Police in Evesham, Worcestershire have been tackling cycling safety by warning riders of the dangers of wearing dark clothes, and handing out high-vis accessories.
More than 30 riders were stopped in a ‘Be Safe Be Seen’ exercise conducted by the Safer Roads Partnership and West Mercia Police.
Uniformed officers stopped cyclists wearing dark clothing or who didn't have lights during the morning and evening rush hours on January 6 and 26.
Riders were offered safety advice and high-vis products safety advice about the importance of keeping themselves visible and high-vis cycling products to help keep them safe on the roads, such as flashing armbands, high-vis rucksack covers and lights.
Anna Higgins, communications manager at the Safer Roads Partnership said: “Our ‘Be Safe Be Seen’ cycle safety initiatives are a proactive way of raising awareness about the need for cyclists to make themselves as visible as possible on the roads.
"We’ve run a number of similar initiatives across Warwickshire and West Mercia over the past few months and have engaged with over 350 cyclists.
"Unfortunately some of the cyclists we spoke to just didn’t recognise the dangers involved in not being visible. A couple of cyclists we spoke to during the early morning initiative had lights or high-vis gear at home, but didn’t feel that they needed them, even though it was still very dark at that time."
It's not the first time police have pushed the message that high-vis clothing equals safety on the roads, even though the research on the subject is equivocal at best.
In 2009, cycling charity CTC was critical of Hampshire Constabulary for stopping riders who were wearing dark clothing.
A CTC spokesman said at that time: “It’s curious the police are stopping cyclists for not breaking the law when there are so many motorists who break the law every day, and I think a much better use of police resources could focus on drivers breaking the law."
Research findings on the efficacy of high-vis are inconclusive.
In 2013, a University of Bath and Brunel University study found that no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2 per cent of drivers will pass dangerously close. The researchers concluded that there is little a rider can do, by altering their outfit or donning a high-visibility jacket, to prevent the most dangerous overtakes from happening.
Also in 2013, an Australian study drew an important distinction between reflective clothing and hi-vis, highlighting that the former is the best way to be seen in the hours of darkness.
At the end of 2014, a Danish study concluded that high-vis jackets worn by cyclists appeared to reduce incidents leading to injury, though that study also found that there were fewer reported incidents of solo crashes among the high-vis wearers.
That study was also criticised for being funded by the jacket manufacturer.
130 thoughts on “Police stop Evesham cyclists to warn against dark clothing”
Lazy lazy lazy lazy
Lazy lazy lazy lazy policing
About time plod stood on junctions targeting drivers on the phone and who don’t slow down or look on the approachs.
But that would be continuing the war on the motorist though
I hope that all pedestrians
I hope that all pedestrians not wearing hi-vis were stopped as well.
Any chance of the police tackling Jedi drivers. You know, the ones who clear the minimum of frost off their glass and then use The Force to navigate down the road.
I read this and reflect on
I read this and reflect on the number of car/truck drivers I saw this morning in dark, wet miserable conditions without their lights on.
I also saw 2 police cars and they didn’t seem very bothered.
PR horseshit
It’s the bloody horses they
It’s the bloody horses they need to target. Why, only the other day I drove my jet black Mercedes (tinted windows, of course) past 2 horses and they were bloody brown and black!! It was a miracle I saw them really, as I was twiddling my radio at the time as I love to listen to Steve Wright in the afternoon.
And all those dark pedestrians??! Through those tinted windows I can barely see them either. Dip the lot in luminous paint I say.
Someone once said that my 1000kg car all in black was a far worse death trap, but how an that be eh…? I pay road tax etc etc
Zermattjohn wrote:And all
My experience tells me that the plod actually take great delight in frequently pulling them over for “a quiet word”….
oh, you mean….
farrell wrote:Zermattjohn
Well actually when pedestrians are dressed up in dark clothes and crossing the road they can be in danger. But the thing is they are crossing the road. Hoprefully when there’s nothing coming. So they are in the road briefly.
And the difference is cyclists are in the road most of the time.
see how that might be pertinent?
oozaveared wrote:farrell
Well actually when pedestrians are dressed up in dark clothes and crossing the road they can be in danger. But the thing is they are crossing the road. Hoprefully when there’s nothing coming. So they are in the road briefly.
And the difference is cyclists are in the road most of the time.
see how that might be pertinent?— Zermattjohn
WHOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHHH!
bendertherobot
Well actually when pedestrians are dressed up in dark clothes and crossing the road they can be in danger. But the thing is they are crossing the road. Hoprefully when there’s nothing coming. So they are in the road briefly.
And the difference is cyclists are in the road most of the time.
see how that might be pertinent?— farrell
WHOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHHH!— Zermattjohn
Indeed. To paraphrase Cool Runnings, ‘In fact, if oozaveared ever come across a pretty girl, he probably yell, “eins, zwei, drei” and try to push her down some ice….”
oozaveared wrote:But the
Assuming that pedestrian has looked.
Assuming that pedestrian is not walking along road because of obstructed or no footpath.
levermonkey wrote:oozaveared
Assuming that pedestrian has looked.
Assuming that pedestrian is not walking along road because of obstructed or no footpath.— oozaveared
Yup – road I have to walk down regularly, despite the houses there having gardens converted to parking places, the pavement has, for some baffling reason, long been removed to make room for a second row of parking spaces, leaving nowhere to walk but in the road. Cars still whizz down it at 40mph (and with high-sided vehicles parked there its often hard to see what’s coming).
I do pretty much cover the bike in reflective tape, and will occasionally wear a reflective band or two, but I really resent the supposed obligation for everyone and everything to be bright yellow and reflective just so drivers don’t have to pay attention. And pedestrians increasingly seem to respond to this pressure as well – whenever I see groups of school kids out on a run or something, they’ll all be in lurid yellow, even though they aren’t even in the road.
oozaveared wrote:farrell
Well actually when pedestrians are dressed up in dark clothes and crossing the road they can be in danger. But the thing is they are crossing the road. Hoprefully when there’s nothing coming. So they are in the road briefly.
And the difference is cyclists are in the road most of the time.
see how that might be pertinent?— Zermattjohn
Actually, it isn’t really. Pedestrians will cross roads and will get hit by drivers who use the SMIDSY excuse. It really is the same point at issue.
Thats just like the kind
Thats just like the kind Policeman who stopped me last summer to warn me about not having lights, at midday on a sunny summers day!!!
Thats just like the kind
Thats just like the kind Policeman who stopped me last summer to warn me about not having lights, at midday on a sunny summers day!!!
I have to say highly-visible
I have to say highly-visible backpacks (not necessarily fluorescent) may be more appealing that hi-viz clothing. A lot of the backpacks out there are black or shades of blue. And as they take up a lot of the area visible to drivers, they may well be more useful than fluorescent jackets.
OK, so I understand the
OK, so I understand the comments above that cyclist shouldn’t be the only ones targeted and it feels like we are singled out yet again.
BUT, why pick on the police for taking steps to try and minimise incidents (and yes, I do believe steps can be made to improve cyclist visibility to reduce incidents).
