Cyclists in Stealth Mode.

[pwa]

What are you so confused about?

Trying to argue that you aren't responsible for your own safety

does not seem to agree with

Car drivers are entirely to blame

Perhaps we are getting tied in knots unnecessarily here. It is possible to believe both that drivers are responsible for not driving into other road users, regardless of how visible they are, and that being more visible makes you less likely to be run over. I believe both of those things and see no conflict.

[Rhothgar]

Utility cyclist. Two entirely separate arguments. Why would you want to be injured in the first place?

Of course, those that do wrong should be heavy punished but that is where the law falls down or should I say, detection of or failures of CPS.

I recounted the story of the driver that swerved into a group of us DELIBERATELY.

Why would I encourage people reading this thread to get involved in the public inquiry?

Your views seem pretty twisted if you really believe that I am not on the victims' side but if you really cared for your own safety you would take sufficient steps to ameliorate your risk, surely?

So you believe that you can act with impunity by not taking sufficient steps to protect yourself? The same impunity that a driver acts with in using their mobile or otherwise being sufficiently distracted when they kill or injure you? Of course, you have the choice. It's your choice and you are free to make it and justice should be no less severe if you choose not to take sufficient steps as you see fit but do you really believe you'll be a happier person if you are lying in a persistent vegetative state? You pay your money you make your choice!

I agree you shouldn't have to but if you haven't already noticed we do not live in a perfect world.

I was burgled only a couple of months ago and of course nothing could be done as the Police are cleat not bothered or under-resourced. The first thing I did was to review our home security and adjust it.

That doesn't mean I blame myself as a victim, it means I am aware of what weaknesses there were in our current security.

I took responsibility and acted accordingly. Of course, I want the [rude word removed] punished but it's not a reality.

I've increased the security for the sake of the burglar should he return as I would beat 7 bells out of him if he returns. I have a picture of him from a local shop's CCTV and a description from a neighbour which matches.

[Vorpal]

Why would you want to be injured in the first place?

...if you really cared for your own safety you would take sufficient steps to ameliorate your risk, surely.

I am writing as someone who wears hi-viz, as I generally prefer to give myself the best chance to be seen that I can. *however* the statistics are not entirely in agreement with that. I posted above that several studies have found that cyclists in hi-viz seem to have more traffic crashes than those who don't wear them.

So there is absolutely nothing to support either the wearing of hi-viz, nor your statement that someone would be injured for lack of it.

No. Evidence.

None.

I wear hi-viz because it can be seen from a greater distance. Not because I think it will prevent me being injured. Or prevent a crash. Or make me visible when I would othersie be invisible. I wear it because it can be seen from further away. Does that give me a better chance? I'm not sure. The evidence is slightly against me.

So, someone who chooses to go with the evidence rather than deliberately making themselves into a dayglow Xmas tree is no more wrong than I am when I put 4 lights on my bike and bright yellow jacket with reflective strips on it.

We don't know why cyclists in hi-viz and lights have more crashes. It might be risk compensation on the part of either party, it might be that they can bee seen far enough away that the reaction occurs to early to help the cyclist. We just don't know. And until we do, I don't think it's reasonable to tell people that it is an appropropriate risk mitigation measure.

Utility Cyclist and all of the others who cycle without hi-viz already have taken sufficient steps to ameliorate their risk.

[reohn2]

.......We don't know why cyclists in hi-viz and lights have more crashes. It might be risk compensation on the part of either party, it might be that they can bee seen far enough away that the reaction occurs to early to help the cyclist. We just don't know. And until we do, I don't think it's reasonable to tell people that it is an appropropriate risk mitigation measure......

Or simply that far more people wear Hi Viz when cycling so statistically they're more likely to have a collision by shear weight of numbers, and the Hi Viz has no bearing on it.

[Rhothgar]

My comments were not aimed at you, vorpal.

Would it surprise that I don't wear hi-viz either? But I use lights...

I read those studies. Of course, these things cannot be properly scientifically studied sufficiently thoroughly as you cannot get inside the drivers' minds. Cyclists aren't getting killed by robots - yet!

[BakfietsUK]

Vorpal, clearly some posts are more well thought out than others.

Rhothgar, you sound very angry and seem to blame everyone, if I get your meaning correct. I have to say it's difficult to get your meaning. I would respond to your seeming distain for so called victim blaming by saying that it does exist and it is not helpful. Often it is a way of shedding one's own responsibility and guilt feeling for some event that resulted in misfortune of some sort to another person.

