Cyclists in Stealth Mode.

[[XAP]Bob]

If route A is 100 yards and route B is 900?

How far should the actions of a criminal section of society alter our behaviour...

[The utility cyclist]

If a driver is inattentive then they're no paying attention to you and the only thing that'll help you is your being attentive and working on the assumption they are driving as though you aren't there.

The roads around here are very dark at night. Few street lights. A well lit up cyclist with reflectives stands out like a UFO. Very difficult for even an inattentive driver to fail to notice. It is different in urban areas, where our efforts to be conspicuous are much less successful.

Only to those that are looking/seeing and are being attentive/responsible in which case they don't need you to be adorned with such in the first place, as proven time and time and time again it makes jack all difference what you are wearing so your statement with respect to those that are inattentive is false and you nor anyone else have evidence whatsoever to prove that it does. 'Common sense' and other nonsense phrases doesn't make it so.

[pwa]

If a driver is inattentive then they're no paying attention to you and the only thing that'll help you is your being attentive and working on the assumption they are driving as though you aren't there.

The roads around here are very dark at night. Few street lights. A well lit up cyclist with reflectives stands out like a UFO. Very difficult for even an inattentive driver to fail to notice. It is different in urban areas, where our efforts to be conspicuous are much less successful.

Only to those that are looking/seeing and are being attentive/responsible in which case they don't need you to be adorned with such in the first place, as proven time and time and time again it makes jack all difference what you are wearing so your statement with respect to those that are inattentive is false and you nor anyone else have evidence whatsoever to prove that it does. 'Common sense' and other nonsense phrases doesn't make it so.

This is a Forum not a court of law, so I'm giving you my opinion without a shed load of academic evidence. I drive on my local country roads and I know what catches my eye. It is a reasonable assumption that these things also catch the eye of other drivers. Things that really stand out for me will probably stand out for less careful drivers. A set of bright lights on a pitch dark road stand out a lot. That is enough for me to conclude that it is a good idea to use them. You can wait for someone to come along with an academic paper to prove the point, but while you are doing that I'm going with what seems to me to be the bleedin obvious.

[IanW]

I drive on my local country roads and I know what catches my eye. It is a reasonable assumption that these things also catch the eye of other drivers. Things that really stand out for me will probably stand out for less careful drivers. A set of bright lights on a pitch dark road stand out a lot. That is enough for me to conclude that it is a good idea to use them. You can wait for someone to come along with an academic paper to prove the point, but while you are doing that I'm going with what seems to me to be the bleedin obvious.

+1

Definitely lights as a first priority as you cannot rely on other sources of light to reflect off retroreflective devices.
(Think nighttime, dense tree-cover, off-axis approach from another vehicle.)

Then retro-reflectives (clean and correctly positioned) attached to the cycle itself.
Then they are always with you and help meet the pretty sensible, IMHO, legal vehicle regulations.

Finally acknowledge that for most cycles the rider is a significant proportion of the potentially visible area.
Therefore tolerating some form of high-vis clothing and/or retro-reflective design elements into your clothing is also not a bad idea.

In fact the latter point also applies to pedestrians and livestock and static objects knowingly placed on the carriageway.


It would be nice to think that drivers would always drive with due care and attention, comply with all traffic regulations, have a perfectly well maintained vehicle etc. and to see that there is a suitably high level of policing and subsequent prosecution and deterrent punishment of transgressors such that every driver was suitably encouraged to conform to this perfect ideal.

But we should also take the pragmatic approach and recognise that this ideal will never be reliably attained
at least not without removing all human-based decision making and that would include banning the freedom to cycle.

Therefore a certain degree of self-preservation technique also needs to be applied.
You can call this "victim blaming" if you wish. But I do not want to be a victim in the first place if it is at all possible.

[BakfietsUK]

I agree with you IanW with pretty much everything you say in your last post. However I don't think it's pragmatic to accept that because stuff isn't ideal it somehow would not be worth aiming for it. I know you don't actually say this directly, but maybe your post implies pragmatism is about an unwitting acceptance of the status quo. For me the most helpful way of looking at non ideal stuff is to judge if it is "good enough" and maybe you would agree that "it" is not good enough. It's not good enough for cyclists to have to fight for their rights on a day to day basis and having to accept an inordinate amount of responsibility for others shortcomings. Responsibilities that should rightly and properly be the domain of those who choose to operate dangerous devices in the presence of other more vulnerable human beings.

