Would cyclists rather be injured than uncool?

[human909]

Geez take a breath and climb back down!
It was a simple question, the reason I asked was because I wondered if you rode a road bike and if you did, you probably have cleatss. I was going to suggest you put the vest with the shoes if you changed them one when you arrived.

Graeme

And with your question comes all sorts of presumptions that goes completely flies in the face of sensible, practical utility cycling which the contention that started this thread completely ignores. But yes I do ride a road bike and but no I wouldn't be riding it with cleats to the pub or movies or whatever. And even on the occasions that I do ride a bike cleats I STILL don't change because I use SPDs.

The fact that all this needs to be explained still shows that you simply don't understand the needs of everyday utility cycling. As soon as you start needing a special vest, a special hat, special shoes, etc it vastly complicates a trip. Its not about being uncool it is about extra items that add difficulty and are a hassle.

[Redbull]

Back to the original question posed.

Yes, because chicks dig scars!!

[GraemeL]

And with your question comes all sorts of presumptions that goes completely flies in the face of sensible, practical utility cycling which the contention that started this thread completely ignores. But yes I do ride a road bike and but no I wouldn't be riding it with cleats to the pub or movies or whatever. And even on the occasions that I do ride a bike cleats I STILL don't change because I use SPDs.

The fact that all this needs to be explained still shows that you simply don't understand the needs of everyday utility cycling. As soon as you start needing a special vest, a special hat, special shoes, etc it vastly complicates a trip. Its not about being uncool it is about extra items that add difficulty and are a hassle.

My original question was in response to jet-ski's statement, so climb down of your high horse.

There's your problem, right there. Not all of us wear jerseys! I wear everyday clothes for 90% of my riding. The only way to intro high vis is to wear a vest, but then what do I do with it when I arrive at my destination (NOT WORK - I have space under my desk etc to put stuff), but at pubs/art galleries/cinemas/theatres/restaurants etc.

Graeme

[human909]

I am still at a loss on why you see cycling shoes as part of "everyday clothes".

[GraemeL]

I am still at a loss on why you see cycling shoes as part of "everyday clothes".

Well I don't wear lycra when riding. I wear everyday clothes when I ride, I also use SPD's. I would think that anyone riding a road bike, which is what I was talking about, to the pub or movies would wear everyday clothes, If they rode a road bike then chances are they either use SPD's or SPD-SL? If so then they would probably change out of them.

The fact that all this needs to be explained still shows that you simply don't understand

Hmm someone else foots the bill too

The question was in respons to this

The only way to intro high vis is to wear a vest, but then what do I do with it when I arrive at my destination (NOT WORK - I have space under my desk etc to put stuff), but at pubs/art galleries/cinemas/theatres/restaurants etc.

What to do with the vest when you arrived via bike. jet-ski did not say what type of bike was being used. that is why I asked the question.

Graeme

[Euan]

Hello everyone For those who don't know me (I'm new here) I live in St Kilda, work in the city and get around by bike (a chocolate brown Surly for those that care.)

First off my experience has been that the most noticeable person on a construction site is the person not wearing high viz. We've evolved to notice differences so pay more attention to them.

Being from St Kilda I wear St Kilda Black i do use lights, though. I'm not crazy In the 3 years I've lived here I have never had a SMIIDSY, the reason isn't because I'm lucky, the reason is that I ride where I can be seen. That is far more important than whatever bit of kit you wear and fetish as being essential for your safety.

I am continually baffled why we make cycling so complicated. Why do we make up this stuff, why don't we look to where cycling has high modal share and see what they do? The safest cycling nations on earth, the idea of special clothes just to get on a bike is anathema to them. For people who use bicycles as a transport choice, that seems the best way to go in my view.

[DavidS]

The fact that all this needs to be explained still shows that you simply don't understand the needs of everyday utility cycling. As soon as you start needing a special vest, a special hat, special shoes, etc it vastly complicates a trip. Its not about being uncool it is about extra items that add difficulty and are a hassle.

Absolutely. The more of us ride around in normal clothes the more people see cycling as a normal activity. Those who want to race around in lycra and jerseys are fine, but most people don't want to do this. The increase in uptake of cycling is not going to come from a sudden increase in the popularity of being a lycra clad road warrior, it will come from more people cycling to replace everyday trips in a car. Hi Vis clothing, helmets etc are a hassle for most people and a bloody good excuse for those who want one. We need to make cycling easier not harder.

I may not live in StKilda any more but my cycling jacket is black, so what. Just as I am expected to see a black car, so everyone else using the road should be able to see me. I have reflectors, lights etc. No amount of hi vis clothing is going to make you seen by someone who doesn't look.

DS

[il padrone]

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

[jet-ski]

No bag. No coat either. It's Perth in Summer! geez

Do you wear cleated shoes? If so then what do you so with them when you go to the pub, movies etc?


Graeme

I used to wear cleated shoes to work in the office on causal days. my casual cleated shoes look quite normal. I believe using cleated shoes as an argument to also be spurious (like the old I cannot walk across the ped' Xing). shoes are not an excuse except for fashion minded slaves.

No, I don't wear cleated shoes. Unless I am on a 60km+ ride.

[jet-ski]

If the bike is that relevant, you can see (most of) the bikes I own in my signature. The Surly & Bike Friday have flat pedals. The CRX has two-sided pedals with an SPD pedal on one side and flats on the other. I have another couple of northbridge bikes at any time which are not worth very much and are hence a bit more theft proof. They of course have flat pedals.

