Pretty invisible on a dark night.
Is the grey piping in the picture on the elbows, shoulders, and the top edge of the front pockets reflective strips? It was on the gloves I bought during the last bike offer, and the reflective strips are quite effective when a light source is shone on them at night.
|
I called at my local store this lunchtime and the battery chargers had sold out - with no prospect of getting any more in.
Can anyone recommend a decent charger for keeping the battery healthy over winter? Principally, I'm thinking motorbike, but one that would do a car as well would be useful.
|
|
I got one from the towsure cataloge about 8 quid i think does the job as well as the one i paid 15 quid for
|
|
Thanks, MrMender, does it have a brand name or a catalogue number that I could identify it by?
|
|
I can't remember brand name but i'ts the only one of its type in the battery charger section of the catalog
|
|
|
|
Saw a motorcycle death suit in there this morning --- sorry, should have said, a mat black top jacket for a motorcyclist. Pretty invisible on a dark night. Same thing really.
There's some research to say that solid colours (even black) are more easily seen than lots of bright colours.
What with all new bikes having the headlights on all the time and lots of fluorescent clothing being worn you'd exepct accidents of the "I didn't see you" to have fallen. But they haven't.
|
Hi Waino...
Re your quest for a battery charger / conditioner....please look no further than the ctek multi XS 3600 which received the Classic Cars and Auto Express 'Best Buy' award. It is suitable for cars and motorcycles and mine is mainly used permanently connected to the bike as when the battery is fully charged it goes into conditioner mode and maintains the battery in a fully charged and peak condition ensuring that the bike is always ready for instant action!
It is not cheap but it is one of the best andyou can get one via the internet for about £49 (usually post free with next day delivery) and a cigarette lighter socket adaptor is about £6 extra if you require it...I personally find the plug-in adaptor more convenient than attaching crocodile clips to the battery terminal posts.
You should find all the info you require at www.ctek-chargers.co.uk
|
|
Thanks, Geordie, I'll follow it up.
|
|
|
|
|| Pretty invisible on a dark night. ||
The suit top I saw this morning lying flat on top of some boxes did not have anything showing to stand out. I might have missed the white piping but if I did it was pretty inconspicuous.
Just looked on the web site and the thing that strikes you most is the amount of black. Even a black balaclava hiding the head except for a patch round the eyes. As SAS suits they would not be much out of place.
|| There's some research to say that solid colours (even black) are more easily seen than lots of bright colours. ||
Rubbish. Black on top of a white sheet may be. But, as I have said on here before, you do not see black so how, in general, can it be more easily see? . There is no light coming back to the eye from mat black. Your brain observes what is missing in the picture by not being able to see it.
|
Rubbish. Black on top of a white sheet may be. But, as I have said on here before, you do not see black so how, in general, can it be more easily see? . There is no light coming back to the eye from mat black. Your brain observes what is missing in the picture by not being able to see it.
It can be easier to see than multi-coloured bright reflective stuff because of the crowded background that is most towns with traffic. A solid black colour can actually be more visible, even black.
Here's a little excercise to show that lights can disappear against a complex moving background too: www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_mib/index.html
It's not as clear cut as you might imagine!
|
|
I still think it is rubbish. There are tricks you can play on the brain with staring eyes. Nothing to do with the light vanishing. The light is still coming back from the spots. How long does a driver fix his eyes on one spot? Try looking at the same 'illusion' but this time move your eyes about. The spots do not disappear.
|
I still think it is rubbish.
Fair enough, I believe it's not quite as clear as that. Here's a report from TRL:
IPWEA NSW Division Annual Conference 2004
NOW YOU SEE ME, NOW YOU DON?T
Dr Martin Langham
Principal Consultant (Human Factors), TRL [ www.trl.co.uk ], United Kingdom
Nigel McDonald [ nmcdonald@trllimited.com.au ]
Principal Consultant (Road Safety), TRL [ www.trl.co.uk ], NSW Australia
Paper Summary
This paper profiles and explains a road safety phenomenon known as a ?looked but failed to see? error which leads to large numbers of accidents worldwide each and every year. The paper and presentation show how consideration of vehicle colour schemes and liveries can have a positive effect in improving the conspicuity of vehicle fleets and ultimately in reducing accident rates. Mini-case studies will be presented to outline the principles introduced within the written paper. The topic is particularly relevant to authorities responsible for worksite and field vehicle safety. The paper provides background to a highly visual presentation.
