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

[Mike Sales]

It might be that we should put more effort into making sure drivers are fit to drive.

Yes we should. However even if it improved safety, it would still be the case that there would be incidents when 'cyclist wearing dark clothing' contributed to an RTC.... because, as with pilots, no driver is perfect. (& you would still get nowhere near the level of scrutiny/regulation that aviation has)

I'm glad we can agree that more effort should be put into regulating driving. I believe it would be a more effective measure. When we have put as much effort into improving drivers as into getting cyclists into hiviz we might find that we have cured the real problem.
A fraction of the scrutiny and regulation applied to pilots would make the roads safer. I think that the death and injury toll on the roads would justify a much heavier supervision regime, and would be uncontroversial in any other field.

[PDQ Mobile]

Ok.
In reply to "mjr.".

A reply avoiding quoting, which avoids setting off notifications - maybe in the hope that it will not be seen? Why avoid making your reply more visible? Camouflage in the hope it will keep it safe from logic?

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

If your eyes are fine but you couldn't see people walking three abreast, then the light is not quite good enough to see with IMO. Unlike Lidl, I don't think Aldi here have sold any decent to-see-with lights in many years.

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.

Maybe it's wise, but is that only because idiot cyclists are riding blind dangerously fast in the belief that other users will carry marker lights?

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.

Dipped? That makes it sounds like it's a torch-like round beam with its bright centre pointed too close to the front wheel to enable you to see a good way ahead.

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 grasp that you feel they could/should be festooned with marker lights and reflective things. I don't grasp that they were hard to see in and of themselves. For example, I seriously doubt that they were any harder to see than the road which you should be able to see is clear before riding onto it - but I've had this sort of conversation with other riders on here before and some will simply never accept that riding into a large unlit object is always at least partly their blame, unless it's some sort of booby-trap that has been concealed - and people are not booby-traps and merely not being festooned is not concealment.

[...summary of experience, then...] Do not call my cycling competence into question because I hold a different opinion of the issue of being visible.

No, I call your cycling competence into question because you seem to be riding blind at 17mph into dark lanes! I do not accept so-called "proof by appeal to authority".

Ah you're just nit picking now.
I don't selectively quote because it's an iphone and just so difficult and fiddly to do so.(and otherwise makes long posts unnecessarily long!!)
So don't try to make points out of what you don't understand.

Now you tell me as a cyclist to slow down!
From 17mph downhill! Sorry.
I cycle for fitness, pleasure and practicality.
This is not some Sunday sightseeing outing.

You want 20mph for cars on roads, 10 or less for cyclists on very empty shared paths just becsuse a few bone heads can't be bothered to recognise risk and take some responsibity.
Now whose advocating the nanny state??

Sorry, I expect people to show lights or at least keep their wits about them.
That's what I do.
And I haven't hit one bone head yet.

The dipped light is my way of describing my polite and sensible use of a cycle light. Its perfectly adequate but doesn't blind others.

You have simply no idea where that light safely guides me, steep(as in 1:4) narrow twisty leafy and pitch black.
One "off" round here into a stone wall and it really hurts or worse, and it hasn't happened yet.
I don't wear a helmet either.
This is not soft light polluted S England!

You are arguing one minute for no torches, no reflective or visible clothes and telling me the next minute to get brighter lights.
Make your mind up time.

I have nowhere argued for being "festooned".
It is not how I cycle - merely just sensibly visible.

[Wanlock Dod]

Regardless of whether or not hiviz and reflectives can “increase visibility” there is no shortage of examples of situations where cyclists with daytime running lights and hiviz have been run down by motorists in broad daylight. It is simply much more socially acceptable for the motorists to say that they couldn’t see them than to admit that they weren’t looking.

Over the last quarter of a century the use of conspicuity aids like hiviz, reflectives, and lights during daylight has escalated considerably. If there has not been an associated improvement in their safety surely it is only right that we should question whether expecting them to share equal responsibility for the risks posed to them by motorists is either reasonable or beneficial.

As long as we keep on blaming the victims we will be unable to provide safe conditions for either cycling or walking.

Be safe be seen kids

[PDQ Mobile]

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.

