How do you know it's a cyclist???
JamesVaughan007
Posts: 16
What part of a cyclist is easily seen and depicted as a rider to a driver or anyone else on the road?
0
Comments
-
The bike0
-
If a light was added to any part of the biker to increase a driver's awareness of them, where would it go?
I'm trying to create a solution to this problem so any answer would be very helpful. Thank You0 -
Erm. A bike.0
-
I'm not sure outside the existing locations - front rear of bike/helmet - there are any better locations. Maybe if a law was made that a different colour extra light was worn to depict it was a bike it would make drivers more aware it was a bike but then you'd go down the route of having different lights for different modes of transport.0
-
JamesVaughan007 wrote:If a light was added to any part of the biker to increase a driver's awareness of them, where would it go?
for on coming traffic, you want a white light facing forwards so on the riders helmet (head) or knuckles or toes.
For rear approaching traffic, somewhere that isn't going to be blocked my anything so ankles, arse, rucksack, helmet (head)
for side on traffic feet facing sideways
I think your best option is a pack of 120 superbright xmas tree LEDs wrapped around the body for 360deg protection0 -
JamesVaughan007 wrote:If a light was added to any part of the biker to increase a driver's awareness of them, where would it go?
It depends where the driver is in relation to the cyclist.0 -
JamesVaughan007 wrote:If a light was added to any part of the biker to increase a driver's awareness of them, where would it go?
I'm trying to create a solution to this problem so any answer would be very helpful. Thank Youargon 18 e116 2013 Vision Metron 80
Bianchi Oltre XR Sram Red E-tap, Fulcrum racing speed xlr
De Rosa SK pininfarina disc
S Works Tarmac e-tap 2017
Rose pro sl disc0 -
I dont think you need to create this. If you're behind a cyclist in the dark then anything reflecting on their lower leg or foot or pedal reflector tells you.
If you're going to do a rear light - how about one to make a cyclist look wider than they are so a car passes wider ?0 -
When driving - how do I know it's a cyclist in front of me?
I don't - until I see them - then it doesn't matter if it's a cyclist, fast walker, slow moped or anything else for that matter - it's just a case of not hitting them ...
But if you want to know what I do - I have a rear light on pretty much all the time - and thats on flash mode - a red flashing light is pretty sure to be a cyclist...0 -
Why do you distinctly want to look like a cyclist. if you look like a road user - ie standard red lights, then you should get the same respect as other road users. There are certain drivers out there who I do not want seeing me a "just a cyclist" from the moment they see my rear light in the distance. Good levels of visisibility are important, and if you search around the forum (especially Commuters) there are lots of threads on this.0
-
JamesVaughan007 wrote:What part of a cyclist is easily seen and depicted as a rider to a driver or anyone else on the road?
My massive tree trunk like thighs.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
The answer that you are looking for is probably shoes or ankles spinning round.
Very distinct to motorised transport or pedestrians.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
"Don't worry, they'll tell you!"
Sorry, wrong joke.0 -
mrfpb wrote:Why do you distinctly want to look like a cyclist. if you look like a road user - ie standard red lights, then you should get the same respect as other road users. There are certain drivers out there who I do not want seeing me a "just a cyclist" from the moment they see my rear light in the distance. Good levels of visisibility are important, and if you search around the forum (especially Commuters) there are lots of threads on this.
Because, on the roads I commute on I'm travelling significantly less quickly than the rest of the traffic - whilst that doesn't matter for the odd tractor and trailer - who wouldn't notice the car rear ending them - it does matter for me.
Being identified as a cycle should trigger that they're going to close the gap far quicker than they would with any other vehicle - so need to react accordingly.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:The answer that you are looking for is probably shoes or ankles spinning round.
Very distinct to motorised transport or pedestrians.
I'd agree with this one. Some bike lights are so bright now that they could be from a motorbike, or one side of a car. Runners, even dog walkers, often have white front and red back lights, but nothing else on the road has pedals and spinning feet. Reflectors on spokes are a bike give away too.0 -
If a driver can't recognise it's a cyclist they shouldn't be driving.
The driver should treat the cyclist the same as any other road user, in accordance with the highway code. Therefore it doesn't matter if they think you are a cyclist or a motorbike etc, they still have the same laws to follow.0 -
redvision wrote:If a driver can't recognise it's a cyclist they shouldn't be driving.
So from 100 yards in the dark, you can tell a cyclist from a motorcyclist? Or two cyclists side by side from a car?0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:redvision wrote:If a driver can't recognise it's a cyclist they shouldn't be driving.
So from 100 yards in the dark, you can tell a cyclist from a motorcyclist? Or two cyclists side by side from a car?
What difference does it make??
If they see anything ahead in the road they should be prepared to slow down.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:redvision wrote:If a driver can't recognise it's a cyclist they shouldn't be driving.
So from 100 yards in the dark, you can tell a cyclist from a motorcyclist? Or two cyclists side by side from a car?
While we are at it, how do they see parked cars without lights? SMIDSY is no excuse.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
JamesVaughan007 wrote:What part of a cyclist is easily seen and depicted as a rider to a driver or anyone else on the road?
From far when you can't see anything but flashing lights then I know a cyclist is coming up.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:redvision wrote:If a driver can't recognise it's a cyclist they shouldn't be driving.
So from 100 yards in the dark, you can tell a cyclist from a motorcyclist? Or two cyclists side by side from a car?
While we are at it, how do they see parked cars without lights? SMIDSY is no excuse.
So what is your point? That they should recognise a cyclist, or that they shouldn't need to? I need to know whether I should be driving/cycling after dark.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:PBlakeney wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:redvision wrote:If a driver can't recognise it's a cyclist they shouldn't be driving.
So from 100 yards in the dark, you can tell a cyclist from a motorcyclist? Or two cyclists side by side from a car?
While we are at it, how do they see parked cars without lights? SMIDSY is no excuse.
So what is your point? That they should recognise a cyclist, or that they shouldn't need to? I need to know whether I should be driving/cycling after dark.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
OP you sum up yourself as being part of the problem in this car obsessed mastubatory country ...
On the road it doesnt matter that I am on a bike , I AM A ROAD USER
avoid killing me please0 -
PBlakeney wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:PBlakeney wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:redvision wrote:If a driver can't recognise it's a cyclist they shouldn't be driving.
So from 100 yards in the dark, you can tell a cyclist from a motorcyclist? Or two cyclists side by side from a car?
While we are at it, how do they see parked cars without lights? SMIDSY is no excuse.
So what is your point? That they should recognise a cyclist, or that they shouldn't need to? I need to know whether I should be driving/cycling after dark.
Controversial anti blind driver attitude.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:PBlakeney wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:PBlakeney wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:redvision wrote:If a driver can't recognise it's a cyclist they shouldn't be driving.
So from 100 yards in the dark, you can tell a cyclist from a motorcyclist? Or two cyclists side by side from a car?
While we are at it, how do they see parked cars without lights? SMIDSY is no excuse.
So what is your point? That they should recognise a cyclist, or that they shouldn't need to? I need to know whether I should be driving/cycling after dark.
Controversial anti blind driver attitude.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Someone please delete this pointless thread FFS.....FFS! Harden up and grow a pair0
-
You could have every rider dressed from head to toe in high vis and with flashing lights in all directions but the majority of accidents are caused by distracted drivers not unsighted. By which I mean they are not concentrating on where they should be looking instead of the riders being hard to see in the first place. Solve that issue and you'll be a millionaire0