Cyclists gets a finger wag !

[mjr]

I absolutely agree with you, what irks me is the number of "pedants" who will blindly argue that it is the sole responsibility of the motorist to see the cyclist regardless of any given circumstance.

What irks me is the likes of you arguing with figments of your imagination! No-one here is arguing that it is "the sole responsibility of the motorist to see the cyclist regardless". Some may argue that it should be, but that's not the same thing. I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing that cyclists shouldn't comply with the spirit of the law on visibility.

However, the nobbers who are going far beyond that, telling others to use many many extra lights and wear the modern reflective Yellow Star Jacket and saying that cyclists are somehow responsible for being seen, saying that you can "increase your visibility" (no, you're either visible or invisible - you may be able to make it so you're visible from further away, but there's no evidence doing more than the legal minimum helps), saying that it will reduce incidents or injuries or anything like that... Those cyclists are part of the problem, well-meaning sadists who are handing ready-made excuses to incompetent motorists and helping to sour the public against other law-abiding cyclists. If someone is legally lit and reflective, then shut up.

Often, one irony is that some of those who help excuse incompetent motoring and advocate ugly "safety" clothing are riding bikes that aren't even legally lit and reflectored... not just a technical failure to meet the letter of the law by using substandard lights, but a failure to meet its spirit by displaying flashing green lights or not displaying amber pedal reflectors (I can't see them on the bike in @steve50's avatar...) often because pedal reflectors for their clip system are too expensive or look ugly in their opinion.

 

[Markymark]

Do you know, I drive and cycle a lot round the country lanes around here - and I've never hit a horse.

Maybe its because I drive with due care and attention, at a speed that is suitable to the conditions and at which I feel able to stop if needed.

The only thing I hit when I drive around country lanes is 100. Only joking, my iPad usually covers the dashboard so I've no real idea how fast I'm going.

Cyclists should wear bright clothes to make it easier for drivers. Then so should pedestrians. I do hope all those arguing make sure they wear bright clothes when out for a walk after dusk and expect to feel the long finger of the law if they don't. I mean it's just common sense and why wouldn't you try as hard as you can to be seen when out for a walk?

 

[Mugshot]

I am going to wear a brightly coloured jacket in an effort to make myself visible against a rather murky background. My idea is to make myself more visible to other road users, it might not stop someone from knocking me off my bike but I would hope the brighter colour would attract the attention of vehicle drivers.

And this is where the problems start. Your wearing of a bright jacket should not be the difference between getting knocked off or not. Also if you don't get knocked off because you have worn a bright jacket it does not make it ok that I do get knocked off because I've worn a black jacket. Yet the argument both here amongst cyclists and out on the road is that somehow it was my fault because I should have done more.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

View attachment 333805

Hi-vis markings, stationary, flashing red & blue strobes, unlit road; and a driver still managed to slam his National Express coach into it and shove it 80 metres (262 feet!) along the road. If a driver isn't looking, he won't see you no matter how illuminated you are.


Oh, and the police dog in the back was only slightly injured.

 

[Mugshot]

Cyclists should wear bright clothes to make it easier for drivers. Then so should pedestrians. I do hope all those arguing make sure they wear bright clothes when out for a walk after dusk and expect to feel the long finger of the law if they don't. I mean it's just common sense and why wouldn't you try as hard as you can to be seen when out for a walk?

You couldn't be more right if you tried.

Walking along the pavement minding your own business? Make sure you're wearing reflectives, cos if you get mown down it's clearly your own fault.

 

[jefmcg]

View: https://youtu.be/eiRBft4YpVU

 

[mjr]

Walking along the pavement minding your own business? Make sure you're wearing reflectives, cos if you get mown down it's clearly your own fault.

The Be Seen BS is one of a number of evidence-free parts of the Highway Code that Cyclenation groups and CTC objected to, but were overruled. Also, based on the point of view, the example motorist seems to be driving directly at them.

 

[Mugshot]

Also, based on the point of view, the example motorist seems to be driving directly at them.

I assume he wants to mount the kerb so he doesn't have to walk so far to the shop, in a situation like that I think it's only right and proper that peds that are in the way ensure that they are clearly visible, they should be carrying a torch really.