OK.
I've put it in bold. Just wanted to show that Vorpal is one of many to make this point. I'll rephrase it a little, might be helpful:

Many of us think that the road-user creating most of the danger should make most of the effort to reduce this danger.

What do you think?

I think if I stand walk or cycle on a dark road with no light or reflective then I am the danger to myself.
For I have made absolutely no effort to reduce the danger.
But I don't expect you to agree.

From the car driver what do you expect?

Good well adjusted lights?
Well maintained insured and legal vehicle?
Good driving position?
Speed in accordance with conditions?
Sober and drug free?
Eyesight up to standard?
Good concentration?
Experience? (That can be a tough Catch 22)
Empathy with other types of road user?

I have no problem with any of that.
Did I miss something?

He doing well though, this driver, keeping it all together all the time. Costing him(or her) a pretty penny too.

But bone-head pedestrian or cyclist can't even shell out for a set of cheap lights - sometimes.
And will sometimes wander dark clad, headphones in place, intoxicated and unaware.

[mattheus]

I think if I stand walk or cycle on a dark road with no light or reflective then I am the danger to myself.

You're a danger to yourself, just standing around? Well, I think we may have got to the nub of the problem then. I'm not sure I can really help you with that, but I wish you well!

For I have made absolutely no effort to reduce the danger.

Is this the danger of tripping over? Or impact from wild deer? Agaraphobia attack? Lightning strike?

[reohn2]

I think the point PDQ is making is that we can't rely on others for our safety,and as a result need to make ourselves as conspicuous as possible.
Some points:-
a) camouflage works,especially when some drivers arn't as attentive and careful as they should be.
b) we have a duty of care to overselves and others,if everyone observed and followed that rule there'd be far less RTI's
c) the police are useless,and the courts are biased in favour of the motorist in other words the dice are loaded.So as much as I'd like those with the greatest chances of causing injury to have the greatest reponsibility it ain't happening.
In light of that reality I'll do my best to make myself as conspicuos as possible when cycling,for me that means a bright top and bright lights day and night and riding in the traffic flow approx 60cm to 1m from the kerb.
YVMV mine won't until things change considerably for the better

[AlaninWales]

Now you tell me as a cyclist to slow down!
From 17mph downhill! Sorry.
I cycle for fitness, pleasure and practicality.
This is not some Sunday sightseeing outing.

And there we have it! As far as PDQ is concerned, they can cycle (and presumably drive) at the speed they choose regardless of whether there may be unlit obstructions in their path. An incredibly selfish attitude that is encouraged by the victim-blaming that PDQ supports and indulges in.

That PDQ (and no doubt others on this forum) have this attitude is due to decades of brainwashing by so-called 'road safety' organisations; the same process as brought about the 'jay-walking' law in US (which many believe is also UK law - thanks to figures such as the 'Green Cross Man').

PDQ: You bring the danger of collision to that path, not the pedestrians. Your light is plainly not sufficient for you to easily see the path is clear at the speeds you choose to ride. It is not your right to bring that danger to others. End of.

[Icsunonove]

I think it's safe to say that 'sensible' people usually take 'sensible' precautions.

But there are plenty of 'unsensible' people out there. There are many reasons for this. There are inexperienced children and young people. There are people who have educational needs. There are people who have psychological issues. There are people high on drugs.

Sometimes even 'sensible' people do unsensible things. (Lights can fail. Perhaps you have an unexpected journey so don't have a reflective jacket to hand. We can all make a bad decision).

This is all a fact of life. We have to take account of these things when taking control of dangerous machinery in a public place. The onus should always be on those that have the greater 'power', not the vulnerable.

To go back to the original specific topic. I think it is entirely correct to collect all potentially relevant information following an incident. How else are we going to learn to do things better? What is wrong is to jump to conclusions.... there's a difference between recording a 'contributory factor' and a 'potential contributory factor'. Better still, just record the facts without using judgemental language.

[Oldjohnw]

I think it's safe to say that 'sensible' people usually take 'sensible' precautions.

But there are plenty of 'unsensible' people out there. There are many reasons for this. There are inexperienced children and young people. There are people who have educational needs. There are people who have psychological issues. There are people high on drugs.

