...I will just leave this here.
We found images of cyclists wearing helmets or safety vests to have a higher probability of being selected as less human compared to images of cyclists wearing no safety equipment. The results have implications for research on cyclist dehumanisation and its mitigation."
Cyclists with helmets were perceived as less human compared to those without, while cyclists with safety vests and no helmets were perceived as least human.
The researchers concluded that dehumanisation related more to visible safety gear than obstruction of hair or eyes and the perceptions of dehumanisation also varied based on respondent gender.
On the same lines, cyclists wearing a cap were viewed as more human than those wearing a full helmet.
"Our findings add to this growing research, suggesting that cyclists wearing safety attire, particularly high-visibility vests, may be dehumanised more so than cyclists without safety attire," the study concludes.
"As dehumanisation has been found to be predictive of hostile and aggressive behaviour (Kteily & Landry, 2022), our finding highlights a potential conflict around the perception and utility of safety gear such as high-visibility vests; although designed for safety, they may inadvertently increase levels of hostility and aggression towards this group of vulnerable road users."
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-wearing-helmets-seen-less-human-301661
Hasn't teej been campaigning for this for years.
Tbh I'm more inclined to start towing a kiddy trailer all the time. (Empty)
The space you get with a kiddy trailer is unparalleled.
I've been disguising myself as a human being when riding my bike for years now.
Hinted at back in 2006
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/forum/board/message/?thread_id=37404
Similar to why many snow sports instructors don't wear helmets.
So that drivers of vehicles humanize them?
Tbh I’m more inclined to start towing a kiddy trailer all the time. (Empty)
The space you get with a kiddy trailer is unparalleled.
Or just stick a kiddie seat and a little kiddie helmet on the back of the bike.
Quite a few colleagues do this.
Similar to why many snow sports instructors don’t wear helmets.
Yeah, I'm gonna need that one explained to me as well.
most people i ride/associate with only wear "cycling" stuff when they acutally need it.
A mile or two to the office can and should be done in the shirt and trousers youre going to wear in the office. No need to dress up like a road warrior or domestique to ride to work.
i understand the argument for not wearing a helmet, but i prefer one and i want to set an example to my kids (also, its hard to ask a 2 yr old to wear a helmet if im not wearing one)
this is one of the unintended secondary effects of helmet wearing. How much it contributes to risk is unclear but is one of the arguments ( along with risk compensation and others) used to explain why when helmet wearing increases head injuries do not decrease.
No need to dress up like a road warrior or domestique to ride to work.
Based on a what I've seen, if anyone should wear PPE to ride to work it's people who seem to be 'sponsored' to commute.
They invariably have absolutely no road sense.
Something that’s been at the back of my mind for years (since reading it on here I think!) I can see the logic in it. A lot of motorists seem to regard “proper” cyclists as a nuisance/the enemy. If you’re just a guy on a bike then maybe you’re alright. 😂 I pretty much never dress like “a cyclist” now. Still wear bibs but with normal shorts & (wicking) t-shirt/shirt over. Still wear a helmet for off-road or longer road rides, not popping to work (very short commute!)/shops/pub etc. I feel like I get more friendly smiles/respect on the road but could well just be imagining it 😀
Yeah, I’m gonna need that one explained to me as well.
My understanding is that instructors are better able to communicate and appear more trust worthy when not wearing a hemlet. More human, more approachable?
I guess some of it is going to be about the practicality of hearing better, but there is an apporachability angle to it as well IIRC.
A mile or two to the office can and should be done in the shirt and trousers youre going to wear in the office. No need to dress up like a road warrior or domestique to ride to work.
I can break in to a sweat walking to the shop, so a mile or 2 to work and I'm dripping!! Especially in summer.
Although I don't wear full roady gear on the commute but bib tights in winter are warmer.
Chris Boardman made a conscious effort not to wear cycling clothes for commuting and just riding to the shops etc.
Not sure if that's still his stance after what happened to his mum, but it was a barrier to entry thing.
Having to wear special stuff means you are less likely to just ride, which means you are less likely to realise the benefits both personally and as a community.
