Mandatory hi-vis had no influence on number of cyclists involved in collisions according to Italian study

alansmurphy wrote:

Yeah but I'm not dead because I'm not wearing hi viz and a hard hat am I, therefore you are wrong.

I followed your methodology to the letter of the law. Find a big sample size, find something that shows a correlation to your own bias, correlate, present as irrefutable and attack with total stupidity anyone who points out the flaws...

Total stupidity is at least something you've had plenty of practice with.

Pushing50 wrote:

I can see that you are going to be pig headed in your belief that hi-vis is as much a neccessity as wearing a helmet. I did not get involved in that debate, so I am wondering why I am getting involved in this one. Believe what you want. The statistics you present are flawed (shit just look at the correction adjustment algorythms) and the report even suggests this could be so. Opinion does count and I do put this ahead of this study. You have your opinions, I have mine. There are various reasons for not being seen in hi-vis yellow for certain situations, as has been well documented. You ignore these studies and pick out the one the one that suits your belief and agenda, I do not care. This is not an exact science and this is what people have been trying to point out to you. Also the report does not categorically state that wearing hi-vis reduced your risk of being in an accident with another road user by a third. 

 

It states that the corrected reduction in multiparty accidents was 38%.

You can put opinion ahead of an RCT if you want but that is the complete opposite of how evidence is normally ranked.

That choice reflects your own bias.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Rich Cb.
If a single study from around the world found that fewer woman were raped if they wore a specific type of garment would you make it compulsory to wear such? Going by your thinking that's exactly what you would do.
If women who weren't wearing it you'd blame them if they were then raped right!

Hi-vis just like helmets promotes victim blaming (michael mason being an extreme but very valid example) and continues to lower the responsibility, the awareness by those that kill and maim as well as changing the mindset of society as a whole.
You need only look at how children are being targetted in schools with 'safety' campaigns and finger pointing as those at fault for death and injury by government when struck by dangerous/speeding/Inattentive motorists.
Does this reduce child deaths/injuries by wearing hi-vis, no, it only serves to validate piss poor driving, same as its always done when others are askked to modify their behaviour as a concession to safety so those presenting the harm have less too consider.
As the report notes and is highlighted by Pushing50, once you flood the scene with same the effect to stand out it is negated.
The authors clearly underestimate this. You only have to look at how having DRLs have failed as a safety feature, having a red rear light allowed motorists to drive with less care at night to the point we have police stating in incidents were a cyclist was travelling lawfully that the "lights weren't very bright", to the point that even like minded people who ride bikes see a 200m range of seeing a red rear light as "poor" or insufficient.

Continuing to go in this direction has not only not saved more lives, it's a heinous crime against society.
Frankly you and your disgusting notions that make my life/wellbeing more at threat of harm and push blame/responsibility on to me whilst taking that away from those that kill, maim and threaten harm can go to hell.

Have I argued for compulsion?

You've made the same mistake in drawing an equivalence between the evidence and the author's opinion.

If the findings of the trial are correct then hi vis should reduce injuries and fatalities as fewer collisions will occur.

Campaigning for safer roads and believing that hi vis is effective are not mutually exclusive positions.

Until we have eliminated negligent drivers there will always be a safety argument for increasing your own visibility.

Also there is good evidence that Daylight Running Lights reduce accidents.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457512002606

Pushing50 wrote:

I did see the statistical differences between the two groups and yes, you are right I do give far more weight to the latter material in the report. Statistics are not the be all and end all of a study. There are other factors to take into consideration Rich_cb. 

Did you not read these? Some of the psycololgical interpretations between the two groups for starters? I am not disagreeing with the colour science. I am not a colour scientist. All I have stated is that in my experience it makes absolutely no difference what I wear on the road, I will get drivers deliberately or not putting my life at risk. I too make myself visible (see post 1) both day and night but I still maintain that it makes no difference to the majority of others.

