Suicidal Cyclist

Tilt

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.

Of course it's true because (as I pointed out above) there are some circumstances when they cannot be seen.

Cloudydaze

Altarf wrote: »

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.

I know my comments have been a tad facetious but you can guarantee that any discussion will bring out the inevitable ' I saw a cyclist who can't be seen'. To have a sensible debate about how cylists can be visible, you need to be truthful of what you can and can't see.

My personal belief is that reflective clothing is better than hi-viz. I'm also against super bright lights in areas where it's about being seen, not seeing. They just dazzle.

brat

Altarf wrote: »

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.

You need to drive to accommodate what cyclists are permitted to do rather than what you think they should do.
That way we'll be able to prevent a decline in the standard of observation in motorists, and hold back the otherwise inevitable trend towards day glo fluorescent YELLOW buses, hgvs, vans, cyclists, pedestrians, prams, hedges, lampposts etc.

Altarf

Cloudydaze wrote: »

I know my comments have been a tad facetious but you can guarantee that any discussion will bring out the inevitable ' I saw a cyclist who can't be seen'. To have a sensible debate about how cylists can be visible, you need to be truthful of what you can and can't see.

And truthfully some cyclists in the morning and evening drive cannot be seen until the headlights reach them, the only reason that you are aware of them is the black shape they are blocking of the background lighting.

If cyclists perceive that level of visibility to be acceptable, fine. Personally I would want to increase my odds of being seen.

Cloudydaze wrote: »

My personal belief is that reflective clothing is better than hi-viz. I'm also against super bright lights in areas where it's about being seen, not seeing. They just dazzle.

A combination is the sensible approach. High viz is helpful in low light, but not the dark. Reflective the opposite. It is trivially simple to buy clothing that is a combination.

Lights, something / anything would be good, but something you can actually see rather than thinking "have they got an lights" is better.

robotrobo

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?

She never saw me !,with no other cyclist or vehicle near & ran me down from behind at 60 mph:eek:, it took 2 years of rehabilitation & suffered ever since, convicted of dangerous driving £100 fine.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Of course it's true because (as I pointed out above) there are some circumstances when they cannot be seen.

I think, (and correct me if I got it wrong again) that you are saying that in the pitch dark, there will be situations where a cyclist might be hiding in a dark corner where your headlights can't reach, am I right?

So the cyclist should have lights. Problem solved. Clothing is not the issue.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

You need to drive to accommodate what cyclists are permitted to do rather than what you think they should do.

Are cyclists permitted to ride with no lights or reflectors at night. When did they repeal that law?

Altarf

brat wrote: »

I think, (and correct me if I got it wrong again) that you are saying that in the pitch dark, there will be situations where a cyclist might be hiding in a dark corner where your headlights can't reach, am I right?

So the cyclist should have lights. Problem solved. Clothing is not the issue.

Clothing is an issue. Any thing that makes a cyclist more visible, makes them, more visible.

Cloudydaze

Altarf wrote: »

Clothing is an issue. Any thing that makes a cyclist more visible, makes them, more visible.

Ok but if a cyclist has reasonable lights, then does the hi-viz make much difference? When it's dark and there's a bright light, your eyes just see the bright light.

jjlandlord

brat wrote: »

You need to drive to accommodate what cyclists are permitted to do rather than what you think they should do.

And perhaps cyclists should ride minding cars (including avoiding blocking them as much as possible), and remember that in a collisions they are the ones who end up dead however right or righteous they might have been.


I live in an area with sinuous country roads (though they have good 2 lanes, one in each direction) where the speed limit is 50.
That speed limit fits cars, motorbikes, etc. and is safe.

However, some people think it is fine to cycle on these roads, in the middle of the lane, at night.
Let me tell you that no matter how high-viz their clothes might be, or how many lights they might install on their bike on quite a few portions of the road any car going at 45-50 will not see them in time.
So everyone should drive at 25 just in case there is a cyclist at some point... Not.
I's just not reasonable to expect that everyone has to bend over backward just because a very few have their mid-life crisis (at least they could buy a sports car instead).