# Dark cycle users.



## simongt (17 Mar 2018)

As we all know, it's common to see folk on bikes on the roads after dark who inevitably wear dark clothing and have no lights on said bikes. This is something I'd be too scared to do in case of the inevitable. If as a driver, you had a collision with said cycle user, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd try and blame you for the event.
Or is it just me being too cautious - ?


----------



## Tangoup51 (17 Mar 2018)

They probably wouldn't stick around to be pointing fingers..


----------



## theclaud (17 Mar 2018)

simongt said:


> As we all know, it's common to see folk on bikes on the roads after dark who inevitably wear dark clothing and have no lights on said bikes. This is something I'd be too scared to do in case of the inevitable.* If as a driver, you had a collision with said cycle user, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd try and blame you for the event.*
> Or is it just me being too cautious - ?


If you drive into someone with your car, it's your fault, whatever they are wearing. HTH.


----------



## gom (17 Mar 2018)

I didn’t own a car till I was ~30, relying on cycling & public transport before that. Once I got a car I was quite shocked to realise how easy it was to overlook “ninja” cyclists. I was always keen on lights and bright clothing & even more so now. Having seen some near misses as a ninja does an unexpected turn, car drivers can’t be to blame in all cases surely? Not that I don’t think there are too many motorised idiots out there.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Mar 2018)

Really?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (17 Mar 2018)

Not sure what your question is can you elaborate?


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Mar 2018)

A black plastic wheelie bin got blown into the road last night... the drivers seemed to be able to see it and drive around it.


----------



## Drago (17 Mar 2018)

Thank heavens I don't own a black car any more.


----------



## Salty seadog (17 Mar 2018)

Drago said:


> Thank heavens I don't own a black car any more.



Yeah but I'm now worried about my ninja wheelie bin.....


----------



## mjr (17 Mar 2018)

simongt said:


> As we all know, it's common to see folk on bikes on the roads after dark who inevitably wear dark clothing and have no lights on said bikes. This is something I'd be too scared to do in case of the inevitable. If as a driver, you had a collision with said cycle user, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd try and blame you for the event.
> Or is it just me being too cautious - ?


Not sure it's cautious but it's too something...

Firstly, I wouldn't ride unlit because I like to see where I'm going and don't like being delayed being stopped by the police and fined but it's not a major factor in collisions - only about 2%. That may be because unlit riders assume they've not been seen and give way more, or because street lights are so bright now that the minimum 4 candela bike lights are basically irrelevant.

Secondly, they can try to blame you whatever you wear, but it doesn't make it right. Wear dark colours and they can say you didn't obey the highway code. Wear green, yellow or orange and they can say you were low contrast against the sun or other lights or concrete/brick/hedge/crop colours. Wear pink and you'll blend into the roses and tulips grown in Norfolk. There's research suggesting that what matters is contrast not colour and the best choice for contrast varies too much to say one should always wear any particular colour.

And then there's the basic problem that once they've hit you, you've pretty much lost already - even if they can't blame you, you're still far more likely to be hurt than them.

And then there's the problem that "be seen" advice is BS. There is nothing you can do to make other people see you - and if there was, you'd only be distracting motorists from other road users and putting them at risk. Generally, we must push back against that victim-blaming and put the emphasis back on the approaching road user to look and only drive so they can stop within what they can see to be clear.

In short, you can't win by pandering to bad motorists and fear of what they may say if they screw up. So I prefer to do what I think best, which is to wear whatever I like and look reasonably normal/human (which usually seems to mean dark colours for me - avoid looking like an invisible gorilla or Somebody Else's Problem Field or a piece of street funiture which invites them to treat me as an obstacle instead of a person) and to spend the money instead on good German-spec lights for night. Frankly, if they can't see a fairly large adult on a rather large bike, or my lights at night, their eyesight problem is not going to be fixed by my clothing, no matter what evidence-free shoot is in the highway code or put out by the failed, bigoted "road safety" lobby.

They also shouldn't be able to prove that my clothing made them hit me, so it shouldn't even reduce damages if I stick to my guns.

So no, I'm not worried and I've had a lot less shoot off motorists since I stopped dressing as an alien space lemon and started dressing as an ordinary human again.


----------



## alicat (17 Mar 2018)

It's your choice what to wear and whether to use lights or not so I don't see what the problem is.


----------



## gom (17 Mar 2018)

gom said:


> Not that I don’t think there are too many motorised idiots out there.


Too many negatives in there. Even I don’t know what it means. But I know what I meant: there are too many motorised idiots.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Mar 2018)

simongt said:


> case of the inevitable.


It's not inevitable. Clothing and lights are a factor in less than 5% of serious collisions. I could probably put together a convincing (but probably spurious) argument from those figures proving it's safer to cycle ninja style.


----------



## gbb (17 Mar 2018)

If I think back to my commuting days in say the later 1970s, early 80s, lights were pretty cr#p and battery life was awful and I frequently rode with dead or poor or even no lights at all.
If cars were coming...id feel a tad nervous and occasionally continue on a path if there were a lot of cars (there would be no peds obviously ). It never occurrd to me how the drivers felt...i only considered my own position of uncertainty.

You can be sure similar cyclists probably have the same thought process nowadays. Some may not even care.

Nowadays though, the price of lights gives little excuse not to, even cheap LED ones are pretty good .

Observation observation observation. In 30 or 40 years...ive seen thousands of unlit cyclists...maybe not seen much of them, but seen them all the same. Only on one occasion at a R/A as I was going to join heavy flow did I hesitate for some reason...a shadow on the road surface...it was a cyclists shadow, no lights, wearing black,,I came within a heartbeat of hitting him, but that observation, even if it was just the shadow, saved him.

I hope I don' ever become complacent or forget those words.


----------



## mjr (17 Mar 2018)

jefmcg said:


> It's not inevitable. Clothing and lights are a factor in less than 5% of serious collisions. I could probably put together a convincing (but probably spurious) argument from those figures proving it's safer to cycle ninja style.


Night time ninjas are far more common than that... however, there's probably more than a few knocked-down ninjas who don't report it to the police and I doubt the motorists who hit them do.


----------



## mickle (17 Mar 2018)

simongt said:


> As we all know, it's common to see folk on bikes on the roads after dark who inevitably wear dark clothing and have no lights on said bikes. This is something I'd be too scared to do in case of the inevitable. If as a driver, you had a collision with said cycle user, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd try and blame you for the event.
> Or is it just me being too cautious - ?


"... it's common to see folk on bikes on the roads after dark who inevitably wear dark clothing and have no lights on said bikes." 

So. Uh...


----------



## DaveReading (17 Mar 2018)

theclaud said:


> If you drive into someone with your car, it's your fault, whatever they are wearing. HTH.



If I was of a suicidal bent, I'm pretty sure I could contrive to get my bike into a position where you wouldn't be able to avoid hitting me with your car. HTH.


----------



## Slick (17 Mar 2018)

Must be a slow news day.


----------



## theclaud (17 Mar 2018)

DaveReading said:


> If I was of a suicidal bent, I'm pretty sure I could contrive to get my bike into a position where you wouldn't be able to avoid hitting me with your car. HTH.


And if you work even harder, you can probably think of another ten vanishingly unlikely scenarios where I might drive into you blamelessly. Meanwhile, in the real world, drivers can simply look where they are going, and not run people over.


----------



## mjr (17 Mar 2018)

DaveReading said:


> If I was of a suicidal bent, I'm pretty sure I could contrive to get my bike into a position where you wouldn't be able to avoid hitting me with your car. HTH.


I bet you couldn't unless you also stole my brake pedal. HTH. HAND.


----------



## HLaB (17 Mar 2018)

Are 'dark cycle users' like users of the dark web or dark magic ?


----------



## StuAff (17 Mar 2018)

Coming soon: None More Black. The Goth Ninja Cyberpunk Metalhead Satanist And People Who Just Hate Dayglo Hi Viz Cycling Club.


----------



## mjr (17 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5185232, member: 9609"]riding around like a ninja is certainly not the brightest thing to do[/QUOTE]
Ninjas are cooler than road signs


----------



## I am Spartacus (17 Mar 2018)

I think some of you lot "commute" in Nania... commuting road s are never fckin quiet or safe even at 3am


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Mar 2018)

I can't be arsed typing out the story again, but:
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/how-to-reply-to-school-newsletter.224843/#post-4988751


----------



## StuAff (17 Mar 2018)

Marmion said:


> I can't be arsed typing out the story again, but:
> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/how-to-reply-to-school-newsletter.224843/#post-4988751


I am reminded of multiple recumbent riders who keep being told they should be using flags, they're so hard to see that low down…by people who have, er, seen them, and presumably manage to see road markings, potholes and debris, those irritatingly non-high viz trees and animals…


----------



## Fonze (17 Mar 2018)

My bike is the brightest orange in the World, ever, but still cars are attracted like bees round honey ..
Some, only some, drivers in my experience couldn't give a shiny shite about cyclists .. whatever you wear, whatever colour, wether you stick close to a kerb in the right lane, yadda yadda yadda !


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Mar 2018)

A colleague, who saw me heading home on my bike last week wearing a splendid bobble hat, asked "where's your helmet?" I replied, "safely tucked away under my foreskin" - don't think she'll be asking again...


----------



## Fonze (17 Mar 2018)

Good job they didn't ask to see it !


----------



## Ming the Merciless (17 Mar 2018)

Men in Black and sequels are great films. Even the aliens who are not used to Earth light can see them.


----------



## StuAff (17 Mar 2018)

Someone managed to take a photo of an invisible car…


----------



## winjim (17 Mar 2018)

I was driving on the M1/M18 today in a total whiteout. Dense fog and snow blizzard combined. There were many drivers who hadn't thought to put their fog lights on, were passing me and literally disappearing within about twenty yards.

I slowed down.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (17 Mar 2018)

Driving in white snow in a white car with white lights. Totally irresponsible. Ninja drivers.


----------



## DaveReading (17 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> I bet you couldn't unless you also stole my brake pedal. HTH.



I think we've been round this before. I'd be happy to demonstrate you're wrong.

Oh, hang on ...


----------



## winjim (17 Mar 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> Driving in white snow in a white car with white lights. Totally irresponsible.


To be fair the black cars with red lights were vanishing pretty quickly in those conditions.



YukonBoy said:


> Ninja drivers.


_Yukigo_ drivers.