I feel like I get more friendly smiles/respect on the road but could well just be imagining it 😀
I believe this is so from my own experience - very anecdotal however
I'll never forget the time I saw a woman, who had just overtaken me, in my safety helmet, with plenty of room, pass a parked car with 3 children coming towards her in normal kids' clothes on bikes. I think she missed the first one's handlebars by about 2 inches. That's enough science for me. Drivers are random/stupid/aggressive/fine/overcautious no matter what you wear. Most of the time it's debatable whether they have time/brain power to even process what's in front of them.
In. Car. Must. Drive. Forward.
I also have some drivers try to squeeze past me, some drivers stop, give me as much room as if I was a car. They seem to be nicer when the weather is decent.
Studies? Pah.
A mile or two to the office can and should be done in the shirt and trousers youre going to wear in the office. No need to dress up like a road warrior or domestique to ride to work.
Much of a problem is it?
Time to stop wearing a helmet and high viz on the road….
It doesn't say that any where that i can see. So I'd say it is a some what unhelpful thread title
The research fails to address the question I would like to know the answer to. I want to know how my clothing corelates with how likely I am to be hit. My own approach, not evidence based, is that I'd rather be seen than not seen and that brighter clothing and lights help. This approach might be more antagonistic but for the moment I perceive it as safer. Again my believe, not backed by evidence, is that a leading cause of cyclists being hit be vehicles is the driver failing to "see" the cyclist.
The research is carried on Australia. Helmets are compulsory their which must impact people perception of people wearing then. I'm told by a keen roady friend that emigrated to Australian drivers are much more aggressive to cyclists than uk drivers. So even this vague findings here aren't necessarily transferable to the uk
My understanding is that instructors are better able to communicate and appear more trust worthy when not wearing a hemlet. More human, more approachable?
Ah, that makes sense. I thought maybe there was some beef between instructors and piste machine drivers or something 🙂
There was Uk research on this as well - very lmited however
Hi viz - the only research I have seen on it was for motorcyclists and it made no difference
Its not you that is antagonistic wearing hi viz and helmets - its the reactions of others who will behave more antagonistically towards you
A mile or two to the office can and should be done in the shirt and trousers youre going to wear in the office. No need to dress up like a road warrior or domestique to ride to work.
How's that working out on a dark February morning when it's pissing it down?
seems reasonable. Maybe DRL would help, also something like Garmin Varia which detects following cars & adjusts the blinking pattern of the rear light to attract the drivers attention. Cannondale obviously think so as they build both into their top-spec commuter style bikes now!Again my believe, not backed by evidence, is that a leading cause of cyclists being hit be vehicles is the driver failing to “see” the cyclist.
Tbh I’m more inclined to start towing a kiddy trailer all the time. (Empty)
The space you get with a kiddy trailer is unparalleled.
Or just stick a kiddie seat and a little kiddie helmet on the back of the bike.
Quite a few colleagues do this
Done that too when we graduated from the trailer but the trailer still gets much more room
My own approach, not evidence based, is that I’d rather be seen than not seen and that brighter clothing and lights help. This approach might be more antagonistic but for the moment I perceive it as safer. Again my believe, not backed by evidence, is that a leading cause of cyclists being hit be vehicles is the driver failing to “see” the cyclist.
Lights, definitely. Reflective clothing, I reckon so.
However, I don't think high-viz makes much difference unless you are the only person on the road wearing it. There's been some research into the mechanism behind 'look but not see' and it seems to come down to saccadic masking.
Unfortunately, you can't do much about a driver's saccadic masking. The ball is in their court on that one. They have to be aware of it and slow down and move their head as they approach junctions.
The only thing that might help is to look unusual enough that the drivers brain triggers something that makes them look again as their eyes move across your general area. If you are somewhere like Denmark or the Netherlands where few people wear High-viz then the novelty might be enough to trigger driver's brains.
In the UK I'd say there's not much chance. You need to take it up a few notches to be unusual enough to be noticeable!
I believe the best way to increase safety is to increase the number of people riding bikes on the roads. IMO the best way to promote cycling as a safe activity is to dress like a normal person while doing it. Dressing like you are on your way to a Village People audition doesn't do that, imo.
I’ve never worn hi-viz, and several years ago I stopped wearing a helmet for all of my riding (I don’t do gnarly, rocky MTB any more, but I have a helmet in case I do).
