New Sub-species of Stealth Cyclist

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:19:18 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Does aggressive anti-speed campaigning tend to reduce road safety to the single issue of whether
>motorists are exceeding the speed limit or not? I am frankly inclined to think it does,

You are Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith & I Claim My Five Pounds ;-)

I don't think there is any such thing as "aggressive" anti-speed campaigning. Speeding is illegal,
and if you do it you may well get nicked, possibly by plod, possibly by a camera. Message over. I've
seen more capiagns against drink-driving than I ever have against speeding, and there's no
suggestion that this reduces road safety to the single issue of whether you're ****** or not.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:19:18 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Does aggressive anti-speed campaigning tend to reduce road safety to the single issue of whether
> >motorists are exceeding the speed limit or not?
I
> >am frankly inclined to think it does,
>
> You are Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith & I Claim My Five Pounds ;-)
>

OMG Quoi? Moi? Hopefully not.

> I don't think there is any such thing as "aggressive" anti-speed campaigning. Speeding is illegal,
> and if you do it you may well get nicked, possibly by plod, possibly by a camera. Message over.

Hmm, I don't think that's the message. 'Everyone' knows it's illegal, but the statistics and
practical experience seem to show a high percentage of drivers, if not the majority at some time and
in some place or another, don't really care - at least until it hits their wallet. Even then the
chances of getting nicked are still pretty small, despite that fact that it's become much higher
with all the cameras. No, the message is 'Speed Kills', and it seems to me to be almost the only
road safety message we ever hear.

> seen more capiagns against drink-driving than I ever have against speeding, and there's no
> suggestion that this reduces road safety to the single issue of whether you're ****** or not.
>

True, but that's such an old message now. When campaigning first started about this, it may well
have been that it appeared to reduce road safety to the single issue of whether you were ****** or
not. I dunno - I wasn't even in the UK when drink-driving campaigns first started in earnest. Maybe
the same thing will happen to anti-speed campaigning - by keeping on at it, it will finally sink
into general consciousness that it's undesirable, anti-social, etc, and other campaigns will get
more focus. But in the meantime, by keeping on at it, it seems to be the only road safety message
there is - except at Christmas when we generally get a bit of the 'none for the road' as well.

Rich

 

[Chris Malcolm]

[email protected] (Philip Armstrong) writes:

>In article <[email protected]>, Simon Brooke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>I think that's unfair. I think what motorists really do, when assessing the risk of bumping into
>>something, is think about what it might do to their paintwork. Snowploughs and armoured vans have
>>a relatively low SMIDSY index, even considering their very large visual area. Nobody thinks they
>>can win an argument with a snow plough, so they don't start one. By contrast, hitting a cyclist is
>>likely to have little consequence for your paintwork, which is why cyclists have such a high
>>SMIDSY index.

>Try telling that to the Fire Engine drivers.

>SMIDSY appears to be universal, even if the object in question weighs a significant number of tons
>more than you do, has flashing lights on top, a loud siren, and it's going at 40 mph.

They will run into *stationary* fire engines, parked in the middle of the road, huge, bright red,
festooned with flashing lights, and say "Sorry mate, didn't see you".

Once you've got rid of any obvious camouflage problems, such as wearing all black at night, SMIDSY
ceases to be a conspicuity problem.

The misunderstanding that SMIDSY *is* a conspicuity problem is what is fuelling the lighting wars,
with more and more folk fitting more and more powerful lights and using them more often in the
attempt to *be* seen. The lighting wars are now causing so much dazzle and glare that pedestrians
and cyclists, who haven't the electrical power to compete, are being put more at risk.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's
Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Jamjar]

> The local bus company found that their accident rate went down 15% when they required their bus
> drivers to turn on their lights even in the middle of the day. Some people apperently just *don't*
> look at all. Or they turn their head in the relevant direction, but the image that falls on their
> retina never actually makes it to the higher processing centers in their brains (if they actually
> have any; the evidence might suggest otherwise).

Some people really don't look, I was stopped at a red light on goodge street,. W1 and a pedestrian
crossing the road looking the other way for oncoming traffic strolled straight into me. I think
darwin has something to say about people like that.

 

[Tony Raven]

JamJar wrote:
>
> Some people really don't look, I was stopped at a red light on goodge street,. W1 and a pedestrian
> crossing the road looking the other way for oncoming traffic strolled straight into me. I think
> darwin has something to say about people like that.

Eye contact is the secret. If you haven't made eye contact with them they haven't seen you. With
cars coming out of junctions or about to turn across me I look at the driver. A) it tells me whether
they've seen me and B) for some curious reason people notice people looking at them. Ditto
pedestrians, the fact that you knew they were not looking in your direction should have alerted you
to the possibility of what they did. Yes you shouldn't have to but its better to protect yourself
from the mistakes of others rather than become victim of them. Darwin has something to say about
that as well.