If victim blaming goes unacknowledged or is dismissed as rubbish, then there is a very great risk to society in general. To leave it unacknowledged risks the chances of getting justice as not naming it can be construed, by implication as acceptance in some quarters.

It does not take too much imagination to perceive of a scenario when a cyclist killed on a road is blamed for riding on the road and considered to be acting like someone who kicks a crocodile. I find this attitude highly disrespectful toward the victim and really distressing for any grieving loved ones. Maybe kicking a crocodile is not a practice many should take up, but if this act is somehow equivalent to cycling on roads then we all need to watch out.

[Rhothgar]

Vorpal, clearly some posts are more well thought out than others.

Rhothgar, you sound very angry and seem to blame everyone, if I get your meaning correct. I have to say it's difficult to get your meaning. I would respond to your seeming distain for so called victim blaming by saying that it does exist and it is not helpful. Often it is a way of shedding one's own responsibility and guilt feeling for some event that resulted in misfortune of some sort to another person.

If victim blaming goes unacknowledged or is dismissed as rubbish, then there is a very great risk to society in general. To leave it unacknowledged risks the chances of getting justice as not naming it can be construed, by implication as acceptance in some quarters.

It does not take too much imagination to perceive of a scenario when a cyclist killed on a road is blamed for riding on the road and considered to be acting like someone who kicks a crocodile. I find this attitude highly disrespectful toward the victim and really distressing for any grieving loved ones. Maybe kicking a crocodile is not a practice many should take up, but if this act is somehow equivalent to cycling on roads then we all need to watch out.

Point taken (in part).

You do clearly misunderstand my point then which I thought was very clear and positive. I don't think it's helpful when people on forums deconstruct a post and try to quote points out of context. As I said in my first post, I've come to the discussion late and has not read all of the posts. Then when I read a fair few and saw some that were commenting about black cars, it did make me wonder how tangential threads can become.

But to use an example of a cyclist riding on a road and being killed and blamed because they were on the road (which they are entitled to be) is stretching it a bit.

It is counter-productive to the real issues at hand to start hypothesising about what could be, is it not?

My best friend was killed on a bike. I am not angry as you suggest and I do not have any unresolved issues relating to his death. He wasn't wearing hi-viz nor did he have lights but it was during broad daylight so he didn't need them.

My point regarding victim blaming was purely made on the basis that this seems to happen after the event but if thought actually goes into one's own safety be it proven or otherwise then why is it such an issue to take care of oneself through your own choices? It's up to the individual what they do but then what is the value of complaining if something happens?

To me, it sounds as though logic itself at times is being deconstructed and for what purpose?

Lobbying should be happening now to bring in presumed liability as per the link I thought I had posted thinking it would actually be of interest.

I hear a lot of people complaining about this and that but when it comes to it why don't some of you who think you have valid posts get off your backsides and get your thoughts down in writing and sent into the public inquiry?

Or is it just a case that most like to moan and do nothing of any value?

Sorry to play The Devil's Advocate but what changes if you're only prepared to speak out on a forum?

One of he biggest travesties of the year was the death of a cyclist who was hit by a van and the driver had many previous convictions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37283994?

The sad part in all of this that the cyclist's death could possibly have been prevented. Instead of dealing with him properly at earlier opportunities, he was let off on grounds of hardship. The laughable thing (if it wasn't so sad) is that his family are really suffering now because of his idiotic actions and a human has been killed needlessly.

This is why I speak of conscientiousness. Drivers kill with impunity. You only need to read the various comments about road tax and all that BS that drivers level at cyclists.

I am a driver too to advanced level. That is the level everyone should be taught and tested to. There would be far less drivers on the road. I'm not anti-car. I own eight.

I am not anti-cyclist. I own a similar amount.

[Rhothgar]

.......We don't know why cyclists in hi-viz and lights have more crashes. It might be risk compensation on the part of either party, it might be that they can bee seen far enough away that the reaction occurs to early to help the cyclist. We just don't know. And until we do, I don't think it's reasonable to tell people that it is an appropropriate risk mitigation measure......

Or simply that far more people wear Hi Viz when cycling so statistically they're more likely to have a collision by shear weight of numbers, and the Hi Viz has no bearing on it.

+1

[Cunobelin]

Today in Southampton.....

Big ambulance, bedecked in several hundred square meters of hiviz, full light, enhanced by flashing blue strobe lights in the grille and on the top of the cab

Then add the very loud sirens...


