“virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by reohn2 »

bovlomov wrote:
Wanlock Dod wrote:I'm very glad that I'm not the only one to have noticed that in a discussion about a cyclist who was killed (by a motorist with a car which may not have had road legal lights) whilst cycling at night with a helmet, lights, and reflectives and subsequently found not to have made themselves visible enough,

I've been trying to think why this case is more disturbing than dozens of others. I think it's this:

Usually when a cyclist is killed in a collision with a motor vehicle, the first questions are about a helmet. Then, hi-vis. Then, if at night, lights. If any of those things are missing then it is the cyclist's fault. If the cyclist was equipped with all the 'correct' gear, then it becomes a dreadful accident. The hand of fate. The poor driver had no way of knowing. Just a sad fact of life.

The difference here is that the cyclist clearly had done all that was required (by this invisible moral arbiter). Helmet? Check. Lights? Check. Reflective? Check. Riding in a straight line? Check. In a case like this I would expect the media, police, jury or coroner to conclude that it was just one of those sad facts of life. Then we'd all shrug. Instead the police - and some of the reporters - have gone a step further, and made every effort, by insinuation and by omission, to pin the blame on a rider.

Had he been wearing white instead of black, I have no doubt that he would have been blamed for looking like an albino kangaroo. Once Hall was killed, it was always going to be his fault.

+1
And that's because any fule kno that riding bicycles on the road is a stoopid thing to do,riding one at night is insane and he deserved to die :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by Bonefishblues »

Mick F wrote:So what are you going to do about it?

You and I don't rule the world .................. we can only try to do our best in the circumstances presented to us.

It's a jungle out there. Be careful and defensive and look after yourself, because you cannot guarantee anyone else will.

This - in every aspect of life, not just cycling.
User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 13780
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by NATURAL ANKLING »

Hi,
mjr wrote:
landsurfer wrote: [...] Cyclists have a duty of care towards themselves.

It could be deemed reasonable that as part of that duty of care cyclists should make themselves visible to other road users.

Only if we're a nation of evidence-ignoring cycling-hating petrolheads.

landsurfer wrote: [...] Riding in the dark in black clothing with a small rear facing red light .....???

...is still visible, if only one bothers to look.

Human is not a robot after the fact.
Like Mick says.
I am so I make mistakes, which you should always regret.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3607
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by The utility cyclist »

Tiberius wrote:Out riding the other day I was reminded of this thread……

My riding gear of choice is a lovely, highly breathable, hi-viz jacket. My bike has a dyno-hub and the lights have been switched on since I fitted it, I never switch the lights off.

A lovely sunny day and I was riding along a local road which meanders through some woods. The visibility is variable as the trees sometimes cut out a lot of the sun light, so when you are riding/driving you are regularly having to deal with strong (on this day) sunshine or quite dark shade.

I was riding through a shaded area and I was overtaken by a car…a clean pass, plenty of room, no problem. The car ran on for approximately 300 yards, pulled in and the driver got out and looked towards me. As I approached him he asked me to pull over which I did. Feeling apprehensive, I was genuinely shocked when he shook my hand a congratulated me on my visibility !! He said that he could see me from ‘miles away’ and he wondered why more cyclists didn’t make the same effort?

Just saying like…...

Someone who bothered to 'look' then and do what they are lawfully bound? Funny but I get overtakes like that all the time when I'm wearing black and no light, so explain how these drivers can easily see me when I'm wearing black during the day or at night when I just have my bog std single rear light and no reflectives?
Dumbing down the responsibility and indeed you've made a driver think that any other cyclist not doing what you do is in the wrong and he will likely be looking less because you and people like you are training him to think that's what 'we' should wear DOES NOT WORK, it never has and yet it's you and others that are making our roads more dangerous and pushing the onus away from those that kill and harm onto the victims/innocent parties.
Well done to you for 'being safe' just saying like ...
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by Mick F »

Why don't we all wear black or you-can't-see-me camouflage? Walking, cycling, running in the dark and gloom?
That'll teach those pesky motorists to look properly! :lol:

That'll work eventually maybe, but until then, I'll be standing out from the crowd.
Mick F. Cornwall
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by thirdcrank »

On the matter of hi-viz etc., rather than other stuff claimed to improve safety, I think there are two issues: some people are concentrating on one, and some on the other.

The first, IMO, is whether hi-viz is what it says on the tin. I'm thinking here of dayglo in daylight and reflectives at night. There's been reference to evidence but I've not seen any that suggests that something like Saturn Yellow is less conspicuous than black or drab colours. I understand that Saturn Yellow - if that's the right name - was introduced after tests sponsored by the Home Office to identify the most conspicuous colour. As well as the safety industry, there's the camouflage industry, working to achieve the exact opposite.

There's also Mother Nature AKA evolution putting a lot of effort into camouflaging some species, be they prey or predators, and making others conspicuous to be sexually attractive.

Then, there are those who believe that being conspicuous serves no purpose if bad drivers are unconcerned about the safety of others whether they can see them or not, but that having some riders wearing hi-viz lets the side down by reducing the onus on those who should be taking care.
User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by bovlomov »

thirdcrank wrote:On the matter of hi-viz etc., rather than other stuff claimed to improve safety, I think there are two issues: some people are concentrating on one, and some on the other. [...]

As I understand it, another - more complicated - question is not whether a certain colour is more conspicuous, but whether it affects real world accident stats. It seems obvious that the first would lead to the second, but some links have been posted here that suggest otherwise.

