Re: Cycle lights regulations in France, Belgium and Netherlands
Posted: 15 May 2019, 9:48pm
mjr wrote:Thehairs1970 wrote:Daytime lights, flashy lights, clothing that makes you visible are a perfectly sensible choice. Also you asked the OP whether a flag may be a better choice. Isn't that increasing his visibility and therefore creating an expectation?
I just don't get your logic.
My logic is... logic! You can't appeal to logic for adopting those measures because there is little to no evidence of significant reduction in casualty risk from daytime or flashing lights and clothing cannot make you visible or invisible - unless someone's made a cloak of invisibility yet? All of the "be safe be seen" guff is a motoring lobby trick to transfer responsibility from the perpetrator to the victim, much like how annual casualty figures are published classified by victim type and not perpetrator type and that then focuses the annual debate on how those classes of victim should change their behaviour. It's sick and cruel.
The flag was suggested to increase the height of a recumbent bike simply because, sadly, many motorists still don't look low down much - even though they should be watching the flipping road surface for damage these days.
Is there any evidence that NOT trying to be seen is safer? Victim shaming is a cruel act but I don't think taking precautions is a negative. Wearing a hard hat on a building site is a MUST these days. It's not about transferring responsibility though, it's about knowing that accidents happen and the helmet might make a difference.
I am not being a promoter for daytime lights or flashing lights. I don't use daytime lights unless light levels are low, I don't wear hi-viz, though my rainjacket happens to be. I think it is a personal choice thing and people should be entitled to wear them without being called annoying.