By the way, I think that you will find that black is still the most popular colour for cars so (statistically speaking) I am not surprised that they have more accidents than brightly coloured ones. Which is what: red, yellow, pink, green?

You are giving more weight to opinion and personal experience than high quality evidence.

That's a reflection of your own bias.

The trial was large, well designed and the groups well matched. The effect was also large so any small difference between the groups would not have affected the significance of the result.

The study in to cars looked at the difference between yellow and blue cars.

https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21718319-avoid-acc...

Rich_cb wrote:

Pushing50 wrote:

I did see the statistical differences between the two groups and yes, you are right I do give far more weight to the latter material in the report. Statistics are not the be all and end all of a study. There are other factors to take into consideration Rich_cb. 

Did you not read these? Some of the psycololgical interpretations between the two groups for starters? I am not disagreeing with the colour science. I am not a colour scientist. All I have stated is that in my experience it makes absolutely no difference what I wear on the road, I will get drivers deliberately or not putting my life at risk. I too make myself visible (see post 1) both day and night but I still maintain that it makes no difference to the majority of others.

By the way, I think that you will find that black is still the most popular colour for cars so (statistically speaking) I am not surprised that they have more accidents than brightly coloured ones. Which is what: red, yellow, pink, green?

You are giving more weight to opinion and personal experience than high quality evidence. That's a reflection of your own bias. The trial was large, well designed and the groups well matched. The effect was also large so any small difference between the groups would not have affected the significance of the result. The study in to cars looked at the difference between yellow and blue cars. https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21718319-avoid-acc...

Or alternatively you are fetishing one trial, done in a different setting, and hoping that their bias correction worked and ifnoring the difference between the trial participants and thr rest of the population. You are also ignoring the fact that bigger gains might be made by puttting more emphasis on the education and control of drivers, who do, we should remember, cause the danger in the first place.

oldstrath wrote:

Or alternatively you are fetishing one trial, done in a different setting, and hoping that their bias correction worked and ifnoring the difference between the trial participants and thr rest of the population. You are also ignoring the fact that bigger gains might be made by puttting more emphasis on the education and control of drivers, who do, we should remember, cause the danger in the first place.

Or simply applying an established hierarchy of evidence.

Bigger gains might be made in the way that you describe but how likely do you think that is to occur and how long do you think it will take to have a significant effect.

Compare that to how long it takes to put on a piece of hi vis clothing.

Until you have completely eliminated negligent driving there will always be an argument for increasing your own visibility.

Rich_cb wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

Or alternatively you are fetishing one trial, done in a different setting, and hoping that their bias correction worked and ifnoring the difference between the trial participants and thr rest of the population. You are also ignoring the fact that bigger gains might be made by puttting more emphasis on the education and control of drivers, who do, we should remember, cause the danger in the first place.

Or simply applying an established hierarchy of evidence. Bigger gains might be made in the way that you describe but how likely do you think that is to occur and how long do you think it will take to have a significant effect. Compare that to how long it takes to put on a piece of hi vis clothing. Until you have completely eliminated negligent driving there will always be an argument for increasing your own visibility.

The hierarchy of evidence (yes, I do know about it) doesn't absolve us from considering the exterrnal validity, nor from questioning whether the biases evident in the study have been dealt with adequately.

I don't really care whether people wear hivis or not - what worries me is that emphasing helmets, hivis and so on provides an excuse for drivers, police and  the weasel system to ignore bad driving in favour of shouting at cyclists.

oldstrath wrote:

The hierarchy of evidence (yes, I do know about it) doesn't absolve us from considering the exterrnal validity, nor from questioning whether the biases evident in the study have been dealt with adequately.

I don't really care whether people wear hivis or not - what worries me is that emphasing helmets, hivis and so on provides an excuse for drivers, police and  the weasel system to ignore bad driving in favour of shouting at cyclists.

The external validity and biases are well addressed by the authors.

Given the size of the study and the methodology used it represents very high quality evidence.

