Clothing and driver behaviour

PhilD said:

Recently I bought a cycling cloth cap that I now always wear on the
fast bike. Since then, I've noticed an increase in the number of
motor vehicles that make as though to pull out, but whose drivers have
second thoughts and wait.

"Glorified notted hanky saved my life"!

Seriously though, what does the team think is going on:

A) Wearing a hat makes me ride faster (thus drivers give more space/
take fewer risks); or
B) Wearing a hat makes it *look* like I'm riding faster (as above);
or
C) Wearing a hat makes me ride erratically without realising it (thus
drivers see a need in keeping well out of the way); or
D) There is no difference, I'm imagining it.

How about adding:

E) Wearing a hat makes drivers perceive you to be less competent and
in need of more road space

F) Wearing a hat makes drivers think it less appropriate to cut you
up (for those drivers who are inclined to do such things)

Interesting though.

Rob

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:25:33 -0700, PhilD <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Seriously though, what does the team think is going on:

A) Wearing a hat makes me ride faster (thus drivers give more space/
take fewer risks); or
B) Wearing a hat makes it *look* like I'm riding faster (as above);
or
C) Wearing a hat makes me ride erratically without realising it (thus
drivers see a need in keeping well out of the way); or
D) There is no difference, I'm imagining it.

I'd think D is the more likely, but you've forgotten:

E) They're so incredulous over how daft you look that they slam the
brakes on in order to to a double-take.

Just a thought, like :-)

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

PhilD said:

On my daily rounds, particularly on my "fast" bike, I regularly had to
deal with motor vehicles pulling out from side roads too late for
comfort (such that I either tug the brakes and scowl, or immediately
overtake).

Recently I bought a cycling cloth cap that I now always wear on the
fast bike. Since then, I've noticed an increase in the number of
motor vehicles that make as though to pull out, but whose drivers have
second thoughts and wait.

"Glorified notted hanky saved my life"!

Seriously though, what does the team think is going on:

A) Wearing a hat makes me ride faster (thus drivers give more space/
take fewer risks); or
B) Wearing a hat makes it *look* like I'm riding faster (as above);
or
C) Wearing a hat makes me ride erratically without realising it (thus
drivers see a need in keeping well out of the way); or
D) There is no difference, I'm imagining it.

Were you previously bare-headed, or did you wear a plastic dome pre-cap?

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:49:15 -0700 someone who may be
[email hidden] wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

E) Wearing a hat makes drivers perceive you to be less competent and
in need of more road space

There is certainly something to be said for doing things that worry
motorists that you might damage the bodywork as you throw yourself
onto the car.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Brian G said:

Were you previously bare-headed, or did you wear a plastic dome pre-cap?

I was previously hair-headed (rather than bare-...!). I have never
ridden in a plastic dome (I refuse point blank).

PhilD

--
<><

PhilD said:

On my daily rounds, particularly on my "fast" bike, I regularly had to
deal with motor vehicles pulling out from side roads too late for
comfort (such that I either tug the brakes and scowl, or immediately
overtake).

Recently I bought a cycling cloth cap that I now always wear on the
fast bike. Since then, I've noticed an increase in the number of
motor vehicles that make as though to pull out, but whose drivers have
second thoughts and wait.

"Glorified notted hanky saved my life"!

Seriously though, what does the team think is going on:

A) Wearing a hat makes me ride faster (thus drivers give more space/
take fewer risks); or
B) Wearing a hat makes it *look* like I'm riding faster (as above);
or
C) Wearing a hat makes me ride erratically without realising it (thus
drivers see a need in keeping well out of the way); or
D) There is no difference, I'm imagining it.

PhilD

E) Wearing a hat makes your more visible and hence they spot you and
pause. Whenever I have ridden short distances without a helmet (mines
bright red) I notice I had more close calls, but there are many more
variables at play there so its hard to say for sure.

Quoted message said:

Seriously though, what does the team think is going on:

Dunno, but it's possible the cap makes you look faster. Is it red? Red
ones go faster.

--
Mark T

PhilD said:

Brian G said:

Were you previously bare-headed, or did you wear a plastic dome pre-cap?

I was previously hair-headed (rather than bare-...!). I have never
ridden in a plastic dome (I refuse point blank).

You'd find the same would happen if you rode in a plastic dome,
providing it was fairly bright. Hair/skin tones blend well with
buildings and brickwork, a coloured hanky or plastic dome makes you
more visible.

A problem I find with that is cars then go to move and then stop
across your path which is almost worse than pulling out and going!

PhilD said:

D) There is no difference, I'm imagining it.

