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

[ufkacbln]

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

Different research, I am referring to TRL 549 "Driver's Perception of Cyclists" Author: L. Basford, S Reid, T Lester (TRL Ltd) and J. Thompson 2002

You can download this from the DfT site

 

[fossyant]

Bright yellow vest & flashing front light didn't do me any good either.

Same here

Ten lights (3 front, 3 rear and 4 flashy's on rucksack at side) and a sam browne belt, and various reflectives didn't help me either, the driver drove right through me.

 

[Dan B]

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.

In the cyclist case they lost. I don't know anything about the other case.


In general they'll try any means possible to get out of paying up (well, it is their job to do exactly that) but I am not aware of any case that has actually gone to court where the cyclist has been found to be at fault for no helmet/hivis

 

[dellzeqq]

my understanding is that claims for contributory negligence have thus far been rebuffed BUT a high court judge has ruled in one case that if the wearing of a helmet would have made a difference then the cyclist would have had his claim reduced - so, notionally, a judgement, if not a precedent, is out there

http://road.cc/conte...t-helmet-ruling

 

[Dan B]

Yes, having refreshed my memory I should have attempted a more nuanced view.

The judge accepted Smith’s case that he was close to the centre of the road preparing to turn right when the motorcyclist, travelling at excessive speed in the same direction, tried to overtake him on the offside. Smith’s head hit the ground at more than 12mph, the speed at which cycling helmets cease to be effective as a form of head protection.

However, when ruling on the case Justice Williams expressed the view that not wearing a helmet could put a cyclist at fault and make them partly responsible for their own brain damage. “There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to risk of greater injury,” he stated. Subject to limitations, “any injury sustained may be the cyclist’s own fault.” Although this ruling is not open to challenge, Paul Kitson (a partner at RJW Solicitors) believes the judge’s remarks will, in practice, have little if any effect on the legal position. His words are probably no more than an ‘obiter dicta’, i.e. comments made in passing, which could in principle influence future cases but are not binding.

Moral: always ride at more than 12mph ;-)

 

[dellzeqq]

I came to the same 12mph conclusion, but that does seem daft.

 

[skudupnorth]

Yep,yet another non-cyclists clutching at "it's up to the cyclists to be seen" straw yet again ! As said before you have to be looking up front to see this wonderful hi-viz that saves us for all manner of danger !
We had a lovely little yellow Fiat Cinquecento sporting that some tit in an BMW X5 rammed into the middle of Lymn roundabout (locals will know how busy that one is) He also claimed he did not see the bright yellow CAR in front !!!!!! " Luckily " only the car got written off and not Mrs Skud on her way to work.

Do motorcyclists get the same sort of crap or are they excempt due to paying "road tax LOL" and putting fossil fuel in their tanks.I would'nt know from experience as i have never owned one !

 

[cyberknight]

For those interested i have just posted piccies of my bike on this thread and i feel it ties in nicely...

My link page 2

 

[lit]

but the simple truth is you should wear one to stop them having a mitigation.

Or just have the competency to avoid a accident?

 

[cyberknight]

Or just have the competency to avoid a accident?

Sorry to disagree but no amount of competency on the cyclists part will stop some pleb ploughing in to you if the road / traffic conditions give you nowhere to go and they come out of "nowhere " e.g a blind bend etc.

I am all for making it as hard as possible for the driver to have a "get out of jail" card to play but no amount of precaution will stop a collision happening given the wrong circumstances.

 

[buggi]

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

And you probably have a very strong point. Perhaps more of us should put pen to paper to our local MP. That's what they are there for after all, and they can't keep ignoring it if more people write to them.

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.

i once heard of an insurance payout to a little boy being lowered because his parents did not make him wear a helmet. It was contributory negligence.

Sorry to disagree but no amount of competency on the cyclists part will stop some pleb ploughing in to you if the road / traffic conditions give you nowhere to go and they come out of "nowhere " e.g a blind bend etc.

I am all for making it as hard as possible for the driver to have a "get out of jail" card to play but no amount of precaution will stop a collision happening given the wrong circumstances.

+1 ... like someone hitting you from behind even though you're lit up like a Christmas tree. Even if you hear a car approaching from behind, you are not going to be able to tell if it hits you.

 

[lit]

Sorry to disagree but no amount of competency on the cyclists part will stop some pleb ploughing in to you if the road / traffic conditions give you nowhere to go and they come out of "nowhere " e.g a blind bend etc.

I am all for making it as hard as possible for the driver to have a "get out of jail" card to play but no amount of precaution will stop a collision happening given the wrong circumstances.

I understand what you are saying but I haven't been hit in the last year i've been regulary cycling - tempting fate I know but any "dodgy" roads I will just take primary.

pandering to the calls for helmets won't make things better imho.

 

[subaqua]

sadly there are a huge number of drivers out there who are driving with deficient eyesight. they just don't realise it. my dad was one of them . until i told him to get it sorted or he gets a visit from plod and DVLA get told . he took the hint and now wears his glasses for driving. he has apologised thet he could have hit a cyclist as he didn't realise.

its no excuse for anybody though.

I have 3 front lights and one rear light, a hi viz cover on rucksack and some reflective bands that go round my arms and ankles. it never ceases to amaze me how many people don't "see" me. pedestrians, cyclists drivers are all included in this

Playing devils advocate ( again) i wonder how many cyclists are riding with dodgy eyesight.

 

[buggi]

I understand what you are saying but I haven't been hit in the last year i've been regulary cycling - tempting fate I know but any "dodgy" roads I will just take primary.

pandering to the calls for helmets won't make things better imho.

i haven't been hit off in 7 years, but it doesn't mean i haven't had any close calls and it's more down to luck i haven't. If you've had to take evasive action you are therefore admitting that the danger is there. You've just been lucky to see it coming in time to take the action. The woman who recently got killed near me was an experienced cylist and time triallist. She didn't see the car approaching because it was coming from behind, the dual carriageway was clear, good visibility and although the driver was the only motorist on the road, he still hit her. Witnesses say there was nothing she could have done.

 

[lit]

I see what you are saying, if she didn't she the car coming, maybe she wasn't looking (naturally no one will know).