Suicidal Cyclist

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

But the because the cyclist decided to wear black clothing, their family will be wearing the same at their funeral.

That sounds more like because the motorist wasn't looking correctly.

Altarf wrote: »

You are legally allowed to walk up to a zebra crossing, and without looking, step out. No matter how near to the crossing a car is, it is the motorist's responsibility to stop.

Would you do that?

If i'm approaching a Zebra crossing and i want a car to stop and i think it has enough time to stop safely, i place one foot onto the crossing, wait for them to slow down and stop then continue.

When i'm driving i stop at these crossings and allow people to cross because if they decide to run in front of me and i knock them over, i'll likely be at fault because i have to be responsible and consider more vulnerable users when driving a 1.2 ton machine.

almillar wrote: »

Never heard of 'See and be seen'? Don't use 'minimum stadards' as a 'standard'!

Reflectors would do little in the daytime and with the amount of abuse my bicycle gets in the forest they'd fall off anyway. That's why it doesn't have any, anymore. They all fell off or broke within the first 2 weeks bar the rear red one. When i say i wear black during the daytime it's usually black stuff with white highlights. That's just because most it's a common colour for cycling & sports clothes.

almillar wrote: »

You're risking injury or worse by not being seen, so why not be as visible as possible at all times?

For the reasons mentioned. As soon as motorists expect all cyclists to be wearing super bright clothes, they'll stop looking for the ones that aren't.
Reflectors break / fall off my mountain bike (i only use this during the day, i use my hybrid on the road with reflectors & lights at night)

Altarf wrote: »

Good.
It always seems to me that cyclists behave like they have never been in a car.

Many of us find it amazing most motorists behave like they've never been on a bicycle.

Altarf wrote: »

It is the 'serious' cyclists who appear to be militantly resisting, avoiding any high viz, no lights, and all reflectors removed.

It's strange you mention this as i've only been back into cycling the last 2 years or so and about 80% of my cycling is done off roads going out roughly twice a week.

Altarf

Retrogamer wrote: »

That sounds more like because the motorist wasn't looking correctly.

Does it make it better that it was someone else's fault if it is you that is staring at a wooden board with 6' of dirt above it?

GwylimT

Altarf wrote: »

Yes, nice ignoring the point about dark coloured cars being involved in more accidents, just like cyclists.

But back on planet Earth, there are car accidents every day.

The issue is - does a cyclist want to minimise their chance of being involved in one, or do their relatives put "It was the other person's fault" on their headstone.

The point most cyclists who are hit are hit because someone didn't look, not because they couldn't be seen, so for most serious incidents (junctions) clothing has little effect. I have always found it quite scary that people can happily drive around without checking their way is clear, if they only killed themselves it wouldn't be such a problem, but unfortunately they are killing other road users and pedestrians, no amount of high visibility clothing will make a person turn their head left and right.

Altarf

GwylimT wrote: »

The point most cyclists who are hit are hit because someone didn't look, not because they couldn't be seen, so for most serious incidents (junctions) clothing has little effect.

OK, so these people will die, irrespective of what clothing they wear.

GwylimT wrote: »

I have always found it quite scary that people can happily drive around without checking their way is clear, if they only killed themselves it wouldn't be such a problem, but unfortunately they are killing other road users and pedestrians, no amount of high visibility clothing will make a person turn their head left and right.

Yes, as we have established, these people are going to die anyway.

What we are talking about is those cyclists who could improve their visibility for motorists who are looking, but he cyclist chooses not to.

Instead they mutter in their last breath "it wasn't my fault".

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

Does it make it better that it was someone else's fault if it is you that is staring at a wooden board with 6' of dirt above it?

Not at all, i was merely pointing out that motorists have a duty to see where they're driving.
A lot of them seem to forget that.

Altarf

Retrogamer wrote: »

Not at all, i was merely pointing out that motorists have a duty to see where they're driving.
A lot of them seem to forget that.

But equally don't cyclists have a duty to be visible? After all, they have more to lose, which they seem to forget.

silverwhistle

Altarf wrote: »

It is the 'serious' cyclists who appear to be militantly resisting, avoiding any high viz, no lights, and all reflectors removed.

That, frankly, is b****cks.

I moved back from living abroad last year, and not only was I impressed by the increased number cycling, but also the far better visibility of all sorts of cyclists.

Altarf

silverwhistle wrote: »

That, frankly, is b****cks.

I moved back from living abroad last year, and not only was I impressed by the increased number cycling, but also the far better visibility of all sorts of cyclists.

Lots of cyclists were I live, due to it being very flat.

Lots of 'serious' cyclists out every Sunday.

They all dress like they are appearing in the Tour de France, but do they spare a second of thought about visibility - Nope.

Cloudydaze

Altarf wrote: »

Lots of 'serious' cyclists out every Sunday.

They all dress like they are appearing in the Tour de France, but do they spare a second of thought about visibility - Nope.

Seriously, if you can't see cyclists during the day AND there are lots of them, please stop driving.

I've just driven though South London in the dark and came across a youth on a bike with no lights and head to toe in dark colours. You know what? I could see him and was completely aware of him.

Obviously it helped there were street lights but the idea that that cyclists can only be seen if they're decked out in full on fluorescent just isn't true.

Altarf

Cloudydaze wrote: »

Seriously, if you can't see cyclists during the day AND there are lots of them, please stop driving.

Seriously, you have never driven in the country on a bright summer's day and come across a cyclist dressed in black 'hidden' in the shade of a tree by the extreme contrast.

Cloudydaze wrote: »

I've just driven though South London in the dark and came across a youth on a bike with no lights and head to toe in dark colours. You know what? I could see him and was completely aware of him.

And I pass a number of cyclists every evening on my way back from the station who are dressed in black and/or have no lights.

Can I see them. In literal terms you cannot, as they are dressed in black and not radiating any light. The only reason you know they are there is the absence of the background light that they are blocking out.

So you know what? They are a lot less visible than the cyclists who are wearing high viz and have decent lights.

Cloudydaze wrote: »

Obviously it helped there were street lights but the idea that that cyclists can only be seen if they're decked out in full on fluorescent just isn't true.

The idea is that the visibility of cyclists cannot be improved by wearing high viz and having decent lights just isn't true.