Cycling UK Forum

mattheus wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:
If the cyclist did not have the legally demanded light and reflectors then he must bear some of the blame, along with all the bodily damage.
If the item you hit had been a tree, a large rock from the wall, a sheep or a cow, all unlit, no reflectors and unlikely to be receding from you at fifteen mph. who would be at fault? The tree, rock or animal? In these events you might possibly be hurt, but perhaps you would feel you were not to blame!

If it's a sheep or a cow then the owner of said animal is entirely at fault ( I know of two such occasions both the owners insurance paid out ).

I suggest you don't decide to mow down a wild animal - the little bu99ers tend not to have insurance.

Those badgers are hard brutes -- hit one last year -- it just got up and scuttled off back into the hedge.

Did more miles in 2019 than 2018 despite the worse weather in 2019. Joined a cycle club in 2019 for the first time and amazed at some of the older riders fitness. Gives you encouragement to keep at it.

Mike Sales wrote:

Cowsham wrote:
Exactly -- this is the case where I work -- we are not allowed to venture out into the yard without hi vis otherwise a warning will be issued and on your employee record for a year. It's so that fork lift drivers and lorry drivers can see you.

No, it is so that the employer has a well covered back. Especially if they are sued for employing purblind drivers.
If Health and Safety Regulation were applied to the roads normal driving behaviour would be impossible, or very heavily modified.
Look up the H & S hierarchy of measures to control risk.

A lot of cyclists have a tendency to lay all blame on the driver and seem to be discourteous to all motorists even with the knowledge there can only be one winner.

Mike Sales wrote:

Cowsham wrote: So who would be at fault if I'd hit the guy? I wasn't anywhere near the 50 MPH limit BTW . I think to ride a cycle on an unlit country b road with no visibility whatsoever is completely foolish that's why I don't do it.

If the cyclist did not have the legally demanded light and reflectors then he must bear some of the blame, along with all the bodily damage.
If the item you hit had been a tree, a large rock from the wall, a sheep or a cow, all unlit, no reflectors and unlikely to be receding from you at fifteen mph. who would be at fault? The tree, rock or animal? In these events you might possibly be hurt, but perhaps you would feel you were not to blame!

If it's a sheep or a cow then the owner of said animal is entirely at fault ( I know of two such occasions both the owners insurance paid out ). A large rock fell off a lorry which lay in the road till my mate got the sump ripped off his car -- the quarry owners paid for the damage.

mattheus wrote:In most collisions between 2 parties, both bear some blame.

The most shouty debates are usually where people ignore this - this is turning into one of those discussions


(H&S law supports this e.g. employer AND employee bear responsibility for the employee's safety. This works! )

Exactly -- this is the case where I work -- we are not allowed to venture out into the yard without hi vis otherwise a warning will be issued and on your employee record for a year. It's so that fork lift drivers and lorry drivers can see you.

Cunobelin wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:
126 is a positive, not a negative.
Unless you can positively see that the road is clear within your braking distance, slow down.
It does not say, if you can't see anything within your braking distance, carry on.

As has been said, there are many unlit objects which are more unyielding than a cyclist.
A fallen tree or a broken down tractor would be harder to swerve.

The question is "why wear black? " I am just giving a valid reason not to, drawn from my own experience. Do you wear black ?

You added unlit to bolster the story beyond HiViz - and yes I wear black, green, sometimes red

This is northern Ireland most country b roads here are unlit --- in pitch darkness riding without lights is illegal. The cyclist will not be seen since the lights of oncoming cars will be dipped to their left ( your right ) not only that but the same lights will be dazzling you especially in the rain which is another factor here in ni ( it's going sideways ATM )

You guys are determined to keep your kinky black stockings and string vests but I say don't be cool don't be a fool -- my hi vis will pass the test.

fastpedaller wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:
Only too true. I guess that is why motorists routinely ignore paras. 125 and 126.
Indeed, they believe they are entitled to drive at the speed limit and above the speed where they are able to ...etc.
I wanted to remind one of us that the HC advice does not back them up.

So who would be at fault if I'd hit the guy? I wasn't anywhere near the 50 MPH limit BTW . I think to ride a cycle on an unlit country b road with no visibility whatsoever is completely foolish that's why I don't do it.

If he didn't reverse into you, how can you possibly not be responsible?

Lets expand this a bit..... If he was say going at 15mph (pretty usual) then he would cover nearly 50 metres in about 8 seconds. He would (you say it was a county lane) likely be approaching the bend and in your sight (if you had your lights on high beam to see the dark road ahead) for several hundred yards of your motoring. Are you only looking just beyond your bonnet? I don't know what more to add other than "please assess how you drive, and adapt to the conditions"

There was a car coming towards me as I was on the straight bit then I was in the corner with the invisible cyclist which, because I was travelling at a speed suited to the conditions, I managed to avoid.

You will not be able to avoid every situation that presents itself simply by driving within the guidelines laid out in the highway code. If a cyclist is not visible to the driver you'll hit the cyclist at some point cos you can't see him therefore you won't know you have a cyclist to avoid. Don't wear black. Wear hi vis.

I'll tell something else for nothing -- the highway code matters not a jot when your dead cos a driver couldn't see you. It will matter to the poor driver who has to live with it.

Mike Sales wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:The highway code doesn't. It's somewhat academic if not enforced/backed up by convictions though.

