Suicidal Cyclist

brat

Tilt wrote: »

I don't think I have ever read such tripe on this forum! So according to you, cyclists should't have to wear visible clothing or have to go the expense of fitting lights on their bikes? So it's down to drivers is it? What about drivers of large/long vehicles who have to look through mirrors which are sometimes wet? Are they expected to have bionic sight so they can see a unlit, darkly clad individual on a bike who maybe undertaking them in the rain?

It's a bit like saying the Titanic was unsinkable so the onus to provide enough lifeboats for all the passengers and crew, shouldn't be on the ship's owners...

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67297693&postcount=66
I think your memory is your problem Tilt. In the above linked post Wheelz clearly pointed out (as we all have:() that cyclists should use lights. Now you accuse him of saying the opposite, when the subject is about clothing, and you know you're misrepresenting him. That's poor practice.
Regarding clothing, during daylight there's some debate about the best colour to be seen. Many cyclists believe that dark clothing makes them stand out better in the daylight. I personally prefer colour. Either way, the motorist must see and avoid. That is their duty, and if they feel they can't do that, they should surrender their licence.

Strider590

brat wrote: »

Regarding clothing, during daylight there's some debate about the best colour to be seen. Many cyclists believe that dark clothing makes them stand out better in the daylight. I personally prefer colour. Either way, the motorist must see and avoid. That is their duty, and if they feel they can't do that, they should surrender their licence.

Well, there is problem that a lot of poor drivers can get distracted by bright colours, to the point where they drift toward the cyclist. In the same way that people "rubberneck" toward the central reservation on the motorway when there's an accident on the other side.

The problem drivers, I don't think it makes any difference at all, these guys are out to prove their point (of superiority) regardless of what your wearing. All the bright colours do is reduce the risk from drivers who just aren't paying proper attention.

brat

Strider590 wrote: »

Well, there is problem that a lot of poor drivers can get distracted by bright colours, to the point where they drift toward the cyclist. In the same way that people "rubberneck" toward the central reservation on the motorway when there's an accident on the other side.

The problem drivers, I don't think it makes any difference at all, these guys are out to prove their point (of superiority) regardless of what your wearing. All the bright colours do is reduce the risk from drivers who just aren't paying proper attention.

A recent cycling fatality I helped investigate was a clear example of another phenomenon exacerbated I believe by too much illumination. The cyclist was cycling on a dual carriageway and was passing an entry slip. He had two flashing reds on his bike and one on his rucksack, it was dark and wet.
The driver entering the dual from the slip got a very good view of the cyclist's lights ahead on the main carriageway, but because it was ahead, he subconsciously dismissed him as a potential hazard in the mistaken belief that he would be moving on at the speed of the other traffic. He then started to check his mirrors and look over his shoulder for the vehicles he believed he may have to deal with. He didn't notice the cyclist again until he hit him, knocking him into the path of another motorist.
The offending driver was mid 50s, had no previous driving convictions or issues, and was inconsolable that his clear mistake had cost a life.

Unfortunately being highly illuminated is not a guarantee of protection. It may cause a motorist to believe you're a motor vehicle travelling at higher speed. It may also make the cyclist feel safer than he is and not take the extra steps to ensure his safety.

Strider590

brat wrote: »

Unfortunately being highly illuminated is not a guarantee of protection. It may cause a motorist to believe you're a motor vehicle travelling at higher speed.

Which is where the use of flashers comes in, but drivers whine about those too. Drivers don't like anything different to what they see on a regular basis (typical modern eurobox), which links in with my post regarding the tribal mentality.

It's worse for cyclists because they travel more slowly and will always encounter more cars per journey as a result, but if your in anything that's not a common sight on the roads, you get very short thrift from drivers.

As I know from driving a kitcar, the reactions to "something different" can be anything from respect to instant road rage. If there are 5 nutcases on a 10 mile stretch, chances are that a kitcar or motorbike or car, will only encounter one of them, but the vulnerable cyclist will encounter all 5 and more at close proximity.

I don't think people realise this......

Tilt

brat wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67297693&postcount=66
I think your memory is your problem Tilt. In the above linked post Wheelz clearly pointed out (as we all have:() that cyclists should use lights. Now you accuse him of saying the opposite, when the subject is about clothing, and you know you're misrepresenting him. That's poor practice.
Regarding clothing, during daylight there's some debate about the best colour to be seen. Many cyclists believe that dark clothing makes them stand out better in the daylight. I personally prefer colour. Either way, the motorist must see and avoid. That is their duty, and if they feel they can't do that, they should surrender their licence.

You interpret his post as you wish. But he clearly said "It should not be up to the vulnerable road user to protect themselves" which is quite frankly a ridiculous thing to say. Every road user has a duty to "protect themselves" just as a motorist has to wear a seat belt. Cyclists equally have a duty to make every effort to "protect themselves" by making themselves as visible as possible in ALL situations (night-time/rain/fog etc).

