SMIDSY is an admission of guilt

[Jezston]

There does seem to be a line of thought here that however idiotic a cyclist is, its always the drivers fault which is patently wrong.

I don't think people are saying that, it's more a reaction to drivers involved in incidents saying they didn't see them, even if they were cycling normally and were reasonably illuminated. I'm sure we've all experienced incidents with drivers that didn't see - whether when on a bike or in a motorised vehicle - because they weren't looking or paying attention.

I agree that drivers should be aware of and take every precaution to prevent injury to other vulnerable road users, but cyclist also have a responsibility for their own safety and must share the blame if they fail to do that. Unfortunately if a ninja rider gets taken out by a careless driver, the driver will probably get off lightly because they will be able to shift at least some of the blame to the cyclist.

Living in Cambridge we see large numbers of cyclists with suicidal tenancies so probably the vast majority of us drivers around here take extra care. Luckily all 3 collisions I've had with a cyclist have happened when I've been on my own bike (2 cut straight across me and the other fell off just as I was going to pass) but I've had some near misses in the car either with someone cutting across my bows, or when some ninja comes up your inside when you are clearly turning left or overtakes you when you are turning right.

But as the stats show - cyclists lacking lights or behaving recklessly are a very small percentage of those killed or injured on the road.

 

[Camrider]

But as the stats show - cyclists lacking lights or behaving recklessly are a very small percentage of those killed or injured on the road.

I not so sure that the stats do show that, figures from accidents involving serious injuries between 2005-7 make interesting reading.

In incidents where a cyclist has been deemed to contribute to the cause of accidents where a serious injury occured (2801) the main contributing factors were as follows

Failing to look properly - 43%
Entering from the pavement - 20%
Careless, Reckless or in a hurry - 13%
Failed to judge another person's direction or speed - 12%

Dark clothing at comes in at 5% (but is 10% involving fatalities) and no lights at 4% but the fact that only 20% of accidents happen at night goes some way to explaining these relatively low figures,

The figures for motorist (2587) look like this.

Failing to look properly - 56%
Careless, Reckless or in a hurry - 17%
Poor turn or manoeuvre - 17%
Failed to judge another person's direction or speed - 17%
Close Pass - 13%

SMIDSY would appear to to be the biggest problem whatever vehicle on is in control of although being protected by a big steel box seems to make us even more prone to it.

Citation.


Knowles, J. et al: “Collisions Involving Cyclists on Britain's Roads: Establishing the Causes", TRL Report PPR 445, 2009

 

[Jezston]

Dark clothing at comes in at 5% (but is 10% involving fatalities) and no lights at 4% but the fact that only 20% of accidents happen at night goes some way to explaining these relatively low figures,

So you might extrapolate that, at night, dark clothing comes in at 25% and no lights at 20% - that is indeed quite high.

Although I may be doing some very dodgy things with stats there.

Anyone else care to comment?

 

[dawesome]

Unless you hit a moron night riding on black bike wearing black clothes and no lights. We get a lot of those round my neck of the woods and when one gets hit I think a SMIDSY is a reasonable excuse and the rider idiot deserves little sympathy.

Have you got an example of an unlit cyclist who was hit?

 

[Riding in Circles]

Quite....


There is a cat there, it is just not terribly conspicuous, even though it is sitting out in the open in broad daylight. Ninja cyclists are not literally invisible, but to query the point is just being facetious because we all know what is meant. Trying to spot a dark rider in night time conditions is not easy and you cannot assume that a driver would do so. After all, le's not forget that carrying lights is a legal requirement and while I take the point about driver behaviour it does not excuse cycling like a moron. I'm with cd365

I saw the cat immediately but then I have never run over a cyclist either.

 

[GrasB]

Have you got an example of an unlit cyclist who was hit?

There was one cyclist without lights who was hit in cambridge. I seem to recall the court ruled the motorist should have seen the cyclist anyway.

 

[Camrider]

Have you got an example of an unlit cyclist who was hit?

Thankfully not personally, but this one was local to me

 

[sheddy]

Conversation as seen on the letters page of C+ or Cycling Weekly

'SMIDSY'
'You mustn't drive if you have defective vision'
'I don't have defective vision'
'But you just said you didn't see me'

 

[Red Light]

That is my take on it.

Except that in all studies that have been done its overwhelmingly driver behaviour that caused accidents involving cyclists not cyclists'.

 

[Red Light]

There does seem to be a line of thought here that however idiotic careful a cyclist is, its nearly always the drivers fault which is patently wrong right.

IFTFY

Link

 

[Alembicbassman]

What ever happened to the old rule of driving at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear?

Light drowns out dark - i.e the brain interprets light signals more readily than dark. The brain with automatically zone in on the light patch infront of the car, dark sensitivity will be diminished. Unlit cyclists in the periphery of the lit zone are virtually invisible.

Cars have lights not only to see but to be seen. Bikes are the same.

If we drove to the extent of only what we could see in the headlamps we'd be doing 30mph on the motorways at night.

If you are not a driver jump in as a passenger and test out the above.

 

[ferret fur]

except that in all studies that have been done its overwhelmingly driver behaviour that caused accidents involving cyclists not cyclists'

I agree that this is correct, but you are using it to excuse idiot cyclist behaviour. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[BentMikey]

We're not trying to correct all wrongs, just the ones that kill and injure hundreds of thousands of other people per year. Drivers' wrongs, in other words. I don't mind if you want to focus on cyclists' wrongs that almost never harm others, but don't expect that viewpoint to be too popular here.

 

[Red Light]

I agree that this is correct, but you are using it to excuse idiot cyclist behaviour. Two wrongs don't make a right.

No, you are reading your own agenda into what I said. The proposition put was that

The single most important thing we could do to make cyclists all road users safer is address driver all road users behaviour, not cyclists'.

That is not correct. Given their dominant culpability in causing accidents, the single most important thing we could do is address driver behaviour. Addressing idiot cyclist behaviour may be lower down the list but its not a part of the single most important thing to do.

 

[ferret fur]

Since a large number of cyclists also drive, it is clear that the problem lies in the way the roads are used in this country. I have lost count of the number of times my safety has been hazarded by cars with bike carriers attached. I don't differentiate between one group of users & another. An idiot is an idiot no matter what their mode of transport is. While it's true that cars cause most of the damage the underlying problem is the person driving it and a lot of these people also cycle. We got to this part of the debate because someone pointed out that some SMIDSY occur when an idiot decides to ride without lights. He didn't say that these were the majority of cases but he was pointing out that not all SMIDSY are the driver's fault. I would say that is pretty unanswerable. It doesn't mean that we will stop this happening by having lights, but if we are suggesting that we should alter the general standard of driving behaviour why not include all road using behaviour at the same time? Then we'd all be even safer.