mjr wrote: Oh, here we go again! Pity the poor motorists, they can't be expected to drive so they can stop within what they can see to be clear if their eyesight is so defective that they can't see far enough at night(!)
I agree with your implication, if not the pointlessly sarcastic phrasing - subject to the caveat in my previous post. Or do you suggest that motorists (and cyclists) all go back to driving at no faster than a walking pace with someone walking in front waving a red flag, just in case of the unexpected? That is the logical extreme to which you are progressing!
That's known as a slippery slope fallacy. There is a middle ground between "walking pace" and too fast for what you can see.
Lesaid wrote:By the way - I observe cyclists to be just as bad, in general, in analogous situations.
Oh sure. There are idiots using all modes of transport. At least the fast cyclists bring less kinetic energy to an impact, although it can still hurt and in rare cases kill.
Lesaid wrote:At night, much of that route is unlit and still has pedestrians on it (and where care with dazzling lights is very relevant!).
And what's your reaction? Is it to slow down to what you can see, or is it to go on the Ramblers forum and plea for walkers to carry good lights and wear reflective coats?
Lesaid wrote:A similar kind of situation to the things you're talking about, except here, some (not all) cyclists are the 'dangerous drivers'. In fact, part of that route is owned by a local residents association who have in the past, closed it to cyclists because of exactly that problem. It was reopened again a couple of years ago - but it won't stay open if cyclists don't behave themselves.
Cool. Can we close the roads where motorists don't behave themselves, please? My village had a house and bus shelter destroyed by a motorist a few years ago - let's close the road to motorists. A neighbouring village seems to have a couple of fatal car crashes a year, but its road is "strategic" so instead of closing it, there's a multi-council campaign that will reward motorists for lethal behaviour with a bigger, faster road.
Lesaid wrote:But leaving aside all the moralistic stuff - and accept that you consider that the motorist is always responsible for any accident regardless of the circumstances
And that one's an Aunt Sally fallacy, twisting and misdescribing my position. I consider the motorist responsible for collisions that they cause by falling below the standard required by the driving licence - you know, such as if they pull out into the path of a legally-lit cyclist.
Lesaid wrote:But are you really going to trust your life to the hope that all motorists out there are as good, attentive and 'perfect' as they ideally should be? There are new drivers, experienced drivers, distracted drivers, elderly drivers. Regardless of where you consider blame might lie, don't you want to stay alive? I'm sure you in fact take a lot more care to stay visible and defensive than your comments imply is necessary!
Defensive yes, but that to me is being as prepared as I can for the "what if"s like "what if that motorist fails to yield?" like I reduced the impact of a collision with a car whose driver failed to yield earlier this year by turning hard left and getting clipped by its wing mirror rather than being scooped onto the bonnet.
But despite your suspicions, I don't do much to "stay visible" beyond using legal lights because my experience is that brighter lights and dressing up in builder chic mainly serves to make cycling more awkward (because you have to replace the lights or put the clothes on each time you get on the bike) and does nothing noticeable to reduce the amount of near-misses and other negative outcomes. The trends over time seem to be brighter lights and more builder chic without any reasonably-attributable reduction in road casualties. When will society stop blaming the victims and try doing stuff that seems to work?
Lesaid wrote:By the way - did you find that data you were talking about that proves the case about better front lights not improving safety when faced with dazzling traffic around an oncoming cyclist? Would be interesting to take a look if you have.
I think everything after "when...." is your words not mine. I may have a search when I have more time, but I spent time today persuading the victim of a road rage assault on National Cycle Route 63 that left them with a big cut to the face to contact the relevant police and suggesting what information to give. Sadly, this is the sort of stuff cycling campaigners seem to be dealing with more and more lately and I think blaming cyclists lights or clothes or road position for motoring offences encourages this sort of entitled attitude from motorists. Motorists are on the roads by licence. Self-powered people are there by right.