Ah. Apparently it's all our fault

cookeeemonster

regarding the helmet debate: http://www.theguardian.com/science/occa ... mpensation

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

You know what, I've struggled to see many a cyclist when driving especially in the winter. Most colour clothing becomes 'dark' or is darker at night especially when you are some distance away from the motorist.

How do you cope with spotting other cars under these conditions?

veronese68

CookeeeMonster wrote:

where the hell has the riding with no lights thing come from in this thread?

thought we were talking about high viz and the law - no one has said it's not the cyclists fault if they ride around at night with no lights - thats stupid, illiegal and does absolve responsibility from the driver.

if everyone rode in high viz and helmets then they'd still be pretty much the same level of so called 'accidents' - but they'd find something else to blame (never, ever the drivers fault...despite the actual stats, which put them at fault for around 70% of the time and the cyclist less than 10%)

anyway, time to chill...collisions are thankfully rare and we're all still far more healthy cycling than not cycling

From the original article. It said 50% of those stopped had no lights, but didn't say if it was dark. I actually have my light on in flash mode in daylight now as personally I will do whatever I can to make myself visible as it hurts when you get knocked off. Admittedly the lights won't help if they don't look at all, but an Exposure light on flash mode will catch a persons eye if they make a cursory glance.
But I do not believe people should be stopped for not having lights (if it was daylight), hi viz or helmets. Ultimately many drivers should be more careful, although I grant you a lot of cyclists should also be more careful.
I think we generally agree, I was just explaining where the lights bit came from.

markhewitt1978

notsoblue wrote:

How do you cope with spotting other cars under these conditions?

Cars will two bright red lights showing to the rear - as well as their numberplate light.

notsoblue

markhewitt1978 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

How do you cope with spotting other cars under these conditions?

Cars will two bright red lights showing to the rear - as well as their numberplate light.

So a single bright red light isn't enough?

slowbike

notsoblue wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

How do you cope with spotting other cars under these conditions?

Cars will two bright red lights showing to the rear - as well as their numberplate light.

So a single bright red light isn't enough?

All to often - no ...

which is why I have 2 rear lights on if it's dark ... (or going to be during the ride)

markhewitt1978

For cars? No because they need two to show the extent of their width.

timothyw

notsoblue wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

How do you cope with spotting other cars under these conditions?

Cars will two bright red lights showing to the rear - as well as their numberplate light.

So a single bright red light isn't enough?

Hard to judge distance, and so speed etc. With a car, you have two identical light sources, so can judge from their relative spacing how far the car is.

Also as pointed out, we don't have bright yellow numberplates with lights on them.

notsoblue

markhewitt1978 wrote:

For cars? No because they need two to show the extent of their width.

No, for bikes. My point is that if you already have a bright rear light (that shows the extent of your width) then isn't that enough? It is for cars, apparently.

If someone can't see a cyclist with a bright rear light in poor conditions, then I'm not sure what benefit Hi-Viz will be.

markhewitt1978

At night, then hi-vis will have no benefit at all really, it's all about the lights - and reflectors to an extent.

raymondo60

I wear hi-viz on my commute, which for me is the only time I ride in the dark (apart from the Dunwich Dynamo!) - and as my journey home can and often does involve some off-road trails and towpaths, I have a particular issue with pedestrians on those routes, who are completely and utterly invisible until one is right on top of them (hopefully not literally!) - I can recall TV campaigns when I was younger extolling the virtues of hi-viz for pedestrians when out at night ("Be safe; be seen!") - why on earth would anyone - pedestrian,cyclist, motorcyclist etc - NOT increase the chances of them being seen clearly in dark and potentially dangerous situations?

coopster_the_1st

TimothyW wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

How do you cope with spotting other cars under these conditions?

Cars will two bright red lights showing to the rear - as well as their numberplate light.

So a single bright red light isn't enough?

Hard to judge distance, and so speed etc. With a car, you have two identical light sources, so can judge from their relative spacing how far the car is.

Also as pointed out, we don't have bright yellow numberplates with lights on them.

So despite seeing you, it is still not the responsibility of the faster vehicle to act in a manor that does not endanger other road users?

Or does this display the victim blaming which is the exact point of this thread :roll:

rolf_f

notsoblue wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

For cars? No because they need two to show the extent of their width.

No, for bikes. My point is that if you already have a bright rear light (that shows the extent of your width) then isn't that enough? It is for cars, apparently.