----------



## slowmotion (17 Mar 2018)

Driving the van this evening, I decided not to turn on the headlights. Motorists should look where they are going. After all, I don't have any responsibility for my own safety.....


----------



## cosmicbike (17 Mar 2018)

StuAff said:


> Coming soon: None More Black. The Goth Ninja Cyberpunk Metalhead Satanist And People Who Just Hate Dayglo Hi Viz Cycling Club.



Is that for those who don't qualify for @Drago s tall and beautiful club?


----------



## winjim (18 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5185389, member: 9609"]why should they ? is it not up to you to see them ?

why do cars and lorries have rear tail lights anyway? complete waste of energy.

They should take the lead from cyclists and try and be a bit more camouflaged, test other road users out to make sure they have good eyes and concentration, anyone rear ends you then its there fault. - 44 ton logging truck goes up your jacksee then you've got them, banged to rights.[/QUOTE]
You know what? I put my fog light on. At least I pulled the switch and a light came on on the dashboard, whether the lamp itself was lit I haven't the foggiest. However, I was checking my mirrors. There was no logging truck.


----------



## mjr (18 Mar 2018)

slowmotion said:


> Driving the van this evening, I decided not to turn on the headlights. Motorists should look where they are going. After all, I don't have any responsibility for my own safety.....


I see an awful lot of drivers like that now. I'm unsure whether it's carelessness and unobservant driving now that street lights are so bright, or an attempt at fuel saving now that there's no police to require them to light up.


----------



## slowmotion (18 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> I see an awful lot of drivers like that now. I'm unsure whether it's carelessness and unobservant driving now that street lights are so bright, or an attempt at fuel saving now that there's no police to require them to light up.


I take saving the planet extremely seriously. I turn the wipers off under motorway bridges too.


----------



## MontyVeda (18 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5185389, member: 9609"]...

why do cars and lorries have rear tail lights anyway? complete waste of energy. 

...[/QUOTE]

Energy that's being created on the fly by the alternator... so not a 'waste' by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## classic33 (18 Mar 2018)

StuAff said:


> I am reminded of multiple recumbent riders who keep being told they should be using flags, they're so hard to see that low down…by people who have, er, seen them, and presumably manage to see road markings, potholes and debris, those irritatingly non-high viz trees and animals…


If carrying two sets of traffic lights, red lights powered by a battery, can't get you seen, you're in trouble.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (18 Mar 2018)

simongt said:


> As we all know, it's common to *see* folk on bikes on the roads after dark who inevitably wear dark clothing and have no lights on said bikes. This is something I'd be too scared to do in case of the inevitable. If as a driver, you had a collision with said cycle user, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd try and blame you for the event.
> Or is it just me being too cautious - ?


^^^ problem solved!


----------



## pawl (18 Mar 2018)

Do some people have peculiar eyesight.There are many reports from people who see cyclists riding without lights but when a driver hits a cyclist in broad daylight itsSMIDSY.


----------



## Maenchi (18 Mar 2018)

StuAff said:


> Coming soon: None More Black. The Goth Ninja Cyberpunk Metalhead Satanist And People Who Just Hate Dayglo Hi Viz Cycling Club.


At last a club for me !................


----------



## winjim (18 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5185397, member: 9609"]he probably seen you early and hung back - pretty useful in yourself getting seen are those rear fog lamps.[/QUOTE]
These trucks, do they ever shed their loads?


----------



## Slick (18 Mar 2018)

winjim said:


> These trucks, do they ever shed their loads?


It happens. Last one by me lost it's drag when the king pin snapped.


----------



## PeteXXX (18 Mar 2018)

A bit of a potential legal conundrum t’other night.
I was driving through Bedford, at about 23:45, and aspied a hoody wearing cyclist with no lights on. Heading towards him/her was a female cyclist, with a decent front light, on the wrong side of the road.
As cyclists are never wrong, who is at fault in this scenario if they had had a head on crash?


----------



## Slick (18 Mar 2018)

PeteXXX said:


> A bit of a potential legal conundrum t’other night.
> I was driving through Bedford, at about 23:45, and aspired a hoody wearing cyclist with no lights on. Heading towards him/her was a female cyclist, with a decent front light, on the wrong side of the road.
> As cyclists are never wrong, who is at fault in this scenario if they had had a head on crash?


We're allocated sides of the road for a reason.


----------



## mjr (18 Mar 2018)

PeteXXX said:


> As cyclists are never wrong, who is at fault in this scenario if they had had a head on crash?


God, obvs.

More seriously, I'd say the wrong-way rider 80%/the ninja 20%. The wrong-way was doing the dafter movement and had a headlight that could have illuminated the ninja.


----------



## Joffey (18 Mar 2018)

Most of my winter gear is black. If it's dark I have bright lights - if they can't see them then hi-vis isn't gonna make any difference.


----------



## jefmcg (18 Mar 2018)

PeteXXX said:


> As cyclists are never wrong, who is at fault in this scenario if they had had a head on crash?


I wish we had the ARA rules of rowing applied on the roads. While there are quite stringent rules about where you should be and giving way and looking out, but if there is a collision, it is everyone involved's fault. 

They take safety seriously, and make it everyone's responsibility because they know if something goes wrong it can quickly end in tragedy, unlike on the roads where .... yeah ..... I don't know what the difference is.


----------



## winjim (18 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> God, obvs.
> 
> More seriously, I'd say the wrong-way rider 80%/the ninja 20%. The wrong-way was doing the dafter movement and had a headlight that could have illuminated the ninja.


I think riding in the left is a _should_, while being properly lit is a _must_ isn't it?

Did they collide? I expect not.


----------



## jefmcg (18 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5185389, member: 9609"]why should they ? is it not up to you to see them ?[/QUOTE]
We have been talking about cyclists who we can see. This post is about cars that literally can't be seen. Do you not <ahem> _see _the difference?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (18 Mar 2018)

pawl said:


> Do some people have peculiar eyesight.There are many reports from people who see cyclists riding without lights but when a driver hits a cyclist in broad daylight itsSMIDSY.



SMIDNLOGAD

Sorry Mate I Did Not Look Or Give A Damn


----------



## winjim (18 Mar 2018)

Slick said:


> It happens. Last one by me lost it's drag when the king pin snapped.


But every part of the truck and its shed load was lit by a fog light, right?

Stop me if you can see where I'm going with this one...



jefmcg said:


> We have been talking about cyclists who we can see. This post is about cars that literally can't be seen. Do you not <ahem> _see _the difference?


Important bit was contained within the second paragraph of my post.


----------



## mjr (18 Mar 2018)

winjim said:


> I think riding in the left is a _should_, while being properly lit is a _must_ isn't it?


That's true, but the highway code is often incomplete and sometimes wrong. Like I think the only rule explicitly telling you to avoid a collision is the one on amber lights but people who cause collisions are still condemned.

Keeping left should be a MUST, as it's required by the Highways Act 1835 s78, which is one of only two sections still in force. By comparison, the current bike lights have only been required for about 80 years IIRC.


----------



## winjim (18 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Keeping left should be a MUST, as it's required by the Highways Act 1835 s78, which is one of only two sections still in force. By comparison, the current bike lights have only been required for about 80 years IIRC.


Does a bike count as a 'waggon, cart or carriage'?


----------



## Drago (18 Mar 2018)

Carriage, as you are carried in or on it.


----------



## mjr (18 Mar 2018)

winjim said:


> Does a bike count as a 'waggon, cart or carriage'?


Wot @Drago said. That's why laws from before the bicycle's invention apply and it wasn't illegal at first like segways or hover boards.


----------



## Drago (18 Mar 2018)

There's an old dear near me who rides to the local shop on a hover board. She must be 80 at least. Its quite a sight, and it moves slower than walking pace so is probably no more hazardous to other footway users that if she were walking.


----------



## Salty seadog (18 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5186124, member: 9609"]seriously ? Wag n Drag and the trailer come adrift  Forrest road or public?
I doubt it pulled far on the suzzies, presumably the failsafe come on when they snapped.


I know someone put the sussies on before hooking up and it nearly killed him.[/QUOTE]


Happened on a duel carriageway in front of me a couple of years ago, a lorry lost it's drag. I was a couple of hundred yards behind when it happened.


----------



## Slick (18 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5186124, member: 9609"]seriously ? Wag n Drag and the trailer come adrift  Forrest road or public?
I doubt it pulled far on the suzzies, presumably the failsafe come on when they snapped.


I know someone put the sussies on before hooking up and it nearly killed him.[/QUOTE]
Very much public. It had just come off a roundabout then over a reasonably small patch of road works. Who knows what would have happened if it didn't snap within the already conned off area. I was always waiting for the inevitable HSE investigation and finger pointing but it didn't happen.


----------



## Globalti (19 Mar 2018)

We see plenty of ninjas on bikes when we drive to nearby Preston at night, they swerve across the road in front of traffic, dressed in black, no lights, with an air of insouciance as if they are almost daring a driver to hit them. I sometimes think they are hoping to be hit.

(Post edited to remove the word "cyclists")


----------



## winjim (19 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> We see plenty of ninjas on bikes when we drive to nearby Preston at night, they swerve across the road in front of traffic, dressed in black, no lights, with an air of insouciance as if they are almost daring a driver to hit them. I sometimes think they are hoping to be hit.
> 
> (Post edited to remove the word "cyclists")


Urban pigeons will not flinch when you aim a kick at them. They have evolved to be utterly unafraid of humans.


----------



## theclaud (19 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> as if they are almost daring a driver to hit them. I sometimes think they are hoping to be hit.


Can we stop this kind of victim-blaming nonsense, please?


----------



## mjr (19 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I thought this thread was about choosing the right washing machine program for non colour fast cycling gear.


Don't put your cycling gears in the washing machine. Rattling sprockets around in a metal drum is likely to damage the washing machine as well as chip off any colour on the sprockets.


----------



## Globalti (19 Mar 2018)

Victim-blaming? Have you ever driven a car through a town and seen the way these kids dash across the road and swerve through the traffic? They are totally selfish and have no respect for the rules of the road or regard for anybody else. I don't even legitimise them with the term "cyclist" because I don't want any association with the feral scum. Happily the majority of drivers are aware that certain areas of the town are blighted by anti-social idiots and ready to swerve or brake hard, which is exactly what the kids are counting on. Occasionally though it goes wrong and then we are expected to feel sorry for them - "'E were a lovely lad, wouldn't harm a fly...." etcetera. Meanwhile the driver who did his or her conscientious best, goes through hell for months.


