Suicidal Cyclist

Cloudydaze

I don't understand how you are regularly passing cyclists who you cannot see. If you can't see them, how do you know they are there?

Altarf

Cloudydaze wrote: »

I don't understand how you are regularly passing cyclists who you cannot see. If you can't see them, how do you know they are there?

If someone is dressed in black and has no lights, then as you approach them you cannot see them, as they are radiating no light.

What you can see is the black outline of the cyclist from the background light that they are blocking from other car headlights, etc.

Is that ideal?

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

But equally don't cyclists have a duty to be visible?

When it is bright outside, no.

Altarf wrote: »

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.

I've only done about 8 years, 80k miles of driving but in all that time, no.

Altarf wrote: »

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

A lot of motorists are killed in accidents as well with other motorists. If they all drove bright yellow cars, they'd be seen easier.
Is it the motorist's duty to ensure their car is brightly coloured, or the other motorists duty to see the car and not crash into it?

Altarf wrote: »

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

Who said that?

Cloudydaze

Altarf wrote: »

If someone is dressed in black and has no lights, then as you approach them you cannot see them, as they are radiating no light.

Have you tried turning your headlights on?

brat

Altarf wrote: »

Good.



Your cycling buddies are clearly not representative of the cycling population at large, where there are many who still seem to have a deathwish.



They may feel strongly about it, but they are wrong.

That's your view and the view of some research, but it's certainly not conclusive. Trl conducted research recently that suggested (for motorcycle clothing) that a contrast with the surroundings was the best option for visibility. For cyclists who wear dark colours with white contrast, that may well offer better noticeability.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/10/cycling-high-visibility-safe-fluorescent

My experience this winter, is that the short distance commuter cyclists have significantly improved their visibility. Two or three years ago 70% of the cyclists I passed on the way to the station had no or inadequate lights or high viz. Now it is down to 20%.

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

Anecdote is of little value. I could say precisely the opposite, as true from my own experience. And from my experience, the opposite is true.

So it would be "a weapon's grade level of stupidity" on your part to step onto a zebra crossing without an acknowledgement from the driver that he has seen you. Yet you are happy to take the risk of dressing in clothing that makes it harder for motorists to see you and abdicating responsibility for your safety to the motorist.

If you read my posts, you couldn't possibly believe what you've written about me. I wear mostly light colours with good contrast and always have a flashing light front and rear.
What I don't want is to be pressurised by the threat of driver incompetence to become more and more illuminated and luminous until we're lit like a chav's house at Christmas time.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

What I don't want is to be pressurised by the threat of driver incompetence to become more and more illuminated and luminous until we're lit like a chav's house at Christmas time.

Your life, your choice.

peter_the_piper

Its odd that whilst people rightly complain about near misses or worse but don't make every effort to be visible thereby reducing the risk. "Its my right to wear whatever I chose but woe betide the driver who gets close, its all their fault".

Tilt

Cloudydaze wrote: »

Have you tried turning your headlights on?

Most car headlights point in one direction... straight ahead. Sometimes you come across a bend in the road so an unlit cyclist won't always be caught in the range of the headlights in such circumstances.

brat

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Its odd that whilst people rightly complain about near misses or worse but don't make every effort to be visible thereby reducing the risk. "Its my right to wear whatever I chose but woe betide the driver who gets close, its all their fault".

It's a pity you can't see the bigger debate.

Motorists do need to realise that cyclists and pedestrians can legally wear what they want, and must drive to avoid them. If you drive into a zone where you cannot see properly it is your duty not to assume that it's clear.
That's your legal responsibility. If you drive in such a way that you are comfortable that the harder to see cyclist will be completely safe, then that will allow us bright well lit cyclists to be even safer.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Most car headlights point in one direction... straight ahead. Sometimes you come across a bend in the road so an unlit cyclist won't always be caught in the range of the headlights in such circumstances.

Would you not see the cyclists lights?