If someone can't see a cyclist with a bright rear light in poor conditions, then I'm not sure what benefit Hi-Viz will be.

Lots of issues really. Eg lots of people thinking their rear lights are bright when they aren't. Then lights can fail. This year I have had both my main front lights fail to turn on after work on the same day after a couple of years of use - one I think has a dodgy switch and the other the LED appears to have failed. Then last week there was the rear light, a Smart clone, that fell off due to plastic fatigue. It's not hard to suddenly end up a lot less visible than you planned.

Fine, don't wear bright clothing if you don't want to. But if you don't, just accept you are putting some risk on yourself - it's not a blame thing. Who cares who is to blame if you are dead or injured? Just a risk managment opportunity that you aren't taking advantage of. Demanding that the world change to suit your taste in clothes is entertainingly optimistic but it isn't going to happen.

markhewitt1978

Rolf F wrote:

Lots of issues really. Eg lots of people thinking their rear lights are bright when they aren't.

It's really difficult to tell to be fair. Recently my wife overtook me when I was out and the first thing I said was how did my lights look!

pblakeney

A couple of points to consider.

Do motor cyclists have to wear hi-vis?

How many lights does a motorbike have?

The OP is a diversionary tactic to take away the blame from those most responsible - Drivers.

Kieran_Burns

So here's a gentleman in full daylight being given advice on wearing a helmet, hi-viz and lights. None of which are required or necessary. (from the original Essex Chronicle article)

I think people are getting away from the original point that people are being targeted during the day for just riding a bike like it's a perfectly normal and safe thing to do.

pigeontoes

I really don't see what the issue is here. If you follow the OPs link through to original report in the Essex Chronicle your find out that:
- Four officers handed out leaflets and stopped cyclists if they were committing the offences of riding on pavements or displayed no lights.
- They were also advising riders to wear reflective or high-visibility clothing and helmets.
- Armed with maps, they also showed cyclists the collision hotspots in the city.

So nobody was being stopped for not wearing a helmet. Sounds like a sensible initiative to me. Admittedly some of the comments attributed to the police, if reported accurately and taken in context could have been expressed better.

No matter what laws are passed or police actions taken, all drivers including me occasionally make mistakes. I therefore choose to have multiple lights back and front on my bike, have reflective strips on my mudguards and clothing as I want to do everything I can do to reduce the chances of anybody else's mistake causing me to get hit.

I personally find it difficult to understand why others wouldn't do everything they can within their control to make themselves as safe as possible but it's their choice.

slowbike

pigeontoes wrote:

I personally find it difficult to understand why others wouldn't do everything they can within their control to make themselves as safe as possible but it's their choice.

But that would be to not get on the bike in the first place ....
any other action carries a risk of injury

Then you're into subjective opinion on what risks exist and what way (if any) to mitigate them.

Right now I commute home part way without a front light on - why? Because it's light enough to see clearly and there are only a couple of cars that come down that route (wide country lane) - once I get to the main road the front light goes on - it's also darker.
I only put both back lights on because I can't be arsed to stop long enough to put the second one on when I reach the main road.
Is it a risk? Yes - but a minimal one.

veronese68

Kieran_Burns wrote:

So here's a gentleman in full daylight being given advice on wearing a helmet, hi-viz and lights. None of which are required or necessary. (from the original Essex Chronicle article)

I think people are getting away from the original point that people are being targeted during the day for just riding a bike like it's a perfectly normal and safe thing to do.

Completely agree KB. I'd be advising him to get a better lock, that might do more to prevent a crime. Mind you if that was my bike I'd want it to be stolen.

pigeontoes

Is it a risk? Yes - but a minimal one.[/quote]

Yes it's a low probability but high impact risk. Probably not totally dissimilar odds to anyone's house burning down but most people choose to take out home insurance.

As I said previously it is everyone's choice what actions they take to minimise the risk but in my own experience as a driver the primary causes of near misses with cyclists have been due to them blending in with the background both night and day (heavy rain, low bright sun, partially obscured by other vehicles etc).

PBo

I think the copper is merely asking why the hell is he commuting on a full susser???

slowbike

pigeontoes wrote:

Is it a risk? Yes - but a minimal one.

Yes it's a low probability but high impact risk. Probably not totally dissimilar odds to anyone's house burning down but most people choose to take out home insurance.

