A professional cyclist-led campaign to encourage people on bikes to use lights at all times “feeds into a victim-blaming culture” which places the onus for safety onto the most vulnerable road users, according to a leading road safety campaigner.
The ‘Be Bright Wear a Light’ campaign, launched this week by pro rider Rachel Neylan and endorsed by two-time Tour de France winner Tadej Pogačar and former world champion Elisa Balsamo, has been described by Dr Robert Davis, the chair of the chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum, as “well-intentioned” but lacking awareness of “what’s required to not being hit by drivers”.
The brainchild of Cofidis rider Neylan, the campaign aims to help cyclists “understand that increased visibility while riding your bike on the road can actually save your life”, and encourages them to change their behaviour and “begin using front and back lights for every ride at all times of the day”.
“Lights are just now second nature” @Elisa_balsamo #Bebrightwearalight pic.twitter.com/Rwz15qLfUU
— Be Bright Wear A Light (@brightwearlight) February 14, 2023
Earlier this week, the 40-year-old told Cycling Weekly that she felt a “real compulsion” to act after several current and retired pros were killed while riding their bikes in recent months.
> Up-and coming Spanish cyclist killed by hit-and-run lorry driver
In November, the recently-retired Italian classics star Davide Rebellin was killed after being struck by a hit-and-run lorry driver, while just last week 18-year-old Spanish neo-pro Estela Domínguez tragically suffered the same fate while training on the outskirts of Salamanca.
“With the recent year, the string of events, multiple tragedies that we’ve had among the cycling community, I just felt a real compulsion to do something about it,” the 40-year-old said.
“Every time a cyclist gets killed, it’s a knife to the stomach. I can’t watch it happen anymore. I’ve been using lights consistently for the last few years, and I know how much it really makes a difference.”
“Rain, hail or shine, lights are simply part of my kit these days” @Jasperstuyven #bebrightwearalight pic.twitter.com/5CGZuV1t5K
— Be Bright Wear A Light (@brightwearlight) February 16, 2023
However, the Australian also noted that she recognises that lights are “not a one-step solution to the entire problem”.
“But the reality is that the roads are getting busier,” she said. “Cities and regional towns are getting busier, every single place where cyclists go, even if it used to be less populated by cars. Especially since Covid we’re seeing a lot more travel, and the roads aren’t safe for cyclists anymore.”
Neylan continued: “When you start using lights, you see that cars give you so much more passing space and you avoid near misses. It can make a huge difference from the front and back. If we can save one life, that’s a win.
“As a community we’ve been through enough tragedy now and it’s time to do something. We’re not saying this is a cure, there are obviously enormous other aspects to this problem, but this is one thing we can control, our own visibility.”
Neylan’s attempt to instil a “culture shift” within the cycling community to use lights at all times has so far been endorsed by a raft of current stars, including double Tour winner Pogačar, Italian champion Balsamo, and 2021 Milan-San Remo winner Jasper Stuyven.
“This is the best safety measure I can take. For the amount of time I spend on the road and minimal investment it takes to use a light it’s a logical part of my daily training now,” Pogačar is quoted as saying on the campaign’s social media channels.
“This is the best safety measure I can take. For the amount of time I spend on the road and minimal investment it takes to use a light it’s a logical part of my daily training now” @TamauPogi#bebrightwearalight pic.twitter.com/78KXj0oaSW
— Be Bright Wear A Light (@brightwearlight) February 14, 2023
“It feeds into the victim-blaming culture”
However, despite the high-profile endorsements, the campaign has come in for criticism from some cyclists who believe that simply using lights will prove of little consequence in the face of dangerous or distracted drivers.
One of those cyclists, safe cycling campaigner Dr Robert Davis, has described Be Bright Wear a Light’s message as “victim blaming” and evidence of how “racing cyclists can get things exactly wrong” when it comes to everyday cycling and road safety.
Speaking to road.cc, Dr Davis said: “The evidence for drivers being less likely to hit cyclists (or pedestrians) when they wear hi-vis is either minimal or entirely absent. It’s even absent for lights at night with cyclists, although I wouldn’t argue with you that you shouldn’t have them at night.
“There is certainly no evidence for daytime lights working for cyclists, and comments by what one cyclist (who is already committed to using them) ‘feels’ does not constitute proper evidence.”
He continued: “Broadly speaking, we have an ‘arms race’ with the most vulnerable and least dangerous to others (walkers and cyclists) being expected to make up for the (illegal) errors of drivers not watching out, which the more vulnerable will not win.
“The problem is that those who take part in such campaigns don’t see that it feeds into the victim-blaming culture which causes the problem in the first place.
“So, we have a major problem with ‘SMIDSY’ [‘Sorry Mate, I Didn’t See You’], as Cycling UK have correctly called it – an attitude that if a driver doesn’t ‘see’ you because they aren’t watching out, it’s your fault, and this kind of campaign feeds into it and thereby becomes part of this problem.
“I’m sure that the people behind this campaign don’t want this to happen, but I have to be concerned with the harsh reality of what happens on the roads.
“And people who haven’t familiarised themselves with the ideological anti-cyclist bias of ‘road safety’ ideology won’t understand just how negative this kind of approach is.”
This anti-cyclist bias, Davis has argued in the past, manifests itself in the “red herring” of stressing the importance of culturally-defined safety measures such as lights, which he claims “can act as a diversion from what needs to be done for real road safety”.
That the campaign stems from professional riders, whose experience of riding their bike can sometimes be worlds apart from the average commuter cyclist, only exacerbates this problem, Davis argues.
“Racing cyclists are often very bad judges of what’s good for cyclists (especially ‘ordinary’ everyday utility cyclists) from Jacques Anquetil onwards,” he says.
“If they’re committed to supporting everyday cycling and prepared to consider all the evidence they can change – the perfect example being Chris Boardman, to some extent Sarah Storey, and hopefully Ed Clancy.
“I’m afraid Pogačar is wonderful as a racing cyclist, and the campaigners are no doubt well intentioned, but they don’t get it when it comes to what’s required to not being hit by drivers.
“And no, before you suggest that ‘other measures can be used as well’, this kind of approach reinforces victim blaming and impedes any positive measures, of which there are few if any.”
> Police ask pedestrians to wear hi-vis following spate of road deaths in Scotland
Davis’ comments come in the same week that Police Scotland found itself at the centre of its own victim-blaming row after a chief inspector urged pedestrians to wear “reflective or fluorescent” clothing following the deaths of six pedestrians on the country’s roads in just 13 days.
Ch Insp Lorraine Napier argued that in light of the incidents, officers should encourage all road users to keep safe, first asking pedestrians to stay visible. And in response to a request for comment from road.cc, Police Scotland confirmed the force had “nothing to add”.
“Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter, particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or fluorescent clothing,” she said.
“I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to ensure they are not putting themselves at risk.”
Napier’s comments prompted several accusations of victim blaming, with one Twitter user asking: “How have we got to a point where pedestrians are being advised to wear reflective or fluorescent clothes, in case they need to cross a road?”





















163 thoughts on “Pro cyclist-led lights campaign, endorsed by Tadej Pogačar, “feeds into victim-blaming culture”, says road safety expert”
I’d assumed that this was
I’d assumed that this was just aimed at other road cyclists, then I read the article. If that were the case it would make some sense – driver education only goes so far and campaigning for and expecting a segregated cycle lane alongside all the roads your average club ride is likely to frequent is probably wasted effort.
Aimed at all cyclists though? Pull the other one. Cyclists who are concerned with their safety when carrying out utility rides (and utility cyclists have got to be the majority of bike riders worldwide, surely) would be much better served by these people campaigning for proper infrastructure and enforcement against bad drivers.