Does it mean I get fewer close passes? Impossible to say. I tend to perceive that I do get fewer, but that could very easily be just confirmation bias so I don’t place any value in my own assessment of that. In any case, around the time I stopped wearing helmets I also started running always-on dynamo lights on all my bikes other than the MTB, so there are two significant factors in any perceived change of effect.
What I do know is that I don’t go as fast myself; the brakes are almost always on by the time I get to 30mph. I’m a bit more cautious generally. Overall, I feel safer without one. And no matter how daft it may sound, I’m happier and more relaxed without one, and it’s a little incremental gain in terms of cycling feeling like a bit of freedom.
The ski resorts that I have worked at have mandated helmets for all instructors.
something like Garmin Varia which detects following cars & adjusts the blinking pattern of the rear light to attract the drivers attention
I always thought Garmin’s logic was completely pissed up with the flashing Varia. As far as I recall it changed its pattern when the vehicle was close, which to me seems the wrong way to do it. The effect needs to attract attention when you’re coming into a driver’s view, not causing a distraction as they’re about to pass.
I had one (the StVZO-compliant non-flashing version) for a while, thought it was useless. Didn’t make me feel any safer than normal and I honestly can’t understand why so many people seem to say they’d never go back to not having one. I can only assume that previously they weren’t paying any attention at all to what was behind them.
The only thing that might help is to look unusual enough that the drivers brain triggers something that makes them look again as their eyes move across your general area.
A face has this effect.
Eye contact, or at least showing a face, makes a massive difference. I have to negotiate J29 of the M4 on many local rides. fortunately the bit I need to do is downhill so I can get some speed up on the roundabout, but I make sure I am looking over my shoulder all the time. This makes people notice me and give me space to make the moves I need.
However, I don’t think high-viz makes much difference unless you are the only person on the road wearing it. There’s been some research into the mechanism behind ‘look but not see’ and it seems to come down to saccadic masking.
My riding is largely rural. My perception is that it's very different to central London with lots of bikes and vehicles for driversto process. My risk is on a rural road not being picked out from the back ground of plants
I believe the best way to increase safety is to increase the number of people riding bikes on the roads.
I believe that is one thing that research has securely established
How’s that working out on a dark February morning when it’s pissing it down?
You know you can buy waterproof coats and trousers, right? 🙂
Skimming through the paper - over 70% of respondents reported being regular cyclists, and the questions seem very leading. Is there a better way to gauge this than overtly asking people to rate the humanity of photos?
A face has this effect.
That's not really related to saccadic masking though. It's debatable whether there is anything people can do to keep themselves safe from drivers who approach junctions too fast and without moving their heads.
Research is still ongoing as to what the brain does with the images gathered as the eyes switch between static points and it's possible the brain does absolutely nothing with the inputs. It's also possible there is some basic processing going on and if something is unusual enough it'll cause the eyes to return to that point to double check.
No need to dress up like a road warrior or domestique to ride to work.
Depends - I do have a 100m hill and 7.5km, so I do put on riding gear so I don't sit in sweaty shirt all day for my colleagues delight. I don't wear full roady lycra.
I have never really worn high viz - apart from my winter jacket. In the grey of a 5pm Scottish murky November evening I do feel a bit more 'obvious' in it.
Eye contact, or at least showing a face, makes a massive difference.
I do agree with this - albeit it anecdotally, I often make eyecontact / make sure they have looked my way / occasionally stare down the driver heading my way etc...
I think it is as simple as some people give a shit and others don't. I get passes that are too close all the time but I also get people completely going into other lane as though passing a car (which is what I do when driving).
The people that don't give a shit are those that overtake going into a blind bend where they have clearly seen me but simply don't care or even think about any consequences. Probably the latter as when I stop them passing by moving across the road they often beep their horn and if I 'flag' them down they ask me why I was stopping them from overtaking!
Cyclists are probably on a hiding to nothing here. The other side of teh coin is IIR that insurance companies argue down a payout if not PP-E'd up even though no legal requirement to do so.
Helmet = Your a objectified target
No helmet _ reckless self harmer.