I agree that the emphasis should be on driver education and road safety improvements but on an individual level there is little you can do about that while hi vis is easily accessible and apparently effective.

Rich_cb wrote:

I agree that the emphasis should be on driver education and road safety improvements but on an individual level there is little you can do about that while hi vis is easily accessible and apparently effective.

Next time you read or hear an exhortation from some Road Safety professional to cyclists and/or pedestrians to wear hiviz, take note of whether s/he adds any advice to motorists to obey H.C. para. 126.  In my experience such advice to motorists is vanishingly rare.

Last time I read  a Road Safety Officer advising hiviz in our local paper after a vulnerable road user was hit at night, I e-mailed him asking why he did not bother suggesting drivers obeyed the Highway Code. He replied that such advice was in the H.C.!

May I suggest that you and any other motivated reader take such opportunities to remind road safety professionals, and local newspaper readers, etc. that as a driver, you should..

Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

Rich_cb wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

The hierarchy of evidence (yes, I do know about it) doesn't absolve us from considering the exterrnal validity, nor from questioning whether the biases evident in the study have been dealt with adequately.

I don't really care whether people wear hivis or not - what worries me is that emphasing helmets, hivis and so on provides an excuse for drivers, police and  the weasel system to ignore bad driving in favour of shouting at cyclists.

The external validity and biases are well addressed by the authors. Given the size of the study and the methodology used it represents very high quality evidence. I agree that the emphasis should be on driver education and road safety improvements but on an individual level there is little you can do about that while hi vis is easily accessible and apparently effective.

They didn't address the possibility that Danush drivers and UK drivers are different, for the excellent reason that it's not important to them. They assume that bias can be corrected by assumung that the effect on multi vehicle collisions of changed behaviour is the same as the effect on single agent  incidents. There's no obvious reason this should be true. 

I agree this appears to offer good evidence that hivis has some benefit to individuals, but I still think you miss the point that we're not really arguing about what a cyclist shoukd do given the data. For one person, probably hivis and DRL may well be the best available. We're (I'm, at least) more concerned about what governments should do, and I believe that focussing on hivis would completely miss the real issue and the real system level gains.

oldstrath wrote:

They didn't address the possibility that Danush drivers and UK drivers are different, for the excellent reason that it's not important to them. They assume that bias can be corrected by assumung that the effect on multi vehicle collisions of changed behaviour is the same as the effect on single agent  incidents. There's no obvious reason this should be true. 

I agree this appears to offer good evidence that hivis has some benefit to individuals, but I still think you miss the point that we're not really arguing about what a cyclist shoukd do given the data. For one person, probably hivis and DRL may well be the best available. We're (I'm, at least) more concerned about what governments should do, and I believe that focussing on hivis would completely miss the real issue and the real system level gains.

The best solution for an individual is not necessarily the best solution at systemic level but on a day to day basis we can only control things at the individual level.

If a piece of equipment has evidence to support its use at the individual level then it shouldn't be dismissed because there are bigger gains available at the systemic level.

Rich_cb wrote:

The best solution for an individual is not necessarily the best solution at systemic level but on a day to day basis we can only control things at the individual level. If a piece of equipment has evidence to support its use at the individual level then it shouldn't be dismissed because there are bigger gains available at the systemic level.

It is possible that use at the individual level works against the bigger gains available at the system level.

We need to combine, to work together, not to give up and try to save only oneself with a remedy of, at best, very limited effectiveness.

As I post above, the authorities limit themselves to hiviz advice, and seem to see this as the remedy. They don't even bother to beg drivers to look out a little better, let alone try to improve road conditions.

Hiviz is seen as the remedy, but it is really only an alibi for the dangerous.

felixcat wrote:

It is possible that use at the individual level works against the bigger gains available at the system level.

We need to combine, to work together, not to give up and try to save only oneself with a remedy of, at best, very limited effectiveness.

