Cheap high-visibility vest for cyclists.

On 27/12/2010 10:53, DavidR wrote:

wrote:
On 26/12/2010 23:23, DavidR wrote:

If what you claim is correct (and it may be), surely that would
appear to be a problem which could only be satisfactorily addressed
via education of cyclists, since it is their misperception which
you blame.

Perhaps we would be much better off educating those that keep whittering
on about how much they supposedly improve visibility.

Or those who - allegedly (and only allegedly) - over-estimate the
advantages.

Most people just go with the flow. Some get on a bike. How confusing it is
to be told "you should wear a hi-viz vest because it makes you more
visible... err, but by the way it won't help"

It's only "confusing" if you believe it the latter. It is completely
counter-intuitive to believe that reflective mayerials can't help with
visibility. If that were the case, every significant government (and every
emergency sevice) in Europe would have got it wrong and people like you and
Tony Raven would have got it right. How likely do you claim that to be?

Now, since you are one of the band that witters (*) on that cyclists should
wear brightly coloured vests...

Wrong.

You can trace *no* post from me to that effect.

pause for DR to Google NGs

You tried to trace one and failed, didn't you?

Try again?

do they benefit or not?

None of my business. On this topic, my comments are restricted to the logic -
or lack thereof - of what people say. That is, to faults in their reasoning.

If you think they
do, is this based factual evidence or is it because you trying to impose
some agenda based on the flow?

(*) corrected spelling

Why didn't you correct "whittering" as well?

On 27/12/2010 11:22, JNugent wrote:
On 27/12/2010 02:43, OG wrote:
On 24/12/2010 23:25, JNugent wrote:
On 24/12/2010 21:28, JMS wrote:

Tony wrote:

snip

That link is a load of rubbish and this "psycholist" does know
better as
it turns out. More light is not reflected by bright colours. Most
light
is reflected by white objects and anything which is coloured is
reflecting less than that because it is absorbing the parts of the
spectrum.
In terms of visibility, the peak sensitivity of the human eye is at
555nm in daylight which is green. Yellow is 570-580nm.
Don't believe everything you find on the web.

Yes of course Raving - we realise that *you* know so much more than
people like the person who owns the web site. Have you written to
Professor Morton and told her she is just wrong?

Does it really matter?

Any eventual law compelling cyclists to wear hi-viz should simply
reflect the best current scientific thinking in the field.

If that dictates green - or pink - hi-viz rather than yellow, there's
nothing wrong with that per se.

Or maybe no Hi-viz at all.
Your comment can be read as pre-supposing that such a law is inevitable.

Only to someone who doesn't understad the meanings of the English words
"any", "eventual" or "if".

You are mistaken.

On 27/12/2010 11:39, OG wrote:

On 27/12/2010 11:22, JNugent wrote:
On 27/12/2010 02:43, OG wrote:
On 24/12/2010 23:25, JNugent wrote:
On 24/12/2010 21:28, JMS wrote:
Tony wrote:

snip

That link is a load of rubbish and this "psycholist" does know
better as it turns out. More light is not reflected by bright
colours. Most light is reflected by white objects and anything
which is coloured is reflecting less than that because it is
absorbing the parts of the spectrum.
In terms of visibility, the peak sensitivity of the human eye is
at 555nm in daylight which is green. Yellow is 570-580nm.
Don't believe everything you find on the web.

Yes of course Raving - we realise that *you* know so much more than
people like the person who owns the web site. Have you written to
Professor Morton and told her she is just wrong?

Does it really matter?
Any eventual law compelling cyclists to wear hi-viz should simply
reflect the best current scientific thinking in the field.
If that dictates green - or pink - hi-viz rather than yellow, there's
nothing wrong with that per se.

Or maybe no Hi-viz at all.
Your comment can be read as pre-supposing that such a law is inevitable.

Only to someone who doesn't understad the meanings of the English words
"any", "eventual" or "if".

You are mistaken.

Am I?

About what?

On Dec 27, 11:19*am, "Paul - xxx" wrote:


Did you read what I wrote? *I'm not saying it isn't easy to see, but
that it's sometimes too easy to see! *What I mean is that a full hi-vis
jacket or vest can mask your outline and make it hard to distinguish
and tell quickly that the 'yellow blob' you see is a cyclist and is
moving and can make it hard to determine speed and direction, simply
'cos it's such high contrast that it can blot out stuff around it.

Don't get me wrong, I wear some reflectives and Hi-vis, but I can see
why some people disagree that it's a panacea that will cure the myopia
of some road users.

To suggest it's wrong not to wear it or that it should be made law to
wear Hi-Vis needs far more research into it. There are far more views
on it than a simple yes it's good, no it's not. *In some situations
it's a boon and a positive benefit, but in some situations it's not.

--
Paul - xxx- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now let me see. According to the psycholists:

1) Helmets do not protect their heads.

