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

[fastpedaller]

and also that cars tend to be large and centre-lane (ie hard to miss even if you only glance) while cyclists are small, and often crawling along the gutter.

if we ride single file we 'aren't visible' to some, yet if we ride 2 abreast we are criticised. Can't win really in the car-centric society. I'm with UR, he makes some very valid points

[Icsunonove]

In summary, as a result of legally mandated safety standards, we have an environment where drivers will inevitably perceive less personal risk and drive with less care than they would otherwise. Like it or not, if sharing that environment, I owe it to myself and my family to be sufficiently visible.

Yes, fair enough, that's what I do too. However, the public environment (roads included) should be safe for all to use, and that includes those not as 'sensible' as you and I. That could include children. We, as a society, are (or are in real danger of) failing these people in the name of motoring.

and also that cars tend to be large and centre-lane (ie hard to miss even if you only glance) while cyclists are small, and often crawling along the gutter.

I've often thought that 'claiming the lane' does more for visibility than any amount of hi-viz (or daytime lights).

[Ellieb]

The utility cyclist wrote:
Also this never applies if you drive a motor, I asked police why they weren't giving advice to motorists to wear body armour and helmets and adorning their vehicles in 'visible' colours when one was killed in a crash, yet when that's a cyclist they go into full on Bulls@@@ discrimination mode and ply the whole helmet and hi-vis routine.

Does anyone force you to wear a seatbelt when riding a bike? Or force you to have an MOT?

[PDQ Mobile]

i would also walk facing the oncoming traffic.



And everybody has a duty of care, that duty is to try to make things safe.

It's not always cut and dried though, the 'rule' may not be the best ....
If you are on a fairly narrow (say 3m width) road, with a RH bend with hedges, do you walk on the RH side facing the oncoming traffic (but hidden from them) or on the LH side (albeit slightly closer to the traffic approaching from behind) and make yourself visible to traffic from both directions?

I agree.
But I would not walk for miles on straight B roads with my back to the traffic either.

It is this awarenes of the peril that is the nub (and the solution) of the issue.

[The utility cyclist]

In summary, as a result of legally mandated safety standards, we have an environment where drivers will inevitably perceive less personal risk and drive with less care than they would otherwise. Like it or not, if sharing that environment, I owe it to myself and my family to be sufficiently visible.

And yet this does nothing to increase your safety, only contribute to the thinking that if you're not 'visible', whatever that actually means, because we know that 'visible' has no real meaning when people aren't looking or acting, that you are in the wrong and are to blame if you get killed or injured, such that if you're not 'visible', you're a Darwin award winner.

I disagree, I believe that with the environment we have, many drivers will be driving with the assumption that hazards will be lit, reflective, or at the very least painted white. I might call that "careless", you might call it "murderous", many others would call it "normal". That aside, I truly believe that by my chances are better if I fit their model of what a road hazard looks like.

Also this never applies if you drive a motor, I asked police why they weren't giving advice to motorists to wear body armour and helmets and adorning their vehicles in 'visible' colours when one was killed in a crash, yet when that's a cyclist they go into full on Bulls@@@ discrimination mode and ply the whole helmet and hi-vis routine.

It does apply - motors are forced to display lights in order to be seen by other careless motorists. I can't say why there isn't a high-viz drive for car paintwork, but I'd guess it's a combination of perceived public resistance to the notion, and also that cars tend to be large and centre-lane (ie hard to miss even if you only glance) while cyclists are small, and often crawling along the gutter.

You can disagree but there's no evidence to support your thinking.
Killing another human being IS murderous, how can you not see that by not obeying the law and the highway code that you have not acted out the worst act on another person, we lessen the standard of responsibility when in a motorvehicle and call it a motoring offence but it is in fact an against the person crime, you might as well have murdered them in cold blood because the end result is the same, except with one the killer is more often than not let off, because, you know 'accident', victim wasn't doing or wearing x. Apply that in any other circumstance and it doesn't wash.
This is why hi-vis clothing and helmets contribute to the discrimination and bending of the law, it directly changes how justice is applied which has a further detrimental change on safety, it's a vicious circle that is not changed for the better through wearing but in fact makes it worse.

