ru'roh...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Told I'm not very visible, what would you do?
(74 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Is there a special word for the evidence-based-argument version of negative space?
Posted 10 years ago # -
My 2p worth.
I commute pretty much every day by bike, occasionally (say once a month) I take the car. I don't want to give the other road users any "I didn't see you" excuses, so I wear full bright yellow reflective jacket, bright yellow reflective panniers, plus six lights (four on bike: one flashing, one steady, front and back; plus front and back on helmet). My reasoning: as a driver I find it harder to judge speed/distance of bike with just a flashing light compared to steady, but also a flashing light makes me notice them more, hence one of each. Helmet lights: helps me be seen better in, say, a queue of traffic where the height of the cars obscure the other lights. Bright yellow: in pretty much all conditions this is easier to spot than dark clothes.
All these things are done in a kind of good/better approach e.g. dark reflective clothes good, bright reflective clothes better.
Overkill? Possibly. Do I look a fool. Definitely. In an ideal world I wouldn't have to go to such lengths. But, it's not an ideal world. And to paraphrase me Dad, I'd rather look like an idiot who's alive than cool roadkill.
Posted 10 years ago # -
That's not to say that I'm not still apparently invisible to some road users, but at least I feel I have a higher ground whilst berating them :)
Posted 10 years ago # -
White reflective tape to the side may be technically illegal, but then so will my reflective sidewalls be then? Good for side viz though. Reflectives don't need to be seen from the front, that's what my headlamp is for ;-)
Posted 10 years ago # -
I love my brick* [/Father Jack]
One of the things I like best about the blinky on my head is that it makes other non-ninja cyclists screamingly obvious to me, to the point I wish there was some way of mandating a blinky mounted on the windscreen just above the driver's head without sacrificing the safety benefit of blink=bike.
*ie's vest.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Telling someone who thinks they are lit that they are unlit is very different from telling someone who is adequately lit that they should be more lit.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Telling someone who thinks they are lit that they are unlit is very different from telling someone who is adequately lit that they should be more lit.
True as far as it goes, but then half the problem is that one persons idea of 'adequately lit' may be viewed by another as being so poorly lit as to be essentially unlit, and worthy of commenting on in the same manner.
You could likely come up with some semi-scientific objective measurement of 'visibility', say based on lumens produced by lights on the bike combined with lumens reflected by car headlights at various distances and angles, but then I'm struggling to think what you'd even end up being able to 'prove' with it anyway, since as noted earlier being ultra visible makes precisely zero difference if people aren't looking to begin with.
I'm pretty obsessive about lights and reflectives myself but I'm happy to concede that the vast majority of your visibility is going to come from any set of half decent lights. Adding helmet lights, running one-steady one-flashing at front and back, extra reflective tape, that all helps, but it's still less of a gain than going from unlit to a single set of lights.
Anyway I had promised myself not to get too involved in this thread as it seems ripe for h-word levels of endless debate without resolution. So much for that...
Posted 10 years ago # -
If we stick to the facts as we know them we don't need to worry too much about subjectivity. Fimm wrote:
I have two lights, and she agreed that she could see them, but she still felt that I could be more visible, and wondered if I had something reflective to wear.
So we're not talking about the adequacy or brightness of the lights. They were clearly visible, adequate, even if fimm thinks the batteries were a bit low and the lights could have been brighter. No, the woman was concerned with greater overall lit-up-ness. Something more reflective. Something to increase the size of the obstacle.
Anyway, it's all academic. The interesting thing about it is the extent to which it illustrates a shift in driver expectations. No longer do they expect cyclists to just have the flaky Ever Ready 1.5v bulbs and maybe a reflector of yore. No, they expect full hi viz and reflectives and they're willing to come up to you in a train station and tell you that that's what you should be doing. It's your job to not get killed and their job to tell you that you don't glow brightly enough.
The trouble with that, and the reason that I keep commenting (apart from quite liking debates - you say endless like that's a bad thing) is that it's ever-escalating. Yesterday's adequately lit cyclist is today's almost invisible ninja because expectations are shifting and there's enough cyclists willing enough and worried enough to go along with it. A reflective strip here, another light, a set of Mrs Armitage attachments to attach some more lights, spoke reflectors, reflective sidewalls, wheels, something discrete but reflective on your jacket, bag, hat, trousers, shoes, pedals and put a little band around your ankles and wrists (for good measure - you can never be too careful). When we complain about super-bright lights on paths, we should just shut up because those guys are playing the game too. Bright? Not bright enough. You can never be too bright, too fluorescent or too reflective. That's the message.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I should mention that I wasn't referring to fimms original incident with my first remark there, more of a general observation, so I hope it hasn't come across the wrong way to anyone.
Anyway there's plenty of good stuff to keep debating here but it'll have to wait until tomorrow when I'm not just about falling asleep on the keyboard.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"it's all academic. The interesting thing about it is the extent to which it illustrates a shift in driver expectations
...
You can never be too bright, too fluorescent or too reflective. That's the message"
I think there is, sadly, another factor. A lot of drivers (I believe) wouldn't pass the basic 'read at numberplate at X paces' test.
The amount of light from other cars etc. won't help.
Once again the 'don't upset the motorist too much' reality reduces 'road safety'.
It's the time of year when drink-driving and breathalysers are the focus.
Police might help things if they did the eye-test test - no equipment required.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Meanwhile, in Martha's Vineyard:
http://www.mvtimes.com/2013/12/04/scary-little-yellow-bike-thing-18200/
Even a nine-foot-long yellow velomobile with eyeball-searing lighting is invisible. As 'freddotu' remarked in response to that article, "the majority of the comments posted on that site indicate an unfortunate tendency of today's society, at least in the USA. 'Everyone' wants to legislate everyone else. Far too few people are willing to embrace education in place of legislation."
Those who tell us we're not very visible would rather we stayed off their road, in order to compensate for their inattentions by proxy rather than them acknowledge those inattentions directly.
Yesterday's adequately lit cyclist is today's almost invisible ninja because expectations are shifting...
Yesterday's successful prosecution on the evidence of a helmet cam is today's unsuccessful prosecution on the evidence of verbal witness statements.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Well I finally had a look at the road on Friday, and my reaction is: it is a long straight road, with plenty of streetlights. How on earth did you find me difficult to see? There must have been a streetlight out, or something. I just don't get it otherwise.
I've renewed the batteries in my rear lights. I might still play with using the tabard just to see if I perceive a difference, but that will not be as a result of this incident.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