Only too true. I guess that is why motorists routinely ignore paras. 125 and 126.
Indeed, they believe they are entitled to drive at the speed limit and above the speed where they are able to ...etc.
I wanted to remind one of us that the HC advice does not back them up.

So who would be at fault if I'd hit the guy? I wasn't anywhere near the 50 MPH limit BTW . I think to ride a cycle on an unlit country b road with no visibility whatsoever is completely foolish that's why I don't do it.

Mike Sales wrote:

Cowsham wrote: Difference is I could see round the corner -- he was still invisible until I got close enough to see the muddy pedal reflector which was in the corner itself. At a distance you would not have seen anything of the cyclist. I managed to avoid him that should tell you all you need to know about how I was driving.

126 is a positive, not a negative.
Unless you can positively see that the road is clear within your braking distance, slow down.
It does not say, if you can't see anything within your braking distance, carry on.

As has been said, there are many unlit objects which are more unyielding than a cyclist.
A fallen tree or a broken down tractor would be harder to swerve.

The question is "why wear black? " I am just giving a valid reason not to, drawn from my own experience. Do you wear black ?

Mike Sales wrote:Cowsham wrote,

How could you reflect on that event the second way ? ---- another words if I am travelling at more than 40MPH ( the speed the advert says a pedestrian will most likely die if you hit him/her in your car ) I am intending to kill a few invisible cyclists.??? A B road speed limit is 50 MPH.

Highway code.125.

The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions

. You should always reduce your speed when driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users.

Highway code 126.

Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

Difference is I could see round the corner -- he was still invisible until I got close enough to see the muddy pedal reflector which was in the corner itself. At a distance you would not have seen anything of the cyclist. I managed to avoid him that should tell you all you need to know about how I was driving.

fastpedaller wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:
But not impossible... as in this case he was seen

The guy was incredibly lucky. I stopped to tell him so. He saw my car slide sideways down the road in front of him but didn't realise why until I pointed out the rear lamp not working. His face went white.

So how fast was he going? how many yards was he in fact visible to you before the bend, but you failed to see him before you were nearly on top of him. If he'd have been a dog walker at 1/2mph you probably would have hit him and felt vindicated?

A woman in black clothing walking a black dog at night was hit and killed by a car not far from where I live and that was on a straight road -- I obviously was going slow enough to take evasive action but the cyclist was never really visible -- I only caught a glimpse of a single pedal reflector ( a muddy one at that ). It was a split second reaction from me that saved the man's life.

Bez wrote:

Cowsham wrote:Nearly killed a guy wearing all black gear at a bend in the road -- he hadn't realised his rear light had went out ( faulty ) I only missed him cos I saw a feint glimmer from one of his muddy pedal reflectors at the last moment or he most certainly would be dead.

I wear two rear lights and hi vis top and backpack. Yes I look like a dork but it's better than dead. You will be cool enough when your dead.

There are at least two possible ways in which that event could be reflected upon:

1. "Well, that certainly vindicates my own clothing decisions."

2. "If I'm driving at a speed whereby I'm certain I'm going to kill someone whose light has failed, maybe I could slow down a bit."

How could you reflect on that event the second way ? ---- another words if I am travelling at more than 40MPH ( the speed the advert says a pedestrian will most likely die if you hit him/her in your car ) I am intending to kill a few invisible cyclists.??? A B road speed limit is 50 MPH.

If your travelling along a straight road at night in your car you will see the red flashing lights of the cyclist in the distance in front and will be expecting to catch up with him at the bend after he has went round in front of you but a cyclist with no hi vis, no lights and black clothing will be invisible cos he's gone round the corner in front of you and will only come into view when he's on your bonnet. Give yourself every chance of being seen -- wear hi vis.

Cunobelin wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Cowsham wrote:
Nearly killed a guy wearing all black gear at a bend in the road -- he hadn't realised his rear light had went out ( faulty ) I only missed him cos I saw a feint glimmer from one of his muddy pedal reflectors at the last moment or he most certainly would be dead.

I wear two rear lights and hi vis top and backpack. Yes I look like a dork but it's better than dead. You will be cool enough when your dead.

Quite right. Often people forget that lights can fail, and as you pointed out, it’s very difficult to pick out a ‘ninja’ in dark / poor visibility conditions.

But not impossible... as in this case he was seen

The guy was incredibly lucky. I stopped to tell him so. He saw my car slide sideways down the road in front of him but didn't realise why until I pointed out the rear lamp not working. His face went white.

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

[XAP]Bob wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:‘Cos it’s en flique innit. Black also ‘slims’ you. Once you’ve had black, you never go back, apparently.

All black gear, in dark / foggy conditions is just pure Darwinism in action though. Black with high reflect bits on anything that moves, is great because moving high contrast things do get you noticed.

No - as you pointed out - it tends to be cyclists with good lights, which are far more effective than 'not wearing black'
I put black socks on this morning, then fell over because I couldn't see where my feet were...

Lights, no matter how good, are less effective if you’re approaching perpendicularly to the cyclist. That’s when the contrast of black / moving high reflect comes into its own.

Nearly killed a guy wearing all black gear at a bend in the road -- he hadn't realised his rear light had went out ( faulty ) I only missed him cos I saw a feint glimmer from one of his muddy pedal reflectors at the last moment or he most certainly would be dead.

I wear two rear lights and hi vis top and backpack. Yes I look like a dork but it's better than dead. You will be cool enough when your dead.