2) Lights do not make them any easier to see at night.

3) Hi-viz/reflective jackets do not make them easier to see at any
time of day.

4) All red traffic lights and other road signs do not apply to
cyclists.

5) In is necessary to ride in the middle of the traffic lane, so as to
cause maximum disruption to drivers. Then they complain about drivers
passing too closely to them!

Sound like the arguments for not having enough lifeboats on the
Titanic to me!

Derek C

On 27/12/2010 11:48, JNugent wrote:
On 27/12/2010 11:39, OG wrote:

On 27/12/2010 11:22, JNugent wrote:
On 27/12/2010 02:43, OG wrote:
On 24/12/2010 23:25, JNugent wrote:
On 24/12/2010 21:28, JMS wrote:
Tony wrote:

snip

That link is a load of rubbish and this "psycholist" does know
better as it turns out. More light is not reflected by bright
colours. Most light is reflected by white objects and anything
which is coloured is reflecting less than that because it is
absorbing the parts of the spectrum.
In terms of visibility, the peak sensitivity of the human eye is
at 555nm in daylight which is green. Yellow is 570-580nm.
Don't believe everything you find on the web.

Yes of course Raving - we realise that *you* know so much more than
people like the person who owns the web site. Have you written to
Professor Morton and told her she is just wrong?

Does it really matter?
Any eventual law compelling cyclists to wear hi-viz should simply
reflect the best current scientific thinking in the field.
If that dictates green - or pink - hi-viz rather than yellow, there's
nothing wrong with that per se.

Or maybe no Hi-viz at all.
Your comment can be read as pre-supposing that such a law is
inevitable.

Only to someone who doesn't understad the meanings of the English words
"any", "eventual" or "if".

You are mistaken.

Am I?

About what?

In this instance, about how the sentences you wrote can be read.

On Dec 27, 12:01*pm, Derek C wrote:
On Dec 27, 11:19*am, "Paul - xxx" wrote:





Did you read what I wrote? *I'm not saying it isn't easy to see, but
that it's sometimes too easy to see! *What I mean is that a full hi-vis
jacket or vest can mask your outline and make it hard to distinguish
and tell quickly that the 'yellow blob' you see is a cyclist and is
moving and can make it hard to determine speed and direction, simply
'cos it's such high contrast that it can blot out stuff around it.

Don't get me wrong, I wear some reflectives and Hi-vis, but I can see
why some people disagree that it's a panacea that will cure the myopia
of some road users.

To suggest it's wrong not to wear it or that it should be made law to
wear Hi-Vis needs far more research into it. There are far more views
on it than a simple yes it's good, no it's not. *In some situations
it's a boon and a positive benefit, but in some situations it's not.

--
Paul - xxx- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now let me see. According to the psycholists:

Nearly there.

1) Helmets do not protect their heads.

Wearing a helmet means any injury you get will be more severe.


2) Lights do not make them any easier to see at night.

Lights if not used is just a way of blaming the victim.


3) Hi-viz/reflective jackets do not make them easier to see at any
time of day.

This only applies to cyclists, not any other part of society.


4) All red traffic lights and other road signs do not apply to
cyclists.

They only break these laws for their own safety.


5) In is necessary to ride in the middle of the traffic lane, so as to
cause maximum disruption to drivers. Then they complain about drivers
passing too closely to them!

It must allways be the drivers fault


Sound like the arguments for not having enough lifeboats on the
Titanic to me!

Derek C

Happily most cyclists are not like that.

"JNugent" wrote
On 27/12/2010 10:53, DavidR wrote:
wrote:
On 26/12/2010 23:23, DavidR wrote:

If what you claim is correct (and it may be), surely that would
appear to be a problem which could only be satisfactorily addressed
via education of cyclists, since it is their misperception which
you blame.

Perhaps we would be much better off educating those that keep
whittering
on about how much they supposedly improve visibility.

Or those who - allegedly (and only allegedly) - over-estimate the
advantages.

Most people just go with the flow. Some get on a bike. How confusing it
is
to be told "you should wear a hi-viz vest because it makes you more
visible... err, but by the way it won't help"

It's only "confusing" if you believe it the latter. It is completely
counter-intuitive to believe that reflective mayerials can't help with
visibility.

It depends on how you want to define "visibility". If you want a bright spot
in a static image landing on the retina, then of course it makes a
difference. Continue through on to how the brain treats and reacts to a
moving image. What then?

If that were the case, every significant government (and every emergency
sevice) in Europe would have got it wrong and people like you and Tony
Raven would have got it right. How likely do you claim that to be?

I don't know the reasoning behind why they think it is a good idea for every
possible employed activity for every hour of the day.

Now, since you are one of the band that witters (*) on that cyclists
should
wear brightly coloured vests...

Wrong.

You can trace *no* post from me to that effect.