[Mike Sales]

The utility cyclist wrote:
Also this never applies if you drive a motor, I asked police why they weren't giving advice to motorists to wear body armour and helmets and adorning their vehicles in 'visible' colours when one was killed in a crash, yet when that's a cyclist they go into full on Bulls@@@ discrimination mode and ply the whole helmet and hi-vis routine.

Does anyone force you to wear a seatbelt when riding a bike? Or force you to have an MOT?

Presumably the utility cyclist's hypothetical dead motorist was wearing a seat belt in an M.O.T. tested car, yet still died. So why did the policeman not recommend those extra safety measures which the law does not demand, the armour and helmet in a hiviz car? After all, he was not shy in recommending helmet and hiviz to a cyclist, though these are undemanded by law too.

[The utility cyclist]

The utility cyclist wrote:
Also this never applies if you drive a motor, I asked police why they weren't giving advice to motorists to wear body armour and helmets and adorning their vehicles in 'visible' colours when one was killed in a crash, yet when that's a cyclist they go into full on Bulls@@@ discrimination mode and ply the whole helmet and hi-vis routine.

Does anyone force you to wear a seatbelt when riding a bike? Or force you to have an MOT?

That has the square root of zero to do with the matter at hand, motorists aren't coerced/forced to wear helmets or hi-vis, in any case an MOT is a test for a single point in time, many motorists drive around in illegal vehicles, people on bikes do so little harm (less than those on foot) that an MOT would be worse than useless but you can still get done for having an unroadworthy bike if you cause an incident due to that.

Or had you forgotten the Charlie Alliston case with his 'demon' bike where he was jailed for 18 months due to not having a front brake and his 10mph impact speed which is apparently warranted a manslaughter charge but was found guilty of causing bodily harm by “wanton and furious driving, a charge and sentence that is massively excessive compared to what motorists are subjected to for same/similar. Or had you forgotten about the poor sods in Rhyll, four cyclists who were mowed down by a motorist driving massively too fast for the conditions and with bald tyres who got off with a £180 fine and penalty points and the police lie about the speed and the fact that not having bald tyres wouldn't have made a difference, but whatever, your point is meaningless in the discussion, just actually highlights further the discrimination by the system!

Oh I forgot, paramedics state that the vast majority of incidents with motorvehicles that cause serious injury or death, the seatbelts cause massive injuries internally due to the forces involved, seat belts and helmets/hi-vis are not remotely the same thing.

Hi=vis wouldn't have saved this women because the killer wasn't looking properly, yet apparently she was still victim blamed by the justice system and the killer let off https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... ly-footage
This is the worst outcome of the push for hi-vis and cyclists needing to protect themselves, utterly @@@@@@@ futile because @@@@@ like the driver and others don't look or see, they don't act and the system then puts the focus on what the cyclist should have done not the killer, truly sickening.

I'm done here, pointless responding further when there's some who really don't get it and are a part of the problem, and to the poster who said I was rude by telling you you don't get it, no, not rude, just pointing out a fact.

[Vorpal]

Yes, fair enough, that's what I do too. However, the public environment (roads included) should be safe for all to use, and that includes those not as 'sensible' as you and I. That could include children. We, as a society, are (or are in real danger of) failing these people in the name of motoring.

We have already failed them. Along with those who are sensible, those who are afraid to cycle and those who don't let their kids walk to the park because it isn't safe.

[Biospace]

Just wondering.

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've adapted to what I find works best - making my torso reflective in the dark is less effective (distance and speed at which vehicles pass) than two or three lights, as widely-spaced as possible. An illuminated ankle band really seems to slow motorists.

In daylight, I find a hi-vis vest creates more careful behaviour, although in areas of dense traffic I now use lights - driver education is non-existant, it's a fight for survival amongst all the LED running lights, thick windscreen pillars, beeping phones, satnav and other distractions.