If the above report read that “police we first targeting cyclist and then were going to look at pedestrian and vehicle visibility in the future”, who you all have been so critical (just for my understanding?)
I am also going to make the assumption that the majority of people who use this forum are keen cyclist who keep their bikes well maintained and have relatively bright lights? Not all cyclist do, I see so many on the roads during the dark mornings and evenings of winter who are not visible because they have no lights and are dressed in black with no reflectors or reflective strips on their clothes. There have been instances whilst I am cycling at 15-20 mph and not seen them until I am almost on top of them…..it’ll be even worse traveling at greater speed in a car!
From my experience, bright yellow clothing has little benefit once darkness falls, but having reflective clothing certainly does, so why not remind people of this or make them aware of it if they haven’t already thought of it? What harm has it done?
On the flip side, if cyclists are riding at night and don’t have lights on their bikes, why aren’t they issued with a fine or given a ‘producer’ to makes sure they have fitted lights within 14 days? In my opinion, there is no excuse for not having a front and rear light on your bike.
Why do so many user of this forum so frequently criticise authority or see it as a personal attack at them? Yes, I understand that it often feels like everyone is against cyclist, yes I understand that safety improvements need to be across the whole spectrum. And yes, I understand that there are SO MANY bad drivers out there who pay so little attention to other road users OR more worryingly don’t care about other road users. But surely a little extra visibility is a good thing to help you become a little more obvious to the good drivers out there.
Ok, let the criticism begin!
Tinternet_tim wrote:OK, so I
As someone who commutes to Evesham everyday, I would be happy if this was matched with action on the drivers on the A46 or the back lanes that get used as cut throughs, but no chance. I grant the police are most weeks parked on the sedgeborough bypass for a few hours, usually at the top sometimes at the bottom with a speedgun.
But the number of dangerous overtakes, or the fact that when I was hit whilst using the cyclepath was of no interest to the police.
Cycling at night with no lights is stupid, so is driving at night with no lights!!! which happens more often than I can comprehend!
Going after cyclists is easy low hanging fruit, it doesn’t really make the roads any safer.
Tinternet_tim wrote: Why do
it is fair to criticise the police for stopping people who are not breaking the law
it is fair to criticise the police for trying to enforce something which is neither a legal requirement nor of any proven practical value
it is fair to criticise the police for blaming accidents on cyclist’s clothing and not dangerous driving
it is fair to criticise the police for targeting members of a minority group because it is easy rather than the majority in vehicles who actually cause the harm and do most of the law breaking, a policy of ‘criminalise the catchable rather than catch the criminal’
it is fair to criticise the police for targeting the victims not the perpetrators of criminal behaviour
Northernbike
They’re giving advice – not ‘unfairly targeting’, ‘enforcing’ or ‘ciminalising’ the cyclist. I wish people could drop the persecution complex. It would make the sensible and proper arguments about road safety for vulnerable road users appear much more legitimate, if we did.
Northernbike
Though to be fair to the police, the highway code does state that (59) [cyclists should wear] light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light. So perhaps this comes under the heading ‘education’. Personally I don’t wear head-to-toe dark clothing, and do often daylight run a flashing rear LED.
dassie wrote:Personally I
Do you know who do wear top to toe dark clothing, and very frequently?
http://legacymedia.localworld.co.uk/275788/Article/images/13611007/3267006.png
I double dare you to smash in to one of those on your bike and then claim you couldn’t see them due to their lack of yellow.
See how far the argument goes when the jackboot is on the other foot.
dassie wrote:
Though to be
Whilst this is true, a judge also declared to a jury to “ignore the highway code” in relation to slowing down when faced with a low sun.
http://road.cc/content/news/136356-two-drivers-cleared-causing-death-careless-driving-after-hitting-cyclist-low-sun
This Judge’s colleagues must
This Judge’s colleagues must be EMBARASSED by his behaviour ?
Must be some way that he can be censured , thus sending a CLEAR Message to other colleagues who view the ” DEAD ” as of nO account ! Even the relatives of the deceased appear to be scorned by this erroneous behaviour ?
Time that the law started to ACT against ” Drivers ” that allow their passengers to behave badly whilst in motion ? At present there are jurisdictions where the Driver loses ” points ” when the passenger seatbelt is not in use ? Time that ” hurling abuse and missiles ” cost the driver their licence ?
Even ” Cowardly close pass ” deserves a period of reflection , better even , when required to ride a bike to work for a period ?
Too far ? TOO BAD ! Should have considered the consequences before making that childish / infantile ” Coward Pass “!
Tinternet_tim wrote:OK, so I
I agree. I can’t see why it’s a problem to make some cyclists aware that they are at increased risk if they are dressed up like the SAS on a dank morning. They may not be legally required to have lights at that time or wear high viz but it can’t hurt to make some of them more aware.
I had a friend at Uni that was forever just walking across busy roads in London quite nonchalently. Couldn’t see the problem. he could see the cars quite clearly so obviously the drivers could see him. He didn’t drive at the time. Only a few years later when he started driving did he realise that at times he was almost completely invisible. That gave him quite a bit of pause for thought. It may be that some of these people riding bikes are quite unaware just how low viz they are.
I rode up to and had a chat with a young lady on an MTB at about 6.15 pm last week with one of those high crud catcher mudguards on the back. She did have a light but hadn’t actually looked at the positioning of the light and the mudguard. The light was obscured until you were about 3 metres away. She thanked me for politely pointing that out.
I don’t see the problem. And yes they should have a word with some drivers as well. But all the whataboutery seems silly to me.
Next thing you know they’ll be victimising householders by offering advice on home security. When really they should just be catching the burglars……..
Lights are more important
Lights are more important that Hi Viz clothing.
They should also tell cyclists to cycle proudly in the middle of the lane, away from the parked cars, away from cars creeping out of junctions, drain covers and to do proper signalling. This is how you get seen.
Interesting part here is the
Interesting part here is the police person’s (dim) recognition that some people disagree with their approach. Quite encouraging, that, I thought. These stop-n-advise things might be a super chance for us all to bend their ears about enforcing 20mph limits or similar.
Hear hear TinterTim. We’ve
Hear hear TinterTim. We’ve all seen (just) the cycling Ninjas – in my area, they’re usually young people on cheap BSOs who wouldn’t ever describe themselves as ‘a cyclist’. A friendly word to point out how much danger they’re putting themselves in can’t hurt.
Even on sunny day under
Even on sunny day under dappled shade a cyclist can be invisible. I even failed to see a woman on a horse in these conditions while on my bike. Also joggers in black listening to music, only saw one of those at the last minute on the bike aswell.
Really you can be invisible. Annoyed by suicidal tendencies amongst cyclists when i am driving, but i have only heard of one truly invisible person killed. He was a drunk walker on an unlight A road – taxi driver had no idea what he hit, and they took ages to find the body. Driver gets my sympathy.
What is the thinking? Trying to give other road users more of a challenge? Just moronic really.
birzzles wrote:joggers in
You were going too fast for the conditions.
birzzles wrote:Even on sunny
Truly invisible? What, the walker had a cloaking device?