My risk is on a rural road not being picked out from the back ground of plants
yeah the standard attire for the retired chap cruising around the country lanes on a dawes galaxy is black tights, luminous green high vis rain jacket (regardless of weather) and luminous green helmet cover.
on a sunny afternoon in mottled light, they have really effectively camoflaged themselves against the tarmac and foliage respectively.
Cyclists are probably on a hiding to nothing here. The other side of teh coin is IIR that insurance companies argue down a payout if not PP-E’d up even though no legal requirement to do so.
they can try but its not something that would stand up in court or been tested in court IIRC
I think it is as simple as some people give a shit and others don’t.
Yup, same here, to a large degree.
A lot of this is not conscious behaviour. Its all subconcious. See someone in ordinary clothes on a bike and its " look out a human" but see them in lycra and a helmet its "lycra lout" so are less than human so gainless respect - this is all without conscious thought
I've stopped wearing a helmet when riding on local shared paths so I look less 'cyclisty' and more 'person on bike' and I think it seems to draw a more positive reaction from other users, especially walkers, but on some of the busier roads I wear the yellow jacket and have lights on the bike, and usually wear a helmet as well, it's a matter of always weighing up risks or perceived risks in each situation.
Tj:
they can try but its not something that would stand up in court or been tested in court IIRC
I was referencing a thread on here with a link where it had happened but cant for the life of me remember where.
Cyclists are probably on a hiding to nothing here. The other side of teh coin is IIR that insurance companies argue down a payout if not PP-E’d up even though no legal requirement to do so.
they can try but its not something that would stand up in court or been tested in court IIRC
It has and will - my friend just settled for 15% less due to not wearing a bunnet when a 1.5ton faux by faux rattled through him on his bike. Car which hit him had no MOT, driver tried to leave - and yet not punishment or increase of pay out. But my pal who didn't wear a helmet, but did wear lumi jacket and bright lights, had compensation reduced as he was 'not taking every prudent precaution'...
IIRC ( and thats not always so) the insurance co reduced it saying accept this or go to court
IIRC ( and thats not always so) the insurance co reduced it saying accept this or go to court
But the advice from my friends solicitor was it *would* be reduced in court and that there was case precedent for this.
Crossed posts
I do not think there is any legal prrecedent for this. I could be wrong.
Nah, whether they see me as human or not, they're more worried aboiut the paint than my noggin
and yet not punishment or increase of pay out
Well, it’s insurance, not a prosecution, and the insurers are acting in the interests of their car-driving customers. They can’t really punish anyone any more than increasing their premium.
The only thing that might help is to look unusual enough that the drivers brain triggers something that makes them look again as their eyes move across your general area. If you are somewhere like Denmark or the Netherlands where few people wear High-viz then the novelty might be enough to trigger driver’s brains.
In the UK I’d say there’s not much chance. You need to take it up a few notches to be unusual enough to be noticeable!
this is all without conscious thought
Clever to be able to type like that.
Regardless of motorists' attitudes to cyclists, I've walked along pavements and across crossings on a green man and almost been taken out by drivers, even when I've had my kids with me. I'm guessing that wearing absolutely everyday clothes (and being in the presence of young children) didn't humanise me enough?
Maybe we should stop looking for excuses for terrible drivers?
a helmet is precaution in case of injury (maybe 😉), it doesn't [I]stop[/I] you getting hit in the first place - unless he's claiming damages for a head-injury then I'd be saying, "see you in court"...But my pal who didn’t wear a helmet, but did wear lumi jacket and bright lights, had compensation reduced as he was ‘not taking every prudent precaution’…
Maybe we should stop looking for excuses for terrible drivers?
Its not about making excuses - its about understanding why things happen so steps can be taken to avoid being hit by a car driver
If you can find a way of making people give a shit then you really will be onto something
its about understanding why things happen so steps can be taken to avoid being hit by a car driver
Simple…
But my pal who didn’t wear a helmet, but did wear lumi jacket and bright lights, had compensation reduced as he was ‘not taking every prudent precaution’…
Yeah thats an absoloute crock of shit. while i appreciate its easy for me to say sat behind a keyboard, theres no way i would be taking that.
