[sustran] 'Get Visible' video - response to Todd

[Ron Richings]

Hi Todd


I am not one of the makers of the video, but I do have a couple of seconds
of face time in it.

I don't think that the message is confused at all.  Visible is safer than
invisible, and there are many ways to make yourself seen.

As a cyclist and driver, every time that I see (barely and usually at the
last minute) a person riding a bike at night with no light nor reflective
material, and often wearing dark clothes, I get cranky and wonder -- WHY ??

Aside from its Darwinian value in 'thinning the herd' of cyclists too dumb
to survive, there is little to recommend invisibility at night.

If the video gets even a few of those cyclists to change their ways, it will
have done a useful job.

Too much visibility?  A bit hard to imagine in reality.  Of course parts of
the video are 'over the top'.  We don't really expect people to wear
brightly reflective shorts.  And most wouldn't look nearly as good in them
as the B:C:Clettes do.

Beyond what you describe as the legal minimum, when I ride at night you
would see:

	A bright yellow jacket with retro-reflective strips on the front,
back, and arms.

	A silver helmet with retro-reflective strips visible from all
angles.

	On my recumbent bike, several retro-reflective strips on the frame,
fenders, mirror backs, 	rear bag, and in some circumstances reflective
material on the pole and body of a rear flag 	arrangement that rises to
three feet above my head. I may also put a couple of small blinkies 	at
the top of the pole.

Too much?  Am I endangering other cyclists ?   I don't think so.

There was a similar line of peculiar argument used to justify the odd
approach that British cycling groups took in opposing daytime running lights
for cars.  Since the cars would be more visible, then cyclists and others
will be comparatively less visible, so running lights should not be used.

As someone who lives in a country where such running lights have been
standard for over 20 years, their contribution to safety vastly exceeds any
drawbacks that they may have.  Being able to see a car approaching on a
rainy, dull, winter afternoon makes me safer.  And of course those running
lights very effectively 'light up' the retro-reflective strips that many
cyclists have on their bikes and clothing.

Many car drivers are notably inattentive, particular at night.  If they are
to have any chance of avoiding you, they first have to see you.  And of
course if I am to avoid other cyclists, I too have to see them.

And if a cyclist feels that is not enough, then a couple of inexpensive LED
blinkies will make them considerably more visible.

Does this endanger cyclists who have no lights and minimal reflectors while
riding a dark bicycle and wearing dark clothes?  I don't think so - that
really rests with them.

Certainly none of this changes the motorist's legal obligation to pay
attention.  But as a practical matter I would rather be bright and alive
than minimally legal and dead.

So I would encourage everyone to watch the video and "Get Visible".


Ron Richings
Vancouver, BC
Canada



-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory [mailto:edelman at greenidea.eu] 



Hi,

First of all I sincerely admire all the work that went into making this
video. It was cheesy on purpose, but that did not distract from the serious
message. It only emphasized it.

Unfortunately the message is totally confused. One of the worst things that
any cycling advocate or activist can do is support more illumination then
what is required by law in most places (front white headlight and reflector,
rear red taillight and reflector, reflectors on the pedals, and reflectors
on the spokes or reflectorised sidewalls on the tyres -- practically an
international standard if we just work at it a little harder). All of these
extra decorations are lovely - though perhaps some of it is not particularly
eco-friendly to manufacture - but by conflating what is generally required
with all the other stuff the video proposes an unreasonable amount of
responsibility for the cyclist for his or her own safety.

Moreover, if one cyclist is "lit up like a Christmas tree" and another
cyclist nearby is not, the latter becomes relatively invisible! This also
applies in general, over time,  i.e. if a driver gets used to cyclists
glowing like a discotheque then they will not see the others. 
Next thing that will happen is that wearing something like a reflective vest
becomes required. It is similar to what happens with helmets, and some of us
know too well how this can throw a spanner in the works of a proposed public
bike programme (e.g. in Vancouver.).

Also, reflectors are not designed to help pedestrians see cyclists.

Everyone wants to protect themselves and their loved ones - I think that
mandatory vests and helmets for children is worth considering - but this
hyperillumination is selfish and just hurts the others who are not so lit
up. Banning private cars in cities is the only sustainable solution, but the
real issues of any car reformation programme include speed, the weight of
cars, the hardness of bonnets and windscreens, and all the things a driver
can legally do in their car while moving, to name just a few.

So I propose that the fine folks in BC take their video off the web before
the lessons it tries to teach kill or injure someone, and either do one
featuring only what is required by law, or on the other side of the coin:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJenAE4e6EE> or
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPzbc1uUcXA> and then we would need not to
change the lyrics too much.

- T