http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Be seen and be safe! en Wed, 01 Jul 2026 22:50:01 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60299 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 23:28:11 +0000 Uberuce 60299@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'll doglike return to a post I made and say: good lordy it bugs me that parents of the kids I look after don't know what the internet is. </p> <p>I've been kiddiewrangling for twelve years now and it's always smacked my gob that the progenitors of impressionable young minds apparently think there's no problem with having the gollygoshdarn interfilth sitting there in their children's bedrooms, as opposed to sitting in the communal living rooms with the monitor in plain and constant view of Mum and/or Dad as they go about evening business. </p> <p>It's gotten worse as broadband has made video more streamy, but now with smartphones, they plumb that sewer pipe of the basest depths of human depravity into their children's pockets and let them carry it about all day?</p> <p>No. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60267 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:47:56 +0000 Uberuce 60267@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Oh, and I forgot to say: I had a drool at your bike. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60260 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:20:00 +0000 recombodna 60260@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'll pay you more heed in future. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60259 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:17:23 +0000 Uberuce 60259@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I think I mentioned it was better not to find out what it means... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60191 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:14:31 +0000 recombodna 60191@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"That duty of care still extends to erratic ninjas, but as recombodna demonstrated that's bloody hard unless like him you're quick to pull the moves on attractive younger men." </p> <p> lolz. Just about sprayed coffee all over the screen when that one clicked!!</p> <p>Can I just say Uberuce that due to one of your posts earlier in the week one of the most hideous images appeared on my screen after a quick Google search. I'm still trying to scrub it off my eyes!! I'm sure you know what I mean if not then forget everything I just said...... I wish I could!! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60187 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:58:08 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 60187@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>And indeed the Highway Code minimum requirement for drivign round streetlit cities at night is sidelights. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60185 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:55:58 +0000 steveo 60185@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Vehicles were pretty badly lit during the black out and of course peds would be next to invisible. </p> <p>Car side lights really are sufficient to get around cities. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60180 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:49:21 +0000 Roibeard 60180@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@LivD <em>I have often wondered what the roads (in street-lit) areas would be like if cars did not use lights in the dark. &lt;snip&gt; If NO ONE used vehicle-mounted lights, maybe things would slow down and all road users would be more observant.</em></p> <p>Not quite the same, as it wasn't on lit streets, however blackout conditions in WWII did increase the number of accidents. What would have happened if the vehicles weren't lit, but the streets were lit, is an interesting proposal.</p> <p>Of course, the converse (lit vehicles, unlit streets) is used throughout the countryside.</p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60149 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 02:15:53 +0000 Dave 60149@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Insto - not sure about the figures of course (presume you have the same thoughts). For instance, "only" 3% of KSIs occur in cycle lanes apparently - but is the proportion of cycle mileage done in cycle lanes more or less than 3%?</p> <p>Similarly, I was amused that away from junctions, going on for two thirds of crashes are apparently *not* being hit from behind. What the hell? (Overly specific coding or something?) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60148 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 02:08:19 +0000 Dave 60148@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@LivD, I agree and that was one reason why daytime running lights were so widely opposed - they make it possible to decide whether to hook / pull out based on looking for a gap in pearl strings of LED lights, so cyclists and pedestrians are relatively disadvantaged.</p> <p>Like LaidBack I ride with my lights permanently on (in fact, there is no off-switch!) and I guess I'm contributing to the same problem.</p> <p>If you try riding with a beastly front light, suddenly people stop taking liberties in front of you. I'm sure it's not that they think you're a car, but there's obviously something about power lights that causes a change in behaviour (do they present as a threat, I wonder, to whatever part of the brain is searching for a reason not to do manouvre X)? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60144 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:31:26 +0000 LaidBack 60144@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I don't feel qualified to comment for once ... haven't any stats!</p> <p>Anyway... </p> <p>I now run lights during the day at moment. Not sure why .... other than to compensate for the 'you're too low' disapproval of some and the fact dynamo lighting gets cheaper the more you use it (hub is 10 years old so it must have paid for itself by now). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60133 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:17:58 +0000 Instography 60133@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>From report of DfT data in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/oct/07/cycling-death-appalling-road-layouts">The Guardian</a> </p> <p>DfT statisticians analysed reported casualties by day and time of day. They found that 60% of cyclist casualties occur during the rush hours of 7am – 10am and 4pm – 7pm, and more road accidents happen on a Monday to Thursday (65%) than at the weekend (45%). The DfT report concludes that the cyclist deaths are likely to be related to school and work travel.