Police claim “nobody wants to play Spot the Cyclist” so wear hi-vis…; Swap first class for bike storage?; Simon Cowell: Cycling my most creative time; Cav out of hospital; CS3 counter tops 2m; Pidcock joins Boxing Day CX party + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Police demand hi-vis wearing..."nobody wants to play Spot the Cyclist"
Nobody wants to play “Spot The Cyclist”!
Officers from Road Policing Maydown provided this cyclist on the Dunhill Road with a hi vis jacket to see him safely home. Especially at this time of year, make sure you are easily seen, as demonstrated in photo 2. #KeepingPeopleSafe pic.twitter.com/i8hE3eyfuw— NI Road Policing and Safety (@NIRoadPolicing) November 23, 2021
It’s the time of year when police forces and road safety groups think about what advice to give road users as the nights draw in. That tends to mean plenty of posts like the one above for the live blog…
Playing devil’s advocate, some might say it’s a non-issue, at worst a clumsily worded message that passes on a lesson most cyclists already know. However, there’s an even larger body of replies that see it as victim-blaming and all a bit pointless considering the amount of stories we see of cyclists wearing hi-vis being killed or seriously injured. Surrey Roads Policing Unit are at the forefront of that argument…the Northern Ireland Road Policing account is not.
— Girl on a Brompton & other bicycles🚴🏻♀️ (@girlonabrompton) November 24, 2021
The post asked riders to use hi-vis, saying “nobody wants to play Spot the Cyclist!” You could (quite uncontroversialy) argue it’s the duty of everyone on the road to play spot the cyclist at all times. Anyway, they said a hi-vis jacket had been handed out to the person they spotted without one. #KeepingPeopleSafe.
Reaction? Yeah, let’s do that…
You’re not keeping anyone safe with this rubbish about Hiviz.
— CyclingMikey tired of road crime. 🇪🇺🇳🇱🇿🇼 (@MikeyCycling) November 24, 2021
How about addressing the fact that so few drivers can be bothered to play “Spot The Cyclist” even in broad daylight?
— Richard Hallett (@hallettrichard) November 24, 2021
So how come the 3 times I’ve been knocked off my bike by drivers, I’ve been wearing hiviz and my bike lit up like a Christmas tree?
And yet I’ve never been knocked off when wearing black… 🤔🤔
— John Lamb (@sheffieldlamby) November 24, 2021
And it’s not just police forces having a pop…as the clocks went back author Philip Pullman took to social media to rant about “damn fools” speeding through Oxford on bikes without lights or hi-vis…
How many weeks until the clocks go forward again?
Gok Wan on the live blog...who'd have thought it?
Why don’t you stick to policing and leave the fashion advice to Gok Wan?
— Take That, Cyclists! (@TakeThatCycIist) November 24, 2021
Cav out of hospital after treatment for broken ribs and collapsed lung
Mark Cavendish is back at home after a couple of days in University Hospital of Ghent for treatment on injuries sustained on the final night of racing at the city’s famous Six Day track cycling event. Cav broke two ribs and suffered a collapsed lung after water on the track caused a pile-up.
But according to Het Nieuwsblad, the Manx Missile has now been released from hospital and is back home in Essex with his family. The Belgian outlet also reports contract extension talks with Deceuninck-Quick-Step should finally be sewn up this week…
Although, to be fair, we’ve been hearing that for weeks…
Two millionth cyclist crosses CS3 counter
London’s Cycleways are busier than ever – who was the two millionth cyclist on Cycleway 3 last night? https://t.co/cQpk3auNmP
— Will Norman (@willnorman) November 24, 2021
Were you the lucky two millionth?
"That expression ‘get back on your bike,’ with me, it was literal": Simon Cowell not put off by breaking back in e-bike crash
America’s Got Talent judge and full-time shiny TV personality Simon Cowell has spoken to the American press about his e-bike crash last year and says he had no doubts about… well, getting back on the bike…
“My most creative time is now when I cycle, because I cycle even though it’s an e-bike. I still got to pedal and I do about 10 miles a day… even though I had an accident on one. That was more an electric motorbike; these are called pedal-assist bikes, and they’re brilliant,” he told Extra TV.
“That expression ‘get back on your bike,’ with me, it was literal. I feel better than I did because I exercise so much more.”
Cowell underwent surgery last August after falling off an electric bike near his home in Malibu.
Pidcock vs MVDP vs Wout van Aert: Cancel all your Boxing Day plans
If you needed any more reason to stay in on Boxing Day and lie in front of the telly, Tom Pidcock will also be at Dendermonde for the CX World Cup event alongside Wout van Aert and Mathieu van der Poel. It’ll be the first time the trio have competed against eachother since the Tour of Flanders back in the spring…
Yesterday Liam told us the race may well be the highlight of his Christmas…any doubt has probably just been removed…
Pedal-powered paramedics
Cycle #paramedic Amelia is covering the West End today, fully embracing the chilly weather (at least its dry), our pedal powered paramedics work all year/all weathers cycling to emergencies, helping patients. #thursdaymorning #TeamLAS #London #Buckinghampalace #Traffic pic.twitter.com/FQhvAIJ5ko
— LAS Cycle Team (@LAS_CycleTeam) November 25, 2021
Anti-LTN campaigner has a new target...autumn
Local opposition party to remove Autumn if voted in come May 2022. pic.twitter.com/X8PK0X8I7n
— Paul O’ Brien (@PaulOBrienArch) November 24, 2021
Watch out, autumn. They’re coming for you. Moving on from anti-LTN videos and social media posts to…falling leaves.
