Idiots on bikes

[Tin Pot]

Maybe that's what we need as motorists - "black boxes" or cameras recording "in car" and out onto the road to make motorists "change their ways" - stop using phones, putting on make up etc etc and come to our rescue when we are accused of wrong doing.

Interesting idea.

 

[Justinslow]

Good job no one is saying that then.

Yes but they are, on many occasions posters have said there's no need to wear bright clothes, even going as far as to say people who advocate hi viz are idiots!
My op stated the guy had no lights on and was wearing dark clothes, changing either of these things would have made him more visible. We can argue till the cows come home about whether the light levels warranted these changes.

 

[Tin Pot]

Yes but they are, on many occasions posters have said there's no need to wear bright clothes, even going as far as to say people who advocate hi viz are idiots!
My op stated the guy had no lights on and was wearing dark clothes, changing either of these things would have made him more visible. We can argue till the cows come home about whether the light levels warranted these changes.

People who think hi viz clothing makes cyclists safe are not aware of the facts.

Advertising to the world this untruth is not a great idea.

Cyclists are virtually powerless to protect themselves from car drivers.

Drivers are virtually omnipotent when it comes to not killing cyclists.

 

[Justinslow]

Interesting idea.

Yeah obviously these are available already, but not mandatory.
Holistically - better training, better policing, use of monitoring equipment = better driving?
Cyclists doing their bit can't hurt can it?

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Yes it was...........

But to go to @earlestownflyas post - if I'm on a national speed limit road as a driver and go round a tight bend, my speed will drop to say 40 or 30 or whatever - not still be at 60, even at this slower speed you'd be onto a dimly unlit cyclist in a "flash", as a cyclist it's common sense to give yourself a fighting chance to be seen, not rely on the drivers super eyesight to save the day.
Of course accidents will happen whatever the scenario, take this one-
Young freshly qualified driver hits and kills cyclist at night (don't know what he was wearing or if he had lights on). Everybody jumps to conclusions and blames the young driver, being a young driver and struggling with the insurance he accepted a lower quote but had a "black box" data logger fitted as part of the deal. It showed he was doing 25mph completely safely, the cyclist was stoned and "all over the road" apparently. Obviously, dangerous driving could still take place, even at 25 mph but in this case it didn't.
Maybe that's what we need as motorists - "black boxes" or cameras recording "in car" and out onto the road to make motorists "change their ways" - stop using phones, putting on make up etc etc and come to our rescue when we are accused of wrong doing.
Just saying "we don't need to make ourselves seen" is plainly dumb IMO.

The tight bend. If it is as tight as you make out to be on a cyclist "in a flash"
A) why had the driver not seen the cyclist before the bend if so immediately close upon them after it. B) basic physics, light goes in straight lines, how would that assist either party round your tight bend? and C) all the bright clothing or reflectives in the world only work when light or eyes catch them.

You imply 30-40 on an NSL road is abnormally slow, not at a tight bend it isn't.

Imagine the scenario of broken down car or driver replacing a flat tyre or you on your previously mentioned tractor having not secured a load quite right and there being random debris/ big hay bales in the road that a driver is onto in a faster flash than a moving target. Who's responsibility then takes precedence in avoidance of an incident/accident/collision/call it what you will - The inanimate or the 'blind' in motion?

Young driver & black box: is that real or another one intended just to try and make a point. its as likely there would be some form of CCTV or other road views along the path of the driver or cyclist route to the scene that Police would enquire into if there wasn't the black box, do you suggest the driver would simply and passively accept their perceived wrongdoing without a fight or putting the prosecution to proof of their hypothesis if innocent and facing a conviction? Equally there is a similar 'popular' prejudice against cyclists so in this scenario it is 2 pariah groups cancelling each other out.

+1 to black boxes, but how long before people find a way to fiddle them, like tachographs etc

Last inaccurate hyperbole: +1 to @User Nobody is saying anything of the sort, just trying to suggest that there are 2 sides to this coin and the side you accept the least and have fewer answers to solve is the side that will do the most good, not just to cyclists but to pedestrians, joggers, people waiting at roadside bus stops, animals, road signs, houses. Anything that gets in the way of drivers who are inattentive or have exceeded the bounds of their/vehicles capability whether lit and vizzed or not.

 

[Tin Pot]

Yeah obviously these are available already, but not mandatory.
Holistically - better training, better policing, use of monitoring equipment = better driving?

Possibly. But I don't think you can enforce continual monitoring, I do think it would be a good idea to bring it in with fully automated cars. People don't like things to change, so if there is a step change like automated cars, bring it in then.

Training - may help, but this needs a big change. People resit driving tests a ludicrous number of times and are allowed on the road. IMO five failed tests means you are not trustworthy with heavy machinery like cars.

Significant differences will only be made if significant changes are made - the dangerous drivers and number of cars are the key factors.

*Everything* else is window dressing.

 

[Justinslow]

The tight bend. If it is as tight as you make out to be on a cyclist "in a flash"
A) why had the driver not seen the cyclist before the bend if so immediately close upon them after it. B) basic physics, light goes in straight lines, how would that assist either party round your tight bend? and C) all the bright clothing or reflectives in the world only work when light or eyes catch them.

You imply 30-40 on an NSL road is abnormally slow, not at a tight bend it isn't.

Imagine the scenario of broken down car or driver replacing a flat tyre or you on your previously mentioned tractor having not secured a load quite right and there being random debris/ big hay bales in the road that a driver is onto in a faster flash than a moving target. Who's responsibility then takes precedence in avoidance of an incident/accident/collision/call it what you will - The inanimate or the 'blind' in motion?

