Cycling UK Forum

Pebble wrote: ↑17 Aug 2023, 10:27am In answer to the above couple of posts; Are we talking about an ideal world or the reality of UK roads?

UK roads.
Where despite it being "obvious" it's proven remarkably difficult to demonstrate that e.g. wearing dayglo makes any tangible difference to the serious accident rate.

As with helmets, hi-viz is not a solution to a hostile environment but a reaction to it. Where you actually try and measure the effect of that reaction it looks like we're not far off the same ballpark as lucky rabbits' feet.

Pete.

Pebble wrote: ↑17 Aug 2023, 10:27am [...] you need to stand out a bit more if the driver sending a text is only paying 20% attention to the road ahead. I am not for suggesting for one second that a cyclist in dark clothing is in anyway to blame if a mobile phone obsessed driver ploughs into them, but to my mind that cyclist stood a better chance of been seen had they be lit up like a manic xmas tree. It is not an ideal situation but it is what we have

Surely you don't only "need to stand out" but you also need to be easily and very quickly recognised as a moving cyclist, rather than mistaken for a near-static roadworker, traffic sign or xmas tree that most H&H users seem to be aiming for?

And I am also in no way suggesting that there is any guarantees in bright and reflective clothing, drivers are capable of crashing into the bleeding obvious, as per PJ's post above. But I would guess they would crash into more visible cyclists less, and as such I put a bit of effort and thought as to how I may appear to drivers.

Oh, please do tell, especially how your appearance has reacted to thoughts about being mistaken for the above near-static things.

While you might call the cop car paint job in PJ's post "bleeding obvious", I think it's just as fair to call it "dazzle camo" that makes it difficult to estimate the range and closing speed. Drivers see the cop car and the difficulty of estimating that leads some to assume it is moving at fairly high speed (which is true most times a driver sees one), which is rather dangerous in the time between stopping at an incident and deploying warning signs/cones.

pjclinch wrote: ↑17 Aug 2023, 6:31am

pwa wrote: ↑17 Aug 2023, 5:09am
Yes, nuance and context are important. I chose to interpret the question...

Good questions for polling purposes shouldn't be open to a range of interpretations as to what they actually mean.
It's actually quite tricky writing poll questions well, but that doesn't get past the fact that answering yes/no when "well, that depends..." is the real answer will often suggest to whoever organised the poll with a leading question that they have more of a point than they do. So I prefer to call out the question than answer it.

Pete.

I see your point. My own approach was to explain what I chose to interpret the question as, before explaining my answer to that. As you say, the poll result is meaningless with people effectively answering diffferent questions.

mjr wrote: ↑17 Aug 2023, 1:35pm

Pebble wrote: ↑17 Aug 2023, 10:27am [...] you need to stand out a bit more if the driver sending a text is only paying 20% attention to the road ahead. I am not for suggesting for one second that a cyclist in dark clothing is in anyway to blame if a mobile phone obsessed driver ploughs into them, but to my mind that cyclist stood a better chance of been seen had they be lit up like a manic xmas tree. It is not an ideal situation but it is what we have

Surely you don't only "need to stand out" but you also need to be easily and very quickly recognised as a moving cyclist, rather than mistaken for a near-static roadworker, traffic sign or xmas tree that most H&H users seem to be aiming for?

And I am also in no way suggesting that there is any guarantees in bright and reflective clothing, drivers are capable of crashing into the bleeding obvious, as per PJ's post above. But I would guess they would crash into more visible cyclists less, and as such I put a bit of effort and thought as to how I may appear to drivers.

Oh, please do tell, especially how your appearance has reacted to thoughts about being mistaken for the above near-static things.

Picking up on MJR's comments, one aspect that we haven't considered is road positioning to ensure visibility. Following John Franklin's book on cycle Road craft (which should come free with every new bicycle), I usually occupy the primary position when cycling on the Road, where one would expect to find a moped or scooter, by doing this I place myself away from any background (hedges, walks, etc) where I nay not be so easily seen/ignored and directly in the path if any vehicle which is moving faster.. forcing them to make an early decision as to whether to actively overtake me by driving around me or driving through ne and risk damaging their own vehicle...

did anyone spot that the before and after cycle shots, had been photoshopped. Look closely and you will see where the wheel reflector was edited out, and the artist nearly erased the spoke too I guess those doing the shoot didn't want to actually break the law on having reflectors

That news item showing a driver with both hands on his phone, while his passenger steers, epitomises the root problem. Drivers like that wouldn't notice even a 20 foot christmas tree in front until 20 milliseconds before it speared his front windshield. And the passenger seemed equally, or more focused on the driver, than the road ahead, as she steers. Should have received a ban for dangerous driving, rather than just points for using phone.

"Unlit roads" are actually less of a worry at night than lit roads, so long as you have front and rear lights. With no other lighting around you, you become the focal point for drivers of approaching traffic. It is easy to make you or your bike visually prominent on a genuinely unlit road when darkness falls. It is harder to do that on urban streets with lots of competing lighting sources.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑17 Aug 2023, 8:55pm
Picking up on MJR's comments, one aspect that we haven't considered is road positioning to ensure visibility. Following John Franklin's book on cycle Road craft...

Cyclecraft notes particularly that perspicuity is more important than conspicuity.