I agree with all the people who are talking about utility cycling and the value if it being simple and easy. If it wasn't then I'd get in the car like the other 99%.

[myforwik]

70% of collision involving bicycles are the fault of the cyclist. So high visibility won't help that much.

I have ridden along time in hi-vis and changed to non hi-vis. With hi-vis people pick you up *to quickly* and completely misjudge your speed. I have had people pull out in front of me constantly while wearing high-vis and never where I am wearing all black. I don't know.

[The 2nd Womble]

70% of collision involving bicycles are the fault of the cyclist. So high visibility won't help that much.

I have ridden along time in hi-vis and changed to non hi-vis. With hi-vis people pick you up *to quickly* and completely misjudge your speed. I have had people pull out in front of me constantly while wearing high-vis and never where I am wearing all black. I don't know.

Where did you get that figure from? Your Transport Department?

[Mulger bill]

Where did you get that figure from?

He read it in the DailyCourierTeleSunMail

[The 2nd Womble]

Don't bait me MB. You're the reason I'm not taken seriously as a cycling advocate. You keep making me make you laugh.
The boring Bike Trailer avitar bloke said if I don't take everything seriously then nobody will respect my work. SO BACK OFF!

[The 2nd Womble]

Sorry Mulger. I man love you

[Mulger bill]

No worries Womble. I understand that the BNA forum ratbag is not the SCA advocate. Don't let either of those blokes change, I appreciate both of them.

Man hugs down the router to you

Shaun

[jet-ski]

I have ridden along time in hi-vis and changed to non hi-vis. With hi-vis people pick you up *to quickly* and completely misjudge your speed. I have had people pull out in front of me constantly while wearing high-vis and never where I am wearing all black. I don't know.

Maybe you are more careful when you are wearing black, not assuming you have been seen, and slow down when you see a car at a cross street?

A motorist picking you up 'too quickly' would stop surely, because they had seen you? It's already been said in this thread - high-vis = complacency on building sites, and I can't see a reason why that would not translate across to cycling.

OK, will leave the troll thread alone now

[kennethon]

I'd rather be safe, den cool!

[greyhoundtom]

I might just have get on of these and look really really cool



REFLECTIVE BUM FLAP

[CommuRider]

Giant nappy

[jet-ski]

But it's a REFLECTIVE nappy!

[gdt]

I ride with a yellow jersey, 2*1W of flashing red, a massive red reflector, ankle straps, white reflective strips on the frame and helmet and reflective rims and tyres. It doesn't look bad, partly because I've gone to a lot of trouble to make it all look neat rather than slapped together. It's scary just how hard getting these parts was.

Of all of that, I'm told that the ankle straps are what makes the bike really stand out in the daytime as I ride down the side of the freeway. I'm told I'm visible from ages away at night, but all the reflectors really makes the bike jump out as their car approaches and that makes them re-assess the situation. Apparently side-on visibility at night is good, and it's the rims which are mainly responsible for that.

With the above experience in mind, I've now think that visibility is about much more than just the amount of light seen by the driver. I'm also very down on the idea that any single visibility device is going to make a difference, but that deleting a device is also a bad idea, as it all adds up.

I think we've been very let down by the standards-making process. A process which insists on chainguards to save trousers we don't wear getting caught between the chain and gears but which hasn't specified reflective paint on frames and rims, which can't standardise a theft-resistant mounting system for accessories, and which specs rear reflectors so small as to be useless.

This needs to be solved through standards making. My daughter won't wear any reflective accessories as she doesn't need the hassle in the schoolyard. I don't imagine she is unique and if we want our most risk-taking cyclists to be seen then they've got to have no choice in the matter. That can't be done through legislating clothing, because unnecessarily bringing rebellious youngsters into contact with the law has poor outcomes. So it has got to be done on the bike they buy.

[jet-ski]

gdt, not really sure what standards you are quoting, but it's a pretty easy 'problem' to solve - if you want her bike to be more reflective, get some reflective tape off ebay and go to town!

[twizzle]

70% of collision involving bicycles are the fault of the cyclist. So high visibility won't help that much.

I have ridden along time in hi-vis and changed to non hi-vis. With hi-vis people pick you up *to quickly* and completely misjudge your speed. I have had people pull out in front of me constantly while wearing high-vis and never where I am wearing all black. I don't know.

the MUARC studies actually suggest nearly 90% of collisions involving cyclists and motor vehicles are the fault of the motor vehicle driver.

No. The helmet camera study showed a high percentage of people riding with helmet cameras were not at fault in accidents, but they are not representative of the general population. (Although, based on my riding experience, I would expect that number would be similar for the general population as well). But there is another Australian study somewhere (can't find via simple search) that investigated cause of death for bicycle accidents and something like 60% of the cyclists killed were at fault.


You may now all return to your normal viewing....

... myopic as it appears.

[Aushiker]

Hi

The only studies I am aware of are

Henley, G. & Harrison, J. E. (2009). Serious injury due to land transport accidents, Australia 2006–07. (Injury Research and Statistics Series Number 53). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

which does not attribute blame

and there is a Federal report on road crashes which I cannot locate now I Have linked to it before in the forums so maybe someone has the details?

Edit: Found it. The reference is:

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2006). Deaths of cyclists due to road crashes. Canberra, ACT: Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Andrew
.