Unfortunately there seems to be an ever growing number (especially in younger cyclists) of cyclists who I see riding without lights at night and wearing dark clothing. I personally don't recall any incidents where I havn't seen a cyclist during the daytime which means to me that in daylight, I don't see a problem in what they are wearing. However, cyclists should adapt to the conditions in which they are riding in to help "protect themselves" by wearing suitable coloured clothing and have their lights on in poor visibility conditions (such as rain or fog) just like a motorist is expected to have his/her dipped head lights on. Mind you, there is equally a problem with some motorists who don't use their lights in persistent rain or fog. I think the police should target such drivers in said conditions so these motorists can be prosecuted.

Wig

They ride two abreast because it makes them safer, purely because of the fact that it forces cars to slow down before they overtake, and forces the car to use the other side of the road to overtake, i.e. to overtake properly and safely.

Some single cyclists cycle in the "prime position" which effectively means cycling in the position occupied by the 2nd cycle when cycling "2 abreast" for the same reasons it forces the cars to slow down and overtake safely.

As a driver, I have no problem with cyclists adopting the prime position.

As for "going around corners" the same can be said for pedestrians, tractors and horses & broken down vehicles, drivers have to be aware that there could be "something around that bend up ahead" and drive accordingly.

I agree with the cyclists at night comment without lights, idiots.

wheelz

Tilt wrote: »

You interpret his post as you wish. But he clearly said "It should not be up to the vulnerable road user to protect themselves" which is quite frankly a ridiculous thing to say. Every road user has a duty to "protect themselves" just as a motorist has to wear a seat belt. Cyclists equally have a duty to make every effort to "protect themselves" by making themselves as visible as possible in ALL situations (night-time/rain/fog etc).

Unfortunately there seems to be an ever growing number (especially in younger cyclists) of cyclists who I see riding without lights at night and wearing dark clothing. I personally don't recall any incidents where I havn't seen a cyclist during the daytime which means to me that in daylight, I don't see a problem in what they are wearing. However, cyclists should adapt to the conditions in which they are riding in to help "protect themselves" by wearing suitable coloured clothing and have their lights on in poor visibility conditions (such as rain or fog) just like a motorist is expected to have his/her dipped head lights on. Mind you, there is equally a problem with some motorists who don't use their lights in persistent rain or fog. I think the police should target such drivers in said conditions so these motorists can be prosecuted.

I'm a woman by the way. We were talking about hi-viz. It's the responsibility of the car driver to look out for and actually see cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists. It is not up to them to tell the vulnerable road users to wear hi-viz. The responsbility is with the car driver. Otherwise car drivers could be saying, well I didn't see you because you weren't wearing hi-viz and transfer their responsibility. There are plenty of cyclists, walkers, motorcyclists etc who do choose to wear hi-viz. There are still too many accidents caused by car drivers killing vulnerable road users. And yes I did say that cyclists should be using lights.

Tilt

wheelz wrote: »

I'm a woman by the way. We were talking about hi-viz. It's the responsibility of the car driver to look out for and actually see cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists. It is not up to them to tell the vulnerable road users to wear hi-viz. The responsbility is with the car driver. Otherwise car drivers could be saying, well I didn't see you because you weren't wearing hi-viz and transfer their responsibility. There are plenty of cyclists, walkers, motorcyclists etc who do choose to wear hi-viz. There are still too many accidents caused by car drivers killing vulnerable road users. And yes I did say that cyclists should be using lights.

No it isn't, not entirely anyway. As I said, the onus is on ALL road users to ensure they are visible and that includes idiot drivers who don't know when they should have their dipped head lights on.

You cannot say that the responsibility solely lies with drivers to watch out for cyclists... cyclists also have a responsibility to ensure that they make every effort to make sure they are visible night-time or day-time.

My 10 year old son has just started riding a horse on the road with a riding school. They issue each rider with a high viz vest. That is them taking responsibility for the safety of the riders which is their duty, no one else's.

MABLE

As a cyclist I find the worst cyclists are the ones who have cameras. If anything they just intimidate other road users.

Nasqueron

wheelz wrote: »

I'm a woman by the way. We were talking about hi-viz. It's the responsibility of the car driver to look out for and actually see cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists. It is not up to them to tell the vulnerable road users to wear hi-viz. The responsbility is with the car driver. Otherwise car drivers could be saying, well I didn't see you because you weren't wearing hi-viz and transfer their responsibility. There are plenty of cyclists, walkers, motorcyclists etc who do choose to wear hi-viz. There are still too many accidents caused by car drivers killing vulnerable road users. And yes I did say that cyclists should be using lights.

It is worth noting that the highway code requires lights on bikes at night, though high viz is just recommended. Other than that I agree, it is too easy to shift blame onto a cyclist if you take the view you must be so visible that the ISS could see you on a pass over, reflective gear and a light meeting the appropriate standard is the right level not too much like those 3000 lumen Chinese Cree lights but certainly also not too little such as a piddly light you can't see until you are 2-3m away and black clothing or a rucksack covering your reflective coat!