I disagree that it is similar odds to your home burning down and anyway - home insurance covers more than just fire risk - plus I could always turn the light on should I feel the circumstances require it.

The impact could possibly be high - but with such a minimal risk its irrelevant - I'm more concerned that overtaking vehicles give me space - hence the rear light is on ...

Your view of the risk is obviously different to mine - partly because you don't know the stretch of road I'm talking about (and why should you?) - and possibly you're slightly more risk adverse than me - that doesn't make either of our risk minimising measures any less valid.

bigmat

When driving around town I can always see cyclists even at night. I have these big light things at the front of my car that light my way. They even have these lights up in the sky (street lamps I think they call them). Even cyclists dressed in black, without lights, I can see - because I have eyes, and everything is well lit.

The reason most cyclists get driven into is because the drivers aren't paying sufficient attention. Fair enough, it makes sense to do what we can to make ourselves more visible, and we should always follow the law re lights, but this whole debate is kind of side-stepping the real issue in my opinion.

arran77

What a load of bullshit bigmat :roll:

I'm sure that it is possible to see a cyclist who is dressed in black with no lights but it's a damn sight easier if they do have lights and are dressed with some sort of reflective clothing .

Not paying attention on the part of the driver is no doubt a factor, and one which you have no control over as as cyclist, this makes it even more important to do what you can as a cyclist to reduce risks!!

The Rookie

Slowbike wrote:

The obvious one - lack of lights - this does need to be addressed. Cyclists (anyone who rides a bike - just like a driver is anyone who drives a car) need to at least adhere to the highway code. I've seen a few cyclists without lights on - or even inadequate lights on and you wonder what their thought process is ..

Can I just ask if you have pedal reflectors as required by the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations then?

P.S. the Highway code isn't the law but is guidance as to what the law requires.

slowbike

The Rookie wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

The obvious one - lack of lights - this does need to be addressed. Cyclists (anyone who rides a bike - just like a driver is anyone who drives a car) need to at least adhere to the highway code. I've seen a few cyclists without lights on - or even inadequate lights on and you wonder what their thought process is ..

Can I just ask if you have pedal reflectors as required by the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations then?

P.S. the Highway code isn't the law but is guidance as to what the law requires.

Yes - I do ....

[edit]
btw - I never said the highway code was law - just that we should adhere to it ...

I'll agree though that the pedal reflectors one is less than ideal - I use SPDs so I can use those flat converters underneath and still clip in - but I would suggest that reflective strips on shoes/overshoes/legs of tights should be considered equal.

Pross

Cycling in Denmark must be like something out of Death Race 2000, just look at this



Barely a helmet in sight and not a glimpse of high vis or anyone using lights in broad daylight.

EDIT Oh, it seems cycling fatality rates there are actually very low - maybe those clever Danes have special eyeballs that allow their drivers to see things when it wouldn't be possible for their UK counterparts to do so!

I was on a cycle infrastructure design course in London with a woman from the Greenland government. She assumed it was a legal requirement in the UK for cyclists to wear hi-vis and helmets due to the high proportion she saw doing so on London streets. So given that it is a far more common thing for UK cyclists to take these safety measures, that Danish drivers presumably have similar eye sight capabilities to British drivers and that Denmark experiences similar / worse weather and daylight hours to the UK that they have less cycling fatalities?

slowbike

I'm amazed at that guy's ability to trackstand at that angle ... it looks like he should fall over ... (yes - the guy on the right with the yellow/orange stripe on a blue t-shirt.

arran77

Interesting picture there Pross.....who's easier to see in that picture, the lady dressed in head to toe black (with the sunglasses) or one of the three gents on the right of the picture in the lighter coloured clothing?

jds_1981

arran77 wrote:

What a load of bullshit bigmat :roll:

I'm sure that it is possible to see a cyclist who is dressed in black with no lights but it's a damn sight easier if they do have lights and are dressed with some sort of reflective clothing .

Not paying attention on the part of the driver is no doubt a factor, and one which you have no control over as as cyclist, this makes it even more important to do what you can as a cyclist to reduce risks!!

I agree with BigMatt. I'm yet to miss a cyclist or car at night in London, whether they've got lights or not, or whether they're dressed in black/painted dark.
When a car bonnet interrupted my journey the other day as I was cycling along at 25 mph, it wasn't due to lack of hi-viz or lights.

Finally, hi-viz/reflectives don't work unless you've got something shining lights at you which isn't always the case.