Very nearly wiped out a cyclist

B0bbyEwing

Mildly_Miffed said:

B0bbyEwing said:

As I watch it back on dash cam it looks more obvious than it did in person

Mmmhmm.

He was visible. You glanced but didn't see.

I'll respond to the rest after work but by definition...... 

"Glance" generally means a quick look or brief view"

From Google. 

Therefore I did more than glance since I was looking in the direction of the approaching side for a good number of seconds as I approached. I glanced to my left, yes, but I stayed looking to the right.

I have my eyes checked every 2yrs & the optician says I don't need glasses for driving. Last eye test was a month ago. 

MEM62

B0bbyEwing said:

Dash cams are also frustrating because the amount of times I've watched something back on camera & it's been more obvious than in real time, looks not as close as in real time etc etc. 

When you play back dashcam footage you see a field of view.  In real time your eyes do not take in that whole field of view - they are constantly in motion and scanning so what you are taking in watching the replay is not what you were taking in at the time.  You see far more on the replay as you (a) have the time (and probably watch it more than once) and (b) your brain is not also having to focus on the other aspects of driving.       

Baldytyke88

MEM62 said:

When you play back dashcam footage you see a field of view.  In real time your eyes do not take in that whole field of view - they are constantly in motion and scanning so what you are taking in watching the replay is not what you were taking in at the time.  You see far more on the replay as you (a) have the time (and probably watch it more than once) and (b) your brain is not also having to focus on the other aspects of driving.       

We also need to recognise what we see, the shape of a cyclist.

I wonder when some drivers always want brighter headlights, when a bright spot makes it harder to see a cyclist, we often need to see the object to the side, which is not lit up.

When there are streetlights, I wonder if motorists would see objects better if we all switched our headlights off, which is perfectly legal in good weather.

eskbanker

B0bbyEwing said:

The annoying thing is is that if I'd have clipped him it would've probably been my fault because I guess you're supposed to see everything in front of you no matter what.

B0bbyEwing said:

I should've probably pulled over after he started flapping his arms around & we could've discussed appropriate clothing.

Something tells me that he wouldn't have welcomed a victim-blaming conversation, so perhaps just as well it didn't happen!

GDB2222

It seems sensible for people to wear bright clothing on these very dark nights. If someone has been killed or suffered serious injury, it seems pretty futile to apportion blame after the event. Far better to avoid the event altogether by taking sensible precautions.  

Brie

I had a near miss with a cyclist a few years back.  He was riding along completely invisible to me as all I could see was the brake lights of the car in front of him.  I did see another cyclist all florescent lit up like a Christmas tree (well almost) which is why I slowed down in time.  As luck would have it I got stopped at a light with them waiting to make a right turn and "hello'd" the visible one.  She was a lady of a certain age so I asked if her companion was her husband.  When she said he was I said that I thought she should mention to him that she'd be a widow pretty quickly if he didn't get better lights and reflectors etc on him as he was impossible to see without them.  She sighed and said "I keep telling him!"  I'm hoping that she told him again and he did something about it.

Mildly_Miffed

GDB2222 said:

It seems sensible for people to wear bright clothing on these very dark nights. If someone has been killed or suffered serious injury, it seems pretty futile to apportion blame after the event. Far better to avoid the event altogether by taking sensible precautions.  

This works both ways, of course.

The onus is on the road user emerging from a side road to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there is no other road user coming, and that it's clear and safe to do so.

The OP did not do that. They thought they did, but they missed a road user who was approaching.

That other road user may or may not have missed opportunities ways to make themselves more visible - HC rule 59 is "should", not "must" - but they had lights on...

He will have been right where I was looking ... except I didn't see him.

And yet they were clearly visible on the dashcam footage.

MEM62

Baldytyke88 said:

MEM62 said:

When you play back dashcam footage you see a field of view.  In real time your eyes do not take in that whole field of view - they are constantly in motion and scanning so what you are taking in watching the replay is not what you were taking in at the time.  You see far more on the replay as you (a) have the time (and probably watch it more than once) and (b) your brain is not also having to focus on the other aspects of driving.       

We also need to recognise what we see, the shape of a cyclist.

I wonder when some drivers always want brighter headlights, when a bright spot makes it harder to see a cyclist, we often need to see the object to the side, which is not lit up.

When there are streetlights, I wonder if motorists would see objects better if we all switched our headlights off, which is perfectly legal in good weather.

There has been some research in respect of motorcyclists and visibility.  Believe it or not, there is one in this picture. 

born_again

Baldytyke88 said:

MEM62 said:

When there are streetlights, I wonder if motorists would see objects better if we all switched our headlights off, which is perfectly legal in good weather.

Even more so on dark wet nights while in busy area's where there is slow moving traffic. Where glare off road surface causes issues.

B0bbyEwing

Mildly_Miffed said:

And yet they were clearly visible on the dashcam footage.

Have you ever viewed dashcam footage of your own & compared it to what you saw with your own eyes? Did it display exactly as you saw it? I'd be surprised if so.

I've used a number of dash cams from different manufacturers & I found dash cams frequently skew things. I've had people riding my bumper so close I can't see their number plate yet the dash cam makes it look like they're not that close. 
Other instances on the front end too - things that were certainly close appear further away.

Then there's the colouring too. 

On the topic of which, I could go outside right now, 8pm & take a picture with my phone, no flash. The picture will make things appear brighter than what they actually are to the naked eye.

So which one is correct then?

The picture showed that while it wasn't daylight, it wasn't dark.

Yet anyone with a working pair of eyes would say 8pm is dark right now.

Also please don't twist my words. I did not say "clearly visible" at all. That implies he's cycling along with flashing beacons on his head or something which he most certainly didn't have. He had non-reflective, dark clothing & crap Temu tick-a-box lights. 

I'm a cyclist & I think safety gear should meet a standard like with cars. You shouldn't be allowed to just slap a cheap waste of time light on your bike & because that's the box ticked then you're A-ok. A cyclist should be required to have lighting to a standard & reflective clothing in the dark should be a requirement & anyone found cycling without wearing that should be penalised.