Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

blackbox · 26-10-2018 10:40PM

I cycle occasionally, but mostly drive.

When driving, I always have my dipped beams on in daylight. This is not so that I can see better. It is not a legal requirement.

I do it because it makes me more visible and reduces the risk of someone not noticing me - e.g. a pedestrian crossing the road may notice my lights with the corner of his eye and not step out in front of me, or similarly a motorist coming out of a driveway.

It is an aspect of defensive driving. Unfortunately not everyone on the road (pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, horse riders) is concentrating on me 100% all of the time. They may be stupidly using a phone, but also something unexpected may divert their attention - e.g. a police car, a horse - whatever.

Everything a cyclist can do to make himself (or herself) more visible reduces the risk of a collision. Hi-vis is absolutely a significant help especially in dull conditions. Hi-vis has a fluorescent element as well as a reflective one. I am not suggesting that it should replace lights.

Yes, drivers should be better. Yes, cyclists should be better. Yes, there should be better enforcement. To a large extent, these are outside your control.

Do what you can within your control to make yourself safer.

tomasrojo · 26-10-2018 10:44PM

blackbox wrote: »

Everything a cyclist can do to make himself (or herself) more visible reduces the risk of a collision.

That statistical evidence so far, on balance, shows no reduced likelihood of a collision associated with hiviz use.

magicbastarder · 26-10-2018 10:50PM

blackbox wrote: »

Do what you can within your control to make yourself safer.

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.

tomasrojo · 26-10-2018 10:58PM

The two studies I particularly remember are these:

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.

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_Study

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.

https://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.

tomasrojo · 26-10-2018 10:59PM

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.

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.

Duckjob · 26-10-2018 11:01PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

That statistical evidence so far, on balance, shows no reduced likelihood of a collision associated with hiviz use.

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.

tomasrojo · 26-10-2018 11:02PM

Duckjob wrote: »

Similar story with helmets.

Don't cross the streams

AndrewJRenko · 26-10-2018 11:06PM

GreeBo wrote: »

So I guess you dont wear a seatbelt?

So I guess you don't wear a driving helmet?

GreeBo · 27-10-2018 06:37PM

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.

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)

The RSA has ads that solely deal with speeding, that doesnt mean they are endorsing driving without a seatbelt or any other silly behaviour.

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_Study

https://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.

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 ?

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.

Its not strawmanning at all. Unless I have totally misread this thread, there are plenty of people who pretty much refuse to wear reflective gear because they have lights.

GreeBo · 27-10-2018 06:38PM

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.

But bike lights have some magical property that prevents the false perception?
You'll have to explain that one to me!

CramCycle · 27-10-2018 08:15PM

GreeBo wrote: »

But bike lights have some magical property that prevents the false perception?
You'll have to explain that one to me!

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 · 27-10-2018 08:19PM

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 ?

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.

tomasrojo · 27-10-2018 08:22PM

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)

I'm not imagining that the RSA say it's very important to use hiviz and, with less emphasis, lights, and then give out hiviz and lights that cost €1 in Aldi. "Implicit" is doing the work in the sentence; you can say any "implicit" thing is in the witness's head, because if it was blatantly stated it would be "explicit".

GreeBo · 27-10-2018 08:51PM

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.

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...

tomasrojo · 27-10-2018 08:58PM

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...

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.

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.

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 · 27-10-2018 09:05PM

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.

I didnt say it was the visibility. I asked whats special about lights than they dont have this issue. Is there a study that shows this difference?

Interestingly, France which is known for its cycling (the motorist is always to blame in any collision) a reflective/hi-vis gilet is mandatory in poor visibility conditions and outside urban areas.

GreeBo · 27-10-2018 09:11PM

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.

"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.

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.

Whats been presented, by me at least, is that reflective/hi-viz gear complements good lights. neither on their own is sufficient as they each perform better in difference circumstance and one faces a multitude of circumstances on a trip such as your daily commute.

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.

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.

Even they way you say "it would be very convenient"...its like you still wouldn't wear it even if it was a silver bullet, just to spite someone.
No one cares what you wear (unlike as already mentioned, they do in France)

tomasrojo · 27-10-2018 09:20PM

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.

This is entering the realms of metaphysics.

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.

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.

GreeBo wrote: »

No one cares what you wear (unlike as already mentioned, they do in France)

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 · 27-10-2018 09:23PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is entering the realms of metaphysics.