Thats pushed them into "i'm going to waste as much of your time and money as possible as a matter of principal because your policies are offensive" territory.
But my pal who didn’t wear a helmet, but did wear lumi jacket and bright lights, had compensation reduced as he was ‘not taking every prudent precaution’…
Keep hearing stories like this but still to hear it being successfully argued and won in court?
I can see an ambulance chaser telling a client to accept an offer to get a case closed and their fees paid, and avoid the risk, but by it's logical extension, they aren't going to reduce the damages for a pedestrian who wasn't in hiviz, are they?
the only reason to wear a helmet/hiviz whilst road commuting is so the court will find it harder to arbitrarily attribute blame and/or reduce the compensation your family receives in the event of your death
This.
I want to avoid the headline announcing my death as saying "The cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet..."
Agree with the comments about shared paths though - I find on local railway line trails etc I get a far better response if I'm in baggy shorts, no helmet - people seem willing to engage as a human.
On the road though, I've worn helmets as standard for 30+ years due to racing, riding and working on events where it's always been mandatory so it just feels normal. Plus it gets to avoid all the uppity bores who take it upon themselves to self-police cycling going "you should be wearing a helmet..."
I think in London, because of the sheer number of hire bikes in use, there's more of an expectation and acceptance that not everyone will be wearing a helmet.
based on respondent gender.
On the same lines, cyclists wearing a cap were viewed as more human than those wearing a full helmet.
My cycling attire tonight is a baseball cap. I guess I lose points for my bright orange top though.
As for whether after an accident compensation would be reduced. Legal opinion is mixed
.
To be honest the main reason I don’t wear headphones on the road is because of the whole ‘it will look bad if you’re hit’ issue. I have the bone conduction ones and can hear traffic as well with them as without them but the thought of my wife having to argue with an insurance company about a reduced pay out doesn’t sit well with me.
that legal stuff states tyhat there may be contributory negligence if you get a head injury while not wearing a helmet. But various legal decisions show even that is not ope and shut as its so difficult to show that a helmet would have reduced a severe injury - thats got a decent basis in UK law. However if there is no head injury there can be no contributory negligence - thats pretty clear
unless he’s claiming damages for a head-injury then I’d be saying, “see you in court”…
Life changing and career ending head injury.
Fair enough then. Even then its not clear cut he would lose 10% for contributory negligence from reading those cases.
After years of completely non-scientific experimentation on the mean streets of Edinburgh I found it’s best to use a child’s seat with a doll loosely strapped into it behind you. Ride loose and bunny hop every crack in the tarmac possible. Number of close passes goes waaay down.
The wig helmet. It will happen.
Maybe we should stop looking for excuses for terrible drivers?
Its not about making excuses
Yes it is. It is the same old victim blaming I've heard for decades now. 'It's not the drivers fault that they didn't see you it was saccadic masking, it was the sun in their eyes, it was because you didn't look human enough (FFS!!), not enough hi-viz, lights not bright enough, lights too bright.' It goes on and on.
– its about understanding why things happen so steps can be taken to avoid being hit by a car driver
Let's start by getting rid of the assumption that the person who has been hit is the problem, and, as in that strip cartoon up there ^, look at the common problem - the person behind the steering wheel.
[i]the person behind the steering wheel[/i]
I had a Tesla close pass me yesterday. I thought they'd at least have "you're too ****ing close" alarms (for the driver to ignore).
Yes it is. It is the same old victim blaming I’ve heard for decades now. ‘It’s not the drivers fault that they didn’t see you it was saccadic masking, it was the sun in their eyes, it was because you didn’t look human enough (FFS!!), not enough hi-viz, lights not bright enough, lights too bright.’ It goes on and on.
Actually, saccadic masking isn't an excuse. It's an indication that the driver was driving too fast and didn't shift their head position when checking if the road was clear.
SMIDSY is a thing and has been forever. It's not victim blaming to try to figure out what the mechanism behind it is and try to educate drivers on how to mitigate its effects.
...try to educate drivers
Who's doing this?
Actually, saccadic masking isn’t an excuse. It’s an indication that the driver was driving too fast and didn’t shift their head position when checking if the road was clear.