As I post above, the authorities limit themselves to hiviz advice, and seem to see this as the remedy. They don't even bother to beg drivers to look out a little better, let alone try to improve road conditions.

Hiviz is seen as the remedy, but it is really only an alibi for the dangerous.

 

The effectiveness is not necessarily 'limited'.

If the results of the RCT are in anyway accurate then the effect is significant.

Why should an individual opt out of an intervention with evidence to support its effectiveness on the mere 'possibility' of a negative systemic effect?

Rich_cb wrote:

 

 The effectiveness is not necessarily 'limited'. If the results of the RCT are in anyway accurate then the effect is significant. Why should an individual opt out of an intervention with evidence to support its effectiveness on the mere 'possibility' of a negative systemic effect?

The effectiveness is limited because it will never eliminate those cases where the driver is not looking properly. As others have pointed out above, there are many times when a cyclist (or a bollard) is arrayed in reflectives, dayglo, lights like a Christmas tree, and still gets hit.

The act of seeing has two parts. One is that the object needs to be visible. Cyclists are nearly always visible. The other part is that the image on the driver's retina needs to be processed correctly by the brain. This is usually the problem. S/he is not looking for us, but for something more important.

Your "evidence to support effectiveness" is in fact a "possibilty".

We are being pushed towards a state where any vulnerable road user is covered in hiviz, as if this were the answer. It will not work, and the more of it there is in the driver's field of view the less effective it will be, as it becomes the uniform of those who are no threat to the driver, so the driver can concentrate on the real threats to him/her.

This futile process is meanwhile diverting attention and energy from doing something about the real source of danger on the road.

In the bypassed village I live, the children walking from school to the nursery are issued with dayglo tabards.  The pensioners rambling club is led and tailed by hiviz clad wardens. Meanwhile I would estimate 90% of the traffic past my door is breaking the speed limit. Occasionally the council put up one of those radar LED signs which merely tell the driver that they are breaking the limit.  This, of course, fails to make the slightest difference.

I repeat. Hiviz is the road "safety" industry's alibi for not doing anything which might discommode the motorist.

felixcat wrote:

The effectiveness is limited because it will never eliminate those cases where the driver is not looking properly. As others have pointed out above, there are many times when a cyclist (or a bollard) is arrayed in reflectives, dayglo, lights like a Christmas tree, and still gets hit.

The act of seeing has two parts. One is that the object needs to be visible. Cyclists are nearly always visible. The other part is that the image on the driver's retina needs to be processed correctly by the brain. This is usually the problem. S/he is not looking for us, but for something more important.

Your "evidence to support effectiveness" is in fact a "possibilty".

We are being pushed towards a state where any vulnerable road user is covered in hiviz, as if this were the answer. It will not work, and the more of it there is in the driver's field of view the less effective it will be, as it becomes the uniform of those who are no threat to the driver, so the driver can concentrate on the real threats to him/her.

This futile process is meanwhile diverting attention and energy from doing something about the real source of danger on the road.

In the bypassed village I live, the children walking from school to the nursery are issued with dayglo tabards.  The pensioners rambling club is led and tailed by hiviz clad wardens. Meanwhile I would estimate 90% of the traffic past my door is breaking the speed limit. Occasionally the council put up one of those radar LED signs which merely tell the driver that they are breaking the limit.  This, of course, fails to make the slightest difference.

I repeat. Hiviz is the road "safety" industry's alibi for not doing anything which might discommode the motorist.

 

Nothing will ever eliminate collisions entirely so every possible road safety measure is 'limited' by your definition.

The fact that brighter colours or daylight running lights have been shown to reduce the risk of collisions indicates that your analysis is about simplistic.

There are clearly a number of drivers who will not notice a darkly coloured unlit object but will notice a brightly coloured or lit object.

On an individual basis it therefore makes a lot of sense to improve your visibility.

At a systemic level there are far greater priorities, like enforcing speed limits, but that doesn't change the evidence at the individual level.