And someone pulled out of a junction with a clear "STOP" line in front of the ambulance causing it to brake

One does wonder whether there was insufficient hiviz! Insufficient lights, insufficient noise from the sirens?

Or the classics and real issue where all of their was irrelevant because of the ooor driving

[Vorpal]

.......We don't know why cyclists in hi-viz and lights have more crashes. It might be risk compensation on the part of either party, it might be that they can bee seen far enough away that the reaction occurs to early to help the cyclist. We just don't know. And until we do, I don't think it's reasonable to tell people that it is an appropropriate risk mitigation measure......

Or simply that far more people wear Hi Viz when cycling so statistically they're more likely to have a collision by shear weight of numbers, and the Hi Viz has no bearing on it.

+1

Well, that's not the conclusion of the studies, I linked to on the first or second page of this thread. Among cyclists who presented in A&E with injuries, those who used conspicuity aids were *disproportionately* represented.

There were relatively more crashes amongst cyclists who used conspicuity aids than among those who didn't. And the results were the same in several countries, including those where the proportion using hi-viz are lower than in the UK.

[reohn2]

Well, that's not the conclusion of the studies, I linked to on the first or second page of this thread. Among cyclists who presented in A&E with injuries, those who used conspicuity aids were *disproportionately* represented.

There were relatively more crashes amongst cyclists who used conspicuity aids than among those who didn't. And the results were the same in several countries, including those where the proportion using hi-viz are lower than in the UK.

Back to the drawing board,as they used to say

[PhilWhitehurst]

Or it simply highlights that drivers hitting cyclists is not because the cyclist wasn't visible enough but because of driver inattentiveness. Those who recognise this are less likely to wear hiviz as a "safety aid" but instead adjust their riding to take account of this inattentiveness of drivers and thus are safer out on the road.

[drossall]

Or not inattentiveness as such, but that there's more to being seen than people realise.

As I understand it from reading about such research, we focus on being visible, which is a bit like being employable. It doesn't get you seen/doesn't get you a job. For that to happen, the other party has to do something.

In the case of the roads, this means not only perceiving you, but responding to your presence, whilst simultaneously doing lots of other things, including thinking about other road users who are moving at the same time. There is, therefore, a danger of perceiving you, but unconsciously pushing you down the priority list as "not a threat".

In this situation, doing something unusual can help (being naked is almost certain to get you seen; hi-vis is so normal now that it might not have the effect that you expect).

And some seriously weird effects have been suggested, such as that being seen too early just leaves more time for you to be forgotten (whereas being naked gets constant double-takes that pretty-much guarantee that that won't happen!) These aren't suggested for fun, but to try to explain research that finds hi-vis to be counter-productive. Another effect suggested, for the same reason, is that "stealth" cyclists usually are seen, and annoy motorists enough to guarantee that they won't be forgotten either.

Let's be clear, for the moment I'll carry on riding with good lights and in light-coloured, reflective or hi-vis clothing. But I don't give it the essential status that some here do, because it's not clear that it helps much.

[mjr]

I'm often disappointed by how many people now drive around corners or over brows with main beam on and only dip after dazzling another road user.

You mean

I'm often disappointed by how many people now drive around corners or over brows with main beam on and only dip after SEEING another road user

Fixed that for you. Unless the other road user has given a clue they are there like having powerful lights with the glare visible round corners then a driver dips lights once he sees them. No point having a main beam if it can't be used just in case there is someone round the next corner.

You can use it. Just dip it on entry to the corner or brow and put main beam back up when you can see no headlights approaching.

There seems to have been a similar bad attitude change about headlights to that about speed: many motorists now use full beam EXCEPT when they see there IS another road user, instead of using full beam ONLY when they can see there ISN'T another road user.

[BakfietsUK]

Rothgar - Thanks for your explanation. I spose what I take most from your reply is a need to actually do something positive. I wonder if forums can change the world. Certainly, I find really trying to understand what is being said is so important for me. Sometimes I don't get it and that can be my own fault.

It is really helpful to have discussions that involve others' views and I see this as a way of really getting to grips with what is needed. It can be painful and frustrating at times and with some effort I feel I can see a situation from a more objective viewpoint. Without this insight, it would be impossible to know where to start with any campaign that involves actually doing something. Be assured Rothgar, this is my objective.

I was really sorry to hear you had lost a special friend in such a way Rothgar. I have witnessed RTC's through bad driving and it's not a very nice experience. This has deeply affected me over the years and I'll admit to you that I am angry, hell yes I am and I want to stop people dying on the roads. I just want to use the emotion to motivate an objective well reasoned course of action.