What an interesting way of avoiding answering the question.

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.

I wasnt trying to bother you, I was explaining how your post(s) come across to others.

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.

Correct. Like I said, in France its the law to wear them.

tomasrojo · 27-10-2018 09:53PM

GreeBo wrote: »

What an interesting way of avoiding answering the question.

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.

GreeBo wrote: »

Correct. Like I said, in France its the law to wear them.

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 · 27-10-2018 10:04PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Interestingly, France which is known for its cycling (the motorist is always to blame in any collision)

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 · 27-10-2018 10:42PM

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.

You cant really dismiss it with a "theoretically, yes thats possible" though, is there any evidence that lights on a bike reduce incidents?

I'm confused now, so are you saying that in your opinion everyone *shoudn't* wear hiviz/reflective gear?

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.

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.

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?

"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.

In the Netherlands, where 27% of journeys are made by bike, there is strong legal protection for cyclists. Article 185 of the Wegenverkeerswet introduced the concept of presumed liability in circumstances involving a collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist/pedestrian on a public road.

The exception to presumed liability only occurs where the motorist is at no fault whatsoever, in which case there is no liability"

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?

magicbastarder · 27-10-2018 10:45PM

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?

likewise, monaco is a mecca for people who want to go on a driving holiday because it's famous for its car race.

magicbastarder · 27-10-2018 10:46PM

or, less sarcastically:

the share of cycling in public transport is just three percent in France, less than half the European average and way below northern Europe

https://www.france24.com/en/20180914-france-tour-de-triple-cycling-journey-philippe-bike-lanes-transport-commute

GreeBo · 27-10-2018 10:53PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

or, less sarcastically:

https://www.france24.com/en/20180914-france-tour-de-triple-cycling-journey-philippe-bike-lanes-transport-commute

Commuting != cycling

tomasrojo · 27-10-2018 11:02PM

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?

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.

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm confused now, so are you saying that in your opinion everyone *shoudn't* wear hiviz/reflective gear?

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.

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.

Railways are a specific case, at least, as discussed by the RDRF.

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.

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 · 27-10-2018 11:21PM

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.

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.

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.

Whats not necessary, reflective gear?

Of course its all up to the person...everything is...I'm not sure what point you are trying to make/answer here tbh?

Railways are a specific case, at least, as discussed by the RDRF.

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?
Sure you can use example of short straights an lots of bends on rural roads, but thats not where most people are cycling. In any case, it doesnt need to be hundreds of metres away, if I see a cyclist 20M away then its better than me seeing them 10M away.

The article is also pretty biased in a few areas.

"As the fashion for hi-viz has spread, is it far-fetched to suggest that this will have adverse effects on those who don’t use it? It is surely a reasonable hypothesis that drivers become used to seeing cyclists and pedestrians as people who are going to be wearing bright clothing and/or hi-viz will become less likely to watch out for and therefore see those who don’t. The big losers here will be pedestrians, as smaller proportions of walkers will volunteer to wear hi-viz for what is still seen (so far) as a normal, non-hazardous activity."

So because some road users are more visible it makes others less visible and thus puts them in more danger?
Should we get cars to turn their lights off..maybe turn off all street lighting so....just to even the playing field?

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.

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 · 27-10-2018 11:35PM

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.

I'm getting a little tired of repeating this, so this is the last time.

You are arguing that people should wear hiviz for safety reasons. Hiviz, at least based on the studies available, either doesn't reduce the chances of a collision, or has an effect that is beneath detection. So what exactly is the compelling safety reason?

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?

You asked me whether I thought people shouldn't wear hiviz.

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?

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.

GreeBo wrote: »

The article is also pretty biased in a few areas.

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.

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.

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.

GreeBo · 27-10-2018 11:46PM

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.

Of course a light is going to be visible in an otherwise dark road, my point has always been that that is not where most cycling takes place. Indeed its not where most accidents between cars and cyclists take place, so it doesnt really have much relevance.

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.

A sustained bias is a bias nonetheless.

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.

Its for cyclists and pedestrians if I remember correctly.

tomasrojo · 27-10-2018 11:52PM

If you're going to restrict discussion to urban cycling, then the argument for always wearing hiviz gets weaker, because Miller's study was in an urban context. Also, we know all the urban bikeshare schemes have very low rates of collision, and they're done predominantly without hiviz. So urban cycling isn't a compelling scenario for having a go at people who don't wear hiviz.

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments