Pro cyclist-led lights campaign, endorsed by Tadej Pogačar, “feeds into victim-blaming culture”, says road safety expert

Bradshsi wrote:

Anyone working professionally in the field of safety applies the Swiss Cheese or LOPA model in aiming to reduce bad events.

In that context Dr Robert Davis's comments are an example of someone who is either ignorant of how practical safety is achieved (or choses to ignore it).

Me ?  I'm using the best most visible lights I can when I'm riding at night.  It won't prevent everything but it is an important layer of protection.

In context of road danger, there's way too much publicising of what cyclists should or shouldn't be doing and very little to educate motorists about how to drive safely around vulnerable road users. When coupled with the abysmal state of traffic law enforcement, it's clear that this campaign is unlikely to make much difference at all. Daytime lights aren't going to help when the driver is not even looking.

(I use a Fly6, so I have that flashing away whether it's day or night, but I don't bother with a front light during daylight)

"In context of road danger, there's way too much publicising of what cyclists should or shouldn't be doing and very little to educate motorists about how to drive safely around vulnerable road users."

Agreed, but that isn't focus of the article nor my criticism of it.  Hence the statement above is a Logical Fallacy of Special Pleading

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

"When coupled with the abysmal state of traffic law enforcement, it's clear that this campaign is unlikely to make much difference at all. Daytime lights aren't going to help when the driver is not even looking."

There was a controlled study done that shows this statement to be incorrect.  Data FTW and I'll take the 19% risk reduction thanks.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22884376/

Bradshsi wrote:

"In context of road danger, there's way too much publicising of what cyclists should or shouldn't be doing and very little to educate motorists about how to drive safely around vulnerable road users."

Agreed, but that isn't focus of the article nor my criticism of it.  Hence the statement above is a Logical Fallacy of Special Pleading

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

"When coupled with the abysmal state of traffic law enforcement, it's clear that this campaign is unlikely to make much difference at all. Daytime lights aren't going to help when the driver is not even looking."

There was a controlled study done that shows this statement to be incorrect.  Data FTW and I'll take the 19% risk reduction thanks.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22884376/

That study is based on cycling in Denmark which is known as a country that takes cycling seriously, so I'd take the results with a pinch of salt (especially as it involves small numbers) about whether that would apply in the UK to the same degree.

I don't agree with your diagnosis of Special Pleading as I'm not aware that I've been shifting goalposts at all.

It's a common theme in the UK that various groups give recommendations to cyclists about how to keep safe (e.g. daytime lights) that are not going to be effective as the more effective measures (e.g. prosecuting dangerous driving) are more or less ignored. This is why these campaigns are seen as victim blaming as they put the onus on the victims to be seen and not on the drivers that should be bearing the brunt of the responsibility to be actually looking.

Taken out of the UK road danger context, then it's reasonable enough to encourage daytime running lights.

Edit: Found the PDF: https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bicycles.pdf

From the live blog today
“If you don’t want to cycle on the road, then I suggest you find another method of transport.”

Not - drivers here is a reminder of the highway code and your obligations around vulnerable users.
Not - drivers be patient, you will only be held up for a short time and your overall journey time may not be affected.

"People do things that appear stupid to others" shock.

EDIT - your observation is correct but I think it's a bit of a canard in terms of "how we move forward".  People have adjusted their feelings over the decades on what they thought was sensible for drivers, after all.  (Don't forget - in the US the motor lobby managed to reverse popular blame for death and injury completely and invent jaywalking).

How did we start ameliorating things for all the stupid people in cars - when we started to get so many?

How could we fix it for when those stupid people are cycling?  Ideally without compounding the problems we had because we have so many people in cars (some are stupid most of the time, most are stupid some of the time...)?

chrisonatrike wrote:

How did we start ameliorating things for all the stupid people in cars - when we started to get so many?

Why are you trying to ameliorate and defend people doing stupid things on bikes? Does being on a bike mean you should take no responsiblity for your safety. 

Do you believe not paying attention while cycling the wrong side of a bus lane is sensinble?

