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

[reohn2]

......I am aware that some people are challenged in regard to their ability to concentrate sufficiently to perform such a feat . It now seems that their potential victims all bear responsibility to drag these people's attention back to the task in hand (driving safely) from wherever it has wandered. Personally I am old-fashioned enough to believe still that these people have no inherent right to be driving.

Nail,head,on!
The problem being that, the authorities and courts,as much as they should,don't

[The utility cyclist]

Now the topic has resurfaced.
I sadly have to report coming upon a cyclist involved accident last week on the Llêyn Peninsula.

It was a foul drizzly and misty night visibility was restricted, though the distance one could see "something" remained quite high.
Main beam headlights were often counterproductive due to reflected glare.
Wipers on intermittent were sometimes too slow, and on constant ran dry on the screen at times. The amount of actual precipitation was variable.
An inversion coastal fog drifting far inland.
Traffic light, groups of two or three oncoming vehicles at times.

The cyclist had been hit from behind by a 4x4. Just outside a street lit 30 mph limit on, to that point, an unlit and straight, though gently undulating and fast main A road.

No pavements.
Solid kerb and grass verge.

His shoes were strewn on the road.
15 or 20 meters further along his bike was still under the front of the 4x4. Bits of reflector and bike evident at point of impact.
The fellow was badly hurt, and just conscious, lying in the road near the kerb some distance behind the vehicle.
When I came upon the scene 3 or 4 others were helping.

It is my guess he was thrown clear (or over) and not run over.
He was dressed in grey for the most part. I do not know if he had lights.
I saw none and no hiviz.

I do not know the outcome.
And I did not converse with the vehicle driver.

We passing motorists did what we could to protect the man until the ambulance (a long15 mins) and police (20 mins) arrived.
One dared not move him from the carriageway.

It was pretty traumatic.
And I have tried to accurately and honestly report what I experienced.

A woman was dragged into a car and raped in a town not many miles away last week, I'm yet to hear of police telling women to make sure they take pepper spray a d wear anti rape garments whenever they go out ...
Are you and others getting the message yet, because you're basically blaming the victim with what you've written, you also have no idea if the victim had lights, how fast the driver was going, whether they were distracted, nothing.

This type of post does nothing except to keep on putting the focus on what the victim may or may not have been doing/wearing, and nothing on what the criminal was doing, which is precisely why the police should stop doing exactly that as per my opening post!

[PDQ Mobile]

^^^ in reply.

I wrote a simple and IMV accurate description of what I experienced. No more.

(("mjr" asked me for my opinion of apportioning blame (as I did of him) and we differ in our opinion; assuming no lights on the bike))

It is my opinion that the driver did not see the cyclist.
Unless it was an assassination attempt, but that seems unlikely, as he remained at the scene.

The reasons he did not see him remain for the moment obscure.
But the rear hit is statistically quite rare. The road is straight as a ruler.

That not all drivers are as supremely competent as "Alaninwales" is sadly a fact of life.
Older drivers (and others have less than 20/20 vision. Oncoming lights momentarily lead to reduced vision.
Rain and mist always reduce visibility at night.
And there are a fair few really bad and dangerous drivers.
To assume the driver involved here is one such and a "criminal" is assuming in the other direction much of the same as what I stand accused of by you.

To be aware of risk is normally to mitigate it.
I would never walk or cycle those Llêyn roads at night without lights as a cyclist. Drivers are for the most part skilled and courteous but they need to see one.

Your comparison to a woman assaulted and raped is disingenuous and unnecessarily inflammatory.

We are talking about a road traffic accident.
Not a deliberate act of violence.

And in my firmly held view if the cyclist was without lights, (and I have some reason, that I will not write here, to think he was, in addition to what I saw), then it was probably an avoidable accident.

I am a cyclist just come home through miles on pitch dark lanes.
I need lights to see, and also to be seen by.
I wear no hiviz just some reflective on clothes etc, but there is I think a not unreasonable case for wearing some hiviz in some conditions.
That is my opinion.
And I will never cycle without half decent lights.
It is also a statutory requirement.

I told you upthread I considered it suicide to cycle or walk on these roads without a light at night.
But it's a free country.

[GarethF]

A road traffic accident might not be a deliberate act of violence. BUT, and I suspect this may be what others are driving at, it is quite obvious that without the utmost care and attention, and modification of behaviour to suit the conditions, any motor vehicle is capable of doing potentially lethal injury to others. Everybody can appreciate this. If you ask any driver what happens if you run into a passer by, they will be able to describe the potential for harm.

Now consider the outcome if one was walking down the street carrying a big sharp knife, tripped over a cracked paving stone (maybe you 'weren't expecting to see a cracked paving stone') and fall over, impaling a passing stranger and causing a fatal knife wound. How would that be tried in court?

The process of identifying the risk and managing it appropriately or not is basically the same. Somewhere along the way we all stopped thinking too hard about the risk posed by cars etc because it was too inconvenient. The car industry haven't helped us here. For years they have engineered more and more 'safety features' into new vehicles to score sales instead of altering driver behaviour to make the safety features unnecessary. I could go on, but I shan't.