Tony

 

[Chris Malcolm]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> writes:

>JamJar wrote:

>> Some people really don't look, I was stopped at a red light on goodge street,. W1 and a
>> pedestrian crossing the road looking the other way for oncoming traffic strolled straight into
>> me. I think darwin has something to say about people like that.

>Eye contact is the secret. If you haven't made eye contact with them they haven't seen you. With
>cars coming out of junctions or about to turn across me I look at the driver. A) it tells me
>whether they've seen me and B) for some curious reason people notice people looking at them. Ditto
>pedestrians, the fact that you knew they were not looking in your direction should have alerted you
>to the possibility of what they did. Yes you shouldn't have to but its better to protect yourself
>from the mistakes of others rather than become victim of them. Darwin has something to say about
>that as well.

This eye-contact thing has been debated a lot in the motorcycling groups. As I recall the general
consensus seemed to be that while eye-contact did indicate that the motorist (aka "cager") had seen
you, and thus weeded out the "really truthfully didn't see you" category, there remained the very
important category of those who saw you but simply didn't care, presuming that the inferior and more
vulnerable forms of road-life simply had to look out for themselves.

In other words, don't rely on eye contact to mean the driver isn't going to cut you up.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's
Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> This eye-contact thing has been debated a lot in the motorcycling groups. As I recall the general
> consensus seemed to be that while eye-contact did indicate that the motorist (aka "cager") had
> seen you, and thus weeded out the "really truthfully didn't see you" category, there remained the
> very important category of those who saw you but simply didn't care, presuming that the inferior
> and more vulnerable forms of road-life simply had to look out for themselves.
>
> In other words, don't rely on eye contact to mean the driver isn't going to cut you up.

I think that's true, and ISTR there being a similar discussion here not long back. The point was put
that eye contact is also not sufficient, there has to be some objective corroborative evidence that
they are actually going to give way - visibly slowing down, a dip of the bonnet, brake lights, a
flash of lights or a waved hand - whatever may be appropriate to the situation and road positions -
and preferably more than just one of the above - something more than just eye contact.

Rich

 

[Dave Kahn]

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:14:26 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris Malcolm) wrote:

>This eye-contact thing has been debated a lot in the motorcycling groups. As I recall the general
>consensus seemed to be that while eye-contact did indicate that the motorist (aka "cager") had seen
>you, and thus weeded out the "really truthfully didn't see you" category, there remained the very
>important category of those who saw you but simply didn't care, presuming that the inferior and
>more vulnerable forms of road-life simply had to look out for themselves.
>
>In other words, don't rely on eye contact to mean the driver isn't going to cut you up.

When you've made eye contact you know the driver has seen you, but he also knows you've seen him and
that you will probably take avoiding action if he simply pulls out in front of you. I've been
experimenting with deliberately avoiding eye contact recently. While keeping the car in my
peripheral vision I'll look resolutely ahead or even over my shoulder. I'm aware of the car and
ready to avoid him, but the driver doesn't know that and is unwilling to take the risk. I'm sure I
get fewer cars pulling out when I avoid eye contact than when I deliberately establish it.

As far as pedestrians are concerned I've never found that establishing eye contact was particularly
useful. They seem to wander out in front of me just the same. The eye contact establishes me as
another person but they don't seem to register me as a vehicle. The Air Zound on the other hand is
quite effective even if the ped has his back to you at the time.

--
Dave...

 

[AndyMorris]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> The roads would probably be a lot safer is there was quite a low cap to the maximum candlepower it
> was legal to use on a vehicle in a built up area - the real problem in urban situations in
> difficult weather is glare, dazzle and visual clutter, not lack of light.

Very true indeed, just out of interest how powerfull are car headlights ?

On unlit cycle path, I feel safe to go up to about 20 mph with 27W of lumicycles. To get similar
illumination to 1 & 1/2 times the distance (for 30 mph, to give a similar reaction time, but with
better brakes) would take
2.25 times as much power, which is about 60W. How do car lights compare with this?

On a lit street I don't need lights to see, I can see reflective signs over
3/4 of a mile away, I assume people could see me, if not dazzled by other lights, over a
similar distance.

Are we, cyclists and motorists, in a lighting arms race?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[Just zis Guy]

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:02:48 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris Malcolm) wrote:

>The misunderstanding that SMIDSY *is* a conspicuity problem is what is fuelling the lighting wars,
>with more and more folk fitting more and more powerful lights and using them more often in the
>attempt to *be* seen. The lighting wars are now causing so much dazzle and glare that pedestrians
>and cyclists, who haven't the electrical power to compete, are being put more at risk.