Er... this seems to have touched a nerve?  I was looking at the longer term.  But focussing on this specific incident - genuine question - what concerned you about this person?  Are you worried about this person's wellbeing?  Maybe you saw a friend / relation in that person?  Some might say "that's another idiot dead soon, hahaha".  Are you worried about them injuring people on the bus?  You could rightly be concerned that if they're so careless they're quite likely to hit you in other circumstances. 

If this incident (now in the past) happens again what are you or I going to do about it?

My question means what it says and is addressing the future, looking at how we have got where we have.  Again - if that chap is still there go and advise him of his error with my blessing.  And / or tonight.  And/or tomorrow...

We can both spend our time shouting at people forever.  Some people will continue to do stupid things most consider stupid, dangerous, antisocial etc. as always.  I am concerned about a couple of things:

1) Can our system minimize harm to others and maybe to them?  Hence my interest in mass cycling.  Lots of other reasons for that but two are:
- It appears to be safer *and much more pleasant* for others than careless / dangerous in a motor vehicle. (Yes - society will have to pick up his bills / look after his dependents but not ALSO those he may have driven over if in a car).
 - there's a degree of "self-limiting" to people's selfish or careless behaviour on bikes - because people are aware they're not protected by a metal cage, air bags, seat belts.

2) What are the costs / side effects and expected return on "fixing the issue" and is it self-reinforcing?  Yes - we need policing / negative reinforcement.  However I suspect that "police it better" has a rapidly increasing cost and we quickly reach a limit to what that can fix.  I'm also not wild on a vast increase in police - I am concerned about the side effects (looking at our current police).  Training may also reach a point of diminishing returns.

For those two reasons (among others) I look more to the "system" and favour infrastructure and the approach of the Dutch.  That's more "we know children will swing on pipes so fix the pipe so it's safe for the children to swing on".  That is effectively what we have applied with driving.  With other modes around driving it's more "teach the children not to swing on pipes and maybe put guards round it".

I think we can do better than that (and the system will cope with idiots better).

chrisonatrike wrote:

Er... this seems to have touched a nerve?  

Not at all, if anything I am just not surprised at the lengths you will go to trawl the web for blog posts that back your position that seemingly cyclists should be absolved of all responsibility. 

chrisonatrike wrote:

If this incident (now in the past) happens again what are you or I going to do about it?

Nothing. I never said I wanted to. My post was clear and this was simply giving a recent example of the behaviour of some cyclists that likely contributes to the police etc making these campaigns. That is it.

chrisonatrike wrote:

.

.

 

For those two reasons (among others) I look more to the "system" and favour infrastructure and the approach of the Dutch.  That's more "we know children will swing on pipes so fix the pipe so it's safe for the children to swing on".  That is effectively what we have applied with driving.  With other modes around driving it's more "teach the children not to swing on pipes and maybe put guards round it".

I think we can do better than that (and the system will cope with idiots better).

That's great, but doesn't mean absolving anyone of taking responsibility for theirs and others safety or consequences of their behaviour. Which is what some here seem to believe we should be doing. It should not be a surprise that the police etc push campaigns like this, nor that people have a dislike of cycling/cyclists when we have a vocal minority (i hope) that seem to think cyclists should have carte blanche to do what the f*** they like.

I wrote an excellent and considered response to your post but this thread lacks the space for it.  Or rather - I think you'd be bored.

EDIT if you believe the general public belief about cycling is conditioned by "a vocal minority (i hope) that seem to think cyclists should have carte blanche to do what the f*** they like." I wouldn't agree - but it sounds like you have a rather strong opinion already.  So discussion would probably be wasting my time.  Or even saying that's not my position, or rather it is but only in this sense or this way for pedestrians.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I wrote an excellent and considered response to your post but....

Thanks for explaining yourself!  Saved me time!

Adam Sutton wrote:

There might be less of a feeling from police, organisations and professional cyclist for campaigns like this if there was more common sense from people. This seems to be a general problem these days, but some of the things you see cyclists doing is pretty mindboggling. On my Tuesday commute home a fine example was a guy with no lights, all in black, barely visible, cycling the wrong side of the road on a bus route and using his phone as he cycled along.