No you're not imagining it.

A driver spends a tiny fraction of a second spotting the 'oddity' and then has a second
glance (it's a reflex) by which time enough uncertainty has been added to their
decision-making brain cells to cause delay by which time the 'instant
go-for-it-regardless' moment is over.

I wear a silly hat (cloth fish) all the time.

Also you mentioned the effect of speed. Due to taking it gently after knee probs I've
been cycling a bit slower through the towns and that does make it more tricky with more
general closeness.

--
Peter Fox
Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more at www.eminent.demon.co.uk

CoyoteBoy said:

PhilD said:

I was previously hair-headed (rather than bare-...!). I have
never ridden in a plastic dome (I refuse point blank).

You'd find the same would happen if you rode in a plastic dome,
providing it was fairly bright. Hair/skin tones blend well with
buildings and brickwork, a coloured hanky or plastic dome makes you
more visible.

Do you have any evidence for your assertion? The only research
exercise of which I am aware has shown teh oppositte - wearing a
helmet results in drivers passing closer.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Aug 15, 12:31 pm, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seriously though, what does the team think is going on:

Dunno, but it's possible the cap makes you look faster. Is it red? Red
ones go faster.

Ah, that must be it. Predominantly red with orange/white fade on the
front (it happens to be Davitamon team colours, but I hadn't heard of
Davitamon when I got it).

PhilD

--
<><

Ian Smith said:

CoyoteBoy said:

PhilD said:

I was previously hair-headed (rather than bare-...!). I have
never ridden in a plastic dome (I refuse point blank).

You'd find the same would happen if you rode in a plastic dome,
providing it was fairly bright. Hair/skin tones blend well with
buildings and brickwork, a coloured hanky or plastic dome makes you
more visible.

Do you have any evidence for your assertion? The only research
exercise of which I am aware has shown teh oppositte - wearing a
helmet results in drivers passing closer.

This is what I was getting at. I wondered whether the OP had changed
from a helmet to a cap which, according to recent research, might have
resulted in the phenomenon he reported.

Apparently not, however :-)

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

"PhilD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On my daily rounds, particularly on my "fast" bike, I regularly had to
deal with motor vehicles pulling out from side roads too late for
comfort (such that I either tug the brakes and scowl, or immediately
overtake).

Recently I bought a cycling cloth cap that I now always wear on the
fast bike. Since then, I've noticed an increase in the number of
motor vehicles that make as though to pull out, but whose drivers have
second thoughts and wait.

"Glorified notted hanky saved my life"!

Seriously though, what does the team think is going on:

A) Wearing a hat makes me ride faster (thus drivers give more space/
take fewer risks); or
B) Wearing a hat makes it *look* like I'm riding faster (as above);
or
C) Wearing a hat makes me ride erratically without realising it (thus
drivers see a need in keeping well out of the way); or
D) There is no difference, I'm imagining it.

PhilD

E) Your head is overheating and you are hallucinating. :P

David Lloyd

Ian Smith said:

Do you have any evidence for your assertion? The only research
exercise of which I am aware has shown teh oppositte - wearing a
helmet results in drivers passing closer.

regards, Ian SMith

No, but likewise the OP has no evidence for his first 5 either - all
are equally valid propositions, or equally invalid. Considering that
most non-cycle people you speak to assume "helmets are for
kids" (hence an innumerable number of adults cycling with kids in
helmets when not themselves) it doesnt follow that drivers assume that
helmets = experience, and without evidence of that fact that makes the
assumptions Dr Walkers conlusions are drawn around, rubbish. It wasnt
exactly a large section he tested either, 2500 - I have that many cars
pass me in a weeks riding. Without reading the detail of the actual
paper I cant comment further - but I would suspect he had no way to
standardise or prove that he was not riding a little further into the
road at the time of the helmetted passes, or that helmetted riding
didnt make him more wobbly as he wasnt used to it (he rides without
normally). Nor do we know that he took the same routes etc etc - too
many variables.

On 16 Aug, 11:00, CoyoteBoy <[email hidden]> wrote:
.. Nor do we know that he took the same routes etc etc - too

Quoted message said:

many variables.

I also wonder if he took air temp into account when using his
ultrasonic rangefinder, or calibrated it each time, since over a
distance of 1.5m the difference of 10degrees C air temp can lead to a
~2.5cm error in readings, which is significant in comparison with his
claimed decrease in space.

CoyoteBoy said:

.... Considering that
most non-cycle people you speak to assume "helmets are for
kids" (hence an innumerable number of adults cycling with kids in
helmets when not themselves) ...