----------



## mjr (19 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> Have you ever driven a car through a town and seen the way these kids dash across the road and swerve through the traffic? They are totally selfish and have no respect for the rules of the road or regard for anybody else. I don't even legitimise them with the term "cyclist" because I don't want any association with the feral scum.


Because what cycling needs is more cyclist-on-cyclist road rage inciting motorist-on-cyclist attacks? Just be thankful that the nobber cyclists aren't nobber motorists yet and move on. If it gets to be a serious problem, support the traffic police tackling it, but also encourage them to stop any nobber motorists they spot in that area too.


----------



## Globalti (19 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Because what cycling needs is more cyclist-on-cyclist road rage inciting motorist-on-cyclist attacks? Just be thankful that the nobber cyclists aren't nobber motorists yet and move on. If it gets to be a serious problem, support the traffic police tackling it, but also encourage them to stop any nobber motorists they spot in that area too.



Traffic Police? The motorway Police station at the Preston exit of the M6 always has about 20 Police cars parked in the car park. I don't know if that's because all the Police are off duty or inside eating burgers but you seldom see a Police car out on the motorways. Traffic Police don't patrol and stop cars on anything as old-fashioned as copper's instinct; they cruise around letting the ANPR do the work then they tweet about their successes to create an impression of a high hit rate. The majority of their tweets concern uninsured cars or unlicenced drivers, thanks to the ANPR. The likelihood of them being out on patrol and bothering about, then even being able to stop and catch one of these yobs on mountain bikes is as high as being hit by a meteorite. The yobs can continue to swerve across roads and through traffic with complete impunity, getting law-abiding cyclists tarred with the brush of "yob".


----------



## mjr (19 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> Traffic Police don't patrol and stop cars on anything as old-fashioned as copper's instinct; they cruise around letting the ANPR do the work [...] The likelihood of them being out on patrol and bothering about, then even being able to stop and catch one of these yobs on mountain bikes is as high as being hit by a meteorite. [...]


If that's true then you've got far bigger problems than a few nobber cyclists because it sounds like they won't be catching close-passers, pavement drivers, road ragers, left-hookers, right-crossers and all the other nobber motorists that discourage cycling far more.


----------



## Wobblers (19 Mar 2018)

I will confess I've had a couple of "Fark, that was close" moments with dark clothed pedestrians on my travels. My reponse has been to think on what I could do to reduce the probability of me hitting them (cycle away from the gutter and door zone and pay farking attention are typically the ideas that come to mind).

It's never occurred to me to blame them for wearing black. Am I doing something wrong?


----------



## winjim (19 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5186613, member: 9609"]not seeing where your heading at all[/QUOTE]
The reason I slowed down was not because I couldn't see the cars without their fog lights on. It was because at a certain distance I couldn't see _anything_. There could have been a shed load, a deer, a child playing dare, none of which would have been lit by fog lights. I was travelling at a speed at which I could stop in the distance I could see to be clear, ie the distance in which I could safely make out _unlit_ objects. The fog lights were basically irrelevent, especially as I knew that so few drivers were using them.

I was also checking my mirrors so I knew what was behind me, and by travelling so slowly I was effectively controlling their speed as well.


----------



## Alan O (19 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Bah.
> 
> I thought this thread was about choosing the right washing machine program for non colour fast cycling gear.


And I thought it was going to be about some clandestine dark web cycling forum.


----------



## mjr (19 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5186981, member: 9609"]
I completely agree that cyclist should be able to ride on whatever road they want in any weather and at any time of the day, they should not need hi-viz clothes or extra bright lights. But sadly there are a lot of uncaring morons out there that are driving too fast or playing with phones.[/QUOTE]
No clothes or lights will distract a motorist from their phone any sooner. I feel our best hope is to look obviously and traditionally human, not freakishly bright.


----------



## Globalti (19 Mar 2018)

Good point; I wear mostly black or dark clothing and at night I have very good lights. After 12 accident-free years as a motorcyclist and 44 as a driver I'm pretty sure that a black dot in the distance attracts the human eye as well as a flouro yellow dot; the human brain picks it out as another human. Possibly the only time flouro wins is when the human is against a jumbled background like a mountainside where a black dot can be mistaken for a shadow until it moves, which instantly attracts the eye. Against a natural background flouro yellow or orange are unnatural colours so do attract the eye better. 

As I learned as a motorcyclist, heading straight towards a driver from a jumbled background is a recipe for being ignored but movement sideways across the driver's field of vision attracts attention straight away.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5186981, member: 9609"]And what percentage of other drivers drive with such due care and attention ? How many other drivers were driving at a speed they could stop within their range of vision?[/QUOTE]
I remember seeing on the news when I was a kid about a huge motorway pile up. They interviewed drivers who all said "I came out of the fog, and suddenly there were cars and I didn't have time to stop." My father said that's means that they were going too fast. And the police agreed! The coda to the story was not only the destroyed cars, but most of the drivers got tickets.

I can't imagine that happening today.


----------



## theclaud (19 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5186981, member: 9609"]And what percentage of other drivers drive with such due care and attention ? How many other drivers were driving at a speed they could stop within their range of vision?[/QUOTE]
A lot probably weren't. That's because we hold them to such low standards and excuse their behaviour, which endangers others. You're not helping.


----------



## theclaud (19 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> Victim-blaming? Have you ever driven a car through a town and seen the way these kids dash across the road and swerve through the traffic? They are totally selfish and have no respect for the rules of the road or regard for anybody else. I don't even legitimise them with the term "cyclist" because I don't want any association with the feral scum. Happily the majority of drivers are aware that certain areas of the town are blighted by anti-social idiots and ready to swerve or brake hard, which is exactly what the kids are counting on. Occasionally though it goes wrong and then we are expected to feel sorry for them - "'E were a lovely lad, wouldn't harm a fly...." etcetera. Meanwhile the driver who did his or her conscientious best, goes through hell for months.


Yes - victim-blaming is precisely what you are doing. It doesn't matter how much someone annoys you, or what your opinion is of them (although, as an aside, you appear to have an extremely jaundiced view of 'kids') - _it's not OK to hit them with a car_. End of. The person bringing the danger to the situation is the person responsible - spare us the sob story about how bad they feel when they fail to take responsibility.


----------



## youngoldbloke (19 Mar 2018)

theclaud said:


> Yes - victim-blaming is precisely what you are doing. It doesn't matter how much someone annoys you, or what your opinion is of them (although, as an aside, you appear to have an extremely jaundiced view of 'kids') - _it's not OK to hit them with a car_. End of. The person bringing the danger to the situation is the person responsible - spare us the sob story about how bad they feel when they fail to take responsibility.


Really? Isn't it the kid on the bike putting themselves in danger in this case? Is the train driver responsible for the death of the suicide victim?


----------



## Drago (19 Mar 2018)

Of course, there is little evidence to suggest that the wearing of hi vis is linked to reduced accident rates among road users (or indeed any other ccategory of folk that wear them). "Common sense" may tell us they make people more conspicuous, but the data tells us that conspicuity does not translate to safety. 

Again, this suggests the problem is one of drivers not looking, or not being alert, rather than one of visibility - hi-vis can not compensate for these conditions. All the bullet proof vests in the World won't save you when the problem is being shot in the head. Hi vis addresses a problem that largely doesn't exist.


----------



## winjim (19 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5186981, member: 9609"]And what percentage of other drivers drive with such due care and attention ? How many other drivers were driving at a speed they could stop within their range of vision?

The problem is most people drive too fast and are not concentrating very hard. To counteract their pitiful driving skills you need to be as bright as possible in hope of capturing their attention earlier. Drive down a motorway at low speed with no lights on and some muppet will spoil your day, yes it will be morally their fault but that is little compensation if you're in hospital for 6 months, and to rub salt into your wounds you will get little to no sympathy and our motoring orientated legal system will probably find that you are to blame.

I completely agree that cyclist should be able to ride on whatever road they want in any weather and at any time of the day, they should not need hi-viz clothes or extra bright lights. But sadly there are a lot of uncaring morons out there that are driving too fast or playing with phones.[/QUOTE]
The OP was written from the point of view of a driver encountering unlit cyclists, which was the context of my response. When, as a driver, I found myself in a situation where there was reduced visibility, I slowed down.

That's the take home message. If you find yourself in a situation where you think there's a possibility that you might hit somebody with your car, slow down.


----------



## theclaud (19 Mar 2018)

youngoldbloke said:


> Really? Isn't it the kid on the bike putting themselves in danger in this case? Is the train driver responsible for the death of the suicide victim?


----------



## winjim (19 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5187130, member: 9609"]but that does not answer my question to you; what percentage of drivers do you think slow down when visibility dictates that they should? You do and I do but we are in the minority, most drivers just crack on as per normal. Most drivers do not plan there driving round the unexpected, and they expect anyone else that are using their-road to make themselves seen and keep out of the way. It's not what I want but it is what we have and in a bid of self preservation I reluctantly join in with how-it-is.[/QUOTE]
Unexpected? OP says that unlit cyclists are common. I did put my fog light on when driving as the stakes are pretty high but when cycling I like to make myself seen by purposefully not keeping out of the way, which is what it seems the cyclists in the OP were doing.


----------



## DaveReading (19 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> I'm pretty sure that a black dot in the distance attracts the human eye as well as a flouro yellow dot; the human brain picks it out as another human.



+1

Some years ago, the RAF reached the same conclusion - that painting their aircraft black could reduce the risk of mid-air collisions:


----------



## winjim (19 Mar 2018)

Drago said:


> Of course, there is little evidence to suggest that the wearing of hi vis is linked to reduced accident rates among road users (or indeed any other ccategory of folk that wear them). "Common sense" may tell us they make people more conspicuous, but the data tells us that conspicuity does not translate to safety.
> 
> Again, this suggests the problem is one of drivers not looking, or not being alert, rather than one of visibility - hi-vis can not compensate for these conditions. All the bullet proof vests in the World won't save you when the problem is being shot in the head. Hi vis addresses a problem that largely doesn't exist.


Honestly, one day I'll tell you all my hi vis anecdote. It's a cracker.


----------



## grellboy (19 Mar 2018)

On way home this afternoon and a woman looked up the road towards me with the sun glaring in her eyes and pulled straight out in front of me. I was fine - adhering as ever to the maxim "All drivers are morons" - as i had anticipated her incompetence, but just goes to show bright and low sunlight can be pretty dangerous too.


