Suicidal Cyclist

almillar

That's because most fo the time it is.

I think i go well above the minimum standards to be seen when visibility is reduced or it's dark but if it's bright and / or sunny then I'll be on a black bike most of the time, with no reflectors and wearing dark clothes.

Never heard of 'See and be seen'? Don't use 'minimum stadards' as a 'standard'!

I take measures to make sure i'm visible when visibility is reduced, (both in the car and on my bicycles) but if someone struggles to see me cycling on a bright day in regular clothes they probably shouldn't be driving.

Again, arguing over whose fault it was for not seeing you isn't much good from a hospital bed.
I repeat that I'm driving around in my nice safe cage, paranoid that other people can't see me (yes, idiots that shouldn't be on the road - but guess what, they are!) because I don't want to get a dent in my precious motor. You're risking injury or worse by not being seen, so why not be as visible as possible at all times? I'm not talking about reducing comfort BTW. And please don't cycle naked!

Thirdly, the more cyclists that are forced through fear or more likely propaganda to dress themselves in top to toe yellow fluorescent apparel, the more likely a magistrate would be prepared to accept such impoverished mitigation as "sorry mate, I didn't see you."

I see what you mean in this point and the others, but where I drive, we're a long way from everyone being very visible, so there's plenty of room before every road user is a shining beacon and we start to get used to this level of visibility. I think cyclists should be 'looking out for number one' (themselves) in terms of being seen.
And in relation to the third point - what I'm talking about is avoiding having the accident in the first place, so you don't have to hear that excuse in court! I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, but it just amazes me that SOME (not even any in this thread) cyclists can have such a low opinion of drivers (rightly so, often) but then don't do anything about it. I know there are numpties on the road not paying attention etc, and I have to mitigate against them. Not to be right, but to avoid being hit!

Altarf

Retrogamer wrote: »

I take measures to make sure i'm visible when visibility is reduced, (both in the car and on my bicycles) but if someone struggles to see me cycling on a bright day in regular clothes they probably shouldn't be driving.

Bright sunny days on country roads are often the worst to times to see cyclists, with cyclists dressed in black 'hidden' in the shadows under trees due to the extreme variation in lighting conditions.

brat

Altarf wrote: »

Bright sunny days on country roads are often the worst to times to see cyclists, with cyclists dressed in black 'hidden' in the shadows under trees due to the extreme variation in lighting conditions.

The solution lies with the motorist. Not to drive according to the conditions is careless or dangerous. If a cyclist is expected to have bright day-glo luminous clothing at all times, then the motorist will adjust his drive accordingly. If the driver hasn't yet established the presence of a cyclist, pedestrian, horse, motor cyclist etc in a shadowy area, his driving speed and concentration level is more likely to reflect that.

Low sun and/or iced windscreens in the winter months for me is the biggest vision concern for cyclists, and I don't think it makes a jot of difference what colour clothing we wear. If a driver's vision is obscured by a dazzling low sun and/or the water, dirt or ice on his windscreen, that is a problem. I like to think that my rear flashing red might alert a driver to my presence in these circumstances, but I'm not convinced.

The best solution is not to use the roads that have you riding straight towards a low sun. That is a significant part of my planning for a sunny winter ride.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

The solution lies with the motorist.

Perhaps it does.

But the because the cyclist decided to wear black clothing, their family will be wearing the same at their funeral.

You are legally allowed to walk up to a zebra crossing, and without looking, step out. No matter how near to the crossing a car is, it is the motorist's responsibility to stop.

Would you do that?

brat

Altarf wrote: »

Perhaps it does.

But the because the cyclist decided to wear black clothing, their family will be wearing the same at their funeral.

We're sharing the same concerns. I want to be as safe as I possibly can be, and most of my cycling buddies feel the same. Many of them who wear dark lycra argue that it's as visible as my coloured stuff, and they feel strongly about that. Usually they have flashes of colour or white built into the clothing, and the contrast stands out well.

Some short distance commuter cyclists could definitely improve their visibility, especially those for whom their cycling commute is an economic necessity rather than a pleasurable preference. You'll often find them donning their outdoor jacket or dark hoodie when the weather dictates, without giving the first thought to how visible they are. So I'd like to see them raising their game a bit.

You are legally allowed to walk up to a zebra crossing, and without looking, step out. No matter how near to the crossing a car is, it is the motorist's responsibility to stop.