Introduction
Vision is our most important sense when we drive. Typically those researching in the domain claim that 90% of the information we need when we drive is visual. So it is important to understand something about human vision if we are going to design a vehicle livery.
In very general terms the aim of the human visual perception system is to detect objects and understand where in the environment they are relative to the observer. Bright noticeable objects are often detected more readily than dull unlit objects.
However, whether a target will be detected or not is not solely determined by how physically conspicuous or visible it is but whether the observer expects to see it and then knows what to do (Langham, 1999). Human vision as much about conception as it is perception.
Why Do Drivers Fail to See?
The ?looked but failed to see? (LBFS) error (Staughton and Storie, 1977) refers to set of circumstances where a driver accounts for a crash in terms of failing to detect another road user.
It has been estimated that in the range of 69-80% of all intersection crashes in Australia are caused by failures by one driver to ?see? another until it is too late to avert a collision (Cairney and Catchpole, 1995). The explanation of LBFS also implies that the other vehicle was there to be seen by the offending driver
In a review of driver vision and vehicle visibility, Hills (1980) describes the LBFS error as a problem of the misjudgement of speed and distance and incorrect interpretation of information by the driver. He points out that an individual vehicle accident is: ?not normally due to one single cause but, rather is the result of a combination of causes.?
It may be that late detection or LBFS errors account for a large proportion of all crashes. Without the basic level of detection, no decision and response are possible. Rumar (1990), based on European data, suggests that two significant causal factors may contribute:
? a lapse of cognitive expectation, illustrated by a failure to scan for a particular class of road user or failure to look in the appropriate direction; and
? a difficulty with perceptual thresholds, illustrated by the failure to discern the relevant stimuli in lower levels of ambient illumination or where vehicles approach in the field of peripheral vision.
In interviews following LBFS crashes, the errant road user will often be adamant that they did ?look? for other traffic but did not ?see? the other road user/s and/or vehicle/s involved.
In such cases, researchers have historically investigated how conspicuous the other road user/s and/or vehicle/s involved actually were at the time of the crash. Such an approach tends to oversimplify matters and further understanding of conspicuity is necessary before any assessment or review of the liveries and/or marking systems used on maintenance and works vehicles is undertaken.
TRL has been undertaking such reviews for a range of road and emergency service authorities, in addition to large commercial fleets.
Physical Conspicuity
Conspicuity is a word that is often used without much thought of its meaning.
Hills says of conspicuity: ?It can be defined partly as the extent to which the object is above the just visible limit. It is therefore subject to the same factors as visibility, the most significant of these being the visual size of the object, its contrast with its background against which it is seen the ambient light levels and any source of glare? (Hills, 1980).
The most physically conspicuous objects possess the ability to capture the attention of the observer over and above other parts of the visual scene.
An object that is physically conspicuous in one environment may be easily lost in another. For example, predominantly white or lightly coloured vehicles (such as commonly used by authorities and emergency services), which provide a fair degree of contrast in dark conditions and/or against dark backgrounds, can be camouflaged by a predominantly white or lightly coloured backgrounds (such as within a white walled tunnel or brightly lit work environments).
Therefore vehicles and exposed workers need to be conspicuous against a variety of environments and in a variety of weather conditions, i.e. the search is for a ?good all rounder?.
The important thing is to make as much contrast between the works vehicle and its typical background. Colours that tend to make a good contrast include orange and lime-yellow. Orange is good in many cultures it is associated with hazards or danger.
Cognitive Conspicuity
However conspicuity is not just about how bright things are in their environment. People drive into large vehicles claiming they don?t see them (eg Cercarelli, 1992). They even drive into highly conspicuous police cars claiming they didn?t see them (Langham et al 2002). Not only does an object such as a maintenance or works vehicle need to be ?seen?, it needs to be ?recognised? for what it is ? an increased risk and potential hazard.