----------



## mjr (19 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5187161, member: 9609"]bad example really as trains are allowed to travel at a speed they could't possibly stop in the distance the driver can see. Presumably that is why they are on a closed off restricted area/track.[/quote]
Indeed. To throw yourself in front of a train, you should have had to trespass (that's why there are fences between railways and cycleways) or disobey an instruction (that's why there are signs at level crossings and on railway platforms).

Even then, the presumption is that the train driver is at fault and the police normally arrest them until it's proven they didn't disobey a signal or instruction, even when it's pretty clear a motorist disobeyed a crossing signal. Oh for a similar presumption on the roads that the heaviest vehicle was at fault...



> Our roads are public spaces and as such drivers should not drive faster than the distance they can reasonably see to stop in, the problem is they don't. So the dilemma is; do we act as if all drivers are highly skilled and hope they get heavily fined if they kill or seriously injure us, or, do we make a big effort to try and get seen and in some circumstances just keep out of their way.? reluctantly I go for the latter.


Well, you can't force others to see you, so that's wasted effort, and hoping doesn't get things done, so let's put more effort into getting motoring fines raised to scarier levels and enforced, and in some circumstances get out of the way and record the cockwombles and shop them to the feds.


----------



## youngoldbloke (19 Mar 2018)

So we are required to drive at a speed that enables us to stop if the youth purposefully swerves in front of us, or the pedestrian on the phone steps out immediately in front of us without looking - or a deer leaps out from the hedge just in front of you? - it's just not possible, or realistic. The only truely safe speed will be no speed.


----------



## winjim (19 Mar 2018)

youngoldbloke said:


> So we are required to drive at a speed that enables us to stop if the youth purposefully swerves in front of us, or the pedestrian on the phone steps out immediately in front of us without looking - or a deer leaps out from the hedge just in front of you? - it's just not possible, or realistic. The only truely safe speed will be no speed.


Amen.


----------



## mjr (19 Mar 2018)

youngoldbloke said:


> So we are required to drive at a speed that enables us to stop if the youth purposefully swerves in front of us, or the pedestrian on the phone steps out immediately in front of us without looking - or a deer leaps out from the hedge just in front of you? - it's just not possible, or realistic. The only truely safe speed will be no speed.


And yet, it's highway code rule 126...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (19 Mar 2018)

youngoldbloke said:


> So we are required to drive at a speed that enables us to stop if the youth purposefully swerves in front of us, or the pedestrian on the phone steps out immediately in front of us without looking - or a deer leaps out from the hedge just in front of you? - it's just not possible, or realistic. The only truely safe speed will be no speed.



Or remove motorised vehicles from those locations.


----------



## youngoldbloke (19 Mar 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> Or remove motorised vehicles from those locations.


- but the same applies to bikes doesn't it? We all have responsibility for both our own and other's safety on the roads.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (19 Mar 2018)

youngoldbloke said:


> - but the same applies to bikes doesn't it? We all have responsibility for both our own and other's safety on the roads.



It is normal to eliminate the source of danger not the other way round.


----------



## youngoldbloke (19 Mar 2018)

YukonBoy are you seriously suggesting we remove all motor vehicles from all roads?


----------



## Globalti (20 Mar 2018)

theclaud said:


> Yes - victim-blaming is precisely what you are doing. It doesn't matter how much someone annoys you, or what your opinion is of them (although, as an aside, you appear to have an extremely jaundiced view of 'kids') - _it's not OK to hit them with a car_. End of. The person bringing the danger to the situation is the person responsible - spare us the sob story about how bad they feel when they fail to take responsibility.



You've missed the point completely. Firstly I don't hate "kids"; I've got a 19 year-old son and I meet many of his pals who I think are a good deal more caring and socially responsible than we were as teenagers. Secondly, I'm certainly not suggesting that it's OK to hit a swerving yob with a car, that's ridiculous. I have been driving cars, trucks, vans, motorbikes and minibuses in the UK and Europe for 45 years and have never had an accident so I think I can claim to be a safe and experienced driver.

What really gets up my nose is the cocky insouciance of yobs who dash or swerve a cross the road in front of drivers knowing those drivers will do everything possible to avoid hitting them, in other words forcing drivers to take evasive action. It says in the Highway Code that road users should not force others to change their course or speed in evasive action, so what they do is not only against the law, it's also extremely stupid because one night they will miscalculate and will be hit by a car - and we all know who will be blamed for that.

There is a road in Preston called New Hall Lane, which is the route we have to use when driving to the station. For almost its entire length it passes through a densely populated area with many takeaways and shops on both sides so there are always cars manouvering and pedestrians crossing. This is the worst mile of road I know for kids on bikes, dressed in black, who race up the pavements, swerve into the road and dash across in front of cars so naturally I am even more cautious than usual when driving along that stretch. Drive into Manchester or any other big city and you will see commuters taking the same risks and daring drivers to hit them.


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> they will miscalculate and will be hit by a car - and we all know who will be blamed for that.


The cyclist, regardless of whether they swerved out or were riding normally, based on what we've seen time and time again.


----------



## Milkfloat (20 Mar 2018)

winjim said:


> Honestly, one day I'll tell you all my hi vis anecdote. It's a cracker.



Which one?


----------



## winjim (20 Mar 2018)

Milkfloat said:


> Which one?
> 
> View attachment 400743


I hope that, in the interests of health and safety, they have also removed any explosive materials and small toys which may constitute a choking hazard.


----------



## ADarkDraconis (20 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5185270, member: 21629"]So drivers don't see a cyclist in dark clothing and no lights at night but somehow they see houses, trees, bushes, hedges, roads, fences, bus stops and drivers don't hit them.[/QUOTE]
The hedges, fences, and bus stops aren't usually darting around and crossing in front of you suddenly with no warning. People who are arguing that drivers see potholes: potholes are stationary! A pothole isn't going to be not there one moment and then there the next. I have had ninja cyclists come out of side streets dashing into my path with no warning, if they'd had a light I would have at least seen them running up to and disregarding that stop sign so you can look out for where they are going. Someone going faster or without as quick a reaction time (or maybe with a larger vehicle that takes a few more feet to stop) could have killed them.


----------



## Ian H (20 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> ...It says in the Highway Code that road users should not force others to change their course or speed in evasive action...



You might care to provide a link for this assertion.


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2018)

Bloody kids acting like children, why don't they grow up!??!


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2018)

ADarkDraconis said:


> The hedges, fences, and bus stops aren't usually darting around and crossing in front of you suddenly with no warning.


They do in storms most winters hereabouts.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> Occasionally though it goes wrong and then we are expected to feel sorry for them - "'E were a lovely lad, wouldn't harm a fly...."


I would feel sorry for him. Teenager are all idiots, it's part of the maturing process. I'm always sad if they don't make it.


----------



## Globalti (20 Mar 2018)

Ian H said:


> You might care to provide a link for this assertion.



What a barmy comment! It's common sense and COURTESY apart from anything else. Honestly, people on this forum are so desperate to demonstrate their impeccable PC credentials.... next you'll be asking me for a peer-reviewed study. 

_*wanders off shaking head in despair*_


----------



## jefmcg (20 Mar 2018)

ADarkDraconis said:


> The hedges, fences, and bus stops aren't usually darting around and crossing in front of you suddenly with no warning.


Cars in the UK can park on either side of the road, so it's common enough driving down an empty road for a car on your side of the road, unlit and facing you to "suddenly appear" if you aren't paying attention, because the front of are car isn't festooned with reflectors, and they are often dirty or black or grey. Sober people generally can avoid them.

On the other hand, if a car - lit or not - suddenly jumped out in front of me, that would be a more likely to result in a collision.


----------



## winjim (20 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> What a barmy comment! It's common sense and COURTESY apart from anything else. Honestly, people on this forum are so desperate to demonstrate their impeccable PC credentials.... next you'll be asking me for a peer-reviewed study.
> 
> _*wanders off shaking head in despair*_


Just the section of the Highway Code you were referring to would be enough...


----------



## jefmcg (20 Mar 2018)

winjim said:


> Just the section of the Highway Code you were referring to would be enough...


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-hig...158#multi-lane-carriageways-rules-133-to-143?


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> What a barmy comment! It's common sense and COURTESY apart from anything else. Honestly, people on this forum are so desperate to demonstrate their impeccable PC credentials.... next you'll be asking me for a peer-reviewed study.
> 
> _*wanders off shaking head in despair*_


And @Ian H debunks another person who claims their inventions are in the Highway Code...  toys completely out of pram!

There are of course plenty of places where you can legally cause another road user to change course or speed, including where you have priority/precedence/whatever. It's not "courtesy" to give way when you have priority - it's often confusing and sometimes hazardous, as the priority was often assigned for good reason.


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2018)

jefmcg said:


> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-hig...158#multi-lane-carriageways-rules-133-to-143?


Rather narrower than claimed, that.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Rather narrower than claimed, that.


Well, he was talking about them swerving across the road, which sounds like lane change to me.


----------



## Ian H (20 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> What a barmy comment! It's common sense and COURTESY apart from anything else. Honestly, people on this forum are so desperate to demonstrate their impeccable PC credentials.... next you'll be asking me for a peer-reviewed study.
> 
> _*wanders off shaking head in despair*_


I merely asked you to show me where the Highway Code rules you mentioned might be found. How is that 'barmy'?

The reason for my question was twofold: 1) I couldn't find it. 2) the idea that you should never cause anyone to 'change speed', as you claim the Code states, is a little unrealistic.

I'm not desperate to demonstrate anything, merely quietly contributing to the discussion.


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2018)

jefmcg said:


> Well, he was talking about them swerving across the road, which sounds like lane change to me.


Sounded like crossing the road to me. It also sounded like existance of a more general rule was being asserted.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Mar 2018)

Ian H said:


> I merely asked you to show me where the Highway Code rules you mentioned might be found. How is that 'barmy'?
> 
> The reason for my question was twofold: 1) I couldn't find it. 2) the idea that you should never cause anyone to 'change speed', as you claim the Code states, is a little unrealistic.
> 
> I'm not desperate to demonstrate anything, merely quietly contributing to the discussion.


Come on guys! We are not writing affidavits here. He described behaviour and said the HC said no, but he didn't use precise legal language to clarify he meant illegal on in the circumstances he was describing, and you think you have caught him out!