Surely this is valid- I was under the impression that children
learning to cycle (or playing on bikes, rather than using them for
transport) would be more likely to benefit from helmets, as they are
more likely to be involved in low-speed/falling-off-bike/no cars
involved accidents. There's also the point thet's highlighted in
studies about unfused skull plates. I don't know whether or how that
affects things...

Cheers,
W.

Quoted message said:

CoyoteBoy said:

.... Considering that
most non-cycle people you speak to assume "helmets are for
kids" (hence an innumerable number of adults cycling with kids in
helmets when not themselves) ...

Surely this is valid- I was under the impression that children
learning to cycle (or playing on bikes, rather than using them for
transport) would be more likely to benefit from helmets, as they are
more likely to be involved in low-speed/falling-off-bike/no cars
involved accidents. There's also the point thet's highlighted in
studies about unfused skull plates. I don't know whether or how that
affects things...

Cheers,
W.

Also, looking at the pictures of his experimental setup, its reading
right around wing-mirror height. Its a matter of pure luck as to
whether you get a low or high car in which the sensor spots the mirror
or just the body, and whether the body happens to be curved over
introducing that error (and phasing errors inherent due to the
ultrasonic method used).

i'd love to get a copy of the paper and examine his techniques. I'm
not bothered either way, I ride in a prominent position in the road
these days and force people to use the other lane.

CoyoteBoy said:

Ian Smith said:

Do you have any evidence for your assertion? The only research
exercise of which I am aware has shown teh oppositte - wearing a
helmet results in drivers passing closer.

No, but likewise the OP has no evidence for his first 5 either - all
are equally valid propositions, or equally invalid.

That's nothing like "likewise". You and the OP said completely
different sorts of things.

The OP said (paraphrase) 'here are five propositions I think may
explain the effects I have observed, what does anyone think'. You
said (paraphrase) 'If you do xyz you will observe abc'.

If you really think those two comments are comparable or equivalent,
you're not worth talking to on the subject,

Quoted message said:

helmets when not themselves) it doesnt follow that drivers assume that
helmets = experience, and without evidence of that fact that makes the
assumptions Dr Walkers conlusions are drawn around, rubbish.

No, actually what you've just said is rubbish. You will find that the
observed effects in Dr Walkers work CONTRADICTED his initial
assumptions (he has stated so). There is no assumption implicit in
measured effects. You are confusing the observations (which is all I
was commenting on) with the hypothesised cause (which is irrelevant to
the point under discussion).

In summary then, I take it that when you said 'if you wear a helmet
motorists WILL give you more room' (paraphrase again) you not only had
no evidence whatsoever supporting this assertion, you actually knew of
evidence showing the opposite. Very strange.

If that's not the case, will you please show your evidence, rather
than start talking about different things entirely.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Quoted message said:

That's nothing like "likewise". You and the OP said completely
different sorts of things.

Actually I was proposing a 5th option (As properly proposed in my
other post to the OP), in the form of a suggestion that you might find
you're more obvious in a coloured hat of any sort.

Quoted message said:

No, actually what you've just said is rubbish. You will find that the
observed effects in Dr Walkers work CONTRADICTED his initial
assumptions (he has stated so).

Do you have a link to the original paper please? I've only seen
newspaper clippings and the odd "quote" which seems to differ from one
report to the next strangely. All the photos I've seen of him have
been without helmet, that and the fact that he quotes his only two
accidents are "with helmet" lead to my assuming that would be his
stance. Not entirely fair I admit.

Quoted message said:

There is no assumption implicit in
measured effects. You are confusing the observations (which is all I
was commenting on) with the hypothesised cause (which is irrelevant to
the point under discussion).

In my first post in this branch I asserted that you are more likely to
be visible in a coloured plastic top than in hair, and provided a
possible reasoning - no evidence but I'd say a nice bright colour is
quite obviously more noticable than a head, being a (more) contrasting
colour to the area around. If bright colours werent obvious we might
have all warning signs in skin tone 🙂 I then ignored your response as
I felt it not really worth "finding" evidence that proves that bright
coloured attachments make things more noticable. Brian then responded
to you discussing your quoted "evidence" based report. I was simply
questioning the validity of that evidence; All I did was point out
that a) his measurements are potentially VERY flawed and b) his
supposition that people think helmets=experience=less clearance is not
necessarily correct either. I never once said "in actuallity you will
find the facts to be opposite", I simply pointed out the flaws in the
process. I dont care which is actually true, it makes no difference to
me - but I do like to see experiements done fairly and would like to
know the detail behind the process involved in getting said
"evidence".

J