The driver deserves no sympathy. The Highway Code says ‘drive so that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear’. Not ‘imagine might be clear’, not ‘drive even though you can’t see jackshit’, not ‘drive by using the Force and your instincts’. Most of the collisions caused by motorists would be avoided if they followed this.
Quote:They should also tell
…. its also important they explain this to motorists.
What use is high vis in the
What use is high vis in the dark?
“Look but failed to see” is
“Look but failed to see” is as much a symptom of inattentive driving as it is for lack of visibility. Sometimes cyclists get criticized for having lights too bright, but for my money, the best way to penetrate the inattentive doze to inflict a bit of pain.
‘taxi driver had no idea what
‘taxi driver had no idea what he hit, and they took ages to find the body.’
and it was the *walker* who was drunk??
Can I have a high-vis
Can I have a high-vis rucksack cover for free without cycling to Evesham?
Im no Prof Brian Cox but
Im no Prof Brian Cox but doesnt hi-viz only work when there is some light for it to be viz in and therefore no more viz in the hours of darkness than normal clothing? When dark only reflecting clothing will be (more) effective.
Its just another example of the marginalisation of cyclists and victim blaming.
In my opinion.
..appreciate of course that
..appreciate of course that the article is design to appeal to particular type of anti-driver cyclist and stir up this kind of sentiment
Their policy does state:
“The
Their policy does state:
“The ‘Share the Road’ campaign aims to raise awareness about the safety issues faced by cyclists and to help them stay safer on the roads. Drivers are encouraged to allow plenty of space for cyclists when overtaking and to always look out for them when undertaking manoeuvres and changing lanes.”
Which does sound fairly balanced.
“What use is high vis in the
“What use is high vis in the dark?”
Hi-viz usually means retro-reflective and fluorescent. There might be some debate about the effectiveness of fluorescent in the day time (and clearly it’s not much use at night) but retro-reflective is as bright as or brighter at night than many bike lights. You only have to look at any bike light review which includes shots of reflective items.
By the way my local police recently told us that “If a cyclist is involved in an accident and they are not able to be seen because they are wearing black/dark clothing that will be used in mitigation for the driver. That is allowed in law. If he is not visible, a defence lawyer will use it. “. That might be civil cases where “on balance of probabilities” applies versus criminal cases where “beyond reasonable doubt” applies.
horizontal dropout
It’s probably brighter than cheapie bright lights but, overkill brightness debate aside, most good rears should be very visible indeed. And, also, worth having more of them than one.
What does high vis mean? Well, there’s an issue. Can we trust those handing it out to know that the yellow vest includes reflective elements? Or that it’s a pointless yellow vest? There’s a very real danger here that high vis means bright yellow and if you’re found wearing a black jacket with some substantial reflective parts then you’re not wearing “high vis.” A fallacy. In the dark.
As to CIVIL mitigation. Yeah, kind of. But much depends on the rest of the circumstances. Which may be inumerable.
Whenever I read stuff like
Whenever I read stuff like this I always think about Saint Chris Boardman:
http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe
Apparently the use of lights
Apparently the use of lights here in Scotland is advisory. Or at least that’s what the peeler told me when I flagged him down to advise him that his rear light was stuffed. He thanked me but on the offer of batteries I was told it didn’t matter as lights were only optional and in his many years of being a cop had never heard that it was an offence covered by the Highways Act! Needless to say just after Christmas I clocked him and his pal trundling around town with rear lights removed and their front lights near to useless. In someways it feels like they’ve thrown down the gauntlet to me to see if I challenge them so they can then cart me off to the station. As an aside even though they are all fluorescent they do disappear 100 yards down the stree and are next to invisible even with the street lighting…. A wee pic attatached for your perusal. I’m now probably earmarked for a bit more attention than I would like. The pair of them are still sans lights as of last night.
Dark non-reflective clothing
Dark non-reflective clothing and no lights can be viewed as potentially a nomination for a Darwin Award.
It’s about managing risk when all other road users are to be considered as in attentive distracted idiots.
As mentioned… reflective
As mentioned… reflective material is far more important than clothing colour at night.
Mindful of that, I need a better jacket as mine could be improved.
The Bath/Brunel study appears
The Bath/Brunel study appears to be about the effectiveness of clothing during the day, not at night, as was the case with the Evesham police campaign. Not sure about the other studies, but common sense here is that cyclists are significantly safer if more visible, especially at night or during twilight. The police are there to educate as well as enforce, so they are just doing their job – I say give them a break.
Do you think they were also
Do you think they were also out warning women and girls not to wear short skirts so they don’t get raped on the way home?
Oh no, of course not… that would be victim blaming
balmybaldwin wrote:Do you
WTF
You are comparing a deliberate crime an assault on someone with the fact that a driver may not have seen someone on a bike. That’s bizarre.
I guess you think that hurling around a the “Victim Blaming” trope means that any advice to any potential victim of a crime or an accident is magically covered. It isn’t. Some victims are to blame in whole or part for their demise. You can do things and take actions that reduce the likelihood you will be a victim of crime or accident. Warning inexperienced cyclists that the chances of being hit by a vehicle are a lot less if the driver can see you clearly and from as far away as possible. Is not victim blaming. It’s good advice.
oozaveared wrote: Warning
Good advice depends on a) the quality of the advice being sound and useful and b) the giver of that advice to disseminate what advice is needed for each recipient.
Generic advice regarding pieces of yellow cloth are not good advice.
Errm… May not have seen
Errm… May not have seen someone, and then running them over because of it is a crime. Amazing what we will forgive drivers for doing just for a little bit of inattention.
As for your second paragraph. Magic cloth with make cyclists safe! Yet for magic cloth! I wore magic cloth and a 2 tonne 4×4 driven by an inattentive arse bounced off me! Wohoo! Lets all get magic cloth rather than dealing with the actual causes of any such accident because we’ll forgive drivers momentary lapses…
Not really bizarre, although
Not really bizarre, although obviously not an exact analogy.
The point is that drivers may not have seen” who or what they are supposed to precisely because the responsibility to do so has been eroded by the constant pressure for actual or potential victims to wear hi-viz, irrespective of evidence.
It becomes part of the problem that way.
And yes, it is thus victim-blaming.
After all, there are all kinds of things you can do which may. or may not, help you. But being told to do some of them by people who are not fulfilling their duty to enforce laws controlling the SMIDSY mob is, well, victim-blaming
oozaveared wrote:
You are
No it isn’t – that you say so doesn’t make it true. Its clearly a continuum – carelessness with the vulnerable when you are in a position of power is not wildly different from causing deliberate harm.
Do you think they were also
Do you think they were also out warning women and girls not to wear short skirts so they don’t get raped on the way home?
Oh no, of course not… that would be victim blaming
If we’re to be significantly
If we’re to be significantly more visible high vis (meaning fluoro) isn’t the answer. It’s only the answer to a given set of circumstances. It’s entirely possible that a different normal colour or even black is more visible in a given situation. So we are all going to need the adaptable colour jersey.
The other thing I think nature does is to “make yourself bigger.” So, perhaps inflatable sumo suits?