----------



## winjim (20 Mar 2018)

jefmcg said:


> Come on guys! We are not writing affidavits here. He described behaviour and said the HC said no, but he didn't use precise legal language to clarify he meant illegal on in the circumstances he was describing, and you think you have caught him out!


Not caught out as such but he made an assertion and then got grumpy when asked for clarification. Which is quite funny.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Mar 2018)

Is that self-published erotic fiction I can smell?


----------



## ADarkDraconis (20 Mar 2018)

jefmcg said:


> Well, he was talking about them swerving across the road, which sounds like lane change to me.


Not lane change. Have you seriously not seen kids riding bikes down the middle of the road swerving back and forth purposefully playing 'chicken' with cars before? Happens here all the time.


----------



## ADarkDraconis (20 Mar 2018)

jefmcg said:


> Cars in the UK can park on either side of the road, so it's common enough driving down an empty road for a car on your side of the road, unlit and facing you to "suddenly appear" if you aren't paying attention, because the front of are car isn't festooned with reflectors, and they are often dirty or black or grey. Sober people generally can avoid them.
> 
> On the other hand, if a car - lit or not - suddenly jumped out in front of me, that would be a more likely to result in a collision.


We also park on both sides. Generally a car facing you parked is on the other lane, and does not cross in front of you when it starts but begins to drive in its direction in its lane. If it is turning in front of you then it should use its blinker and wait for you to pass as you have the right of way going straight.


----------



## winjim (20 Mar 2018)

ADarkDraconis said:


> We also park on both sides. Generally a car facing you parked is on the other lane, and does not cross in front of you when it starts but begins to drive in its direction in its lane. If it is turning in front of you then it should use its blinker and wait for you to pass as you have the right of way going straight.


Here in the UK we're only supposed to park on the left, but in reality everybody seems to park pretty much willy-nilly.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> It's a series of books by someone called Rachel Marks. Whether it's erotic, and who the publisher is, I have no idea.
> https://www.rachelannemarks.com/the-dark-cycle




Well, it's not exactly Hodder and Stoughton, is it? Apub, counts as self published. But I was wrong on the other count: YA supernatural romance/adventure. 

Thanks for the link!


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2018)

winjim said:


> Here in the UK we're only supposed to park on the left, but in reality everybody seems to park pretty much willy-nilly.


ITYM like cockwombles, more than willy-nilly.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Mar 2018)

youngoldbloke said:


> YukonBoy are you seriously suggesting we remove all motor vehicles from all roads?



No only for some roads to which they are ill suited. But you knew that. Motor vehicles are already banned from some highways. We just need to expand that as appropriate.


----------



## winjim (20 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> ITYM like cockwombles, more than willy-nilly.


I must admit that my car is currently parked on the right hand side of the road. However the wording is 'against the flow of traffic' and I live in a cul-de-sac so there is no traffic flow to speak of. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2018)

winjim said:


> I must admit that my car is currently parked on the right hand side of the road. However the wording is 'against the flow of traffic' and I live in a cul-de-sac so there is no traffic flow to speak of. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.


Buy or rent space to store your car, you freeloader


----------



## bladesman73 (20 Mar 2018)

Just read the opening post and trying to determine if it is a pisstake or not..please someone tell me it is..please


----------



## winjim (20 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Buy or rent space to store your car, you freeloader


I've got the space, just not the time to get it into a decent state of repair. Once I do start using it, those people who keep parking across the dropped kerb are going to have to find somewhere else for their van...


----------



## winjim (20 Mar 2018)

bladesman73 said:


> Just read the opening post and trying to determine if it is a pisstake or not..please someone tell me it is..please


It's been done so many times that you may as well treat it as one.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Mar 2018)

ADarkDraconis said:


> Not lane change. Have you seriously not seen kids riding bikes down the middle of the road swerving back and forth purposefully playing 'chicken' with cars before? Happens here all the time.


Yes, I've seen it. The question is not the behaviour, but what law they are breaking (if any). I'm pretty sure that you won't find the phrases "swerving back and forth" and "playing 'chicken'" enshrined in UK law. The rules will be about lane discipline and giving way. Those will be the rules they are breaking. 

And can we separate the ninja cyclists from the swervy? A cyclist who suddenly changes direction into harms way is in danger even at noon or covered with monkeylectric.


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2018)

jefmcg said:


> ...enshrined in UK law. The rules will be about lane discipline and giving way. Those will be the rules they are breaking.


Just a small reminder that the law and highway code rules are mostly slightly different things, which is often fortunate when you look at some of the cycling ones...

Here, granny, this is how you suck an egg!


----------



## theclaud (20 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> There is a road in Preston called New Hall Lane, which is the route we have to use when driving to the station. For almost its entire length it passes through *a densely populated area with many takeaways and shops on both sides so there are always cars manouvering and pedestrians crossing. This is the worst mile of road I know for kids on bikes, dressed in black, who race up the pavements, swerve into the road and dash across in front of cars* so naturally I am even more cautious than usual when driving along that stretch. Drive into Manchester or any other big city and you will see commuters taking the same risks and daring drivers to hit them.



Sounds as if the people in this area are doing a pretty good job of reclaiming the street as social space and resisting the entitlement of drivers to treat their community as a rat-run. Is there actually anything more to your issue than being narked at having to slow down and take more care? Other than the very thinly veiled contempt towards the people who inhabit the area you 'have to' drive through, of course.


----------



## Ian H (20 Mar 2018)

I do think that, at least in urban areas, the priority system should be changed so that the entire length of the road functions like a zebra crossing.


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2018)

Ian H said:


> I do think that, at least in urban areas, the priority system should be changed so that the entire length of the road functions like a zebra crossing.


Is that actually change of theoretical priority or merely enforcement and driver/public/court attitude? I thought it already was that walkers have priority over everything except wild animals in theory - it's just that you'd have to be brave or foolhardy to take it in practice when faced with a typical motorist.


----------



## winjim (20 Mar 2018)

Imagine a world where the most dangerous thing on the road was a kid on a bike...


----------



## EasyPeez (20 Mar 2018)

Globalti said:


> What a barmy comment! It's common sense and COURTESY apart from anything else. Honestly, people on this forum are so desperate to demonstrate their impeccable PC credentials.... next you'll be asking me for a peer-reviewed study.
> 
> _*wanders off shaking head in despair*_


----------



## EasyPeez (20 Mar 2018)

StuAff said:


> Coming soon: None More Black. The Goth Ninja Cyberpunk Metalhead Satanist And People Who Just Hate Dayglo Hi Viz Cycling Club.



Fantastic! How do I apply for membership?

EDIT: Scratch that; I misread Dayglo as Drago....


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Mar 2018)

We need this.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/paris-car-ban-seine-anne-hidalgo/512534/


----------



## jefmcg (21 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Here, granny, this is how you suck an egg!


Well, I'm not a granny, but I do suck - so, half right.


----------



## Welsh wheels (28 Mar 2018)

alicat said:


> It's your choice what to wear and whether to use lights or not so I don't see what the problem is.


I'm afraid I disagree that it's your choice whether or not to use lights. Firstly, it is against the law not to use lights after dark and secondly it's very foolish to cycle around after dark with no lights.


----------



## Welsh wheels (28 Mar 2018)

simongt said:


> As we all know, it's common to see folk on bikes on the roads after dark who inevitably wear dark clothing and have no lights on said bikes. This is something I'd be too scared to do in case of the inevitable. If as a driver, you had a collision with said cycle user, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd try and blame you for the event.
> Or is it just me being too cautious - ?


I see too many people riding around in the city where I live without lights. Mostly clueless people who don't know how to stay safe on the roads.


----------



## mjr (28 Mar 2018)

Welsh wheels said:


> I'm afraid I disagree that it's your choice whether or not to use lights. Firstly, it is against the law not to use lights after dark and secondly it's very foolish to cycle around after dark with no lights.


I agree it's against the law, but people can still choose whether or not to break the law (at least until the Department of Precrime starts up). As explained in the post before the one you quoted, I don't think it's particularly foolish, although I wouldn't do it.



Welsh wheels said:


> I see too many people riding around in the city where I live without lights. Mostly clueless people who don't know how to stay safe on the roads.


And yet, you see them and it's mostly not people riding after dark without lights who are road casualties...


----------



## youngoldbloke (28 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> And yet, you see them and it's mostly not people riding after dark without lights who are road casualties...



You may well see the cyclist without lights, and light clothing, but you see them *later* than you see the cyclist with lights and reflective clothing, allowing you to adjust speed and road position sooner, and thus more safely. On unlit country roads this is even more true.


----------



## mjr (28 Mar 2018)

youngoldbloke said:


> You may well see the cyclist without lights, and light clothing, but you see them *later* than you see the cyclist with lights and reflective clothing, allowing you to adjust speed and road position sooner, and thus more safely. On unlit country roads this is even more true.


In other words, the cyclist with lights and reflective clothing is enabling motorists to violate Highway Code rule 126 ("Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear") - and this is good because...?


----------



## youngoldbloke (28 Mar 2018)

round and round and round we go .... do you drive mjr? Do you ever drive on unlit country roads at night? Have you never been surprised that the single light approaching is actually just the nearside headlight of a car, and not a motorbike. Of course you've seen it, but it's much safer to see two lights isn't it?
I didn't say one couldn't stop within the distance you can see to be clear, I said it was safer for all concerned to be able to react sooner rather than later.


----------



## mjr (28 Mar 2018)

youngoldbloke said:


> round and round and round we go .... do you drive mjr? Do you ever drive on unlit country roads at night? Have you never been surprised that the single light approaching is actually just the nearside headlight of a car, and not a motorbike. Of course you've seen it, but it's much safer to see two lights isn't it?


Yes, yes and not particularly. Their headlights are for them to see with, not me to see them. You shouldn't rely on them precisely because they so often mislead due to things like the very common vehicles with one failed headlight or the increasingly frequent totally unlit cars, plus things like animals and debris moving around.

Don't you drive? Don't you drive on unlit country roads at night? Have you ever had to deal with a deer running out of the roadside forest and freezing directly in front of you?


youngoldbloke said:


> I didn't say one couldn't stop within the distance you can see to be clear, I said it was safer for all concerned to be able to react sooner rather than later.


And I said I don't see how it's safer. If you're driving so that you can comfortably react safely within the distance you can see, how can it be any safer to react to something you can only see lights or reflective bits of?