Rich_cb wrote:

I think that you have failed to engage with my arguments. No doubt you think something similar.

I have put what I think is the case, and I am not going to repeat it.

Toodle pip.

Rich_cb wrote:

 

Nothing will ever eliminate collisions entirely so every possible road safety measure is 'limited' by your definition..

And some are far more limited than others.  Which is the point being made.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

 

Nothing will ever eliminate collisions entirely so every possible road safety measure is 'limited' by your definition..

 

And some are far more limited than others.  Which is the point being made.

The Danish study suggested that hi vis reduced your chances of a multi party accident by about a third.

As an individual what other intervention has shown similar efficacy?

We can go on and on and on about systemic changes that need to happen but it's a completely moot point on an individual level.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

 

Nothing will ever eliminate collisions entirely so every possible road safety measure is 'limited' by your definition..

 

And some are far more limited than others.  Which is the point being made.

The Danish study suggested that hi vis reduced your chances of a multi party accident by about a third. As an individual what other intervention has shown similar efficacy? We can go on and on and on about systemic changes that need to happen but it's a completely moot point on an individual level.

Can we stop calling it hi-vis and just start calling it bright yellow? Then I am sure that the arguments and the studies will all seem to look rather ridiculous. 

"The Danish study suggested", so are we basing beliefs on suggestions now or cold hard statistical facts? And was it a multi party accident or personal injury accident that was reduced by a third by wearing yellow? 

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

 

Nothing will ever eliminate collisions entirely so every possible road safety measure is 'limited' by your definition..

 

And some are far more limited than others.  Which is the point being made.

The Danish study suggested that hi vis reduced your chances of a multi party accident by about a third.

As an individual what other intervention has shown similar efficacy?

We can go on and on and on about systemic changes that need to happen but it's a completely moot point on an individual level.

Of course it isn't.

If we encourage more people to ride bikes, we are all less likely to be hit. That 'We' includes 'me' and 'you'. Drivers are more likely to be cyclists or have cyclists in their immediate social circle. Drivers will become accustomed to driving around cyclists. And the poison from the rentagobs in the likes of the Mail will lessen, if not from genuine empathy, from sheer market forces.

One of the main reasons consistently given for non-cyclists not getting on a bike is perception of danger, which they consistently overestimate. Encouraging cyclists to wear PPE has the nasty side-effect of... Well, have a guess. Do you think it a) propagates an image of cycling as a dangerous activity, b) has bugger-all side effects, or c) don't give a shit because all that matters is YOU, the individual, and a study reported in a journal that you like the cover of said it might make YOU a bit safer, while ignoring a load of other stuff.

If you answered mostly b) or c), congratulations: you are Rich_cb - you refuse to accept that what affects 'us' boils down to the 'me' and are completely safe from head injury due to it being permanently buried in sand.

If you answered a), pull yourself together, you communist hippy. Watch Wall Street and read missives from Thatcher until all that matters is YOU. And then continue to ignore inconvenient truths that you don't like which will also make YOU safer, because they don't suit your argument. Also lunch is for wimps.

davel wrote:

Of course it isn't.

If we encourage more people to ride bikes, we are all less likely to be hit. That 'We' includes 'me' and 'you'. Drivers are more likely to be cyclists or have cyclists in their immediate social circle. Drivers will become accustomed to driving around cyclists. And the poison from the rentagobs in the likes of the Mail will lessen, if not from genuine empathy, from sheer market forces.

One of the main reasons consistently given for non-cyclists not getting on a bike is perception of danger, which they consistently overestimate. Encouraging cyclists to wear PPE has the nasty side-effect of... Well, have a guess. Do you think it a) propagates an image of cycling as a dangerous activity, b) has bugger-all side effects, or c) don't give a shit because all that matters is YOU, the individual, and a study reported in a journal that you like the cover of said it might make YOU a bit safer, while ignoring a load of other stuff.