PIERER Mobility AG acquires Felt Bicycles
As part of its “strategy to assume a leading global role in the bicycle sector” PIERER Mobility AG has announced the acquisition of Felt Bicycles. PIERER Mobility AG will take control of the Felt brand assets, business assets in Europe and North America as well as the integration of the global workforce into PIERER E-Bikes GmbH’s team structure.
“The acquisition of Felt Bicycles fits perfectly with the overall strategy of PIERER E-Bikes – that of becoming a global player in the field of two-wheel mobility, with both electric and non-electric bikes, across all cycling categories,” CEO Stefan Pierer said. “With Felt we are able to expand our bicycle portfolio and also strongly enter the North American market with an established, high-performance brand. The company is also heavily involved in competition, which brings an extra attraction for us.”
Is swapping first class for bike space the answer to UK trains' cycle storage problem?
On a @GWRHelp train from Wales to London. There are 4 cycle spaces on the entire train – which can seat 600+. But it does have 2 First Class coaches.
Here’s an idea, let’s bin First Class and have a bicycle coach. Cycling needs to be easier. The rich can sit with everyone else. pic.twitter.com/QGkITefcNA
— Lawrence loves nature (@endhunting) November 24, 2021
Lawrence has certainly got people talking with his suggestion for making the UK’s rail networks accessible to cyclists…get rid of first class and install proper bike storage areas. It’s the rail equivalent of taking a lane for a segregated cycle path…
The idea came as Lawrence travelled on a train from Wales to London with more than 600 seats, two first class coaches, but just four bike spaces. His conclusion: “Let’s bin first class and have a bicycle coach. Cycling needs to be easier. The rich can sit with everyone else.”
Something like ScotRail’s West Highland Line carriages with space for 20 bikes, perhaps?
Others pointed out the need for something more accessible too, meaning bikes don’t have to be hoisted up into an impractical hangar. Fine if you’re strong enough to strap your 6kg carbon racer in, but what about heavier bikes? Panniers? Cargo bikes?
Here’s what people have been saying…
This is hopeless. The UK *has* a cycle rail working group but it doesn’t appear to have been able to deliver best practice outcomes.
Bikes need to stay on their wheels. This cubicle is like trying to keep a bicycle in your shower. Time to readjust DfT criteria to be more useful.
— George Weeks (@GeorgeWeeks2014) November 25, 2021
This cycle space is completely inappropriate. No bike with a basket would fit in there, let alone a child seat. And you can’t upend your bike while holding your child and your luggage. If like me you’re over 60 and under 5 ft, you’ll struggle to upend and fasten your bike at all. https://t.co/vl318tbOZN
— Catherine Rowett 💚 Ex-MEP (@catherinerowett) November 25, 2021
Thoughts?
Tadej Pogačar is (officially) the best cyclist in the world
You probably didn’t need to hear French cycling magazine Vélo and sports newspaper L’Equipe awarded Tadej Pogačar their Vélo d’Or prize to know he’s the best cyclist in the world…
In fact when we chucked up our poll on the live blog it was Tadej on top (by two votes).
Unlike our poll, however, there was no space for Mark Cavendish in the top three. The award’s pannel decided Vuelta winner and Olympic gold medallist Primož Roglič deserved second place, and gave third to Wout van Aert. Poor Julian Alaphilippe. The two-time world champ does take home the consolation prize of being France’s best rider.
What odds Pog wins again next year?
Images that hurt to look at...
Don’t forget to oil your chain in all this wet weather we’re having, people. I can’t stress this enough. Oil it. pic.twitter.com/xQ71BXgYLm
— Neil “Cancel TMX Pipeline” Winkelmann (@winkybiker) November 24, 2021
A bit of WD40 and some elbow grease will sort you out…
25 November 2021, 09:01
25 November 2021, 09:01
25 November 2021, 09:01
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
136 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Trust me Callum, if you'd grown up watching the Tour in the 1980s, as I did, you would not be hankering after those long flat stages that weren't even as exciting as watching paint dry, it was more like listening to paint dry. As for the supposed benefits of those long TTs, what did they give us? Indurain winning five Tours in a row without winning a single road stage in any of them. As McT says below, you simply can't Pogacar-proof a course and we just have to accept, and enjoy, the fact that we are watching the greatest GT cyclist of all time. Anyway I think it has been a great Tour so far, yes no enormous drama about the inevitable winner (though of course Vinegaard and now Lipowitz have shown us that anything can happen) but just about every day has had a fascinating plot and multiple subplots. Some time in the future there will be another Indurain-style winner, playing it cautious, following moves, making incremental gains and winning without ever lighting up the race and we'll be saying I wish the old days of Pogacar making those spectacular solo breaks were back.
The main issue is the layout of the stages with the bigger climb first then a shallow finish climb. It means pogacar can get a gap at the top of the big climb and then stretch 10-15 seconds to a minute plus at the finish over smaller riders like Vingegaard. A summit finish on the hardest climb might not lead to the most exciting racing but equally would keep the gaps closer. I totally agree with the TT kms though, they should have 60+km tts in the grand tours.
