Police stop Evesham cyclists to warn against dark clothing

Oh dear, the morons are back with their anti-everything, flat earth, Austrian economics, retarded view of the 6,000 year old earth. Seriously, how people take you wing-nuts seriously is beyond me.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

Oh dear, the morons are back with their anti-everything, flat earth, Austrian economics, retarded view of the 6,000 year old earth. Seriously, how people take you wing-nuts seriously is beyond me.

Austrian economics? That would be the type favoured by Ayn Rand types, the very types who go in for your kind of victim-blaming, yes? I think you have this back-to-front.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

With the exception of learner drivers and probably people who've recently passed their tests, most people get in a car and drive to their destination mostly on autopilot. Everybody's done it. You get to your destination and can't remember half the journey. That's one of the great things about the human brain - the system 1 part can take over repetitive non-taxing jobs and leave the conscious part of the brain (system 2) to do something else. But system 1 is totally crap at dealing with unexpected events and despite what most people think it should be doing, it hasn't evolved to remain on constant alert for the presence of cyclists (unless you live in an area/city with a high volume of cyclists and it adapts) or other road hazards. That's just the way it is and no amount of moaning about it will change it. You either take responsibility for your own safety or you put it in the hands of strangers who may not even know you're there. Anybody who disregards good safety advice is pretty dumb and probably not much loss to the human gene pool if their actions result in injury or worse.

And a bit of yellow cloth will fix that total lack of attention?

oldstrath wrote:

LinusLarrabee wrote:

With the exception of learner drivers and probably people who've recently passed their tests, most people get in a car and drive to their destination mostly on autopilot. Everybody's done it. You get to your destination and can't remember half the journey. That's one of the great things about the human brain - the system 1 part can take over repetitive non-taxing jobs and leave the conscious part of the brain (system 2) to do something else. But system 1 is totally crap at dealing with unexpected events and despite what most people think it should be doing, it hasn't evolved to remain on constant alert for the presence of cyclists (unless you live in an area/city with a high volume of cyclists and it adapts) or other road hazards. That's just the way it is and no amount of moaning about it will change it. You either take responsibility for your own safety or you put it in the hands of strangers who may not even know you're there. Anybody who disregards good safety advice is pretty dumb and probably not much loss to the human gene pool if their actions result in injury or worse.

And a bit of yellow cloth will fix that total lack of attention?

NO! It won't fix anything. What a moronic suggestion. It will however, improve your chances of being seen. Anything that improves your odds improves your odds - regardless. This daft notion that anything that doesn't completely eradicate accidents is not worth doing makes no rational sense.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

LinusLarrabee wrote:

With the exception of learner drivers and probably people who've recently passed their tests, most people get in a car and drive to their destination mostly on autopilot. Everybody's done it. You get to your destination and can't remember half the journey. That's one of the great things about the human brain - the system 1 part can take over repetitive non-taxing jobs and leave the conscious part of the brain (system 2) to do something else. But system 1 is totally crap at dealing with unexpected events and despite what most people think it should be doing, it hasn't evolved to remain on constant alert for the presence of cyclists (unless you live in an area/city with a high volume of cyclists and it adapts) or other road hazards. That's just the way it is and no amount of moaning about it will change it. You either take responsibility for your own safety or you put it in the hands of strangers who may not even know you're there. Anybody who disregards good safety advice is pretty dumb and probably not much loss to the human gene pool if their actions result in injury or worse.

And a bit of yellow cloth will fix that total lack of attention?

NO! It won't fix anything. What a moronic suggestion. It will however, improve your chances of being seen. Anything that improves your odds improves your odds - regardless. This daft notion that anything that doesn't completely eradicate accidents is not worth doing makes no rational sense.

So leaving aside the insults, we agree that wearing hiviz will not fix the problem, but you want to suggest that it will 'improve the odds'. But your entire previous post was about how drivers are so braindead they don't see things unless they are truly unusual. Which hiviz probably isn't. So the change in odds is probably small, and a distraction from things that might actually help - lights bright enough to cause pain, and a policing environment that made drivers terrified of hitting a vulnerable road user.

Or even better, properly segregated infrastructure, so the braindeads can play in peace.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Your comment did follow exactly the formula I described, talking about 'injury or worse.'

Your subsequent comment to me is personal abuse. If this site were moderated, it would be deleted. In any event, your style of debating is not something to be encouraged.

