Cyclists in Stealth Mode.

[irc]

I had two front lights one solid one flashing a rear flashing one on the back of my helmet two on the seat post one flashing one solid and a solid on the rack. Not to mention reflectors including ankle bands and one of those red stick out arms with reflector one and finally a florescent full jacket with reflective stripes and writing on front rear and arms. I was brighter than a Christmas tree.

Yet cycling home from night shift at 0920hrs on a summers morning on a straight Road I managed to be not visible enough and was hit from behind by a car. The driver of which didn't see me

1 data point doesn't prove anything. Your lighting may have prevented other drivers from hitting you. Were you using a mirror? Another useful safety device which isn't victim blaming.

[firestarter]

A mirror wouldn't have prevented him hitting me

I've attended enough cyclists under cars at work to realise there is nothing you can do realistically. Your not even safe on the path I've been to those hit by cars too.

I wear lights and reflective stuff out of choice to possibly stand out more but victims shouldn't be blamed if they don't. If a driver isn't looking he isn't looking

[Cunobelin]

This is a street at night:




One has to point out just how difficult it is to see the dark coloured parked cars.

It is dark, and these clowns with dark cars and with little or no reflectives on an unlit road with inadequate lighting

That is putting all the onus on the driver to provide the safety when there is another participant who could contribute to the factors promoting safety but who declines to do so. A brightly coloured car with reflective strips would make such a massive difference

Remember, even the most careful driver is fallible. Sure, the driver has the vehicle that can do the damage, but the driver of the parked car has to be a bit dense or pedantic not to act on the fact that they have an interest in their vehicle being seen.

[irc]

A mirror wouldn't have prevented him hitting me

It has for me. Narrow 2 lane road. Straight for 5 miles. Bright daylight. Wearing fluorescent orange top. A large camper van went straight through at 60mph. I saw it wasn't moving out and went off the road. Only once in thousands of miles. A few other times it has let me turn close passes into comfortable ones because I saw it coming.

I've attended enough cyclists under cars at work to realise there is nothing you can do realistically.

I've attended cyclist accidents at work as well and found that some were avoidable. Two had faulty brakes for example.

There are plenty of avoidable accidents.

http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2014/12/12/ ... -happened/

I wear lights and reflective stuff out of choice to possibly stand out more but victims shouldn't be blamed if they don't. If a driver isn't looking he isn't looking

Who is blaming? Is it victim blaming saying lights at night is good? Is it victim blaming saying don't ride in the doorzone? No different saying being more visible is safer than less visible. If someone chooses to dress in black that is their choice. Their risk. Just like some roads are safer than others we make choices all the time. Saying less visible is as safe as more visible is just denying the facts.




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?

[drossall]

But what if the "conditions" are dominated by the fact that the sun has gone down, it is dark, and some clown is cycling in dark clothing and with little or no reflectives on an unlit road with a feeble back light with a dying battery? That is putting all the onus on the driver to provide the safety when there is another participant who could contribute to the factors promoting safety but who declines to do so. Remember, even the most careful driver is fallible. Sure, the driver has the vehicle that can do the damage, but the cyclist has to be a bit dense or pedantic not to act on the fact that they have an interest in being seen.

The onus is on the driver because the driver is bringing the demonstrably dangerous vehicle onto the road. For the same reason, there is some onus on a cyclist when encountering pedestrians.

To say that the driver is 100% responsible for seeing what is in front and taking action, or more properly for proceeding only when it is certain that nothing is in front, is not to say that cyclists should not help by making themselves visible - it's common sense to do that. However, the problem is our adversarial system; any measure that cyclists do or can take quickly becomes, rather than an additional help, a requirement imposed on all cyclists.

What we need is a world in which every driver is taking steps to be sure of seeing me even if I wear camouflage gear, whilst I am taking steps to be visible even if the driver is not paying attention.

[reohn2]

It seems to me throughout this thread we're dealing with what is,opposed to what should be.
I agree that some motorists are idiots as some cyclists are.
But in the absence of a police force with any meaningful presence and clout,a CPS which isn't fit for purpose,along with totally inadequate sentencing structures for road crime and idiocy,the vulnerable road user is left to fend for themselves.
We can argue the toss from now 'til doomsday,but until the law is enforced,penalties increased and the cause of the vast majority of road KSI's removed from our roads we're stuck with what we've got.
In light(sorry)of that situation,I try to make myself as visible as I can when cycling,and agree with IRC a RVM is a very good tool to use where goons in cars are present.