Yep – and I was glad that
Yep – and I was glad that they’d quoted the RDRF chair at length. They seem to have a good evidence-based approach, are positive about fixing things for vulnerable road users (as opposed to just moving them out of the way / discouraging them) and are quite clear on where the danger arises indeed what is causing the deaths.
I don’t like to think how
I don’t like to think how close I’d be getting passed if I wasn’t running three rear lights.
And I’m sure a helmet saved
And I’m sure a helmet saved your life once, too.
I always use lights, even
I always use lights, even during the day. The amount of times I’ve been close passed or almost knocked off by SMIDSYs is incredible. I even had one almost hit me when he pulled out in front of me, I remonstrated with him at the next set of traffic lights. He claimed not to have seen me, but kept asking me to turn my handlebars away from him as the flashing light was hurting his eyes.
So, your flashing front light
So, your flashing front light didn’t get the driver’s non attention? Hmm, that’s not actually selling their use.
Of course he saw me! He was
Of course he saw me! He was just too bloody impatient to wait a handful of seconds. He couldn’t flick me the bird as he had to stop at the lights, and for all he knew I could have been a raving maniac so he had to come up with some excuse.
If this was a government
If this was a government campaign with broad marketing heard by all, then I agree it could be seen as victim blaming and possibly counter productive. But it’s being led by pro riders, so it’s clearly narrowly aimed at road cyclists.
Many riders massively underestimate daytime visibility issues. I’ve been out riding in fog, and seeing other riders emerging unlit from the mist left me feeling very concerned for the safety. More subtly, going into the shade of trees on a bright sunny day renders a rider almost invisible to those still in the sunshine.
Just because there’s not evidence for daytime lights doesn’t mean they’re not beneficial. It most probably means it’s not been studied.
AidanR wrote:
Hmm… I’d like to see it that way – and their website has mostly pictures of sports-folks, but it says exactly:
Our vision is that all cyclists adopt the use of front and back lights at all times of day— Be bright Wear a Light
My emphasis – seems to be pretty clear there. All cyclists, always.
I hear you when you say people underestimate their visibility, but as we know for visibility to prevent e.g. a crash with a motor vehicle a) the driver has to be looking b) the driver has to be in control of their vehicle and ideally driving to conditions / carefully and in a few cases c) has to care.
That’s a fair bit of circumstance outside your control.
Au contraire – the campaign has at least linked some research. It does appear to come from Australia though – not a country noted for either an excellent road safety record or (IMHO) a cyclist-positive outlook on the issue. That ought to be entirely irrelevant of course… On the other side in the linked article the chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum did a back-of-envelope calculation with stats he had + STATS-19 that in one London borough cycle crashes after dark which a factor of “Not displaying lights” was recorded were in the minority.
So it may not be cut-and-dried even for night.
Australia was one of the
Australia was one of the first countries after Sweden to introduce DRL as “recommended” on the main highway from Sydney to Brisbane, when I lived there 89-90. Maybe they are extrapolating again. I was never convinced but today in UK, nearly everyone runs DRL on motorways. So not sure how unbiased the ř research really is there. I think for cyclists it is useful in rural areas but is probably not even noticed in towns.
chrisonatrike wrote:
My emphasis – seems to be pretty clear there. All cyclists, always.— Be bright Wear a Light
All cyclists on the road. But my point is that this is not a campaign that is aimed at the general public, it is aimed at “the cycling community”. We’re reading about this on a cycling website; nobody is reading about this in the Daily Mail.
I can’t control those things, but I can control my visibility. I’ve run daytime lights for years for this reason. Why would I not? Why are we even arguing about this?
AidanR wrote:
— AidanRBecause you are not interested in the other point of view. You are convinced you are right.
It’s like a cycle helmets v2.0. People are not saying you shouldn’t use lights but that they are not necessarily the solution to cyclist road casualties. We know this already. For example, Jeremy Vine posts frequent videos of being cut up etc by drivers even though he runs lights with a really bright pulse mode.
I think that needs
I think that needs qualification. Using lights in poor conditions is highly recommended. The case we are debating is lighting in reasonable visibility.
And perhaps there is a disconnect here between the requirements of urban daytime riding and rural riding, where many experienced riders can attest to the visibility problems caused on shaded lanes.
Let’s not over-egg the arguments one way or another. Knowing humans are incompetent observers by design, there are a broad set of conditions where lighting could be beneficial. I would certainly recommend habitually using lights. That being said, the majority of cyclists are reasonably visible in most conditions, and insisting on lighting up in those conditions doesn’t seem right, much as lighting cars is not mandatory for cars outside the construction regs for daylight running, and the long term inability of the lawyers to define poor light for headlight use.
IanMSpencer wrote:
I’ll switch my lights on in the day if it’s raining or foggy or crepuscular, but I wouldn’t bother if it’s basically daylight. If they can’t see me, or notice me, in daylight then they have no business being on the road, IMO.
brooksby wrote:
— brooksbyOne of my favourite words, crepuscular, if only because of the insult “crepuscular intelligence” which most of the people it is aimed at take as a compliment.
I never imagined using lights
I never imagined using lights in the daytime until lockdown and then being stuck wfh. I then did my trips at lunchtime to discover in winter that on the NSL to get home, when it was bright and sunny and low in the sky, the road would line up with the sun. I then decided at my age that I was too risk adverse not to have a rear light at that time of year on my way home.
I’m still concerned that there are too many lights on the roads, reducing the ability for a cyclist to stand out and I’m with brooksby on “If they can’t see me, or notice me, in daylight then they have no business being on the road”.
Indeed, there are roads I am
Indeed, there are roads I am very reluctant to ride on at certain times of day. We know motorists adopt a “hope based on experience” approach to driving in such conditions. We had a fatality last year where a cyclist was knocked off by one driver then driven over by a later car, which was almost certainly attributable to driving without consideration to the possible hazards when driving into the sun. In such cases, a rear light can’t compete with the blinding effect of sun shining from below a sun visor.
Simon E wrote:
I’m always interested in different points of view. If you can give me a convincing argument why I shouldn’t run daytime lights then I’m all ears.
I get it, running daytime lights is not a panacea for road safety. I’m not suggesting that they should be compulsory.
It’s perfectly possible to lobby governments and council’s for big, systemic changes such as better infrastructure and lower speed limits, whilst at the same time suggesting to cyclists steps that they can personally take on each ride to make it a bit less likely that they are killed.
You’ve been told now many
You’ve been told now many times what the problem is with these campaigns and you still feign to not understand. I must conclude that like a few others you’re only here for the sake of the argument, in short, you’re a troll.
Someone needs to chill on
Someone needs to chill on weekend mornings, have a lie in and forget about the troubles.
Unless you’re not in the UK, and you’ve just had a couple of crappy days at work.
marmotte27 wrote:
I’ve made my position quite clear – if this was a government campaign aimed broadly at road users that was telling cyclists it’s their responsibility to use lights at all times, I could see Dr Davis point about “victim blaming”. But it’s not – it’s a social media campaign using pro cyclists that the average road user has never heard of, aiming their message at other cyclists.
It’s a nuanced position. You have every right to disagree with me. But don’t accuse me of being a troll because you do.
Sorry as was pinted out to
Sorry as was pointed out to you above it IS aimed at ALL cyclists ALL the time.
As to your general attitude in this debate, I have replied above in this discussion. It is not constructive.
Clearly I have failed to get
Clearly I have failed to get my point across. I know it’s a message to cyclists. That’s not the distinction I’m drawing. I appreciate that if this was a broad campaign marketed at all road users then there is a risk that drivers could use the fact that a cyclist didn’t have lights as a mitigating factor to excuse poor/dangerous driving. But this isn’t a broad campaign marketed at all road users – it’s a social media campaign marketed at cyclists.