I wasn't debating you. I expressed my opinion as honestly as I could without feeling the need to sugar-coat it or to comply with this self-censorship, modern PC nonsense of not hurting anybody's feelings. If that jarred you and made you think about what I wrote then it was the right thing to do. After that, I merely corrected the replies that misrepresented what I had said. I didn't batter an eyelid when you attempted to indirectly call me a troll. But why should I? When people take offence at what somebody says it's that person's choice to be offended - I chose not to be. You can choose to be offended or not - it's up to you, but I won't be losing sleep if you are feeling offended.

oldstrath wrote:

So leaving aside the insults, we agree that wearing hiviz will not fix the problem, but you want to suggest that it will 'improve the odds'. But your entire previous post was about how drivers are so braindead they don't see things unless they are truly unusual. Which hiviz probably isn't. So the change in odds is probably small, and a distraction from things that might actually help - lights bright enough to cause pain, and a policing environment that made drivers terrified of hitting a vulnerable road user.

Or even better, properly segregated infrastructure, so the braindeads can play in peace.

I didn't say anybody was braindead, but given some of the comments here I certainly thought it. Again, as with the other guy, this is a misrepresentation of what I actually said.

I don't like using analogies, because most examples people use are pretty poor and usually not relevant. That said, I'm going to offer one in the context of discussing odds, because people are so bad at making rational decisions: roulette. Put a chip on any number from 1 to 36 and if you win you get back 36 times your stake. All things being equal the house and gambler should both break even over a long enough period of time. What gives the house the marginal advantage is the 0 and 00 slots. It's only a marginal advantage but one that means the house always comes out on top. Rationally speaking, it's not the size of the odds that matter, it's whether they are in your favour or not. But, few people rationally analyse the odds - instead they go with their gut reaction, which rather than actually coming from their guts, comes from the same fast thinking system 1 part of the brain the drivers are using when driving on autopilot. If anything, the system 2 part of the brain is only called upon to invent a reason why their gut feeling is correct.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

You either take responsibility for your own safety or you put it in the hands of strangers who may not even know you're there.

Do you cycle? Then I guess you aren't fully "taking responsibility for your own safety" are you? If you were, you'd drive or get the bus.

This "taking responsibility for your own safety" nonsense really needs to die. You can't "take responsibility" for something that is primarily under the control of others.

As for the cod-Darwinist rubbish - that just makes me think you are coming from the position of those who are scared of facing up to their own vulnerability.

Sub5orange wrote:

"Uniformed officers stopped cyclists wearing dark clothing or who didn't have lights during the morning and evening rush hours on January 6 and 26.

What is wrong with that? They got some free gear to make them safer. They could (should) have received a fine for not Having lights and a bit of advise.

Well, the use of the word OR implies those with dark clothing had lights. What if they had good lights, and many of them? What if the police failed to spot that the dark clothing had just as many reflective features as its high vis handout?

What if, basically, those giving the advice didn't know how good the advice they were giving was?

bendertherobot wrote:

Sub5orange wrote:

"Uniformed officers stopped cyclists wearing dark clothing or who didn't have lights during the morning and evening rush hours on January 6 and 26.

What is wrong with that? They got some free gear to make them safer. They could (should) have received a fine for not Having lights and a bit of advise.

Well, the use of the word OR implies those with dark clothing had lights. What if they had good lights, and many of them? What if the police failed to spot that the dark clothing had just as many reflective features as its high vis handout?

What if, basically, those giving the advice didn't know how good the advice they were giving was?

Feels like you are being extremely pedantic and have a thing against the police.
'What if' none of your 'what if' scenarios happened? 'What if' those giving out advice were world experts in road safety and only gave advice to those who needed it - based on their expert training and experience!

I'm guessing no matter what anyone says you are going to object to someone giving someone else advice to try and make the roads slightly safe.

Tinternet_tim wrote:

Feels like you are being extremely pedantic and have a thing against the police.
'What if' none of your 'what if' scenarios happened? 'What if' those giving out advice were world experts in road safety and only gave advice to those who needed it - based on their expert training and experience!

I'm guessing no matter what anyone says you are going to object to someone giving someone else advice to try and make the roads slightly safe.

If wanting those who give advice to do it properly is a thing, then, yes. I have a thing.

It's fairly clear from all these reports that, leaving the lack of lights issue aside, there is no clear information that high vis means reflective. The very fact that lights are also being dealt with means we are dealing with dark condition cyclists. So the use of the word high vis is problematic. If the reporting of the campaign is generic and misleading we can have no faith that the information being given is not equally so. Highly trained road safety PEOPLE know what makes a difference. They know about the flaws of fluro clothing as a defence against darkness.

bendertherobot wrote:

If wanting those who give advice to do it properly is a thing, then, yes. I have a thing.

It's fairly clear from all these reports that, leaving the lack of lights issue aside, there is no clear information that high vis means reflective. The very fact that lights are also being dealt with means we are dealing with dark condition cyclists. So the use of the word high vis is problematic. If the reporting of the campaign is generic and misleading we can have no faith that the information being given is not equally so. Highly trained road safety PEOPLE know what makes a difference. They know about the flaws of fluro clothing as a defence against darkness.