Or, if you REALLY want to avoid getting killed, unless from drivers paralysed with laughter, get their new brevet gilet.
http://www.rapha.cc/gb/en/shop/brevet-jersey-and-gilet/product/PBP02
“Uniformed officers stopped
“Uniformed officers stopped cyclists wearing dark clothing or who didn’t have lights during the morning and evening rush hours on January 6 and 26.
What is wrong with that? They got some free gear to make them safer. They could (should) have received a fine for not Having lights and a bit of advise.
Sub5orange wrote:”Uniformed
Well, the use of the word OR implies those with dark clothing had lights. What if they had good lights, and many of them? What if the police failed to spot that the dark clothing had just as many reflective features as its high vis handout?
What if, basically, those giving the advice didn’t know how good the advice they were giving was?
bendertherobot
Well, the use of the word OR implies those with dark clothing had lights. What if they had good lights, and many of them? What if the police failed to spot that the dark clothing had just as many reflective features as its high vis handout?
What if, basically, those giving the advice didn’t know how good the advice they were giving was?— Sub5orange
Feels like you are being extremely pedantic and have a thing against the police.
‘What if’ none of your ‘what if’ scenarios happened? ‘What if’ those giving out advice were world experts in road safety and only gave advice to those who needed it – based on their expert training and experience!
I’m guessing no matter what anyone says you are going to object to someone giving someone else advice to try and make the roads slightly safe.
Tinternet_tim wrote:
Feels
If wanting those who give advice to do it properly is a thing, then, yes. I have a thing.
It’s fairly clear from all these reports that, leaving the lack of lights issue aside, there is no clear information that high vis means reflective. The very fact that lights are also being dealt with means we are dealing with dark condition cyclists. So the use of the word high vis is problematic. If the reporting of the campaign is generic and misleading we can have no faith that the information being given is not equally so. Highly trained road safety PEOPLE know what makes a difference. They know about the flaws of fluro clothing as a defence against darkness.
bendertherobot wrote:
If
So you have no idea of the hi-viz product that was handed out, you don’t know if it included reflective surfaces or piping and you have no idea of the level of qualification or experience of those giving out advice….BUT you have ASSUMED that all of the above are insufficient and shouldn’t have been offered!
Ok, guess you have a pretty good case to be so angry and object to the police offering this advice so much.
And before you ask, I also have no idea of the quality of product or experience either. But I do know that organisation who have experience in road safety are offering advice to others who are more than likely less experienced….feels like a winning situation to me.
Tinternet_tim wrote: But I do
Where’s your evidence that this organisation ‘have experience in road safety’?
What have the safer roads partnership actually done to make roads safer? How far have they reduced motorised traffic? Which roads have they managed to pedestrianise? How much campaigning have they done for stronger penalties for bad driving or for more rigorous driving tests, or indeed higher fuel duties to discourage driving? Or do they just badger potential victims in ways that haven’t been shown to achieve very much?
Also – why are trains not clad in hi viz?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enkh9A5jdUI
FluffyKittenofTindalos
I’ll tell you what, I’ll leave you to your half empty glass of beer / juice etc.
So many are quick to critic as it’s so easy to do so. Wonder how many of those who are critical have actually tried to make a difference for others or a community? Maybe try it one day, it’s actually quite rewarding and it takes a bit of character as lots just want to prove you wrong and find problems!!!
The problem is when the
The problem is when the people giving advice don’t know what they are talking about. Here in NZ, for example, a coroner, stated that all cyclists should wear high vis to keep them safer. There was massive publicity at the time, all unquestioning of his conclusion, despite the fact he had not the slightest evidence to support his view.
As a result of this a LOT of cyclists now ride around with high viz thinking that they are safe with no lights when light is poor or even when it is dark.
In my experience (having nearly hit a few of these idiots), when you come up behind someone with high vis in the dark, it makes no difference whatsoever.
imaca wrote:The problem is
Is this the case where the cyclist WAS wearing hi-viz and still got hit and killed by a driver???
With the exception of learner
With the exception of learner drivers and probably people who’ve recently passed their tests, most people get in a car and drive to their destination mostly on autopilot. Everybody’s done it. You get to your destination and can’t remember half the journey. That’s one of the great things about the human brain – the system 1 part can take over repetitive non-taxing jobs and leave the conscious part of the brain (system 2) to do something else. But system 1 is totally crap at dealing with unexpected events and despite what most people think it should be doing, it hasn’t evolved to remain on constant alert for the presence of cyclists (unless you live in an area/city with a high volume of cyclists and it adapts) or other road hazards. That’s just the way it is and no amount of moaning about it will change it. You either take responsibility for your own safety or you put it in the hands of strangers who may not even know you’re there. Anybody who disregards good safety advice is pretty dumb and probably not much loss to the human gene pool if their actions result in injury or worse.
LinusLarrabee wrote:With the
And a bit of yellow cloth will fix that total lack of attention?
oldstrath wrote:LinusLarrabee
NO! It won’t fix anything. What a moronic suggestion. It will however, improve your chances of being seen. Anything that improves your odds improves your odds – regardless. This daft notion that anything that doesn’t completely eradicate accidents is not worth doing makes no rational sense.
LinusLarrabee wrote:oldstrath
NO! It won’t fix anything. What a moronic suggestion. It will however, improve your chances of being seen. Anything that improves your odds improves your odds – regardless. This daft notion that anything that doesn’t completely eradicate accidents is not worth doing makes no rational sense.— LinusLarrabee
So leaving aside the insults, we agree that wearing hiviz will not fix the problem, but you want to suggest that it will ‘improve the odds’. But your entire previous post was about how drivers are so braindead they don’t see things unless they are truly unusual. Which hiviz probably isn’t. So the change in odds is probably small, and a distraction from things that might actually help – lights bright enough to cause pain, and a policing environment that made drivers terrified of hitting a vulnerable road user.
Or even better, properly segregated infrastructure, so the braindeads can play in peace.
HarrogateSpa wrote:Your
I wasn’t debating you. I expressed my opinion as honestly as I could without feeling the need to sugar-coat it or to comply with this self-censorship, modern PC nonsense of not hurting anybody’s feelings. If that jarred you and made you think about what I wrote then it was the right thing to do. After that, I merely corrected the replies that misrepresented what I had said. I didn’t batter an eyelid when you attempted to indirectly call me a troll. But why should I? When people take offence at what somebody says it’s that person’s choice to be offended – I chose not to be. You can choose to be offended or not – it’s up to you, but I won’t be losing sleep if you are feeling offended.
I didn’t say anybody was braindead, but given some of the comments here I certainly thought it. Again, as with the other guy, this is a misrepresentation of what I actually said.
I don’t like using analogies, because most examples people use are pretty poor and usually not relevant. That said, I’m going to offer one in the context of discussing odds, because people are so bad at making rational decisions: roulette. Put a chip on any number from 1 to 36 and if you win you get back 36 times your stake. All things being equal the house and gambler should both break even over a long enough period of time. What gives the house the marginal advantage is the 0 and 00 slots. It’s only a marginal advantage but one that means the house always comes out on top. Rationally speaking, it’s not the size of the odds that matter, it’s whether they are in your favour or not. But, few people rationally analyse the odds – instead they go with their gut reaction, which rather than actually coming from their guts, comes from the same fast thinking system 1 part of the brain the drivers are using when driving on autopilot. If anything, the system 2 part of the brain is only called upon to invent a reason why their gut feeling is correct.
