[sustran] Re: Give cyclist a safety wing

Todd Edelman edelman at greenidea.eu
Thu Aug 26 07:31:07 JST 2010


Hi all,

First, I came up with that "hyper-illumination" theory, or least the 
name. Perhaps. I will explain that in a moment.

For now I hope you will forgive the style in which I will try to 
deconstruct a little what Lewis said a little earlier, using his text:

On 25/08/10 19:28, Lewis Thorwaldson wrote:
> I agree with Sujit completely.
> It is simply a wise decision to make oneself more visible without being
> overburdened by the precaution.
WHY have to think about it all?

>   Ex. I wear white as opposed to black
> (usually) and have lights on my bike for night.
I THINK if everyone focused on proper lights and reflectors - and bells 
- it would solve half the problem. But also any promotion should be all 
carrot, no stick.

>   When driving a car, I also
> use my headlights during the day.
THE European Cyclists Federation opposed this rule for the European 
Union, because headlights obscure turn signals and tend to give drivers 
the belief that they are safer

>   Just makes sense and is not a huge hassle.
> However, no, we shouldn't as vulnerable users be the ones who have to be
> completely in charge of our own safety. Common sense rules, but the onus
> should be on the drivers since they are the dangerous link in the equation.
> Same as it should be that pedestrian safety is in the hands of cyclists.
> Also, when we start forcing or strongly encouraging a uniform for bicycling
> - bright clothing, helmet, etc - this will discourage potential riders who
> do not want to either look like a fool, or just don't feel like dealing with
> it or can't afford to buy all these accessories. It also spreads the image
> that cycling is not safe since you need all this stuff in order not to get
> killed, which further discourages cycling. And we all know that the best way
> to improve cycling safety is to increase the number of cyclists on the
> roads. More cyclists means more visibility and expectation of cyclists, and
> a greater likelihood that any driver is also a cyclist and understands how
> to act.
>    
COMPLEMENTING measures to reduce the number of cars, lower their speeds 
and make them softer on the outside. It would be best to make drivers 
more vulnerable, too. Sure. How about airbags which turn off inside city 
centers? (There is a famous joke about the safest car being one which 
has a knife in the steering wheel pointing directly at the driver, but 
also vehicles like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2CV are great for 
vulnerable road users since their drivers are so vulnerable. Sure, their 
emissions are a problem, so make them solar-powered and slow. Presto!)

***

HYPER-ILLUMINATION:

Hyper-illumination describes the concept of a cyclist or pedestrian 
illuminating themselves as much as possible in order to get noticed and 
be safer. For cyclists, this can be done with lights significantly 
brighter than the required minimum, or with strobing or other unique 
design features or reflective surfaces significantly higher than the 
required minimum (including reflective vests or jackets and that 
proposed "cyclist wing"). Since pedestrians do not (so far) have to wear 
any illumination gear, hyper-illumination means anything more lit up 
than wearing black clothing, unless for some reason black clothing is 
not acceptable within a culture (never heard about this but simply 
trying to make a point).

Things like a little bit of reflective tape on bike bags, running shoes, 
children's shoes etc. are not hyper-illumination, but they are "assumed 
visibility" (see below).

For both cyclists and pedestrians, this is indeed a selfish thing to do, 
but specifically in two ways:

* Acutely: This means that at the time of cyclist/ped interaction with a 
driver the hyper-illuminated cyclist or ped stands out BUT visually 
drowns out other cyclists or peds very close by (further, depending on 
the speed contrast between the cyclist/ped and the driver.
* Chronically: This means that in general if drivers start to get used 
to cyclists or peds wearing being hyper-illuminated, they don't expect 
cyclists or peds at other times and/or in other areas to not wear them, 
so they don't look out for the latter, passively or subconsciously.