[BakfietsUK]

I agree with what you say about the actual situation on the roads reohn2. I think though that we're only stuck as you say if we accept that this is a situation we can not change. The longer "we" (I) put up with this state of affairs, the longer it will go on. If we don't speak up then it's possible we are and will continue to be seen as accepting it by default and OK with fending for ourselves. When "I" say I won't put up with it, I imply that we as cyclists have a common responsibility to ourselves to get our needs met. This, to me and perhaps some others too, means speaking up about it with a clear message to say what we need from those who proclaim an allegiance to those needs.

Reohn2, your synopsis of the situation is as clear a message to me that such a message needs to get. What we need is support and justice. I remain to be convinced that CUK has the capacity and commitment to deliver a safer environment for cyclists.

I guess the authorities would be quick enough to get on our case if cyclists started engaging in direct action to get themselves heard.

[reohn2]

I agree with what you say about the actual situation on the roads reohn2. I think though that we're only stuck as you say if we accept that this is a situation we can not change. The longer "we" (I) put up with this state of affairs, the longer it will go on. If we don't speak up then it's possible we are and will continue to be seen as accepting it by default and OK with fending for ourselves. When "I" say I won't put up with it, I imply that we as cyclists have a common responsibility to ourselves to get our needs met. This, to me and perhaps some others too, means speaking up about it with a clear message to say what we need from those who proclaim an allegiance to those needs.

Reohn2, your synopsis of the situation is as clear a message to me that such a message needs to get. What we need is support and justice. I remain to be convinced that CUK has the capacity and commitment to deliver a safer environment for cyclists.

I guess the authorities would be quick enough to get on our case if cyclists started engaging in direct action to get themselves heard.

I'm convinced 'might' has entrenched itself as 'right' on UK roads,and put no trust in CUK,the police,CPS or any other part of the justice system,having any impact on that state of affairs anytime soon I'm saddened to say,yes there'll be small victories but on the whole the loonies have taken over the asylum IMHO.

[pwa]

But what if the "conditions" are dominated by the fact that the sun has gone down, it is dark, and some clown is cycling in dark clothing and with little or no reflectives on an unlit road with a feeble back light with a dying battery? That is putting all the onus on the driver to provide the safety when there is another participant who could contribute to the factors promoting safety but who declines to do so. Remember, even the most careful driver is fallible. Sure, the driver has the vehicle that can do the damage, but the cyclist has to be a bit dense or pedantic not to act on the fact that they have an interest in being seen.

The onus is on the driver because the driver is bringing the demonstrably dangerous vehicle onto the road. For the same reason, there is some onus on a cyclist when encountering pedestrians.

To say that the driver is 100% responsible for seeing what is in front and taking action, or more properly for proceeding only when it is certain that nothing is in front, is not to say that cyclists should not help by making themselves visible - it's common sense to do that. However, the problem is our adversarial system; any measure that cyclists do or can take quickly becomes, rather than an additional help, a requirement imposed on all cyclists.

What we need is a world in which every driver is taking steps to be sure of seeing me even if I wear camouflage gear, whilst I am taking steps to be visible even if the driver is not paying attention.

I think there is a fag paper's distance between you and me on this. The driver of a vehicle has a responsibility to look out for people in the road. But we cannot rely on that. Even normally careful drivers will have moments of inattentiveness. No driver is 100% reliable, not even those of us with good intentions. And we all know about careless drivers. So in low light conditions it is silly to cycle without taking measures to improve your visibility. I am very open to debate on which colours work best in different conditions.

[PhilWhitehurst]

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.

[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.

[MikeF]

Haven't seen any more posts from the OP. Is he in stealth mode?

[reohn2]

Haven't seen any more posts from the OP. Is he in stealth mode?

Totally since 17 Dec 2016,@ 7:48pm
Hope he's not been...........

[amediasatex]

Youtube video with runners on road. Those with reflectives seen at 1000ft. Those with white T-shirts at 250ft. Equally safe? 240ft is the stopping distance at 60mph.

So what message are you taking away form that?

My interpretation is that 60mph is an inappropriate speed to be travelling at night in an area where you might reasonably expect runners/pedestrians/cyclists/animals to be in the road.

Even if you were to expect mandatory hi-vis and reflectives on other people to help mitigate the risk the vehicle is imposing there is still the risk that someone wouldn't be using them, or an animal/debris etc. is in the road, so in fact, (as a society) all you do by increasingly expecting hi-vis and reflectives on vulnerable users is increase the risk to those not using them, and increase the risk to the driver. What is actually required is more appropriate observation, speed control and anticipation when piloting motorised vehicles.

Just slowing down decreases the risk to everyone, those using reflectives, those not, and the driver, win win win!

All of this is of course assuming people look properly, which is the biggest issue by far....

[reohn2]

^^^ Exactly!
Badgers don't wear Hi Viz