"If cyclists wore hiviz & lights there wouldnt be any accidents!"

[ufkacbln]

And this is someone who will still be driving a ton of metal on our roads after her 'accident'. I didn't realise you HAD to look at someone to talk to them?

I believe this is why WIPCs (Women in people carriers) are such a hazard on the school run, trying to supervise James and Jemima squabbling in the rear seat and ignoring what is happening outside the vehicle.

I sometimes think that it should be illegal to have kids in the car without a second adult to supervise.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

There's an element of hi-viz turning into a kind of urban camouflage. I have a feeling that if ever you want to get into a high-security area your best bet would be to saunter up in hi-viz and people will tend to assume you're there on official business so they won't take as much notice. And I wonder whether there's an element of drivers clocking up ''hi-viz'' on their sub-conscious radar and, assuming that there's no danger, then disregard the cyclist wearing it. It risks becoming a kind of way of hiding yourself from drivers' consciousness.

I've no idea whether it really works or not, but I tend to let my hi-viz flap around in the wind - the intention is to create an impression of untidiness and unpredictability that might make drivers more inclined to notice me and give me a slightly wider berth - like I might do faced with a drunk man on the pavement in front of me. Of course, wobbling all over the road would probably have a similar effect but I prefer trying to remain balanced and rhythmic on a bike.

 

[ufkacbln]

I've found quite the opposite, wearing high-viz &/or when light I get far more close passes. I'm not saying your observations are wrong, I'm saying they're just different to mine.

DfT research showed that if drivers percieve a cyclist to be "competent" they then assume they can deal with close passes, so there is no need to give room or slow down

 

[psmiffy]

I regularly read accounts of a cyclists that are killed or seriously injured and the driver either is not prosecuted or receives a desultory sentence because “it was a momentary lack of concentration” etc.

To my mind anybody that is in charge of a motor vehicle that has struck a cyclist (or a pedestrian) has been careless (in the legal sense of the word) at the very least- and should be prosecuted and if found guilty jailed or banned at the very least– not concentrating enough to be in control of the vehicle should not be accepted as a defence (and certainly not as a reason not to be prosecuted) - there is no such thing as accidents only incidents – and the prosecution services and the Judiciary need to be instructed by Government that should be the case.

Sporadic publicity in the newspapers may help to highlight that there is “public concern” however, numbers count, writing to government directly as I did will do little in the short term – and the reply you get does little to make you think it was worthwhile – nonetheless someone did record that I had made the effort, someone did have to reply - if enough people do it will show up in the Government performance indicators and will have to be on the agenda to at least be discussed at the highest levels.

It only costs a stamp and a few minutes of time

 

[Davidc]

DfT research showed that if drivers percieve a cyclist to be "competent" they then assume they can deal with close passes, so there is no need to give room or slow down

Certainly there are some drivers that applies to. I'm sometimes naughty and deliberately wobble if I think someone's going to pass me where there's not enough room. Usually works.

 

[psmiffy]

DfT research showed that if drivers percieve a cyclist to be "competent" they then assume they can deal with close passes, so there is no need to give room or slow down

I do not think that was DfT - Walker I. Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2007 Mar;39(2):417-25.

I have seen that paper and I also seem to remember that someone had done a detailed review of the findings and come to the conclusion that the authors methodolgy did not stack up very well

 

[gbb]

I started to read the comments and i lost the will to go on after a while , the same old responses from drivers and as usual they get crushed by the truth and they still come back for more.

Until any government decide to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves and the police act upon it then we will not see any change.

I felt the same, is it a British trait or a human one to try to lay the blame anywhere but at oneself.

Even from a cyclists point of view, there are no definitive answers. We've all had close calls when using lights and or highviz. Does it mean they are useless...of course not. Will they guarantee your safety...of course not.
Some of the other points...
Do drivers see a cyclist as more competent if he's got lights/highviz, and accordingly pass closer based on those fact...some will, some won't.
Does wearing highviz 'blend' you into the background..in some rare cases (IMO) it could, generally i believe (IMO)its impossible to say it makes you LESS visible. You'd have to be blind not to see it.
The theory of insurance companies reducing compensation because the victim contributed by not wearing a helmet or highviz...does that REALLY exist, or is it a fictional, imaginary, percieved arguement put forward to bolster their bias.

And so on...and so on. There are NO definitive answers, the myriad of possible conditions on the road make it impossible to ensure a driver IS concentrating enough to see you.
Funnily enough, i saw a cyclist the other morning wearing highviz, but no lights. The point at which i actually did see him, the highviz made virtually NO difference, but then it was a dirty highviz. Does that make me think highviz is useless...no. Just in his case, it was a bit pointless. As said somewhere before, (apologies to the contributor) i sometimes wear highviz 'flapping' around, in the belief it makes it a larger visible area. BUT the reflectives are then usually facing behind, so anyone in front will have a smaller chance of seeing it.
Part of me can't even be bothered with this kind of subject because we're all looking for a utopian answer that doesn't exist. And yet, if we all thought like i am thinking right now, nothing would ever improve. Its the blindly blaming everyone else (and sometimes succeeding) that really gets my goat.