@MaxiMinimalist I mean, that statement makes it sound like they had reason to think those two are doping. Either they didn't follow procedure and are making shit up to cover themselves up or something is going on.
Quite possibly. But the changeover time loss would be a bit more significant if it was done on the flat just after the downhill when the riders are travelling faster, the deceleration, changeover and acceleration loss could easily be around 30 seconds, which is quite a lot of a 34 minute effort.
So Skoda have taken a leaf out of Dung-Old Karen Taco Trump's book and are re-naming something when they have no authority to do so?
@Mr Blackbird Fair points, though I was wondering if doing the climb and descent on a standard bike and swapping to TT for the flat section would have been worth it? Certainly quite a few riders seemed to be having handling difficulties maintaining the best line on the descent with their TT machines.
No. The climb wasn't severely steep and allowed a reasonable speed to be maintained on a TT bike, his bike handling skills on road or TT bike are outstanding for the descent and on a road bike he would have lost a lot of time on the flat last 9k section. Terrific performance by him though!
Would he have performed better on his normal bike?
the National Bus and Rail Union told the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) the following month, saying the requirements (making the cyclist scum wear helmets and HiViz) would, “make the roads a safer place, as it would make potential hazards easier to spot.” Nothing to do with driver behaviour then? Stagecoach is even putting intimidating threats against cyclists on the side of the buses now! ttps://upride.cc/incident/px60beo_stagecoach41-closepass/
.......the government was focused on the “enormity of the e-scooter problem” Just wait until they find out how absolutely effing gigantic the car problem is. The whole thing is just motornormativity at government level, and while Ciarán Cannon talks sense, Seán Canney is fecking eejit.
136 thoughts on “Police claim “nobody wants to play Spot the Cyclist” so wear hi-vis…; Swap first class for bike storage?; Simon Cowell: Cycling my most creative time; Cav out of hospital; CS3 counter tops 2m; Pidcock joins Boxing Day CX party + more on the live blog”
The black car blends into the
The black car blends into the background quite well.
Dashcam photo – looks dark enough that the cyclist should have a rear light on. I think that would be visible from a greater distance than a bit of yellow.
Agree, having daytime lights
Agree, having daytime lights rather than bright clothing is preferable. This time of year I prefer cloudy skies and gloomy days to bright sunshine when I’m always bothered that drivers will suffer from glare and not see you regardless of what you’re wearing.
I had to read that three
I had to read that three times as I thought I’d missed the gotcha. But no, all sensible!
I agree too, but it is nice to ride in the sunshine this time of year. So I will try and pick a route that avoids roads where I would be riding directly into the sun and use daylight visible rear flashing lights.
HoarseMann wrote:
Wot? Was that deliberately missing El Garage opening the door to let the “sun was in my eyes” defense in?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Hehe, it’s no defence, but I’m acutely aware how careless and cavalier some drivers are when confronted with glare from the sun. It’s sensible to consider the risk and take steps to reduce it where you can.
HoarseMann wrote:
I try to reduce risk but I’m also conscious that the main factor isn’t in my control. Apart from just not going cycling on a road…
I’m also aware that “making sure they have no excuses when it comes to court” also is mosly a ritual with mostly “magical” value. Apparently “I didn’t see them” or “I don’t remember” is a defense. So what I wear / don’t wear will have no bearing. If you don’t wear it they’ll say it’s your fault, if you do they’ll say it wasn’t their fault.
I’d rather we ran ALL our transport systems with regard to the hierarchy of controls of hazards e.g. eliminate the hazard (move the vehicles somewhere else / fewer or no vehicles), isolate people from the hazard (protected infrastructure), administrative controls (better checks on / enforcement for drivers) and right at the bottom PPE.
yep, there’s only so much you
yep, there’s only so much you can do. I’m probably a bit unusual as I now try and observe every single overtaking vehicle in my mirror, to check they look like they’ve seen me. Generally I feel a bit more in control that way, but it’s not perfect and was mentally exhausting until I got used to doing it.
Nefarious drivers “Awesome
Nefarious drivers “Awesome low winter sun in my eyes! Time to add to the cyclist hit count!”
I’m happy to play Spot the
I’m happy to play Spot the Cyclist. I can see cyclists in all the photos. What do I win?
Agreed though, on grey days I’ll use my Blinky Lights of Visibility (BLOV) front and back.
Also the cyclist in the first photo – shouldn’t the advice be “stay out of that murder strip”.
IanMK wrote:
Oh, I see what you did there! luv it!
We’re going to need a new
We’re going to need a new dictionary.
“Nobody wants to play spot
“Nobody wants to play spot the cyclist” indeed…judging by this morning’s ride across London, even with a Proviz jacket, bright yellow helmet and three lights on the back and two on the front people were going out of their way to avoid playing spot the cyclist.
Rendel Harris wrote:
It is worrying that the roads police can promote a line that it is not the responsbility of people driving to look out for other roads users while moving big heavy metal boxes around at speed.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Sadly, it has a bit of a habit of victim-blaming. A few tweets earlier, it tweeted about half of motorcycle collisions involving drivers… so motorcyclists, watch out…!
Shameful.
GMBasix wrote:
The people commenting on their twitter have a habit of victim blaming too.
Having a discussion with one whose point is that drivers that run into cyclists who have lights and hi-viz do so because of this “Its psychological. We all do it. Even you. Never found yourself staring at something especially when you aren’t 100%”
Apparently they don’t want to “argue” with me when I asked them whether or not they thought people who were not at 100% should be behind the wheel of a 2 tonne weapon.