[Cunobelin]

In summary, as a result of legally mandated safety standards, we have an environment where drivers will inevitably perceive less personal risk and drive with less care than they would otherwise. Like it or not, if sharing that environment, I owe it to myself and my family to be sufficiently visible.

Yes, fair enough, that's what I do too. However, the public environment (roads included) should be safe for all to use, and that includes those not as 'sensible' as you and I. That could include children. We, as a society, are (or are in real danger of) failing these people in the name of motoring.

and also that cars tend to be large and centre-lane (ie hard to miss even if you only glance) while cyclists are small, and often crawling along the gutter.

I've often thought that 'claiming the lane' does more for visibility than any amount of hi-viz (or daytime lights).

My most effective piece of kit for becoming visible is the Airzound

[Deja_vu160]

In addition to some of the comments previously made, you'll also find that this contributory factor relates to the rules in the Highway Code: "You should wear... light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light". Helmets, although not a legal requirement, are listed as something a cyclist "should" wear, and thus if not worn, although in this case not a contributory factor to causing a road incident, in a civil compensation case, will go against the cyclist as potentially contributing to any head injuries and thus limiting any compensation claim.
Quoted from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... s-59-to-82

[mjr]

In addition to some of the comments previously made, you'll also find that this contributory factor relates to the rules in the Highway Code: "You should wear... light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light". Helmets, although not a legal requirement, are listed as something a cyclist "should" wear, and thus if not worn, although in this case not a contributory factor to causing a road incident, in a civil compensation case, will go against the cyclist as potentially contributing to any head injuries and thus limiting any compensation claim.
Quoted from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... s-59-to-82

That's true, but it's important to note:
1. Those parts of the highway code are unsupported by evidence and were introduced based on prejudice, before there was much evidence either way;
2. In a civil compensation case, the other party would still have to show that the helmet would have significantly mitigated the head injuries being claimed for, which should be very difficult to do because cycle helmets are neither designed nor tested for collisions with other vehicles. There have been some failures to try that tactic. I suspect the most likely way it could succeed is if there was some collision, the cyclist rode on for a bit somehow and then fell from their bike as a result of it being damaged by the collision, hitting their head on the ground (the situation helmets are tested for) and injuring themselves.

However, non-obedience of cattle-dung advice in the Highway Code could be introduced to support a general allegation of careless cycling as grounds to reduce the compensation. If I'm ever involved in such a case and cannot defend myself (because I've been maimed by the motorist), I hope to defeat by having published on my website an explanation of why I am careful and not using them because I believe they lead to more risk-taking behaviour, probably even in statisticians like me.

[rmurphy195]

If you use the roads at night/in poor weather/ at night AND in poor weather, irrespective of your mode of transort, the answer is quite obvious!

Even in the daytime when its very bright, so ou get the contrast under tress etc., the difference between dark and light clothing is self-evident.

[mattheus]

If you use the roads at night/in poor weather/ at night AND in poor weather, irrespective of your mode of transort, the answer is quite obvious!

Very true! And I'm sure you'll find thousands that agree with you:
www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/grey-uk-best-selling-new-car-colour-2019

[Mike Sales]

The question posed by the O.P. is in the heading, of course.

It should be police investigators. They include it because it's in the manual. The manual is set by the Department of Transport and I think is supposed to be reviewed every five years. The last review was 2011. We get this changed by convincing the motorists at the DfT writing the manual to remove it in the next review. Past reviews have removed factor codes.

For what it's worth, pedestrians currently suffer far more of these victim-blaming codes, including not only "dark clothing" but also "wrong use of pedestrian crossing" (basically going when the red give-way man is showing, but distinct from the usual failing to give way) and even "playing" if children now dare to play ball in the street!

mjr gives an answer, which demands another question.

"Is failure by the driver to observe H.C. paragraph 126 in the manual too?"

If not, why not?
If it is, why is it not used?
In cases where a driver hits a cyclist from behind it must surely be at least a cause, in strict logic.