If you answered mostly b) or c), congratulations: you are Rich_cb - you refuse to accept that what affects 'us' boils down to the 'me' and are completely safe from head injury due to it being permanently buried in sand.

If you answered a), pull yourself together, you communist hippy. Watch Wall Street and read missives from Thatcher until all that matters is YOU. And then continue to ignore inconvenient truths that you don't like which will also make YOU safer, because they don't suit your argument. Also lunch is for wimps.

You're asking me to put myself at greater risk of having an accident on my daily commute because it might make someone else safer at some undefined point in the future.

Get some proof for your little theories and I might just listen. Until then I'll stick to what I'm doing.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Of course it isn't. If we encourage more people to ride bikes, we are all less likely to be hit. That 'We' includes 'me' and 'you'. Drivers are more likely to be cyclists or have cyclists in their immediate social circle. Drivers will become accustomed to driving around cyclists. And the poison from the rentagobs in the likes of the Mail will lessen, if not from genuine empathy, from sheer market forces. One of the main reasons consistently given for non-cyclists not getting on a bike is perception of danger, which they consistently overestimate. Encouraging cyclists to wear PPE has the nasty side-effect of... Well, have a guess. Do you think it a) propagates an image of cycling as a dangerous activity, b) has bugger-all side effects, or c) don't give a shit because all that matters is YOU, the individual, and a study reported in a journal that you like the cover of said it might make YOU a bit safer, while ignoring a load of other stuff. If you answered mostly b) or c), congratulations: you are Rich_cb - you refuse to accept that what affects 'us' boils down to the 'me' and are completely safe from head injury due to it being permanently buried in sand. If you answered a), pull yourself together, you communist hippy. Watch Wall Street and read missives from Thatcher until all that matters is YOU. And then continue to ignore inconvenient truths that you don't like which will also make YOU safer, because they don't suit your argument. Also lunch is for wimps.

You're asking me to put myself at greater risk of having an accident on my daily commute because it might make someone else safer at some undefined point in the future. Get some proof for your little theories and I might just listen. Until then I'll stick to what I'm doing.

I actually agree with both points quoted here (barring the Thatcher stuff, which is a bit off-topic).

But I just don't get what you, Rich_CB, are trying to accomplish.  Are you evangelising for high-viz (which you've already admitted is an individual issue, i.e. a decision for an individual, so not a collective issue that requires collective action or campaigning or promotion) or are you just desperately trying to justify and defend your own choice to wear it (because you feel oddly guilty or defensive about it)?

Just wear it if you think it is good for you, I don't _think_ anyone here wants to ban it or favours abusing those who wear it, but why go on and on about it as if you are eager to persuade everyone else to do the same?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I actually agree with both points quoted here (barring the Thatcher stuff, which is a bit off-topic).

But I just don't get what you, Rich_CB, are trying to accomplish.  Are you evangelising for high-viz (which you've already admitted is an individual issue, i.e. a decision for an individual, so not a collective issue that requires collective action or campaigning or promotion) or are you just desperately trying to justify and defend your own choice to wear it (because you feel oddly guilty or defensive about it)?

 

Just wear it if you think it is good for you, I don't _think_ anyone here wants to ban it or favours abusing those who wear it, but why go on and on about it as if you are eager to persuade everyone else to do the same?

Initially I posted a link to the study mentioned in the article.

I then tried my best to answer a few questions about it.

I'm happy for everybody to make their own decisions and I certainly won't try and make anyone feel guilty for choosing differently to me.

As far as I'm concerned the more people riding bikes the better regardless of what they wear when they're doing it.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Of course it isn't.

If we encourage more people to ride bikes, we are all less likely to be hit. That 'We' includes 'me' and 'you'. Drivers are more likely to be cyclists or have cyclists in their immediate social circle. Drivers will become accustomed to driving around cyclists. And the poison from the rentagobs in the likes of the Mail will lessen, if not from genuine empathy, from sheer market forces.