TriTaxMan wrote:
They’re right. It’s true. Which is why driving a car should be regarded as something that takes attention all the time.
I recall a motorcycling friend saying that riding a motorcycle for any sigificant distance should make you tired from the concetration required to stay alive. The same is true of driving, in order to keep other people alive. We shouldn’t believe the hype that a car should deliver you there in a relaxed state… you should be focused enough on the job that you’re not boasting about having driven 5 hours straight; you should know that after 2 hours you need a break, or you’re not doing it right.
GMBasix wrote:
That was the point I tried to make to the person but they just accused me of being argumentative when I asked whether or not they thought it was acceptable for people to be driving if they are not able to concentrate on the road.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Indeed, no matter how well illuminated a cyclist is, whether it be lights, Hi-Viz, reflective clothing etc, some drivers will simply not see you, or as is more likely will see you but dehumanise you and move you into the category of “bloody cyclist” and ignore you or attempt to bully you.
For the rest of my brother’s
For the rest of my brother’s life he is going to be dealing with the effects of a partially crushed vertebrae after being hit by an off duty police officer while cycling home from work. It was a bright sunny afternoon and he happened to be wearing a luminous yellow running shirt. That’s right, even police don’t see you when you are “visible” and in perfect weather conditions.
squired wrote:
Sorry to hear that.
Unfortunately it is all too common. If as a cyclist you do everything right and get struck by a vehicle, the driver will generally be absolved of most things as it was an “accident” but if you fail to wear Hi-Viz or have lights it is your fault because you never made yourself visible to the driver. Either way it wasn’t the drivers fault.
Provided a high vis coat and
Provided a high vis coat and helmet my arse. Publicity shot IMO.
VIPcyclist wrote:
Yeah, I can believe they drive around with a load of hi vis jackets in various sizes to swap with cyclists existing dark jackets. (note he is not wearing the blue fleecy jacket under the hi vis)
Also what cyclist rides a road bike in trainers? (except me when I just popped to the cash point last night)
wycombewheeler wrote:
Hope you had you hiviz on…..
Trusted my lights
Trusted my lights
wycombewheeler wrote:
I can’t believe that you survived! how on earth were SUV drivers going to see you through their phones??
Don’t worry. It was on solid
Don’t worry. It was on solid so they could judge the distance
And that’s the thing, surely?
And that’s the thing, surely? Doesn’t matter if you are wearing hi-viz if your bike has the required reflectors and lights (switched on, obviously) on it…
brooksby wrote:
FTFY
brooksby wrote:
well it has a rear reflector, because it’s part of the mudguard
The first pic is the cyclist,
The first pic is the cyclist, the second and subsequent ones are a totally random person from a publicity shot.
VIPcyclist wrote:
I’m going to ride around in drak clothing just so the police give me a jacket. I like free stuff.
might have to dig out an
might have to dig out an oldie from the archives for NMOTD when a car driver completely fails to see me despite my front light and ProViz Reflect 360 jacket and runs into me when I am stopped waiting to turn across the road.
Edit – maybe not – The resident Troll would be upset that I swore after the car hit me
Had similar, although I had
Had similar, although I had stopped as NG suggests we should do, to let a SUV out from a side road. Despite lights and bright jerseys, she cut the corner and rode over me. Prompted me to buy cameras after she claimed the opposite. Luckily Garmin data and two drivers as witnesses countered her daydream.
I did let oout quite a stream of invictive language as I lay on the floor though, sorry Nige.
rct wrote:
In my case I registered a complaint to get the road layout changed as it is frankly dangerous. On the approach the road bears 90 degrees to the left, and to get to the cycle lane/bridge you need to turn right (which is ostensibly straight on).
https://www.google.com/maps/@55.0801059,-3.6275456,3a,75y,119.66h,78.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1se2o0GQh4FsCBH28txO3H9g!2e0!5s20170501T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Unfortunately drivers have a habit of cutting the corner because they simply don’t expect anyone to be turning right at that point which is why I was hit. Admittedly it was a glancing blow and I was able largely to move me and the bike out of the way.
Well it seems to be your
Well it seems to be your fault for not crossing the road to get to the small cycle path that lets you give way to all traffic to cross the road again……
TriTaxMan wrote:
And I notice that the car coming round the bend on the streetview is over the white lines…
Ref: high viz.
Ref: high viz.
This all shows just how endemic cycling ignorance is, and how even many of those who are there to uphold the traffic laws simply don’t ‘get it’. They’re probably the same coppers who take to social media to highlight that females shouldn’t be wearing low cut skirts at night since they are just ‘begging for it’…
bobbinogs wrote:
Well yes. Those particular constables had to be “redeployed” from community safety to road police as they were getting too many complaints for even the Police to ignore……
Sounds like constable Savage
Sounds like constable Savage (but with misogyny) carrying on as usual to me…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Lol, something that would definitely not see airtime these days….
Anyone refusing to play spot
Anyone refusing to play spot the cyclist is also refusing to play spot the pedestrian, spot the child, spot the dog off leash, spot the motorcyclist, or, as it’s collectively known
SPOT THE FACKING HAZARD
JFC it’s what the entirety of driving can be summed up as. If you are aware of the conditions and driving appropriately you are highly unlikely to collide with anything, and if you do (cos you are driving at an appropriate speed) it’s highly unlikely you’ll hurt anyone/thing.
