High Vis question

Latest Posts | New Discussions | Hot Threads | Forum Topics
Help | Settings | Followed Threads
reply
121 to 140 of 230 messages
Page:
trogggy
20/02/2007 at 15:48
Horse wrote
Plenty?

Links, please.

But how do you mean 'work'? Did people see what they were asked to look for, or is there proof that DRL & hi-viz significantly reduced (using the criteria you mentioned earlier) bike crashes?


I was expecting that.

Do a search on Survival Skills.

More seriously, the point I'm making is that there have been studies (as you're well aware) that have concluded we should all be wearing hi-viz, white helmets etc. But they've all been (almost inevitably) flawed, and thus there isn't clear-cut evidence one way or another.
These have usually been introduced with great glee by someone convinced of the merits of whichever safety aid is being discussed, and then dismantled with equal glee by someone in the opposite camp. Fun, perhaps, but ultimately irrelevant.
Horse
20/02/2007 at 15:55
trogggy wrote
If they feel that the good will outweigh the bad then they may choose to use them. If not they won't.
That's not a very radical concept, surely?


No, it's not. Sounds very much like the sort of arguments put forward for wearing FWB leathers

Still, just because people believe it, doesn't make it true.

trogggy wrote
Change in speed of bikes
slower uban traffic speeds
those pesky disc brakes
better suspension, tyres, handling etc
full face helmets
better protective clothing, superior scratch/mist-resistant visors
reduced visibility in modern cars
larger motorcycles, more with fairings
increased traffic density (more filtering?
less m/c commuters (more FWBs) better training regimes
More people pushing / rushing out of junctions?)
Rushing - in this increased traffic density? (see your previous)
more distractions
True
airbags and seatbelts meaning drivers are less cautious
headlamps on and hi-viz meaning riders are . . .



trogggy wrote
Certainly it's not convincing evidence of anything


Not convincing, perhaps, but even with all those changes taken in to account we have the same %age of riders being SMIDSYd . . .

trogggy wrote
Me?
Why?
What do you think I believe?


I asked 'expect'.

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

Horse
20/02/2007 at 16:00
trogggy wrote
More seriously, the point I'm making is that there have been studies (as you're well aware) that have concluded we should all be wearing hi-viz, white helmets etc.


The only one I can recall was the BMA one, which was - as you say - flawed.

But whether 'for' or 'against' that doesn't change those acc. stats. I posted, does it?

Most of the accident studies say that the motorcyclists conspicuity is the issue - even when other motorists and witnesses will say that the bike was clearly visible . . . Hence 'LBFTS' - Looked, But Failed To See as one of the research topics.

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

trogggy
20/02/2007 at 16:00
FourTwenty wrote
Good. Care to show us some?

Search Survival Skills. Plenty of evidence, all of it flawed. Just like the evidence against.
Quote

So why did you ask for it?

To make the point that it was all flawed, which I have made several times. Do keep up.
Quote
That I am 'wrong'.

You are. Not because you choose not to use hi-viz, and not because you question those who use it without being aware of possible downsides though.
Quote

Where did you say that? 'Maybe you could accept that someone like Saga Lout does 'get it' but comes to a different conclusion to yours.'

Errrr.........just there and several other places.
Quote
Yes. Saga Lout (and others) come to a different conclusion to mine (and Horses) but that is because I believe they fail to consider the obvious alternate view to their point (that Horse posted).

Or maybe, just maybe, you've failed to think this through.
Quote

The bracketed assumption being the big 'IF'. The assumption being made by all the users is that hi-viz is some sort of a benefit in the first place isn't it?

Of course it's the big 'IF'. I'm sure I've said that over and over again. The problem seems to be, to me, that you are unwilling or unable to look past the hi-viz at the motivation of the people who use it.

And with respect, it's more obvious than a very obvious thing that hi-viz has benefits in certain situations. You only need to read posts on here to see empirical evidence of that. The question, rather, is whether, for someone who has thought about the issues, it is positively dangerous. If it isn't then why the fuss? If it is, surely there'd be more SMIDSYs than 30 years ago.
Horse
20/02/2007 at 16:01
QUALCAST wrote
At least it means you see them if you think they look stupid...



Perhaps he meant 'in the shop'?

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

Skub
20/02/2007 at 16:03
Horse wrote
Perhaps he meant 'in the shop'?


You can't see them on the road anyway.Once moving they lose 80% of their visibility.

I think I glimpsed one once.
trogggy
20/02/2007 at 16:04
Horse wrote
No, it's not. Sounds very much like the sort of arguments put forward for wearing FWB leathers

Still, just because people believe it, doesn't make it true.

True. Works both ways though.

Quote


Not convincing, perhaps, but even with all those changes taken in to account we have the same %age of riders being SMIDSYd . . .

Glad we agree.

Quote

I asked 'expect'.


I honestly can't answer that, because I don't have an expectation.
Horse
20/02/2007 at 16:07
trogggy wrote
And with respect, it's more obvious than a very obvious thing that hi-viz has benefits in certain situations.