Excellent point. Johnny Foglight driving along with full beams, foggies and all sorts (usually
blue-tinged, I note these days) is generally still only driving within the distance he can't see to
be occupied, rather than the distance he can see to be clear.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Michael MacClan]

"Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And I realised it's just someone with absolutely no sense of irony. Not American, are you,
> Michael?

It's nice to know that urc is so free of prejudice.
___
Michael MacClancy

 

[Just zis Guy]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:46:01 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I don't think there is any such thing as "aggressive" anti-speed campaigning. Speeding is
>> illegal, and if you do it you may well get nicked, possibly by plod, possibly by a camera.
>> Message over.

>Hmm, I don't think that's the message. 'Everyone' knows it's illegal, but the statistics and
>practical experience seem to show a high percentage of drivers, if not the majority at some time
>and in some place or another, don't really care - at least until it hits their wallet.

Compare and contrast: cyclist is doored and told it's his fault because he was not wearing a helmet.
Effect of helmet campaigning. Driver is flashed and is commiserated with on the grounds that cameras
are terribly unfair. Effect of speed campaigning. There is a strong relationship between speed and
crashing. Of course if everybody were taught to choose a safe speed, and they did so, there would be
fewer crashes. On the other hand, speed limits and enforcement exist precisely because they don't.

>No, the message is 'Speed Kills', and it seems to me to be almost the only road safety message we
>ever hear.

Apart from drink-driving. But in what way does speed not kill? The probability of fatality in a
crash increases with the fourth power of speed. Probabilioty of crashing and of being injured or
killed both reduce when the speed on a given road is reduced. It's always a trade off between
going faster and going safer; the problem is that when considering the balance the majority of
drivers and their advocaes (ABD, RAC and so on) never consider anyone's risk other than that of
the driver himself.

>True, but that's such an old message now. When campaigning first started about this, it may
>well have been that it appeared to reduce road safety to the single issue of whether you were
>****** or not.

Every year there are at least two drink-driving campaigns.

>Maybe the same thing will happen to anti-speed campaigning - by keeping on at it, it will finally
>sink into general consciousness that it's undesirable, anti-social, etc, and other campaigns will
>get more focus.

I hope so. You should also know that when drink-drive laws were introduced very similar objections
were raised as are currently raised to speed enforcement. Remember, too, that the AA was formed to
watch for speed traps. It has been going on for a long time.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Just zis Guy]

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:36:28 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Eye contact is the secret. If you haven't made eye contact with them they haven't seen you.

I have twice been injured on roundabouts, once seriously, by drivers who were looking straight into
my eyes at the time. Bike is not perceived as a threat.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:46:01 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Compare and contrast: cyclist is doored and told it's his fault because he was not wearing a
> helmet. Effect of helmet campaigning. Driver is flashed and is commiserated with on the grounds
> that cameras are terribly unfair. Effect of speed campaigning. There is a strong relationship
> between speed and crashing. Of course if everybody were taught to choose a safe speed, and they
> did so, there would be fewer crashes. On the other hand, speed limits and enforcement exist
> precisely because they don't.

<snip remainder>

I could agree with everything you say, but it sort of misses my point which was not really about the
merits of one campaign vs another but about what people notice. Between speed and drink-driving
campaigns, I scarcely even notice the drink driving ones. Maybe it's because I don't drink.... But
maybe it's not just me, and anyway speed issues have a far, far higher profile these days, almost if
not completely to the exclusion of all else. They don't just arise out of DoT campaigns, the issue
gets a lot of news exposure. You see it everywhere you go through cameras and speed bumps. It comes
in pompous ministerial announcements about 'zero tolerance', or another minister saying how eager
she was to plead guilty to a charge or in despising a despicable former MP and his wife getting off
because they can't remember who dun it.

I don't 'see' or remember seeing any other campaigns except a rather short-lived 'now you see him'
motorcyclist lying in the road. If the only thing you're noticing is messages about speed then you
get the impression that road safety is being reduced to that single issue. I wouldn't deny that it
is an issue, but I think I'd rather see something around the idea of "FFS _LOOK_!" I mean, in
another part of this thread there's a whole other SMIDSY discussion going on, and for me,
personally, from bitter personal experience, SMIDSY is more of an issue than speed.

Well, having said that I now know, having looked, that the DoT actually supposedly introduced a
"Think!" campaign covering all-round road safety in summer 2000, but what happened to it?

Rich

 

[Just zis Guy]

"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Between speed and drink-driving campaigns, I scarcely even notice the drink driving ones. Maybe
> it's because I don't drink....