Who the fack employs these kno88ers????
Oh yeah. We do…..
Look at a cyclist riding
Look at a cyclist riding along the road in Hi Vis and it’s like a poke in the eye, isn’t it?
It’s a no brainer and I think it’s only a matter of time until Parliament pass legislation to make Hi Vis compulsory.
BUT
Investigations are not clear that there are real world benefits in terms of accident reduction in wearing Hi Vis.
One study has shown that we may be becoming “Hi Vis Blind”, the old “When everyone is wearing Hi Vis no one is wearing it”, may be true.
Photographic evidence does not always show the real picture (pun). No camera has the same visual responses as the human eye, and intelligent cameras try to identify the subject of a picture and adjust the settings accordingly.
Motorists and Pro motoring organisations like it because they (wrongly) think it relieves them of having to look out for cyclists, and in the event of a collision they can blame any cyclist who was not wearing Hi Vis. When 50%+ cyclists are wearing Hi Vis the others can be described as negligent.
Being forced to wear Hi Vis would result in a drop in the number of cyclists on the road at a time when it is Government policy to increase active travel.
Watch out for the legislation, popular with motorists, and reduces “accidents” by getting cyclists off the road.
As I said it’s a no brainer.
Cycloid wrote:
I think it may well be true with DRLs, too, sadly. Once upon a time, cars could be readily identified because they were car-shaped. At night, most of them were lit, and with lights that were pale enough yellow that you could class them as white. And the emerging LEDs for cycles stood out as distinctively different. Now, LEDs and DRLs are so common, with DRLs or other marker lights being used along with headlamps, so cycles again become invisible to indifferent drivers who are now triggered only by shiny things.
Totally Agreed
Totally Agreed
The whole thing is a mess.
I have said before “As a cyclist you are competing with your background and other vehicles to be seen”.
But you will not be seen if the motorist doesn’t look.
Adding DRLs into the equation means that cyclists without lights are competing against motorists with lights for the attention of other motorists.
Same as helmets. Benefit
Same as helmets. Benefit seems obvious, until you start thinking about it…
If they are wearing Hi Vis
If they are wearing Hi Vis they won’t get knocked off their bikes.
If by a million to one chance they do get knocked off then they won;t be hurt ‘cos they are wearing helmets.
Problem solved!
Cycloid wrote:
I don’t understand how that could be enforced – the police would have to look out for cyclists that are effectively invisible to car drivers, so how would the police see them?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Just arrest all cyclists who’re hit by cars – they’ve proven they’re invisible. Simples!
Back in the day, vehicles
Back in the day, vehicles generally did not use headlights whilst driving at night under street lights on urban roads, only sidelights and drivers would actually flash you to turn them off. Since a campaign to make it ‘safer’ and everybody now uses headlights it just means seeing cyclists and pedestrian at night under street lights is so much harder when backlit.
Cycloid wrote:
That’s the point, it’s dogma. Viz falls under PPE (in spite of the fact it doesn’t actually protect in any way, like say toetectors do) and is therefore the last, (rather than the first) thing that you should invoke for safer roads .
it’s interesting too to consider that whereas PPE (lids, lights, viz etc) are frequently brought up as priority to be legislated, very rarely are the other controls in the hierarchy (AKA the ones that actually work).
Elimination – Extraordinarily difficult short of banning motor vehicles from roads (oh if only)
Isolation – eg separated networks
Controls (mechanical) – eg speed restrictors
Controls (regulatory) – eg Tighter controls on who is allowed to drive, and how (eg adherence to RTA)
PPE – plastic hats, happy colours, blinky lights
Re: Two millionth cyclist. It
Re: Two millionth cyclist. It sure looked like at least twice the counter didn’t change / detect the passing cyclist. So cycle journeys could be a magnitude of 5-10 % more on that really small sample size.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
No Hiviz. See how important it is?….
I’m glad Simon Cowell admits
I’m glad Simon Cowell admits the vehicle he got injured on is an Electric Motorbike. Lets hope the press pick that up more.
I got into an argument once
I got into an argument once with the editor of French cycling magazine “200”, Alain Puiseux, when they published a 17page victim-blaming article on high-viz and whatnot a few years back.
One caption under an image of high-viz-wearing cyclists said: Sometimes you have to choose between being an ugly cyclist or a dead cyclist.
He didn’t even know what victim-blaming was and stopped replying after my second e-mail…
“Hi viz” isn’t even the right
“Hi viz” isn’t even the right advice if you did want to go down that path of thinking. Dayglo yellow and green become camouflage under early spring foliage in bright daylight, colours can become completely dark under different streetlighting. Being conspicuous is more appropriate and in fog that might mean wearing black!
Far better advice would be to remind all road users, but especially those with larger vehicles travelling at more than 20mph, that every journey involves “spot the cyclist / runner / pedestrian / child / dog / cat / badger / log in the road / etc” and at this time of year you had better be on top of your game.
I have taken to wearing lurid
I have taken to wearing lurid pink and orange tops for the summer to avoid blending in with the foliage.
Contrast is important and colours are useless against a bright background as they just appear as black.
Ban grey/silver cars in the fog though !
Watch out for the dahlias!
