Get yourself seen!

[Kies]

It is perfectly within the parameters of the law for a cyclist not to be using lights during the day - even in poor weather. It is also perfectly within the parameters of the law for pedestrians not to use lights at any time. Expecting vulnerable road users to use lights and be dressed up as human lemons leads very quickly to the most odious form of victim blaming: he wasn't bedecked in hi-vis - so it wasn't my fault that I hit him! Never mind the fact that there are rather a lot of unlit cars, trees, bollards, walls, etc, etc that the poor hard pressed motorist is also expected to see - and miss.

Using headlights when you don't need to instantly puts those without lights at a very large disadvantage. Not merely because having a whaacking great big engine generating umpteen kilowatts of electricity for oodles of lights is simply not something that can be matched by any cyclist, but also by fostering the expectation in the mind of the motorist that anything that needs to be avoided will be lit up like a billboard. We already have no shortage of motorists who simply don't bother to look properly for vulnerable road users - do you seriously expect that to get better once all cars have daylight running lights?

I'm sorry, but i don't see how any of this has got to do with people taking responsibility for their own safety when on the public highways.
it's pretty obvious a cyclist cannot generate the same light output as a car!

"but also by fostering the expectation in the mind of the motorist that anything that needs to be avoided will be lit up like a billboard" - i wasn't fostering any expectation, but common sense dictates a cyclist riding in primary or secondary on a road, after dark, should make himself seen in some way, or accept that his chances of being hit by a vehicle travelling at a greater speed is substantially increased. Out towns and cities are awash with artificial light coming towards the driver from numerous sources, surely a cyclist (in the interest of self preservation) would want a way of identifying himself to a driver approaching in a large tin box, that has the potential to harm him?

"We already have no shortage of motorists who simply don't bother to look properly for vulnerable road users - do you seriously expect that to get better once all cars have daylight running lights?" - No of course not.

Do any of you that defend ninja cyclists (who make no effort to be seen), think it is a drivers fault if they then hit that cyclist?
and if you do - why is it the fault of just the driver? surely the cyclists has some part to play in causing this incident?

London is especially bad - i saw it again today on the way home past Harrods. now that store is very well lit , and she was practically invisible to drivers. complete numpty in my books

 

[ComedyPilot]

Granted, we share the road with vehicles, but why should we be dressed like some sort of Space Lemon TM ?
I haven't questioned the use of (good) lights, and do not condone the actions of people riding at night without lights.

What I am calling in to question is the way people seem to exonerate bad driving if the victim isn't wearing the full contents of Mr Motivator's wardrobe.

Next time any of you drive at night, try this simple test and ask yourself: 'Can I safely stop in the distance I can see to be clear in front of me?'
Now in daylight, and depending on the road, weather, traffic etc, then that can range from 20 metres to a good few miles.
At night that can range from 20 metres to a couple of hundred metres depending again on conditions and the lights on at the time, dipped or full beam. Add into that the 'blinding' effect of on-coming traffic as they are close/passing and you would be startled as to how little you can actually see.

The reason for most if not all 'accidents' as some people like to call them (and once I am finished with this little tirade you too may actually question the word's use) is that drivers are continuing to drive at speeds that need a longer distance to stop than they actually (ever) have free in front of them

So, my pedigree chums, you may actually find that we (as a collective group of motorists in this 'Great' country) have been playing mechanical Russian Roulette on the streets for far too long, and it's about farking time we slowed the fark down and took a LOT more care of others (first) and ourselves.

 

[Puddles]

This thread was a good example of the genre.

I confess to Squidge wearing a hi-viz vest when we are on the road, but it is only because I don't want to stick his "L" plate to his coat. We don't do after dark, we do dusk sometimes in the winter for a short period when he has after school club. If anyone cannot see us in the dusk/dark even if we are all (3) wearing black they should not be in the road. User76 has red LED rice lights in her trailer she likes them cos they are pretty and she can switch them on and off herself when she feels like it, I have a light on the back of the trailer and Bertha has her own lights. Squidge has the usual back and front and the trailer and Squidge's bike wheels have those lovely flashy light things that go on the valve (because he is that age and please Mummy they look really cool).

Yellow or Orange is not really my colour and as for that silver suit in the video - umm err no, just no, seriously no. Hi-viz neon lycra? No I have no wish to look like a plucked radioactive chicken and I am quite sure that drivers on the road do not need that image as a distraction.

 

[snorri]

Pedestrians are not in the road,

Oh? Not so much in towns perhaps, but in rural areas there is nowhere else for pedestrians to be but on the road.

 

[Kies]

Pedestrians cross roads do they not?

Of course they do, but how many get knocked over if they wait for the traffic lights to turn red, pedestrian green man to cross, and they then cross the road? Very very few i wager.