LinusLarrabee wrote:You
Do you cycle? Then I guess you aren’t fully “taking responsibility for your own safety” are you? If you were, you’d drive or get the bus.
This “taking responsibility for your own safety” nonsense really needs to die. You can’t “take responsibility” for something that is primarily under the control of others.
As for the cod-Darwinist rubbish – that just makes me think you are coming from the position of those who are scared of facing up to their own vulnerability.
Here we go again: Why this is
Here we go again: Why this is lazy, wrong-end-of-the-stick policing:
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/03/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-the-evidence-and-context/
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/01/hi-viz-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists-and-the-case-of-the-motorists-who-cant-see-where-theyre-going/
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/10/31/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-sensible-precaution-or-victim-blaming/
http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/06/09/of-slutwalks-and-hi-viz-the-politics-of-victim-blaming/
http://rdrf.org.uk/2012/03/01/sorry-mate/
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/17/do-bicycle-lights-make-any-difference-to-cyclist-safety/
Oh dear, the morons are back
Oh dear, the morons are back with their anti-everything, flat earth, Austrian economics, retarded view of the 6,000 year old earth. Seriously, how people take you wing-nuts seriously is beyond me.
LinusLarrabee wrote:Oh dear,
Austrian economics? That would be the type favoured by Ayn Rand types, the very types who go in for your kind of victim-blaming, yes? I think you have this back-to-front.
So long as it doesn’t impair
So long as it doesn’t impair your bike ride, it just seems to make sense to make yourself as visible as possible in my mind.
High-viz is an interesting one though – I’m not sure about the new LED lighting, but hi-viz definitely doesn’t work so well for the frequencies at which older fluorescent street lights operated and the new reflective fabrics that are coming on the market are way more effective.
As far as lights are concerned, it’s just stupid not to use them after dark and this time of year, it’s no hardship to leave a flashing rear light in the day time, too.
I wouldn’t criticise the
I wouldn’t criticise the police for giving crime prevention advice to people to reduce their chances of being a victim of burglary.
So why would I do so for providing advice and materials which may reduce people’s chances of being a victim of less than perfect driving?
I don’t think that advising people to fit window locks means that the police tacitly approve of burglary. So why would I think that advising cyclists on how to improve their visibility to other road users means they tacitly approve of poor driving?
And while I don’t think window locks will make my home impregnable, they may improve my chances. Equally wearing clothing that is light in colour, reflective or ‘hi-viz’ won’t render me invulnerable but it may improve my chances.
A persecution complex is however unlikely to do so…
So…thepolice doing the
So…thepolice doing the stops clearly saw the darkly clad cyclists in order to stop them…hmmm!
I will stop wearing black/dark kit (which has reflective detailing) when they stop selling black motor vehicles. Or when they invent a hi-viz that’s as slimming as black.
on the burglary point, there
on the burglary point, there is evidence that the police try and catch burglars, there is evidence that the legal system doesn’t give a **** about drivers and dangerous driving.
mrmo wrote:on the burglary
Exactly!
ChairRDRF wrote:mrmo wrote:on
If the official position of the RDRF is that cyclists shouldn’t do anything to help themselves however marginal that help might be, simply because those actions do not fit in with the RDRF agenda, then it seems to me they do not have cyclists interests at heart and rightfully deserve to be saddled with the modified acronym: Really Dangerous Retarded F***wits. See above if you feel offended.
The RDRF position seems to be akin to telling people not to even attempt to make healthy food choices because it is entirely the supermarket’s responsibility to ensure everything they sell you is healthy and then blaming government and regulators for not ensuring junk food is kept off the supermarket shelves. Meanwhile, in the real world, innocent people, who could have taken some action, are being unnessesarily harmed because they don’t know who to believe or what to do.
LinusLarrabee wrote:ChairRDRF
If the official position of the RDRF is that cyclists shouldn’t do anything to help themselves however marginal that help might be, simply because those actions do not fit in with the RDRF agenda, then it seems to me they do not have cyclists interests at heart and rightfully deserve to be saddled with the modified acronym: Really Dangerous Retarded F***wits. See above if you feel offended.
The RDRF position seems to be akin to telling people not to even attempt to make healthy food choices because it is entirely the supermarket’s responsibility to ensure everything they sell you is healthy and then blaming government and regulators for not ensuring junk food is kept off the supermarket shelves. Meanwhile, in the real world, innocent people, who could have taken some action, are being unnessesarily harmed because they don’t know who to believe or what to do.— mrmo
Drivel. First you lie about your opponent’s stance, then you invoke an analogy that doesn’t remotely work. Is that the best you can come up with?
I mean, where is your evidence that harassing one party (the vulnerable one) and constantly sending the message that if they get killed its their own fault, and that cycling (and even walking) is inherently dangerous requiring special equipment, preventing harm?
On the contrary the end result is likely to be to (a) dissuade people from cycling at all, and (b) encourage drivers in thinking its everyone else’s responsibility to stay out of their way. The end result is likely to be more mortality, not less (not least via heart disease and pollution effects).
In reality, this one stunt is quite a minor one, and not really worth getting so worked up about (and I think asking cyclists to use lights is fair, as that is actually the law) but what irritates me is your unthinking assumption that it must be a good thing and no-one can have doubts about it.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
From a document on the RDRF website:
It says it right there. RDRF view traditional road safety advice – which includes advising cyclists how to help themselves (helmets, hi-vis etc.)- as part of the problem. You also have the good Dr’s own comments on this very article to go along with. Not to mention the RDRF website which is full of similar comical nonsense.
LinusLarrabee
From a document on the RDRF website:
It says it right there. RDRF view traditional road safety advice – which includes advising cyclists how to help themselves (helmets, hi-vis etc.)- as part of the problem. You also have the good Dr’s own comments on this very article to go along with. Not to mention the RDRF website which is full of similar comical nonsense.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
You seem unable to let go of your straw man or to understand an obvious logical distinction. RDRF has a point – traditional ‘road safety’ does at least as much harm as good, because it promotes the view that its everyone else’s job to avoid being hit by motorists.
But you said that RDRF opposes cyclists wearing helmets, high viz etc. Not that they oppose nagging or harrasing cyclists to wear them. Those are two different things.
Now its possible they see voluntary high-viz wearing as setting a bad precedent in establishing a norm – in much the same way some feminists don’t like Muslim women voluntarily choosing to cover up – but that’s very much a secondary issue, and not one I’d go along with myself.
Well, you edited your reply
Well, you edited your reply whilst I was responding and added this:
I’ve never advocated harassing cyclists or said it’s their own fault if they are killed. But what you’ve eluded to here really is the cruz of the anti-movement isn’t it? This irrational belief that we cyclists are being harassed, prejudiced and discriminated against whenever people are trying to help. The result of which is, without any actual evidence, is to espouse crazy meritless theories and hypothetical scenarios that serve this warped agenda.
