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

ClubSmed wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Just read the research.

Stop pontificating about how you think they did it and just read it.

But didn't you comment/elaborate about how you thought they meant it?

Rich_cb wrote:

I don't know exactly what they meant by 'dark clothing' but I'd imagine they meant dark colours and non reflective.

A bit different, they didn't define 'dark clothing' in the report but they did clearly describe their method.

shay cycles wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

You could always read the research. They explain quite clearly where they are getting their data. It's mainly based on the STATS19 data collected by the police, also hospital data, coroners reports and 'on the site' reports.

Well in reality research based mainly on STATS19 needs to be handled with care. The government's own guidance says;

"The factors are largely subjective, reflecting the opinion of the reporting police officer, and are not necessarily the result of extensive investigation. Some factors are less likely to be recorded since evidence may not be available after the event.

While this information is valuable in helping to identify ways of improving safety, care should be taken in its interpretation."

So the data quoted is far from reliable.

So you cannot reasonably claim that dark clothing was a contributary factor in 10% of fatalities - whether a University study says so or not.

 

Have you got any better data?

Links to any better research?

Rich_cb wrote:

shay cycles wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

You could always read the research. They explain quite clearly where they are getting their data. It's mainly based on the STATS19 data collected by the police, also hospital data, coroners reports and 'on the site' reports.

Well in reality research based mainly on STATS19 needs to be handled with care. The government's own guidance says;

"The factors are largely subjective, reflecting the opinion of the reporting police officer, and are not necessarily the result of extensive investigation. Some factors are less likely to be recorded since evidence may not be available after the event.

While this information is valuable in helping to identify ways of improving safety, care should be taken in its interpretation."

So the data quoted is far from reliable.

So you cannot reasonably claim that dark clothing was a contributary factor in 10% of fatalities - whether a University study says so or not.

 

Have you got any better data?

Links to any better research?

Weak, subjective and incomplete research is worse than none at all if it's used to justify weird and wonderful leaps in the dark.

davel wrote:

Weak, subjective and incomplete research is worse than none at all if it's used to justify weird and wonderful leaps in the dark.

I really don't think this can be described as weak or incomplete. It covers a huge numbers of fatal collisions and has examined most if not all of the available data.

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

Finally it's not a leap in the dark to suggest that removing a reported contributing factor could reduce the incidence of fatal collisions.

It's a logical response.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Weak, subjective and incomplete research is worse than none at all if it's used to justify weird and wonderful leaps in the dark.

I really don't think this can be described as weak or incomplete. It covers a huge numbers of fatal collisions and has examined most if not all of the available data.

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

Finally it's not a leap in the dark to suggest that removing a reported contributing factor could reduce the incidence of fatal collisions.

It's a logical response.

I might be going round in circles here, but my point all along has been how logical that response is.

Am I right in that the problem here is the contributing factor - dark clothing?

If so, a lot hinges on the term 'dark clothing', how they've arrived at that definition and what the basis for including deaths under that label is. But then they don't explain how they've done that? (This is where I think ClubSmeds was going)

So how do you fix a problem as defined by a bunch of other people if they haven't told you what the label that they've given the problem actually means?

If we don't know what it means, how do we remove 'dark clothing' here? (I think this is where Beezus was going. ) Do they mean just unlit clothing? Do they merely mean that the cyclist was in the dark? Are they just saying that it was dark or is the problem with the actual clothing? Types of garment? Clothing brands? Does hair colour make a difference? Do peds suffer the same casualty rates? You see what large effects a subtle difference in the label could have?

Next, are reflectives demonstrably the antidote, as opposed to 'light clothing' or just nakedness or a Ronald Macdonald outfit or a portable, head-mounted spotlight? How effective are they? Should cyclists be advised to avoid cycling in the dark if their clothes make drivers hit them? What might the unintended consequences be of applying the suggested fix? Is there a wider problem with drivers not driving to the conditions on unlit roads or elsewhere (I think this is where ktache was regarding shit driving and you were regarding factors beyond your control)?

(I'm not actually being obtuse here - I spent a long time working in performance improvement and the same mistakes regarding 'fixing problems' happen repeatedly, and one of the most common is a lack of understanding and agreement as to what the problem is in the first place. And complex problems are never fixed via 'common sense'. I hear your Swiss Cheese model, but you need some confidence that the slices address the factors, and I lack confidence that they've been defined correctly here.

TL;DR:
1. Can we demonstrate what' dark clothing' means?
2. Can we be confident that those figures were categorised accurately?
3. Can we demonstrate that reflectives address the issue of 'dark clothing'?

Isn't this' no' on all counts?

davel wrote:

TL;DR:
1. Can we demonstrate what' dark clothing' means?
2. Can we be confident that those figures were categorised accurately?
3. Can we demonstrate that reflectives address the issue of 'dark clothing'?

Isn't this' no' on all counts?

1. We can't know definitely what they meant by dark clothing.

It would be reasonable to say that high-vis clothing would be very unlikely to be classified as dark.

In certain lights reflective clothing can appear as dark so there may be a few cases where reflective clothing has been recorded as dark.