</p> <p>There will be some hours of darkness in there but it's hard to say how much it's a question of visibility and how much just plain inattentiveness and stupidity on the part of drivers (and some of the cyclists). Personally, I'm with Smudge on the primacy of good, assertive positioning but I wouldn't trust any of the clowns in cars with my life so I unapologetically add the hi viz jacket and the eye-searing lights. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598&page=2#post-60120 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:31:02 +0000 chdot 60120@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Don't worry Gary, that is normal for here!"</p> <p>Yes, and most post were still about the subject line! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60117 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:02:20 +0000 Min 60117@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Don't worry Gary, that is normal for here! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60116 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:57:17 +0000 LivM 60116@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I have often wondered what the roads (in street-lit) areas would be like if cars did not use lights in the dark. I don't think that the car-lights do much to illuminate dangerous bits of road, but they do dazzle (so pedestrians crossing the road are essential invisible to other drivers if they're in front of someone else's lights) and also I think that drivers just look for lights, not for large (or small) moving objects - so I think people drive faster and less observantly because they use lights at night. If NO ONE used vehicle-mounted lights, maybe things would slow down and all road users would be more observant. 20mph limit, I'd guess. And you can turn your lights on when going through Holyrood Park :) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60114 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:47:10 +0000 Gary Buckham 60114@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Gosh! I did not mean to spark quite a debate as this. But some interesting points all the same. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60104 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:09:51 +0000 Dave 60104@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Risk homeostatis suggests that you choose a given level of risk (which I think we can all accept - i.e. at some point on the way down a hill you will start dragging the brakes), but goes as far as to say that this process is basically subconcious so changes are compensated for (bad surface on hill = go slower, good surface on hill = go faster?)</p> <p>The hill example might seem obvious, but I understand that the point is you don't *choose* to go slower or faster based on thinking about the road surface - you adapt to the perception as a subconcious process. </p> <p>Hence the idea that if you wear a helmet (sold, and often discussed, as the panacea to cycling injury) you may subconciously take more risks as a result. </p> <p>Quite separate to the parallel debate that since relatively few people die of skull fractures but lots die of gross trauma (or maybe rotational injury), it might be better to forget about the h-word and focus on not being driven over ;-)</p> <p>The <a href="http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html">Munich taxicab experiment</a> is a must read, and was what really converted me to the idea. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60103 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:00:42 +0000 Min 60103@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>True but likewise with the children I can't help feeling that comparing drivers (who have masses of protective gear for their whole body) with cyclists (who have a wee piece of polystyrene on their bonce) is not really a fair comparison. Does anyone think that getting mangled below the neck isn't painful/life changing/life removing?</p> <p>I think it needs proper research anyway, not just extrapolation. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60102 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:57:18 +0000 Roibeard 60102@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Min - I've not seen helmet specific research either, but have seen "risk compensation" pretty well established in both playground and road studies. The former with the spongy mat-style surfacing now favoured not actually reducing the number of injuries, and the latter with either the "improving" of roads also not reducing accidents, or the increase of non-occupant injuries with the increased use of seat-belts.</p> <p>It thus seems fairly likely that we all have an in-built risk threshold/preference and will increase risk taking in "safer" circumstances to reach our preferred level (of adrenaline?).</p> <p>Of course, these thresholds are variable even in the individual - as we age, I suppose we get more risk adverse!</p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60099 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:39:15 +0000 Min 60099@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>"What I really doubt, personally, is whether a significant proportion of collisions happen because drivers looked but didn't see (i.e. with hi-viz on they might have "seen" not just looked), or whether collisions happen because drivers either didn't look at all, or saw you perfectly well, but did something silly anyway (my vote)."</em></p> <p>This is what I think too. I wear a variety of different colours from lime green to black over the years and have never noticed any difference in driver behaviour at all (also anecdotal!). The <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5588">article posted yesterday</a> about strict liability stated in the second paragraph that cyclists wearing hi-viz are less likely to get killed but didn't cite any evidence for it. I have seen that stated elsewhere, also without evidence. </p> <p>It kind of reminds me of the oft quoted "fact" that cyclists wearing unmentionable protective head gear take more risks that those who don't. I have only once seen a study cited along with that "fact" and it was to a study about children going over assault courses, those with elbow, knee pads and helmets took more risks that those who didn't. Not exactly comparable!</p> <p>I mean if there is evidence then fine. I just haven't seen it. Has anyone else? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60097 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:36:27 +0000 ARobComp 60097@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Smudge I agree - my defensive and agressive (progressive?) cycling style has definitely saved my ass more times than I care to think about. