Suicidal Cyclist

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Would you not see the cyclists lights?

If you read what I posted again, you will see that I said "an unlit cyclist " meaning a cyclist who was riding without lights.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

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.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

But back to the real world cyclists have a choice. Do they -

a. Try and minimise *their* risk by making themselves more visible.
b. Abdicate responsibility to motorists.

Do you feel lucky, well do you?

Tilt

Cloudydaze wrote: »

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.

I drove a coach through central London (Euston Road to be exact) a couple of Friday evenings ago and the amount of cyclists I saw (yes I did see them) riding without lights on weaving in and out of the stop-starting traffic was shocking. Put yourself in a large vehicle and think what it's like looking through mirrors of your vehicle which is around 40ft long and trying to pick out these idiots trying to squeeze past you on your near side?

Yes, I could see the ones in front because the traffic was moving slowly, but it was a different story seeing the ones coming up from behind. There is no way that these cyclists can know that the driver can see them through their mirrors yet they still squeeze past them in very narrow gaps sometimes actually between 2 buses!

Madness!

brat

Altarf wrote: »

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

But back to the real world cyclists have a choice. Do they -

a. Try and minimise *their* risk by making themselves more visible.
b. Abdicate responsibility to motorists.

Do you feel lucky, well do you?

Sigh...

Can I merely ask you to drive to expect the least visible road user in whatever circumstance (as is your legal duty) and allow me as a cyclist to make my personal choice to maximise my safety?

That way I can keep breathing, and you can avoid making friends with Bubba.

Thank you.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

If you read what I posted again, you will see that I said "an unlit cyclist " meaning a cyclist who was riding without lights.

My mistake.
What has been a revelation in this thread is the number of motorists who seem to be proclaiming that they cannot see properly. It is a worry. ;/

Altarf

brat wrote: »

Sigh...

Can I merely ask you to drive to expect the least visible road user in whatever circumstance (as is your legal duty) and allow me as a cyclist to make my personal choice to maximise my safety?

That way I can keep breathing, and you can avoid making friends with Bubba.

Thank you.

Sigh...

Can I merely ask you to cycle with the minimum legal requirements of lights and reflectors (as is your legal duty) and allow me as a driver to get to my destination safely.

That way I can avoid a brief discussion with the police and no follow up as you were breaking the law, and you can keep breathing.

Thank you.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

My mistake.
What has been a revelation in this thread is the number of motorists who seem to be proclaiming that they cannot see properly. It is a worry. ;/

What is more of a worry is the number of cyclists who don't realise that they can't be seen when they wear dark clothing, no lights and no reflectors, but put their life on the line every day.

BillyMansell

brat wrote: »

Sigh...

Can I merely ask you to drive to expect the least visible road user in whatever circumstance (as is your legal duty) and allow me as a cyclist to make my personal choice to maximise my safety?

That way I can keep breathing, and you can avoid making friends with Bubba.

Thank you.

brat

There's little hope for those who choose to be ignorant of the wider discussion for as Chris Boardman found out at the Transport Select Committee earlier this year, even at the highest levels within government those averse to change rely upon their anecdotes and going around and around on sideline topics to avoid reflecting on the part they need to play in addressing the real issues.

Cloudydaze

Altarf wrote: »

What is more of a worry is the number of cyclists who don't realise that they can't be seen when they wear dark clothing, no lights and no reflectors, but put their life on the line every day.

Why is it that I (as a motorist) can see them then? Of course cyclists should have lights etc but to say that they cannot be seen isn't true.

Altarf

Cloudydaze wrote: »

Why is it that I (as a motorist) can see them then? Of course cyclists should have lights etc but to say that they cannot be seen isn't true.

But to say that a cyclist who is wearing high viz, has lights and reflectors is not more visible, and a lower risk of not being seen is also not true.

The point that cyclists seem to forget is that it is not a binary position.