Idiots on bikes

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 4042864, member: 9609"]

maybe it should be law that cyclist display a registration plate, they are usually quite reflective and easily spotted by other road users.[/QUOTE]


Why is it then that low speed impacts where cars drive into the back of the one in front form 75% of all traffic accidents, despite this easily seen small plate on teh back of a supposedly easily seen car?

(Admiral Insurance figures)

 

[Justinslow]

The other point is the increasing demands for others to take responsibility

We have demands for livestock to wear HiViz so they can be moe easily seen:

On Hungerford Common there was a demand for grazing cows to wear HiViz and lights at night
In the New Forest, Exmoor and Dartmoor there are similar campaigns for livestock to be wearing HiViz and/ or lights

On the Gower peninsula there were both sheep and cattle wearing HiViz

We move trees and lampposts back from the edge of the road as they are a "hazard", near Guilford they moved 30 historic trees from a main road, because eventhough twelve feet away from the kerb they still posed a threat to motorists!


... and all this because motorists cannot, or will not drive at appropriate speeds and take reasonable care

Or is it because they cant see them?
Maybe just maybe the farmer/owner just wants to try to protect his animals from getting squashed.

Since others have mentioned the ineffectiveness of hi vis, going as far as to say -

Actual idiots on bikes.

Idiots for thinking hi viz makes them safer.

Yet all the emergency services have it emblazoned across their vehicles, its used on clothing across the construction industry and manufacturing, why? Could it possibly be that these people are easier to see in ALL conditions? Yet for cyclists according to the "usual suspects" on here anything remotely brightly coloured is not common sense as the onus is on the motorist to see us?

 

[Justinslow]

Why is it then that low speed impacts where cars drive into the back of the one in front form 75% of all traffic accidents, despite this easily seen small plate on teh back of a supposedly easily seen car?

(Admiral Insurance figures)

Why is it some cyclists smash into the back of parked cars in broad day light?

 

[simongt]

And a couple of days ago, I saw a young lad on a bmx on the road after dark - and the bmx had decent lights on front and back - !!!!! Shock horror - !! Well done that lad - !!

 

[Tin Pot]

Why is it some cyclists smash into the back of parked cars in broad day light?

Because the cars aren't painted in hi viz. Duh.

 

[mjr]

Yet all the emergency services have it emblazoned across their vehicles, its used on clothing across the construction industry and manufacturing, why? Could it possibly be that these people are easier to see in ALL conditions?

Actually, those are good questions. The second one is probably "no" and the answer to the first explains why: IIRC, hi vis makes sense in construction where very few things are bright yellow or orange and you want to be seen when viewed by people high up in crane cabs and so on, against a palette of mud and brick and concrete. It makes some sense in railway works, where the vehicles can't change course and braking is slow, so you want to be seen a long way away. But then it's been taken up by police in some countries with little evidence it improves outcomes on the roads, where you're being viewed from a similar height against a background which often includes yellow or red things, or where the main source of UV is often behind the hi vis wearer so it won't fluoresce. I'm sure someone can post a picture of a fluorescent vehicle that's been totalled by a motorist.

Yet for cyclists according to the "usual suspects" on here anything remotely brightly coloured is not common sense as the onus is on the motorist to see us?

Not entirely. It's common sense that if they don't see a bike with regulation lights and reflectors, they're unlikely to see one merely because the rider is badly dressed too.

 

[Justinslow]

Actually, those are good questions. The second one is probably "no" and the answer to the first explains why: IIRC, hi vis makes sense in construction where very few things are bright yellow or orange and you want to be seen when viewed by people high up in crane cabs and so on, against a palette of mud and brick and concrete. It makes some sense in railway works, where the vehicles can't change course and braking is slow, so you want to be seen a long way away. But then it's been taken up by police in some countries with little evidence it improves outcomes on the roads, where you're being viewed from a similar height against a background which often includes yellow or red things, or where the main source of UV is often behind the hi vis wearer so it won't fluoresce. I'm sure someone can post a picture of a fluorescent vehicle that's been totalled by a motorist.


Not entirely. It's that it's not common sense because if they don't see a bike with regulation lights and reflectors, they're unlikely to see one merely because the rider is badly dressed too.

I would say that's exactly the same scenario on the road - dull Tarmac, dull hedges, dull grass verges, dull cyclist (in more ways than one)
"Very few things are bright yellow or orange" apart from the fecking great diggers, loaders, cranes and other equipment, yeah ok.
And just because something is decked out in hi viz does not mean it carries a "Star Wars" style shield! Of course they will be occasionally involved in accidents.