I'm glad he was on a bike and not anything bigger. I like to think people like that are pushing the bounds of what other traffic expects and thus making them pay more attention.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I like to think people like that are pushing the bounds of what other traffic expects and thus making them pay more attention.

Well there it is. The dumbest thing I have read on the internet today, it's early but I doubt anyone will better that.

When he gets flattened lets not pretend his actions did not pay a primary role in the outcome eh? And lets not be surprised if we see more more "advice" from the police etc, and cut back on crying that it is just "victim blaming"

Adam Sutton wrote:

Well there it is. The dumbest thing I have read on the internet today, it's early but I doubt anyone will better that.

When he gets flattened lets not pretend his actions did not pay a primary role in the outcome eh? And lets not be surprised if we see more more "advice" from the police etc, and cut back on crying that it is just "victim blaming"

We'll thank him for his sacrifice.

Adam Sutton wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I like to think people like that are pushing the bounds of what other traffic expects and thus making them pay more attention.

Well there it is. The dumbest thing I have read on the internet today, it's early but I doubt anyone will better that.

When he gets flattened lets not pretend his actions did not pay a primary role in the outcome eh? And lets not be surprised if we see more more "advice" from the police etc, and cut back on crying that it is just "victim blaming"

I didn't see anything condoning the behaviour, and stupid is as stupid does.  hawkinspeter makes an interesting discussion point, which is actually pretty much the point made in advanced driving classes and by people like Ashley Neal, which is expect the worst from drivers, don't expect them to stop at give ways just because there is a give way, don't assume that because there is a no entry sign, that the driver signalling to cross your path to it won't do it, don't assume that cars around you will follow lane markings.

So. when we see cars and HGVs on the road, we don't rely on their behaviour (actually we do, and that's why we have accidents), Peter is making a slightly humorous observation that if the worst of the cyclists do really stupid things, like the worst of the motorists, then at least it sets expectations.

A better example might be NMotD 852, where a barely competent cyclist blindly cycled into danger - but we generally could see that it was exactly what many cyclists would do and the police agreed that the driver didn't behave to take into account the predictable encroachment on each others paths. Was that cyclist behaving so far below the expectations of a reasonable cyclist that it absolved the other road users of blame, or was it simply that the poor roadcraft was at a level that was common enough to expect other road users to cater for it?

Another example would be pedestrians stepping into the road without looking - stupid, and the motorist probably, but not necessarily entirely, blameless, yet we specifically warn drivers to be aware of that sort of behaviour, and it is in part behind the logic of 20mph areas - so when someone does something stupid, they are not killed.

My post was simply giving reason why these kind of campaigns likely exist with an example seen this week. It really is interesting the lenghts of convulution and whataboutism present to simply turn it into  "BuT cArz!!!" rather than acknowledge right or wrong that is the case.

My post was simply refuting your suggestion that it was the dumbest thing on the Internet.  I thought it was a good example of an alternative persective that gave food for thought. Each to their own. I see stupid road users of all varieties. The only thing to learn from them is that they exist. 

I'm also not sure campaigns exist for the terminally ignorant, they exist for the educatable middle ground. I mean, if you can't work out that riding like a ninja on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic at night is a bit of a dim thing to do, I'm not convinced a campaign is going to change their behaviour.

I think Peter's point is that "These people walk among us, live with it.". I don't know about you, but I do look for these things, and if I can try to spot these idiots, then I've got a better chance of spotting the road users doing it properly. Having seen a lad on a chipped e-bike do a wheelie for about a mile around Smallbrook Queensway in 40mph traffic, before he jumped a red light and vanished from my life forever, it reminds me to never be surprised, and the lad's stupidity probably educated 100 other road users that the likes of him exist - and to be fair to the 100, they all gave him a wide birth, nobody tried to educate him with a close pass as they have done to me on a regular basis, probably because I was riding legally and sensibly so they could take deliberate risks.

