CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

"Hi-viz for cyclists and pedestrians – sensible precaution or victim-blaming?"

(53 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by chdot
  • Latest reply from I were right about that saddle

No tags yet.


  1. Rosie
    Member

    Today's Metro had a wee snippet and pic about yesterday's demo. Described it as "colourful". Of course it's going to be colourful if you get a gang of day-glo cyclists together.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. spytfyre
    Member

    Saw a couple of walkers on the canal last night with the slap straps on their arms miles before I got to them
    yes chdot I meant those but hadn't had time to look them up - I like the ones with the built in flashing red LEDs so I think I will grab a set of them for Tigermoth[1] on his scooter on the pavement

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. neddie
    Member

    And now victim blaming by Cyclescheme:

    http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/how-to/how-to-stay-visible-to-drivers

    December days are short, and drivers might be distracted by low sun, iced-up windscreens or busy social schedules. It's critical to stay conspicuous

    So drivers' busy social schedules are more important than a life? But as long as you've got your hi-viz, you'll be alright...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  4. PS
    Member

    "Sorry mate, I've got a busy social schedule"?

    Nah, it'll never catch on.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  5. Baldcyclist
    Member

    You have to remember, cyclescheme is essentially aimed at getting drivers out of their cars. Best talk language they understand.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. Charlethepar
    Member

    If they are 'distracted ..... by iced up windscreens,' then they are clearly breaking the law. often seen, but shouldn't be excused like this.

    It's all victim blaming. It's excusing drivers unwillingness to give a damn.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. Greenroofer
    Member

    Apart from the bit that could be victim-blaming, I thought the rest of it talked a lot of sense, actually.

    In some ways, though, the 'victim-blaming' thing is a bit like the thread that fimm started: whether we like it or not, people in cars are sometimes distracted by their phones/busy social schedules and sometimes they don't clear their windscreens properly. This article felt realistic and pragmatic: it's not how we want things to be, but it's how things actually are.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. Instography
    Member

    It's not that it's "realistic", it's that it's so bloody accepting, so acquiescent in the face of downright reckless driving. I'm not expecting it do to a full-on, both barrels Beztweets excoriation of the drivers it's trying to save cyclists from but there's not a hint that there's anything at all wrong with drivers setting off with only a pinhole of clear windscreen. No suggestion that it would be reasonable to expect drivers to clear their heads of their social calendars and bloody pay attention. No, just you light up. Put on an extra glow. You spend the money and do the work so that they don't have to. Because we aren't affected by the sun and we don't have social calendars.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  9. Greenroofer
    Member

    @Instography: I suppose they are treading a fine line. There's quite a bit of implicit criticism (saying someone is distracted by an iced-up windscreen isn't exactly complimentary, after all) but it could be a bit more explicit just once, somewhere, and it's not.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  10. sg37409
    Member

    That type of criticism would be best coming from the AA/RAC/IAM/Pick your own motoring website*. Putting motoring advice on a website for cyclists isn't really going to help.

    Pretty sure the motoring websites will have advice like this already. I'd like to see the kind of TV ads that Australia seem to have, where they're not afraid to call a space a spade/bloody idiot/etc.

    So far as this advice on the cycle scheme website goes, its perfectly reasonable. We might all be adequately lit on this website, but my commute home I saw 2 other cyclists who weren't. Thats a pretty high proportion of the cyclists I saw.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  11. Instography
    Member

    OK. Here's what I think the difference is. If you're concerned about cyclists who are inadequately lit you say something like:

    - if you don't make even the basic effort to make it possible for drivers to see you - lights front and back, light clothing with reflectives - then you put yourself and other road users at serious risk of injury and death.

    If you're concerned about cyclists being the victims of inattentive drivers:

    - while cyclists have every right to expect drivers to be paying constant attention to the roads and to see a cyclist who is adequately lit we know that they don't always do that. They don't clear their windscreens properly in ice and snow, they use mobile phones ... so cyclists need to take extra care and make extra effort to make sure drivers see them.

    You see the difference?

    The cycle scheme "advice" identifies the correct problem but places all the responsibility on the cyclist. The cyclists' actions aren't described as mitigation for other people's errors or lapses, they are described as the cyclists' duty, their responsibility. That, I think, is wrong.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  12. sg37409
    Member

    Well, it does say motons might not be able to see out their windows, so take care. Theres not much point in banging on about motoring stupidity on this website beyond this.

    The cyclescheme website should be concerned with both badly lit cyclists and those inexperienced enough to know little about crap driving standards in the winter months.

    For me, its critical to be conspicuous. I dont take this as excusing people for not being able to drive safely.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  13. PS
    Member

    There needs to be a real effort to stigmatise inattentive driving, just like there was for drink driving.

