blackbox wrote: » Everything a cyclist can do to make himself (or herself) more visible reduces the risk of a collision.
blackbox wrote: » Do what you can within your control to make yourself safer.
This study found commuter and utility cyclists using conspicuity aids were at increased risk of collision crash involvement when compared to non-users despite adjustment for confounding.
Results revealed that the implementation of legislation imposing high-visibility clothing for cyclist did not influence the number of bicycles involved in road crashes as well as its proportion in the total vehicles involved in road crashes. The introduction of the legislation did not produce immediate effects, nor did it have any effects over time.
magicbastarder wrote: » the RSA have loads of advice and photos of hi-vis on their website, and in their campaigns about hi-vis jackets, but are essentially silent on advice on use, placement, you name it, of bike lights.
tomasrojo wrote: » That statistical evidence so far, on balance, shows no reduced likelihood of a collision associated with hiviz use.
Duckjob wrote: » Similar story with helmets.
GreeBo wrote: » So I guess you dont wear a seatbelt?
tomasrojo wrote: » In fact, there's an implicit endorsement of cycling while wearing a hiviz vest and using lights that would barely illuminate the interior of a shoe.
tomasrojo wrote: » The two studies I particularly remember are these:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235407582_The_Use_Of_Conspicuity_Aids_By_Cyclists_And_Risk_Of_Crashes_Involving_Other_Road_Users_A_Population_Based_Case-Control_Studyhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518300045 It's possible that there there's a stronger positive effect on rural roads which didn't show up, because most cycling is in cities, so that rural signal vanished in the noise in the Italian study, and the UK study was all in Nottingham city, as far as I know.
magicbastarder wrote: » but you see, this is the aggravating part. most people (at a guess, most people) here *do* do this. but if they have not done this, and come a cropper, the fact that they have not done this will be used against them even if this is not a factor in whatever incident has transpired. they will be held partly accountable for the actions of a negligent driver. how come we can have court cases where the clothing a cyclist is wearing is an absolute de facto piece of evidence, even if the incident occured in broad daylight, but in the same circumstances, an incident where a pedestrian is injured or killed does not delve into their clothing choice to the same extent? it's a shift of blame from those creating the risk to those experiencing the risk. the RSA have loads of advice and photos of hi-vis on their website, and in their campaigns about hi-vis jackets, but are essentially silent on advice on use, placement, you name it, of bike lights.
magicbastarder wrote: » you're straw-manning. i can both resent the emphasis placed on hi-vis, while choosing to wear hi-visibility cycling clothing, without it actually being some sort of hypocrisy or logical quandary. many cyclists do resent the implication that it's their fault if a driver is negligent, but blame transfers to them if they didn't wear something which wouldn't have made a difference in the circumstances. it's a relatively subtle distinction, by by god, it's not *that* subtle.
Duckjob wrote: » Actually there's a number of studies that Suggest the opposite is true, that due to drivers false perceptions of increased safety when they see someone in hi vis, they take more risks and therefore getting into a collision is more likely. Similar story with helmets.
GreeBo wrote: » But bike lights have some magical property that prevents the false perception? You'll have to explain that one to me!
GreeBo wrote: » Unless those studies can show obedience to the legislation they are somewhat meaningless. We have lights on the legislation and it doesnt seem to matter to many people. For that matter, are their any studies to show that having lights on your bike makes any statistical difference ?
GreeBo wrote: » I disagree with that totally and think thats in your head. The RSA videos advise wearing of bright, reflective clothing AND remind you that lights are a legal requirement (and that they should be bright)
tomasrojo wrote: » The first study is a Ph.D. and it's not about the law. It's a prospective cohort study, where the researcher followed the fates of people who wore hiviz and those who didn't. That's a good question about lights. I've looked it up before. It's never been investigated in relation to collision frequency, as far as I could see. I might have another look. However, hiviz has, and it didn't do very well.
GreeBo wrote: » But unless it did worse than lights, the point still stands..right? In fact unless there is a study actually showing the lights improve cycling safety...
CramCycle wrote: » It's not the visibility but the object that causes the false perception. That should be, pardon the pun, blindingly obvious, to all. It's the same reason some road users treat other road users with more grace than others. It is a bias. We think something is safer, without realising, you treat it with the same risk ratio i.e. you treat it with less regard as you perceive it as safer. The highly quoted study in the UK, not without its faults was beautifully simple in how it demonstrated this. It also highlighted other societal issues, aside from perceived safety but the point holds.
tomasrojo wrote: » There is a difference between a measure that is assumed to be effective and has never been investigated properly, and one that has been investigated and performed poorly.
tomasrojo wrote: » The essential thing, as far as I recall, that has been discussed in the last ten or so pages, is that people should wear hiviz, and it's dangerous not to. In fact, it's presented almost as a moral failing, and certainly a sign of how unserious or even childish the people who fail to use hiviz are. The evidence to support that attitude is actually quite weak.
tomasrojo wrote: » I don't personally care who decides to wear hiviz and who doesn't. I do mind hiviz being brought up as if it's the most essential weapon in a campaign against road deaths. It would be very convenient if it were a silver bullet, because it's cheap, and it doesn't require pissing off motorists. But, on the evidence so far, if it's effective at all, it's pretty minimally so, and its promotion as it's currently done also has what they call "second-round effects" that are inimical to the common good.