Then we have to agree to disagree there. To me it was an as expected asinine response from a usual suspect, to what was a simple statement of opinion as to why these campains are thought worthy, rather than simply crying "victim blaming" as is de rigueur here so often.

The example I used was one of extreme, and as the saying goes "you can't fix stupid" but as you say there is a "educatable middle ground." I mean in terms of lights in general, when it comes to cycling the thing that sticks with me is the fact that my Dad when riding motorbikes would, turn the headlight on the day he bought it and never turn it off. Sure it is no guarantee it will stop someone who is not paying attention from not seeing you, but it is sure to help you be visible to someone who is. It is at the end of the day common sense, which as I opined is lacking in general these days.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Then we have to agree to disagree there. To me it was an as expected asinine response from a usual suspect, to what was a simple statement of opinion as to why these campains are thought worthy, rather than simply crying "victim blaming" as is de rigueur here so often.

The example I used was one of extreme, and as the saying goes "you can't fix stupid" but as you say there is a "educatable middle ground." I mean in terms of lights in general, when it comes to cycling the thing that sticks with me is the fact that my Dad when riding motorbikes would, turn the headlight on the day he bought it and never turn it off. Sure it is no guarantee it will stop someone who is not paying attention from not seeing you, but it is sure to help you be visible to someone who is. It is at the end of the day common sense, which as I opined is lacking in general these days.

I'm going to have to query your ability to discern common sense and what is asinine.

If you left a motorbike headlight on and never turn it off, you're going to run your battery down - that's a stupid idea and is obviously not a common sense approach to keeping your vehicle well maintained.

Going back to my original post that seemed to annoy you - I was looking for a positive effect from what is clearly not good roadcraft. I used to get angry when confronted with a scooter/cycle rider coming straight at me when they were on the wrong side of the road, but I've since learnt that it's not worth getting agitated as it's easy to avoid them on a bike - treat them like a slower rider that you're overtaking, giving them plenty of room.

(You've reminded me of my favourite line in Usual Suspects that always makes me chuckle as Fenster has such a strong accent (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp5YwZCGpm0):

    Interrogation Cop: Number 1, step forward.

    Hockney: Hand me the keys, you f***ing c***sucker.

    Interrogation Cop: Number 2, step forward.

    McManus: Give me the f***ing keys, you f***ing c***sucking motherf***er, aaarrrghh.

    Interrogation Cop: Knock it off. Get back. Number 3, step forward.

    Fenster: [laughing] Hand me the keys, you c***sucker.

    Interrogation Cop: In English, please?

    Fenster: Excuse me?

    Interrogation Cop: In English.

    Fenster: Hand me the f***ing keys, you c***sucker, what the f***?

What makes it funnier is that the "In English, please?" line was supposedly from director Bryan Singer getting teed off as the scene was meant to be serious and the actors kept cracking up. Thankfully, he gave up and went with that take.)

"If you left a motorbike headlight on and never turn it off, you're going to run your battery down - that's a stupid idea and is obviously not a common sense approach to keeping your vehicle well maintained."

Motorbikes have alternators to charge their battery.  So no the battery won't get run down.  Someone with common sense would likely know to check that...

Bradshsi wrote:

"If you left a motorbike headlight on and never turn it off, you're going to run your battery down - that's a stupid idea and is obviously not a common sense approach to keeping your vehicle well maintained."

Motorbikes have alternators to charge their battery.  So no the battery won't get run down.  Someone with common sense would likely know to check that...

I suppose it depends on the model and whether the headlight works without the motor running.

You mean specific knowledge not common sense
Specific knowledge would tell you whether the headlight can be left on with the engine off and have an effect on the battery.
Common sense would be RTFM

hirsute wrote:

No lights, black kit - just asking for it really

Maybe the answer is just to learn from nature? If you want to be noticed make yourself bigger. Side benefit - airbags already in place!

chrisonatrike wrote:

Maybe the answer is just to learn from nature? If you want to be noticed make yourself bigger. Side benefit - airbags already in place!

Sad to see another road squirrel squashed flat...

chrisonatrike wrote:

Sad to see another road squirrel squashed flat...

I don't know why it was trying to cross the road in the first place