One of the main reasons consistently given for non-cyclists not getting on a bike is perception of danger, which they consistently overestimate. Encouraging cyclists to wear PPE has the nasty side-effect of... Well, have a guess. Do you think it a) propagates an image of cycling as a dangerous activity, b) has bugger-all side effects, or c) don't give a shit because all that matters is YOU, the individual, and a study reported in a journal that you like the cover of said it might make YOU a bit safer, while ignoring a load of other stuff.

If you answered mostly b) or c), congratulations: you are Rich_cb - you refuse to accept that what affects 'us' boils down to the 'me' and are completely safe from head injury due to it being permanently buried in sand.

If you answered a), pull yourself together, you communist hippy. Watch Wall Street and read missives from Thatcher until all that matters is YOU. And then continue to ignore inconvenient truths that you don't like which will also make YOU safer, because they don't suit your argument. Also lunch is for wimps.

You're asking me to put myself at greater risk of having an accident on my daily commute because it might make someone else safer at some undefined point in the future.

Get some proof for your little theories and I might just listen. Until then I'll stick to what I'm doing.

No, it WILL make you safer in the future.

Anyhow, here's a shedload of links for what puts people off cycling.

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/barriers-cycling

And this represents your silliness and why people are frustrated with your obsession.

davel wrote:

No, it WILL make you safer in the future.

Anyhow, here's a shedload of links for what puts people off cycling.

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/barriers-cycling

And this represents your silliness and why people are frustrated with your obsession.

You are failing to engage with the point I'm making. Look at your little triangle.

How many of those options are available to me before I ride to work in the morning?

I can change the way I cycle. I can use PPE.

That's it.

On an individual level PPE is one of the only options available to make my journey safer.

You say you want people to feel safer cycling and you want more people to cycle.

Have you ever considered that many of the people who cycle festooned in all manner of PPE may not feel safe enough to cycle without it?

That your crusade against high vis may actually reduce cycling numbers rather than augment them?

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

No, it WILL make you safer in the future. Anyhow, here's a shedload of links for what puts people off cycling. https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/barriers-cycling And this represents your silliness and why people are frustrated with your obsession.

You are failing to engage with the point I'm making. Look at your little triangle. How many of those options are available to me before I ride to work in the morning? I can change the way I cycle. I can use PPE. That's it. On an individual level PPE is one of the only options available to make my journey safer. You say you want people to feel safer cycling and you want more people to cycle. Have you ever considered that many of the people who cycle festooned in all manner of PPE may not feel safe enough to cycle without it? That your crusade against high vis may actually reduce cycling numbers rather than augment them?

Quite a few of the people I see wearing hi-viz or ppe or whatever, appear to be cycling in their working clothes. The number of people wearing hi-viz, ppe or whatever may have no consideration for or thought of the relationship between hi-viz, ppe or whatever and cycling safety. Hi-viz, ppe or whatever might not have any effect on their cycling habits.

Low salaries and manual labour appear to be a greater influence on the choice of people cycling, or not, rather than any other middle class choice that we believe.

Rich_cb wrote:

You are failing to engage with the point I'm making
...
crusade
...

Bit early to be high, Rich.

There is one poster in this thread who consistently fails to address points that are inconvenient or contradictory to their argument. Same with the helmet stuff.

Meanwhile, yes: of course I've considered why individuals who wear hi-viz might be doing so. Makes them feel safer. Might make them a bit safer, too, if one or two studies is to be believed. We've done that point, haven't we? Read back through my posts and you can see that I really haven't failed to engage that.

What you can do as an individual. Well, there's a question. Instead of - or maybe even as well as! - pontificating about PPE for an activity that the odds are you have to do for thousands of years before you'll experience a KSI, maybe you do something to campaign against all the things that other posters have mentioned many times as bigger factors in us actually getting killed on the roads. The points that you consistently fail to engage with.

Too much like hard work? Back you go then to your bright green plastic: that'll make the world a better place for our kids and grandkids.