Ridiculous False Security of Conspicuity

[Dave McReynolds]

Quote:

"What sort of guarantee are you offering, and what is it based on?"

 

Many years of Duck and Turkey hunting.

 

Gil Horsley

 

Do you think wearing a bright orange vest might have given Harry Whittington a false sense of security, or, to paraphrase David, does conspicuity have absolutely no effect on hunters who are likely to shoot you?

 

 

[fisherman]

Quote Dave McReynolds: "Do you think wearing a bright orange vest might have given Harry Whittington a false sense of security, or, to paraphrase David, does conspicuity have absolutely no effect on hunters who are likely to shoot you?"

 

If you know hunters that are likely to shoot you stay away from them.

[Dave McReynolds]

If you know hunters that are likely to shoot you stay away from them.

 

Good advice for anyone, including motorcyclists!

[NoHeat]

Quote:

Many years of Duck and Turkey hunting.

Gil Horsley

 

David would probably argue that hunters should wear whatever they like, because bad hunters will shoot you anyway while they are texting, even if you wear blaze orange.

[Boffin]

Quote:

Many years of Duck and Turkey hunting.

Gil Horsley

 

David would probably argue that hunters should wear whatever they like, because bad hunters will shoot you anyway while they are texting, even if you wear blaze orange.

 

No, David would argue that even if you wear blaze orange you should keep your head down. The message he was trying to put across was Do not rely on conspicuity alone to save your butt.. Do not get complacent just because you are easy to see.

 

Andy

[NoHeat]

Quote:

Many years of Duck and Turkey hunting.

Gil Horsley

 

David would probably argue that hunters should wear whatever they like, because bad hunters will shoot you anyway while they are texting, even if you wear blaze orange.

 

No, David would argue that even if you wear blaze orange you should keep your head down. The message he was trying to put across was Do not rely on conspicuity alone to save your butt.. Do not get complacent just because you are easy to see.

 

Andy

 

I would agree with your two "do not" ideas, but I don't think David wrote anything like that in his original post. He wrote "to the extent that you think they do one whit of good, you're a dead man". He did not write "to the extent that you think you can rely on them alone, you're a dead man." There's a big difference between doing "think they do one whit of good" and total reliance.

[russell_bynum]

There's a big difference between doing "think they do one whit of good" and total reliance.

 

In the practical sense, there is no difference. If you rely AT ALL on any passive safety system that relies on someone else to notice you AND react in a productive manner, you're screwed.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Just did 1370 miles wearing this and nobody saw me.

 

I gotta work out how to shrink the images on this D90. Way too big.

[russell_bynum]

LOL.

[upflying]

The only sense of security that works for me is my decision making skills converted to motor skills on all four of my extremities.

What I wear has nothing to do with it.

[tallman]

There's a big difference between doing "think they do one whit of good" and total reliance.

 

In the practical sense, there is no difference. If you rely AT ALL on any passive safety system that relies on someone else to notice you AND react in a productive manner, you're screwed.

 

Define "passive".

Would that include flashing lights, sirens?

Public safety vehicles, and employees are outfitted in retroreflective gear.

They do rely on them and for good reason.

Studies show they are effective.

Of course there are exceptions and idiots still do stupid things but most people see and react to those signals because they recognize them for what they are, a fire truck/ambulance etc.

There are so many examples of these systems working properly almost all of the time with almost all of the people that the exceptions jump out at us.

 

Would you agree that anyone who relies on a gun for self defense is screwed?

After all, every bullet that misses didn't have the desired effect.

[NoHeat]

Just did 1370 miles wearing this and nobody saw me.

 

It could be worse. Somebody could have shot you while they were texting.

[russell_bynum]

There's a big difference between doing "think they do one whit of good" and total reliance.

 

In the practical sense, there is no difference. If you rely AT ALL on any passive safety system that relies on someone else to notice you AND react in a productive manner, you're screwed.

 

Define "passive".

Would that include flashing lights, sirens?

Public safety vehicles, and employees are outfitted in retroreflective gear.