----------



## youngoldbloke (28 Mar 2018)

Of course I drive on unlit country roads at night - hence my observations.
'Their headlights are for them to see with, not me to see them.' - that's an interesting statement. What is the function of 'side lights' or 'daytime running lights'? They don't provide much illumination of the road do they? What about rear lights? I find it helpful to see the rear light of a cyclist ahead - although, as is suggested, I would see them later anyway, even if unlit, as I would an unlit truck, car or motorcycle. Why are these, in your opinion, unnecessary lights required? 
I sometimes see dead deer - 'road kill', I have never hit one, but I have swerved (dangerously) to avoid pheasants - I think I was travelling at around 20 mph (and it was in daylight). I now put my safety first. I suspect sometimes such creatures are unavoidable. What speed do you think I should I be driving at on onlit country roads at night to ensure their safety?


----------



## mjr (28 Mar 2018)

youngoldbloke said:


> Of course I drive on unlit country roads at night - hence my observations.


I don't see why it's "of course" - it wasn't deducible from the post.



youngoldbloke said:


> 'Their headlights are for them to see with, not me to see them.' - that's an interesting statement. What is the function of 'side lights' or 'daytime running lights'? They don't provide much illumination of the road do they? What about rear lights? They don't provide much illumination of the road do they? What about rear lights? I find it helpful to see the rear light of a cyclist ahead - although, as is suggested, I would see them later anyway, even if unlit, as I would an unlit truck, car or motorcycle. Why are these, in your opinion, unnecessary lights required?


Their function is to further distract from motorists' responsibility to drive within what they can see and they're required because our MPs in the 1930s/40s were already overwhelmingly motorists or sympathisers. You may find it interesting to reread the stonkingly prescient reasons that CTC opposed compulsory rear lights back then.



youngoldbloke said:


> I sometimes see dead deer - 'road kill', I have never hit one, but I have swerved (dangerously) to avoid pheasants - I think I was travelling at around 20 mph (and it was in daylight). I now put my safety first. I suspect sometimes such creatures are unavoidable. What speed do you think I should I be driving at on onlit country roads at night to ensure their safety?


It depends on the clearance of the vehicle from roadside cover. On a wide carriageway bordered by cycleways, footways, mown verges and neighbouring fields low crops, you can safely go faster than on a single-car-width road with hedges right up against the road. There's probably some formula involving stopping distances and X and Y visibility distances (as seen in road design manuals) that could decide exactly what's safe but I need to leave my desk before six.


----------



## youngoldbloke (28 Mar 2018)

I thought the comments in my post 157 indicated my experiences as a driver, as did 'On unlit country roads this is even more true'. The route to the nearest town involves travelling on unlit single carriageway A roads, NSL 60mph, with short stretches through villages with 50 and 40 mph limits. I make the journey at night at least once a week. Cyclists are a rarity at night, and pedestrians almost non existent.


----------



## winjim (28 Mar 2018)

youngoldbloke said:


> I thought the comments in my post 157 indicated my experiences as a driver, as did 'On unlit country roads this is even more true'. The route to the nearest town involves travelling on unlit single carriageway A roads, NSL 60mph, with short stretches through villages with 50 and 40 mph limits. I make the journey at night at least once a week. Cyclists are a rarity at night, and pedestrians almost non existent.


There are loads of them. You just can't see them because they're not lit up.


----------



## youngoldbloke (29 Mar 2018)

winjim said:


> There are loads of them. You just can't see them because they're not lit up.


I didn't want to write 'and you never _see_ pedestrians' for obvious reasons - there just aren't many about on this stretch of road, most of which has no footway, except through the 50 and 40 mph zones and as you near the town, where you often encounter joggers. (Many of whom wear hiviz/reflective gilets .......) Actually it is quite common for people walking around here to carry torches at night too.


----------



## winjim (29 Mar 2018)

youngoldbloke said:


> I didn't want to write 'and you never _see_ pedestrians' for obvious reasons - there just aren't many about on this stretch of road, most of which has no footway, except through the 50 and 40 mph zones and as you near the town, where you often encounter joggers. (Many of whom wear hiviz/reflective gilets .......) Actually it is quite common for people walking around here to carry torches at night too.


Round here we get the horrible combination of oncoming cyclists with super-bright front lights approahing on the right, and oncoming joggers with super-bright head torches approaching on the left. It's really disorienting.


----------



## Kryton521 (25 Feb 2020)

Hate to admit this but, Coming home some while back. Just passing the junction with Asda on my left and there was an almighty bang on the side of my car. Stopped and got out to see what I'd hit, hadn't seen anything.
Lying in the gutter is a young-ish fella. With a bike. all in black, simply rode his bike off the pavement and into my side.
I said, "lie still I'll call an ambulance"
If young scrote realised this would also bring the police he didn't wait to find out, swore at me, that I should look where I was going, got back on his bike and wobbled off, leaving me with nothing but a dent and scrape and an odd smell in the air!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (25 Feb 2020)

Holy thread resurrection Batman.

Has no one considered the cyclist in black with no lights might be Batman going about fighting crime?


----------



## vickster (25 Feb 2020)

Kryton521 said:


> Hate to admit this but, Coming home some while back. Just passing the junction with Asda on my left and there was an almighty bang on the side of my car. Stopped and got out to see what I'd hit, hadn't seen anything.
> Lying in the gutter is a young-ish fella. With a bike. all in black, simply rode his bike off the pavement and into my side.
> I said, "lie still I'll call an ambulance"
> If young scrote realised this would also bring the police he didn't wait to find out, swore at me, that I should look where I was going, got back on his bike and wobbled off, leaving me with nothing but a dent and scrape and an odd smell in the air!


He farted from fear?


----------



## Kryton521 (25 Feb 2020)

vickster said:


> He farted from fear?



Nope, definitely was not a trace of methane in the air!


----------



## simongt (25 Feb 2020)

winjim said:


> oncoming cyclists with super-bright front lights approahing on the right, and oncoming joggers with super-bright head torches approaching on the left. It's really disorienting.


Agree on that one. With joggers, it's difficult 'cos their heads are in a state of pretty constant motion, thus the light is unsteady. But with bikes, maybe the rider should stand in front of their bike with the headlamp on to see how bright it is and adjust it so it isn't shining in oncoming folk's faces - ? 
Although I did observe to one rider once about his super bright dazzly headlamp and he told me to f**k off.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (25 Feb 2020)

Kryton521 said:


> Hate to admit this but, Coming home some while back. Just passing the junction with Asda on my left and there was an almighty bang on the side of my car. Stopped and got out to see what I'd hit, hadn't seen anything.
> Lying in the gutter is a young-ish fella. With a bike. all in black, simply rode his bike off the pavement and into my side.
> I said, "lie still I'll call an ambulance"
> If young scrote realised this would also bring the police he didn't wait to find out, swore at me, that I should look where I was going, got back on his bike and wobbled off, leaving me with nothing but a dent and scrape and an odd smell in the air!



So you are saying that if he’d had lights and wearing hi vis he would have ridden off the pavement into the side of your car then carried on as though nothing had happened due to their protective elements? (Confused of Clapham).


----------



## youngoldbloke (25 Feb 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> So you are saying that if he’d had lights and wearing hi vis he would have ridden off the pavement into the side of your car then carried on as though nothing had happened due to their protective elements? (Confused of Clapham).


I suspect the implication was that lights etc might have made the rider visible before he rode off the pavement and avoiding action could have been taken by Kryton521?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (25 Feb 2020)

youngoldbloke said:


> I suspect the implication was that lights etc might have made the rider visible before he rode off the pavement and avoiding action could have been taken by Kryton521?



Not really the rider went into the side and no avoiding action would have been possible unless his car can teleport.


----------



## Drago (25 Feb 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> So you are saying that if he’d had lights and wearing hi vis he would have ridden off the pavement into the side of your car then carried on as though nothing had happened due to their protective elements? (Confused of Clapham).


If he'd been wearing a helmet, florrie, gauntlets, chain mail and a haz mat respirator, had have been too busy helping old ladies across the road to waste time riding his bike into the side of peoples cars.

Call me old fashioned, but I think the guy crashed because he was a bell end, not because of his noir velo.


----------



## Tenkaykev (25 Feb 2020)

I'm a tad confused ( again ) I saw the thread title and popped by to discuss the practicalities of sorting cycling gear into separate piles before bunging it in the washing machine. ;-)


----------



## Gunk (25 Feb 2020)

I’m amazed in Oxford on the way home how many cyclists I see in dark clothing, no helmet and no lights, bloody crazy 🙄


----------



## Slick (26 Feb 2020)

Gunk said:


> I’m amazed in Oxford on the way home* how many cyclists I see *in dark clothing, no helmet and no lights, bloody crazy 🙄



I may start wearing dark clothing as sometimes I feel a lot of drivers never see me.


----------



## youngoldbloke (26 Feb 2020)

I'd prefer to be seen sooner rather than later, if I'm going to be seen, that is. All black with no lights doesn't help one's chances, but obviously many disagree with such a 'common sense' sentiment


----------



## ianrauk (26 Feb 2020)

Gunk said:


> I’m amazed in Oxford on the way home how many cyclists I see in dark clothing, no helmet and no lights, bloody crazy 🙄


I only wear dark clothing and don't wear a plastic hat, though do have lights. Am I slightly crazy, nearly bloody crazy or just other crazy?


----------



## fossyant (26 Feb 2020)

ianrauk said:


> I only wear dark clothing and don't wear a plastic hat, though do have lights. Am I slightly crazy, nearly bloody crazy or just other crazy?



Nah, you are blue !


----------



## newfhouse (26 Feb 2020)

ianrauk said:


> I only wear dark clothing and don't wear a plastic hat, though do have lights. Am I slightly crazy, nearly bloody crazy or just other crazy?


Is this a poll? If so I’m going to say option 3, although that’s not based on your attire


----------



## srw (26 Feb 2020)

Gunk said:


> I’m amazed in Oxford on the way home how many cyclists I see in dark clothing, no helmet and no lights, bloody crazy 🙄


On the other hand you *see *them.


----------



## mjr (26 Feb 2020)

youngoldbloke said:


> I'd prefer to be seen sooner rather than later, if I'm going to be seen, that is. All black with no lights doesn't help one's chances, but obviously many disagree with such a 'common sense' sentiment


Well, consider this: if you have no lights, you probably ride assuming no-one has seen you and so are more likely to survive than someone lit up like the proverbial who assumes they have been seen when they haven't. That may be why being unlit is a factor in under 3% of reported collisions, despite how many ninjas are riding.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Feb 2020)

Gunk said:


> I’m amazed in Oxford on the way home how many cyclists I see in dark clothing, no helmet and no lights, bloody crazy 🙄



Clearly not. If it was crazy it’d appear in the accident stats but it doesn’t. The fact you *see them *kind of says it all, hi vis tends to be blend into the background of similarly coloured street furniture.

