year old worldwide Heroin ban going?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 8:55:09 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:25:08 -0700, sms
wrote:

Science still has that problem. 97.1% of scientists publishing
peer-reviewed papers on climate change, confirm that human activity is a
contributor to climate change, but a 2007-2008 poll showed that only 49%
of U.S. residents believe this (South Korea was the highest at 92%,
Japan was at 91%). 65% of South Koreans have a college education,
compared to 33.4% of U.S. residents.

I don't want to get diverted into an AGW discussion, but I think you
should read this article before offering a 97.1% consensus. The real
number is probably somewhere in the 80% area:
"Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate
Change"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#6c0a44f61157

That article doesn't open for me either by your link or an independently googled link. But never mind, RBT has its own source material, most recently reprised on RBT on November 28, 2016:

****
Who says global warming is settled science agreed to by 97% of scientists?

We often hear the dumber global warmies and the thicker pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare, say that "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming". 99.999999% can't name the statistical study this claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmermann as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole of global warming wobbles like an upside down pyramid.

MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimme...-17391505.html

Zimmermann's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.

So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

9% of US respondents came from California.

California is overrepresented within the US sample. In addition ***California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.***

Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

What sort of a distorted sample is this?

Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are particularly stupid, let's ask what sort of questions Zimmermann asked them.

Zimmerman carefully chose two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including those who doubted climate change was in any way manmade.

To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

97% of a sample of only 75 "scientists" pre-selected (from an already extremely biased larger sample) for their inclination to agree to manmade warming...

This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.

Zimmermann invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents. Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:

1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."

2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."

So what have we here? A 67 per cent consensus from The Consensus on the Consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"? But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!

Zimmermann, despite cooking the statistics to toe the party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming:

"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmermann.

Of course Zimmermann's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.

There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world on the subject of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.

No consensus, period.

The global warmies either lied, or were gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".

Andre Jute
Thorough
*****

On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 15:15:04 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

How's that 100+ year old worldwide Heroin ban going?

I recently read in the paper that folks are working on a wonderful new
drug that will end the "opioid epidemic" because it has all the
properties of an opioid, but won't be addictive because it isn't an
opioid.

Allowing for the changes in fashion that writing styles have
undergone, it was word-for-word the same praise that heroin was
lavished with when it was a new drug.

In the interest of not being arrested for staking an anti-painkiller
fanatic out on an anthill with a bottle of ant repellant just out of
reach, I will say no more on this subject.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On 4/1/2018 7:13 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 8:55:09 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:25:08 -0700, sms
wrote:

Science still has that problem. 97.1% of scientists publishing
peer-reviewed papers on climate change, confirm that human activity is a
contributor to climate change, but a 2007-2008 poll showed that only 49%
of U.S. residents believe this (South Korea was the highest at 92%,
Japan was at 91%). 65% of South Koreans have a college education,
compared to 33.4% of U.S. residents.

I don't want to get diverted into an AGW discussion, but I think you
should read this article before offering a 97.1% consensus. The real
number is probably somewhere in the 80% area:
"Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate
Change"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#6c0a44f61157

That article doesn't open for me either by your link or an independently googled link. But never mind, RBT has its own source material, most recently reprised on RBT on November 28, 2016:

****
Who says global warming is settled science agreed to by 97% of scientists?

We often hear the dumber global warmies and the thicker pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare, say that "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming". 99.999999% can't name the statistical study this claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmermann as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole of global warming wobbles like an upside down pyramid.

MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimme...-17391505.html

Zimmermann's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.

So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

9% of US respondents came from California.

California is overrepresented within the US sample. In addition ***California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.***

Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

What sort of a distorted sample is this?

Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are particularly stupid, let's ask what sort of questions Zimmermann asked them.

Zimmerman carefully chose two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including those who doubted climate change was in any way manmade.

To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

97% of a sample of only 75 "scientists" pre-selected (from an already extremely biased larger sample) for their inclination to agree to manmade warming...

This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.

Zimmermann invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents. Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:

1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."

2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."

So what have we here? A 67 per cent consensus from The Consensus on the Consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"? But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!

Zimmermann, despite cooking the statistics to toe the party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming:

"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmermann.

Of course Zimmermann's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.

There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world on the subject of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.

No consensus, period.

The global warmies either lied, or were gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".

Andre Jute
Thorough
*****


That 'scientific consensus' BS has been so thoroughly
discredited over the years that anyone who offers it as an
argument discredits himself.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/1/2018 3:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
In this case, we have a mandatory high visibility Italian
dress code for cyclists, that is not being enforced, and generally
being ignored. Little wonder there was no change in accident rate
after the law was enacted.

ISTM that when a law is being considered, its ultimate effects should be
estimated as realistically as possible. It's pretty obvious that some
laws are _extremely_ unlikely to be enforced; but they're sold as if
everyone will obey the proposed law. That's not a realistic prediction.

And yes, it's certainly true that no law is perfectly enforced. But many
are enforced well enough to cause measurable behavior change.

Unfortunately, that's not true of most bike-related laws. That's just fact.

And as I said, this "high visibility" law reeks of victim blaming. I
think it's much better to direct efforts toward enforcing laws against
close passing or other cyclist harassment.

Oh, and if you seriously injure or kill another road user, make it a
default condition that you never drive again.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 3:15:08 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:

How's that 100+ year old worldwide Heroin ban going?

--
Andrew Muzi

Much better than that 0 year ban on alcohol. Alcohol is far and away the number one drug killer. Alcohol kills far more people than all the other drugs combined. But its not banned at all. Its promoted. Except maybe in a few countries around the world. If heroin was not banned, and promoted as strongly as alcohol, it might kill off as many people as alcohol.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:23:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study

How well hi-vis works may depend on the driver. A texting driver has
to look up on occasion. You need to be visible enough for them to
notice you during that 1/2 second when the look at the road ahead of
them.

The sooner they see you the better. Contrast helps - blinking lights
that don't blend in to the background are good. Most texting drivers
are OK people, just self-centered and/or ignorant.

With drunk/stoned/inexperienced/bad drivers you are screwed anyway. I
dread riding in dense suburbs weekdays from about 10 to 3. Befuddled
old people take over the road. From personal experience I know these
people are driving with cataracts, dementia and general poor driving
skills.

Hostile/aggressive drivers will still do their thing. I showed him by
passing within inches! My road! Get back on the sidewalk!