Why does ‘cyclist wearing dark clothing' exist as a contributory factor in KSIs

[Ellieb]

'Common Sense' says that by wearing 'hi-viz' we should be more conspicuous and that drivers should be able to identify us and avoid driving into us. Drivers run into 'hi-viz' objects despite them being "conspicuous", there is no safety advantage that can be identified at population level, from wearing hi-viz.

As I understand it, as with much of this sort of topic, there is am absence of evidence, rather than proof that it doesn't have an impact. Be interested to see what evidence you have.

[reohn2]

The person to blame is the person who made such unsuitable narrow infrastructure a cycle path. Make it 3m wide, ride on the left... no problem even if you do meet a nutter at night without lights.... assuming they also ride on the left of course!

Isn't this the whole problem?
There's too many nutters about,bad enough on bikes but the dangers are multiplied manifold when those nutters are driving motor vehicles,add to that their belief that "it's only a bike that doesn't pay road tax anyway",instead of thinking "that's another human being who might have loved one's waiting for him/her at home".
The sheer number of crass,stupid and idiotic drivers I witness daily whether I'm driving or on the bike beggars belief,how they've grown to adulthood without killing themselves or others is anyone's guess,their antics range from simple inattentiveness to the downright intentional and stupidly dangerous to themselves and all around!

[Cunobelin]

Now you tell me as a cyclist to slow down!
From 17mph downhill! Sorry.
I cycle for fitness, pleasure and practicality.
This is not some Sunday sightseeing outing.

Which really valiates you r ight to travel at an inappropraite spped?

You want 20mph for cars on roads, 10 or less for cyclists on very empty shared paths just becsuse a few bone heads can't be bothered to recognise risk and take some responsibity.
Now whose advocating the nanny state??

If those few boneheads are not taking responsibility for their speed to recognise the risks and how they are endangering others, then, unfortunately, speed limits are the way to remedy the issue

Sorry, I expect people to show lights or at least keep their wits about them.
That's what I do.
And I haven't hit one bone head yet.

So it is up to them to compensate for your failures.... really?

The dipped light is my way of describing my polite and sensible use of a cycle light. Its perfectly adequate but doesn't blind others.

LOve to know which light you are using. I am aware of lights with different intensities, I am also aware of a few lights with properly filtered and coned beams, but none that offer dipped"

You have simply no idea where that light safely guides me, steep(as in 1:4) narrow twisty leafy and pitch black.
One "off" round here into a stone wall and it really hurts or worse, and it hasn't happened yet.
I don't wear a helmet either.
This is not soft light polluted S England!

One has to wonder whether with a brighter light and slower sped, you would have seen the wall, and been able to take appropriate action?

You are arguing one minute for no torches, no reflective or visible clothes and telling me the next minute to get brighter lights.
Make your mind up time.

No need... it is obvious.

If you travel faster, you need a longer stopping distance, a brighter light offers the additional illumination. It is not up to others to compensate for you choosing to ride at a speed where you cannot stop in the distance you can see

[PDQ Mobile]

But I havn't not stopped and I haven't hit anyone.
So that's put that to bed forever?

I said that the people on the shared path and totally blocking walking it were harder to see because they were in dark clothes and carried no light. And they, unlike me, didn't see me until I announced my presence with a cough.

I don't want a super bright light just one that does the job sufficiently well.
It's the same in my car, I think high intensity headlights are a pita.
I have had brighter lights but found what think is an ideal compromise.
I had (still have) an expensive Hope one, but when the battery started to fail it started to flash or even not work.
I thought it quite unsuitable for a cyclist in really dark places. Poorly thought about.
I want a light that always works even as the batteries start to loose power.
And before anyone starts wittering they are super good new ones at the moment and were so on the night in question.
So nice bright light, but not searingly so, and just the one.
Simple mount allows easy on the fly adjustment with a little side to side too. Easy on and off the bike.
Big single LED.

I quite like cycling with not TOO much light, one sees other stuff, arguably eyes remain slightly more attuned to peripheral stuff. Stars and tracery of branches.

Just first read what I wrote about walls please.
In 40 years here I have never hit a wall.
But others have, and they told me it hurt.

[PDQ Mobile]

Alan.
Regarding the incident.
I described it as I experienced it.
I saw no evidence of a light just broken wheel reflector but I did not closely inspect the bike.
There are other reasons to suggest no light but I prefer not to post them until I read an account somewhere else.
I am not trying to prejudice anything.
However with respect, I was there and I saw what I saw or otherwise.
Therefore IF the cyclist had no light then In my view he carries a fair bit of responsibility. I am only blaming him if that is the case.


It is a simple general point about lights not that specific to my incident though you choose to personalize it.
To cycle on such a road unlit and grey clad in such wet foggy conditions is simply not safe. That maybe borne out by what happened. Blame who you like if that is what you feel like.

You can argue the case against fast motorized traffic but it is sadly a fact of life in much of the world.
And there are drivers less than the perfect example you state that you are.
Some drivers are just ok.
Passed a test and they are out there on the road in some numbers. They need a bit of help sometimes!
And as "reohn" says some are simply beyond help. I am not arguing their cause.

I am not complaining about clothing and to describe it a such is something of a distortion.
However going naked is likely to be safer than dark clad! IMV.
I say for the last time I am not a hiviz user. Just reasonable lights and a bit of reflectivity. I consider it fair to other road users amongst other reasons.

