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

[The utility cyclist]

Just wondering.

If cyclists are in fact the not vulnerable of road users, why not wear brighter clothing, just on the off chance that you are even a tiny bit more visible?

You still don't get it do you, not only do the stats prove that 'safety aids' do not in fact increase safety, pushing the onus of responsibility to not get maimed or killed onto the vulnerable is heinous and disgustingly unjust, it is rarely if ever applied in other aspects of life.

Why is it pushed upon those on cycle or pedestrians even when we know it is an abject failure and used to absolve those that kill/maim (usually in motors) and indeed changes the way the law is applied such that it directly discriminates against the vulnerable.

Helimeds - Darwinism in action.
A 10 year old girl in A&E arrives with a stab wound, she's bleeding profusely and they can't stop the flow of blood, later we find that the child has died due to their injuries/ A nurse/consultant comes onto the TV screen, "this is the thing we tell all children, if you don't wear a stab vest this is the outcome, this is why wearing a stab vest is paramount, it's Darwinism in action really"

Sound horrific, it should do, but this is basically what the situation is with hi-vis/dark clothing and helmets etc, this is precisely what 24hrs in A&E do when it comes to people on bikes, it's what the police do, it's what insurers do, it's what government do. Blame the innocent parties and push the blame onto them instead of not looking at the root cause as to why it happened, a person with a knife, gun, car, blunt instrument or even cycle that acted criminally.

[Oldjohnw]

Just wondering.

If cyclists are in fact the not vulnerable of road users, why not wear brighter clothing, just on the off chance that you are even a tiny bit more visible?

Did you have your say in this 40-page thread? The issue has been discussed at … some length.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=134469#p1426355

Or did you overlook it?

This thread is 2 pages. I never read through the 40 pages in detail as I saw the arguments going round and round. I was not making a point: I was clear - just wondering.

[Oldjohnw]

Just wondering.

If cyclists are in fact the not vulnerable of road users, why not wear brighter clothing, just on the off chance that you are even a tiny bit more visible?

You still don't get it do you, not only do the stats prove that 'safety aids' do not in fact increase safety, pushing the onus of responsibility to not get maimed or killed onto the vulnerable is heinous and disgustingly unjust, it is rarely if ever applied in other aspects of life.

Why is it pushed upon those on cycle or pedestrians even when we know it is an abject failure and used to absolve those that kill/maim (usually in motors) and indeed changes the way the law is applied such that it directly discriminates against the vulnerable.

Helimeds - Darwinism in action.
A 10 year old girl in A&E arrives with a stab wound, she's bleeding profusely and they can't stop the flow of blood, later we find that the child has died due to their injuries/ A nurse/consultant comes onto the TV screen, "this is the thing we tell all children, if you don't wear a stab vest this is the outcome, this is why wearing a stab vest is paramount, it's Darwinism in action really"

Sound horrific, it should do, but this is basically what the situation is with hi-vis/dark clothing and helmets etc, this is precisely what 24hrs in A&E do when it comes to people on bikes, it's what the police do, it's what insurers do, it's what government do. Blame the innocent parties and push the blame onto them instead of not looking at the root cause as to why it happened, a person with a knife, gun, car, blunt instrument or even cycle that acted criminally.

Thanks for being so rude. It's not about getting it. I was asking a question, not expressing a view or pushing anything . Is that not allowed?

[mjr]

Fighting for segregated lanes that we won't get or won't be conducive to mass cycling nor encouraging people out of cars is yet another example of failed thinking in terms of best solution. Other countries/cities have seen what works best and it's not building narrow winding lanes that cost a ton of money and take years if at all to be built.
Most recent example is a new conurbation in NL where there are ZERO parking spaces for motors.

While I share the criticism of some of the forest-missing recent campaigns of CUK, I think it's also failed thinking to dismiss protected space (not only segregated lanes) as something we won't get or that won't encourage people out of cars. The few places that have built it seems to contract this, although it's difficult to say for sure that it's causal because almost no-one dares ask directly.

Claiming that some success in NL is only because of car parking restrictions and not the space4cycling which are in their design manuals (like here now) and generally built (unlike here) is about as wrong as someone who claims success in NL (or DK, BE, ...) is only because of the space4cycling and not the whole bundle of related measures like car parking restrictions, urban access zone systems or sustainable safety.

After all, most of us have probably seen what happens when some UK housing is built with zero parking spaces for motors: car-crazed Brits move in and just dump their cars on footways, cycleways, green spaces and anywhere else they can while our authorities do almost nothing about it

[Mick F]

If cyclists are in fact the most vulnerable of road users, why not wear brighter clothing, just on the off chance that you are even a tiny bit more visible?

I agree with this statement.

I'm not blaming the vulnerable or the victims, but if we all look out for each other on the raods, we would all be better off.

It's a half-mile walk to the pub from home. No street lighting and high Cornish banks either side overgrown and full of cover.
I wear a black coat, and dark trousers .......... but I carry a torch.
The torch remains off until I hear a vehicle, then switch it on and point it downwards.
They can see me if they are looking properly even without the torch. If they're not looking properly, they will see me because of the torch.