Watch out for the dahlias!
Mungecrundle wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
Oi! what about the squirrels?? Don’t forget the squirrels!!! Tell ’em about the squirrels!!!….
Captain Badger wrote:
Oi! what about the squirrels?? Don’t forget the squirrels!!! Tell ’em about the squirrels!!!….— Mungecrundle
It really grinds my gears
It really grinds my gears when I get stuck behind a red squirrel driving slowly
IanMK wrote:
Don’t grind, switch to lower gears.
Side benefit – more torque if the squirrel gets stuck in your wheel / mudguard.
IanMK wrote:
Thing is, I’m not seeing any
Thing is, I’m not seeing any cars with illegally tinted windows being pulled over.
Sriracha wrote:
No doubt that’s a,…. now what’s the usual excuse,…. “civil matter” or some such….
Of course dark tints get
Of course dark tints get drivers pulled over. Good opportunity to have a look inside as well.
Drinfinity wrote:
I shall take you at your word. It just seems odd that I see so many…..
The same with cars with
The same with cars with darkened / anti flash registration plates, changed reg plates and any number of illegal tamperings to not be stopped by a speed camera, there are so many out there that they seem to not be stopped much. The latest one is not having a front number plate or having a shitty little sticker instead which seems to be on faster sports cars imported from places where front number plates are not needed.
If such cars were frequently
If such cars were frequently stopped we would not be seeing their numbers increase. Drivers would have got fed up with constantly having the mythical £1000 fine imposed. Isn’t happening.
Poor thing – somebody’s
Poor thing – somebody’s stolen their number plate, too.
Pity that, becasue they’re reflective and help to prevent collisions(!)
There is a man who lives up
There is a man who lives up the road, he has a very expensive top model Range Rover Vogue. My mate who lives opposite him has reported him for no tax. He is still driving the car round, the tax expired December last year. It seems the police and DVLA couldn’t give a toss.
I take the view you have to
I take the view you have to wear a jacket, gloves and overshoes at this time of year, why not choose hiviz? Bad drivers cannot make the excuse they could not see me!
Because they’re ugly. Because
Because they’re ugly. Because they don’t work. Because it will then be used against us if we don’t. Because this shit never stops anyway.
marmotte27 wrote:
Lack of hiviz can be used against us anyway – see Highway Code Rule 59.
I’d better get 2 coats then.
I’d better get 2 coats then.
hirsute wrote:
Shouldn’t be necessary.
mdavidford wrote:
surely that’s no good, he wants to use it outside. No cars in the velodrome.
Exactly. It’s just another
Exactly. It’s just another stick to beat cyclists with, along with 2 abreast, road tax, red lights, cycling on pavements etc etc etc.
Any story regarding cyclists is always met with the same hatred, it is quite depressing.
I think the issue here,
I think the issue here, though, is that campaigns like this do give drivers the excuse that they can’t see cyclists.
By all means, make it easier for them and protect yourself further (I do too) but let’s not absolve them – as those responsible for the potential harm – of their reasonable obligation to pay proper attention and drive according to the conditions.
Ethel Aardvark wrote:
Bad drivers regularly hit, maim and kill cyclists even though they’re wearing hi-viz and they probably do make the excuse that they didn’t see the cyclist.
Mandatory hi-viz is just victim blaming and is yet another distraction from actual attempts to improve road safety (hopefully towards Vision Zero). If we want to introduce new laws to ensure decent visibility of cyclists, then how about mandating polarised windscreens/sunglasses for all drivers so that they can no longer use the excuse of “sun in my eyes”?
Ethel Aardvark wrote:
To reverse the usual trope, bad drivers having no excuse doesn’t help you if you’re dead. Ultimately I don’t want to be “right” I want to be alive, uninjured, and unscared.
Most of us do have viz to some degree. The point is it makes no difference and is a distraction a far as safety policy is concerned. Bad drivers will hit you anyway. Good drivers are already aware and driving safely.
But at this time of year, a
But at this time of year, a responsible cyclist will have lights on their bike (and switched on!). Just like motorists. We don’t expect all motorists to paint their cars in hi-viz colours, we rely on their having working lights on their cars…
Remember Micheal Mason?
Remember Micheal Mason? Killed in Regent Street central London whilst wearing hi vis and with lights on his bike. The driver was not charge with any offence; the police agued that the hi vis and lights contributed to his not being seen against the brightly lit background of the shops. RIP Micheal
https://www.cyclinguk.org
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict
Thanks for the link. Sorry he
Thanks for the link. Sorry he was not wearing hi vis but he had lights.
Yes, there was another case
Yes, there was another case in Wales where a councillor (I think) was killed by a driver who’s defence was the high vis yellow against the backlit trees made him invisible.
https://road.cc/content/news
https://road.cc/content/news/hi-vis-jacket-blended-trees-277019
https://road.cc/content/news/driver-convicted-cyclists-death-277111
cbrndc wrote:
Worth noting that Mick was not sporting happy colours (the police made a song and dance about this), BUT was adequately and legally lit.
In short, he did nothing wrong.
The driver (Gail Purcell) hit him from behind, so on a brightly lit road with his lights and her headlights, he would have been perfectly visible for some time.
Purcell failed to see him (her admission…), in spite of Mick being directly in front of her. The dent in her car was towards the right of teh bonnet, in front of the driving position.
