|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:23:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski All we have here are opinions. Give us some data, Franki-boy. In fact, the nearest thing to a hard fact we see in this article is the predictable opinion, but still on the face of it only an opinion, that the Italians didn't enforce their law. That would invalidate the whole study, and its conclusion. I really must say, Franki-boy, that for someone so keen on arguing whether studies whose results your politics do not approve of were conducted according to the most copacetic rules of statistics, you let the side down when you push out non-specific **** like this article, right down to quoting some wimpish British minister betting five bob each way. Do better, Franki-boy. Unsigned out of contempt for this crap, and its pusher. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On 3/30/2018 1:30 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:23:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski All we have here are opinions. Give us some data, Franki-boy. In fact, the nearest thing to a hard fact we see in this article is the predictable opinion, but still on the face of it only an opinion, that the Italians didn't enforce their law. That would invalidate the whole study, and its conclusion. I really must say, Franki-boy, that for someone so keen on arguing whether studies whose results your politics do not approve of were conducted according to the most copacetic rules of statistics, you let the side down when you push out non-specific **** like this article, right down to quoting some wimpish British minister betting five bob each way. Do better, Franki-boy. Unsigned out of contempt for this crap, and its pusher. Jute, I posted a link to an article. I posted no comment on the article, nor on the research described in the article. Your vile spew is triggered only by the imaginary products of your cholesterol-addled brain. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 7:05:25 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/30/2018 1:30 PM, Andre Jute wrote: On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:23:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski All we have here are opinions. Give us some data, Franki-boy. In fact, the nearest thing to a hard fact we see in this article is the predictable opinion, but still on the face of it only an opinion, that the Italians didn't enforce their law. That would invalidate the whole study, and its conclusion. I really must say, Franki-boy, that for someone so keen on arguing whether studies whose results your politics do not approve of were conducted according to the most copacetic rules of statistics, you let the side down when you push out non-specific **** like this article, right down to quoting some wimpish British minister betting five bob each way. Do better, Franki-boy. Unsigned out of contempt for this crap, and its pusher. Jute, I posted a link to an article. I posted no comment on the article, nor on the research described in the article. Your vile spew is triggered only by the imaginary products of your cholesterol-addled brain.. -- - Frank Krygowski So you admit that your positive, definitive headline -- "High visibility law yields no improvement in safety" -- is an outright lie, do you then, Franki-boy? Those words appear nowhere in the article, so you made them up based on complete lack of data, and tried to mislead us. Every time we try to hold you to an irreducible minimum of academic rectitude -- which in these days of slackass, jumped-up welding instructors being made "professors" admittedly is not a high barrier -- you start with your stupid personal attacks. It won't wash, Franki-boy. Give us facts, or **** off. Unsigned out of contempt for a deliberate liar. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:23:18 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski The article says "The study did not evaluate the clothing used by those involved in crashes." So I'm not sure what is being studied in this article. My state recently had a high visibility law proposed. It was defeated, or not voted on. It was for cyclists to wear high visibility, reflective clothing, at ALL times, day and night. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:23:18 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study -- - Frank Krygowski The article says "The study did not evaluate the clothing used by those involved in crashes." So I'm not sure what is being studied in this article. My state recently had a high visibility law proposed. It was defeated, or not voted on. It was for cyclists to wear high visibility, reflective clothing, at ALL times, day and night. If you follow the links in the article it leads to a reference to a study published by a Laura Thomas, described as a legal expert, that recommends changing the law to tackle the issue of dangerous and careless cycling that causes injury or death. It seems to imply that a substantial number of bicycle accidents are caused by dangerious and careless acts by the cyclist him/her self. -- Cheers, John B. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 07:19:59 +0700, John B.
wrote: If you follow the links in the article it leads to a reference to a study published by a Laura Thomas, described as a legal expert, that recommends changing the law to tackle the issue of dangerous and careless cycling that causes injury or death. The summary of the article didn't go into much detail as to what was actually measured. Was it hospital admissions, self-reported bicycle accidents, police reports, insurance claims, etc? What the author seemed to be doing is making a simple assumption. If a law that requires wearing colors not found in nature was intended to prevent bicycle accidents, then there should be a noticeable change in the accident rate after the enactment of the law. The article is hidden behind a pay-wall, so I can't offer a critique on the methodology. However, it would be interesting to see how many accidents are involved in the study. My guess(tm) is that the reason there was no obvious change in the accident rate was because the number of bicycle accidents was sufficiently small and subject to radical variations in number, that any change precipitated by safety clothing would disappear in the noise. It seems to imply that a substantial number of bicycle accidents are caused by dangerious and careless acts by the cyclist him/her self. So, if the accident was not caused by a motorist, by default it must have been caused by the bicyclist? Besides the cyclist, there are plenty of other potential culprits, such as trains, airplanes, drones, weather, road hazards, defective bicycle components, etc. High visibility clothing isn't going to do much if you're straddling the railroad tracks. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 6:04:48 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