 

[al78]

There was an article in the Horsham Advertiser along these lines:

"Why you will spend 8 MONTHS stuck in traffic jams"

If you drive regularly the chances are you will spend more than eight months of your life stuck in traffic jams.

The average driver will spend five hours and 44 minutes behind the wheel each week - but an hour and 56 minutes of that is spent sitting in traffic.

This adds up to just over eight hours each month or four days a year.

From the age of 17, that's a total of 6,182 hours - or eight months and two weeks - waiting for traffic to move.

But rather than waiting patiently, bored drivers are often watching what's going on around them, playing games on their mobile phones and even checking their Facebook profile.

Almost one in ten even admits to having had an accident because they became distracted while stuck in a jam.

Paul Carroll, director of professional services for Specsavers, which carried out a study into traffic jams said: "When you're sat in traffic wondering how long it will take to get moving, it can be all too easy to let your mind drift off onto other things."

"This study reveals a large number of people aren't taking road safety seriously."

"But drivers not only need to concentrate fully on the road ahead, they also need to make sure they can see clearly and are wearing the appropriate prescription glasses or sunglasses."

The poll of 3,000 drivers found that traffic jams are now a regular occurrence, with 19% in a jam every day.


"Any why 1 in 10 of you will end up having an accident":

Another 22% find themselves in a slow-moving or stationary queue of cars a couple of times every week.

But researchers found that it's not just traffic jams where people are letting their minds wander with two thirds of drivers admitting they are often easily distracted when they are behind the wheel.

And almost three quarters admit that they don't always give the road ahead their full attention.

30% of drivers even owned up to having an accident or near-miss because they weren't concentrating properly on the road.

Paul Carroll, from Specsavers, added: "It's vital that drivers take extra care and ensure that their vision is up to scratch before getting behind the wheel."

And he stressed the importance of drivers having regular eye tests.

 

[GrasB]

Certainly there are some drivers that applies to. I'm sometimes naughty and deliberately wobble if I think someone's going to pass me where there's not enough room. Usually works.

Maybe my problem is I'm using going quickly, following a very defined line & making a fair number of observations.

 

[al78]

I felt the same, is it a British trait or a human one to try to lay the blame anywhere but at oneself.

A human one:

http://en.wikipedia....tive_dissonance
http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0151010986

The theory of insurance companies reducing compensation because the victim contributed by not wearing a helmet or highviz...does that REALLY exist, or is it a fictional, imaginary, percieved arguement put forward to bolster their bias.

It has possibly been used as a defense, but I have never heard of a situation where it has actually been accepted and compensation reduced accordingly.

 

[Davidc]

Maybe my problem is I'm using going quickly, following a very defined line & making a fair number of observations.

What you say third is right, and ultimately more important than lights or bright clothing. I'd suggest that for our safety when cyclng it's the observations which are crucial. Nothing will always keep trouble at bay but staying aware of everything around does give a chance to escape danger. I've ridden off the road, jumped onto pavements, aborted turns and all sorts to keep out of nutters' in cars way.

 

[downfader]

With regards insurance payouts being lowered.. there have been 2 court cases (one with a driver, and one a motorcyclist iirc, they're detailed in the news section of Bikeradar and a couple of newsites) where they argued contributary negligence on the part of the cyclist.

I have also known one person who worked for a very large insurer (who use a certain UK comedian of many faces to advertise) and said as much. No helmet, no hiviz, no lights? Less or no money. I would love to have it substantiated, perhaps its something the CTC could look into? Trouble is insurers can be quite hard to get any info out of.

 

[ComedyPilot]

With regards insurance payouts being lowered.. there have been 2 court cases (one with a driver, and one a motorcyclist iirc, they're detailed in the news section of Bikeradar and a couple of newsites) where they argued contributary negligence on the part of the cyclist.

I have also known one person who worked for a very large insurer (who use a certain UK comedian of many faces to advertise) and said as much. No helmet, no hiviz, no lights? Less or no money. I would love to have it substantiated, perhaps its something the CTC could look into? Trouble is insurers can be quite hard to get any info out of.

So if that is the case, I don't think insurance companies should pay out if their client drives into a stone wall or a tree - after all, they don't wear hi-viz either.

 

[downfader]

So if that is the case, I don't think insurance companies should pay out if their client drives into a stone wall or a tree - after all, they don't wear hi-viz either.

Maybe thats why Hants County started sticking reflectors on trees near here?

...and PSmiffy - you're SO right about writing the letters. The more that chip in the better.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Funny how almost all drivers will blame losing control for hitting a tree/wall, but never the 'I didn't see it' excuse.

Viz a Viz they never admit to hitting a cyclist (hi-viz or not) due to losing control, it's almost always , 'I didn't see them' - strange.

Cynical - moi?

Or are they following other people like sheep, with a poor excuse for their shoot driving, and looking for the easiest way out, least painful route so as not to be blamed/accept responsibility?