[PDQ Mobile]

^
I agree with the above BUT this "modification" of behaviour should apply to all road users.

Clearly the ped or cyclist are at a significant disadvantage in terms of vulnerability to injury.
There are crap and dangerous drivers about for sure.
Is a cyclist without lights a crap cyclist? IMV yes.
Just as is a driver with only one front light working a crap driver.

In my view it is wise to take measures to mitigate risk.
Segregated facilities are not likely in any foreseeable rural future.

It is actually such a small act of forethought and cost to have reasonable lights and a bit of reflectivity.
In an imperfect world it could save one's life.

Lights are a statutory requirement on public roads at night.

[Cugel]

A road traffic accident might not be a deliberate act of violence. BUT, and I suspect this may be what others are driving at, it is quite obvious that without the utmost care and attention, and modification of behaviour to suit the conditions, any motor vehicle is capable of doing potentially lethal injury to others. Everybody can appreciate this. If you ask any driver what happens if you run into a passer by, they will be able to describe the potential for harm.

Now consider the outcome if one was walking down the street carrying a big sharp knife, tripped over a cracked paving stone (maybe you 'weren't expecting to see a cracked paving stone') and fall over, impaling a passing stranger and causing a fatal knife wound. How would that be tried in court?

The process of identifying the risk and managing it appropriately or not is basically the same. Somewhere along the way we all stopped thinking too hard about the risk posed by cars etc because it was too inconvenient. The car industry haven't helped us here. For years they have engineered more and more 'safety features' into new vehicles to score sales instead of altering driver behaviour to make the safety features unnecessary. I could go on, but I shan't.

The desire of we humans to do what we want because it's pleasurable, convenient or ideologically the done thing, no matter how dangerous, is everywhere.

In the USA they sell woodworking machines with little or no safety facilities - no riving knives, guards or blade-brakes on the vast majority of their tablesaws, for example, There are tens of thousands of serious tablesaw "accidents" each year in the USA. Despite this, there is a hoot and a holler when anyone attempts to introduce the sort of Health & Safety stuff that's been the norm in Europe and elsewhere for decades. "Don't need no steenkin' safety guards!"

Now, the victims of tablesaw "accidents" harm only themselves by their refusal to put safety guards on their machines or use them in a safe manner. Despite the enormous cost of going to the hospital in the USA, not to mention trying to get a job when you have no fingers, the rascals insist that this safety stuff is not wanted as it's an encroachment upon their liberties and also "inconvenient".

Humans are mad. We are dangerous, to ourselves and others, because we are very stupid when it comes to the use of powerful technologies. Like silly little boys with air rifles.

Cugel

[mattheus]

Now consider the outcome if one was walking down the street carrying a big sharp knife, tripped over a cracked paving stone (maybe you 'weren't expecting to see a cracked paving stone') and fall over, impaling a passing stranger and causing a fatal knife wound. How would that be tried in court?

[my bold] According to PDQ, the knife was in plain view, and any sensible pedestrian would mitigate the risk by staying out of range of the knife. See below:

In my view it is wise to take measures to mitigate risk.
Segregated facilities are not likely in any foreseeable rural future.

[Vorpal]

^
I agree with the above BUT this "modification" of behaviour should apply to all road users.

How about the "modification" of behaviour be aligned with the danger presented?

[The utility cyclist]

^
I agree with the above BUT this "modification" of behaviour should apply to all road users.

Clearly the ped or cyclist are at a significant disadvantage in terms of vulnerability to injury.
There are crap and dangerous drivers about for sure.
Is a cyclist without lights a crap cyclist? IMV yes.
Just as is a driver with only one front light working a crap driver.

In my view it is wise to take measures to mitigate risk.
Segregated facilities are not likely in any foreseeable rural future.

It is actually such a small act of forethought and cost to have reasonable lights and a bit of reflectivity.
In an imperfect world it could save one's life.

Lights are a statutory requirement on public roads at night.

By your logic and that of many others ALL women should wear anti rape outfits then, not just going out but when in the home with their partners, we know that many rapes occur in the home so modifying their behaviour/garments to avoid being raped should apply to all right?

why stop there, maybe children who are abused should also modify their behaviour, maybe stop crying when belted across the face or punched because that will incense the abuser even more, I'm sure there are many things that kids could do to prevent being harmed by adults by modifying their behaviour

[PDQ Mobile]

^
I agree with the above BUT this "modification" of behaviour should apply to all road users.

How about the "modification" of behaviour be aligned with the danger presented?

What do you suggest?

I suggest being visible as a cyclist or ped is a simple logical step towards modification.
And to not be modified in that way borders onto illogical.

I have acknowledged that there are unfit drivers.

I have to say that where I live the vast majority of drivers are pretty conscientious and polite to other road users.
There are fast drivers here, that is for sure, but they don't all go around intent on causing mayhem and injury.
......
I regularly cycle along a really dark shared path bounded by stone wall and fence. 2 meters wide
Last week there were three peds, right across the path backs to me, only seen because they were looking at a phone screen which showed glowing in the gloom!