Visibility is rarely the issue, attention span of the driver is.


----------



## Gunk (26 Feb 2020)

Perhaps I needed to give a bit more clarity, you can *barely *see these people, It’s not just the dark clothing but no lights in the evening, rush hour in central Oxford.


----------



## Poacher (26 Feb 2020)

Gunk said:


> Perhaps I needed to give a bit more clarity, you can *barely *see these people, It’s not just the dark clothing but no lights in the evening, rush hour in central Oxford.


Would wearing a helmet make them more visible?


----------



## Alex H (27 Feb 2020)

Poacher said:


> Would wearing a helmet make them more visible?


Yes!


----------



## Kryton521 (28 Feb 2020)

Alex H said:


> Yes!
> 
> View attachment 506150


"Touche"!!!


----------



## Andy in Germany (28 Feb 2020)

ianrauk said:


> I only wear dark clothing and don't wear a plastic hat, though do have lights. Am I slightly crazy, nearly bloody crazy or just other crazy?



Not sure, but there's two of us...


----------



## Thisoldbike (12 Mar 2020)

Why wouldn't you want to be as visible as possible?...cyclists usually come off the worse in a collision.


----------



## newfhouse (12 Mar 2020)

Thisoldbike said:


> Why wouldn't you want to be as visible as possible?...cyclists usually come off the worse in a collision.


Visibility is more about riding in a sensibly assertive position on the road than clothing choices. If you’re not perceived as traffic you won’t be treated as traffic.


----------



## Tom B (12 Mar 2020)

A few weeks ago I popped to the top shop on foot in the rain after dark. On my way back walking along the side of a busy main road I spotted one of the local castelli ninjas who is a decent cyclist topping many of the local Strava kom's. He was all in black with a really poor rear light.

Despite the good streetlighting and the open main road he just vanished from my sight within 100/150m. Turned out he was stopped at some traffic lights waiting to turn right. But it was incredible how difficult he was to see.

Really made me stop think.

I believe there is an option to add "cyclist wearing dark clothing" as a causation factor in KSI accident reports. As discussed on another cycling forum where they get a bit outraged by stuff like that.


----------



## mjr (12 Mar 2020)

Tom B said:


> I believe there is an option to add "cyclist wearing dark clothing" as a causation factor in KSI accident reports. As discussed on another cycling forum where they get a bit outraged by stuff like that.


I don't think anyone is outraged by it being available on the casualty (not accident!) reports. That's how we know it's not a significant factor, with ninjas underrepresented in casualties.

It's the daffodils who leap from it being on the casualty reports to it must be a problem that outrages people.


----------



## Ashimoto (14 Mar 2020)

I wear dark clothing I also wear a helmet and use lights. On top of that Im riding a Neon Green bike. Im pretty confident on the road so tend to do my own thing . I find the majority of motorists just fine but theres also some inconsiderate and down right dangerous ones as well. The other day a car pulled right in front of me in a cycle lane and stopped. Luckily i wasnt going at any speed so avoided an accident. The moron even looked at me as if I was in the wrong


----------



## DRM (16 Mar 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Clearly not. If it was crazy it’d appear in the accident stats but it doesn’t. The fact you *see them *kind of says it all, hi vis tends to be blend into the background of similarly coloured street furniture.
> 
> Visibility is rarely the issue, attention span of the driver is.


That’s a bit of a stupid statement, in many city Centre environments it’s not driver inattention, it’s just that you can be overwhelmed visually by what’s going on around you, dealing with several lanes of traffic, what lane to get into, idiots cutting you up, low sun reflecting on wet road etc etc ,as a cyclist it’s a no brainer to make your self as visible as possible


----------



## mjr (16 Mar 2020)

DRM said:


> That’s a bit of a stupid statement, in many city Centre environments it’s not driver inattention, it’s just that you can be overwhelmed visually by what’s going on around you, dealing with several lanes of traffic, what lane to get into, idiots cutting you up, low sun reflecting on wet road etc etc ,as a cyclist it’s a no brainer to make your self as visible as possible


@YukonBoy never said it was driver inattention, just that the attention span is a problem. I read that as saying it's insufficient for the amount of data to process at the speed they're travelling - basically another way of saying what you did. Of course, one obvious mitigation measure would be to slow the fark down, so drivers have more time to process things, but few motorists seem willing to do that.

Meanwhile, "it’s a no brainer to make your self as visible as possible" is something you can read in several ways. I agree with @YukonBoy that making yourself look like a yellow-edged road sign isn't doing "as visible as possible" in an urban area. I agree with previous posters that how you ride and what you've got on your bike is far more important than what you wear. I also agree that you basically can't force drivers to look at you, so the whole "be seen" shtick is pernicious victim-blaming that should be flamed out of existence.


----------



## sheddy (16 Mar 2020)

Motons drive too fast to stop in the the space they can see.


----------



## Gunk (16 Mar 2020)

sheddy said:


> Motons drive too fast to stop in the the space they can see.



Moton?

You must mean “A small plate covering the armpit in armor of the 14th century and later” 😂


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Mar 2020)

Tom B said:


> he just vanished from my sight within 100/150m



What's the speed limit on the road in question?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (16 Mar 2020)

DRM said:


> That’s a bit of a stupid statement, in many city Centre environments it’s not driver inattention, it’s just that you can be overwhelmed visually by what’s going on around you, dealing with several lanes of traffic, what lane to get into, idiots cutting you up, low sun reflecting on wet road etc etc ,as a cyclist it’s a no brainer to make your self as visible as possible



There is low sun reflecting on a wet road ahead. What should the cyclist wear to make themselves as visible as possible? They are now a mile down the road in a forest with a dark wet road and green foliage. What should they wear to be as visible as possible? They are now in a city with several lanes of traffic, with cars close passing and cutting them up, what should they wear to be as visible as possible?

If someone is visually overwhelmed it makes not a blind bit of difference what you wear. There no universal thing you could wear for a single ride to be as visible as possible. Unless it’s really poor weather with heavy rain and or fog a person in everyday clothing is more than visible enough. In poor weather they can put lights on making them more than visible. Lower speed limits would help in busy urban environments so the drivers aren’t overwhelmed due to the speed they are going at, No one else is visually overwhelmed in the same environments because they are travelling at an appropriate speed. Drivers only seem to understand limits and not that they need to slow the fark down if overwhelmed.


----------



## DRM (16 Mar 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> There is low sun reflecting on a wet road ahead. What should the cyclist wear to make themselves as visible as possible? They are now a mile down the road in a forest with a dark wet road and green foliage. What should they wear to be as visible as possible? They are now in a city with several lanes of traffic, with cars close passing and cutting them up, what should they wear to be as visible as possible?
> 
> If someone is visually overwhelmed it makes not a blind bit of difference what you wear. There no universal thing you could wear for a single ride to be as visible as possible. Unless it’s really poor weather with heavy rain and or fog a person in everyday clothing is more than visible enough. In poor weather they can put lights on making them more than visible. Lower speed limits would help in busy urban environments so the drivers aren’t overwhelmed due to the speed they are going at, No one else is visually overwhelmed in the same environments because they are travelling at an appropriate speed. Drivers only seem to understand limits and not that they need to slow the fark down if overwhelmed.


There is a large roundabout near to where I live, it has four lanes, traffic lights on each of the seven exits, most people who know the area go round at normal , not excessive speed, except for the odd idiot, the dangerous ones are the slow, lost ones wandering from lane to lane in a totally panicked state, the overhead gantries have all the direction signs on, so you are supposed to work out where to be whilst watching out for traffic on both sides of you, so speed does not equate to being overwhelmed, the road layout does, so to me , put your lights on, on flash mode, hi vis may just make you be seen from further away, rather than later, that’s a no brainer


----------



## Ming the Merciless (16 Mar 2020)

DRM said:


> There is a large roundabout near to where I live, it has four lanes, traffic lights on each of the seven exits, most people who know the area go round at normal , not excessive speed, except for the odd idiot, the dangerous ones are the slow, lost ones wandering from lane to lane in a totally panicked state, the overhead gantries have all the direction signs on, so you are supposed to work out where to be whilst watching out for traffic on both sides of you, so speed does not equate to being overwhelmed, the road layout does, so to me , put your lights on, on flash mode, hi vis may just make you be seen from further away, rather than later, that’s a no brainer



It is not a no brainer it’s a decision you’ve made based on no evidence it makes any difference. The only evidence for cyclists wearing hiviz (so far) is that they are more likely to be involved in an accident. Drivers going round at an appropriate speed will pay attention to your presence. Take the lane and avoid lucky rabbit foot approaches.


----------



## DRM (16 Mar 2020)

Well I know for a fact that when I’m driving a cyclist in bright clothing can be seen further away, than one in ninja black, note I’m not saying I don’t notice ninjas, just the brighter clothed rider is seen further away, therefore it stands to reason that as a driver you can start to deal with the cyclist you’re approaching sooner rather than later.


----------



## DCBassman (16 Mar 2020)

DRM said:


> Well I know for a fact that when I’m driving a cyclist in bright clothing can be seen further away, than one in ninja black, note I’m not saying I don’t notice ninjas, just the brighter clothed rider is seen further away, therefore it stands to reason that as a driver you can start to deal with the cyclist you’re approaching sooner rather than later.


But that's because YOU are paying attention. 
What you are wearing absolutely cannot make someone pay attention. They either are, or are not. There is no make.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (16 Mar 2020)

DRM said:


> Well I know for a fact that when I’m driving a cyclist in bright clothing can be seen further away, than one in ninja black, note I’m not saying I don’t notice ninjas, just the brighter clothed rider is seen further away, therefore it stands to reason that as a driver you can start to deal with the cyclist you’re approaching sooner rather than later.



If they are further away you are not going to hit them anyway are you? It’s the ones closer to you that you need to pay attention to. In typical daylight conditions you can see a person on a bike or pedestrian at least 400m away. If you are paying attention to someone 1 mile away because hiviz enables that, then that’s your problem. Pay attention to what’s in front of you not something brighter but further away you couldn’t possibly hit unless you fired an exocet.