This is a concept known as cognitive conspicuity and relates to expectation in perception and can explain why, for example, a driver can look straight at a cyclist or motorcyclist and then drive straight into them. In such a scenario, experts believe that the driver is looking for cars or larger vehicles. Applying this concept, the aim is to signal the possible presence of a vehicle, (what it is likely to look like, where it is likely to be, or both) so that people are more likely to detect it and react in time. Therefore, the challenge is to create a vehicle livery and markings that are of a bright colour (i.e. are physically conspicuous) and match the expectations of the approaching driver.
Vehicle and Personal Protective Equipment Conspicuity Research
Significant research has been undertaken investigating conspicuity focussed on small vulnerable road users ? pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Despite differences in road user characteristics and methodological problems, in broad terms if something is bright and makes good contrast with its background AND the viewer recognise what they are presented with, they will react accordingly.
Research that has promoted just one of these factors alone has achieved, at best, mixed results.
For example, increased lighting alone on motorcycles does not always guarantee detection, nor does increased warning lights on small maintenance/works vehicles or extra reflective tape on pedestrians.
TRL has been researching for and advising clients on a range of elements related to conspicuity including:
? colour,
? contrast,
? road user ?contours? and edge definition,
? patterns within markings,
? use of corporate markings,
? orientation of parked vehicles,
? workers wearing high visibility garments away from their vehicle and evaluation of field implementation.
Regulatory Trend
Just as there have been regulations, standards and guidelines enacted for managing workplace safety such as for the control of traffic at worksites, there are also international moves to implement a regulatory response to improving vehicle and road user conspicuity. One such response is the United Nations Regulation 104.
Figures from the regulation appear below displaying suggested outlines and contours for markings, in addition to suggested areas and management of livery and corporate advertising. Should regulatory, standards or guidelines be used to advance vehicle and/or road user conspicuity in Australia, the nature of exposure experienced by road authorities and road site working government authorities will see these agencies significantly impacted on. In the ideal scenario, such authorities may be part of the lead of this trend by proactively undertaking their own initiatives thereby minimising disruption and cost impacts by early action prior to control. This action would also be expected to contribute to social benefits from reduced crashes and trauma, contributing to road trauma reduction goals. Such action would need to be appropriate actioned, avoiding the need to comply with the scientific principles behind controls developed at a later time. Under the alternate scenario of chasing controls and the lead set by private fleets, government agencies would not realise various social, financial and political benefits.
Figure 1 ? An example of regulatory approach with recommended outlines or contours from UN Regulation 104.
Testing
Given what we have said here the most important thing to do is to test the intended livery. But how? Typically liveries are tested by placing a vehicle on an empty airfield and people are asked ?Can you see the conspicuous vehicle?? This task poorly reflects the task of a real driver. We don?t drive with someone asking us if we can see conspicuous things?
At TRL we have been attempting to use models from psychology and human factors to bring a lot more ecological validity to the domain. That is to say we test and measure the livery in such a way that reflects the real life scenario the vehicle will need to perform under.
For example we ask people to drive in TRL?s driving simulator and don?t warn them about the type of hazard they will encounter. We allow them to drive for 20 minutes (just when research says they become less vigilant) and suddenly present them with a vehicle in the lane they are driving. We measure the participant?s ability to detect the vehicle just as they would in the real world. Therefore we test what drivers actually do. We test based on models of both physical and cognitive conspicuity.
We measure such things as
? time to react,
? distance at which they change lanes,
? how close they get to the vehicle as they overtake it, and
? wether or not they detect it!
Overall we measure what is important not just an attitude towards a vehicle
To do less, results in some of the examples we show. For example a grey car that needs to make a good contrast against a grey road. Or a livery that has not a passing resemblance to a camouflage pattern popular in WW1 Unfortunately in both cases these are emergency response vehicles. Ongoing operations and working environments also need to be considered.
For example, a ?dirty? working environment would need particular considerations for markings and ongoing maintenance of markings. Generally, any road environment will be ?dirty? to some extent.
We also need to thing about training. Recent work shows that training people wearing high visibility garments that they are still difficult to see by drivers - ?It?s a uniform silly not a force field? may gain more accident reduction than attempting new uniform designs.
Case Studies
As part of the presentation, the authors will be presenting images from a number of case studies they have been involved with, clearly demonstrating the type of considerations and commitments being made by fleet operators and the nature of measures being introduced to counter LBFS errors.