 

Yep, all of that stuff relies on the other guy to:

1. notice you

and

2. react in a productive manner.

 

People who are paying attention probably do both of those things. But every fireman and cop I've ever talked to has stories of people not noticing them, or worse yet...doing completely stupid and irrational things when they do notice like slam on their brakes and come to a dead stop in the middle of the intersection blocking the bigass fire truck that's trying to cross.

 

Since it doesn't work all of the time and you don't know when it's going to work and when it's not going to work, you have to assume that it will never work, and act accordingly. In that sense, you can't rely on any passive safety system.

 

 

Would you agree that anyone who relies on a gun for self defense is screwed?

After all, every bullet that misses didn't have the desired effect.

 

1. Apples/Oranges. A gun is an active device like brakes. I choose when and where to deploy it and I don't rely on the other guy for it to work. (I guess if my plan was to pull the gun out and wave it around to scare the bad guy off, then it would be a passive device. That would also be exceedingly stupid.)

2. Yes.

2a. Since any mechanical device can fail, if your entire security plan consists of "I have a gun", you're likely to be confronted by Murphy's Law. (likewise if your panic braking plan is "I have ABS", you're in deep doo doo when it doesn't work...or doesn't work as you anticipated)

2b. A gun should be a last resort in your security plan. When everything else (situational awareness, etc) fails to keep you out of trouble, then you go for your gun.

 

 

[leikam]

These arguments all seem very familiar for some reason. Have we had this discussion before?

 

I still don't get the psychology of making choices in order to become more conspicuous and then acting as if none of those decisions were ever effective.

[Boffin]

These arguments all seem very familiar for some reason. Have we had this discussion before?

 

I still don't get the psychology of making choices in order to become more conspicuous and then acting as if none of those decisions were ever effective.

 

The conspicuity lets those paying some attention to see you and act appropriately, thereby lowering the workload of avoiding those not paying proper attention. Conspicuity improves the odds. Assuming it doesn't works improves the odds a good deal more.

 

Andy

[leikam]

It's the last part that I have trouble with. How can you honestly assume it doesn't work? To me, that means acting as if you think your odds are lower than you perceive them to be. That seems to require a lot more cognitive work and a fair bit of self deception.

 

Now if you said that wearing high-viz gear reduces the number of incidents one has to actively handle -- dodging 10 cars a day instead of 20 -- that's a somewhat different argument. In responding to fewer incursions per day, the same rate of mistakes yields a longer interval without incident. Fewer crashes are good, but that line of argument requires one to think that being seen does make a difference, that one is not invisible and in not being invisible, one is at less risk. It's a reasonable argument to make and a fine thing to believe, but I don't see how it's compatible with the idea of "riding as if one were invisible."

[RichEdwards]

I'm convinced. Skipping golf on Monday and donating all my hi-viz gear to the Salvation Army after removing most of the lights from my bikes.

[fisherman]

The issue with hi-viz and lights is recognition and background separation. Is a driver more likely to see you if your motorcycle, helmet and apparel blend into the background? I don't think so.

 

Yes cars run into the back of flashing lights on stopped police cars, but they still pull you over for speeding because MOST drivers don't hit vehicles with flashing lights.

 

Hi-Vis, ABS, upgraded suspension are all just extra tools in your kit. No they are not substitutes for training and skills but given the choice I would rather have them than not.

 

Gil Horsley

[RamblinBoy]

This seems so simple. If you wear gear for protection why NOT wear visible gear? It can't hurt. If you wear gear to be admired, that's another story.

[russell_bynum]

These arguments all seem very familiar for some reason. Have we had this discussion before?

 

I still don't get the psychology of making choices in order to become more conspicuous and then acting as if none of those decisions were ever effective.

 

The conspicuity lets those paying some attention to see you and act appropriately, thereby lowering the workload of avoiding those not paying proper attention. Conspicuity improves the odds. Assuming it doesn't works improves the odds a good deal more.

 

Andy

 

Well said.