----------



## DRM (16 Mar 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> If they are further away you are not going to hit them anyway are you? It’s the ones closer to you that you need to pay attention to. In typical daylight conditions you can see a person on a bike or pedestrian at least 400m away. If you are paying attention to someone 1 mile away because hiviz enables that, then that’s your problem. Pay attention to what’s in front of you not something brighter but further away you couldn’t possibly hit unless you fired an exocet.


You don’t get it do you, if you notice a cyclist sooner, you can have longer to asses what else is going on around you, can you get past safely, or do I wait a little, are there parked vehicles or road works ahead, what road furniture is there, is there on coming traffic, is there another cyclist coming in the opposite direction that some muppet will blithely pass without a care in the world, how quickly are they riding, do they look like they are experienced or nervous etc etc etc, and yes I do also look for what’s happening nearer as well, why do you think police advanced drivers are trained to give a commentary of what’s going on around them while they are being driver trained, so that the instructor knows that they are paying attention, as I said I do not understand why being able to see someone sooner is so wrong, who the hell is worrying about what’s going on 1 mile away, I’m not talking about that, and mostly in Britain it’s rarely perfect light conditions.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Mar 2020)

DCBassman said:


> What you are wearing absolutely cannot make someone pay attention. They either are, or are not. There is no make.



Well said, Yoda!


----------



## mjr (17 Mar 2020)

DRM said:


> You don’t get it do you, if you notice a cyclist sooner, you can have longer to asses what else is going on around you,


You don't get it, do you? I might use the time like that. You might. We're not the drivers who need to change because we avoid even ninjas. Kenny won't use the time like that. He's got the memory of a farking goldfish and will have forgotten about the cyclists by the time he reaches them. That's still better than Jemima Ondafone who hit a walker because she was distracted by cyclists a mile away usurping attention when she finally looked up out the big window instead of the little black mirror.


----------



## classic33 (17 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> You don't get it, do you? I might use the time like that. You might. We're not the drivers who need to change because we avoid even ninjas. Kenny won't use the time like that. He's got the memory of a farking goldfish and will have forgotten about the cyclists by the time he reaches them. That's still better than Jemima Ondafone who hit a walker because she was distracted by cyclists a mile away usurping attention when she finally looked up out the big window instead of the little black mirror.


If their attention is elsewhere, or lacking, then they'll never see anything.

Even that big lorry with the large sign on the rear, clearly showing you've to pass on the right hand side. It's only travelling slow/stationary because it's being used to do a job.

Edited so they now reads they'll


----------



## DRM (17 Mar 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Well said, Yoda!


I never said that the colour of an an item of clothing makes someone else pay attention, a bright colour makes it easier to see from a bit further away, forewarned is forearmed


----------



## DRM (17 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> If their attention is elsewhere, or lacking, then they never see anything.
> 
> Even that big lorry with the large sign on the rear, clearly showing you've to pass on the right hand side. It's only travelling
> slow/stationary because it's being used to do a job.


Again I didn’t say a bright colour makes the inattentive pay attention, as above a bright colour makes it easier to be spotted from a bit further away


----------



## DRM (17 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> You don't get it, do you? I might use the time like that. You might. We're not the drivers who need to change because we avoid even ninjas. Kenny won't use the time like that. He's got the memory of a farking goldfish and will have forgotten about the cyclists by the time he reaches them. That's still better than Jemima Ondafone who hit a walker because she was distracted by cyclists a mile away usurping attention when she finally looked up out the big window instead of the little black mirror.


As above too, in this instance using phones or anything else whilst driving should be stamped on very very hard, as far as I’m concerned if caught using a mobile phone whilst driving the police should be able to confiscate it, no if’s no buts, end of.
Bad, selfish, antisocial & inattentive use of a vehicle should be punished by removing the license & the vehicle too, let Mr Audi/BMW man explain that to his company leasing firm


----------



## mjr (17 Mar 2020)

DRM said:


> Again I didn’t say a bright colour makes the inattentive pay attention, as above a bright colour makes it easier to be spotted from a bit further away


Again, depends what background it's viewed against and the driver will not necessarily use that extra distance wisely, so the overall effect is insignificant and we can do much much better.


----------



## classic33 (17 Mar 2020)

DRM said:


> Again I didn’t say a bright colour makes the inattentive pay attention, as above a bright colour makes it easier to be spotted from a bit further away


I was answering the quoted post only.

Edited to read they'll not they


----------



## youngoldbloke (17 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> If their attention is elsewhere, or lacking, then they'll never see anything.
> 
> Even that big lorry with the large sign on the rear, clearly showing you've to pass on the right hand side. It's only travelling slow/stationary because it's being used to do a job.
> 
> Edited so they now reads they'll


- so is all the hazard warning paintwork and flashing lights on the big slow lorry a waste of paint and resources? Is it totally ineffective? Would the collision rate stay the same if they were painted black and unlit?


----------



## classic33 (17 Mar 2020)

youngoldbloke said:


> - so is all the hazard warning paintwork and flashing lights on the big slow lorry a waste of paint and resources? Is it totally ineffective? Would the collision rate stay the same if they were painted black and unlit?


If the persons attention is elsewhere, or lacking.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (17 Mar 2020)

DRM said:


> You don’t get it do you, if you notice a cyclist sooner,



..then by the time you are close enough to hit them you have forgotten about them and are distracted by the next thing clamouring for your limited attention span.


----------



## DRM (17 Mar 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> ..then by the time you are close enough to hit them you have forgotten about them and are distracted by the next thing clamouring for your limited attention span.


Eh? You’re suggesting I have a limited attention span and forget about the things I’ve taken note of when driving, How do you work that out, this is just getting stupid, I genuinely think you’ve got issues, I’m out.


----------



## pjd57 (17 Mar 2020)

" it is common to see folk "

So if you can still see them, no
excuse for hitting them then


----------



## icowden (18 Mar 2020)

I'm going to regret this but...

With reduced reflectivity and contrast (i.e. dark clothes) you are less likely to spot a pedestrian or cyclist - that's just basic physics. There will always be circumstances where lights and high vis make very little difference. Most of us don't stay in one spot though. If I am in central London, my lights and high-vis equipment don't really add to my visibiility. The place is well lit. However by having elements of differing contrast (my coat and shorts are black and my bike isn't particularly colourful) I still thnk that I am noticeable enough. The only place I am truly invisible is standing on the concourse at Waterloo Station.

Getting back to Surrey however suddenly the roads are a lot darker. Many of the residential roads have low throw streetlights and some quite long dark spots. This is where the reflective material of my high vis rucksack, gloves and white helmet are useful, along with the bike lights.

Is there any evidence that wearing a reflective jacket improves the safety of the cyclist? Well yes, there does seem to be:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528

Of course there have been numerous studies suggesting the opposite, however they were not randomised controlled trials, but instead based on analysis of accident data (the linked study does go into this).

So, on balance, it seems to me that it is better to encourage people to wear clothing that at best may reduce the incidence of having an accident rather than to dismiss it out of hand. Being possibly better off is to my mind better than not having that possibility. 

This argument goes around and around. Should we use lights? Should we wear hi-vis? Should we wear helmets?. None of these things have actively and definitively been shown in a scientifically controlled randomised trial to make life more dangerous for the cyclist. If you don't want to wear them - that's fine. I think there is sufficient evidence to show that on balance it's probably better to make some sort of effort.


----------



## Seevio (18 Mar 2020)

As the original post was about Oxford, I thought I would share my experiences as I have worked there recently.

Parking in central Oxford is expensive. Don't do it. When I go there, I park in the Park & Ride. As I am not a peasant, I don't do public transport and so I take my bike and cycle into central Oxford. Oxford during rush hour seems to be divided into bits where there are nearly no cars and bits where cars hold up bicycles.

Central Oxford is well lit. Even if you don't have lights (not me), you are still easily visible. Once you get to the bit where the cars are, you are more in danger of hitting a car than they are of hitting you.


----------



## mjr (19 Mar 2020)

icowden said:


> I'm going to regret this but...
> 
> With reduced reflectivity and contrast (i.e. dark clothes) [...]


Yes, you probably should regret that, making a fundamental error after less than ten words! Dark clothes are only reduced contrast if being viewed against a dark background, which isn't most towns and many villages now with bright "cool white" LED streetlights, and that's where most poor-light cycling happens.

The rest of the post is littered with similar basic errors, logical disconnects and words which hint at unthinking acceptance of the evidence-free 1960s-80s orthodoxy ("accident") which saw the bad advice on clothing added to the highway code. I'm not going to tackle them one by one (so-called Fisking) because it would make for a tedious discussion.

As I'm sure you know, the problem with https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528 is that the participants knew they were in a trial, so their behaviour may have been affected, which seems to me like a better explanation for the difference with population studies than the ones put forward.

You may base your decisions on what may happen "at best", but I prefer to also consider what could happen at worst and estimate the various probabilities to arrive an an expectation of the effect - basically arriving at the "on balance" effect of your last sentence but without the previous two paragraphs dismissing the evidence that victim-blaming clothing may do more harm than good.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (19 Mar 2020)

Tenkaykev said:


> I'm a tad confused ( again ) I saw the thread title and popped by to discuss the practicalities of sorting cycling gear into separate piles before bunging it in the washing machine. ;-)


... and I thought the thread might have been about the cycling equivalent of the Dark Web.


----------



## classic33 (19 Mar 2020)

Shut Up Legs said:


> ... and I thought the thread might have been about the cycling equivalent of the Dark Web.


Batman on a budget.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (19 Mar 2020)

From that study

“The effect in twilight is based on only few accidents, and thus no conclusions about the effect could be drawn.

The hypothesis was that the effect would be greater in daylight than in the dark, but the results cannot confirm this hypothesis

This effect is of the same magnitude as the effect of the permanent running light

Some may argue that this effect seems unrealistically high. This may reflect a weakness in the study design: the fact that it was non-blinded and the use of self-reported accidents, which may result in response bias

Consequently, it is possible that the test group reported slightly fewer PIAs than they should because they wanted to prove the safety effect of the bicycle jacket.
”

Ignoring the other errors, basically if I turn my lights on when appropriate in poor light conditions, I’m sorted.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (19 Mar 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> From that study
> 
> “The effect in twilight is based on only few accidents, and thus no conclusions about the effect could be drawn.
> 
> ...


Is a PIA a Pain In the Ass?


----------