I feel this is true at the anecdotal level, but I don't think anyone's managed to demonstrate it in a formal, measured study.

Pete.

pjclinch wrote: ↑16 Aug 2023, 3:57pm

Pete.

Both of them wrong: cycling in floppy trousers is asking for trouble.

Downside of caution: walked into a restaurant a week back with a clothes-peg on each cuff.

I'm not answering this poll for obvious reasons.

So many different situations, road types, traffic densities, quality of light, all of which possibly require a slightly different approach. There are roads where I live where I would be quiet happy to ride in fading light in dark clothing with no lights, I could just simply get off on the rare chance I may encounter a car. And then there are other roads where I wouldn't be comfortable unless I was looking like the proverbial xmas tree. And then there is city riding (which I do a fair bit of in Edinburgh) and that possibly requires its own approach. (although I'm still a learner in the city, more passing than been passed)

At the end of the day (and even in the middle of the day) I make a judgement of how I may appear to virtually every vehicle that passes me, position of sun, bends, pot holes, density of traffic, wagon or car, what the vehicle sounds like, fast slow, do you hear the moment when they come off the power (which probably means they have seen me)

Audax67 wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 7:44am

pjclinch wrote: ↑16 Aug 2023, 3:57pm

Pete.

Both of them wrong: cycling in floppy trousers is asking for trouble.

Downside of caution: walked into a restaurant a week back with a clothes-peg on each cuff.

aye, he needs that helmet on for when his mother batters his noggin for getting oil on his new jeans

Pebble wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 7:57am At the end of the day (and even in the middle of the day) I make a judgement of how I may appear to virtually every vehicle that passes me, position of sun, bends, pot holes, density of traffic, wagon or car, what the vehicle sounds like, fast slow, do you hear the moment when they come off the power (which probably means they have seen me)

Yeah, and as a fellow adult I respect your right to wear whatever you feel comfortable in wearing - your choices have been based on your own experiences and conclusions which may be very different from my own....

The difficulty with this thread is that the poll has been raised by an individual who seems not to hold this respect and seems intent on telling cyclists how they should dress and how to equip their bikes. Indeed the idea of freedom of choice seems to be somewhat alien to them.

If you look back on the helmet thread, they are in favour of compulsion and they have already constructed a similar survey under campaigns calling for compulsory day time lights for cycles.

I suspect that no matter the results of this poll when it closes the poster will use the results to berate any cyclist they see whilst driving, who in their opinion isn't wearing light clothing.

I notice he hasn't called for compulsory hi vis - which suggests to me he doesn't wear it... which means that no one else has to either...

cycle tramp wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 8:39am
The difficulty with this thread is that the poll has been raised by an individual who seems not to hold this respect and seems intent on telling cyclists how they should dress and how to equip their bikes. Indeed the idea of freedom of choice seems to be somewhat alien to them.

If you look back on the helmet thread, they are in favour of compulsion and they have already constructed a similar survey under campaigns calling for compulsory day time lights for cycles.

I suspect that no matter the results of this poll when it closes the poster will use the results to berate any cyclist they see whilst driving, who in their opinion isn't wearing light clothing.

I notice he hasn't called for compulsory hi vis - which suggests to me he doesn't wear it... which means that no one else has to either...

[removed by moderator] We now have a poll of cyclists where it would appear that 71% think it is acceptable to ride in poor light on unlit roads without lights and in dark clothing. (should have added with 'your eyes closed') for good measure.

quite funny really

cycle tramp wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 8:39am

Pebble wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 7:57am At the end of the day (and even in the middle of the day) I make a judgement of how I may appear to virtually every vehicle that passes me, position of sun, bends, pot holes, density of traffic, wagon or car, what the vehicle sounds like, fast slow, do you hear the moment when they come off the power (which probably means they have seen me)

Yeah, and as a fellow adult I respect your right to wear whatever you feel comfortable in wearing - your choices have been based on your own experiences and conclusions which may be very different from my own....

The difficulty with this thread is that the poll has been raised by an individual who seems not to hold this respect and seems intent on telling cyclists how they should dress and how to equip their bikes. Indeed the idea of freedom of choice seems to be somewhat alien to them.

This is the nub of it.
As soon as there is a "proper" way to dress/equip oneself to ride a bike there exists a reverse implication that if one doesn't conform then that amounts to "improper", and then that gets interpreted as "wrong" and "this shouldn't be happening" etc.

So if you ride a bike you should wear a helmet wraps the other way to if you don't wear a helmet you shouldn't ride a bike, and Pinhead does seem to rather go to town on such judgements.

What we need instead is an understanding that there is a broad range of acceptable dress/equipment on a bike, and that just because e.g. your gut feeling is dayglo is safer than black isn't the same as clear evidence that anyone in black is irresponsible and should be pilloried for their choice.

Pete.

Pebble wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 9:26am [removed by moderator] We now have a poll of cyclists where it would appear that 71% think it is acceptable to ride in poor light on unlit roads without lights and in dark clothing. (should have added with 'your eyes closed') for good measure.

quite funny really

And once again we come back to context. Not all unlit roads are the same, be that in terms of the nature of the road or the nature of the non-streetlight illumination. The question (and thus the answer) does not state any unlit road in any context. So lacking the context in the question, and thus the nuance in the answer, we really have little idea what any respondents think.

Pete.