So you have no idea of the hi-viz product that was handed out, you don't know if it included reflective surfaces or piping and you have no idea of the level of qualification or experience of those giving out advice....BUT you have ASSUMED that all of the above are insufficient and shouldn't have been offered!
Ok, guess you have a pretty good case to be so angry and object to the police offering this advice so much.

And before you ask, I also have no idea of the quality of product or experience either. But I do know that organisation who have experience in road safety are offering advice to others who are more than likely less experienced....feels like a winning situation to me.

Tinternet_tim wrote:

But I do know that organisation who have experience in road safety are offering advice to others who are more than likely less experienced....feels like a winning situation to me.

Where's your evidence that this organisation 'have experience in road safety'?
What have the safer roads partnership actually done to make roads safer? How far have they reduced motorised traffic? Which roads have they managed to pedestrianise? How much campaigning have they done for stronger penalties for bad driving or for more rigorous driving tests, or indeed higher fuel duties to discourage driving? Or do they just badger potential victims in ways that haven't been shown to achieve very much?

Also - why are trains not clad in hi viz?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enkh9A5jdUI

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Where's your evidence that this organisation 'have experience in road safety?

I'll tell you what, I'll leave you to your half empty glass of beer / juice etc.

So many are quick to critic as it's so easy to do so. Wonder how many of those who are critical have actually tried to make a difference for others or a community? Maybe try it one day, it's actually quite rewarding and it takes a bit of character as lots just want to prove you wrong and find problems!!!

The problem is when the people giving advice don't know what they are talking about. Here in NZ, for example, a coroner, stated that all cyclists should wear high vis to keep them safer. There was massive publicity at the time, all unquestioning of his conclusion, despite the fact he had not the slightest evidence to support his view.
As a result of this a LOT of cyclists now ride around with high viz thinking that they are safe with no lights when light is poor or even when it is dark.
In my experience (having nearly hit a few of these idiots), when you come up behind someone with high vis in the dark, it makes no difference whatsoever.

imaca wrote:

The problem is when the people giving advice don't know what they are talking about. Here in NZ, for example, a coroner, stated that all cyclists should wear high vis to keep them safer. There was massive publicity at the time, all unquestioning of his conclusion, despite the fact he had not the slightest evidence to support his view.

Is this the case where the cyclist WAS wearing hi-viz and still got hit and killed by a driver???

balmybaldwin wrote:

Do you think they were also out warning women and girls not to wear short skirts so they don't get raped on the way home?

Oh no, of course not... that would be victim blaming

WTF

You are comparing a deliberate crime an assault on someone with the fact that a driver may not have seen someone on a bike. That's bizarre.

I guess you think that hurling around a the "Victim Blaming" trope means that any advice to any potential victim of a crime or an accident is magically covered. It isn't. Some victims are to blame in whole or part for their demise. You can do things and take actions that reduce the likelihood you will be a victim of crime or accident. Warning inexperienced cyclists that the chances of being hit by a vehicle are a lot less if the driver can see you clearly and from as far away as possible. Is not victim blaming. It's good advice.

oozaveared wrote:

Warning inexperienced cyclists that the chances of being hit by a vehicle are a lot less if the driver can see you clearly and from as far away as possible. Is not victim blaming. It's good advice.

Good advice depends on a) the quality of the advice being sound and useful and b) the giver of that advice to disseminate what advice is needed for each recipient.

Generic advice regarding pieces of yellow cloth are not good advice.

Errm... May not have seen someone, and then running them over because of it is a crime. Amazing what we will forgive drivers for doing just for a little bit of inattention.

As for your second paragraph. Magic cloth with make cyclists safe! Yet for magic cloth! I wore magic cloth and a 2 tonne 4x4 driven by an inattentive arse bounced off me! Wohoo! Lets all get magic cloth rather than dealing with the actual causes of any such accident because we'll forgive drivers momentary lapses...

Not really bizarre, although obviously not an exact analogy.

The point is that drivers may not have seen" who or what they are supposed to precisely because the responsibility to do so has been eroded by the constant pressure for actual or potential victims to wear hi-viz, irrespective of evidence.

It becomes part of the problem that way.

And yes, it is thus victim-blaming.

After all, there are all kinds of things you can do which may. or may not, help you. But being told to do some of them by people who are not fulfilling their duty to enforce laws controlling the SMIDSY mob is, well, victim-blaming

oozaveared wrote:

You are comparing a deliberate crime an assault on someone with the fact that a driver may not have seen someone on a bike. That's bizarre.

No it isn't - that you say so doesn't make it true. Its clearly a continuum - carelessness with the vulnerable when you are in a position of power is not wildly different from causing deliberate harm.