AidanR wrote:
Until an insurance company lawyer sees it and decides it is a good argument for damages mitigation. It was specifically highlighted to you earlier in the thread that it is aimed at ALL cyclists ALL the time.
Nobody is asking you not to use whatever you want to feel safe when riding, we’re just asking you to not make the situation worse for everyone else,
As always, neither extreme of
As always, neither extreme of the argument is compelling. As I drove along a narrow country lane the other day in the dark, I encountered a pedestrian walking ahead. There were no pavements. I was not driving fast, but nevertheless I was actually glad that they were wearing a light on their back. It was genuinely helpful.
Day-time lights on bikes though is pointless. Drivers do not give you more passing space with lights on. Or with high vis. All you do is risk hitting night time with a dead battery.
I occasionally encounter
I occasionally encounter horse riders in the dark on a bit of bridleway on my homeward commute.
You can get some crazy lights for horses.
Can you get lights for Crazy
Can you get lights for Crazy Horses though?
“Day-time lights on bikes
“Day-time lights on bikes though is pointless. Drivers do not give you more passing space with lights on. Or with high vis.”
Agreed, but some drivers don’t look carefully / don’t look for bikes, and daytime flashy lights and high-vis help them not to collide with me …
You may feel that they help,
You may feel that they help, but there’s little to no evidence that they actually so.
The truth is that by far the greatest factor is that cyclists tend to be outside both the physical and mental line if vision that most drivers default to.
They tend to focus on the parts of rhe road that they expect to see cars in – and they tend to look for things that look like cars. So even if a cyclist in high vis and with a flashy light is there to be seen, it can simply not register in the brain because that’s not what they’re looking for.
Similar principle to the very famous video psychology experiment, where you watch a film of a basketball team and are asked to count how many times they pass the ball.
At the end you are asked if you saw the person in a gorilla suit walk in to the middle of the court and gurn straight at the camera. You watch it again and it’s right there – but you didn’t see it because your brain was focused on looking for something else. It’s pretty perturbing.
Back to cyclists… you can have whatever kit you like, but until drivers learn to actively look for cyclists, their brains will still discount them even when they are right in front of their eyes.
Yes. In certain
Yes. In certain circumstances lights may be very helpful (not much distraction / mental load for driver; where a light would be highly salient in the visual environment). However my last couple of would-have-been SMIDSYs were in daylight and for at least one I know the driver could physically see me. Not because I had lights or hi-vis but because I was looking them in the eyes as I suddenly realised “nobody home”. Or rather “looking but not seeing” / “just not looking for ‘cyclist’ “.
I should add – I guess it was possible they were actually blind, or that the sun (on an overcast day) was reflecting off me and dazzling them…
I think we have the “looking
I think we have the “looking but not seeing”, but also we need to add to that the “seeing but not caring”, or perhaps “seeing but not understanding” as I think there are two additional groups:
– the malign who see you, are confident that you won’t hit them and vica-versa, but are guessing you are not suicidal to make that judgement, so they see it as acceptable to force you to avoid them;
– the incompetent, who really have no grasp of how cycling works, and how you need a bit more care to judge what they are doing because they are not cars and work differently.
I’ve had numerous examples of that, where a driver is baffled at having to deal with a cyclist or group of cyclists, and really don’t know what to do, so they do stupid things, like overtaking a group of 12 cyclists with the outer 6 all sticking their hands out because the scenario is beyond their experience and they innovate.
So your glad the pedestrian
So your glad the pedestrian had a light because he was easier to see and helpful for you But you won’t use one in your bike ? If it was helpful to you while you were driver won’t it be helpful to other drivers too
Again, do you actually read
Again, do you actually read the comments on here? I mean all of them, not just those that confirm your view?
Velo-drone wrote:
The lesson to take from this is not ‘wear lights’, it’s ‘drive slower in the dark because there may well be a pedestrian/dog/cow without lights next time’.
Don’t forget those pesky
Don’t forget those pesky fallen trees…
I think all road users,
I think all road users, especially cars, should have lights on at all times.
And be looking where they’re
And be looking where they’re going (and in appropriate directions they will be moving in / lanes and paths they will be moving across).
I believe that “everyone with lights all the time” may help in some places but actually be counter-productive in others.
Where there is not much traffic / visual clutter, lights are important AND can make a lot of difference (be seen and *noticed*). Lots of visual noise / road users? More lights won’t necessarily help – indeed can be adding to a problem.
The problem is not just “visibility” in physics terms – it’s “salience”. Humans have only got so much attention; and once you’ve “seen” something you then have to prioritise and possibly keep track over time. We can improve a bit via training and particularly experience but once you’ve got a certain number of moving lights to identify and prioritise you’re overloaded. (This is why not everyone can be an air-traffic controller, and marine collisions tend to happen more in busier seaways). Additionally – we get tired. We can’t keep the same level of attention and the harder we have to concentrate the shorter we can do well at it.
Personally I find moving through areas with a lot of lights (say the centre of a city at night) quite a high cognitive load. Much worse if busy – Christmas in town is stressful for several reasons!
chrisonatrike wrote:
This is unfortunately true. The proliferation of DRLs and daytime use of dipped headlights means many things are less easily seen/perceived than they would otherwise.
Driving or cycling towards a string of cars, all with bright lights, it can be very difficult to see anything else such as a pedestrian about to cross the road. I’ve found that it also means that a cyclist within the string of traffic, or even in front of a single car with bright lights, can easily be missed, even by an attentive road user with good eyesight.
Riding with lights makes sense in some circumstances but is not a solution… though it will surely help sales of models that have heavily promoted ‘daytime’ modes.
But it seems that “I am doing the right thing, I ride with lights” is being pushed as the answer (which suggests that by riding without lights you are somehow negligent).
In Canada all cars have DRL
In Canada all cars have DRL You can see the car from a much farther distance and it does reduce accident. Light my not be the answer but if it helps why not
Did you actually read what
Did you actually read what @chrisonatrike has written?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
ftfy
I really hate this notion of
I really hate this notion of ‘victim blaming’. Yes I get it that others have responsibility to not cause accidents or crimes, but you can tip the odds in your favour through your own behaviour.
It wouldnt be my fault if I walked through a dodgy area of town waving an expensive watch around and got mugged, but my behaviour contributed.
As a driver in dark or poor conditions I can see a cyclist or pedestrian who is using lights a lot better and sooner than one who isnt.
Yes, and the women in short
Yes, and the women in short skirts who get raped… /irony off.
You don’t understand the first thing about victim blaming it appears. Have a read here for starters: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
Quote:
So… a lobby group funded by light manufacturers then.
It used to be that motor
It used to be that motor cyclists just had a light, then they stuck out. Now we have DRLs and cyclists need lights.
So everyone has lights but cyclists will be magically seen? It’s just noise instead of certain users standing out.
Car led headlights make it worse as they are overbright and can be misaligned meaning it is hard to see ahead or see vulnerable users.
It’s just becoming an unhelpful ‘arms race ‘.
It’s been the norm for some
It’s been the norm for some time in Australia for racing cyclists in training to use lights at all times and is very common with commuter/utility cyclists as well; it’s not controversial with Aussies that lights help with being seen by motorists, but then the Poms are stereotyped over here for being whingers..
grOg wrote:
Thats okay – we Poms have our stereotypes about the Australians too
grOg wrote:
Its pretty much the norm in the U.K. to run front and rear lights. Some more powerful than others. The issue is that motorists in the main are not paying attention to their environment and regardless of how visible you make yourself there will be some who are incapable of seeing you and even if they do they would rather bully you off the road.
I agree lights should be on
I agree lights should be on at all times. And helmets. And gloves. But that’s from my 40yrs of city commuting, making me feel safer though I have no proof it ever did. I think the biggest safety improvement will come from proper punishment of dangerous drivers. Stop this nonsense ‘warning letters’.