Young driver & black box: is that real or another one intended just to try and make a point. its as likely there would be some form of CCTV or other road views along the path of the driver or cyclist route to the scene that Police would enquire into if there wasn't the black box, do you suggest the driver would simply and passively accept their perceived wrongdoing without a fight or putting the prosecution to proof of their hypothesis if innocent and facing a conviction? Equally there is a similar 'popular' prejudice against cyclists so in this scenario it is 2 pariah groups cancelling each other out.

+1 to black boxes, but how long before people find a way to fiddle them, like tachographs etc

Last inaccurate hyperbole: +1 to @User Nobody is saying anything of the sort, just trying to suggest that there are 2 sides to this coin and the side you accept the least and have fewer answers to solve is the side that will do the most good, not just to cyclists but to pedestrians, joggers, people waiting at roadside bus stops, animals, road signs, houses. Anything that gets in the way of drivers who are inattentive or have exceeded the bounds of their/vehicles capability whether lit and vizzed or not.

The story is real, I'm offended you might think I made it up, it was told to me last night.
CCTV on country roads in Suffolk- please, we don't all live in the city.
You can come up with any hypothetical scenario you like to prove/disprove anything, it comes back to driving using common sense, riding a bike using common sense, riding a horse using common sense, driving/riding according to the conditions blah blah blah. People like you try to over complicate the subject, create an argument where there is none,
Like I said before, your arguments make you look very foolish and to the non cyclists out there especially, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
If I make myself look foolish by challenging your views, so be it.

 

[oldstrath]

Yes it was...........

But to go to @earlestownflyas post - if I'm on a national speed limit road as a driver and go round a tight bend, my speed will drop to say 40 or 30 or whatever - not still be at 60, even at this slower speed you'd be onto a dimly unlit cyclist in a "flash", as a cyclist it's common sense to give yourself a fighting chance to be seen, not rely on the drivers super eyesight to save the day.
Of course accidents will happen whatever the scenario, take this one-
Young freshly qualified driver hits and kills cyclist at night (don't know what he was wearing or if he had lights on). Everybody jumps to conclusions and blames the young driver, being a young driver and struggling with the insurance he accepted a lower quote but had a "black box" data logger fitted as part of the deal. It showed he was doing 25mph completely safely, the cyclist was stoned and "all over the road" apparently. Obviously, dangerous driving could still take place, even at 25 mph but in this case it didn't.
Maybe that's what we need as motorists - "black boxes" or cameras recording "in car" and out onto the road to make motorists "change their ways" - stop using phones, putting on make up etc etc and come to our rescue when we are accused of wrong doing.
Just saying "we don't need to make ourselves seen" is plainly dumb IMO.

No one is saying we don't need to make ourselves seen. What we have said is
1. In darkness hiviz is irrelevant.
2. Wearing huge amounts of reflective kit is irrelevant if you have adequate lights and low level reflectors.
3. Most importantly, worrying about how other cyclists, whom we do not know, light and dress themselves is utterly without purpose. They pose no harm to my welfare, or yours. If you must worry, campaign, protest, do so about the people who pose the objective danger. The motorists.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Haha, we shall agree to differ then. Noted you don't have an answer for the inanimate objects or basic physics just personal rudeness.

Non cyclists have a vested interest in finding a suitable scapegoat, its very sad that experienced cyclists can be so one eyed and dogmatic that they help perpetuate this blame over responsibility culture.

Kind shows who is and isn't foolish.

There's nowt as blind as those that refuse to look.

Ride safe however you feel that is best achieved.

 

[Tin Pot]

I am flabbergasted at the hapless fools who walk in country lanes at night, without sounding an air raid warning and continually strobing lights.

I feel like I should get in my car, find them and run them down, because I am utterly without power to halt their self-induced doom beneath my wheels.

Oh, the humanity.

 

[ufkacbln]

I may well be useless on a bicycle - but I can handle a keyboard.

Steve Roberts fitted a keyboard (amongst other bits) to his bicycle:

 

[ufkacbln]

Lets simplify this
Despite claims otherwise there is a massive difference between questioning the effectiveness of lights / HiViz and ststing they should not be used.

There is also a big difference between individual and "population" level

The point (deliberately?) missed is that ever since the beginning of motoring, there has been a refusal to take responsibility. Form Brabazon's statement to the CTC's arguing against compulsory lighting on the grounds that it shifted responsibility form the driver looking and seeing to the cyclist being seen.

The fault of course is that if the driver is not looking or fails to see / react properly then no amount of lighting or HiViz is going to work

 

[ufkacbln]

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

 

[earlestownflya]

http://highwaycode.info/rule/125 - "The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous..."

Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 2 - "A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence."

So actually it's pretty clearly outside the law... as if anyone was really unsure. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

it isn't pretty clear at all...who deems it dangerous?the police?...if they're there to witness it...the driver of the vehicle?...then you have the type of vehicle being driven and it's capabilities....will a sports car go round a bend quicker than a family saloon?.of course it will...will an audi quattro perform safer on a slippery road than a ford focus?of course it will...what's dangerous in one vehicle,won't be dangerous in another vehicle, competent drivers know their cars limitations and adjust their speed according.
The only thing that is clear here is that riding a bicycle without lights, when illumination would be a huge advantage to other road users is highly dangerous.

 

[ufkacbln]

it isn't pretty clear at all...who deems it dangerous?the police?...if they're there to witness it...the driver of the vehicle?...then you have the type of vehicle being driven and it's capabilities....will a sports car go round a bend quicker than a family saloon?.of course it will...will an audi quattro perform safer on a slippery road than a ford focus?of course it will...what's dangerous in one vehicle,won't be dangerous in another vehicle, competent drivers know their cars limitations and adjust their speed according.
The only thing that is clear here is that riding a bicycle without lights, when illumination would be a huge advantage to other road users is highly dangerous.

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