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

[Ellieb]

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?

Yes they should, but given some don't: what do you do as a cyclist to mitigate the risk that the driver is incompetent? Waiting for them all to be banned doesn't seem to be a great a option. Put it another way. Do people on here advocate riding in the door zone on the grounds that car users should all look carefully before opening their doors? On the contrary, whenever people report this sort of incident on this forum here is no shortage of advice about sensible road positioning. (often from the same people who object to brighter clothing)

[Vorpal]

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?

Yes they should, but given some don't: what do you do as a cyclist to mitigate the risk that the driver is incompetent? Waiting for them all to be banned doesn't seem to be a great a option. Put it another way. Do people on here advocate riding in the door zone on the grounds that car users should all look carefully before opening their doors? On the contrary, whenever people report this sort of incident on this forum here is no shortage of advice about sensible road positioning. (often from the same people who object to brighter clothing)

I don't object to brighter clothing, anymore than I object to sensible road positioning. I object to road safety campaigns that make either my responsibility as a vulnerable road user.

Avoiding the door zone could, quite literally save my life (even if the *responsibility* not to open a door is on the driver). Wearing brighter clothing doesn't save my life. It just makes me more easily seen. It might seem logical that would have some safety benefits, but that doesn't seem to be the case. So putting the responsibility on me is a red herring.

edited to add: risk mitigation is a valid approach, but it needs to actually mitigate risk.

[Ellieb]

risk mitigation is a valid approach, but it needs to actually mitigate risk.

I agree that the case has not been proved. But an awful lot of the argument on here is whether it is acceptable to try and mitigate the risk. If bright clothing does have a safety effect then why not use it? Getting knocked off by a door is no more the cyclists fault that being hit from behind in poor light conditions by an inattentive driver. Yet one of these things is a prudent way of avoiding the consequences of someone elses careless actions & the other one is victim blaming. I don't see the difference personally.

[mjr]

If bright clothing does have a safety effect then why not use it?

And if it doesn't, why use it?

[AlaninWales]

risk mitigation is a valid approach, but it needs to actually mitigate risk.

I agree that the case has not been proved. But an awful lot of the argument on here is whether it is acceptable to try and mitigate the risk. If bright clothing does have a safety effect then why not use it? Getting knocked off by a door is no more the cyclists fault that being hit from behind in poor light conditions by an inattentive driver. Yet one of these things is a prudent way of avoiding the consequences of someone elses careless actions & the other one is victim blaming. I don't see the difference personally.

Since you chose to select a small part of what I wrote, here's some more of it which you appear not to have taken into account whilst continuing to push the one-sided argument that the victim should do the "prudent" thing of wearing clothing which has no proven benefit in terms of safety (despite much research and attempts to 'prove' it has).

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)?

[mattheus]

risk mitigation is a valid approach, but it needs to actually mitigate risk.

I agree that the case has not been proved. But an awful lot of the argument on here is whether it is acceptable to try and mitigate the risk. If bright clothing does have a safety effect then why not use it? Getting knocked off by a door is no more the cyclists fault that being hit from behind in poor light conditions by an inattentive driver. Yet one of these things is a prudent way of avoiding the consequences of someone elses careless actions & the other one is victim blaming. I don't see the difference personally.

There are a number of things here, but one simple, obvious one is the practical differences:
- most of my riding is not passing parked cars. And
- you're not asking me to wear special clothing.


p.s. I have been doored and SMIDSIED for my sins. They both hurt a lot! I do mitigate the risk more now, but it doesn't rule my riding.

[Ellieb]

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

I have no problem with that at all. I also think that all burglars should be locked up. However, because that hasn't happened yet (& there a re far fewer burglars than bad drivers) should I lock my front door when I go out shopping?
There is a tendancy on this thread to confuse the effectiveness of hi-viz (no proof either way) with whether it is appropriate for cyclists to take safety measures when they are not the ones at fault. As I said above, there is an awful lot of things an experienced cyclist will do to mitigate risk, but this is only seen as 'good cycling'. Why is it that certain safety measures are seen by some people as unacceptable?

[mattheus]

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

I have no problem with that at all. I also think that all burglars should be locked up. However, because that hasn't happened yet (& there a re far fewer burglars than bad drivers) should I lock my front door when I go out shopping?
There is a tendancy on this thread to confuse the effectiveness of hi-viz (no proof either way) with whether it is appropriate for cyclists to take safety measures when they are not the ones at fault. As I said above, there is an awful lot of things an experienced cyclist will do to mitigate risk, but this is only seen as 'good cycling'. Why is it that certain safety measures are seen by some people as unacceptable?

Are the burglars telling you to lock your doors?

[Ellieb]

Are the burglars telling you to lock your doors?

Does the Highway code tell you to wear dark clothing? This doesn't just come from idiot drivers.
Ultimately it doesn't matter that the people responsible for this are the ones driving the cars. Whether it is not riding in the door zone, taking care when approaching a junction, adopting primary when necessary, doing a shoulder check when turning right after clearly signalling..... or whatever. I seek to mitigate the risk posed by other people. Should I not ride in primary because people complain that I am cycling in the middle of the road?

[mattheus]

Let me ask you a different question - just to test the waters.

How would you react to these two pieces of advice, both from a non-cycling driver in your local pub:

- Careful riding down Bograbbit Lane tonight, there are some new deep potholes. AND

- Careful riding home tonight. Wear your Hi-Viz, or I may run you over.


Now, there are a lot of other things going on in this debate, but just think about that question for the moment and let me know your thoughts, if you have a moment to humour me.

[Ellieb]

Let me ask you a different question - just to test the waters.

How would you react to these two pieces of advice, both from a non-cycling driver in your local pub:

- Careful riding down Bograbbit Lane tonight, there are some new deep potholes. AND

- Careful riding home tonight. Wear your Hi-Viz, or I may run you over.


Now, there are a lot of other things going on in this debate, but just think about that question for the moment and let me know your thoughts, if you have a moment to humour me.

If that is for me the answer to both would be: 'Thanks for the advice, but as an experienced cyclist I would be taking precautions against those risks anyway'
Probably not the answer you are fishing for

[Mike Sales]

So you would not say," Look where you are going, so you don't risk my life or any drunk walking home."
Such saintly forbearance.

[mattheus]

Let me ask you a different question - just to test the waters.

How would you react to these two pieces of advice, both from a non-cycling driver in your local pub:

- Careful riding down Bograbbit Lane tonight, there are some new deep potholes. AND

- Careful riding home tonight. Wear your Hi-Viz, or I may run you over.


Now, there are a lot of other things going on in this debate, but just think about that question for the moment and let me know your thoughts, if you have a moment to humour me.

If that is for me the answer to both would be: 'Thanks for the advice, but as an experienced cyclist I would be taking precautions against those risks anyway'
Probably not the answer you are fishing for

If you call it fishing, you're clearly not here for an honest debate. Bit sad, but you won't be the last to do so.

[and your answer to the first statement is very bizarre - good luck with that approach ]

[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?

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.

Always happy to address a specific point.
Maybe you should write exactly the point in question and not insinuate vacuous stuff.

I have a full and busy life.
I cannot remember what you describe.
Pop it on and we'll look.

[PDQ Mobile]

Ok.
In reply to "mjr.".



Do you know I think I could have very nearly hit them. My eyes are ok.
Older but ok I just had an eye test in the last 2 months.

They were three teenage girls engrossed in their phone right across the path backs yo me. Dressed in dark clothes as it happened!!

I have a simple Aldi single LED well bright enough on miles of narrow and unlit lanes to see and be seen well.

The path in question is very dark on account of the high 2and a half meter stone wall on one side. It is called The Cob.

It is dead straight, a mile long, totally unlit and commences with a gentle downhill for 20 or 30 meters. So one gains a good lick -perhaps 17mph.
And one has just left street lighting so eyes are not fully adjusted to the full dark.
At the far end away are the not bright lights of a railway yard.
Most folk carry a light.
IMV wisely.

I am used to unlit peds on the route and I have always seen them up to now!
One keeps one's light "dipped" so to speak because of oncoming others.

However the point is, and you don't seem to grasp it, is that they were hard to see.
Harder than needs be.
Not so tragic on a bike but deadly in some other situations.

I have been cycling for over r60 years in both big busy cities, some with trams (and tramlines!!), and also on really dark wet empty leafy lanes. I have cycled many miles on fast main roads.
I have crossed Continents on a bike.

I have been lucky maybe, but I know how to cycle, and how to handle a bike and I have been blessed by never having a serious accident cycling.
I express an opinion on this issue.
I have just seen a man lying badly hurt in the road on a dark wet night.
In my view probably avoidably.

Do not call my cycling competence into question because I hold a different opinion of the issue of being visible.