There’s a nice survey of the
There’s a nice survey of the causes of cycling accidents and ways of preventing them in this document from the French health service “ÉPIDÉMIOLOGIE DES ACCIDENTS DE VÉLO ET STRATÉGIES DE PRÉVENTION POUR LES ÉVITER” (https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/content/download/225152/2481995?version=1). It’s well worth a read if you can understand French or use online translation as it references academic articles from around the world. Somewhere in it, I read that lights and light-coloured clothing reduced accidents rates during daytime according to one study but they increased accident rates at night.
“Wearing a helmet, clothing that improves conspicuity, or greater experience in cycling would not protect against the occurrence of an accident (23, 54). We can nevertheless cite the work of Hagel et al. showing that light-colored clothes (OR=0.57 [0.32-0.99]) and the use of a light (OR=0.71 [0.52-0.97]) reduced the probability of occurrence of an accident in daytime traffic. In night traffic, red/yellow/orange clothing (OR=4.11 [1.06-15.99]) and the presence of a rear light (OR=2.54 [1.06-6, 07]) are accident risk factors. The authors justify this last point, which seems surprising, by hypothesizing that drivers underestimate the distance which separates them from the cyclist due to the presence of light which seems to them to be of low intensity (55).“
I get the impression that clothing and lights are not the first priority if you want to cut accident rates for cyclists; there are other more effective things to do. Still there is probably not too much harm in using daytime lights, if only to squarely place the blame on the motorist at fault.
The article mentions
The article mentions pedestrians and it brought to mind me watching 1967 and 1973 UK Govt public information films that were on TV at the time, encouraging pedestrians to wear or carry something light or use reflectives strips on bags, particularly at night.
‘Wear Something Light at night’ (1967) and ‘White at night’ (1973) are both UK Public Information Film that are available on youtube.
The point is victim blaming or not, it is definately not a new concept.
The 60s/70s were the zenith
The 60s/70s were the zenith of road deaths. The measures that really helped to bring them down were not always as victim blaming as these campaigns, but tended to make motorists safer at the expense of everybody else.
There is one country though that managed to draw some correct conlusions from the situation. And it’s to my knowledge the only one that still today does not resort to these constant victim blaming fests.
Get yourself seen…who didnt
Get yourself seen…who didnt take a brush to their bike in the 70s 🙂 https://youtu.be/1MFuSMz1zh0
Strangely I dont remember it causing much of outburst of angst at the time.
the campaign has appeared on a couple of podcasts where the people/riders involved explain it a bit more, maybe worth a listen before dismissing the whole thing out of hand
as I kind of think Dr Davis is reacting to something the campaign isnt really trying to be.
do I run lights in the daytime, occasionally where I think theyll aid my visibilty more, does that mean Im being pragmatic or victim blaming myself ?
I still have my armband from
I still have my armband from school when they were tinkering with BST. Just reinforces the fact that the drivers of the 60’s/70’s needed as much help to see other road users as the motorists of the 21st century do today.
Just the same context of
Just the same context of story to stir up the same response that the pedestrians in hi-vis story had a couple of days ago, and strangely it works. Is there a specific term for when a word or phrase is used that often that it actually loses some of it’s effect-gets watered down?
It seems more and more that
It seems more and more that the cyclist is asked “did you have lights on?”.
I was asked this while giving a statement from my bed in HDU by the officer who attended the scene after I was thrown from my bike in broad daylight after being hit by an octogenarian driver.
He followed up with “it’s not a legal requirement in daylight”. I told him that no, I didn’t have one on the front, but i did have a rear flasher on as that’s where I expected the danger to come from.
He didn’t need to ask about hiviz as his evidence bag had the remains of the bright, fluorescent light green jersey i had been wearing that had been cut off me so the paramedics could get my heart restarted with the defibrillator.
The questions were asked as a gauge to contributory negligence on my behalf.
It had nothing to do with road safety, and everything to do with assessing how much to blame I was for being on the correct side of the road and in the wrong place at the wrong split second.
The more of us that have lights on in the daytime (while it is still not a legal requirement) , the more it will become contributory negligence for insurance companies to weasel out of paying you full dues should you need it.
At night, in a busy town or city, a single red solid light melts in to the background of twin bright sides, or sides and brakes.
I’ve found a solid and a pulse / flash is the better answer for both front and back – especially if the pulse is irregular as it will make it harder to zone out. You still get twats – but you’ll always get twats and the best defense against them is an RPG … however that are *slightly* illegal in the UK …
DTRL … I tend to use them only around rush hour when drivers attention may not be fully on the ball.
And the only reason is to reduce the risk of contributory negligence and has nothing to do with road safety.
Appears to be an article
Appears to be an article about running daytime lights illustrated by a photo of riders cycling in the dark. That’s before we get to the photo caption – ‘See Sense ICON3 Rear Light’. Come on conspiracy theorists get onto this.
Yet another “safety” campaign
Yet another “safety” campaign with the wrong premise of treating the symptoms not the cause: why does this always apply to road safety, but no other facet of human activity? All H&S starts from the presumption that reducing the cause of the problem is the most effective and must be done first, and only if that has failed, do you move on to making the victims take more care.
I can confidently predict that if all cyclists had lights all the time, there might be a small effect on collisions temporarily, but the status quo would quickly be re-established, and the only effects would be to make lots of money for light makers and impose costs on cyclists. Eerily like helmets.
Dr Davis is right, and we need to address the cause; dangerous driving.
eburtthebike wrote:
Gee, correcting your made up tales is turning into a full-time job. I don’t think I’ve got the energy – can’t you just keep it to yourself?
Addressing both causes and effects of hazards is recognised good practice across a variety of industries. The Safety and Reliability Society (SaRS) have lots of information on the subject. Priority is usually given to the barriers that have the greatest effect per unit cost, until risk has been reduced to the extent that further reductions would have a disproportionally low benefit to their cost. Your suggestion that addressing the ‘symptoms’ (the fact that you don’t even know the right word is very telling by the way) is abnormal is incorrect; it is normal. Your suggestion that ‘all H&S starts from reducing the cause’ is similarly incorrect.
Your suggestion that daytime lights would only result in a temporary road safety improvement, is straight out of the Eburt story book. As is your comparison to helmets. Pack it in.
As someone that advocates for improving road safety (at least I presume that’s your intent behind the last para), it really is surprising that you argue against lots of other road safety improvement measures.
“Your suggestion that daytime
“Your suggestion that daytime lights would only result in a temporary road safety improvement…”
Sounds like it’s time for a cite-off! Or at least – we’re at a “I think it does / I know it doesn’t” point where studies rather than analogy might be appropriate?
Is there such research?
Unusually as these things seem to go the “lights all the time on everyone” campaign has at least linked some research. I’ve not read yet – again “Australia cycle research” does raise a “I’ll be checking this first” flag with me. On the other side it sounds like the chair of the RDRF (as explained in his article) has located some data which could be used to investigate this for the UK. Obviously would need more than him doing a “back of envelope” job though.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Seriously, What’s the point of them linking research? The likes of Eburt just dismiss it as propaganda from ‘big helmet’ or in this case, ‘big bike lights’.
And then again, what would professional cyclists know, eh? Not like they spend any time in the saddle.
Eburt should just go without lights and a helmet and shut the f up, rather than making things up.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I’d be happy to learn about going faster from a pro, or tips on bike handling in a bunch, descending, or training *. I’d certainly *listen* to their views on road safety but I wouldn’t automatically give those views more weight than any regular bike rider. Any more than I’d seek out Mo Farrah about safe street design for pedestrians.
However I’d give credence to e.g. Chris Boardman because in addition to his professional cycling he’s spent quite a lot of time understanding street design for cycling (and walking) for the general public. Both for safety AND what people consider convenient. Plus in his case he has experience of working with the organisations needed (councils, government bodies).