LinusLarrabee wrote:Well, you
Quite. Having returned to the comments on this it’s still evident that there are a few on here who really seem to have a persecution complex which blinds objectivity. It seems impossible for them to divorce one issue (police providing road safety advice) from another (the requirement for drivers to drive safely especially around vulnerable road users). The two are not incompatible.
LinusLarrabee wrote:Well, you
You come across as a shell-shocked person repeating the mantra “it’s ok, there’s no issue” over and over as psychological self defense.
Else, you’re clearly not riding on the same roads as we are. Or seeing the same court cases, or lack of, as we do.
Tinternet_tim
I’ll tell you what, I’ll leave you to your half empty glass of beer / juice etc.
So many are quick to critic as it’s so easy to do so. Wonder how many of those who are critical have actually tried to make a difference for others or a community? Maybe try it one day, it’s actually quite rewarding and it takes a bit of character as lots just want to prove you wrong and find problems!!!— FluffyKittenofTindalos
But ‘making a difference’ is not in itself a good thing. The important question is whether they are making things better or worse. I tend to think, on balance, badgering people about high-viz clothing makes things worse rather than better (I’m actually OK with it regarding lights).
I mean, I don’t actually know whether the stories about Islamists going around telling women to cover up or people to stop drinking are actually true or Daily Mail myth – but if it were true, would you applaud that as well on the basis that they are ‘making a difference for their community’?
Quote:You either take
Whether we cyclists like it or not, our lives are in the hands of drivers to a large extent.
Under every cycling article in a national newspaper, you get anti-cycling trolls using the line, ‘if you don’t do X (what I want you to do) you will die, and it’ll be your own fault/you’ll deserve it’. Thankfully, I haven’t seen it often under articles in road.cc, and if there’s a troll signed up here making such comments, as far as I’m concerned he/she is not welcome.
HarrogateSpa wrote:Quote:You
Oh dear. I didn’t say anyone deserves anything or that not doing ‘X’ will result in death. Clearly, you are unable to understand basic English. For your benefit and anyone else who is cerebrally challenged, I was expressing a lack of sympathy for people who deliberately avoid helping themselves out of a warped sense of morality that places all blame and responsibility on everyone but themselves – especially those people who spread dangerous ideas and actively encourage other people to increase the risk they are taking when cycling.
Quote:Clearly, you are unable
Your comment did follow exactly the formula I described, talking about ‘injury or worse.’
Your subsequent comment to me is personal abuse. If this site were moderated, it would be deleted. In any event, your style of debating is not something to be encouraged.
I just knew,on reading the
I just knew,on reading the headline but before reading the comments,that there would be the usual predictable boring bloody idiots on here banging on about victim blaming,slagging off the cops blah blah boring blah
Honestly,I don’t know how some of you lot manage to actually ride your bikes,weighed down as you are with your senses of grievance and chips on your shoulders.
Here’s how it works-the cops work to detect crime after its happened ,and at the same time to prevent crime before it does-if giving out some high viz either helps a cyclist to be seen on a dark night,or makes the cyclist think a bit about his own safety,then how can that be a bad thing ? Or would you rather they did nothing pro active and waited until its time to wash the body parts off the road before telling someone Daddy isn’t coming home for tea?
And before you say they should be tackling motorists-they are-day in,day out,seizing uninsured cars,crawling over the scrote wagons and generally trying to make a difference-just because you don’t see them doing it doesn’t mean it’s not going on-suppose though its always easier to to be a keyboard critic than actually getting out there and doing it
Bloody hell-drives me mad and is driving me off this forum
tonylen wrote:
Here’s how it
the point is it doesnt help at all, not one iota IMO, your opinion on its effectiveness may vary, but on the great big to do list of things they could do to help cyclists stay safe, its a long long way down the list of things that they could do that they should do, that would actually make an impact, would actually save lives.
but its really easy one to do, stand at a junction for a few hours with 50 hi viz vests, you can pick them up for about £1 each at builders trade. so total cost £50 + plus time, safety box ticked and everyones home by teatime…except maybe the cyclists who are still getting hit by cars/trucks/buses every day, but we dont want to fix that problem thats too tricky to solve and we cant do it for £50 quid, so lets hand out some more hi-vis & pretend we are doing something
yay for hi-vis!!! :”(
Makes sense to me. I’ve seen
Makes sense to me. I’ve seen cyclists with no lights at night or lights so feeble that you can’t see them at any distance.
Or lights blocked by their wheels, or bags, or mudguards or thir jacket hanging down over the saddle and hiding the light completely.
I’ve seen cyclists in fog (just) with no lights and wearing a fog coloured rain jacket.
I’ve even missed my riding mate on a dull day when he was all in black.
A bit of bright kit can’t harm you. We all know it’s not magic but it doesn’t harm your chances. With some drivers you could be on fire and they’re so dopy they’d not notice.
If the plod stopped me
If the plod stopped me because they didn’t like the clothing I was wearing then they would be told to go fuck themselves. They have no power to stop cyclists because they don’t like cyclists’ choices of clothing, in fact, it is an abuse of their powers.
Oh FFS….
Can we talk about
Oh FFS….
Can we talk about helmets for a bit instead…?
TheSpaniard wrote:Oh
Good point, was West Mercia advising the cyclists to wear helmets in addition to lights and hi viz?
‘there is evidence that the
‘there is evidence that the legal system doesn’t give a **** about drivers and dangerous driving.’
That is, of course, absolute shite.
andyp wrote:’there is
How many drivers are penalised after killing someone? There is the evidence, it is accepted that people will die and drivers will be allowed to continue on their way. It is accepted that depriving drivers of a licence may cause hardship so we have drivers on the road legally with 30 points on their licences. From personal experience the Police are not interested in accidents. My BiL was hit by a drunk driver and lost a leg as a result, it was the drivers second serious accident whilst drunk, he went on to have a third because he did not have his licence withdrawn. Look around at how many drivers are still using mobile phones, still speeding, driving recklessly, etc etc etc. I see no evidence of the police cracking down. I look at the recent court cases where judges declare that the highway code should be ignored and that driving at speed whilst blinded into a low sun is acceptable behaviour.
andyp wrote:’there is
Feel free to continue living in your delusional bubble. But you could try reading the news occasionally.
andyp wrote:’there is
Read this:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/inquest-into-death-of-michael-mason.html
Then try saying that again.
More pedestrians than
More pedestrians than cyclists are killed by motor vehicles. If high viz is so effective why aren’t the police handing it out and offering ‘advice’ to pedestrians as well?
My bright reflective clothing
My bright reflective clothing and flashing rear light didn’t stop the idiot driver who overtook me yesterday, with only inches to spare, who then immediately turned left across my path – while still partially alongside me. Emergency braking saved me – just. My very vocal response is unrepeatable here. Such breathtaking stupidity by car, van and bus drivers is now becoming a daily feature of my rides.
