Commuter – Bicycle Light - University survey

[mcshroom]

I remember them getting bad press when I went to Uni in 2001 for accepting applicants on 2 'N's at A-level.

[Vince]

Is ti possible that the UoD library hasn't bought a book in 25 years and they still think the pinnacle of bicycle lighting is the Ever Ready Nightrider?

[matthew]

Survey completed. I am disappointed that you have allowed yourself to be guided into this sort of product when the responses to your previous surveys have, from what has been posted here, indicated the risk to cyclists originates in the driving seat of motor vehicles.

On the basis of the polluter pays principle I had hoped that you would seek to develope a product to aid the driver to be more observant rather than trying to make the cyclist pay the cost of trying to be more obvious.

[vorsprung]

hi AdamMotlock

I agree with many of the comments above, ie cycling isn't dangerous, lights are a solved problem, the survey didn't mention generator hubs and motor vehicles that are poorly driven are the main problem

What you need to understand about the discussion in "Road Safety for cyclists" is that there are two basic positions.

a) There is an assumption that roads are really for cars, bikes may be tolerated but are better off them.
b) There is an assumption that bikes should not be excluded from any road

This is played out in lots of ways.  Your "lights" thing seems to be under the (a) bracket because you are saying bikes should be freakishly visible to the "real" road users, cars.
You will note that most of the answers are from people supporting option (b)

What you need is people who support (a) to fill in your survey. 

[Polar Bear]

Motorcycles have very good lights yet the accident figures seem to show that more accidents to motorcyclists are caused by smidsy motorists than by any other category of cause.    On this basis I don't see how improving bicycle lights is about safety.   

Get yourself designing a smidsy detector...    

[drossall]

I didn't see the survey, which is now closed.

Whilst I understand some of the comments - lights have improved massively, even cheap lights are quite good, and for £50 or so you can have some that will give car lights a run for their money, and also this is an engineering issue, I'm a bit embarrassed that cyclists have responded in quite such an unfriendly way just because someone said something that looks a bit ill-founded. I'm not sure it's likely to help with improving perceptions.

Some cyclists will fail to use lights whatever you do; about the only answer is dynamo lights with no off switch, and even then they won't be maintained. It's not clear that lack of lights is actually a major safety issue; some stats suggest that cyclists with lights have disproportionately more accidents (although I would never ride without lights).

So, yes to much of what has been said, but are we putting it across in the best way?

[Kim]

I didn't see the survey, which is now closed.

Did you see any of the OP's previous surveys?

Same sort of thing.

So, yes to much of what has been said, but are we putting it across in the best way?

Almost certainly not, but the patience level for poorly designed surveys and leading questions has declined over several threads.  If you're looking at this one in isolation, it's understandable that people seem a bit unfriendly, but (and I think it's an important but) are still taking the time to provide relevant feedback.  I think everyone was much more reasonable in response to the earlier ones.

[drossall]

No, I saw some of the others as well.

Sometimes, making a point requires more than one go. Sometimes, people just have other perspectives.

[Wascally Weasel]

I'm a bit embarrassed that cyclists have responded in quite such an unfriendly way just because someone said something that looks a bit ill-founded.

I don't think previous responses were unfriendly.

This would be unfriendly:

Hi,

I looked at your previous surveys and nothing in them or your subsequent posts has given me any impression that the surveys themselves are anything other than a box ticking exercise that you have to undertake as part of your ‘degree’.  As such you've pretty much been wasting the time of anyone who has responded to you.  Thanks for that.

You also closed surveys before you had gathered enough responses to be statistically relevant (I design qualitative and quantitative data surveys and yours have been neither).  Thanks for that too.

I suspect you pretty much had the product idea before you started the process and have designed the ‘survey process’ to fit it.

Well done for:

a) Trying to make cycling appear less safe than it actually is.
b) Raising the entry level costs of cycling.

At the end of this process you might come up with a great product (and good luck to you with that) but you could easily have done that without wasting our time or pretending to engage with us.

Care to refute my impressions with a decent data interpretive report on your surveys?

[Woofage]

I don't think it's fair to criticise an undergraduate on a non-Science/Engineering/Maths course for not being an expert in form design and subsequent data analysis. I agree with all the above posts in all other respects though.

I didn't complete the most recent survey because I am not a cycle commuter (although the majority of my cycle journeys are within an urban environment). I did, however, make similar comments on previous surveys regarding the real threat to cyclists safety, ie inattentive and/or arrogant motorists. I suggest to the OP that he really take heed of these comments. A good product designer is not just a felt-tip fairy* but one who responds thoughtfully and innovatively to the voice of the customer.

* I make no apology for using this term. I've come across plenty in my time, sadly. OTOH, I've also worked with some extremely talented product designers who are a credit to the profession.