* with my current abilities and inclinations most of that would be wasting their time though.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
What makes you so sure you’re in the right?
I don’t think this is as clear-cut as one thing is right and the other is wrong. But if you like arguing for the hell of it instead of understanding or solving problems then by all means carry on.
Simon E wrote:
I reckon they could start an argument in an empty room
And still manage to
And still manage to misrepresent what was said.
No they couldn’t.
No they couldn’t.
Rich_cb wrote:
Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I bet people at trump rallies think they’re as intelligent as you lot think you are. Similar amount of logic going on too.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Simon E wrote:
Would you like my career history? A list of my professional qualifications? A list of SaRS lectures I’ve attended? A list of safety assessments I’ve written?
I’m not arguing, I’m correcting misinformation; there’s a difference.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
If you’re offering then by all means go ahead. A poster’s knowledge cannot be assumed from a few argumentative posts on road.cc. I treat baseless ‘helmet saved my life’ claims, talk of something as ‘well it’s common sense, innit’ and anything pushed by manufacturers as noise and/or misinformation. Pro cyclists are merely pawns in a game.
Pawns in a game? Don’t let
Pawns in a game? Don’t let your tin foil hat get a hole in it, will you.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
See Chris Boardman.
Professional riders don’t have the time to be experts on what makes cycling safer – to be successful professional riders they are generally far too busy training to reasearch the topic and any ‘experts’ they have access to are likely related to sponsors etc (who have a financial interest in selling helmets).
The one known to have gone from professional rider to professional advisor for safe cycling (a job where doing the research is part of it rather than completely unrelated to success) flipped their viewpoint from everyone should wear helmets to helmets are almost irrelevent to safety…
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Thanks for not supplying any credentials or information to back up your argument. All you’ve provided is a condescending tone with a portion of sarcasm. Worse than useless.
Simon E wrote:
All you’ve provided is a condescending tone with a portion of sarcasm. Worse than useless.
— ShutTheFrontDawesPar for the course from them.
Simon E wrote:
Thanks for not supplying any credentials or information to back up your argument. All you’ve provided is a condescending tone with a portion of sarcasm. Worse than useless.— ShutTheFrontDawes
It seems to me that ShutTheFrontDawes has clearly demonstrated an in depth knowledge of professional health and safety and thoroughly rebutted eburtthebike’s argument. If you genuinely think that all he’s provided “is a condescending tone with a portion of sarcasm” then I suggest that you re-read his posts with an open mind.
It seems to me that
It seems to me that “ShutTheFrontDawes has clearly demonstrated an in depth knowledge of professional health and safety and thoroughly rebutted eburtthebike’s argument.”
No he hasn’t.
They certainly haven’t in
They certainly haven’t in previous discussions of roadcraft and dismissed posters here as ‘arm chair experts’.
hirsute wrote:
I’m not saying he’s a saint. But let’s look at the arguments put forward on this thread, rather than playing the man. eburtthebike made claims about how professional health and safety works which was incorrect. I don’t see why it’s so hard to acknowledge that.
AidanR]
Perhaps you could provide details of what I said that was wrong about “professional” H&S?
eburtthebike]
Jesus wept. I already have.
hirsute wrote:
In your book, professional cyclists know nothing about cycling, so it stands to reason that someone that demonstrates a knowledge of a subject should be ignored or even ridiculed, so long as you disagree with them of course.
Following your twisted logic, if someone says something you agree with however, even if they demonstrate a complete ignorance of the subject matter, such as Eburt has done on numerous occasions, they should be listened to and respected.
I’m happy to be put in the group of people you show distain for. I’m in company with people who show knowledge and experience of their field, and for whom I have I respect.
AidanR wrote:
Thank you. I appreciate you saying that.
AidanR wrote:
I’ve looked through the discussion and can’t find anything remotely like this. But I definitely saw the condescending post.
I’m sure that professional H&S experience is extremely useful but we are talking about the possible benefits of cyclists using daytime lights. I’m not convinced that it’s a simple ‘yes or no’.
Honda hard-wired some their motorcycle models for always-on headlights in 2004 (others have surely done the same but I’ve not kept up with that market) but I don’t know if doing so has shown a real-world reduction in collision stats.
I agree that it’s not
I agree that it’s not necessarily a simple “yes”. As others have said, increased visibility only works if drivers are looking and if they care.
But I think the lack of a “no” case is simple. What is the downside in running daytime lights?
AidanR wrote:
So you are happy to ride in a hi-viz jumpsuit plastered with reflectives, a helmet, cameras fore & aft (or the 360 on your hat), PassPixi stickers, indicators on stalks, 3 rear lights. Even though those things probably won’t really make any difference. Meanwhile many people are not happy to do those things and no-one addresses the real problem.
I generally wear bright
I generally wear bright clothing and run lights (including on my helmet). If you don’t want to, that’s your choice.
About a year ago I was in a pub car park repairing a puncture, when a lady came up to me and said something along the lines of “I’m happy to see that you’re wearing bright clothing. So many of the cyclists around here [the lanes around the Kent/Surrey border] are dressed in black and it can be really hard to see them.”
I’m all for better infrastructure, driver awareness campaigns, better driver education etc. But I also help motorists see me, because why not?
AidanR wrote:
Did you take the opportunity to point out all of the dark coloured cars in the car park?
No, I didn’t want to be
No, I didn’t want to be facetious.
AidanR wrote:
I don’t think you understand the problem with mandating lights, helmets etc for cyclists.
What about pedestrians? Must they all run lights, cameras and hi-viz everywhere? Why are so many car occupants killed and injured every year?
Why are there so many reports and images in the Car crashes into building forum thread (over 1700 to date)? Does every house, shop, sign, bollard and construction within 15 feet of a road require flashing lights and be painted yellow? Will that work? No.
As for your anecdote, that woman is merely reinforcing the idea that your choice of clothing is responsible for your safety when clearly it is the responsibility of other road users to see you and drive appropriately. Did she tell you what to eat and who to vote for as well?
Who said anything about
Who said anything about mandating? I explicitly said in another reply to you that “I’m not suggesting that they should be compulsory.”
The lady didn’t tell me to do anything. I agree that it’s the responsibility of other road users to see me, but why on earth would I not give them a helping hand? It’s clearly in my interests to do so.
There are upsides and
There are upsides and downsides to this and in the totally skewed road traffic system and, stemming from it, the totally skewed
public attitude/debate (and everything that pertains to it like court judgements, insurance payouts etc. etc.) on road safety, the downsides outweigh the upsides by orders of magnitude. Why is this difficult to understand?
Actually, if the traffic system weren’t so skewed we wouldn’t even have this debate. At all.
Sorry, are you actually
Sorry, are you actually asserting that “the downsides [of running daytime lights] outweigh the upsides by orders of magnitude”? Seriously?
You are missing the point
You are missing the point with every single post.
And I see ShutTheFrontDawes still hasn’t provided any detail to back up his assertions / expertise in this area. That’s presuming they have some.
Simon E wrote:
I’m not uploading a copy of my CV, nor my chartership/degree certificates, but I tell you what, there’s a SaRS event coming up – a webinar – you can learn something from the comfort of your sofa. You could join, and wonder which of the attendees I am.
https://www.sars.org.uk/events/midlands-branch-development-of-risk-assessment-methodologies-for-gas-distribution-systems-containing-hydrogen-both-to-and-within-homes-and-other-buildings/
I also get patronised like
I also get patronised like this too.
As a pedestrian, what bright colours was she wearing?
AidanR wrote:
The main downside is penalising cyclists that aren’t using them and it’s also reinforcing the message that cycling is dangerous. It also adds a barrier to new cyclists and could increase the abuse from motorists.