Sometimes even 'sensible' people do unsensible things. (Lights can fail. Perhaps you have an unexpected journey so don't have a reflective jacket to hand. We can all make a bad decision).

This is all a fact of life. We have to take account of these things when taking control of dangerous machinery in a public place. The onus should always be on those that have the greater 'power', not the vulnerable.

To go back to the original specific topic. I think it is entirely correct to collect all potentially relevant information following an incident. How else are we going to learn to do things better? What is wrong is to jump to conclusions.... there's a difference between recording a 'contributory factor' and a 'potential contributory factor'. Better still, just record the facts without using judgemental language.

Very 'sensible' post, if I might say so.

[reohn2]

I think it's safe to say that 'sensible' people usually take 'sensible' precautions.

But there are plenty of 'unsensible' people out there. There are many reasons for this. There are inexperienced children and young people. There are people who have educational needs. There are people who have psychological issues. There are people high on drugs.

Sometimes even 'sensible' people do unsensible things. (Lights can fail. Perhaps you have an unexpected journey so don't have a reflective jacket to hand. We can all make a bad decision).

This is all a fact of life. We have to take account of these things when taking control of dangerous machinery in a public place. The onus should always be on those that have the greater 'power', not the vulnerable.

To go back to the original specific topic. I think it is entirely correct to collect all potentially relevant information following an incident. How else are we going to learn to do things better? What is wrong is to jump to conclusions.... there's a difference between recording a 'contributory factor' and a 'potential contributory factor'. Better still, just record the facts without using judgemental language.

Very 'sensible' post, if I might say so.

+1

[AlaninWales]

I think it's safe to say that 'sensible' people usually take 'sensible' precautions.

But there are plenty of 'unsensible' people out there. There are many reasons for this. There are inexperienced children and young people. There are people who have educational needs. There are people who have psychological issues. There are people high on drugs.

Sometimes even 'sensible' people do unsensible things. (Lights can fail. Perhaps you have an unexpected journey so don't have a reflective jacket to hand. We can all make a bad decision).

This is all a fact of life. We have to take account of these things when taking control of dangerous machinery in a public place. The onus should always be on those that have the greater 'power', not the vulnerable.

To go back to the original specific topic. I think it is entirely correct to collect all potentially relevant information following an incident. How else are we going to learn to do things better? What is wrong is to jump to conclusions.... there's a difference between recording a 'contributory factor' and a 'potential contributory factor'. Better still, just record the facts without using judgemental language.

Very 'sensible' post, if I might say so.

+1

+2. Nothing wrong with recording the facts. It is when the wrong interpretations are made of the facts that the problem arises. 'Ordinary clothing being worn to walk/cycle after dark' may well be relevant to the fact that someone has driven into the walker/cyclist; but when it is, it indicates that the driver was not paying sufficient attention (like when someone drove into the side of me from a minor road and claimed it was my fault because "You didn't have your headlights on" - I was cycling). As things stand, years of indoctrination make victim-blaming the norm.

[PDQ Mobile]

Now you tell me as a cyclist to slow down!
From 17mph downhill! Sorry.
I cycle for fitness, pleasure and practicality.
This is not some Sunday sightseeing outing.

And there we have it! As far as PDQ is concerned, they can cycle (and presumably drive) at the speed they choose regardless of whether there may be unlit obstructions in their path. An incredibly selfish attitude that is encouraged by the victim-blaming that PDQ supports and indulges in.

PDQ: You bring the danger of collision to that path, not the pedestrians. Your light is plainly not sufficient for you to easily see the path is clear at the speeds you choose to ride. It is not your right to bring that danger to others. End of.

There you have it.
Alan thinks I am to blame.

Yet I cycle sensibly and politely, above all politely, to all I meet.

I am always respectful of dogs, children, chatting groups, etc etc.
I never push though or intimidate and very often pass the time of day.
I always lightly cough on approaching the unaware until I get a reaction . ((Quicker since Corona virus!!) flippant humour ))

I get from a to b briskly but I am not a racing cyclist at all, just using my limited fitness and the terrain to do so effieciently.


I carry decent well adjusted lights, have excellent brakes and I have never hit or come really close to hitting any person yet.
(A badger once shot out across the road on a dark lane and I nearly had him!)

