High visibility law yields no improvement in safety

On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:20:56 AM UTC+1, Ralph Barone wrote:
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.

-- Jay Beattie.



Dressing in all black for your own funeral sounds pretty proactive and
thoughtful to me.

He has a Swiss cousin. In the old cemetery in Basel there's a gravestone with a bicycle carved above the incumbent's name. The inscription under his name, in German, declaims: "He died for his right of way."

AJ
Thanks for the giggle

On 4/3/2018 11:16 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.

My position is that a rider obeying existing laws should be allowed to
wear whatever he wants. 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.

I assume you were obeying traffic laws and that the ninja biker was not.
I'd suggest it's more productive to work on promoting obedience to
traffic laws instead of garish clothing.

If a dumb f*** is going to run a stop sign, ride wrong-way or whatever,
he's surely not going to say "Oh, but for safety I'll put on a special
bicycling hoodie in neon yellow color."


--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 8:57:45 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2018 11:16 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.

On 4/4/2018 3:06 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 8:57:45 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2018 11:16 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.

My position is that a rider obeying existing laws should be allowed to
wear whatever he wants. 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.

I assume you were obeying traffic laws and that the ninja biker was not.
I'd suggest it's more productive to work on promoting obedience to
traffic laws instead of garish clothing.

If a dumb f*** is going to run a stop sign, ride wrong-way or whatever,
he's surely not going to say "Oh, but for safety I'll put on a special
bicycling hoodie in neon yellow color."

We were both obeying the law, but he had the right of way. I was crossing an uncontrolled intersection, and he was approaching from my right, coming down hill and pretty much invisible to me until the last second. I jammed on my brakes -- butt way back in the approved Joerg fashion, belly to the top tube and ready for action -- and the guy rode by. It was after 6 pm, overcast but still light. I had my pulsing front light and rear flasher -- and as you know, I'm not a big DRL guy. There are times when it is hard to see other bikes, and something other than black is appropriate.

I'll admit to very little experience with uncontrolled intersections. We
just don't have them around here. In fact, I can't think of a normal
intersection with just a yield sign. They all get at least stop signs.

But I'm having a hard time visualizing an excuse for your error. Six PM
and overcast is plenty bright this time of year.

And yes, when I'm out at night on foot I do avoid dressing like Johnny Cash. I've had plenty of run-ins with invisible pedestrians and invisible dogs at night -- particularly when using the low-spew dyno light. I saw a dog with little blinkies on it the other night, which I thought was unique.

Dogs are all leashed around here, except for those of owners who
deliberately ignore the law in our forest preserve. It's one of the many
things I liked about moving out of the American South.

What can I say? I've never come close to hitting a pedestrian due to
nighttime visibility. I've had ninja cyclists come at me at night and
I've yelled at them; but I've yelled about headlights, not about
brighter wardrobes.

When we take neighborhood walks at night, I often carry a giveaway
flashlight because we have no sidewalks on several pleasant streets. I
turn it on if a car is coming. But unlike one couple in town, I'm surely
not going to put on a day-glo safety vest every time I take a walk, day
or night, let alone change my clothes. It's no more likely than putting
a six foot tall safety flag on my bike.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 04/04/18 13:16, jbeattie wrote:


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.


We could trade anecdotes til the cows come home.

--
JS

On 4/4/2018 5:51 PM, James wrote:
On 04/04/18 13:16, jbeattie wrote:


Here's an anecdote -- I just about got whacked by some dumb f*** on a
bike tonight with no light and ninja black outfit.Â* I couldn't see
him against the background of other gray and black objects like the
pavement. It was heavy overcast but still daylight.Â* 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.


We could trade anecdotes til the cows come home.

Most of mine are boring, ending with "I was careful, so nothing bad
happened."

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:57:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

My position is that a rider obeying existing laws should be allowed to
wear whatever he wants. 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.

On the contrary. My solution to the visibility problem is to require
that all bicycle riders wear a specific uniform, with modifications by
their rank (skateboard, scooter, BMX, mtn bike, cyclocross, commuter,
tourist, road racer, unicycle, etc). There should also be specific
requirements for appropriate lighting.

I contend that the problem is not that the cyclist is insufficiently
visible but rather that automobile drivers do not have a standardized
image of what a cyclist is suppose to look like. It is the addition
of a few milliseconds of reaction time, while the driver tries to
identify the apparition before him, that might be causing problems.
I've had this problem myself while driving, where a cyclist adopts
some bizarre method of illumination, which I can't distinguish from a
construction hazard flasher or moving Christmas tree.


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

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:
http://www.sovietarmystuff.com/Product_185_OZK_Soviet_Russian_Army_Chemical_NBC_H azmat_Protection_Suit.html
Check out those totally functional cyclist gaiters against roadspray!


--
Black lycra matters, too!