Dark cycle users.

[Globalti]

Good point; I wear mostly black or dark clothing and at night I have very good lights. After 12 accident-free years as a motorcyclist and 44 as a driver I'm pretty sure that a black dot in the distance attracts the human eye as well as a flouro yellow dot; the human brain picks it out as another human. Possibly the only time flouro wins is when the human is against a jumbled background like a mountainside where a black dot can be mistaken for a shadow until it moves, which instantly attracts the eye. Against a natural background flouro yellow or orange are unnatural colours so do attract the eye better.

As I learned as a motorcyclist, heading straight towards a driver from a jumbled background is a recipe for being ignored but movement sideways across the driver's field of vision attracts attention straight away.

 

[jefmcg]

[QUOTE 5186981, member: 9609"]And what percentage of other drivers drive with such due care and attention ? How many other drivers were driving at a speed they could stop within their range of vision?[/QUOTE]
I remember seeing on the news when I was a kid about a huge motorway pile up. They interviewed drivers who all said "I came out of the fog, and suddenly there were cars and I didn't have time to stop." My father said that's means that they were going too fast. And the police agreed! The coda to the story was not only the destroyed cars, but most of the drivers got tickets.

I can't imagine that happening today.

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 5186981, member: 9609"]And what percentage of other drivers drive with such due care and attention ? How many other drivers were driving at a speed they could stop within their range of vision?[/QUOTE]
A lot probably weren't. That's because we hold them to such low standards and excuse their behaviour, which endangers others. You're not helping.

 

[theclaud]

Victim-blaming? Have you ever driven a car through a town and seen the way these kids dash across the road and swerve through the traffic? They are totally selfish and have no respect for the rules of the road or regard for anybody else. I don't even legitimise them with the term "cyclist" because I don't want any association with the feral scum. Happily the majority of drivers are aware that certain areas of the town are blighted by anti-social idiots and ready to swerve or brake hard, which is exactly what the kids are counting on. Occasionally though it goes wrong and then we are expected to feel sorry for them - "'E were a lovely lad, wouldn't harm a fly...." etcetera. Meanwhile the driver who did his or her conscientious best, goes through hell for months.

Yes - victim-blaming is precisely what you are doing. It doesn't matter how much someone annoys you, or what your opinion is of them (although, as an aside, you appear to have an extremely jaundiced view of 'kids') - it's not OK to hit them with a car. End of. The person bringing the danger to the situation is the person responsible - spare us the sob story about how bad they feel when they fail to take responsibility.

 

[youngoldbloke]

Yes - victim-blaming is precisely what you are doing. It doesn't matter how much someone annoys you, or what your opinion is of them (although, as an aside, you appear to have an extremely jaundiced view of 'kids') - it's not OK to hit them with a car. End of. The person bringing the danger to the situation is the person responsible - spare us the sob story about how bad they feel when they fail to take responsibility.

Really? Isn't it the kid on the bike putting themselves in danger in this case? Is the train driver responsible for the death of the suicide victim?

 

[Drago]

Of course, there is little evidence to suggest that the wearing of hi vis is linked to reduced accident rates among road users (or indeed any other ccategory of folk that wear them). "Common sense" may tell us they make people more conspicuous, but the data tells us that conspicuity does not translate to safety.

Again, this suggests the problem is one of drivers not looking, or not being alert, rather than one of visibility - hi-vis can not compensate for these conditions. All the bullet proof vests in the World won't save you when the problem is being shot in the head. Hi vis addresses a problem that largely doesn't exist.

 

[winjim]

[QUOTE 5186981, member: 9609"]And what percentage of other drivers drive with such due care and attention ? How many other drivers were driving at a speed they could stop within their range of vision?

The problem is most people drive too fast and are not concentrating very hard. To counteract their pitiful driving skills you need to be as bright as possible in hope of capturing their attention earlier. Drive down a motorway at low speed with no lights on and some muppet will spoil your day, yes it will be morally their fault but that is little compensation if you're in hospital for 6 months, and to rub salt into your wounds you will get little to no sympathy and our motoring orientated legal system will probably find that you are to blame.