Reflective vests and jackets:

Reflective vests and jackets are made to reflect direct light, i.e. for 
a cyclist or a pedestrian to be seen by a driver (in their headlamps). 
If a bicycle has strong enough lights (laws generally talk about being 
seen on a bike, not how much road surface a bike can illuminate) it may 
make it possible for a cyclist to see a pedestrian.

However, they do not help cyclists get seen by pedestrians in cyclist - 
ped interactions (unless the timing is right and a car travelling in the 
opposite direction so that the vest or jacket is lit-up). A cyclist may 
assume that they can be seen by the pedestrian at these or in general 
but there is really no way of knowing!

At their worst, reflective vests and jackets "dangerize" a cyclist by 
making their activity look dangerous, or - also for peds. - making them 
look like security personnel, road workers, traffic police, etc and can 
look really ugly and non-fashionable!

(A break for background: I have been through all of this, on both sides, 
riding a bike with really bright lights, a reflective vest and so on.... 
and I also drove a 12 passenger airport shuttle van for some time)

Assumed visibility (or awareness)

This essentially means anytime two road users do not make eye contact, 
or when a cyclist does not see body movement from a pedestrian ahead 
which indicates that they have heard their bell (or similar, transposed 
for cyclist/ped. - driver interactions). A driver is supposed to look 
even after they signal when changing lanes, etc. , but at high speeds or 
at night it is not possible to see the eyes or waving of the other 
driver. Essentially this means that no vehicle shall be operated at 
night if the operator is inside.... etc.

Cyclist Wing

I DO think the Cyclist Wing could be useful in specific actions, and the 
cape idea mentioned already is nice because it implies a kind of heroism 
(but runs the risk of getting self-righteous). The air will of course 
not be cleaned in any measurable amount, and I think people already see 
this stuff on their necks and shirt-collars, etc., right?

BACK to Hyper-Illumination:

This is really just a theory, but it feels right. As someone asked 
earlier, it would be great to know if all this reflective stuff helps, 
but my guess is that it does not. It would be great if anyone has the 
resources for research, know who to ask for financial support orhas  
influence over the right graduate students or their advisors, so that a 
proper and thorough look into this can be made.

I am sorry I went on for so long BUT I hope this makes sense, and of 
course I hope you all agree!

- T






. It goes like, if one
 > cyclist
 > become too illuminated (e.g. the one with cyclist wing) , then driver's
 > attention to other cyclists will be suppressed. So it is selfish to wear
 > something very bright because it undermine those who do not wear bright
 > colors.


> -Lewis Thorwaldson
>
>
>
> My reaction is similar to Sudhir's but perhaps a little stronger.
>
> I'm amazed to see efforts on trying to make the cyclist visible through one
> smart idea after another! While it is logical that pedestrians and cyclists
> being a vulnerable group should avoid wearing clothes that may make them
> invisible to the driver of a vehicle that may hit them with serious results
> (to the walker or the cyclist) surely the onus of finding a solution
> to the danger from auto vehicles (cars, motorised two wheelers, SUVs,
> trucks, buses,  etc)  should not be on the shoulders of the potential
> victims.
>
> Surely we (as the society) must devise ways through which pedestrian and
> cyclist safety is absolutely ensured. If this means putting in place
> foolproof ways to ensure low vehicle speeds, traffic calming methods,
> narrowing of road widths, increasing car-free areas in high human density
> zones, strict enforcement and strong punishments for violators etc so be it.
>
>
> Why should we accept that cars have a "birth-right" to charge along streets
> used by living beings (as against the race tracks for example) while those
> most likely to be hit by cars must devise ways to keep themselves safe?
>
> --
> Sujit
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').
>
>    


-- 

Todd Edelman
Green Idea Factory,
a member of the OPENbike team

Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081

edelman at greenidea.eu
www.greenidea.eu
todd at openbike.se
www.openbike.se

Skype: toddedelman

Urbanstr. 45
10967 Berlin
Germany

***

OPENbike - Share the Perfect Fit!



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list