Visibility

[Alex321]

To avoid hijacking the thread where this was posted even more, I'll copy the quotes here into a new thread.

In York again, as l type (@15:38)
It’s cloudy, raining, almost every vehicle has lights on &… I’ve just seen on the A19, between the ‘ring-road’ & Clifton Green, a lass;
Black (or navy coat), black bike, black rucksack,
No lights…
Headphones in (little white ones)

Stupid, to the point of suicidal!

Doubtless though, if l had been able to stop & ask, she’d probably not see anything wrong with what she was doing
That’s part of the problem, people don’t see, or understand, the consequences

Bolded the relevant bit for you.

That was the least relevant part of his post.

The fact that as another cyclist, he saw her is completely irrelevant to the point that (illegally) riding without lights or even reflective clothing is just plain stupid.

Whether you might believe that a motorist travelling at the speed limit should see her doesn't really matter if she is dead because she wasn't seen.

Why should they? The onus is on the driver not to run over cyclists, pedestrians or even trees no matter what they are wearing. All talk of anything else is just diverting the problem away from those who need to be taking care.

They should because it is stupid not to.

There is a reason automatic car lights come on not just when it get5s dark, but also when the wipers come on. Visibility is significantly reduced in those circumstances, and any road user should do what they reasonably can to make themselves more visible to others.

In the conditions described, I would most certainly have my lights on (probably in flashing mode), and I would expect any cyclist with the least sense of self preservation to do the same. I would also most certainly have my car lights on if driving, even if they weren't automatic.

Do you think women should not to wear a short skirt in case they get raped?

Of course not. And why you think that could conceivably be relevant I have absolutely no idea.

 

[cougie uk]

In an Ideal world cyclists wouldn't need to be visible but we don't live in an ideal world.

My Sunday rides start with me riding to meet my mate and him riding towards me.

One dull Winter day I didn't see him and was surprised when he eventually caught me up.

He was all in black and in the shade of the trees and no light. I didn't see the guy and I was looking for him like I'd done for years.

Next week he had a fluo gilet and lights.

 

[classic33]

In an Ideal world cyclists wouldn't need to be visible but we don't live in an ideal world.

My Sunday rides start with me riding to meet my mate and him riding towards me.

One dull Winter day I didn't see him and was surprised when he eventually caught me up.

He was all in black and in the shade of the trees and no light. I didn't see the guy and I was looking for him like I'd done for years.

Next week he had a fluo gilet and lights.

It'd be helpful though, fewer true SMIDSY's.

 

[mjr]

The oft-used rather unpleasant comparison to short skirts is relevant because that is victim-blaming that people have learned not to do, whereas hi-vis and extra lights is victim-blaming that people have yet to learn not to do.

The three bottom lines are:

1. we are visible. If you think otherwise, please tell me how to be invisible. There are some road layouts which I would like to change without risking being seen and fined. So far, the best tactic for being ignored seems to be to wear a council hi-vis jacket and hard hat... which makes you wonder about the claim that cyclists should wear them to get noticed!

2. Drivers are required by the licence to drive so that we can stop safely within what we can see to be clear. As CTC correctly warned in the 1930s/40s, requiring road users (not even just cyclists) to show red rear lights has encouraged a move towards instead driving so you can stop within what you can't see to be occupied, which is very different and far more dangerous. We should have no part of enabling such shoot driving. Sadly, CUK now support the "be seen" BS campaigns of the motoring lobby, but that doesn't mean we have to!

3. we cannot ensure that we "be seen" unless someone has invented a remote control for motorists' eyeballs that hasn't been publicised. All we can do is make sure we are looking and acting as needed.

 

[Alex321]

The oft-used rather unpleasant comparison to short skirts is relevant because that is victim-blaming that people have learned not to do, whereas hi-vis and extra lights is victim-blaming that people have yet to learn not to do.

Utter rubbish. There is no similarity.

One is as you say victim blaming. In that case, the consequences for the victim are the result of deliberate and conscious action by a deliberate criminal.

The other is not blaming anybody. It is merely saying that for the sake of safety, we should all do whatever we reasonably can to increase the chances of being seen.

This is not a "cyclists v motorists" thing. We should ALL take reasonable steps to improve the chances of being seen. It is a [b[requirement[/b] after dark to have lights on both cars and bicycles. It is common sense to do so in situations where visibility is poor, even when maybe not absolutely legally required..

The three bottom lines are:

1. we are visible. If you think otherwise, please tell me how to be invisible.

If you are wearing dark clothing, with no skin or reflective items exposed, in the dark, then you are very nearly invisible.

There are some road layouts which I would like to change without risking being seen and fined. So far, the best tactic for being ignored seems to be to wear a council hi-vis jacket and hard hat... which makes you wonder about the claim that cyclists should wear them to get noticed!

Yeah, that claim is not really a good one. In an urban environment, they tend to easily be confused with the background. In a non-urban environment, even dim lights will be seen much more readily.