I don’t mind cyclists pushing this message so much, but if this were treated as the main thrust of a road danger campaign then they’d be missing the elephants on the roads.
I would guess that pro cyclists have been involved in more road incidents due to inattentive drivers (e.g. phone use) than due to not running daytime lights.
I agree that this absolutely
I agree that this absolutely should not be the main thrust of a general road danger campaign. It’s a long way down the list. But the things that are high on that list are outside of my control when I’m out on the bike; using lights is not.
Out of interest, why do you think that cyclists not using daytime lights are penalised?
AidanR wrote:
They’re not currently, but I can imagine that insurance companies would be happy to declare no daytime lights as contributory negligence.
I use the light on my Fly6 (rear) during the day, but not my Fly12 (front) light as I don’t see the point.
AidanR wrote:
the downside is that it is the thin end of the wedge, if this goes unchallenged then in a few years time judges will be deducting from damages awards for lack of DRL just like they currently do for lack of helmet and motorists will carry on just as they do today.
Backladder wrote:
Speculative nonsense.
I guess I better remove anything that might help my visibility and personal safety just in case it gets used against some poor sod in a court of law sometime in the future.
Sometimes we cyclists really don’t help ourselves, do we?!
AidanR wrote:
the downside is that it is the thin end of the wedge, if this goes unchallenged then in a few years time judges will be deducting from damages awards for lack of DRL just like they currently do for lack of helmet and motorists will carry on just as they do today.
— AidanR Speculative nonsense.— Backladder
It has already happened with helmets, why don’t you think it will happen with DRL and high viz?
No! you can ride with as much high viz and lighting as you want, just don’t campaign for all of us to have to do it.
No you dont.
But no knowledge of the
But no knowledge of the hierarchy of controls for hazard reduction, which I find a bit odd for a supposed safety professional.
CyclingInGawler wrote:
The hierarchy of controls means that elimination typically has a greater benefit/cost than substitution, which typically has a greater benefit/cost than engineering controls (administrative, PPE). It does not mean that you should do ALL the available elimination controls then ALL of the available substitutive controls (etc).
It tells you where to focus effort; it’s not a step-by-step.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
But no knowledge of the hierarchy of controls for hazard reduction, which I find a bit odd for a supposed safety professional.
— ShutTheFrontDawes The hierarchy of controls means that elimination typically has a greater benefit/cost than substitution, which typically has a greater benefit/cost than engineering controls (administrative, PPE). It does not mean that you should do ALL the available elimination controls then ALL of the available substitutive controls (etc). It tells you where to focus effort; it’s not a step-by-step.— CyclingInGawler
As opposed to the current situation where we are doing all the PPE first?
I nearly always run a rear
I nearly always run a rear light.Still get close passes but still gives me piece of mind, particularly riding in summer or times of high contrast where you can be obscured by shadows from high hedges etc
Makes little or no difference
Makes little or no difference as does Hi Viz…. I get more close passing with bright orange or lime hi viz and flashing rear light than if I wear dark green or black kit and no lights….. I submitted a video to plod after they requested it from a recent report….. I had a 300 lumen flashing light, Orange jersey, Orange helmet on……. 5 close passes in less than a mile. passing on hatched lines and junctions and passing a busy garden centre…… all had a NIP from plod….. doesn’t matter what bright clothes you have on or lights….. bad drivers will use those as markers to skim by you and squeeze past. Ride buddy was knocked off at a roundabout…. lights front and rear, hi viz top, white helmet, dry day, bright…… driver never slowed….obvs a regular journey for the driver and my pal was not usually there when he traverses that roundabout
For me before every ride it
For me before every ride it is Lights, Cameras, Action. But this will never stop close passes if I ride in or close to the gutter. The only way to reduce such incidents is to take a proper position on the road.
I run rear and front lights
I run rear and front lights on every ride at any time of day. Doesn’t do any harm. But does it make a difference? Er, not really no.
Cat burglars. Ninja Assassins
Cat burglars. Ninja Assassins.Police Tactical Firearms Units.S.A.S. They all wear black for a reason. Also, what colour (mostly) is tarmac? You guessed it, black. So, wearing black literally camouflages the rider against the tarmac. Duh. Apart from looking cool, and being more forgiving off much and stuff, the black thing goes back decades to when road racing on bikes was illegal. Of course there is little or any decent research to show it one way or the other. You would need 1000 or so identical riders riding the same route with the exactly the same drivers of the same cars etc etc. Half in Ninja. Half in dayglo.proper research can never happen. Next time yiur out driving, especially one of those sunny days where it is shady under the trees notice who shows up better; someone all in black, or someone in brighter clothes/flashing red light.
Grey.
Grey.
Contrast is very important. You could wear light clothes and blend in.
Wet or dry? Wet is black and
Wet or dry? Wet is black and dry roads can be virtually white.
It’s why I like orange, not quite so hi vizzy, and our club kit is red white and blue which is also very visible in different conditions.
Funnily enough I came across
Funnily enough I came across a runner in blue and dark red this morning. I was in the car on an nsl. What I did pick up on was some movement not any colours and immediately slowed, then signalled in case others had not picked him out.
The sun was low, so he was partly silhouetted – not sure if lighter colours would have made a much of a difference. What would have made the biggest difference would be to run on the right, facing traffic !
hirsute wrote:
sometimes I think that, but they scare the hell out of you when you meet one coming towards you and you’re unsighted.
I meant from their
I meant from their perspective – they are no longer in conflict where they are harder to see. They are still at risk, but at least the sun is shining in the right direction when on the right.
When we go on country walks, we swap right and left sides of the road depending on the layout to avoid this sort of surprise to both parties.
Awavey wrote:
Walking/running on the right is so that they can see you and take avoiding action if necessary, they shouldn’t have to but it does give them the option.
That must be why you can’t
That must be why you can’t buy any cars in black or dark grey…
Oh! Waitaminute…
Black! The very colour the
Black! The very colour the RAF, after extensive research, painted their Hawk trainer fleet, because (gloss) black was found to maximise visibiity.
I don’t imagine that was to
I don’t imagine that was to maximise visibility on the ground though.
I invested in a Garmin radar
I invested in a Garmin radar rear light last year. Unless I have been very lucky, I don’t feel like I have had anywhere near as many close passes, in fact it is noticable how many drivers hold back until it’s safe to pass, and give me decent room too.
Do you have a big sign on
Do you have a big sign on your back advising of the radar .. that’s the only way the Garmin radar unit will be influencing other road users behaviour.
A more likely explanation is that the Garmin radar is influencing *your* behaviour – at possibly a subconscious level – and it’s your actions that are making the changes.
I think he’s talking about
I think he’s talking about the influence of the daylight running light element of the Garmin rather than the radar? When I’ve ridden behind someone with one it certainly does appear to have significantly more daylight visibility than a standard light.
That’s what I thought at
That’s what I thought at first but then I think it is a reference to the light always being on. I think it’s only the latest version (715) via a widget that allows the light off.
hirsute wrote:
For interest, all models I’ve had (RTL500, 510, 515, 715) have supported a radar-only off mode. However the availability of the widget may depend on the head unit.
I’ve still got the 515 and have just put it into off mode to demonstrate.
It definitely depends on yor
It definitely depends on your head unit !
Oldfatgit wrote:
The Varia radar light changes its flash pattern when a vehicle approaches: https://youtu.be/yt-PBBFOw78?t=77
HoarseMann wrote:
The Varia radar light changes its flash pattern when a vehicle approaches: https://youtu.be/yt-PBBFOw78?t=77— Oldfatgit
It certainly does and as a long-term user (7+ years), on rural lanes, I’ve known noticeable audible changes in vehicle sounds as the driver presumably has had their attention drawn to a cyclist in front.
