Suicidal Cyclist

Altarf

Cloudydaze wrote: »

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.

The cyclist that I saw spread across the road last week after they had been hit my a car just ahead of me would probably disagree with your view.

The cyclist was hit side on as they turned right at a T junction mini-roundabout (coming from the base of the T, the car was going straight on across the top of the T).

7am and overcast, so pitch black, but the cyclist had lights front and back, however they were dressed in dark clothing.

Would high-viz/reflective clothing have provided greater side on viability and prevented the accident. Who knows, but it wouldn't have caused any harm.

brat

Altarf wrote: »

The cyclist that I saw spread across the road last week after they had been hit my a car just ahead of me would probably disagree with your view.

The cyclist was hit side on as they turned right at a T junction mini-roundabout (coming from the base of the T, the car was going straight on across the top of the T).

7am and overcast, so pitch black, but the cyclist had lights front and back, however they were dressed in dark clothing.

Would high-viz/reflective clothing have provided greater side on viability and prevented the accident. Who knows, but it wouldn't have caused any harm.

It's extremely important to ensure that the lights you buy to 'be seen' have a 'side lighting' capacity too. That would help in circumstances such as this.

Most cycling clothing will have reflective detail to allow the cyclists side and rear to shine when lit by headlights. My shoes, overshoes, tights, shorts, jerseys and jackets have them a plenty, and they are exceptionally visible. Reflective detail and side lighting would help avoid a collision in the above situation.

Johnandabby

brat wrote: »

One thing I notice when cycling is that I can execute completely safe manoeuvres that may sometimes take a motorist by surprise, because they were not expecting a cyclist to make such a manoeuvre. I've been tooted several times for crossing main roads without slowing down too much at the give way. The manoeuvres are always perfectly safe, yet because my actions were unexpected by the motorist, they react based on their limited view of the manoeuvre

But surely any manoeuvre that isnt anticipated by both parties (whether vehicles, cyclists or pedestrians) is potentially dangerous. You may judge a gap to perfection to cross a main road, but could cause another road user to brake sharply or swerve as they weren't expecting your manoeuvre.

almillar

Sidelights or DRL's are fine in 30mph limits with street lights. That's all the law requires IIRC.

You're missing my point. The law, as far as I know, is the same for bikes and motor vehicles - you have to have your lights on half an hour after the street lights come on, and there are official 'lighting up times' published.
If that's the only time your have lights on (dipped beam for cars), then you're highly likely toe be hit or have a close call, regardless of your vehicle.
I see cars all the time with insufficient lighting. I do see them, but they're harder to see, or I see them later, than properly lit ones. Why on earth would you not want to be seen?!

brat

Johnandabby wrote: »

But surely any manoeuvre that isnt anticipated by both parties (whether vehicles, cyclists or pedestrians) is potentially dangerous.

No. Many manoeuvres are unanticipated by other motorists, most often (as in this case) manoeuvres that don't require them to respond, because the manoeuvre doesn't affect them.

An unanticipated manoeuvre that requires another motorist another to take evasive action is potentially dangerous, but an unanticipated manoeuvre that doesn't require any reaction shouldn't be dangerous. The horn warning given is a rebuke through ignorance.
I wouldn't dream of crossing close to a vehicle, that would be mad! But the driver giving the warning is probably thinking "Look at that mad cyclist, he hasn't even bothered to look! Lucky I wasn't closer, he could have killed himself!" :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, this type of incident, like the anecdotes of cyclists blindly riding through red lights or swerving in and out of vehicles are only witnessed by drivers from their first point of perception, and they make judgements based on that, rather than consider what the cyclist has already assessed and deemed to be perfectly safe.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

It's extremely important to ensure that the lights you buy to 'be seen' have a 'side lighting' capacity too. That would help in circumstances such as this.

I agree, but although more cyclists are using lights, the lights tend to be the very directional LED lights.

So easy to see from the front and rear, but nothing showing to the side.

brat wrote: »

Most cycling clothing will have reflective detail to allow the cyclists side and rear to shine when lit by headlights. My shoes, overshoes, tights, shorts, jerseys and jackets have them a plenty, and they are exceptionally visible. Reflective detail and side lighting would help avoid a collision in the above situation.

The point was that they were not wearing cycling clothing, they were wearing normal (dark) clothing, and hadn't realised that a £1 high viz bib with reflective bands would probably have saved them a trip to A&E in an ambulance.

brat

Altarf wrote: »

I agree, but although more cyclists are using lights, the lights tend to be the very directional LED lights.

So easy to see from the front and rear, but nothing showing to the side.



The point was that they were not wearing cycling clothing, they were wearing normal (dark) clothing, and hadn't realised that a £1 high viz bib with reflective bands would probably have saved them a trip to A&E in an ambulance.

I couldn't agree more. Cyclists need to be able to see and be seen from all angles.

The points I've been trying to make are these.

• If a cyclist is cycling in daylight, he is not required in law to wear bright clothing. For this reason, a motorist is required under S3 of RTA1988 to drive with sufficient observation, concentration and anticipation to be able to safely deal with all cyclists including those whose clothing is less bright.
  
• I would not choose to wear a low-vis combination of clothing when cycling. It's not wise. But I wouldn't wear hi-vis fluorescent yellow. My cycling clothing is very visible in daylight without having to revert to the an over-the-top cheap industrial range. I keep a flashing front and rear light on, at all times of the day, unless in a summer sportive or summer group ride.
  
• I believe that too much hi-vis and lighting has the potential to be too distracting for a motorist, especially at night time, and may blind a motorist from another slightly less visible hazard.

Prothet_of_Doom

As a cyclist and motorist, I am only too aware of the dangers, but it seems to me that it's pointless being "right and dead"


We need to campaign for more Cycle routes, and use them.


The thing I don't get is people who cycle down our local Bypass on the Dual carriage way, when the alternative is a cycle path next to it, or a solid cycle trail through the woods about 1/4 mile away.


They probably complain that it has pot holes or that you can't travel as fast on it, but personally I've seen the standards of driving locally and I'd take a 10 minute detour to avoid going on a dual carriage way.

robotrobo

Cyclists do not want to be told to use alternative cycle routes eg canals , cycle lanes , &other reason being that they want as much road as possible to continue to hold there road racing or time trial events on the open roads,& not to be told that they have to use alternative cycle routes, in the early years raceing on the roads was prohibited & raceing events were held in very high secrecy so that the police didn't find out until the events were
on or over & completed with.
So your are never going to get the cycling officialdom to agree to use cycle ways or roads of safety for fear of loseing the right to use any legal roads.

brat

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

The thing I don't get is people who cycle down our local Bypass on the Dual carriage way, when the alternative is a cycle path next to it, or a solid cycle trail through the woods about 1/4 mile away.


They probably complain that it has pot holes or that you can't travel as fast on it, but personally I've seen the standards of driving locally and I'd take a 10 minute detour to avoid going on a dual carriage way.

That may well be your answer.

But it might be worth asking the question on a local forum.
Generally, people choose what suits them, and what is in their best (or least worst) interest based on their needs and all the information at their disposal at the time.

So if a cyclist is in a hurry, or is on a 21mm shod roadie, he's unlikely to take the path.

If he's on a hybrid, having a relaxing ride with his family, or in no hurry to go anywhere, he might take the path.

I generally go to all lengths to avoid dual carriageways, they are unfriendly, inhospitable places for a cyclist to be. I do use them very occasionally, and the reason is simply that the alternative is seriously inconvenient with a very poor road surface.