2. Drivers are required by the licence to drive so that we can stop safely within what we can see to be clear.

Can you cite the part of the licence which says that?

As CTC correctly warned in the 1930s/40s, requiring road users (not even just cyclists) to show red rear lights has encouraged a move towards instead driving so you can stop within what you can't see to be occupied, which is very different and far more dangerous.

While I am sure there is some truth in that, it would be far more dangerous overall to not have those lights.

We should have no part of enabling such shoot driving. Sadly, CUK now support the "be seen" BS campaigns of the motoring lobby, but that doesn't mean we have to!

Only a suicidal idiot will go along with that ridiculous view.

We have to live in the world as it is. Getting ourselves killed for a point of principle will not change driving habits, nor will it change the law in this respect - unless it gets changed to require lights at all times.

I do not believe for one moment that you are stupid enough to ride after dark in dark unreflective clothing with no lights. So why are you suggesting it is Ok for others to be that stupid?

3. we cannot ensure that we "be seen" unless someone has invented a remote control for motorists' eyeballs that hasn't been publicised. All we can do is make sure we are looking and acting as needed.

Incorrect. The other thing we can do is increase the chance of being seen by making ourselves more obvious.

 

[Oldhippy]

The onus has for too long been on those who do not use a motor vehicle to be seen. It is high time to stop designing the world around cars! In the dark or bad light put lights on. Otherwise no. Make drivers responsible for the mobile living room they choose to roll around in.

 

[Mo1959]

While I fully agree that it is a driver’s responsibility to look out for other road users, I also think hi viz makes a huge difference. The amount of times I have been behind a pair of cyclists or runners out in gloomy conditions where one is in darker clothing and the other is wearing high viz is startling from a distance. The dark runner/rider seems to disappear from view while the other remains visible for much longer so I am convinced it helps.

 

[PaulSB]

Visibility? In my experience pedestrians, cyclists and drivers are all guilty of failing to make themselves visible and to take appropriate care at all times. This does not mean anyone makes themselves responsible for the failures of others who don't see us it's simply self preservation.

I don't wear or advocate hi viz but do wear brightly coloured clothing usually in block colours as I believe a solid block of colour stands out better than multi-coloured clothing. I wouldn't wear all black, never a black jersey or jacket, and while I have many friends who do I feel wearing black is foolish. My cycling buddies are well aware of this.

 

[Time Waster]

Do all motorists go out with the intention to hit cyclists? Isn't that kind of the idea that a violent person is intentionally violent but the majority of motorists aren't intentionally going out to hit cyclists. It likely puts a real dent in your day and car!

Operator error is often the cause of motoring accidents but I cannot change that. What can I change as a cyclist? Should I be principled and refuse increased visibility products?

As a motorist I can change the risks for myself and cyclists I might encounter. I cannot see what I can do as a cyclist other than reflectors, lights, higher visibility clothing and safe road position/safe riding techniques.

I wonder at what point of visibility it's right to stop at? Just lights? Lights and reflectors? Lights, reflectors and hi viz? Perhaps the ultimate progression of this is that we should all be completely stealthy in black, black bike, etc as motorists should be driving at a speed they can see us. Should we campaign against the regulations about bike lights too.

This is such a confusing topic not helped by entrenched views. I very much doubt we as cyclists, and most likely drivers too, can agree on an approach to what is acceptable wrt visibility enhancing products like lights, reflectors and hi viz.

Ps aren't lights hi viz too in that they give us a higher level of visibility?

 

[Oldhippy]

Where do we stop? Knee pads, inflatable bump suits, cycles only in yellow, no cycling after dark just in case?

 

[winjim]

Some car manufacturer has decided that cars need to put on inappropriately bright lights on unnecessary occasions so now as a cyclist I need to put on inappropriately bright and flashing lights?

Under streetlights they're not needed and without streetlights, reflectors do a fine job. Bright lights are dazzling and distracting, I'd happily take a sledgehammer to the lot of them. Bike lights should be calibrated to the brightness of a single 1980s Ever Ready and no more.

 

[vickster]

Where do we stop? Knee pads, inflatable bump suits, cycles only in yellow, no cycling after dark just in case?

Do you cycle after dark without lights then?

 

[PaulSB]

I can see where this thread is going!

It's common sense. Wear something bright and use lights. Alternatively run the risk of being severely injured or killed for your principles. A simple choice really.

 

[PaulSB]

And as for the cyclists who run an incorrectly aligned mobile strobe light on the front? Give me strength.

There's a guy who rides with us ocassionally who has a front light so bright if he's behind me and I shoulder check I cannot see anything. Idiot and I've told him so.

 

[winjim]

I can see where this thread is going!

It's common sense. Wear something bright and use lights. Alternatively run the risk of being severely injured or killed for your principles. A simple choice really.

Yes, turning the roads into an overstimulating sensory nightmare makes it safer for everybody.