To me it's much more helpful to say the victim I.e. the one who comes off worse or who bears the brunt of others' negligence may actually have contributed to the outcome of an incident. If the cyclist has no high viz, sure it is perhaps not wise. However, this may not actually be the primary cause of an incident, which may be the drivers fault. To me it's not an excuse to say the cyclist's visibility was the primary causal factor as there are so many more variables present which are in complete control of the driver. So to say the cyclist is to blame for their own demise totally misses the primary cause, which could be wholly avoidable and render the cyclist's part irrelevant.

[irc]

I'm often disappointed by how many people now drive around corners or over brows with main beam on and only dip after dazzling another road user.

You mean

I'm often disappointed by how many people now drive around corners or over brows with main beam on and only dip after SEEING another road user

Fixed that for you. Unless the other road user has given a clue they are there like having powerful lights with the glare visible round corners then a driver dips lights once he sees them. No point having a main beam if it can't be used just in case there is someone round the next corner.

[irc]

An analogy. There are two routes home from the pub. Route A is crime free. Route B is 400 yds shorter but has history of muggings. Is it victim blaming to say Route A is a wiser choice?

well to continue your analogy and my point…
In such a situation I would expect to local council and police to be tackling the muggings, and I'd expect the local public to be demanding that they do so as well, but what we currently have is akin to everyone suggesting you avoid the area, prudent advice to your family and friends maybe, but not the solution that society should be working towards

We should be doing both. Campaigning for safer roads or less crime while right now minimising our risk by any reasonable measures. It isn't an either or choice.

[reohn2]

We should be doing both. Campaigning for safer roads or less crime while right now minimising our risk by any reasonable measures. It isn't an either or choice.

+1

[Rhothgar]

I'm a bit late to the discussion so do not know if this has been posted before.

It's time for change on many levels. Get your thoughts down in writing and submit to this public inquiry:-

http://road.cc/content/news/214803-just ... e-cyclists

[Rhothgar]

I've skimmed through quite a few posts and there are some great thinkers out there such as IanW. Please make your voice heard by writing to the above inquiry with some pertinent points.

I've also read a few of the posts which refer to victim blaming. I detest that nonsense. Make your own choice of you get injured, you get injured.

Accidents boils down to conscience and conscientiousness. If everyone wears to be conscientious in their actions, accidents wouldn't happen bar mechanic failure.

It is always possible to drive within the boundaries of safety and care for your fellow road users. That applies equally to motor vehicles and cyclists.

Trying to argue that you aren't responsible for your own safety if a car hits you because you have chosen not to wear hi-viz or use lights is just plain nonsensical stupidity.

I was told this year that I was 'victim-blaming' because someone got a puncture who regularly cycled along cycle paths that the council had clipped a hawthorn hedge back alongside of. My answer is to take some responsibility for your own actions. If you're not bothered about having to repair a puncture because you know that route is riddled with clippings then either take a different route or get some puncture-proof tyres. It's not difficult but there is a certain type of person that likes to moan and place blame at someone else's feet when they have sufficient information to ameliorate the perceived issue.

The attitude of some drivers terrifies me. You see them using their phones, either calling or on FaceBook. I saw one girl dancing along whilst driving and having a FaceTime call with a friend like they were having a party.

The Police are stretched beyond capacity. Way beyond capacity.

I experienced a pretty scary situation earlier this year where a driver overtook our club on the grass verge and swerved into the group narrowly missing two members by less than 12". Visibility was not an issue in that instance but it illustrates that there are some real idiots out there.

I reported it to the Police they took no action.

I saw the same driver again a few weeks ago and he drove past us and gave the middle finger.

Should I give up cycling because of this? I've returned to cycling after 28 years off because a friend was killed in a road race.

Of course, I shouldn't give up cycling but I make that choice in the knowledge that there appears to be a very real and ever increasing threat to one's life through the idiotic actions of an ever-increasing population of drivers using technology and social media whilst driving.