I completely agree that cyclist should be able to ride on whatever road they want in any weather and at any time of the day, they should not need hi-viz clothes or extra bright lights. But sadly there are a lot of uncaring morons out there that are driving too fast or playing with phones.[/QUOTE]
The OP was written from the point of view of a driver encountering unlit cyclists, which was the context of my response. When, as a driver, I found myself in a situation where there was reduced visibility, I slowed down.

That's the take home message. If you find yourself in a situation where you think there's a possibility that you might hit somebody with your car, slow down.

 

[theclaud]

Really? Isn't it the kid on the bike putting themselves in danger in this case? Is the train driver responsible for the death of the suicide victim?

 

[winjim]

[QUOTE 5187130, member: 9609"]but that does not answer my question to you; what percentage of drivers do you think slow down when visibility dictates that they should? You do and I do but we are in the minority, most drivers just crack on as per normal. Most drivers do not plan there driving round the unexpected, and they expect anyone else that are using their-road to make themselves seen and keep out of the way. It's not what I want but it is what we have and in a bid of self preservation I reluctantly join in with how-it-is.[/QUOTE]
Unexpected? OP says that unlit cyclists are common. I did put my fog light on when driving as the stakes are pretty high but when cycling I like to make myself seen by purposefully not keeping out of the way, which is what it seems the cyclists in the OP were doing.

 

[DaveReading]

I'm pretty sure that a black dot in the distance attracts the human eye as well as a flouro yellow dot; the human brain picks it out as another human.

+1

Some years ago, the RAF reached the same conclusion - that painting their aircraft black could reduce the risk of mid-air collisions:

 

[winjim]

Of course, there is little evidence to suggest that the wearing of hi vis is linked to reduced accident rates among road users (or indeed any other ccategory of folk that wear them). "Common sense" may tell us they make people more conspicuous, but the data tells us that conspicuity does not translate to safety.

Again, this suggests the problem is one of drivers not looking, or not being alert, rather than one of visibility - hi-vis can not compensate for these conditions. All the bullet proof vests in the World won't save you when the problem is being shot in the head. Hi vis addresses a problem that largely doesn't exist.

Honestly, one day I'll tell you all my hi vis anecdote. It's a cracker.

 

[grellboy]

On way home this afternoon and a woman looked up the road towards me with the sun glaring in her eyes and pulled straight out in front of me. I was fine - adhering as ever to the maxim "All drivers are morons" - as i had anticipated her incompetence, but just goes to show bright and low sunlight can be pretty dangerous too.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 5187161, member: 9609"]bad example really as trains are allowed to travel at a speed they could't possibly stop in the distance the driver can see. Presumably that is why they are on a closed off restricted area/track.[/quote]
Indeed. To throw yourself in front of a train, you should have had to trespass (that's why there are fences between railways and cycleways) or disobey an instruction (that's why there are signs at level crossings and on railway platforms).

Even then, the presumption is that the train driver is at fault and the police normally arrest them until it's proven they didn't disobey a signal or instruction, even when it's pretty clear a motorist disobeyed a crossing signal. Oh for a similar presumption on the roads that the heaviest vehicle was at fault...

Our roads are public spaces and as such drivers should not drive faster than the distance they can reasonably see to stop in, the problem is they don't. So the dilemma is; do we act as if all drivers are highly skilled and hope they get heavily fined if they kill or seriously injure us, or, do we make a big effort to try and get seen and in some circumstances just keep out of their way.? reluctantly I go for the latter.

Well, you can't force others to see you, so that's wasted effort, and hoping doesn't get things done, so let's put more effort into getting motoring fines raised to scarier levels and enforced, and in some circumstances get out of the way and record the cockwombles and shop them to the feds.

 

[youngoldbloke]

So we are required to drive at a speed that enables us to stop if the youth purposefully swerves in front of us, or the pedestrian on the phone steps out immediately in front of us without looking - or a deer leaps out from the hedge just in front of you? - it's just not possible, or realistic. The only truely safe speed will be no speed.

 

[winjim]

So we are required to drive at a speed that enables us to stop if the youth purposefully swerves in front of us, or the pedestrian on the phone steps out immediately in front of us without looking - or a deer leaps out from the hedge just in front of you? - it's just not possible, or realistic. The only truely safe speed will be no speed.

Amen.