She hit him so hard that 7 witnesses stated that they saw him in the air.
Purcell stood by her story of “I don’t understand what happened” throughout the Police investigation and subsequent private prosecution.
Captain Badger wrote:
She thought it was far more likely that a sack of potatoes had fallen from the sky than that she had driven into/over the cyclist in front of her, IIRC…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27603938
I’m sure I remember a case where a lollipop lady was killed and the same thing was said
Plenty of hate the police I
Plenty of hate the police I see. Wearing light coloured or reflective gear at night is a no brainer for everyone really but I guess some people cant stand it. I see a lot of people walking dogs now where the dog has an LED collar. I guess their civil liberties are being infringed as well.
nicmason wrote:
The dogs’? Wait – I thought they hated postmen, not policemen?
nicmason wrote:
Don’t worry all. Nic’s here to defend incompetence and victim-blaming with some whataboutery
I think nic conveniently
I think nic conveniently manages to miss the point that even some police (Surrey RPU) are critical of the ‘advice’ given out. It really underlines the point that it would appear the one ‘set’ of people ill-equipped to give out decent advice to cyclists is the police as they generally don’t seem to have a clue…and just re-enforce the belief that any RTC is a cyclist’s fault, unless proved otherwise (note, a real investigation will only be undertaken in the event that it was a policeman cycling).
nic – you do know that LED
nic – you do know that LED collars are lights? Not hi-viz?
brooksby wrote:
And not advocated by some lazy police as a panacea to road violence….
Sorry, am I showing my hatred in that statement of fact?….
nicmason wrote:
at night, light or dark clothing makes little diference.
reflectives help a lot, as do lights
In low light conditions bright colours can help as can lights, reflective not so much
in bright light reflectives do nothing bright or dark clothing does little, light s doa bit.
conclusion – use lights
But drivers should be looking out anyway. What about all the schools that insist pupils wear black (or navy) coats, trousers, bags and scarves? Should drivers not worry about hitting these school children that can’t be seen. Or perhaps should they pay a little more attention to what’s outside of their box?
wycombewheeler wrote:
Don’t get me started! (too late, she cried,as aloft she waved her wooden leg)…
The cubs’ school stipulates dark uniform (well, okay) but also dark coats and bags…..
Ok from my driving experience
Ok from my driving experience even light clothing is better than dark though not as good as hi vis. headlights pick that out. Lghts are not a panacea . One persons light is another persons barely visible red ember hanging in some random spot on the back of a bike or person.
nicmason wrote:
You are mistaking being critical of the police, with hatred of the police. Hi viz has its uses but they are not the panacea that some police forces think they are. What it does is detract from the real problem which is that lax driving skills have been accepted as the norm, where a driver has to provide an excuse, any excuse as a method to absolve them from looking properly
Imagine a defendant in court being charged with a stabbing…. do you think they would get away with a defence of “If my victim had been wearing a stab proof vest they wouldn’t have been so badly injured therefore its their fault not mine”? No of course not.
TriTaxMan wrote:
In as wide an area around my home as I consider my stomping ground, there is one, mile-long section in which it is genuinely hard to spot unlit pedestrians and cyclists at night. It is a semi-rural, wide, single-lane (in each direction) carriageway, lined with trees and a footway on one side, and LED street lamps which fight the tree canopy for space. It has a 40mph limit in place. In dark, heavy rain conditions, the lighting creates a dismal, dappling effect with sharply contrasted shadows on the margin of the carriageway and the footway. It is very difficult to be sure that there is nothing there using normal (halogen) headlamps.
I’ve found a solution, though.
Do I complain that all road users without high viz are foolish? No.
Do I switch on my fog lamps and mainbeam to dazzle everybody but at least I can see, right? No.
I adjust the pitch wheel of my headlamps up a bit, and I slow down until I can be sure of my path ahead within my ability to stop. (I also move further right, because on this particular road, that’s an option.)
Everywhere else, it doesn’t matter how dark or wet it gets, I can see people. It helps, perhaps, that I am looking for them. I anticipate them. They may not be there, but I am ready for them. It’s not that difficult, but you have to decide to do it.
Just because they limit is 40
Just because they limit is 40 doesn’t mean you should drive that fast if the conditions indicate otherwise.
“and I slow down until I can
“and I slow down until I can be sure of my path ahead within my ability to stop.”
You mean, you sensibly drive
You mean, you sensibly drive to the conditions? Gosh, imagine if all drivers who sat and passed a test to grant them the privilege of driving a 2 ton metal box thought the same way? Think of the lives saved.
So Nic, advocating cycling at
So Nic, advocating cycling at night only in light coloured/ reflective gear? And no lights, (even though the dogs you mentioned have lights and not Hi-Viz reflective material).
Anyway, according to one of your own trolls who you normally support, a Police Sgt offering advice to someone should get off their, <checks notes> “donut eating fat arse” and go out and stop crimes instead. I don’t think anyone in this thread has mentioned that to these Police, just hoping that they are not blaming a cyclist no matter what they are wearing for potentially being killed and maybe had added a warning to drivers that they still need to be vigilant anyway whilst on the roads. If they had offered him lights though, I don’t think it would have been as controversial, especially if getting dark.
“Anyway, according to one of
“Anyway, according to one of your own trolls who you normally support” my own trolls ! if only.
nicmason wrote:
I’m confused. When did dogs get civil liberties, and are we now expected to wear light coloured dog collars when we cycle?