Peds and cyclist shouldn't be decked out like a christmas tree and day glo , but some sensible measures should be taken, if you are coming into close proximity with vehicles on roads. A cheap set of lights is not a lot to insist on.

I'm still puzzled as to why some of you defend the right of a "ninja" cyclist, and put the onus on car drivers?
The roads are a shared space, so to my mind,is the resposibility to see and to be seen by other road users (specifically at night or in adverse weather conditions)

 

[Kies]

Oh? Not so much in towns perhaps, but in rural areas there is nowhere else for pedestrians to be but on the road.

There will always be arguments for specific instances, going with the majority here .... Cities,towns & villages is where the majority of folk live.

 

[Kies]

[QUOTE 2707603, member: 9609"]I don't think drivers ever have much of an excuse when they claim not to have seen a cyclist, even a cyclist with no hi-viz or lights. Lights on cars and trucks are very powerful and illuminate everything adequately. However I think there are a lot of drivers that are not concentrating on what they are doing, so in poor lighting conditions I'm going to keep with the flashing rear lights and the hi viz stuff. Being hit by someone who didn't see me is my only fear in cycling.[/quote]

Try Central London, when it's dark and raining. I can just about see a "ninja" , and i look out for cyclist. Imagine a driver who has no interest in cycling ????

 

[Kies]

We agree :-)

Why would i go out riding at night, with no lights & dark clothing? ( and they always ride black bikes :crazy)

.
.
.
.
.
.

Anyone remember the film deathwish 2000?

 

[Kies]

As I recall, the first time I was run over in Bromley High Street, it was on the zebra crossing outside the library.

Sorry to hear that, but how/why it happened only you know.

 

[crazyjoe101]

I feel like the invisible man here when out cycling in north London - to pedestrians and cars both. I've started riding with flashing lights on during the day....not sure it'll make much difference to those numpties with headphones on looking at their play lists on their iPhones

The light from my bike goes *flash flash flash* *shine shine shine* *flash flash flash*
Some peds by the road are not looking, all day long.
The bell on the bike goes *ding ding ding* *ding ding ding* *ding ding ding*
Some peds stepping out could not care less, all day long.
The brakes on the bike...

 

[MontyVeda]

Please don't bring bells into the mix... you'll bring out the real weirdos!

 

[threebikesmcginty]

As I recall, the first time I was run over in Bromley High Street, it was on the zebra crossing outside the library.

In France I think the zebra crossings are a marker to make it easier for the ambulances to know where to pick up pedestrians who've been run over.

 

[Wobblers]

I'm sorry, but i don't see how any of this has got to do with people taking responsibility for their own safety when on the public highways.
it's pretty obvious a cyclist cannot generate the same light output as a car!

"but also by fostering the expectation in the mind of the motorist that anything that needs to be avoided will be lit up like a billboard" - i wasn't fostering any expectation, but common sense dictates a cyclist riding in primary or secondary on a road, after dark, should make himself seen in some way, or accept that his chances of being hit by a vehicle travelling at a greater speed is substantially increased. Out towns and cities are awash with artificial light coming towards the driver from numerous sources, surely a cyclist (in the interest of self preservation) would want a way of identifying himself to a driver approaching in a large tin box, that has the potential to harm him?

In this sort of situation, exactly how much difference do you expect a 3 Watt LED to make - especially when compared to 70+ Watts of HID headlights. Do you really expect to show up against that with your faithful hi-viz? You missed my point that cyclists are not obliged to turn on lights in foul weather: IIRC motorists are required to, and that makes it harder to spot unlit cyclists and pedestrians. This is not just about night time driving, after all. My fear about daylight running lights is that it will train motorists only to look for lights. Your brain is wired up to spot the things you are looking for (remember that video of the dancing bear which you miss because you're busy counting the number of times a ball is being passed?). When you are looking for objects with lights, you are less likely to spot objects which do not have lights - that simply is a property of the human visual system. A property surprisingly few appreciate. This is why you get cars pulling out in front of you: because the motorist is looking for $CAR rather than $CYCLIST. A lighting arms race will not help, in fact it is likely to exacerbate.

Do any of you that defend ninja cyclists (who make no effort to be seen), think it is a drivers fault if they then hit that cyclist?
and if you do - why is it the fault of just the driver? surely the cyclists has some part to play in causing this incident?

London is especially bad - i saw it again today on the way home past Harrods. now that store is very well lit , and she was practically invisible to drivers. complete numpty in my books

No one here has condoned lightless ninjas. Absolutely no one. So why are you continually banging on about them?

 

[Noodley]

I have just bought a nice new jacket, in stunning bright white so that I can be seen.

I'm gonna save it til the snow comes...

 

[theclaud]

Sorry to hear that, but how/why it happened only you know.

If he was run over on a zebra crossing, then we know that someone ran him over on a zebra crossing. I'm not sure where you think the hidden complexities might lie...