 

[earlestownflya]

This post really sums it up for me.

We have a bend and are discussing which car has the better performance and ability to take the corner at speed......
Then concludes that the only lesson is that cyclists should have lights, a little ridiculous if the driver is at a speed where they cannot react when the fully lit and HiViz wearing cyclist comes into their vision

What about the most basic, common sense and intuitive thing?

SLOW DOWN

in the case of the driver not being able to react to a fully lit cyclist...this undoubtedly would be the driver at fault and bad driving...but not necessarily related to the speed the vehicle is travelling at.unfortunately there are some shockingly bad drivers around.

 

[Justinslow]

Exactly how big a problem do you think this is?

Probably not very, but it does happen, reasons why a cyclist might do it and reasons why a motorist might do it - both the same, not concentrating on the task at hand.

 

[mickle]

Hi-viz only works in certain conditions. Also, reflective is different from fluorescent is different from luminous is different from illuminated is different from 'bright' or 'light' coloured.

Ambliances are yellow or fluorescent yellow base colour upon which are stuck retroreflective panels in high contrast colours. In addition, of course, to the usual array of flashy lights. Flouro shows up best at dawn and dusk and certain overcast conditions where UV becomes a greater part of the visible light. Witness flowers brightening up (relatively) when the sun goes down. Reflectives, through the use of millions of tiny glass or plastic spheres bounce light back to source. Headlights, or the sun if it's behind you, that sort of thing. However, neither of the above work when it's dark. And neither work particularly well when it's bright sunlight. In fact, there are certain conditions where fluorescent colours help a body blend in to a complex or busy lanscape. And reflectives only help if the viewer has her lights on.

Hi-viz is very much less effective as a safety aid than some people would like to imagine. Which tells me that we should probably not rely on it too heavily. Personally I prefer to use decent doubled up lights and an array of reflective material attached to my moving bits. It's impossible not to see me if you're looking. And I look like something out of Tron in the beam of a headlight.

 

[earlestownflya]

Hi-viz only works in certain conditions. Also, reflective is different from fluorescent is different from luminous is different from illuminated is different from 'bright' or 'light' coloured.

Ambliances are yellow or fluorescent yellow base colour upon which are stuck retroreflective panels in high contrast colours. In addition, of course, to the usual array of flashy lights. Flouro shows up best at dawn and dusk and certain overcast conditions where UV becomes a greater part of the visible light. Witness flowers brightening up (relatively) when the sun goes down. Reflectives, through the use of millions of tiny glass or plastic spheres bounce light back to source. Headlights, or the sun if it's behind you, that sort of thing. However, neither of the above work when it's dark. And neither work particularly well when it's bright sunlight. In fact, there are certain conditions where fluorescent colours help a body blend in to a complex or busy lanscape. And reflectives only help if the viewer has her lights on.

Hi-viz is very much less effective as a safety aid than some people would like to imagine. Which tells me that we should probably not rely on it too heavily. Personally I prefer to use decent doubled up lights and an array of reflective material attached to my moving bits. It's impossible not to see me if you're looking. And I look like something out of Tron in the beam of a headlight.

WOW!...i'm in agreement with you...who'd have thought it

 

[Pat "5mph"]

@User9609 I like your lights for what it's worth
A while back I was sitting in as ASL, stopped at red lights. It was a dull day, but still, it was broad daylight, with a light rain drizzle.
As it were I was returning from a cycling job, so, of course, lights on, maximum hi-viz. I have the habit of turning and engaging the driver's attention if there's one behind me. There was no one behind. Then a driver arrived and drove into me!
While I agree completely that we must have lights and/or reflectives (simple hi-viz in an urban environment does not stand out ime) I am also convinced that it's not enough to save us from inattentive drivers.
We take our lives in our hands mixing with motorized traffic.

 

[mickle]

WOW!...i'm in agreement with you...who'd have thought it

Who the fark are you?

 

[earlestownflya]

like the bloke who stepped out 30m from my car when i was going along a 40mph in the car on an unlit lane near my house...i slammed on the anchors ,i stopped and shouted"WHAT THE F*** WAS THAT?"..then realising it was a copper lowered my tone...but he did have a scotchlite strip jacket...never saw none of that...i just reacted to a dark figure stepping out....he apologised saying he didn't see me coming...how?...i don't know...how you can't see headlights on a pitch black road is beyond me.

 

[Bollo]

Who the fark are you?

Ronnie Pickering!!!!!