[tim-b]

Hi

Most recent example is a new conurbation in NL where there are ZERO parking spaces for motors

It's not as simple as painted, e.g. people have to be able to get to jobs on time while dropping off and collecting partners, children, etc. and their car may be the only practicable way to do that. It might be manageable if you have good public transport links but most places in the world outside of the largest cities are poor in that respect. Sort public transport out and maybe you'll impact on pollution and the reliance on cars
A 6-month experiment in the Dutch town of Segbroek in The Hague caused friction (link)
Regards
tim-b

[tim-b]

Hi
MickF and OldJohnW +1
It's not about victim-blaming, it's about having the confidence to cycle safely. The more people that cycle the more the balance moves, and if it takes hi-viz to achieve that...
Regards
tim-b

[Mick F]

Even if there's millions of cyclists out there, you cannot guarantee that a stupid blind driver won't look properly.

The other day - Friday afternoon just gone - I was driving up Newbridge Hill into the village after crossing back into Cornwall.
A cyclist came whizzing down the hill to the bridge ............ like I do too.
It is January, and dank and dismal, and there's high banks especially on the northern (downhill) side of the road.

The cyclist was all in black on a black bike with black wheels, wearing a black helmet, and had no lights.

I saw him ok like any decent driver would see him, but it worried me greatly that the stupid blind driver may not have.
He was over on the other side of the road of course, but the point still remains.

[mattheus]

If cyclists are in fact the most vulnerable of road users, why not wear brighter clothing, just on the off chance that you are even a tiny bit more visible?

I agree with this statement.

I'm not blaming the vulnerable or the victims, but if we all look out for each other on the raods, we would all be better off.

It's a half-mile walk to the pub from home. No street lighting and high Cornish banks either side overgrown and full of cover.
I wear a black coat, and dark trousers .......... but I carry a torch.
The torch remains off until I hear a vehicle, then switch it on and point it downwards.
They can see me if they are looking properly even without the torch. If they're not looking properly, they will see me because of the torch.

Oh dear.
Not even the Mods get the idea of "Topics". And thus we are doomed to endlessly repeat 40 pages of the same old stuff, until the earth spirals into the sun. . .

[mattsccm]

Above it is suggests that normalising certain attire reduces safety and cycling. How so?

[mjr]

Above it is suggests that normalising certain attire reduces safety and cycling. How so?

It reduces cycling because people will be less inclined to cycle if they don't have the required attire (maybe because they believe the lies that it's desirable or helpful, maybe because they think it's legally required, maybe because they fear they'll be blamed for any collision without it, or something) and that reduces safety because of the Safety In Numbers effect.

[PDQ Mobile]

It is a simple statement of fact that of you walk enough on narrow unpavemented rural roads on a dark nights with dark clothing and no torch then you will eventually one day die.

It is that simple.
And many have died.

With a pedestrian's back to the traffic on a wet dark night and with a car coming the other way it is very hard for a driver to pick out the pedestrian.

I guess this obvious and genuine risk transposes over into a dark cyclist to some extent. Though obviously a cyclist will have a front light at least.

I am not a wearer of hi viz.
But I wear something "cheery" and always have reasonable lights at night with some bits of reflective stuff too. Not masses of reflective but something to give a driver a fair crack at seeing one.

Daytime is less clear cut.
But it used to be said yellow vehicles were safer than grey or fawn.

[fastpedaller]

How far does this victim blaming go though? I was ranted at by a 4x4 driver a few weeks ago for having the temerity to walk along a country lane in the afternoon (visibility maybe 8 miles!) so she had to slow a little! terrible, I was taking up all the road presumably? Who knows what was going through her mind, but clearly I was wrong

[mjr]

It is a simple statement of fact that of you walk enough on narrow unpavemented rural roads on a dark nights with dark clothing and no torch then you will eventually one day die.

I may have misremembered the numbers, but a quick scratchpad calculation makes me think you'd have to walk every dark night (and not all nights are dark, remember, thanks to full-ish moons and clear skies) for many years for that to happen. Yes, you will surely die but most of us would die of something other than a car first.

[...] But I wear something "cheery" and always have reasonable lights at night with some bits of reflective stuff too. Not masses of reflective but something to give a driver a fair crack at seeing one.

Does it matter when over 20% of drivers can't see properly and a big chunk of the 80% look at their phones?

Daytime is less clear cut.
But it used to be said yellow vehicles were safer than grey or fawn.

And other surveys said the opposite. Vehicle colour safety surveys seem like random noise, possibly indicating that other factors dominate.

[Wanlock Dod]

Above it is suggests that normalising certain attire reduces safety and cycling. How so?

The normalisation of helmets, hiviz, and lights during daylight makes a clear statement to non-cyclists that cycling is inherently dangerous and is definitely not the kind of activity that they ought to try themselves.
The use of conspicuity aids probably also encourages motorists not to bother looking properly, and ensures that “Sorry mate, I didn’t see you” is a socially acceptable excuse for not bothering to look properly.