Realistically though I would expect almost all people to be able to identity dark clothing correctly.

Overall I think it is perfectly reasonable therefore to assume that dark clothing means just that in the vast majority of cases they've recorded.

2. I have quite a lot of confidence in these figures, they seem to have been very methodically gathered and seem to tally with real world experience.

The fact that they report a high incidence of death at junctions tallies with what I read about on an all too regular basis.

The fact that they found that car drivers were inattentive and drove at excessive speeds mirrors exactly what I experience on an almost daily basis.

3. There is no definite proof of this, it therefore becomes a personal choice. In low light conditions reflective gear is the brightest stuff you can wear, if dark clothing is a problem then it seems sensible to wear the brightest clothing you can.

You're never going to get scientific level proof in these sort of studies, I think this research is about as good as you can get given the data available.

Rich_cb wrote:

shay cycles wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

You could always read the research. They explain quite clearly where they are getting their data. It's mainly based on the STATS19 data collected by the police, also hospital data, coroners reports and 'on the site' reports.

Well in reality research based mainly on STATS19 needs to be handled with care. The government's own guidance says;

"The factors are largely subjective, reflecting the opinion of the reporting police officer, and are not necessarily the result of extensive investigation. Some factors are less likely to be recorded since evidence may not be available after the event.

While this information is valuable in helping to identify ways of improving safety, care should be taken in its interpretation."

So the data quoted is far from reliable.

So you cannot reasonably claim that dark clothing was a contributary factor in 10% of fatalities - whether a University study says so or not.

 

Have you got any better data? Links to any better research?

No I have no better data, there is unlikely to be any better data. But data based on subjective opinions is unreliable and therefore all of the conclusions drawn from it are unreliable. The statement that the report uses STATS19 data effectively invalidates it. This really is pretty basic scientific or statistical method.

In the absence of "better data" you effectively have no data and no usable data yet insist on defending your unsubstatiated position regarding this report.

shay cycles wrote:

No I have no better data, there is unlikely to be any better data. But data based on subjective opinions is unreliable and therefore all of the conclusions drawn from it are unreliable. The statement that the report uses STATS19 data effectively invalidates it. This really is pretty basic scientific or statistical method.

In the absence of "better data" you effectively have no data and no usable data yet insist on defending your unsubstatiated position regarding this report.

If you accept this is the best data available but reject it then you have to accept that there is no reliable data proving drivers are at fault in the vast majority of fatal collisions.

That is what this data shows, everyone on this thread is desperate to discount the data, I doubt they're so keen to stop blaming drivers for fatal collisions.

Your call.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's 10% of fatal collisions, dark clothes are a factor in the death of 12 cyclists a year, 1 a month. I think that's pretty significant.

www.news.qut.edu.au/cgi-bin/WebObjects/News.woa/wa/goNewsPage?newsEventI...

This research from an Australian university  basically says that reflective, not high-visibility, clothing is the answer to being seen in the hours of darkness. Fluorescent clothing needs UV rays to be reflective and so don't work at night so I question how much of factor "dark clothes" are. I can accept that non reflective clothes are a factor, but not how dark they are.

ClubSmed wrote:

www.news.qut.edu.au/cgi-bin/WebObjects/News.woa/wa/goNewsPage?newsEventI...

This research from an Australian university  basically says that reflective, not high-visibility, clothing is the answer to being seen in the hours of darkness. Fluorescent clothing needs UV rays to be reflective and so don't work at night so I question how much of factor "dark clothes" are. I can accept that non reflective clothes are a factor, but not how dark they are.

I don't know exactly what they meant by 'dark clothing' but I'd imagine they meant dark colours and non reflective.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

www.news.qut.edu.au/cgi-bin/WebObjects/News.woa/wa/goNewsPage?newsEventI...

This research from an Australian university  basically says that reflective, not high-visibility, clothing is the answer to being seen in the hours of darkness. Fluorescent clothing needs UV rays to be reflective and so don't work at night so I question how much of factor "dark clothes" are. I can accept that non reflective clothes are a factor, but not how dark they are.

I don't know exactly what they meant by 'dark clothing' but I'd imagine they meant dark colours and non reflective.

Hi-Viz looks frankly retarded fugly, part reflective doesn't; my coat is Black with Reflective patches on it, so not a eyesore off my bicycle, my back packs have reflective patches and back/strap piping, and my tires have reflective side-wall strips too. The latter must be very obvious to a car illuminating my bicycle from the side, far more than my front or back light side emissions, so people without these would be wise to get wrap-on spoke reflectors.

Rich_cb wrote:

That's why it's worth doing even if the gains are only small.

Comprehensive driver education would probably have a far greater impact but it would need to be agreed politically and would take years to begin having an effect.

100% agree with this sentiment.

Rich_cb wrote:

Reflective clothing represents an additional safeguard, it might have flaws but it is a quick and easy step to take.

But I'm not sure on this specific point.