There are not many laws for pedestrians in this country, so they are not actually breaking a criminal law if they walk into the road without looking. However, for them to gain precedence on a crossing, that precedence must be accorded (agreed) with the motorist, in other words, you need to have a form of communication with the motorist to make it clear that you intend to cross and that the motorist is capable of allowing you to do that. So you're wrong that the motorist would be to blame if a person simply walked onto a crossing without looking into the path of a motorist. If the motorist is capable of stopping, he must, to avoid a collision, but that's no different to his responsibilities on any part of the road.

Would you do that?

No, because it would reveal a weapon's grade level of stupidity on my part.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

We're sharing the same concerns.

Good.

brat wrote: »

I want to be as safe as I possibly can be, and most of my cycling buddies feel the same.

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

brat wrote: »

Many of them who wear dark lycra argue that it's as visible as my coloured stuff, and they feel strongly about that.

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

brat wrote: »

Usually they have flashes of colour or white built into the clothing, and the contrast stands out well.

It may do when you are holding it in your hands. It doesn't at 200 yards and closing at 60 mph.

It always seems to me that cyclists behave like they have never been in a car.

brat wrote: »

Some short distance commuter cyclists could definitely improve their visibility, especially those for whom their cycling commute is an economic necessity rather than a pleasurable preference. You'll often find them donning their outdoor jacket or dark hoodie when the weather dictates, without giving the first thought to how visible they are. So I'd like to see them raising their game a bit.

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.

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.

GwylimT

I cycle a 40 mile round journey most days to get to work, I only drive in snow/ice as my road bike wouldn't be able to handle it very well, I would also much rather sleep in a car on the side of a road than a bush!

I wonder if motorists are more likely to hit a black car than any other colour, anyone know if we could gain those figures? I do find the hi-viz argument quite alarming, are these same people unable to see cars, pedestrians and motorcyclists unless they are fluorescent?

I have been knocked off my bike six times, I have had more near misses, a few where I have had to throw myself off my bike. All were while wearing reflective clothing, a flashing light and a smaller constant light (both high lumens), four times I have been hit by someone who has not looked before pulling out of a junction, the other two I was hit from behind, thankfully in town and not on an A road. I often find over takers a problem, if safe to do so over take me, but please don't then pull straight in front of me so I have to throw myself off my bike so I don't hit your car, it also isn't the best idea to over take me as I over take parked cars when a bus is approaching!

My most recent incident was being in the cyclist box at the traffic lights, a car pulled up next to me and his passenger tried to push me over, unfortunately for him I fell on the car side and my bike caused some quite bad pain scratches, I use a helmet cam so he was unable to deny it. Some people are just so silly.

Altarf

GwylimT wrote: »

I wonder if motorists are more likely to hit a black car than any other colour, anyone know if we could gain those figures? I do find the hi-viz argument quite alarming, are these same people unable to see cars, pedestrians and motorcyclists unless they are fluorescent?

http://www.mynrma.com.au/blog/2007/09/24/crash-risk-and-the-colour-of-your-car/

"Compared to white, colours such as black, blue, grey and others ranking lower on the visibility index were associated with higher crash risk in daylight hours."

GwylimT wrote: »

I have been knocked off my bike six times, I have had more near misses, a few where I have had to throw myself off my bike. All were while wearing reflective clothing, a flashing light and a smaller constant light

What is your point? Are you saying that you would not have been hit had you been wearing black? Are you saying that it makes no difference - If so where is your evidence that you were not hit many more times because you made yourself visible.

GwylimT

Altarf wrote: »

http://www.mynrma.com.au/blog/2007/09/24/crash-risk-and-the-colour-of-your-car/

"Compared to white, colours such as black, blue, grey and others ranking lower on the visibility index were associated with higher crash risk in daylight hours."



What is your point? Are you saying that you would not have been hit had you been wearing black? Are you saying that it makes no difference - If so where is your evidence that you were not hit many more times because you made yourself visible.

My point is if a motorist is unable to see either lights or a bright orange person should they really be driving as clearly they aren't capable of looking, so for people like that it wouldn't matter if someone was riding a bike dressed as big bird or in head to toe in black as for those clearly it is an inability to look at all.

Altarf

GwylimT wrote: »

My point is if a motorist is unable to see either lights or a bright orange person should they really be driving as clearly they aren't capable of looking, so for people like that it wouldn't matter if someone was riding a bike dressed as big bird or in head to toe in black as for those clearly it is an inability to look at all.

Yes, nice ignoring the point about dark coloured cars being involved in more accidents, just like cyclists.

But back on planet Earth, there are car accidents every day.

The issue is - does a cyclist want to minimise their chance of being involved in one, or do their relatives put "It was the other person's fault" on their headstone.