One point I am going to make to his enquiry is that Police should carry out a full investigation into a person's affairs such that they can review all mobile phone use including social media use leading up to an accident.

Unless people are given a fair tariff for the death of anyone whether they are cycling or a pedestrian or another driver, then the rise in use of mobile phones will go largely undetected and unchallenged.

[Cunobelin]

I've also read a few of the posts which refer to victim blaming. I detest that nonsense. Make your own choice of you get injured, you get injured.

Accidents boils down to conscience and conscientiousness. If everyone wears to be conscientious in their actions, accidents wouldn't happen bar mechanic failure.

It is always possible to drive within the boundaries of safety and care for your fellow road users. That applies equally to motor vehicles and cyclists.

Trying to argue that you aren't responsible for your own safety if a car hits you because you have chosen not to wear hi-viz or use lights is just plain nonsensical stupidity. s using technology and social media whilst driving.

... and seeing that this all applies to cars as well, do you consider the drivers of cars parked without hiviz and lights and lights plain nonsensical stupidity, or is this another one of those cases where it is OK for vehicles, but not cyclists?

[The utility cyclist]

I detest people who can't recognise victim blaming when it's patently obvious because they themselves are part of the problem, I detest people that can't understand that despite there being no evidence nor one single item of garb that can be worn in any given circumstances that gives you an increase chance of notifying those not looking properly of your presence (& to then positively act on it) they still harp on about hi-vis and other nonsense.

I hope no-one in your families are ever raped because they were dressed a certain way, walked on the wrong street, not wearing a chastity belt, anti-rape devices, you know because they had it coming to them for not taking responsibility not to do so..fgs!

If you're never burgled, take it on the chin that you are the victim of your own inaction when the police blame you for not having 24 hour security/8ft high walls with spikes on top surrounding your property despite you knowing that burgalries happen in your area (that'll be everywhere).

Attacked/mugged whilst enjoying a night out or walking to the shops or even sitting in your own home, sorry, that'll be your fault again for not employing personal protection wherever you are 24 hours a day.

I can just imagine it, 86 year old grandmother mugged/punchded and kicked on way to shops, tough luck granny, you should have seen that coming, living in the world we live it was going to happen, you clearly made no effort to protect yourself/deflect such attacks so it's all on you...
Over the top nonsense, not in the slightest, the comparison is very accurate, I want to live my life without hinderence as is my lawful right, adjust the behaviour of those that do harm, NEVER those that are doing nothing wrong, that we don't is exactly why we have this monstrous situation in the first place!Compare the chances of being struck/killed on bike to many other situations were people should be doing 'stuff' to protect/prevent against harm/violence/loss and the calls for hi-vis et al are even more ridiculous.

I'm out of this conversation, some people are destined to propagate the blame culture and it's alive and kicking on the very forum that should be absolutely against this insidious culture creep.
you should be flipping ashamed of yourselves!

[gaz]

Trying to argue that you aren't responsible for your own safety if a car hits you because you have chosen not to wear hi-viz or use lights is just plain nonsensical stupidity.

Not recognising the driver's part in a collision between a moving motor vehicle and a cyclist is nonsensical. Cars are driven, drivers make choices.

Trying to argue that at night the driver of a car has no repsonsibility to drive at a speed where they can stop their vehicle within the distance that they can see to be clear is just plain nonsensical stupidity.

[Rhothgar]

Trying to argue that you aren't responsible for your own safety if a car hits you because you have chosen not to wear hi-viz or use lights is just plain nonsensical stupidity.

Not recognising the driver's part in a collision between a moving motor vehicle and a cyclist is nonsensical. Cars are driven, drivers make choices.

Trying to argue that at night the driver of a car has no repsonsibility to drive at a speed where they can stop their vehicle within the distance that they can see to be clear is just plain nonsensical stupidity.

Either I'm stupid or you've totally misunderstood my post...

Car drivers are entirely to blame as far as I am concerned. Like skiing, the slower party should always has the right of way.

What are you so confused about?

[Vorpal]

What are you so confused about?

Trying to argue that you aren't responsible for your own safety

does not seem to agree with

Car drivers are entirely to blame