Maybe it is. I don't see speeding campaigns, but then I don't count yellow boxes at the side of the
road as part of some publicity drive.

> despising a despicable former MP and his wife getting off because they
can't
> remember who dun it.

There was a specific reason there. Recent cases have seen killers get off by blaming each other, so
claiming the ability to do so as some sort of victory for the "downtrodden motorist" (read "biggest
killer of children in the UK") is particularly unacceptable for someone with a place in public life.
It would have lowered Hamilton in my estimation, if only he weren't already at rock bottom...

> I don't 'see' or remember seeing any other campaigns except a rather short-lived 'now you see him'
> motorcyclist lying in the road.

That was part of a fairly extensive campaign proposing that the solution to drivers not looking was
for motorcyclists to ride more carefully. I think it was cut short because of objections to its
victim-blaming nature, but ICBW.

> Well, having said that I now know, having looked, that the DoT actually supposedly introduced a
> "Think!" campaign covering all-round road safety
in
> summer 2000, but what happened to it?

It has its own website and it's the brand for most DfT road safety campaigning at the moment.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Mark Thompson]

> On a lit street I don't need lights to see, I can see reflective signs
over
> 1/4 of a mile away, I assume people could see me, if not dazzled by other lights, over a similar
> distance.
>
> Are we, cyclists and motorists, in a lighting arms race?

I think so - I've seen /very/ powerful lights on some cars, so much so that they dazzle me when just
dipped. On a road with streetlights you only need sidelights anyway. I wish all the other car
drivers knew that.

Mark.

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)> writes:

> > On a lit street I don't need lights to see, I can see reflective signs
> over
> > 1/4 of a mile away, I assume people could see me, if not dazzled by other lights, over a similar
> > distance.
> >
> > Are we, cyclists and motorists, in a lighting arms race?
>
> I think so - I've seen /very/ powerful lights on some cars, so much so that they dazzle me when
> just dipped. On a road with streetlights you only need sidelights anyway. I wish all the other car
> drivers knew that.

Is it not illegal to drive with just dipped headlights now?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of the electorate in Scotland
than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

 

[Nigel Randell]

"Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Didn't know what to make of this one. Seen at 6.45pm (so well dark). Was wearing a fl. jacket but
> with no lights. As I got closer I noticed he did have lights in the mesh sidepocket of his bag,
> but hadn't bothered turning them on and putting them on his bike!
>
>
Caught a glimpse of an interesting one this evening: illumination was a red LED on the back and on
the front were a green LED and a red one. The the road was well enough lit for it to be pretty
obvious what was going on but I could imagine this set up causing consternation on a narrower, less
well lit road.

--
Nigel Randell

 

[Chris Malcolm]

"AndyMorris" <[email protected]> writes:

>Simon Brooke wrote:

>> The roads would probably be a lot safer is there was quite a low cap to the maximum candlepower
>> it was legal to use on a vehicle in a built up area - the real problem in urban situations in
>> difficult weather is glare, dazzle and visual clutter, not lack of light.

>Very true indeed, just out of interest how powerfull are car headlights ?

>On unlit cycle path, I feel safe to go up to about 20 mph with 27W of lumicycles. To get similar
>illumination to 1 & 1/2 times the distance (for 30 mph, to give a similar reaction time, but with
>better brakes) would take
>2.25 times as much power, which is about 60W.

Unless there was a good moon, in which case you'd see a lot further if you turned your lights off.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's
Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, AndyMorris wrote:
>Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> The roads would probably be a lot safer is there was quite a low cap to the maximum candlepower
>> it was legal to use on a vehicle in a built up area - the real problem in urban situations in
>> difficult weather is glare, dazzle and visual clutter, not lack of light.
>
>Very true indeed, just out of interest how powerfull are car headlights ?
>
>On unlit cycle path, I feel safe to go up to about 20 mph with 27W of lumicycles. To get similar
>illumination to 1 & 1/2 times the distance (for 30 mph, to give a similar reaction time, but with
>better brakes) would take
>2.25 times as much power, which is about 60W. How do car lights compare with this?

55W each. But some bulbs claim to put out more light than others (at the same power), and the beam
patterns vary, and are very different from bike lights (even more so on dipped beam), and we don't
know whether your Lumicycles are spots or floods, and their brightness will vary a bit from a fully
charged battery to one running down and the cars will use a regulator to keep the voltage near
constant (but not exactly the same for all cars). And then some cars have HID bulbs, which, like
bike lights HIDs, have a very different efficiency, and BMWs also have a ring of white LEDs, and
some cars have more than just the headlights (twin headlights, or driving lights, or fog lights used
when they shouldn't be).