Sriracha wrote:
It’s still a bone of contention.
Sriracha wrote:
Oh that’s good… just toooo good
I may be wrong, but surely
I may be wrong, but surely the only way of trimming trees such that no leaves fall off them in the autumn is to cut all of their branches off? Thus, killing them. OMG – that councillor wants to kill all the trees!
brooksby wrote:
He might find a few like minded friends in Sheffield…..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_tree_felling_protests
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-54532066
That’s the very case I was
That’s the very case I was thinking of
When asked if I wear hiviz I
When asked if I wear hiviz I usually reply by saying that I choose to follow the example set by car drivers. There are a number of studies which show that lighter coloured cars (white & yellow) are involved in fewer collisions, yet the most common car colours in the UK last year were grey & black.
You mean, those cars which
You mean, those cars which are almost exactly the same colour as mist or a wet road? I’ve never noticed them 😉
Mary Willoughby wrote:
Didn’t realise they came in those colours….
Mary Willoughby wrote:
I assume the former studies account for the latter fact?!
Mary Willoughby wrote:
Years and years ago, a friend of the family (who used to work for the Department of Transport) said they’d done a study on which was the safest colour of car and came to the conclusion that it depended on the conditions etc. The only firm conclusion appeared to be that brown was a bad colour. I had a brown mini at the time. (I’m sure there have been more recent studies – he told me this around 1990, and it wasn’t a new study then)
I had a run in with a
I had a run in with a motorist, I remonstrated with her for texting whilst driving. I received in return a rant about cyclists, road tax etc, she finished off by saying that I should be wearing hi viz and because I wasn’t, I was breaking the Law.
Mary Willoughby wrote:
So is that just saying that the different colours are involved in accidents in proportion to their number?
Several studies have shown
Several studies have shown that Black (dark coloured) cars are involved in more accidents than light coloured cars.
Data has been gathered from “Accident” figures, Insurance claims and Car body workshops in various locations around the world, so it appears to be a real truth.
All new models of car in the EU have had to have DRLS since 2011. Some of these studies predate DRLs so are open to question. I still reckon there is some truth in the original statement.
This means that cyclists can ask for reciprocity.
Every now and then Polce stop cyclists at a busy junction and hand out Hi Vis vests. I have this fantasy of joining them, armed with a can of Flo paint and offer to spray a few black cars!
Why don’t insurance companies ask for higher premiums on black cars?
Cycloid wrote:
Racist.
It used to be widely said
It used to be widely said (though I can’t be certain it wasn’t apocryphal) that they did ask for higher premiums on red cars. If their pricing algorithms are working properly, and if black cars are indeed involved in more crashes – and they ought to have the data – then I’d certainly expect it to be factored in.
I must try a price comparison for same car but different colour to see what happens.
Sheen wheels wrote:
I can understand that, I used to have a red car, it was clearly invisible.
You don’t need true hi-viz,
You don’t need true hi-viz, but colours that don’t blend with the tarmac. Wiggle have a nice orangy red top which is red enough not to be mistaken for one of RailTrack’s fine engineers, but bright enough that you are confident that a sensible driver would have no problems. I’m afraid that there is no solution for the ones that can see you and still try to act as if you are not there. Our club tops are red, white and blue, equally visible
As a cyclist, I’ve been surprised by oncoming cyclists riding in grey on black bikes, so I don’t see it as victim blaming. Sure motorists will say black is white if they are in court, but the problem is that the courts seem to accept being an incompetent, at best, driver is the acceptable standard for using the roads.
I’d quite like to see those matt grey cars banned from the road. I guess they think they are Mel Gibson or something.
I’ve recently moved further
I’ve recently moved further from work so my cycling commute has become bike-train-bike. There are at least 8 people every morning getting on my train at Temple Meads with bikes. There is space for 2, maybe 3 bikes at a push…
rivers wrote:
The way I hear it, leaving a bike locked up at Temple Meads is about the same as just handing it over to some random person passing by on the street…
That could be why there are
That could be why there are so many of taking our bikes on the train. But GWR really needs more bike spaces tbh
If there’s an AutExit
If there’s an AutExit referendum I’m voting Leaf
IanMK wrote:
Each autumn we send the continent 350 million leaves a week. Let’s mulch our RHS instead!
chrisonatrike wrote:
All these dire predictions about what will happen are just Project Fir.
mdavidford wrote:
Right! Everyone prefers bleached American wood anyway! Let’s take back control of our boards and keep out the Dutch elm!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Time we took back control of our herbaceous borders
Trains! Down our way it’s 3
Trains! Down our way it’s 3 bikes per train max. No good for a family day out, ride with your mates or even commuting at busy times. I would go a step further and put cycle storage on to buses.
..sigh.. after four pages of
..sigh.. after four pages of comments which I can’t face reading, I’ve decided that weighing in with an opinion at this stage in the day would be to irrelevant.
*roll’s sleeves up and sit behind keyboard waiting for tomorrow’s topics 🙂
Wait ’til they have to start
Wait ’til they have to start playing “spot the scooterist” in earnest.
At some point it needs to be realised that cars are the problem, not the solution, and we should not have to make all these accommodations for them.
The Venn diagram of people
The Venn diagram of people who think all cyclists should wear hi viz and people who think health and safety has gone mad is a perfect circle.