 

[steve50]

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head...

and that "whoosh" is the best you can come up with!!

What irks me is the likes of you arguing with figments of your imagination!
Bollox!

No-one here is arguing that it is "the sole responsibility of the motorist to see the cyclist regardless". Some may argue that it should be, but that's not the same thing. I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing that cyclists shouldn't comply with the spirit of the law on visibility.
Agreed

However, the nobbers who are going far beyond that, telling others to use many many extra lights and wear the modern reflective Yellow Star Jacket and saying that cyclists are somehow responsible for being seen, saying that you can "increase your visibility" (no, you're either visible or invisible - you may be able to make it so you're visible from further away, I thought you were either visible or invisible, make your mind up

but there's no evidence doing more than the legal minimum helps), saying that it will reduce incidents or injuries or anything like that... Those cyclists are part of the problem, well-meaning sadists who are handing ready-made excuses to incompetent motorists and helping to sour the public against other law-abiding cyclists. Rubbish!!! It's about giving oneself the best chance of being seen by some dopey driver, making oneself as visible as possible.

If someone is legally lit and reflective, then shut up. Erm, NO!!

Often, one irony is that some of those who help excuse incompetent motoring and advocate ugly "safety" clothing are riding bikes that aren't even legally lit and reflectored... not just a technical failure to meet the letter of the law by using substandard lights, but a failure to meet its spirit by displaying flashing green lights or not displaying amber pedal reflectors (I can't see them on the bike in @steve50's avatar...) often because pedal reflectors for their clip system are too expensive or look ugly in their opinion.

My bike my choice, I have the required reflectors and front and rear lights as required in law, I also have reflective tape built into my over shoes and cycling tights which I would think will more than make up for the missing pedal reflectors.

 

[potsy]

and that "whoosh" is the best you can come up with!!


My bike my choice, I have the required reflectors and front and rear lights as required in law, I also have reflective tape built into my over shoes and cycling tights which I would think will more than make up for the missing pedal reflectors.

Or in other words 'riding illegally'

 

[Bimble]

Outside of the basic legal requirements for vehicles and cycles (I don't think there are any for pedestrians are there?) - it's not really evidence based stuff is it, it's more of an "it makes reasonable sense to wear reflective gear so let's tell people to do that" approach. Which, over time, seems to have turned into "the message" that you should be more responsible and do more than the basic requirements, such as wear hi-viz, have really bright lights, wear a helmet, etc.; to protect yourself and/or make it easier for others to spot you.

As far as I'm aware the opposite has not been (or cannot be) proved that without these extra measures we are more likely to be involved in an accident / incident / whatever the current word is for being injured or killed by a motorist (sorry, "vehicle"). But if that was the case, wouldn't you expect to see unlit, dark clothed cyclists mown down in the gutters all the way home on the commute.

I think that any extra measures an individual wants to take should be their choice and they shouldn't be criticised for it, but agree that foisting the responsibility on all cyclists to have do extra things (and making them out to be less responsible if they don't) is very unhealthy.

 

[steve50]

Or in other words 'riding illegally'

Rubbish!!

 

[potsy]

Rubbish!!

In a similar way to those that have red lights on their helmet and jacket but none attached to the bike?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Rubbish!!

Sorry, there's no argument that pedal reflectors are a legal requirement for riding at night.

http://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations

 

[steve50]

In a similar way to those that have red lights on their helmet and jacket but none attached to the bike?

The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 and its subsequent amendments, cyclists must have a white front light[1] and red rear lights lit at night,[2] have their cycle fitted with a red light reflector on the rear
The first thing that must be noted is that these legal requirements should be regarded as a minimum expectation rather than an ideal. Generally speaking, there are no requirements for any ‘extra’ lights that are on a pedal bike – they are not subject to the finer details of The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 such as the size, positioning and manufacturing standard and therefore generally encouraged. For that reason, any additional equipment such as lights or high-visibility clothing is always a good thing and recommended in order to improve the visibility and safety of cyclists. There are two things in particular we will cover in this article; lights attached to the cyclist rather than the cycle itself and lights known as ‘monkey lights’.