I have a point of view, think it is perfectly valid. Your point of view is valid too- I just don't agree with some of it. I think to be visible often helps a good deal.
........
And I do not agree with your lit and unlit cyclist scenario and blame.
It is the unlit cyclist that is causing the hazard.
Because I can reasonably expect a vehicle of any description moving toward me at any speed to show a light.
The fact that I can and do stop is irrelevant here.
This cheapskate moron too tight and selfish to show a light, on his way to spend £20 in a pub, is a menace.
He is restricting, if I follow your advice to creep about everywhere, my freedom to cycle in a manner I consider perfectly safe. My record states that to be a perfectly correct interpretation.
I will treat him with the distain he deserves.

Mind you I saw another good one tonight.
I know him vaguely, a retired (millionaire by some accounts) professional, dark green, full cape and a sou'wester.
No front light but I may have missed it as he had just gone past me in the supermarket car-park.
Pair of cheap floppy panniers with, just dangling from a strap (on the left!) one of those super cheap grey small Lidl LED rears.
The fact that it was dangling meant that the bit of flicker it could still muster was all on the fabric of the faded pannier which it was in semi contact with. No red light was visible behind him whatsoever.

Flickering worn pannier fabric, barely visible at 2 yards and perhaps 10 yards at the most on what was another foul drizzly night!
Many cars with condensation on insides of windows.
I mentioned his poor light when I saw him inside.
I said I thought it risky, he said," I know but we're always the most vulnerable"!!
I agreed and did my shopping!!

PS. bought the local weekly Thursday paper.
Last week's incident has appeared.

I can find no online link on the papers web page, sorry, but here is a picture of the short article.

[Vorpal]

'Common Sense' says that by wearing 'hi-viz' we should be more conspicuous and that drivers should be able to identify us and avoid driving into us. Drivers run into 'hi-viz' objects despite them being "conspicuous", there is no safety advantage that can be identified at population level, from wearing hi-viz.

As I understand it, as with much of this sort of topic, there is am absence of evidence, rather than proof that it doesn't have an impact. Be interested to see what evidence you have.

There is quite a bit of evidence posted and discussed on this thread viewtopic.php?f=7&t=134469

Also viewtopic.php?f=7&t=111201

In summary, there is plenty of evidence that bright colours in day & reflectives at night allow people to be identified from further away.

Studies on resultant crash risk either find limited benefit, no statistically significant benefit, or an slightly increased crash risk by cyclists who use hi viz.

With regard to lights, off road cyclists have reduced crash risk if they use lights. On road cyclists have a slightly elevated crash risk if they use lights.

There have also been a couple of studies that show cyclists overestimate how visible they are when they use conspicuity aids, which may explain the results.

[PDQ Mobile]

In summary, there is plenty of evidence that bright colours in day & reflectives at night allow people to be identified from further away.

Studies on resultant crash risk either find limited benefit, no statistically significant benefit, or an slightly increased crash risk by cyclists who use hi viz.

With regard to lights, off road cyclists have reduced crash risk if they use lights. On road cyclists have a slightly elevated crash risk if they use lights.

Definition of "crash" here?

Does crash risk here mean all crashes; that is when the cyclist him/herself crashes into something or falls off?

The inclusion of off-road cyclist stats suggest it does?

One can easily see the logic of the off-road cyclist being less likely to crash with lights. I mean without lights on some forest trail one would be good to last 50 yards still upright!

And a sort of continuation of that logic might suggest that a road cyclist with lights can of course cycle very significantly faster.

There will nearly always be more risk with more speed, I think; especially at night.
The trick though is to find the compromise and personal ability limits.

Given that only the minority of cyclists choose to cycle unlit, does that not influence the stats too?

[Vorpal]

In summary, there is plenty of evidence that bright colours in day & reflectives at night allow people to be identified from further away.

Studies on resultant crash risk either find limited benefit, no statistically significant benefit, or an slightly increased crash risk by cyclists who use hi viz.

With regard to lights, off road cyclists have reduced crash risk if they use lights. On road cyclists have a slightly elevated crash risk if they use lights.

Definition of "crash" here?

Does crash risk here mean all crashes; that is when the cyclist him/herself crashes into something or falls off?

The inclusion of off-road cyclist stats suggest it does?

One can easily see the logic of the off-road cyclist being less likely to crash with lights. I mean without lights on some forest trail one would be good to last 50 yards still upright!

And a sort of continuation of that logic might suggest that a road cyclist with lights can of course cycle very significantly faster.

There will nearly always be more risk with more speed, I think; especially at night.
The trick though is to find the compromise and personal ability limits.

Given that only the minority of cyclists choose to cycle unlit, does that not influence the stats too?

It depends on the study, actually. Some only include RTCs involving 2 or more vehicles (bikes are vehicles), some are only self-reported, and some include any crashes, including single cyclist.

[passing the junction]

Interesting thread, the little bits of "oh really?" sneering aside.

What I take from it so far: is 'rider wearing dark clothing at night' victim-blaming? Yes. Am I going to live the dream of the perfect world and not use a rear light? Nope. Might I try to find out some more about how contributory factors are actually used? I think I will.

It has made me wonder about some of the other contributory factors. If I came off going through a pothole, is it right if the contributory factor "Poor or defective road surface" was then used, or am I just blaming the environment when I "Failed to look properly" or was "Travelling too fast for conditions" - or a similar one, there seem to be a few to choose from - and so should only blame myself and stop cursing potholes?