dark cycle kit!!

[theclaud]

Focus people!!

Start your own thread arguing the positive and negative points of lights

This is about High Viz..looking like a lemon..etc etc

Actually, what it's about is the creeping tendency to shift responsibility for safety onto the more vulnerable road user, instead of placing it where it belongs - with the person who presents the danger to others.

Look - you can even get to maim kids who aren't wearing this shoot. Loadsa fun.

 

[bianchi1]

I blame Rapha Condor Sharp and Sky with their black team kit......

Its honestly why i haven't invested in a sky top.

 

[bianchi1]

Actually, what it's about is the creeping tendency to shift responsibility for safety onto the more vulnerable road user, instead of placing it where it belongs - with the person who presents the danger to others.

Look - you can even get to maim kids who aren't wearing this s***. Loadsa fun.

And yet i feel cyclists (kids, adults, athletes, commuters everyone on a bike) must have a level or responsibility, What do you feel is the minimum?

 

[Marshmallow_Fluff]

And yet i feel cyclists (kids, adults, athletes, commuters everyone on a bike) must have a level or responsibility, What do you feel is the minimum?

Now focus! This is about hi-viz, space lemon, etc etc..
It's not about cyclists riding responsibly and follow the code! You can start a new thread about all that stuff!

 

[bianchi1]

I feel one level of minimum responsibility is to be adequately visible at all times..maybe utilising some high viz clothing!

Better?

 

[Marshmallow_Fluff]

I feel one level of minimum responsibility is to be adequately visible at all times..maybe utilising some high viz clothing!

Better?

Better!
(I still prefer black though, as I am immature and irresponsible! )

 

[theclaud]

And yet i feel cyclists (kids, adults, athletes, commuters everyone on a bike) must have a level or responsibility, What do you feel is the minimum?

Minimum of what, for what? Of course everyone has responsibilities, but everyone's responsibilities are not the same in every context. A person presenting a potential danger to others has an absolute responsibility, and cannot abdicate that responsibility be invoking the irresponsibility, real or imagined, of the endangered party. Which is a pompous way of describing the phenomenon of victim-blaming. As I cyclist I am absolutely responsible for not running pedestrians over with my bicycle. No amount of irresponsibility on the part of pedestrians can absolve me of my responsibility towards them. Drivers of motor vehicles are absolutely responsible for not running cyclists and pedestrians over. I don't see how I can make it clearer.

 

[Norm]

Most of the time, any solid colour is ok as it allows easy identification of a shape as 'human'.

There is, of course, a train of thought that to deliberately obscure the profile makes drivers 'look' rather than 'glance' which makes it safer, but that's probably also for another thread.

So, back on track, within the space that a driver needs to see and respond to something on the road, any solid colour would work at sufficient range.

 

[bianchi1]

Most of the time, any solid colour is ok as it allows easy identification of a shape as 'human'.

There is, of course, a train of thought that to deliberately obscure the profile makes drivers 'look' rather than 'glance' which makes it safer, but that's probably also for another thread.

So, back on track, within the space that a driver needs to see and respond to something on the road, any solid colour would work at sufficient range.

My only argument would be for that solid colour to be different than the background to increase contrast. I am coming from the standpoint of mainly rural riding where dark clothes really do blend in well with backgrounds such as high hedgerows.

I do concede that in urban environments there may be other factors.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It appears that the authorities determined that because he was not lit up like a christmas tree or dressed like a fluoro timmy mallet the driver did not see him and he was run over.

seems pretty clear. Sad but clear.

He wasn't run over. He sustained massive head injuries when he collided with a car that turned across his path whilst he was coming downhill, in the rain, whilst drunk.

But clearly you think he was invisible. I don't.

 

[bianchi1]

He wasn't run over. He sustained massive head injuries when he collided with a car that turned across his path whilst he was coming downhill, in the rain, whilst drunk.

But clearly you think he was invisible. I don't.

The cyclist was drunk?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Astonishing!

Clark was wearing dark clothing on a dark, rainy night and had no lights on his bicycle.

Did you miss that bit?

It is good form that if one materially edits one's contributions post-hoc, by adding stuff like the bit highlighted in bold as seems to have happened here, one should have the good grace to flag the fact one has done so or the opinion might be formed that one is nowt but a :troll:

 

[Norm]

My only argument would be for that solid colour to be different than the background to increase contrast. I am coming from the standpoint of mainly rural riding where dark clothes really do blend in well with backgrounds such as high hedgerows.

I do concede that in urban environments there may be other factors.

Possibly, yes, I agree with you (I think) that yellow, red or orange hi-viz is more noticeable than, say, dark green, black or blue. Or purple. I posted, about 18 months ago, that I prefer cyclists in hi viz as a driver as it gives me more time to plan the passing manoeuvre.

My point remains, though, is that necessary? Yellow might be more noticeable than black from 1,000m but, IMO only if the black isn't visible from 100m is it an issue.

To use an analogy, the lights on the front landing gear of a commercial airliner are visible from about 100 miles away. My Exposure bike lights are visible from about a mile. But my bike lights are all that I need on the bike and 20,000 lumens are not needed. Similarly, if I can be adequately visible at 100m wearing black, then why go for overkill with the yellow?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I'd guess they would think, or perhaps not, "no lights, case closed" To think beyond that would require a fair bit of work and it is likely that they only had one account to consider and he wasn't blaming himself.

just another dead drunk
just another dead cyclist
how can the driver possibly be responsible; the cyclist was invisible, brought it on themselves.

it stands to reason.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The cyclist was drunk?

Didn't do your research very well did you?