The human brain happens to be great at confounding expectations.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by meic »

but whether it affects real world accident stats

Let us say that 90% of collisions are ones where the driver saw the cyclist and drove badly regardless.
Of those where the driver did not see the cyclist, only 10% would have been helped by Hi-Viz because it is really only of benefit in limited circumstances. So it only makes a difference 1% of the time, which will not show up in the stats.
That doesnt mean that there is no individual benefit in donning them at the right time.
Yma o Hyd
geocycle
Posts: 2177
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 9:46am

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by geocycle »

bovlomov wrote:
The human brain happens to be great at confounding expectations.


Agreed, and also constructing expectations. I don't have data but I would hypothesise that people see what they expect to see. That is they anticipate a car/truck/bus but cannot quickly process if the movement detected is a bike. In theory if bikes were more common the expectation rate would be higher. As an aside it is interesting what you can train yourself to see. Over the last few years I have been more interested in wildlife and even a small flutter in the peripheral vision can be quickly interpreted whereas for years these would have gone unnoticed.
User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by bovlomov »

meic wrote:That doesnt mean that there is no individual benefit in donning them at the right time.

That's true. The right time judged by the individual - until he is squashed, and then the police, press and coroner can say different.
User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by bovlomov »

geocycle wrote:
bovlomov wrote:
The human brain happens to be great at confounding expectations.


Agreed, and also constructing expectations. I don't have data but I would hypothesise that people see what they expect to see. That is they anticipate a car/truck/bus but cannot quickly process if the movement detected is a bike. In theory if bikes were more common the expectation rate would be higher. As an aside it is interesting what you can train yourself to see. Over the last few years I have been more interested in wildlife and even a small flutter in the peripheral vision can be quickly interpreted whereas for years these would have gone unnoticed.

Are you saying that drivers could actually be trained not to hit cyclists?
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by thirdcrank »

I think there's also the important point that if somebody thinks everybody can see them, they may behave differently than if they believe they are virtually invisible. We did once have some stats posted suggesting that cyclists with street-legal lights were involved in more collisions than the ninjas, although the point was made by somebody (drossall?) that the riders with lights were probably using the carriageway while those without were on the footway.

I've made the point before that some of us assume that a flo-yellow jacket has protective qualities, rather like the Ghost shirts said to have been worn by some Sioux warriors.

Ghost Dance shirts are said to be objects of power to the wearer, and sacred to American Indians. The Lakota Sioux were the only tribe to believe that the ghost shirt clothing would protect them from the bullets of the white man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_Shirt
geocycle
Posts: 2177
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 9:46am

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by geocycle »

bovlomov wrote:
geocycle wrote:
bovlomov wrote:
The human brain happens to be great at confounding expectations.


Agreed, and also constructing expectations. I don't have data but I would hypothesise that people see what they expect to see. That is they anticipate a car/truck/bus but cannot quickly process if the movement detected is a bike. In theory if bikes were more common the expectation rate would be higher. As an aside it is interesting what you can train yourself to see. Over the last few years I have been more interested in wildlife and even a small flutter in the peripheral vision can be quickly interpreted whereas for years these would have gone unnoticed.

Are you saying that drivers could actually be trained not to hit cyclists?


Conditioned to be more aware? Training 'think twice, think bike' or better to have so many bikes that it becomes habitual??? Just theorising really.
User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 577
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by Wanlock Dod »

The data is from Cambridgeshire, and presumed to be from 2016

7. Number of pedal cyclists killed or seriously injured in collisions with motor vehicles during the hours of darkness.
8. Number of pedal cyclists killed or seriously injured in collisions with motor vehicles during the hours of darkness which did not have adequate lighting.

Question 7 – 11 seriously injured pedal cyclists
Question 8 – 1 seriously injured pedal cyclist.

Be safe, be seen kids...
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: “virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

Post by irc »

According the evidence at the inquest/enquiry other drivers who overtook the cyclist before the crash reported he was difficult to see.

The court also heard that a number of drivers, heading both ways along the highway, had reported seeing Mr Hall riding on the verge, and said that he had been “difficult to see” in the darkness.


Also

The court heard that while Mr Hall’s bicycle lights were working, he had been wearing dark clothing and a dark-coloured helmet, and at the time of the collision he would have been indistinguishable from the guideposts along the side of the road.


Maybe one rear steady light?

Perhaps the driver's inexperience was a factor.

At around 6.20am, a car driven by Shegu Bobb, a 19-year-old migrant from Sierra Leone who was on his P plates, struck Mr Hall from behind.


https://www.canberratimes.com.au/nation ... 505on.html

While in an ideal world we could rely on drivers seeing us regardless I'm of the Xmass tree school. When I regularly commuted in the dark I had an oversize reflector, a Scotchlite patch on my rucsac and three rear lights. The two on the rack mounted on a aluminium pole so the were about 18" apart.

On the other hand on the crazyguyonabike thread on this subject a local rider says the road is used regularly by local cyclists with no concerns. So who knows if better lights would have helped or not.

Where Mike was hit, I know the road well. The Monaro Highway. And yes it can be busy at certain times of the year but the breakdown lane is wide in most parts.

I have ridden the route a couple of times including once in the dark. My bike was as always lit up like a flashing Christmas tree, and that road always felt safe enough. It’s a route often used by roadies training rides and for cycling events.


http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/forum/bo ... _id=840523
Post Reply