    Tell people who drive with iced up windscreens that they are bloody idiots, make them a laughing stock and subject of derision. Same for mobile phone/tablet use - the guy eating cereal at the wheel quickly became an object of derision becuase that's obviously mental behaviour; we need a proper campaign that establishes phone use at the wheel as mental, too.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  14. twq
    Member

    @PS I saw a van driver on his phone driving past Porty Police station last night.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  15. PS
    Member

    @twq Yeah - there's so little stigma attached to mobile phone use at the moment that people don't really think about it. They might look a little sheepish if you call them out on it, but that's it.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  16. neddie
    Member

    Time for hi-viz paint for cars:?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39190135

    Posted 7 years ago #
  17. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Not new. DfT's "Road Accidents Great Britain 1991" found that yellow cars had the fewest accidents, while black cars had the most.

    (The AA was keen on this statistic for its insurance offering in the late 90s, mainly to 'prove' that you could get the lowest premium from them, in the vein that it was easier than having your car repainted.)

    Posted 7 years ago #
  18. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    The color was chosen because it attracts attention and is noticed quickly in peripheral vision, faster than any other color. Scientists describe this as follows: "Lateral peripheral vision for detecting yellows is 1.24 times greater than for red."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_bus_yellow

    Posted 7 years ago #
  19. Colonies_Chris
    Member

    On a quiet road outside Selkirk this weekend, a young man in a sporty car drove alongside me, wound down the window and advised me that I should wear some hi-viz for my own safety. He was perfectly pleasant about it, genuinely trying to be helpful, but as (a) it was 3 o'clock on a reasonably bright afternoon and (b) I was labouring hard up a long hill, I wasn't inclined to engage in reasoned debate. I pointed out forcefully - with what spare breath I had - that anyone who couldn't see me in those circumstances shouldn't be allowed to drive, and that he really was trying to offload the responsibility of drivers to drive to a safe standard. He sped off, no doubt offended, probably to tell stories of the angry and unreasonable cyclist he'd tried to help.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  20. crowriver
    Member

    Good for you! More power to your hill climbing knees!

    Posted 7 years ago #
  21. HankChief
    Member

    https://bangingonaboutbikes.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/on-why-be-safe-be-seen-is-nonsense/

    "Riding to work at around 8:30 this January morning, I found myself cycling behind a young lad, about 14-15, for about a mile – I first saw him near Lidl in Prestwich. He had a hi-vis vest, helmet and lights, and obeyed the rules of the road – he didn’t run red lights or ride on pavements.

    However, his exemplary behaviour did not guarantee his safety: on the contrary, at the hands of the north Manchester car commuters, he was put in serious danger at least five times in the space of a mile, which I managed to capture on camera and am posting here to illustrate just how careless – callous even – some drivers are around people cycling."

    Posted 6 years ago #
  22. neddie
    Member

    A good comment at the bottom of the article @hankchief posted:

    Alexander Baines-Buffery says:
    January 18, 2018 at 8:55 pm

    The fundamental drivers of human behaviour are: SCARF. Status, Certainty, Relatedness and Fairness.

    I think the hi-vis advise is bad because it makes cyclists look very different, that reduces ‘Relatedness’. Many drivers feel that they have spent more money on their car and therefore the have higher status than cyclists. This status threat is why cycle advocacy causes such hostility with so many drivers. Bike’s ability to slip through traffic infringes their sense of fairness.

    Finally proposals to put bike lanes in creates the possibility that traffic and all of the above may get worse and that creates a threat to their sense of certainty.

    The problem we have at the moment is that most people in the UK can’t even imagine why you would want to commute by bike.
    I think there is an absolute cassum to cross at the moment. We should just ask people if they would drive that way around their mum, if it was her on that bike?

    -----

    I seriously believe that my wearing hiviz these dark commutes contributed to being nearly egged, being accosted by a old lady: "so you're a cyclist, etc." and being shouted at for not dismounting, these last few days - the "Relatedness" point as above

    Posted 6 years ago #
  23. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Interesting guy;

    Director
    Wine Rides Ltd
    March 2013 – Present (4 years 11 months)
    Wine Rides Ltd is a new ethical, British, package holiday. It is a collaboration between Wine Rides Ltd, Sedlescombe organic vineyard, and Carr Taylor vineyard. We offer our guests a three-day cycling adventure in the beautiful Weald of Kent. Our guests explore Britain's amazing wine producing historic landscape while camping on two of the U.K.'s finest vineyards. Wine Rides Ltd is about health, happiness and the provenance of food.

    I think his analysis is spot on. At the minute asking people with cars to cycle is like asking people with indoor lavvies to build a privy at the bottom of the garden.

    Posted 6 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin