Dragons' Den backs indicators: another dodgy decision from the dragons on a cycling product

ktache wrote:

Science has absolutely nothing to do with common sense.

Common sense doesnt exist, it is a cliche used by non thinking lazy people.  If there was such a thing we would all have it in equal amounts (it would be common to us all) but we dont, so called common sense vaies from person to person based on experience, knowledge and education.  Smug people like to think that they have just the right amount of common sense, more educated people have too much and those with less are uneducated.

ClubSmed wrote:

I too have worked most of my life in process improvement which is why I too want change but am not willing to accept the "facts" without questioning them or the conclusions if made by leaps of faith.
So often I have encountered local improvements made be a department that has improved their money/time/quality position. On further investigation though the full end to end process has suffered greater though. Plugging a small hole at one point can cause a bigger hole to appear elsewhere unless causality is fully understood.
This is what has been suggested here. What if the excess use of reflective does make cyclists safer at night but because they are not as visible during the day they become less safe. Further more because, as the results of this study show, more cyclists ride during the day the fatalities increase as a result?
I'm not saying that visibility isn't an issue, I question whether the fix to that issue will cause other larger issues or not.

There is absolutely no way of knowing whether there will be knock on effects or not.

So we can either taken no action and avoid any unforseen circumstances or take action based on the best evidence we have available.

I think the latter is a more sensible approach.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

I too have worked most of my life in process improvement which is why I too want change but am not willing to accept the "facts" without questioning them or the conclusions if made by leaps of faith.
So often I have encountered local improvements made be a department that has improved their money/time/quality position. On further investigation though the full end to end process has suffered greater though. Plugging a small hole at one point can cause a bigger hole to appear elsewhere unless causality is fully understood.
This is what has been suggested here. What if the excess use of reflective does make cyclists safer at night but because they are not as visible during the day they become less safe. Further more because, as the results of this study show, more cyclists ride during the day the fatalities increase as a result?
I'm not saying that visibility isn't an issue, I question whether the fix to that issue will cause other larger issues or not.

There is absolutely no way of knowing whether there will be knock on effects or not.

What??! I don't follow this. Did you mean something else? Do you need a sit down or to improve your googling? Other research on different topics exists, as does impact analysis as a discipline. I don't want to appear condescending but as it reads, that statement is just false.

There is other research addressing the stuff that ClubSmeds has suggested as one area to look at. Even if there wasn't, it's possible for it to be commissioned. There's research that suggests that making cycling less convenient or appear more dangerous (use of safety equipment) has the effect of reducing numbers of people who cycle. That sort of thing.

But, in order to limit unintended consequences to begin with, the argument needs to be tied tightly to the research and the research itself needs to be tight, which is the cause for alarm here with the 'dark clothing is a factor in 10% of fatalities therefore reflectives' line of reasoning. Picking apart every word in that is second nature to the nerds who do this sort of thing for a living or, even weirder, a hobby.

davel wrote:

There is other research addressing the stuff that ClubSmeds has suggested as one area to look at. Even if there wasn't, it's possible for it to be commissioned. There's research that suggests that making cycling less convenient or appear more dangerous (use of safety equipment) has the effect of reducing numbers of people who cycle. That sort of thing.

Exactly! The studies into"shared space" set ups have shown that is you make vulnerable uses more common and less predictable then they become safer as drivers are looking out for them better and therefore more aware.
I'm not saying that we need to go around at night dressed like ninjas, I'm also not sure that the Christmas tree stance is any more helpful though

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

I too have worked most of my life in process improvement which is why I too want change but am not willing to accept the "facts" without questioning them or the conclusions if made by leaps of faith.
So often I have encountered local improvements made be a department that has improved their money/time/quality position. On further investigation though the full end to end process has suffered greater though. Plugging a small hole at one point can cause a bigger hole to appear elsewhere unless causality is fully understood.
This is what has been suggested here. What if the excess use of reflective does make cyclists safer at night but because they are not as visible during the day they become less safe. Further more because, as the results of this study show, more cyclists ride during the day the fatalities increase as a result?
I'm not saying that visibility isn't an issue, I question whether the fix to that issue will cause other larger issues or not.

There is absolutely no way of knowing whether there will be knock on effects or not.

So we can either taken no action and avoid any unforseen circumstances or take action based on the best evidence we have available.

I think the latter is a more sensible approach.

Of course there is with more research and better understanding.
To take your Swiss cheese analogy from earlier, you have one slice with holes in it and you think that by moving it slightly you can stop the lining up of a small hole with the next slice. What you're not doing is looking at the whole thing to make sure that by adjusting to remove that how your not making a larger hole line up.
I already provided a link to a research paper that showed the color of clothing at night to not be a factor, only reflectives. You then stated to interoperate"dark clothing" in a way that there was no evidence to support. That is dangerous assumption and could lead to serious Swiss cheese misalignment. We need to fully understand the current situation, the causes and their effects to the whole to ensure we are not exposed to a hole!

ktache wrote:

And the investigating officer, who has driven there, who has probably not ridden a bicycle since they were a child, if that (excellent WMP excepted) and who has only heard the justification of the motorist....

Which is why the motorist was found to have been the contributing factor in the vast majority of fatal collisions?

The tribalism on here is pathetic.

Rich_cb wrote:

ktache wrote:

And the investigating officer, who has driven there, who has probably not ridden a bicycle since they were a child, if that (excellent WMP excepted) and who has only heard the justification of the motorist....

Which is why the motorist was found to have been the contributing factor in the vast majority of fatal collisions?

The tribalism on here is pathetic.

And yet, given that 2 of us die each week through the fault of people in more comfortable and safe, and very polluting, metal boxes, and the transport secretary doors a cyclist and then attempts to blame the cyclist, that tribalism is probably justifiable, indeed necessary.

davel wrote:

And yet, given that 2 of us die each week through the fault of people in more comfortable and safe, and very polluting, metal boxes, and the transport secretary doors a cyclist and then attempts to blame the cyclist, that tribalism is probably justifiable, indeed necessary.

How is tribalism working out for us so far?

Research like this can be used to argue for safer junctions, improvement in HGV cabs, better segregated routes to schools and many, many other things that most cyclists care deeply about.

If we needlessly attack this sort of research we are doing the work of the car lobby for them.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

And yet, given that 2 of us die each week through the fault of people in more comfortable and safe, and very polluting, metal boxes, and the transport secretary doors a cyclist and then attempts to blame the cyclist, that tribalism is probably justifiable, indeed necessary.

How is tribalism working out for us so far?

Research like this can be used to argue for safer junctions, improvement in HGV cabs, better segregated routes to schools and many, many other things that most cyclists care deeply about.

If we needlessly attack this sort of research we are doing the work of the car lobby for them.

Show me one post that 'needlessly attacks' the research. I see repeated questioning of its methodology and the logic of the conclusions you're drawing, but no needless attacks.

As for tribalism, what sort of person argues for safer junctions and many, many other things? Well, as someone who does that locally, and knows others who do the same, I know it's the type of single-minded, thick-skinned person who is mightily pissed off with society's car worship and acceptance of cyclists' deaths and who posts on threads like this one.

The Netherlands didn't get where they are with infrastructure by more people strapping on a reflective jacket, another light or a plastic lid. Stop de kindermoord! was just another tribal movement to begin with. How's that worked out?

davel wrote:

Show me one post that 'needlessly attacks' the research. I see repeated questioning of its methodology and the logic of the conclusions you're drawing, but no needless attacks.

As for tribalism, what sort of person argues for safer junctions and many, many other things? Well, as someone who does that locally, and knows others who do the same, I know it's the type of single-minded, thick-skinned person who is mightily pissed off with society's car worship and acceptance of cyclists' deaths and who posts on threads like this one.

The Netherlands didn't get where they are with infrastructure by more people strapping on a reflective jacket, another light or a plastic lid. Stop de kindermoord! was just another tribal movement to begin with. How's that worked out?

Attacking the research for being subjective is pointless and needless.

There is no way of doing this type of research objectively.

It relies on value judgements.

beezus fufoon wrote:

The word attributed is used to describe whether the contributory factor was on the part of the cyclist or motorist.

1. table 7-4 is on page 34

2. it is treated as separate on that table, but this is qualified in the text

3. it also clearly explains that "attributed" refers to the attending police officers' judgments

Rich_cb wrote:

Data of this type will always be subjective, there is no way to produce objective data about these sorts of collision.

This is the exact point we've all been making to you from the beginning

[/quote]

So reject this research and all of its findings. That means you can no longer blame drivers for fatal collisions. After all in the vast majority of cases the evidence is subjective.

Who else is going to attributed contributing factors?

It's the best data set available, it backs up the arguments that cyclists have been making for years, if you reject it you have to reject all of it, it's all just as subjective.

Rich_cb wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

Quote:

The word attributed is used to describe whether the contributory factor was on the part of the cyclist or motorist.

 

1. table 7-4 is on page 34

2. it is treated as separate on that table, but this is qualified in the text

3. it also clearly explains that "attributed" refers to the attending police officers' judgments

 

Rich_cb wrote:

Data of this type will always be subjective, there is no way to produce objective data about these sorts of collision.

This is the exact point we've all been making to you from the beginning

So reject this research and all of its findings. That means you can no longer blame drivers for fatal collisions. After all in the vast majority of cases the evidence is subjective.

Who else is going to attributed contributing factors?

It's the best data set available, it backs up the arguments that cyclists have been making for years, if you reject it you have to reject all of it, it's all just as subjective.

Firstly, I am neither accepting nor rejecting this data - simply correcting your phrasing when you portray this statistical data as scientific fact.

Secondly, I think it is also a bit simplistic to blame drivers for fatal collisions - they are not the ones manufacturing overpowered fuel-hungry vehicles or facilitating their use in inappropriate road conditions, nor are they responsible for the upkeep of the roads, provision of infrastructure, or the enforcement and setencing of offenders.

Thirdly, this data clearly reflects the perceptions and biases of the police and society in general, particularly in placing the onus on the individual in circumstances where it is very obvious that the wider conditions play a far bigger part than the actions of any single participant. The report itself makes that very clear.

Mungecrundle wrote:

This idea that unlit / non reflectively coated cyclists are eclipsed by the presence of much shinier specimens. Does this extend to other traffic that has lights, indicators and reflectors etc? Maybe they only become really visible when there is no-one around to see them?

I can believe this. If all is dark then a dark cyclist will stand out. 

If there are cyclists with lights and reflectives then they will stand out far more than their ninja pals. I think most of us will be drawn to what we can see over what we can't ? 

Mungecrundle wrote:

This idea that unlit / non reflectively coated cyclists are eclipsed by the presence of much shinier specimens. Does this extend to other traffic that has lights, indicators and reflectors etc?

Well, yes. An unlit, grey or darker coloured vehicle amongst others with lights on could easily dissappear into the background.

ktache wrote:

I was riding down the oxford road, Reading, last night and as I passed an unlit cyclist I was concerned for her as motorists may be less able to see her because of me.  She was perfectly visable and it was only just getting dark.  But I'm lit up like the proverbial blackpool/xmas...

A couple of years back I actually fitted a front and rear reflector to the getting to work bike.  I have always liked pedal reflectors, the bolt in ones not the rattly push in ones (Ebay made this much easier), and spoke reflectors, had some spiral ones and now the straws.  The bloke in Evans (click and collect, I wanted the nice small round ones, still got to try and look good..) said that I didn't need them if I had lights.  Hmmmm...   But I wanted to be fully compliant.  No police or insurance company problems if hit.  No one would ever be able to see them over the Hope R4 and District+ of course, and I think my respro ankle jobs probably outshine the pedal reflectors.  It's not like we park in the middle of the road is it.

I relented and watched this part of the dragons.  I hate dragons den.  I must say that they are probably the best bicycle indicators I have ever seen.   Lovely blokes too.  Really well thought out and made for what they are.  Couldn't use them myself, but wouldn't mind seeing what they come up with next.

I do worry that because of the ridiculous lights that my arm signals might not be seen.  Even with Ronhill slap bands and glove/jacket reflectors.  CycleGaz has suggested using the helmet light to illuminate the arm to help, but then it's more difficult to see where you're going.

 

Sorry, but those indicators look far too small and may not be seen from behind past the arms and clothing, I also wonder how long before they fracture off...

Most bar end accessories contain brittle plastic, which will distort, fracture or crack from a glancing blows, leaning pressure or a bicycle fall, I've broken enough of several brands of bar end mirrors!

My bar ends are currently occupied by tough (survived a bicycle skid crash) USA Mirrycle MTB bar end mirrors (via Amazon), so that I have some warning of what is behind me. Maybe Mirrcycle could be convinced to add an indicator LEDs to their mirrors, or an indicator could be hacked in via the mirror holder screw.