Conclusion
This paper has presented some of the background to the need for fleet operators and authorities engaged in road activities to be aware of the issue of ?looked but failed to see? driver errors. We therefore conclude that a vehicle should be bright and conspicuous and, importantly, look like a vehicle the approaching driver is expecting to see.
Before implementation, test your design. Test in such a way that reflects
? current models of human perception and attention
? the testing has something to do with the real world activity of the approaching driver. Never get in a vehicle which has been tested by someone who has asked people? can you see a conspicuous vehicle at the end of the runway The presentation associated with the paper provides vibrant examples of the concepts in action, and responses to aid cognitive conspicuity.
|
|
|
|
>you'd expect accidents of the "I didn't see you" to have fallen
I think that's because "I didn't see you" is a euphemism for "I wasn't looking"...
Other explanations are: "I was changing the CD", "I was lighting a cigarette", "I was answering my mobile" and "I never look out for anything smaller than me".
|
I think that's because "I didn't see you" is a euphemism for "I wasn't looking"...
I agree!
Most (80%) of accidents happen because a driver takes their eyes off the road before the incident (here: www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_uu...f )
Once you realise that you are not going to be seen - after all it doesn't matter if you have all your lights, day-glo jacket and a big red arrow pointing to you saying "I AM HERE!" if they aren't looking
In reality bright clothing may aid in your detection at a great distance but that isn't really that important - as every accident tends to only happen at close range(!) and it is there when people clearly don't need bright clothing to see you. Being seen at a long distance may be of little benefit to you as the driver may well have forgotten you within a few seconds.
|
There is evidence to support the theory that people look "through" motorcyclists and train their eyes on the first car, truck or bus they see. The brain is conditioned to look for vehicles with a large frontal area (other cars and trucks) rather than a narrow motorcycle. So even though the eyes might see the bike, the brain can sometimes ignore it.
Interestingly, I found that when I had the ZX-7R with two quite widely spaced headlights, I seemed to be much more visible than on other single light bikes I've ridden. Two friends with a Fazer and a Speed Triple respectively claim that since they wired both headlights up to come on on dipped beam, both have had far fewer near misses due to SMIDSY incidents. Maybe there is some truth in it.
Cheers
DP
|
||Pretty invisible on a dark night.||
Before getting too distracted, the above was my starting point. And that is still valid. I also mentioned black on white. The fact that mat black reflects no light is a pretty important one and should not be dismissed as of no consequence.
||There is evidence to support the theory that people look "through" motorcyclists ||
I can believe that. Putting lots of attention on scanning the road far ahead and nearly missing the actions of the car or bike just in front. Something like that happens when running into the back of cars waiting to get out at junctions when you thought they have gone.
Right, I am out of here.
|
|
I own a two piece Frank Thomas suit - in black. It has got retro reflective piping on it, I also wear a vintage 80s "Sam Browne" Hi Viz belt. The advantage with these then was percieived that the were reflective but also provided a perception of the rider's attitude (sort of the space thing not the mental state ! )- Traffic Cops wore them then too which possibly triggered an alarm in the average ar driver's brainbox. Frontal area, yes can't dismiss that. My 1200's frontal aspect is er....large ! I also believe that riding style has a lot to do with visibility as has correct road positioning and exagerated lines. Also linked is being ready to brake to avoid collision, eye contact with the driver and be ready to "blast" out of trouble.
|
|
|
|
Interesting thought! The last time I looked and did not see something approaching (at a range of about 50m) it was a full frontal of a double decker bus! Fortunately it was travelling within the 30mph speed limit in a location where the norm is for cars and bikes to be doing 50mph. My 2nd look (a good safeguard at the best of times for bikers etc)saved me from actually pulling out, but scared the .... out of me. I rationalised the whole event by the fact that the brain was actually looking for smaller objects changing in size as they approached.
But now I have a Picasso with wide A pillars on the screen I am even more careful, as it is surprisingly easy to unexpectedly loose site of objects, particularly when going round a bend of constant radius. The wife did not believe me when Itried to explain early on that she had to be extra careful, however something (untold) must have happened as she suddenly started accepting that this advice was indeed useful. So bikers beware, extra careful if you see a smaller MPV emerging from a junction.
--
pmh (was peter)
|
|
My local Lidl is selling all sorts of horse-riding equipment - it should go down a bomb in inner-city birmingham!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
