More than one party can have responsibilities, and more than one can be to blame in an accident.
If we remembered that, these threads would be a lot shorter!
I don't think anyone has forgotten that. By posting at this point, are you implying that cyclists share the blame for their own injuries if they refuse to wear special clothes?
Based on my own driving experience, I can see someone on a bike in bright clothing a hell of a lot earlier than someone in dark clothing.
Is that still true if the someone in dark clothing has full legally-sufficient lights on?
Does you seeing someone later translate into injuries anyway?
What do normal drivers do? What do average drivers do?
Their bright clothing doesn't "distract me". Why would it?
To make you look at them "a hell of a lot earlier" than someone in ordinary clothes? It's pretty much the definition of distracting attention.
[...] If you want to ride around in night camouflage to prove a point, go knock yourself out mate.
I'm not the one donning urban dazzle camouflage in some mistaken idea that it helps. I'm just riding in ordinary clothes, but have good lights, "doing everything reasonably practical to avoid the worst case" with different ideas to you of what is reasonable, practical and what actually works to avoid shoot. Pernicious evidence-free shoot like "a yellow one with Hi Viz piping will mitigate risk" must be rejected every time it pops up: clothes are essentially insignificant if you obey the lighting laws.
I'm sticking with the Hi Viz.
I really don't think looking like a near-static roadworker is helpful for anyone, but we all make our own choices. It's the evangelising of slathering oneself in snake oil that I dislike.