1. Is it actually a proven safeguard?

2. Are there any negative consequences to this quick and easy step?

There's got to be a balance... eg. it makes you 0.1% safer then it probably feels like a no-brainer. But if that action, when replicated through a lot of people following the same logic, reinforces behaviour in drivers that actually results in you being 0.2% less safe, then everybody needs to stop doing it. I suppose my point actually boils down to 'we don't know', which I accept is a bit shit.

davel wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

That's why it's worth doing even if the gains are only small.

Comprehensive driver education would probably have a far greater impact but it would need to be agreed politically and would take years to begin having an effect.

100% agree with this sentiment.

Rich_cb wrote:

Reflective clothing represents an additional safeguard, it might have flaws but it is a quick and easy step to take.

But I'm not sure on this specific point.

1. Is it actually a proven safeguard?

2. Are there any negative consequences to this quick and easy step?

There's got to be a balance... eg. it makes you 0.1% safer then it probably feels like a no-brainer. But if that action, when replicated through a lot of people following the same logic, reinforces behaviour in drivers that actually results in you being 0.2% less safe, then everybody needs to stop doing it. I suppose my point actually boils down to 'we don't know', which I accept is a bit shit.

If dark clothing is a contributing factor in fatal collisions then by replacing the dark clothing with light or reflective clothing you are removing a possible contributing factor.

For that reason I would say it was a safeguard.

As for whether cyclists wearing reflectives makes non-reflective wearing cyclists more vulnerable?

I don't think you could ever prove that and even if you could it would involve asking people to put themselves at greater risk in the short term for a possible increase in safety in the long term.

I'm not sure many people would be willing to risk it to be honest.

Rich_cb wrote:

In 10% of all fatal collisions involving a cyclist the wearing of dark clothing at night was found to be a contributing factor.

In 44% of fatal collisions the driver not looking properly for the cyclist was a contributing factor.

Drivers are significantly more likely to hit a cyclist from behind after dark.

Collisions after dark are far more likely to result in death or serious injury. Seems to me that in all the 3 scenarios above reflective clothing would make a fatal collision less likely.

This is based on a pretty huge piece of research commissioned by the Department for Transport. Link: https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR445

It's a good reason to not cut the reflective strips off my cycle clothes, but it's not covincing me to go out looking like Timmy Mallett's demented cousin.

beezus fufoon wrote:

flashing lights are an irritation to other road users - if you dress like a clown then you'll get treated like one

Perhaps, but if you're irritating them they have seen you.

ktache wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

flashing lights are an irritation to other road users - if you dress like a clown then you'll get treated like one

Perhaps, but if you're irritating them they have seen you.

they're irritating to me - whether I'm walking, riding, or driving - also, from a distance you have identified yourself as a cyclist - personally I use reasonably powerful constant lights and try to create the illusion I'm on a motorbike, as it is my intention to be able to pedal at that speed one day!

Mungecrundle wrote:

My cycle gloves have small reflective logos. At night and if a car is behind they are extremely visible in headlights. During the day an arm signal is clear enough.

So do mine, but they only really work if you hand is at the right angle.

Mungecrundle wrote:

As a motorcyclist arm signals are second nature. In any situation an arm signal is by far a clearer and unambiguous statement of intent. For a cyclist they also make you effectively an arm length wider.

As a motorcyclist, I have no intention of taking my hands off the bars and reducing the control of my bike. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a motorcyclist using arm signals?

LastBoyScout wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

My cycle gloves have small reflective logos. At night and if a car is behind they are extremely visible in headlights. During the day an arm signal is clear enough.

So do mine, but they only really work if you hand is at the right angle.

Mungecrundle wrote:

As a motorcyclist arm signals are second nature. In any situation an arm signal is by far a clearer and unambiguous statement of intent. For a cyclist they also make you effectively an arm length wider.

As a motorcyclist, I have no intention of taking my hands off the bars and reducing the control of my bike. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a motorcyclist using arm signals?

I'll admit it is a bit old school as are some of the other habits that were beaten into me by my instructors. E.g when was the last time you saw any motorcyclist kick up the sidestand before getting on? This goes back to the days before moron interlocks stopped one riding off with the side stand down and crashing on the first left hander soon thereafter.

If you have choreographed being in the right place at the right speed in the right gear, then there is usually time for a cheeky arm signal to back up what your indicators are telling other road users. Especially useful for exiting multilane roundabouts or when turning right into a minor road from a major road in my experience.

Not to turn this into a motorcycling thread but there are a lot of transferable skills, especially to do with road positioning and a copy the Police Motorcyclists Roadcraft manual is actually not the most tedious bedtime reading. Round town at cycling speeds I still think of myself as a small (and horribly underpowered) motorcycle rather than a pedal cycle.

A summary of the riding system from Wikipedia.

Information received from the outside world by observation, and given by use of signals such as direction indicators, headlamp flashes, and horn; is a general theme running continuously throughout the application of the system by taking, using and giving information;

Position on the road optimised for safety, visibility and correct routing, followed by best progress;

Speed appropriate to the hazard being approached, attained via explicit braking or throttle control (engine braking), always being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your side of the road;

Gear appropriate for maximum vehicle control through the hazard, selected in one shift; and

Acceleration for clearing the hazard safely.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Motorcycle-Roadcraft-Police-Handbook-Motorcycli...