That, often momentary, change
That, often momentary, change in engine note is one of the most important indicators to me of whether I’m going to have a problem.
Oh, how I wish Neylan’s
Oh, how I wish Neylan’s experience that “when you start using lights, you see that cars give you so much more passing space and you avoid near misses” had been my experience here in Amerika. But it hasn’t. I use the lights to prevent being blamed if rundown while actually using a motor-vehicle traffic lane, but my experience with them while in bike lanes is that they make no difference or might edge toward pulling drivers toward the white stripe. On one occasion when a battery failure forced me to ride home n the dark without lights, I noticed that passing traffic seemed to stay farther from the white line than it did when I was all it up. But admittedly that sample size is small. Still, I would expect that, especially at bends in the road, drivers might be inclined to use as much of their lane as possible right up to that white stripe if they can see what is on the other side of it while doing the opposite if they suspect there could be something in the lane they don’t see. And I have to wonder how that sort of thinking might be influenced by creating the notion that if they do cross the white line and hit a cyclist who isn’t using lights, it’s the fault of the cyclist and not their bad driving.
The problem with campaigns
The problem with campaigns like this from pro cyclists, or the Police (as per the Scottish example last week) is that all it does is provide drivers with another excuse when they hit, or almost hit, a more vulnerable road user.
“If the police are saying they should be wearing high vis, and pro cyclists are saying they should be running lights all the time, how can it possibly be my fault that I ran into them when they weren’t?”
You know … the sort of thing that courts accept as mitigation every day of the week.
If court cases involving
If court cases involving motorcyclists are anything to go by Mr Jetman, you have nothing to worry about. A prominent lawyer who specialises in traffic accident cases writes monthly in Bike magazine and recently said that he has ‘never’ had damages reduced because riders have not been wearing the protective clothing recommended by the Highway Code and others but which are not legally required.
Why should this be? Because the other side have no solid statistical evidence to back up such a proposition and judges will not rule without such firm data. Common sense simply isn’t enough to sway the learned mind.
No lights, black kit – just
No lights, black kit – just asking for it really.
https://youtu.be/fIsw3cEcqnk?t=588
hirsute wrote:
Maybe the answer is just to learn from nature? If you want to be noticed make yourself bigger. Side benefit – airbags already in place!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Sad to see another road
Sad to see another road squirrel squashed flat…
chrisonatrike wrote:
I don’t know why it was trying to cross the road in the first place
Maybe out on an unnecessary
Maybe out on an unnecessary recreational trip? I see them round here after dark, literally flying all over the place. I mean, you can hardly see them in dark colours like that.
An ornithologist friend has
An ornithologist friend has corrected me – aparently the ones out and about at night are a different kettle of squirrel. I still think they should make themselves more visible – it’s all well and good in daylight, but after dark…
There might be less of a
There might be less of a feeling from police, organisations and professional cyclist for campaigns like this if there was more common sense from people. This seems to be a general problem these days, but some of the things you see cyclists doing is pretty mindboggling. On my Tuesday commute home a fine example was a guy with no lights, all in black, barely visible, cycling the wrong side of the road on a bus route and using his phone as he cycled along.
“People do things that appear
“People do things that appear stupid to others” shock.
EDIT – your observation is correct but I think it’s a bit of a canard in terms of “how we move forward”. People have adjusted their feelings over the decades on what they thought was sensible for drivers, after all. (Don’t forget – in the US the motor lobby managed to reverse popular blame for death and injury completely and invent jaywalking).
How did we start ameliorating things for all the stupid people in cars – when we started to get so many?
How could we fix it for when those stupid people are cycling? Ideally without compounding the problems we had because we have so many people in cars (some are stupid most of the time, most are stupid some of the time…)?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Why are you trying to ameliorate and defend people doing stupid things on bikes? Does being on a bike mean you should take no responsiblity for your safety.
Do you believe not paying attention while cycling the wrong side of a bus lane is sensinble?
Er… this seems to have
Er… this seems to have touched a nerve? I was looking at the longer term. But focussing on this specific incident – genuine question – what concerned you about this person? Are you worried about this person’s wellbeing? Maybe you saw a friend / relation in that person? Some might say “that’s another idiot dead soon, hahaha”. Are you worried about them injuring people on the bus? You could rightly be concerned that if they’re so careless they’re quite likely to hit you in other circumstances.
If this incident (now in the past) happens again what are you or I going to do about it?
My question means what it says and is addressing the future, looking at how we have got where we have. Again – if that chap is still there go and advise him of his error with my blessing. And / or tonight. And/or tomorrow…
We can both spend our time shouting at people forever. Some people will continue to do stupid things most consider stupid, dangerous, antisocial etc. as always. I am concerned about a couple of things:
1) Can our system minimize harm to others and maybe to them? Hence my interest in mass cycling. Lots of other reasons for that but two are:
– It appears to be safer *and much more pleasant* for others than careless / dangerous in a motor vehicle. (Yes – society will have to pick up his bills / look after his dependents but not ALSO those he may have driven over if in a car).
– there’s a degree of “self-limiting” to people’s selfish or careless behaviour on bikes – because people are aware they’re not protected by a metal cage, air bags, seat belts.
2) What are the costs / side effects and expected return on “fixing the issue” and is it self-reinforcing? Yes – we need policing / negative reinforcement. However I suspect that “police it better” has a rapidly increasing cost and we quickly reach a limit to what that can fix. I’m also not wild on a vast increase in police – I am concerned about the side effects (looking at our current police). Training may also reach a point of diminishing returns.
For those two reasons (among others) I look more to the “system” and favour infrastructure and the approach of the Dutch. That’s more “we know children will swing on pipes so fix the pipe so it’s safe for the children to swing on”. That is effectively what we have applied with driving. With other modes around driving it’s more “teach the children not to swing on pipes and maybe put guards round it”.
I think we can do better than that (and the system will cope with idiots better).
chrisonatrike wrote:
Not at all, if anything I am just not surprised at the lengths you will go to trawl the web for blog posts that back your position that seemingly cyclists should be absolved of all responsibility.
Nothing. I never said I wanted to. My post was clear and this was simply giving a recent example of the behaviour of some cyclists that likely contributes to the police etc making these campaigns. That is it.
That’s great, but doesn’t mean absolving anyone of taking responsibility for theirs and others safety or consequences of their behaviour. Which is what some here seem to believe we should be doing. It should not be a surprise that the police etc push campaigns like this, nor that people have a dislike of cycling/cyclists when we have a vocal minority (i hope) that seem to think cyclists should have carte blanche to do what the f*** they like.
I wrote an excellent and
I wrote an excellent and considered response to your post but this thread lacks the space for it. Or rather – I think you’d be bored.
EDIT if you believe the general public belief about cycling is conditioned by “a vocal minority (i hope) that seem to think cyclists should have carte blanche to do what the f*** they like.” I wouldn’t agree – but it sounds like you have a rather strong opinion already. So discussion would probably be wasting my time. Or even saying that’s not my position, or rather it is but only in this sense or this way for pedestrians.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Thanks for explaining
Thanks for explaining yourself! Saved me time!
(No subject)
Adam Sutton wrote:
I’m glad he was on a bike and not anything bigger. I like to think people like that are pushing the bounds of what other traffic expects and thus making them pay more attention.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well there it is. The dumbest thing I have read on the internet today, it’s early but I doubt anyone will better that.
When he gets flattened lets not pretend his actions did not pay a primary role in the outcome eh? And lets not be surprised if we see more more “advice” from the police etc, and cut back on crying that it is just “victim blaming”
Adam Sutton wrote:
We’ll thank him for his sacrifice.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I didn’t see anything condoning the behaviour, and stupid is as stupid does. hawkinspeter makes an interesting discussion point, which is actually pretty much the point made in advanced driving classes and by people like Ashley Neal, which is expect the worst from drivers, don’t expect them to stop at give ways just because there is a give way, don’t assume that because there is a no entry sign, that the driver signalling to cross your path to it won’t do it, don’t assume that cars around you will follow lane markings.