GreeBo wrote: » "poorly" when compared to what though? Perhaps bright lights are even more dangerous as motorists confuse them with other vehicles and give them less respect? Perhaps they dazzle drivers and are actually causing collisions? Until you see the study and its result, you frankly dont know.
GreeBo wrote: » This to mean just sounds like you are annoyed that someone is telling you to wear reflective/hi-viz gear because instead you want them to completely change the transport culture in Ireland.
GreeBo wrote: » No one cares what you wear (unlike as already mentioned, they do in France)
tomasrojo wrote: » This is entering the realms of metaphysics.
tomasrojo wrote: » I'm not personally bothered by messages directed at *me* per se, because I'm very well informed and quite willing to disregard advice I have evidence is poorly founded.
tomasrojo wrote: » That law only applies to rural roads. Basically when you pass the sign with the name of a town with the red stripe through it.
GreeBo wrote: » What an interesting way of avoiding answering the question.
GreeBo wrote: » Correct. Like I said, in France its the law to wear them.
GreeBo wrote: » Interestingly, France which is known for its cycling (the motorist is always to blame in any collision)
tomasrojo wrote: » Well, it's hard to know what to say. There is a detailed, extensive study that found hiviz didn't reduce the likelihood of collisions compared to an absence of hiviz. Then you say, well, maybe lights would do poorly in an analogous study. Theoretically, yes, that's possible. But it's not an argument that brings "everyone should wear hiviz because it strongly reduces the likelihood of collisions" roaring back.
On rural roads. It's an important distinction. Rural roads tend to have faster moving traffic, and are somewhat closer to the railway-worker scenario that hiviz was initially designed for, though they're far from perfectly analogous.
tomasrojo wrote: » Does France have a strict liability law for bike-car collisions? The Netherlands, despite a widespread belief in cycling circles in Anglophone countries, doesn't really have one, and I've never heard of France having one. Also, is France particulary well known for its cycling, compared to the Netherlands or Denmark? I mean apart from Vélib and the Tour de France?
GreeBo wrote: » I would say yes that France would be pretty well known for its Cycling...the TdF isn't there for the craic, why else would it be there?
the share of cycling in public transport is just three percent in France, less than half the European average and way below northern Europe
magicbastarder wrote: » or, less sarcastically:https://www.france24.com/en/20180914-france-tour-de-triple-cycling-journey-philippe-bike-lanes-transport-commute
GreeBo wrote: » You cant really dismiss it with a "theoretically, yes thats possible" though, is there any evidence that lights on a bike reduce incidents?
GreeBo wrote: » I'm confused now, so are you saying that in your opinion everyone *shoudn't* wear hiviz/reflective gear?
GreeBo wrote: » Is it though? There are posters on here who believe that lights are the be all and end all, that reflective gear has no place as lights are *always* better. Does it really matter what you are doing btw? Whether walking, riding a bike or working on a railway, the goal is the same, be seen so you dont get hit.
GreeBo wrote: » "In French RTA cases, under the ‘Badinter law,’ the non-driver victim, save for a few exceptions, is compensated in full for their injuries regardless of fault, unless it was "inexcusable and constituted the sole cause of the damage." However, the driver remains liable for their own faults and so depending on the extent of their fault compensation can be reduced by a certain percentage or even withheld.
tomasrojo wrote: » What's really going on here is you're dismissing Miller's study, while accusing me of dismissing a damning study of the efficacy of lights that exists in a parallel universe.
It's not necessary. But if you want to, it's up to you. If you want to wear wrist lights, it's up to you. If you want to wear spinal protection when cycling, it's up to you.
Railways are a specific case, at least, as discussed by the RDRF.
Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. It doesn't seem to be strict liability though. It looks rather like the Dutch liability law, which also doesn't actually mean the driver is always wrong, just that the burden is on the driver to show it wasn't their fault.
GreeBo wrote: » Sorry but I'm not dismissing it at all! All I'm saying is that unless you have something to compare to its a little disingenuous to say that reflective gear is not as good as lights. Prove the efficacy of lights and then you have an argument.
GreeBo wrote: » Of course its all up to the person...everything is...I'm not sure what point you are trying to make/answer here tbh?
GreeBo wrote: » I dont see that the train use case is that different. Do you not agree that the earlier a car sees a cyclist the better?
GreeBo wrote: » The article is also pretty biased in a few areas.
GreeBo wrote: » The driver of the vehicle is liable except under exceptional circumstances. "inexcusable and constituted the sole cause of the damage." is the only time the driver isn't 100% liable. I would say that it constitutes more than just the burden of proof.
tomasrojo wrote: » Given that the collision rate doesn't change with the use of hiviz (pending further quality research), I don't really care. I don't care if they see me 2km away, when 1km away is enough. And, besies, one thing that is known, because those studies exist, is cyclists can be seen from a great distance away with modern lights. Manufacturers often claim 2km, and I certainly can see some lights from very substantial distances away.
I only quoted if because it saved me explaining the difference between a railway and a country road. Robert Davis favours the shifting of the burden of responsibility onto those imposing the risk. If that's a bias, well, it's a feature of his work, not a bug.
Hmm, yes, but it doesn't mean the driver is always wrong. Fair enough, though, it's a stronger law than generally exists elsewhere. It's not specifically for cyclists though. It's for non-drivers in general, including car passengers? I'm not reading into it in that much detail, because it's rather off-topic.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