And a fellow oncoming cyclist showing no lights at all.
Apart from he not being able to see at all well I only saw him as he swept past. I had stopped to savour the night time sounds of the estuary.
I very nearly called out "lights".
I wondered what happened when he met the peds further along.
I was too far away to hear!

LED Cycle lights, even cheap Lidl and Aldi battery ones, are really very good these days.
Can't see a problem using them - or a head torch.

Anything is a help to other road users.
And it will save your life, potentially.
What's not to like?

[mjr]

What do you suggest?

I suggest being visible as a cyclist or ped is a simple logical step towards modification.
And to not be modified in that way borders onto illogical.

I suggest that even the rider knocked down was visible and to claim otherwise is illogical.

I regularly cycle along a really dark shared path bounded by stone wall and fence. 2 meters wide
Last week there were three peds, right across the path backs to me, only seen because they were looking at a phone screen which showed glowing in the gloom!

Really? With no phone, you would have hit them? Then you should slow down and/or get better lights or glasses.

As previously discussed, I find really dark places are less of a problem than people wearing reflective clothes in places with strong backlighting that robs them of contrast.

LED Cycle lights, even cheap Lidl and Aldi battery ones, are really very good these days.
Can't see a problem using them - or a head torch.

It depends. Except for the twice-yearly Lidl K-marked ones, you can't see very well in unlit areas with them. You'd end up crashing into unlit walkers

Anything is a help to other road users.
And it will save your life, potentially.
What's not to like?

That it discourages walking and cycling. That it enables bad motorists to drive too fast and believe that everyone else will be lit and reflective-tagged. And slightly that it can rob us of enjoying the darkness, starlight and moonlight.

[mattheus]

^
I agree with the above BUT this "modification" of behaviour should apply to all road users.

How about the "modification" of behaviour be aligned with the danger presented?

We went through this at length in the "Black..." theread earlier this month.

PDQ danced around and about it, but consistently avoided addressing this very simple point.

[Mike Sales]

^
I agree with the above BUT this "modification" of behaviour should apply to all road users.

How about the "modification" of behaviour be aligned with the danger presented?

There is no shortage of advice to cyclists to wear hiviz etc. It comes from cycling forums, police, motoring organisations etc.etc.
Advice to drivers to obey H.C. 126 is pretty well non-existent.
It is easy to see, any night on the roads, that motorists ignore this important advice.

[AlaninWales]

...
That not all drivers are as supremely competent as "Alaninwales" is sadly a fact of life.

What I described (and what I am) is not "supremely competent", but the bare minimum that all drivers are supposed to be trained to and abide by: To maintain due care and attention on driving a potentially lethal machine, ensuring that there is no-one in the path of that machine. It's quite a simple and basic test.

Older drivers (and others have less than 20/20 vision. Oncoming lights momentarily lead to reduced vision.
Rain and mist always reduce visibility at night.

At which time the driver apples the basic test of "Can I see my path to be clear?" and slows sufficiently to ensure that they do not pass through any space that they have not seen to be clear.

And there are a fair few really bad and dangerous drivers.

Who should be banned from driving. Since there are so many bad and dangerous drivers that my feat of driving 20 miles on a grey, misty night without collision is described as "supremely competent", why is there no campaign to remove all of them from our roads? Why is that not a better solution than trying to get every other user of the roads to dress up in weird colours (which must be "hi-viz" but not blend into the background of "hi-viz" road furniture, trees and eventually wildlife)?

To assume the driver involved here is one such and a "criminal" is assuming in the other direction much of the same as what I stand accused of by you.

To be aware of risk is normally to mitigate it.

Which is what every driver should be doing: Mitigating the risk of driving over someone by ensuring the path they will drive their machine over is clear of obstruction. Are you telling us that you don't apply this test? That you cannot?

[Vorpal]

^
I agree with the above BUT this "modification" of behaviour should apply to all road users.

How about the "modification" of behaviour be aligned with the danger presented?

What do you suggest?

I've linked on one or both of the running 'hi vis' topics a link to https://pyoraliitto.fi/wp-content/uploa ... safety.pdf this presentation.

One the illustrations that I especially like is

This shows where we currently put the responsibility for the safety of vulnerable users, and where the risk is from. Ideally, we should do more to separate vulnerable users from the origins of risk. Failing that, speed limits should always be low where they have to share.

Anything is a help to other road users.

Anything is a help? Jumping up & down and waving my arms about is more likely to attract notice than many other preventive things. Should I go about all the time, jumping up & down and waving my arms? Or perhaps I should just not go out. That certainly helps other road users, even if it will harm my health. Or maybe I should drive, instead of walking or cycling. That's a help in some ways, but of course, it makes more pollution. Yes, of course my answers are sarcastic, but these campaigns to 'be seen, be safe' are literally making it my responsibility. It's not. it never should be.

And it will save your life, potentially.

Save my life? really? There is plenty of evidence that folks in reflective stuff can be seen from further away at night. No evidence that it results in lives saved.