If you had no opinion you wouldn't be posting. Reference to government
suggests you're just going with the flow.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 27/12/2010 12:01, Derek C wrote:

Now let me see. According to the psycholists:

1) Helmets do not protect their heads.

2) Lights do not make them any easier to see at night.

3) Hi-viz/reflective jackets do not make them easier to see at any
time of day.

4) All red traffic lights and other road signs do not apply to
cyclists.

5) In is necessary to ride in the middle of the traffic lane, so as to
cause maximum disruption to drivers. Then they complain about drivers
passing too closely to them!

Sound like the arguments for not having enough lifeboats on the
Titanic to me!

So what you are saying is that by your definition, no "psycholist" posts
regularly (or as far as I can tell at all) to this group.

Well done, you're making progress at last.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNGJe0AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/xhEH/3yehWKL6wPAmw0eG2jZvxq6
Erm1z+6iftbivwHbGMG66OePhNmRi9hY9s/emxMlsmOGsOB1r1fOeIu/YDy78EcF
mrRVUJk77BZNXZ4oESbnnkjRinxsONHnCUSGuJjC3XoLHYFQqd dfmPc3jKdtdk2b
VzDg9C1bXd/YiHHmLp6xPq66wUyIREb8yBf46wIMmvg2xtsiB3fRggHJa/lTrfhH
nSjojjyXyrkZzL+efQFMGaoRJwoA3zMFxiJiLuv9VG8dlen4os sSOzRyEE2lHoX1
gtYP2JmRamCe1J0yQlsJTBUA8V1VXEubhBkZbtx8QaBoYss/u0zQASwAe+BLD+0=
=1nDU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Dec 27, 1:11*pm, "DavidR" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote



On 27/12/2010 10:53, DavidR wrote:
*wrote:
On 26/12/2010 23:23, DavidR wrote:

If what you claim is correct (and it may be), surely that would
appear to be a problem which could only be satisfactorily addressed
via education of cyclists, since it is their misperception which
you blame.

Perhaps we would be much better off educating those that keep
whittering
on about how much they supposedly improve visibility.

Or those who - allegedly (and only allegedly) - over-estimate the
advantages.

Most people just go with the flow. Some get on a bike. How confusing it
is
to be told "you should wear a hi-viz vest because it makes you more
visible... err, but by the way it won't help"
It's only "confusing" if you believe it the latter. It is completely
counter-intuitive to believe that reflective mayerials can't help with
visibility.

It depends on how you want to define "visibility". If you want a bright spot
in a static image landing on the retina, then of course it makes a
difference. Continue through on to how the brain treats and reacts to a
moving image. What then?

If that were the case, every significant government (and every emergency
sevice) in Europe would have got it wrong and people like you and Tony
Raven would have got it right. How likely do you claim that to be?

I don't know the reasoning behind why they think it is a good idea for every
possible employed activity for every hour of the day.

It is culturing obedience for the future in the swat squads, where you
as a member of the public pay up for daring to use the streets in the
dark or are sentenced to death. Legalised robbery, you voted them
in.

Now, since you are one of the band that witters (*) on that cyclists
should
wear brightly coloured vests...

Wrong.

You can trace *no* post from me to that effect.

If you had no opinion you wouldn't be posting. Reference to government
suggests you're just going with the flow.

On 27/12/2010 12:37, OG wrote:
On 27/12/2010 11:48, JNugent wrote:
On 27/12/2010 11:39, OG wrote:

On 27/12/2010 11:22, JNugent wrote:
On 27/12/2010 02:43, OG wrote:
On 24/12/2010 23:25, JNugent wrote:
On 24/12/2010 21:28, JMS wrote:
Tony wrote:

snip

That link is a load of rubbish and this "psycholist" does know
better as it turns out. More light is not reflected by bright
colours. Most light is reflected by white objects and anything
which is coloured is reflecting less than that because it is
absorbing the parts of the spectrum.
In terms of visibility, the peak sensitivity of the human eye is
at 555nm in daylight which is green. Yellow is 570-580nm.
Don't believe everything you find on the web.

Yes of course Raving - we realise that *you* know so much more than
people like the person who owns the web site. Have you written to
Professor Morton and told her she is just wrong?

Does it really matter?
Any eventual law compelling cyclists to wear hi-viz should simply
reflect the best current scientific thinking in the field.
If that dictates green - or pink - hi-viz rather than yellow, there's
nothing wrong with that per se.

Or maybe no Hi-viz at all.
Your comment can be read as pre-supposing that such a law is
inevitable.

Only to someone who doesn't understad the meanings of the English words
"any", "eventual" or "if".

You are mistaken.

Am I?
About what?

In this instance, about how the sentences you wrote can be read.

I can only comment on how they would be correctly read and construed by
persons familiar with the English language and its nuances.

OTOH, it is probably true that there are some who can misinterpret more or
less anything (indeed, I hinted at that above), and in that sense, you may be
right. Not that it matters.