My guess(tm) is that the reason there was no obvious change in the accident rate was because the number of bicycle accidents was sufficiently small and subject to radical variations in number, that any change precipitated by safety clothing would disappear in the noise. Possible. Also possible that, for entirely random reasons, the number of bicycle accidents could be within a very narrow range over a quite substantial period. An example is nearer home to you than Italy: A few years ago, when I explained to Franki-boy that cycling in the States is actually much safer than he claimed, because he'd done the statistics incompetently, I discovered that annual bicyclist fatalities numbered for years on end in a rather narrow range around, if memory serves, around 700. The trendline was essentially flat, bearing no relationship to the growth in bicycles. In effect, even with large numbers of novice cyclists coming into the numbers every year, one had to conclude that cycling was nonetheless getting to be safer; next you would have to conclude that dedicated cycle-facilities were actually working, that night was day, and other patent foolishness. The kicker is that the numbers that caused me to perform a double-flip were actually the best available government numbers. I have no great expectation of this Italian study proving anything more than that academics want to publish papers. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:48:29 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote: On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 6:04:48 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote: My guess(tm) is that the reason there was no obvious change in the accident rate was because the number of bicycle accidents was sufficiently small and subject to radical variations in number, that any change precipitated by safety clothing would disappear in the noise. Possible. Hard to tell, but I don't want to burn $30.50 for the report to find out. Also possible that, for entirely random reasons, the number of bicycle accidents could be within a very narrow range over a quite substantial period. Yep. My apologies for the topic drift, but I spent some time dealing with a similar effect when attempting to correlate the effects of cell phone RF exposure with brain cancer. Cell phone use increased dramatically starting in about 1995 and continues to increase today. One might expect there to be a noticeable increase in the incidence of new brain cancer admissions to hospitals if that were the case. "Brain cancer incidence in SEER 9 areas of US" https://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?run=runit&output=1&data=1&statistic =1&year=201701&race=1&sex=1&age=1&series=cancer&ca ncer=76 Hmmm... no dramatic increase since 1995. The slight peak and decrease is caused by the introduction of PET (positron emission tomography) to diagnose brain cancers much earlier than before, which had the side effect of increasing the brain cancer rate. After a while, PET scans became the norm, the curve flattened, and the incidence rate returned to its normal level pre-cell phone levels. So it should be with bicycle accidents. If effective, a large number of riders switching to high visibility clothing should produce a corresponding decrease in accident rate. The key here is the "large number of riders". If the statistical population sample were large, a corresponding decrease in accidents might be considered valid. However, if the number of riders involved were small, which implies a rather jagged and widely varying graph of accidents vs time, then any changes produced by a change of clothing reflectivity would be lost in these variations (i.e. lost in the noise). An example is nearer home to you than Italy: A few years ago, when I explained to Franki-boy that cycling in the States is actually much safer than he claimed, because he'd done the statistics incompetently, I discovered that annual bicyclist fatalities numbered for years on end in a rather narrow range around, if memory serves, around 700. The trendline was essentially flat, bearing no relationship to the growth in bicycles. Yep, very much like the cell phone to brain cancer graph. According to this site: https://www.statista.com/statistics/227415/number-of-cyclists-and-bike-riders-usa/ there are 66 million cyclists in the USA. 700 accidents is a tiny percentage of the bicycle riders who are eligible to becoming a statistic (0.001%). That makes any accident survey susceptible to huge distortions from coincidental sources, such as season, weather, road construction, emergency medical availability, riding habits, etc. 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. For example, reflective clothes lose much of their effectiveness when filthy. Issuing a reflective vest to a mountain bike rider in winter is guaranteed to produce a dirty vest. So, 7,000 riders would be required to wash their reflective vest after every ride. Ummm... I don't think that will work very well as most people would simply lie and not wash the vest. In effect, even with large numbers of novice cyclists coming into the numbers every year, one had to conclude that cycling was nonetheless getting to be safer; next you would have to conclude that dedicated cycle-facilities were actually working, that night was day, and other patent foolishness. The kicker is that the numbers that caused me to perform a double-flip were actually the best available government numbers. Garbage in, garbage out. However, when obviously deficient statistics are the only numbers available, one has to make do with what is available. I'll take marginal numbers to bad logic, assumptions, and guesswork any day. 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 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. I have no great expectation of this Italian study proving anything more than that academics want to publish papers. "More research and funding are necessary." All research papers end like that. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
High visibility law yields no improvement in safety
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 22:04:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 07:19:59 +0700, John B. wrote: If you follow the links in the article it leads to a reference to a study published by a Laura Thomas, described as a legal expert, that recommends changing the law to tackle the issue of dangerous and careless cycling that causes injury or death. The summary of the article didn't go into much detail as to what was actually measured. Was it hospital admissions, self-reported bicycle accidents, police reports, insurance claims, etc? What the author seemed to be doing is making a simple assumption. If a law that requires wearing colors not found in nature was intended to prevent bicycle accidents, then there should be a noticeable change in the accident rate after the enactment of the law. The article is hidden behind a pay-wall, so I can't offer a critique on the methodology. However, it would be interesting to see how many accidents are involved in the study. My guess(tm) is that the reason there was no obvious change in the accident rate was because the number of bicycle accidents was sufficiently small and subject to radical variations in number, that any change precipitated by safety clothing would disappear in the noise. It seems to imply that a substantial number of bicycle accidents are caused by dangerious and careless acts by the cyclist him/her self. So, if the accident was not caused by a motorist, by default it must have been caused by the bicyclist? Besides the cyclist, there are plenty of other potential culprits, such as trains, airplanes, drones, weather, road hazards, defective bicycle components, etc. High visibility clothing isn't going to do much if you're straddling the railroad tracks. 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. 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. 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. 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. -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cheap high-visibility vest for cyclists. | Mr. Benn[_4_] | UK | 79 | December 29th 10 01:30 AM |
High visibility vest just £1.35 | Mr Benn[_2_] | UK | 18 | December 11th 09 03:05 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 12:44 PM |