Cant win no matter what they
Cant win no matter what they try to do. Perhaps try doing our job will give people an insight into what we do have to deal with, such as the young 16 year old asylum seeker sold into prostitution by unscrupulous blokes or the 6 year old kid running through the snow last night because mammy was being filled in by her boyfriend again or sitting in the road for 50 mins holding a blokes head waiting for an ambulance after a cyclist decided to go for a gap that wasn’t there or better still sitting with an old lady trying to comfort her after some bloke pretended to be from the gas board and stole her jewellery. The list goes on and on and on.
But people on here would rather we stood at junctions stopping people who drive into the cycling box or are on their mobiles, but yes we do that as well when we get a chance… ~X(
stumps wrote:
But people on
all the other things mentioned are more important than that, but it seems there is often time to stop cyclists and advise them to wear the questionable high vis, studies have shown no difference in closes pass whether wearing bright or dark clothing, so the benefit is questionable. Strangely wearing ‘police’ or even ‘polite’ on a vest does result in fewer close passes, suggesting drivers are well aware of what they should do, but simply do what they think can get away with.
If there is time to ‘advise’ on hi vis then there is time to enforce driving laws
stumps wrote:Cant win no
Most of us appreciate all of the above good work that the police do.
There is enough work to be done enforcing real laws etc however that means coppers should not be playing fashion police and stopping people on bikes cos they’re not dressed like a Village People refugee.
I don’t expect the police to be stood on corners handing out hivis or stopping motorists in the (pointless) ASL. I would like them to target the drivers fiddling with phones whilst in traffic, queued or otherwise. Also target the speeding drivers. We don’t make enough use of cameras. I would replace every flashing speed sign with a cam or at least put one alongside.
Hivis is at best a distraction from the real issue which is inconsiderate/distracted or dangerous driving. Anti social driving is a big thing in the UK, and doesn’t just affect people on bikes, but everyone other than people in cars.
I don’t believe hivis makes a blind bit of difference and lots of research backs this up. If it’s light you should be able to see someone regardless of what they are wearing. If you cannot then you are not looking or going to fast to look properly. At night hivis doesn’t work. I am referring here to flouro colours, not retro reflectives. Most of the gear I wear after dark has reflective areas, and they are helpful.
stumps wrote:Cant win no
Not me for one: MY opinion is that the powers that be have cut road policing as an ‘invisible’ policing cut for a very long time.
Yes, the priorities are probably more or less correct given the number of available officers.
We have too few officers, esp on the roads.
stumps wrote:
But people on
Stumps, which is illegal, not wearing hi-viz or driving into a cycling box whilst using the phone?
The Police will never be able to enforce the law fully, as I have stated before the police can never enforce the law, the law only works because most people accept it. This isn’t a dig at the police just a factual statement that there are far more potential offenders, ie people, than there are police to enforce the law.
On the basis that the police can only do so much the question is what would be the most productive use of police time. Is it to say to a cyclist you should wear hi-viz? or is it to say to the driver you should not be on the mobile, speeding, dangerous driving etc.
I start from a standard risk pyramid scenario, PPE is always the last step. Look at the dangers and fix them first, the problem on the roads is predominately car drivers, and if you look at death rates HGVs are also a problem, put the effort into correcting behaviour and the roads become nicer places for residents, cyclists, pedestrians. Once drivers start playing by the rules, then feel free to chastise cyclists.
Are the police stopping
Are the police stopping drivers to let them know that there are cyclists on the road and should be using greater awareness when driving and taking measures not to run them over?
“In 2013, a University of
iso2000 wrote:
“In 2013, a
you are far more likely to be hit from behind or suffer a close miss from behind than by a driver turning across you…
Paul_C wrote:iso2000
Source?
iso2000 wrote:
when
I can see the car pulling out in front of me and even the one left hooking me. there might not be much time to react, but being hit from behind is totally outside the cyclists control.
Quote:Hivis is at best a
This.
Expecting cyclists to wear hiviz just gives the driver another get out clause. We’ve already seen the driver who got off lightly becasue the sun was in their eyes. buggered if I know why they didn’t just slow down…
It’s not just “everyone other than people in cars”, it’s on other car drivers too, it’s pedestrians on pedestrians, pedestrians on cyclists, cyclists on cyclists, neighbour on neighbour.
This is a selfish country where we expect to do what we want, when we want and have decided that when it all goes pear shaped that it MUST be the other person’s fault/responsibility.
we are not considerate towards others and we don’t want to take responsibility for our own selfish actions.
a few points 3.8Million
a few points 3.8Million drivers have points.
http://road.cc/content/news/44102-courts-let-nearly-half-motorists-who-accrue-12-or-more-penalty-points-continue
(note 43% of those with more than 12 are still driving)
c32Million Adults have licences.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/nts02-driving-licence-holders
two thirds of drivers ADMIT to speeding
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4241215.stm
I grant the numbers are from different years, and aren’t directly comparable.
I think they make the point well enough
The point I am trying to make, most drivers break the law and most drivers get away with it, and even if they do get caught they don’t get banned. Can you imagine any other crime where this would be so tolerated?
mrmo wrote:
most drivers
Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)
700c wrote:mrmo wrote:
most
Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)— mrmo
And yet, who is going to take charge and break this cycle of blaming the others?
Certainly not Evesham Police by handing out hiviz jackets to cyclists….
700c wrote:mrmo wrote:
most
Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)— mrmo
Do most cyclists though? Your evidence? and what your saying is the same problem, there is very little enforcement of traffic offences regardless. But if you want to save lives and make the environment better, where would you start? with the c2% of journeys that are by bike or the much larger percentage that are by car?
mrmo wrote:700c wrote:mrmo
Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)— 700c
Do most cyclists though? Your evidence? and what your saying is the same problem, there is very little enforcement of traffic offences regardless. But if you want to save lives and make the environment better, where would you start? with the c2% of journeys that are by bike or the much larger percentage that are by car?— mrmo
I was simply answering your question – Yes I can imagine a crime where law breaking would be so tolerated, and thats the example I gave. All sorts of road users break traffic laws. I’m not saying ‘most’ cyclists break this particular law
Nethertheless your points about traffic enforcement and the environment are valid too; I quite agree.
700c wrote:mrmo wrote:
most
Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)— mrmo
The argument of cyclist always running red lights assumes motorists are whiter than white and never speed, follow the highway code, dont enter bus lanes, always stop at red lights etc etc. its bullshit. Just as many motorists breaking the law as cyclists on any given day.
700c wrote:mrmo wrote:
most
Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)— mrmo
Many cyclists do break those laws, its true. But motorists do so at least the same rate. Just go to a major junction and watch the failed amber-gamblers. It would indeed be good if those laws were to actually be enforced on all.
Its true though that the only law cyclists seem to break far more than motorists is the one about having lights after dark. I don’t often see cars without lights on (though it does happen).