And was even the focus of road safety adverts when I was growing up, although we can make ourselves feel cleverer now by calling it a fancy name. Think once, think twice, think bike - the campaign started in 1978, although obviously not meant for us plebs on pushbikes.
SMIDSY is a thing and has been forever. It’s not victim blaming to try to figure out what the mechanism behind it is and try to educate drivers on how to mitigate its effects.
By blaming the cyclist for wearing helmet and sunglasses?
One of the things that came out about motorcycles and smidsy is that its about the apparent width you present as - so a solution is to weave to make yourself look wider in at risk situations.
Something only gets noticed by your brain as a threat when its more than ( IIRC) 5 degrees of your vision - so for a car its a lot further away than for a motorbike and of course a bicycle is even closer - this is nothing to do with attention as such - its about the way the brain processes images
Understanding why things go wrong is a key to making them go right
One of the things that came out about motorcycles and smidsy is that its about the apparent width you present as – so a solution is to weave to make yourself look wider in at risk situations.
Years ago there was a study which was based on the number of times a motorcyclist was obstructed by drivers on a set commute route. They tried with and with headlights, fairings, reflective etc. The thing that made a difference was styling the bike and rider to look like a police motorcyclist. The number of times the police bike look-alike was obstructed was significantly less. The conclusion, I think, was that motorists notice things that they see as threat to them (or their licence wallet).
As for the cyclists / helmets thing. I'm not going to stop wearing a helmet on the road because I've seen enough smashed up helmet accidents to want to protect my head. The real answer - as per above - is to find a way of educating motorists / put them in a situation where failing to treat cyclists well presents a threat to their continued ability to drive.
Of course this unlikely to happen under a government that views sustainable transport and human life generally as an inconvenient afterthought.
By blaming the cyclist for wearing helmet and sunglasses?
Eh?
Sorry, but do you know what saccadic masking is?
It's not just a fancy name for not paying attention. It's the result of humans evolving to go around at walking pace (and occasionally at running pace) and how the brain is able to take in and process visual information without becoming overloaded.
It runs into limitations if you put those same humans behind the wheel of a car and while there are ways to mitigate its effects it mostly just comes down to slowing down and moving your head when checking if the road is clear.
It's one of those things where people on bikes can't do much other than be aware there's a good chance the driver hasn't seen them. This one is pretty much entirely in the driver's court*.
* Saying that, apart from using lights when it's dark, I think pretty much everything is in the driver's court.
Sorry, but do you know what saccadic masking is?
Yes I do, I was going back to what the thread was actually about.
Yes I do, I was going back to what the thread was actually about.
Yes, part of the reason I brought up saccadic masking was because one of the reasons given for using high-viz (not reflective, just to clarify) is that it lessens the likelihood of saccadic masking.
Most research shows it doesn't.
So there isn't really a safety argument to be made for high-viz.
That's all I was saying. Not trying to introduce new excuses for drivers.
At the end of the day, saccadic masking and responses to someone’s appearance are just two examples of cognitive shortcomings and cognitive biases that are well known and well researched, and the key problem is that we do not train drivers in a way that accounts well for these; nor do we ensure that drivers are retrained and reassessed as our understanding of these things improves.
We hand out licences in packets of cornflakes and leave people to just get on with it for the next 50 or so years until we think “that wrinkly old fart’s getting on a bit, shall we test his eyesight?” The unlucky ones will be pulled over once or twice in that time but for the most part they’re free to just sail as close to the wind as they like, wielding around a million joules of kinetic energy as they blissfully fail to draw a short straw and have all that energy turn to shit. But for some, sometimes, it does—and we just scoop up the bits of metal and glass and mop up the blood, and shrug and keep on handing out the licences, because no-one dares to suggest that it should take much more than a packet of cornflakes to obtain one and keep it forever.
Saying that, apart from using lights when it’s dark, I think pretty much everything is in the driver’s court.
Hmm. There are lots of instances where it is simply hard to see things, especially on UK roads which are often poorly sighted. We all need to work together to make sure we can see each other - for example, don't wear camo when cycling in the countryside.
Sometimes actual visibility is marginal - rain, darkness. obscured by other things - and drivers won't look very closely. You can say they should, and you'd be right, but they don't.