So. when we see cars and HGVs on the road, we don’t rely on their behaviour (actually we do, and that’s why we have accidents), Peter is making a slightly humorous observation that if the worst of the cyclists do really stupid things, like the worst of the motorists, then at least it sets expectations.
A better example might be NMotD 852, where a barely competent cyclist blindly cycled into danger – but we generally could see that it was exactly what many cyclists would do and the police agreed that the driver didn’t behave to take into account the predictable encroachment on each others paths. Was that cyclist behaving so far below the expectations of a reasonable cyclist that it absolved the other road users of blame, or was it simply that the poor roadcraft was at a level that was common enough to expect other road users to cater for it?
Another example would be pedestrians stepping into the road without looking – stupid, and the motorist probably, but not necessarily entirely, blameless, yet we specifically warn drivers to be aware of that sort of behaviour, and it is in part behind the logic of 20mph areas – so when someone does something stupid, they are not killed.
My post was simply giving
My post was simply giving reason why these kind of campaigns likely exist with an example seen this week. It really is interesting the lenghts of convulution and whataboutism present to simply turn it into “BuT cArz!!!” rather than acknowledge right or wrong that is the case.
My post was simply refuting
My post was simply refuting your suggestion that it was the dumbest thing on the Internet. I thought it was a good example of an alternative persective that gave food for thought. Each to their own. I see stupid road users of all varieties. The only thing to learn from them is that they exist.
I’m also not sure campaigns exist for the terminally ignorant, they exist for the educatable middle ground. I mean, if you can’t work out that riding like a ninja on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic at night is a bit of a dim thing to do, I’m not convinced a campaign is going to change their behaviour.
I think Peter’s point is that “These people walk among us, live with it.”. I don’t know about you, but I do look for these things, and if I can try to spot these idiots, then I’ve got a better chance of spotting the road users doing it properly. Having seen a lad on a chipped e-bike do a wheelie for about a mile around Smallbrook Queensway in 40mph traffic, before he jumped a red light and vanished from my life forever, it reminds me to never be surprised, and the lad’s stupidity probably educated 100 other road users that the likes of him exist – and to be fair to the 100, they all gave him a wide birth, nobody tried to educate him with a close pass as they have done to me on a regular basis, probably because I was riding legally and sensibly so they could take deliberate risks.
Then we have to agree to
Then we have to agree to disagree there. To me it was an as expected asinine response from a usual suspect, to what was a simple statement of opinion as to why these campains are thought worthy, rather than simply crying “victim blaming” as is de rigueur here so often.
The example I used was one of extreme, and as the saying goes “you can’t fix stupid” but as you say there is a “educatable middle ground.” I mean in terms of lights in general, when it comes to cycling the thing that sticks with me is the fact that my Dad when riding motorbikes would, turn the headlight on the day he bought it and never turn it off. Sure it is no guarantee it will stop someone who is not paying attention from not seeing you, but it is sure to help you be visible to someone who is. It is at the end of the day common sense, which as I opined is lacking in general these days.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I’m going to have to query your ability to discern common sense and what is asinine.
If you left a motorbike headlight on and never turn it off, you’re going to run your battery down – that’s a stupid idea and is obviously not a common sense approach to keeping your vehicle well maintained.
Going back to my original post that seemed to annoy you – I was looking for a positive effect from what is clearly not good roadcraft. I used to get angry when confronted with a scooter/cycle rider coming straight at me when they were on the wrong side of the road, but I’ve since learnt that it’s not worth getting agitated as it’s easy to avoid them on a bike – treat them like a slower rider that you’re overtaking, giving them plenty of room.
(You’ve reminded me of my favourite line in Usual Suspects that always makes me chuckle as Fenster has such a strong accent (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp5YwZCGpm0):
Interrogation Cop: Number 1, step forward.
Hockney: Hand me the keys, you f***ing c***sucker.
Interrogation Cop: Number 2, step forward.
McManus: Give me the f***ing keys, you f***ing c***sucking motherf***er, aaarrrghh.
Interrogation Cop: Knock it off. Get back. Number 3, step forward.
Fenster: [laughing] Hand me the keys, you c***sucker.
Interrogation Cop: In English, please?
Fenster: Excuse me?
Interrogation Cop: In English.
Fenster: Hand me the f***ing keys, you c***sucker, what the f***?
What makes it funnier is that the “In English, please?” line was supposedly from director Bryan Singer getting teed off as the scene was meant to be serious and the actors kept cracking up. Thankfully, he gave up and went with that take.)
“If you left a motorbike
“If you left a motorbike headlight on and never turn it off, you’re going to run your battery down – that’s a stupid idea and is obviously not a common sense approach to keeping your vehicle well maintained.”
Motorbikes have alternators to charge their battery. So no the battery won’t get run down. Someone with common sense would likely know to check that…
Bradshsi wrote:
I suppose it depends on the model and whether the headlight works without the motor running.
You mean specific knowledge
You mean specific knowledge not common sense
Specific knowledge would tell you whether the headlight can be left on with the engine off and have an effect on the battery.
Common sense would be RTFM
Anyone working professionally
Anyone working professionally in the field of safety applies the Swiss Cheese or LOPA model in aiming to reduce bad events.
In that context Dr Robert Davis’s comments are an example of someone who is either ignorant of how practical safety is achieved (or choses to ignore it).
Me ? I’m using the best most visible lights I can when I’m riding at night. It won’t prevent everything but it is an important layer of protection.
Bradshsi wrote:
In context of road danger, there’s way too much publicising of what cyclists should or shouldn’t be doing and very little to educate motorists about how to drive safely around vulnerable road users. When coupled with the abysmal state of traffic law enforcement, it’s clear that this campaign is unlikely to make much difference at all. Daytime lights aren’t going to help when the driver is not even looking.
(I use a Fly6, so I have that flashing away whether it’s day or night, but I don’t bother with a front light during daylight)
“In context of road danger,
“In context of road danger, there’s way too much publicising of what cyclists should or shouldn’t be doing and very little to educate motorists about how to drive safely around vulnerable road users.”
Agreed, but that isn’t focus of the article nor my criticism of it. Hence the statement above is a Logical Fallacy of Special Pleading
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading
“When coupled with the abysmal state of traffic law enforcement, it’s clear that this campaign is unlikely to make much difference at all. Daytime lights aren’t going to help when the driver is not even looking.”
There was a controlled study done that shows this statement to be incorrect. Data FTW and I’ll take the 19% risk reduction thanks.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22884376/
Bradshsi wrote:
That study is based on cycling in Denmark which is known as a country that takes cycling seriously, so I’d take the results with a pinch of salt (especially as it involves small numbers) about whether that would apply in the UK to the same degree.
I don’t agree with your diagnosis of Special Pleading as I’m not aware that I’ve been shifting goalposts at all.
It’s a common theme in the UK that various groups give recommendations to cyclists about how to keep safe (e.g. daytime lights) that are not going to be effective as the more effective measures (e.g. prosecuting dangerous driving) are more or less ignored. This is why these campaigns are seen as victim blaming as they put the onus on the victims to be seen and not on the drivers that should be bearing the brunt of the responsibility to be actually looking.
Taken out of the UK road danger context, then it’s reasonable enough to encourage daytime running lights.
Edit: Found the PDF: https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bicycles.pdf
From the live blog today
From the live blog today
“If you don’t want to cycle on the road, then I suggest you find another method of transport.”
Not – drivers here is a reminder of the highway code and your obligations around vulnerable users.
Not – drivers be patient, you will only be held up for a short time and your overall journey time may not be affected.