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60096 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:30:34 +0000 Dave 60096@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yeah, I don't think it's possible to argue that hi-viz doesn't make you more contrasty, or that flashing lights aren't synonymous with bikes, because I'm sure they are. </p> <p>What I really doubt, personally, is whether a significant proportion of collisions happen because drivers looked but didn't see (i.e. with hi-viz on they might have "seen" not just looked), or whether collisions happen because drivers either didn't look at all, or saw you perfectly well, but did something silly anyway (my vote). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60094 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:24:51 +0000 chdot 60094@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Dave/wife grey/yellow are of course 'anecdotal', but not the first time I've heard similar.</p> <p>I understand the logic about <em>not</em> using flashing lights but i feel/think/believe that drivers have them wired into their brains now (though of course seeing/knowing that there is a bike in front doesn't result in care/consideration/wide berth!!!</p> <p>ANECDOTALLY my perception used to be that when flashing rear lights first came out drivers (especially in taxis) actually came <em>closer</em>!</p> <p>Of course I could not have proved it and it would be impossible to do a control now.</p> <p>As long as I didn't get knocked down (I didn't) I could deal with 'inquisitive' cars. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60089 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:04:15 +0000 Dave 60089@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'm pretty sceptical about hi-viz TBH. When my wife and I used to commute along the A90 (mainly together in the morning, separately at night), we bought DHB jackets from Wiggle, mine in charcoal and hers in hi-viz yellow. </p> <p>She complained of many more close passes and cut-ups than I experienced, so many that she sometimes considered using NCN1 instead. I found that I never had the slightest issue with close overtakes on that road.</p> <p>What I would attribute this to I'm not sure. I'm a man and more scary? She looked more "pro" and didn't need to be given as much consideration? At 40-50mph there's not too much time for motorists to make nuanced decisions surely!</p> <p>Yet, if she was hit, she'd be defended as having taken a sensible precaution, while in my case people would say I deserved it.</p> <p>The same thing applies to i.e. flashing lights. I don't see that identifying yourself as a cyclist is useful around town, and prefer a big solid beam. We both have non-cyclist front lights and I'm certain far less head-on related issues than when I was running 2x 1W EBC blinkies.</p> <p>Of course, sample size of 2 here! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60018 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:08:06 +0000 Uberuce 60018@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I see my brickie tabard, lights, indicating, observing reds, predictable cycling style etc, as making it easier for drivers to exercise their duty of care to me-as-other-road-user. </p> <p>That duty of care still extends to erratic ninjas, but as recombodna demonstrated that's bloody hard unless like him you're quick to pull the moves on attractive younger men. </p> <p>I suspect I'm glad of invisible dervish cyclists since they remind drivers what they're meant to be looking out for, but since I'm aiming for the atmosphere in Kaputnik's dog tandem infographic, I like to be nice and make it easier for them to look out for me. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60012 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:29:43 +0000 Darkerside 60012@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@anth - agree entirely, I was referring to all cyclists rather than those in stealth mode. I may not have answered the question set, reading back.</p> <p>I use a magicshine rear under the seat pointing down to make the entire back of the bike and road glow red, plus a Smart Lunar R2 thingy pointed rearwards on its fairly unaggressive pulse mode. Clothing is generally not hi vis, but my rain jacket has neon + reflective arms for signalling which work well. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60011 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:29:08 +0000 Smudge 60011@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Anth, Very true. I also believe however that positive, assertive defensive riding is a greater contributor to my safety than *any* quantity of garish clothing.<br /> I can only hope my sample of one continues to prove me right ;-) :-p </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60010 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:27:49 +0000 chdot 60010@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I fail to see why I should dress up in hi-vi clothes to attempt to make up for another road users failure to observe/careless/dangerous driving.<br /> If they can't see an adult on a bike in broad daylight what chance a child crossing the road?"</p> <p>Quite.</p> <p>If Governments were serious about 'road safety' they would insist on regular eye tests - and police would have some quick eye-tester as well as a breathalyser. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60007 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:17:29 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 60007@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>Tbh I fail to see why I should dress up in hi-vi clothes to attempt to make up for another road users failure to observe/careless/dangerous driving</em>"</p> <p>I tend to think this way. Although I also think that if someone fails to observe/is careless/is dangerous and runs me over that moral high ground isn't going to offer me much protection... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5598#post-60005 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:15:07 +0000 Smudge 60005@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I use a cherry bomb (sometimes two!) and a (non-yellow) jacket with lots of retro-reflectives. Tbh I fail to see why I should dress up in hi-vi clothes to attempt to make up for another road users failure to observe/careless/dangerous driving.<br /> If they can't see an adult on a bike in broad daylight what chance a child crossing the road?</p> <p>I do however worry sometimes that my rear lights are *so* bright and annoying that they are an incentive to overtake as soon as possible simply to avoid being behind them :-/ </p>