What I said was that on that dark path were three dark clad peds right across that were HARD TO SEE.

And later on the same night along the path a cyclist with no lights at all!

I saw the peds but I was forewarned of their presence because I saw the phone screen as a spot of glowing light in the dark before the top edge of my beam started to "resolve" them. It was not a near miss but they were without doubt poorly visible.

Later along, I was stationary in the one wider viewing spot with wooden benches, when the unlit cyclist ghosted by.
And I wondered what happened when he got to the 3 unlit peds? Who would be to blame?

And who would be to blame if we two cyclists had collided?
He must have accessed the shared path along minor roads or pedestrian pavement- there is no alternative to doing that.
He would have called out on the shared path, I expect, if he saw a light coming against him, or got close and into the side.

How slowly must one cycle, or how bright must lights be to make that safe? -one cyclist with and one cyclist without lights on fairly narrow pitch dark solid fenced path?

I used to cycle a bit with a passionate and very experienced cyclist from Oxford and in his youth he had cycled head on into another unlit cyclist on a narrow Woodstock cycle path one morning in the dark.
It can happen. And it really hurts.


However, transpose all that onto a dark motor vehicle infested place and it's a life threatening problem. IMV.

To be visible is just so easy with just a little thought and forethought. Can't see a problem with it myself.

[AlaninWales]

There you have it.
Alan thinks I am to blame.

Yet I cycle sensibly and politely, above all politely, to all I meet.

Yes, you are to blame. It doesn't matter how polite you are.

By your own admission you found it hard to see them with the light you were using.
By your own admission you might easily have ridden into them at the speed you were riding.

The choice of light and the choice of speed are your own, yet you ride at a speed where you risk hitting unlit pedestrians; and say you must not be told to slow down.

Your choice, your control of the danger to others as well as to yourself. Certainly you are to blame. Yet you seek to pass the blame on to your potential victims, because they (who constitute no danger to others whilst walking along the path in normal clothing) have not complied with your requirement to make themselves more visible so that you can ride at the speed you choose.

[PDQ Mobile]

There you have it.
Alan thinks I am to blame.

Yet I cycle sensibly and politely, above all politely, to all I meet.

Yes, you are to blame. It doesn't matter how polite you are.

By your own admission you found it hard to see them with the light you were using.
By your own admission you might easily have ridden into them at the speed you were riding.

The choice of light and the choice of speed are your own, yet you ride at a speed where you risk hitting unlit pedestrians; and say you must not be told to slow down.

Your choice, your control of the danger to others as well as to yourself. Certainly you are to blame. Yet you seek to pass the blame on to your potential victims, because they (who constitute no danger to others whilst walking along the path in normal clothing) have not complied with your requirement to make themselves more visible so that you can ride at the speed you choose.

To be frank I think it's incorrect.

You are just selectively interpreting what I said.


Why don't you address the point about 2 cyclists meeting on a shared path?
One with lights and one without.
What speed is safe?
You now tell me that, seeing as you seem to be so certain.

Who is to blame in any collision?
By your criteria the faster cyclist.
I disagree.
I think the one without lights is to blame.

You cannot say that I don't slow down for peds either.
I do and I clearly said I did do so.
But one has to see them!

I also have not hit anyone or caused them to fear, but that is actually my skill. Like yours it would appear to be second to none.

However as has been pointed out several times not all road users are as proficient as us!

To try to be aware of danger and to mitigate against it seem to me to be more than common sense.
And it is unfair to other road users to be deliberately ignorant of that fact.

The case in point upthread where one finds oneself without lights or reflective stranded at night is entirely valid and a hopefully quite rare
It is a dangerous situation.
I would not behave in the same way on a rural road should I find myself in such a predictament ( and I have a couple of times) but rather modify my position and behaviour to one of extreme defensive and caution.
That is, I would never assume I had been seen.

[mjr]

To be visible is just so easy with just a little thought and forethought. Can't see a problem with it myself.

I am visible and I find it easy without any thought or forethought. It seems to be to be an inescapable feature of existing.

How are people being invisible? There could be good money to be made teaching being invisible. I would find it useful sometimes, for moving street furniture off cycleways and similar!