Nght-time; I'll agree there - I have plenty of reflective material on my helmet, gear and boots, and on the back of the bike;

Dawn & Dusk; yup, but those are the situations when lights should be on anyway . . .

In 'dark' areas on bright sunlit days (eg under tree canopies); I'll put my headlamp on and turn it off afterwards.

Mornings when drivers are likely to have misted/iced windows; sometimes I'll put my headlamp on then, unless it's misty or foggy when I'll put it on anyway.

What situations were you thinking of?

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

Horse
20/02/2007 at 16:07
FourTwenty wrote
YouIf you want to be taken even slightly seriously I suggest you find and present it to us.



Psst! This is General, remember.

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

trogggy
20/02/2007 at 16:08
Horse wrote

But whether 'for' or 'against' that doesn't change those acc. stats. I posted, does it?

The SMIDSYs?
It doesn't, but as I said you're not comparing like with like so that's also (fatally) flawed.
Quote

Most of the accident studies say that the motorcyclists conspicuity is the issue - even when other motorists and witnesses will say that the bike was clearly visible . . . Hence 'LBFTS' - Looked, But Failed To See as one of the research topics.

Quite. And everyone wearing hi-viz should know that.

Did I mention my gear is mainly black btw?
trogggy
20/02/2007 at 16:09
FourTwenty wrote
You are the one that told us there was 'plenty' of evidence for.

I don't think there is. If you want to be taken even slightly seriously I suggest you find and present it to us.


Irony. Ha.

<sniggers>
Horse
20/02/2007 at 16:11
trogggy wrote
I honestly can't answer that, because I don't have an expectation.



OK, I'll give you mine then, to borrow.

I'd expect that if the majority of riders were using a safety aid that was 'targeted' against the cause of the main urban accident type, then there would be significantly less such crashes than there were before that initiative was introduced.

But there isn't . . .

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

trogggy
20/02/2007 at 16:19
Horse wrote
OK, I'll give you mine then, to borrow.

Ah. Maybe I misunderstood your question.
Quote

I'd expect that if the majority of riders were using a safety aid that was 'targeted' against the cause of the main urban accident type, then there would be significantly less such crashes than there were before that initiative was introduced.

Given the assumption that the safety aid works and all other factors remain equal you certainly would expect that.
Quote

But there isn't . . .

No, but see above.

And to turn it around...

If use of that safety-aid turned out in fact to increase the risk, what would you expect to see in the figures?
Horse
20/02/2007 at 16:26
trogggy wrote
If use of that safety-aid turned out in fact to increase the risk, what would you expect to see in the figures?


From the 70s 'baseline' figure of C. 30%, an increase of the percentage in line (ie like a graph ) with increasing headlamp use over the intervening 30 years.*

In the 70s daytime headlamps were rare to the point of being almost unknown, now they're almost universal, particularly since the AHO of the last couple of years.

* No, I don't suggest 100% of all bikers will be creamed due to having their headlamps on

And as you've pointed out, there's all those other factors making the rate worse . . .

You tell me, I'll borrow your expectations now.

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

kyot
20/02/2007 at 16:28
pssst, troggy; ask about the New Zealand study. This thread could run and run

Where are you? Why are you here? Look at this

Skub
20/02/2007 at 16:31
Horse wrote


In the 70s daytime headlamps were rare to the point of being almost unknown.


Back then people would've waved at you frantically to tell you your lights were on in the daytime.
kyot
20/02/2007 at 16:38
FourTwenty wrote
What? The night-time drunks?

I don't recall any drunks.
I do recall - having found the thread - that it was a pour bit of research...

Where are you? Why are you here? Look at this

trogggy
20/02/2007 at 16:39
FourTwenty wrote
You are the one that told us there was 'plenty' of evidence for.

I don't think there is. If you want to be taken even slightly seriously I suggest you find and present it to us.


Just for you.

Quote
Conclusions Low conspicuity may increase the risk of motorcycle crash related injury. Increasing the use of reflective or fluorescent clothing, white or light coloured helmets, and daytime headlights are simple, cheap interventions that could considerably reduce motorcycle crash related injury and death.

Flawed, though.
trogggy
20/02/2007 at 16:45
Horse wrote


You tell me, I'll borrow your expectations now.


Since you gave me one ( ) I'll return the favour.

You gave a scenario of a supposed safety-aid and said you would expect that, if it worked, the accident rate would go down.

The converse is that if it's positively dangerous the rate would go up.

Or have I misunderstood?
Horse
20/02/2007 at 16:46
Skub wrote
Back then people would've waved at you frantically to tell you your lights were on in the daytime.


Yes, they did. Several wound down (windey handles, no electric windows ) their windows to tell you that your light was on.

And one of the things that convinced me to not have lights on was when someone made a point of telling me my headlamp wasn't on


Kyot - good thing too if this thread does run and run. If just one person questions a belief that headlmap & hi-viz = 'safe', then that'll be good, and if they start realising there's more they can do, then that's even better.


"New Zealand study" - is that the one that took in to consideration 'reflective' clothing? That'd be good for daytime crashes . . .

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

121 to 140 of 230 messages
Previous page
Page:
Next page
Forum Jump