Let’s introduce Rapha
Let’s introduce Rapha High-Viz clothing into the debate and send the forum into the stratosphere! :))
Shades wrote:Let’s introduce
If they start giving out free rapha hi vis, tell me where, I’ll be straight round 😀
At this time of year, during
At this time of year, during daylight hours, the sun when it is out is generally low in the sky therefore high-viz clothing does not help, in fact it is more likely to be much worse at being seen by drivers as it reflects light and makes harder for you to be seen on the road. Reflective clothing in all conditions with a mix of some dark clothing for during the day would be better. Dark colours obviously absorb light hence making it easier for you to be seen in bright conditions. Same theory but opposite reason as to why for example combat soldiers do not wear dark clothing in the snow! I have and Exposure 6 pack and Joystick on the front of my bike and a Hope District + on the rear as well as Cateyes front and rear on flash mode. I run these day or night yet it doesn’t to make much difference for some drivers!!
I am an advanced motorcycle
I am an advanced motorcycle instructor and the hiviz debate is just as topical in our community, along with why do I need to have my headlight on. When I get a student who doesn’t believe in hiviz I don’t say anything.
I train with radios and its not long before up ahead there will be a motorcyclist or cyclist without hiviz or a light and one who does. Over the radio I ask them how many vehicles they can see. When we stop they are surprised at how much the light or hiviz made them earlier to see.
No it doesn’t stop someone making a close call, or pulling out in front of you, that will happen. But it does make you more visible and it definitely helps, especially in built up areas. Unfortunately statistics cannot prove that because no incident results.
wknight wrote:
No it doesn’t
The one study I seem to remember came to the conclusion that Hi-Viz is a waste of time, unless it can be mistaken for police, why? Because drivers simply don’t give a shit. It doesn’t actually matter when they see you they will overtake in the same manner regardless unless they believe that the overtake will have repercussions.
Solution is simply enforcement.
These campaigns are missing
These campaigns are missing the point completely and just reinforcing to motorists that they have an excuse if they hit a cyclist. SMIDSY but hey its your fault, where’s your hi viz jacket?
I think there is too much emphasis on hi viz and helmets and the like. Lights perhaps should be on at all times? LED lights now are as cheap as chips and stay bright for ages. But the biggest danger to cyclists are the motorists who on the whole are plain unaccepting that cyclists even exist let alone are out on the roads. We are hammered if we listen to music when we ride and we are legally forced to ride around with a bell! When has anyone avoided a crash with a car by ringing a bell? When has anyone avoided a crash with a car because he did not hear it coming? Car drivers on the other hand ride around in sound proofed boxes with multi speaker sound systems. The onus needs to be on getting the motorists to accept that bikes are there and accept that they are vulnerable and give them the space they deserve. Stupid police campaigns focussing in on minutiae like this one are only there to boost the promotion prospects of the organiser “Look what I did!” What about pedestrians crossing the road, are they asked to wear a helmet and an HV vest?
Glyn wrote:These campaigns
Hi Viz and helmets are different matters. I always make myself as visible as possible. Good lights even in the day and high viz (not necessarily flouro) definitely reflective at night. I don’t wear a helmet. They’re not very helpful on the road.
When the article says the police Stopped cyclists it implies that they were detained under some special power. What actually happened was that the police went and spoke to some cyclists to point out that they weren’t very visible. My latest SMIDSY was a van that pulled out in front of me despote flashing frot lights and high Viz. The driver immediately out and massively apologetic was in the local road club. It proved to me that in many cases the driver is not being malicious or anti cyclist. It’s just a fact that cyclists’ visible profile on the road size and speed is not as large as a lot of other vehicles. Ok you can sit on your rights not to do anything about that and you can take faux offence at the police for pointing that out to you and you can lambast motorists for not being the most arttentive at all times.
Or you can do what you can to shift the odds a bit in your favour on the smidsy.
There’s also a lot of bad philosophy flying about. I could easily say that hi viz and expensive flashing lights don’t work becaus that van driver / cyclists still didn’t see me . But you can never actually show or prove the number of times that it did work and the potential smidsy never happened.
Back to what is high viz. It doesn’t have to be the tabard or the yellow flouro just about thinking whether this dark coloured jersey I am about to put on the best thing I could wear on this dim day or is it more like camouflage.
I agree with you on lights. I have some very good ones. I defy anyone not to see them from the rear. (cyclist van driver not withstanding) I’d say from the front as well. But I doubt the cops would have wanted a chat with me . It’s more likely that the chat was with the unlit (no need for lights in the day!!) people wearing dark clothing.
you don’t have to take the police advice if you don’t want to. You don’t have to put window locks on your house or make sure the shed is padlocked. You can ignore them. So likewise you don’t need to get on their case just for offering some advice to vulnerable homeowners or vulnerable road users.
There’s no point going on about smidsys if you’re not even trying
oozaveared wrote:
When the
I’d find that a mite irritating, not least because it would be in the context of the millions of times I’ve seen the police ignoring dangerous or illegal behaviour by motorists.
Its a bit disingenuous to make a distinction between ‘detained’ and ‘asked to stop so the cop could have a word with you’. Everyone knows full well what hassle a police officer can put you through if they decide you aren’t being co-operative, so who is going to ignore such a ‘request’ and whizz off? Whether its a ‘special power’ or not is irrelevant, if a cop asks to speak to you you are going to co-operate (and force yourself to be polite).
Following on from my earlier
Following on from my earlier post:
I forgot to menton it was daylight at the time. The driver saw me, but it obviously didn’t enter her head that it was dangerous to pass so closely, or to overtake me on a left hand bend just before she wanted to turn left into a side road.
Telling cyclists to wear reflective clothing and helmets is all well and good, but it’s not tackling the root cause of the problem. Drivers are generally ignorant of the dangers and something needs to be done to make them more aware. Until that happens, more cyclists will be injured or killed.
Reggie Plate wrote:Following
This is essentially the issue….99% of near misses are just motorists not caring, paying attention or just generally with an attitude of cant be bothered waiting. Until an example is made motorists will continue with this approach.
Oozaveared, spot on as usual.
Oozaveared, spot on as usual. =D>
Oozaveared,
One issue, and
Oozaveared,
One issue, and this is a problem, if one cyclist wears hi-viz they are more visible. if two wear hi-viz they are more visible, BUT if motorists decide unconsciously to look for hi-viz and don’t see non hi-viz cyclists, hi-viz isn’t really helping.
I know that is badly worded!
The roads are full of animals, walkers, cyclists, etc. some people can wear hi-viz but you will never get everything painted up. At some point you have to get drivers to look. Part of the problem, in-fact most of the problem IMO, is that the human brain is actually incapable of processing most of what it sees.
Trying to keep traffic flowing, by fast intersections, by roundabouts, all you do is deprive people of the chance to look. Even in a busy urban environment where the gaps in traffic are small people don’t really look.
Actually, the irony is that
Actually, the irony is that cyclists riding on the road after dark sans lights, _does_ seem to be generally tolerated, notwithstanding one-off campaigns. And it irks me both as a cyclist and a pedestrian (I’d quite like to be able to see them coming when crossing the road).
I think it still just highlights the point that one-off gimmick campaigns solve nothing, and that road safety needs far more systematic change (most definitely including infrastructure!).
Don’t know if it is
Don’t know if it is connected, last two nights west Mercian have had a couple of cars and motorbikes pulling drivers on the A46 just south of Evesham. Quite a shock the way drivers change their behaviour when they might get pulled over.